Category: Australia

Introduction

Workplace discrimination is the process in which an individual treats another individual applying to, or in a workplace discriminatorily due to a personal characteristic such as race, sex, religion, or any other characteristic protected under the Fair Work Act (2009).

Significance of Workplace Discrimination

Workplace discrimination causes detrimental effects on a small scale to the individual, thereby leading to costing the national Australian economy billions of dollars. A 2015 study released by the (American) National Institute of Health revealed the link between workplace discrimination and negative physical and mental effects on wellbeing, inducing mental health illnesses. Physical effects include a higher likelihood to develop cardiovascular-related illnesses, more change of obesity, and stress which results in higher blood pressure and more. Depression, anxiety, and low self-esteem are a select few of the negative mental illnesses associated with discrimination in the workplace. More people experiencing these effects in an economy will result in a loss of productivity, a decrease in mental health across society, more people engaging in the practices of absenteeism and presenteeism as well as much more, contributing to an economic slowdown. It is estimated that mental health illnesses cost the Australian economy over eleven billion dollars a year, and workplace bullying, experienced by 50% of Australian workers mostly due to discrimination, costs the economy six billion dollars. (Black Dog Institute) The significance of workplace discrimination is huge for both the individual and the national economy, which is why the government has created acts in parliament to protect the workers and limit cases of this happening.

Response of Government

Legislations and Strategies

The government has implemented a number of strategies, passing many acts to protect workers from discrimination. The Fair Work Act 2009, passed by the Rudd government, replaced the Workchoices Act 2006, which was unpopular as it was deemed by many to be unfair to employees and gave too much power to employers. The Workchoices Act diminished the power of trade unions while allowing employers to sack workers with little reason or unfairly and provided limited options to be compensated legally. The Fair Work Act reestablished unfair dismissal laws, enabled more flexible working hours, as well as harsher punishments for small businesses. The unfair dismissal laws reintroduced forced employers to provide proof, a signed witness statement, as well as copies of warnings to the employee to protect them from being fired due to discrimination, or without reason.

Other acts the government has passed include the Age Discrimination Act 2004, Disability Discrimination Act 1992, Racial Discrimination Act 1975 and the Sex Discrimination Act 1984. Furthermore, there are fines for discriminating in the workplace, with the maximum penalty for a breach in the FW Act being $63,000 for a cooperation and $12,600 for an individual.

Evaluation of Strategies

A recent study conducted by the Council on Foreign Relations (CFR) found that Australia is ranked first in the world for nondiscrimination in the workplace. The strategies that the government has used have therefore been extremely effective. However, Australia still did not receive a perfect score (94.9), while the Australian Fair Work commission still receives more than 14,000 inquiries a year. Although the government has created enough strategies by passing the Fair Work Act in 2009, smarter strategies should be implemented to eradicate workplace discrimination by considering those used by other countries with low discrimination rates, while cooperations and individuals accused of discriminating should be fined even more. More resources for workers should also be provided to inform about what discrimination is, and how they can seek compensation.

Management Strategies of Workplace Discrimination in Canada

In the study conducted by the CFR, Canada was ranked second, with a score of (94.5). Both Canada’s Human Rights Commission and Australia’s Fair Work Commission have almost identical laws and strategies in place to keep discrimination in the workplace to a minimum, but with some differences. Like Australia’s laws, Canada also prohibits discrimination in the workplace, but do not define the term in as much detail. This allows Canadian courts to have a bigger scope in identifying the meaning of discrimination and therefore have the ability to penalise isolated incidents that may not be covered by the Australian Legislation.

How these strategies could be used in Australia

This strategy would be tremendously easy to implement in Australia and has already been done so with many other laws in the national and state constitution. For example, in the New South Wales constitution, a bicycle rider can be punished for riding negligently, furiously or recklessly, with no definition provided for negligently, furiously, and recklessly.

Conclusion

Workplace discrimination is an immense issue in Australia that has significant implications on both the individual and the national economy. Although the government has enacted many strategies that have on the large part been successful, it is necessary to constantly look for ways to make more effective strategies, by comparing strategies with other leading countries in workplace nondiscrimination, such as Canada.

To be a citizen means you have your say and are part of making your community how it is. We all have rights and responsibilities, even just being in the state, such as the simple laws like ‘Don’t steal’ or ‘Don’t go through a red light’, those very simple yet recognizable laws that shape our nation. Being inside but not apart has its perks, can’t be forced to choose and judge, such as being a permanent resident in Australia, you aren’t forced to be called as a jury if it’s ever required. But when you decide to join in completely, that’s when things start changing, you look out for one another within the community you desire to be a part of. You have your say and be a part of the changes that affect the future, as well as the reputation of the area. With this, your community looks out for you, if you get in a jam outside of your country, the nation you’re a part of will seek to help you out.

If you choose to become a citizen, many aspects come into play if you are hoping to be accepted to become a full citizen. First things first, you would need to be here when they decide, and have some knowledge of the history of Australia, the law, and how things work. Becoming a citizen means you intend to live here and keep a link when overseas. Some things that would affect the choice they make would be the amount of time you have been here for the last four years, and that you haven’t been away for more than twelve months within those four years. You prove to uphold and obey the law and haven’t been in prison within two years ago. One of the important attributes of the decision-making would be that you are of ‘good character’, any records of criminal offenses, court events, or incidents of violence will be held against you in the choosing. To be able to function here as a citizen you must know Australia and its people, rights and liberties, and beliefs, to confirm you know these you may be asked to sit a test, to pass you would need to score over 75% and have a basic understanding of English. When the bad is held against you, some elements support you, things like having a child, an extended family or partner living here as a citizen, having spent time here, paid income tax, owning a property, having a bank account, and also have a job works as pluses too. You will be unable to become a citizen if the government is not satisfied with your identity, been released on good behavior or bail from court recently, are a security risk, or ceased to be a citizen within the last year, stopping people from leaving and changing their minds expecting to be able to just have those rights back again despite leaving.

When you become a citizen, you have responsibilities like everybody else, this helps reduce the crime rate and makes a more peaceful community. Some responsibilities are voting when 18 and above, accepting the idea of equality, that others have their own beliefs and we don’t hold that against them, freedom of speech and religion, as well as a parliamentary democracy. You will defend your country if ever required, serve as a jury if asked, follow and obey the law, and accept the basic structures and principles of Australian society.

Rights are “those things that one is morally or legally entitled to do or have” . They are the minimum threshold of equality in modern society. Today, however, the rights of certain sectors of society are not equal, rather they are frequently under recognised, depressed or absent depending on the societal group that individuals associate with. That said, rights have been, and are, constantly evolving, particularly so when consideration is given to matters of race, gender, ethnicity etc. Indeed, in the last century, race, gender and ethnicity have been the focal point of the human rights evolution. This evolution however is slow; there is a long way to go before equality will be reached.

In Australia, this evolution is ever so prominent with the LGBTQI community, as they fight to cement their standing in society. The LGBTQI Community is a group of people that stand under the acronym LGBTQI, where each letter of the acronym represents a section of the society, namely L stands for lesbian, G for gay, B for bisexual, T for transgender, Q for queer or questioning and I for intersex. The Community’s goal is to reach the same level of rights as heterosexuals in the modern population. This article explores the political and civil rights of the community and how their human rights are evolving.

Australian Political and Civil Rights

Every day in the media we see that political and civil rights have been violated regardless of the sector of society that is considered. This is especially present with the growing digital age as well as countries that have refused to scrap long standing societal values even if they are discriminatory.

Australians can be viewed as lucky due to their freedom to express our political and civil rights. Australia has been ranked 40/40 for its political rights and 58/60 for its civil liberties . This gives Australia a near perfect score of 98/100 in a wide range of areas. While this is an impressive achievement and Australians should be proud of this recognition, this does not mean that there still no discrimination in Australia. To the contrary, a focus on the LGBTQI community shows that discrimination is very much alive in Australia. That discrimination has not allowed the community to fully express its political and legal rights even though there has been significant improvements in the both these rights for the community.

Political rights are defined as “the rights that involve participation in the establishment or administration of a government” . Political rights in Australia have evolved over the decades with all sorts of ethnicities and people of different sexual persuasion being able to participate in any form of government whether it be state or federal government.

Legal rights are “clearly, rights which exist under the rules of legal systems or by virtue of decisions of suitably authoritative bodies within them” . These commonly include the legal right to vote or a common legal right for LGBTQI being the legal right to marriage.

Full rights will only happen when people of all genders, ages, races, families have the same access to all human, political and legal rights. It involves a consistent set of rights that are easily defined.

LGBTQI Political and Civil Rights

The main event that started the LGBTQI movement in Australia occurred in the United States and is referred to as the Stonewall Inn Riots. It involved gay men, drag queens and Women who fought/protested the police when they were raiding the Stonewall Inn to expose those who were gay. At the time in the United States being gay was seen as a mental illness and gay sex was a crime. This protest kick started the gay movement in Australia which had been building but never got traction due to widespread discrimination. The San Francisco Gay Freedom Day organisers called upon gay organisations within Australia to stand up for LGBTIQ+ rights and commemorate the Stonewall riots . This led to events being held in Australia such as the Mardi Gras festival that has become an annual event, which is held to fight for rights in the community. The riots also lead to marches which stood up for LGBTQI rights.

While there has been no policy implemented into the Australian government that bans homosexuals running for parliament, there has been significant discouragement from the community. This was common practice back in the 1970’s when society had more conservative values. Neil Brown is an example of how conservative societal values discriminate against homosexuality. Mr Brown came out after serving 18 years in parliament. His term ended in 1991 and he “came out” in 1996 . Had he “come out” before parliament he almost certainly would not have been elected when he first went for parliament in 1971, he would likely have not been able to obtain the votes for his seat. Another example of how conservative values have stopped LGBTQI people from expressing their political rights is Neal Blewett, the former health minister. After 17 years in politics he came out as gay in 2000 . He first went for parliament in 1977, Mr Blewett waited 17 years before coming out as gay.

While Australian society is largely still very conservative, today’s society is more accepting of all ethnicities and choices. Australians are now seeing that LGBTQI politicians are breaking their silence and trying to break the stigma that surrounds their community. An Example of a politician that broke the stigma was Bob Brown, who was the Greens Leader. Mr Brown “came out” while he was in parliament and advocated for the rights of the community . Another example of a parliamentarian breaking the stigma, is Penny Wong who is the first openly lesbian member of parliament . These Examples show that over the past 40 years there has been a shift in the political right for gay, transgender, lesbian people to run for government but there is still a long way to go before equality of rights are reached.

Australia has come a long way in recognizing LGBTQI rights compared to other countries. In the global economy 72 countries still outlaw the LGBTQI community with some countries still enforcing extreme punishment of death on anyone that is found to be LGBTQI. For example the LGBTQI community is outlawed in Morocco and Iran, meaning that LGBTQI people cannot participate in their local government violating their political rights.

While the LGBTQI community has never been lawfully excluded from parliament in Australia the community has not been able to fully express its political rights in practice. Societies values have had to evolve from a conservative mindset back in 70’s with Neal Blewett and Neil Brown having to wait for the right time to modern society where we have become more accepting and open to change. This shows promise for the future as the group will hopefully one day be able to run for government and be able to express their full political right without the fear of persecution.

A Change of Legal Rights in Marriage

In Australia, legal rights have evolved over time, through the introduction of bills to allow the LGBTQI community full access to their legal rights. Until recently, in Australia, the gay community was unable to get married legally under the Marriage Act 1961, meaning they could not express their legal rights. In 2017, the Marriage Act 1961 was amended introducing changes to the definition of marriage. The definition of marriage was changed to “‘the union of 2 people to the exclusion of all others, voluntarily entered into for life” . This was a huge mile stone for the LGBTQI community as people of the same gender could now have their marriage legally recognised.

While amendment of the Marriage Act was a huge mile stone for the LGBTQI community the Act does not fully recognise the political rights of the community as foreign couples’ marriages are not recognised. In the Marriage Act 1961, section 88EA requires that marriages between a “man and another man” and a “woman and another woman”, “must not be recognised as a marriage in Australia” . Recent amendments to this section have changed this Act, but those amendments do not fully allow marriages between same sex couples to be recognised in Australia unless certain criterions are met. A foreign marriage will only be recognised between same sex couples if the marriage was legal at the time. This still means that couples from 72 countries would not have their same sex marriage recognised in Australia meaning the community is still not able to effectively communicate their full legal rights. These small intricacies of the bills show that while we have progressed as a country in fighting for the community’s rights, we still do fail in other areas.

LGBTQI legal rights in Australia still do not allow full expression of legal rights for the LGBTQI community, yet Australia is more progressive than other countries. For example, Egypt has laws banning the act of same sex relationships with Egyptian Law 10/1961 on the Combating of Prostitution Act making homosexual behaviour illegal leading to three months to 3 years in prison for anyone found guilty. Couples may also be placed in ‘special reformatory’ conditions upon completion of their prison sentences. The action of placing people in ‘special reformatory’ could be classified as an action that violates the groups human rights so their legal rights would be non-existent. The punishment also carries a fine between 25 LE and 300 LE which transcribes to between US$3 and $40 . While this is a harsh punishment there are worse out there. In countries such as Qatar and Saudi Arabia, the act of homosexuality can be punished by death depending on the laws and circumstances surrounding the act that was committed by the couple. These countries show that while Australia has come a long way with its laws in allowing the group to express their legal rights with our new marriage laws, there is still work to do.

A Legal Right to Work

The legal right to work exists under laws that have been created by the Australian Government. The Sex Discrimination Act and the Fair Work Act were created to ensure that people in the workplace are not discriminated because of gender-related identity, race, age, physical or mental disability, marital status, and family . This applies to the legal rights of the LGBTQI community as these laws exist to ensure that LGBTQI community members have fair conditions in the workplace that allows them to express their full political right to work . However, in practice this is not the case as there is widespread discrimination in the workplace when it comes the LGBTQI community. For example, more than 13% of LGBTQI people have resigned from their job because of discrimination and 8% had been unfairly sacked . This shows that the Fair Work Act is fundamentally flawed in its application as companies are still able to get around these laws and not allow the community to express their fundamental legal right to work. More than a quarter of LGBTQI personnel have been bullied or harassed by a colleague at work based on their sexuality. Further, six out of 10 LGBTQI people in Australia have experienced homophobic language in the workplace with two in ten experiencing physical violence in the workplace . This shows that Australian society still has a long way to go in recognising LGBTQI rights. The fundamental flaws of these Act, which are meant to protect minority groups like the LGBTQI community come in their implementation. A way to improve this would to set up a watchdog that looks out for the community, in expressing their right.

LGBTQI workplace discrimination also follows a similar trend in the United States. In a study conducted by Karen Sumberg looking at US employment histories, Ms Sumberg found that 50% of LGBTQI community members left out their sexual identity when going for a job . ‘Forty-eight per cent are not out at work. Of that 48 per cent only 17 per cent are not out in their personal life either” . So, a big percentage of individuals have come out in their personal lives but are not out in their work lives.

A US survey in 2013 found that “21% of LGBTQI respondents had reported that they had been treated unfairly by an employer in hiring, pay, or promotions” . This shows that not just in Australia but in the United States LGBTQI members are not able to express their full legal right to work as they feel afraid to come out of work, they experience abuse and in some circumstances are paid unfairly.

The Gay Panic Defence

The legal rights of the LGBTQI community were crushed when an excuse commonly referred to as the “Gay Panic defence” was introduced in a trial. The defence gives justification to the killing of a member of the LGBTQI Community as the perpetrator claims they made gay advances towards them.

The first high profile instance of the defence being used in a court room was in 1944 with Lucien Carr killing a boy scout. The defence claimed it was a sudden emotional response due to the advances that a gay member had been making towards him . This gave birth to the excuse for killings.

It’s thought that the first use of the gay panic defence that successfully passed in Australia was in a Victorian case called R v Murley in 1992 . The Panic Defence is discriminatory, it crushes the community’s ability to get legal justice if one of their members has been killed because of Discrimination. The law was removed in Australia at the turn of the century, which is a good step forward in terms of the legal rights for the community. However, the precedent could still be used in South Australia until 2018 when proposed reforms were introduced into their law system to remove this defence .

Conclusion

The fight for rights in the LGBTQI community has been a long a painful process. The community started its fight in Australia after the Stonewall Riots. Ever since then new policies have been introduced and society has changed to become more accepting of the LGBTQI Community as shown through Neil Brown and Penny Wong who have broken the stigma around gay people becoming parliamentarians. This gives birth to the idea that society has moved away from its conservative mindset to allow the community to express its political right to a modest extent but there is still work to be done as overseas countries try to suppress their political rights by outlawing the community.

The legal rights of the LGBTQI community has been implemented through legislative initiatives such as the Sex Discrimination Act and the Fair Work Act, but we have seen that the practicality of these Acts, falls short of full legal rights for the LGBTQI community.

We still see large amounts of the community being discriminated against and this is happening around the world. The legal right to marriage while controversial has been implemented for the LGBTQI community through the Marriage Act 2017, which improved the previous Act which reflected a conservative time where the LGBTQI community would have been looked down upon. This amendment is a huge milestone for the community as they can now have their love officially unified in marriage, which works towards the community being able to express their full legal rights but as previously stated the group still has a long way until they will be able to reach that goal. The Gay Panic defence was a historic way of being able to get away with discriminatory killing before the early 2000’s because of a case in the United States. This has been scrapped, which allows the community’s legal rights to be upheld in the legal system as no excuse can justify the killing of a person. This change though is only one of a vast number of changes that are required to bring about sexual equality. The biggest change will always be conservative understanding, but every change is a change for the better as Australian pushes towards equality of sexual rights.

Each country and culture reflect its own songs and sayings related to the importance of homes and priorities of women. Australia has always been considered as a better place and a wealthy nation for living due to good health, and OECD’s Better Life Index shows the same (Jericho 2017). However, safety of Australian women is the prime cause of worry in the global agenda. Violence against women has been recognised as the widespread and serious crime in Australia. Statistics revealed that on an average, one woman is killed every week in Australia as a result of domestic violence. Domestic violence refers to the acts of violence that takes place between the people who have, or have had shared an intimate relationship in domestic settings. These acts of violence include physical, emotional, social, financial and psychological abuse. However, this vital social problem is so ultimately preventable. There are a variety of reasons that are responsible for the domestic violence against women. This written piece will solely focus on the socio-cultural reasons that are responsible for domestic violence and what can be done in order to reduce these figures in future.

Domestic violence in Australia has seen some of the extreme acts of violence and abuse on women in domestic settings. It tends to have a devastating impact on the persons, families and communities (Mulayim, Jackson and Lai 2016). It includes sexual assaults, physical harms, threats, intimidation, economic deprivation and social isolation. Australia ranks at eighth position among the G20 nations for rates of domestic violence against women (Mao 2019). UN stated that violence against women is Australia is disturbingly common.

In Australia, domestic violence has also been regarded as the family violence. Some groups of women, particularly young women, Indigenous women, pregnant women, women with disability women separating from their partners and women facing financial hardships are at the high risk of sexual, domestic and family violence (AIHW 2018). Home is a place that is safe and secure but for many women, home is referred to as a place of pain and humiliation. Violence against women by their male partners is common and far-reaching in its impact. Attitudes towards the domestic violence has a great influence on the reporting behaviours. People with low support on the gender equality faces issues of domestic violence (Aye et al. 2018).

Although globalization has brought about several changes in the attitudes and social values towards the gender issue persisting in Australia, traditional patriarchal values still accumulates in many societies and contributes to the mitigation of the human rights of the women. Cultural values and beliefs including rigid gender roles and masculinity linked to the toughness and dominance whereas social factors that involves unemployment, socio-economic status or background or the social and geographical isolation are the responsible reasons influencing domestic, family and sexual violence (AIHW 2018).

In Australia, domestic violence exists with all the socioeconomic, age, ability, cultural, geographical and religious cohorts. Culturally diversified groups experience disproportionate violence than others. Indigenous women are 35 times more likely to experience domestic violence than other Australian females (Bugeja et al. 2013). The common view in Australian Aboriginal communities refers to the loss of role, culture and identity for men including unemployment have created conditions leading to the alcohol and domestic abuse. Inability of a man to provide welfare of children and economically abusing women is also the crucial aspects of domestic violence. Women entering the workforces leads men to doubt their rural masculinity (Fakiha 2010)

Women who face domestic violence also face disruption to do any work or are made socially and geographically isolated. Power and control have a huge role to play when it comes about domestic violence on women. Gaining control of a women’s resource without her consent, preventing access to economic resources, controlling and isolating her from major contexts of life, abusing or letting her down are few direct actions done by men to violate women’s integrity to ensure power and control (Guerin and de Oliveira 2017). Domineering attitude of the men in the family is the contributing factor to domestic violence. Domestic violence is established upon the unbalanced relationship dynamics where one partner tends to exerts control and power over the significant other (Aye et al. 2018). The inconsiderable and insignificant distribution of resources and power between men and women poses a significant threat to the position of women in the society making the men feeling more powerful. International evidences support the factor like narrow and rigid gender stereotypes and also the culture that supports violence in general as responsible reasons for domestic violence (Sutherland 2015).

Women belonging to poor socio-economic status including young age, low educational attainment, low income, disability and poor living areas are the key factors that has been regarded as the violence-supportive attitudes (Trinh et al. 2016). Women experiencing social disadvantage and economic dependency on husband has been referred as the crucial reason in the acceptance of habitual violence in the domestic settings perpetrated by men. Women acceptance of violence has been regarded as the crucial reason that promotes domestic violence. However, among the working couple in the society, poor handling of sex issues and handling money matters without consent are the vital cultural reasons for domestic violence (Aye et al. 2018).

Marital discord and infidelity among young couple are also one of the significant reasons that are responsible for domestic violence. (Bishwajit, Sarkar and Yaya 2016). Women feels trapped in an abusive relationship due to having child and being dependent on men for home and food for the kids and themselves even after lack of love, care and trust (Mesatywa 2014). Women with children are three times more likely to effected by the domestic violence than the childless women. The risk of women getting subjected to domestic violence is high during pregnancy and following a birth. 46% of women have reported physical or sexual abuse during pregnancy, out of which 23% were affected by domestic violence for the first time during the phase (Buchanan, Power and Verity 2013). In Australia, women’s pregnancy has been characterised as the high-risk period regarding initiation and escalation of intimate partnership violence that often leads to be the cause of maternal mortality (Rakovec-Felser 2014). Domestic violence tends to impact women in multiple ways by making her lose his self-esteem, decision-making ability and being affected by depression, anxiety, fear, self-harm and other dissociative orders. Fear of safety of the child is what tends to have the greatest priority in a mother’s mind and makes her accept the domestic violence. The effects of domestic violence on women make her emotionally disconnected with the child that evidently have an adverse effect on the developmental, emotional, social and behavioural growth of a child (Buchanan, Power and Verity 2013).

Each jurisdiction in Australia has its own laws and systems to deal with domestic violence. Supported accommodation, safe houses and Northern Territory Emergency Response are few Australian Government funded programs functional in all the states and territories against domestic violence. The main aim of the service and program is to prevent domestic violence and to support the survivor through health and community services along with the attorney general, police and other agencies (POA 2011). The Australasian Policing Strategy for Preventing and Reducing Family Violence established in 2008 coordinate with police stations, practices and information-sharing with more focused about broader collaboration with partner agencies to provide referrals and support to those impacted by the domestic violence (Dunkley and Philips 2015). New national telephone and counselling services under ‘1800 RESPECT’ targeted young women and children to overcome instances of abuse in the domestic contexts. Counselling and other support is available to those effected by domestic violence to overcome its impact in a sustainable manner (Relationships Australia 2019).

Under the Domestic and Family Violence Protection Act 2012 (Qld), government responses to domestic violence in the form of preventive programs, support for the survivors, victims and families and law enforcements can be practiced to prevent domestic violence (Bugeja et al. 2013). Implementing new preventive programs that engage men and boys in educating other men to prevent domestic violence can have a considerate impact on the people at the workplaces and across communities and specifically those at target higher risk groups such as Indigenous and culturally diversified communities. Domestic and Family Violence Preventive Strategy 2016-2026 have been planned to eradicate the problem of domestic violence (Queensland Government n.d.). It’s the high time that proposed a safe, fair and supportive justice system to deal effectively with the domestic violence. Perpetrators accountability ensuring appropriate sanctions are in process to stop domestic violence. Maximising women’s access to domestic and family violence services across the response, prevention and early intervention spectrums in regions where there are limited services with zero tolerance approach can be useful in preventing domestic violence.

Thus, in Australia, domestic violence includes a broad range of abuse whether physical or non-physical within a family or an intimate relationship Slapping, hitting by husband, kicking, traumatizing are few perspectives of domestic violence including murders that adds up to the statistical burden of killing of one woman in every week as a result of domestic violence due to the discussed socio-cultural reasons including cultural implications, unemployment, poverty, educational status of women and gender stereotypes. However, domestic violence is a crime that needs to be mitigated from the society. Since domestic violence is preventable, many interventions can be taken in order to prevent the crime. In Australian society, governmental implicated models, training, counselling and community education must be practiced to lower down the statistical figure of domestic violence among women.

References

1. AIHW. 2018. Family, domestic and sexual violence in Australia, 2018. https://www.aihw.gov.au/getmedia/d1a8d479-a39a-48c1-bbe2-4b27c7a321e0/aihw-fdv-02.pdf.aspx?inline=true
2. Aye, E.N., Adamu, J., Ohia, N.C., Onumonu, A.J. and Oforka, T.O. 2018. Socio-Cultural Factors Associated with Domestic Violence among Working Couples in Benue State, Nigeria. International Journal of Applied Engineering Research, 13(21), pp.15083-15089.
3. Bishwajit, G., Sarker, S. and Yaya, S. 2016. Socio-cultural aspects of gender-based violence and its impacts on women’s health in South Asia. F1000Research, 5(802).
4. Buchanan, F., Power, C. and Verity, F. 2013. Domestic Violence and the Place of Fear in Mother/Baby Relationships: “What Was I Afraid Of? Of Making It Worse.”. Journal of interpersonal violence, 28(9), pp.1817-1838.
5. Bugeja, L., Butler, A., Buxton, E., Ehrat, H., Hayes, M., McIntyre, S.-J., & Walsh, C. 2013. The Implementation of Domestic Violence Death Reviews in Australia. Homicide Studies, 17(4), pp. 353–374.
6. Dunkley, A. and Philips, J. 2015. Domestic violence in Australia: a quick guide to the issues. https://www.aph.gov.au/About_Parliament/Parliamentary_Departments/Parliamentary_Library/pubs/rp/rp1415/Quick_Guides/DVinAust
7. Fakiha, B. 2010. Male perceptions of domestic violence: Middle-Eastern and Anglo-Australian perspectives. University of Western Australia.
8. Guerin, B. and de Oliveira Ortolan, M. 2017. Analyzing domestic violence behaviors in their contexts: Violence as a continuation of social strategies by other means. Behavior and Social Issues, 26, pp.5-26.
9. Jericho, G. 2017. Life is good in Australia – so why don’t women feel safe walking home? https://www.theguardian.com/business/grogonomics/2017/nov/28/life-is-good-in-australia-so-why-dont-women-feel-safe-walking-home
10. Mao, F. 2019. How dangerous is Australia for women? https://www.bbc.com/news/world-australia-46913913
11. Mesatywa, N.J. 2014. Validating the evidence of violence in partner relationships with regard to Xhosa African women. Social Work, 50(2), pp.235-257.
12. Mulayim, S., Jackson, M., and Lai, M. 2016. Domestic violence in Australia. D.S. Peterson and J.A. Schroeder (eds.). In Domestic violence in international context. London: Routledge.
13. POA. 2011. Domestic violence in Australia—an overview of the issues. https://parlinfo.aph.gov.au/parlInfo/download/library/prspub/1246402/upload_binary/1246402.pdf;fileType=application%2Fpdf#search=%22library/prspub/1246402%22
14. Queensland Government. n.d. Domestic and Family Violence Preventive Strategy 2016-2026. https://www.communities.qld.gov.au/resources/gateway/campaigns/end-violence/dfv-prevention-strategy.pdf
15. Rakovec-Felser, Z. 2014. Domestic violence and abuse in intimate relationship from public health perspective. Health psychology research, 2(3).
16. Relationships Australia. 2019. Family Violence Prevention. https://www.relationships.org.au/what-we-do/services/family-violence-prevention
17. Sutherland, R. 2015. Causes of domestic violence, and implication for primary prevention. https://www.vinnies.org.au/icms_docs/222951_Speech_on_domestic_violence_prevention.pdf
18. Trinh, O.T.H., Oh, J., Choi, S., To, K.G. and Do, D.V. 2016. Changes and socioeconomic factors associated with attitudes towards domestic violence among Vietnamese women aged 15–49: findings from the Multiple Indicator Cluster Surveys, 2006–2011. Global health action, 9(1), p.29577.

In recent years, multiculturalism has been a highly controversial topic around the world. According to Chu et al., (2016), multiculturalism is the presence of various cultures, including races and religions, expressed through the thinking process, values, and communication. Most people would agree that Australia is a multicultural country. For me, multicultural Australia is a thriving Australian culture and identity; nonetheless, some people would blame multiculturalism as a failure.

Some people would claim that multiculturalism includes too many things. That can cause many problems, especially at the national level, where the government is expected to treat people from different backgrounds and cultures equally. For example, Kymlica (cited in Carvalho 2016) found that this policy, without intention, may lead to cultural oppression by overly focusing on minorities instead of the vast majority. According to the stated definition of multiculturalism, it completely lost its meaning in existence. Multiculturalism, consequently, is defined by some politicians as a failure that, over time, has slowly strengthened ‘inter-group segregation’. (Gul-Rechlewicz 2015) Multiculturalism can put stress on people as well. In recent years, the population in multicultural societies, like Australia, has felt a little bit of anxiety. Smolicz (1997) pointed out that how a group determines otherness depends on that group’s view of the manifestations of its distinctiveness that is perceived as cultural markers. New immigrants with all core values, which some different from what Australians believed as their identities, are all counted as Australians. These too many cultures, from a significant number of immigrants, make some Australians think that they have lost several social values they perceived as identities of Australia. (Short 2018) With all the listed reasons, some people feel that this failed policy should be reconsidered.

It is not the first time that Australians have questioned multiculturalism, but its benefits are tangible. The first period was between the 1880s and 1960s when the Australian government adopted the White Australia policy, officially known as the restrictive immigration policy. Jupp (1995) claimed that this policy aims to assimilate and create ‘an ethnically homogenous society’. Until the 1970s, multiculturalism was introduced to Australia and was used as a base idea to underpin other policies such as the guideline about the immigrants’ right to maintain their original cultures without prejudice. The second period is when John Howard became the prime minister from 1996 to 2007 as Henry and Kurzak (2013) clarified that he ‘did not refer to multiculturalism as Australian identity’. Except for these two periods, Australia exists as a multicultural nation. Reconciliation Australia (n.d.) pointed out that Australia, with 270 different indigenous languages, has been a multicultural continent since before the European invasion. I agree with Soutphommasane (2016) that multiculturalism should not be considered a failure because of its advantages to Australia. One of those was a well-recognized moment from the Sydney Olympics in 2000 when Cathy Freeman won a gold medal. During her victory lap, she carried two flags: an Australian flag and an Aboriginal flag. It showed not only Australia’s effort in reconciliation but also the importance of multicultural society as a fundamental human right that allows people to hold their original identity. (Andrews & Jackson 2001) Lower birth rate and an aging population are current Australian population trends. (Healy 2016) That can be a problem because there will be fewer workers and less economic growth combined with burdens to provide necessary infrastructures, such as hospitals, for an increasing number of older people. Ng and Metz (2015) explained that multiculturalism helps Australia solve this problem by attracting skilled workers. Moreover, these immigrants are also encouraged to still connect with their birth country resulting in facilitating trade between their origins and Australia. (Ng & Metz 2015) Supporting both Australia’s economy and society, multiculturalism is a success story.

Australian identities, like other forms of cultures, are dynamic—and changeable—so, Australians should hold multiculturalism as their core value. The population living in the same area often share the same sets of traditions because of the culture they have or believe in. However, those perceptions are created by humans. In other words, they are social rules in just a period; they can be changed. In a series of investigations conducted by Boumankhar (2011) at the Melbourne Museum, 96 percent of people believe in multiculturalism and that people can retain their cultures. However, some Australians may still face difficulty dealing with multiculturalism, because what they think as their core is changed. I would suggest they hold multiculturalism as their identity instead. That is because multicultural culture makes people respect other cultures. They will not see different cultures as extraneous matters, which can replace their identity anymore. Most Australians, for example, believe themselves as immigrants, although they are the third generation by defining themselves as Australians of another origin. (Boumankhar 2011) This result supports the study of Asian Australians by Clark (2007) that ‘the expression of cultural diversity’ does not affect a sense of belonging to Australia. Those who may be concerned can prevent their minds from breaking down by holding multiculturalism as their proud central identity. That will allow them to keep more than one identity at the same time.

Multiculturalism is a great success as an identity of all Australians. Some people would be convinced that multiculturalism is a failure because they might think that their characters can be replaced or differently shaped by other cultures. They can prevent mental collapses, from dynamic core values, by counting multiculturalism as another identity. In the political sphere, multiculturalism is often seen as a failed public policy. That can happen because of the different definitions of multiculturalism and assimilation. Despite segregation between groups from different backgrounds, which can be solved by careful administration and legislation, multiculturalism has many advantages in terms of human rights, economic growth, and an aging population. Multicultural Australia is also internationally praised as a great case study that can be adjusted in each country to make the world a better place to live.       

Governor Arthur Phillip founded the first British settlement in Port Jackson (Sydney Harbor) on the 26th of January 1788. Just over a week later the Aboriginals first saw the European settlers. The First Fleet carried around 759 convicts and 206 marines. They described Australia as terra nullius, which means wastelands that could be taken without approval. Terra nullius translates to land of nothing. They saw it as terra nullius because there are no fences, borders, no houses, no land development, no crops or no sign of government. Even though the British saw it as terra nullius, the Aboriginals have been living on that land for over 60,000 years.

In the early 1850s, many Chinese immigrants came to Australia as indentured labourers working as shepherds, rural labourers, cooks, and gardeners. In 1851, a man named Edward Hargraves had found a small amount of Gold at Ophir, near Bathurst in New South Wales. Hargraves was rewarded £10,000 which then started the rush for gold. The Victorian inhabitants heard about this discovery of gold in New South Wales, The Victorians then made their way out of Victoria and into New South Wales. Many people were leaving Victoria so the Victorian government offered a reward of £200. Six months later gold was discovered in Clunes by Mr. L. J. Nichel. According to the Nation Museum of Australia, it was estimated that 20,000 Chinese immigrants arrived in Victoria by 1855.

On The 1st of September 1851, it was proclaimed that all miners in Victoria would have to carry a gold license. Miners would have to pay thirty shillings a month (thirty shillings is equal to $7,180.20 in 2017) to carry this license if they were European, if not they would have to pay double the license fee. If miners did not have this license when demanded were arrested and fined. If they could not pay this fine then they would be thrown in jail. In November 1854 miners from Ballarat were fed up with the way the colonial government had been administering the goldfields. 12,000 miners gathered at Bakery Hill, burning their licenses and appointed Peter Lalor as their leader. They stood around the Eureka flag and swore an oath to stand together. On the 3rd of December, government troops attacked the stockade. The stockade only carrying light weapons while the troops carried more advanced weapons lost the war in twenty minutes. The stockade killing an estimated amount of four troops, while the troops killed at least twenty-two stockade diggers.

There were many cultural differences between the Chinese and the Europeans. Chinese people would have ‘pigtails’ on their heads. They would wear different clothes and play different games such as mah-jong, a Chinese tile game. The Chinese had their language while most European spoke English. The Chines style of living was more organized compared to the Europeans which was messy. The Chines group organization would have many people work as different roles, some miners, some cooks, some farmers. They would often run to a schedule, for example, they would start mining at a certain time and finish at a certain time. The cooks will start their cooking at four or five o’clock so when the miners come home dinner is ready for them. The Europeans system was miners would start and finish work at different times, no roles were allocated to the Europeans, unlike the Chinese. Europeans would start cooking dinner when they got home after mining, meaning they would have to wait. This was the time that the Chinese first inherited racism. Institutionalized racism began at this time with governments letting the Europeans go while watching the Chinese’s every move.

A form of institutionalized racism is the poll tax. In 1855 the Victorian government imposed a £10 poll tax when landing in any Victorian ports. To avoid this, the Chinese landed in Robe, a port in South Australia, near Penola. The Chinese landed in Robe and began to walk from Robe to Ballarat (400km). The government also restricted the number of Chinese per ship, creating a law which states one Chinese for every ten tonnes of cargo. With the creation of these laws, all were set for the Chinese, no laws were created to restrict the number of European coming to Australia.

Many racist events occurred during the gold rush including, Lambing Flat, Buckland River and Ararat. Lambing flat was considered to be the last fortune, the new Ballarat. In late 1860 many ‘roll-ups’ had taken place in Chinese camps and once again in 1861. Criminals plagued Lambing Flat, like Ararat, and police held little influence. A major brawl occurred after another ‘roll-up’ which resulted in 1500 fled Chinese in February 1861. It was on the 30th of June when the apparent worst ever riot occurred. A brass band trumpeting the song ‘Rule Britannia’ fuelled 2000 to 3000 white diggers marching on the Chinese camp. Many anti-Chinese banners were made for the march on the Chinese Camps. Over one thousand Chinese fled, and an estimated five hundred injured. The Chinese fled to the nearby property of James Roberts, seeking shelter, food, and water. Police arrested three diggers that were involved with the riot. After this, around 3000 diggers swarmed the Police Camp demanding for the rioters to be released.

The death penalty – an old punishment that’s been around for centuries. Although nowadays, most people oppose it, it’s actually a reasonable punishment in certain circumstances.

In the opinions of many people and governments, to bestow upon someone who has done the worst of things, such as mass murder or rape, it can be a justifiable punishment. Some people believe that the death penalty is disgusting, mostly for the fact that people have their own lives, and need to be able to choose how they live it, even if it means these people spending the rest of their days in a prison cell. If this does happen, and they end up in a cell, they’re still costing taxpayers thousands of dollars to keep them alive, healthy, clothed and maintaining their hygiene. It also means that they still get to have a future. The one thing they have denied their victims.

We’ve all heard of Ivan Milat, one of Australia’s most notorious serial killers of the 20th century? This man was found to have brutally murdered seven people, stabbing them multiple times, shooting their bodies, and decapitating one of the victims. Ivan Milat is an excellent example of someone who would definitely deserve the death penalty. Instead, however, he is living out his days inside a prison cell at the Goulburn Correctional Centre, being kept well-fed and exercised. One, he doesn’t deserve such treatment after the things he’s done and two, people who wake up and go to work every day to be able to afford basic necessities, are taxed the money that goes towards feeding this man. July 27, 1996 was the date Ivan Milat was sentenced to seven life sentences for each murder he committed, plus six extra years for the failed attack on Paul Onions. Since then, Ivan’s incarceration has cost Australia a staggering amount of around about $2,451,340, not including legal expenses and the medical costs of the treatment and palliative care of his Oesophagus cancer. How much cheaper for our country would it be for him to be given the death penalty? I’ll answer that for you, a lot.

It’s time we put the emphasis on protecting the victim over the criminal. The criminal who would qualify for the death penalty has in almost every single instance committed other crimes alongside the one they’ve been convicted for. The justice system needs to be more tough on these people, also accounting for the long line of other potential victims who have been waiting for justice. Justice needs to be served for current and past victims.

Having the death penalty in place would prevent overcrowding of prisons. The people who deserve it, will not be living any more due to the things that they have done. The government will no longer be spending upwards of $292 per day which equates to an annual cost of $110,000 per prisoner. Remember, these are people who have denied someone else their right to a future. That’s a lot more money spent on keeping these prisoners alive, than people outside of prison and running their own lives, spend on keeping themselves and their possible families fed and happy.

A report has found the Australian Government spent $625 million on the country’s prisons in 2012-13. Some of this money could be better spent elsewhere, such as medical research, curing various diseases such as AIDS or cancer. Wouldn’t this be a better use of taxpayer’s money?

If we were to re-introduce the death penalty, some of the most expensive prisoners; those in solitary confinement and maximum-security prisons, could be reduced in numbers, which would cut down this gargantuan figure to something, perhaps more reasonable.

Yes, there are some instances where someone can be wrongly convicted, this is one of the biggest arguments against the death penalty. It’s happened in the past, and an innocent person ends up being given the death sentence. But there are ways to prevent this. If there’s no evidence at all, then a person has the right to be presumed ‘Innocent until proven guilty’.

So… Does anybody deserve the death penalty? Absolutely.

Kate Stone of Bendigo, set her partner Darren Reid on fire in December of 2016. On the 12th of July this year, she was sentenced to 34 years, with minimum of 28 years. She murdered him, with two of their young daughters at home, burning nearly 95% of his body. Engulfed in flames, he ran past his 16-year-old daughter telling her that he was going to die. Darren has had the right to life revoked by his partner, and will never get to hold his child’s hand or watch them grow up. The minimum amount of 28 years will cost us fellow Australians just shy of three million dollars to keep her behind bars.

Jill Meagher was murdered on her way home from a pub in 2012, by a man who was out on parole, Adrian Bailey. He was on parole for violent crime, and while on parole, he murdered Jill. Thankfully, the other prisoners have seen to it that Adrian’s stay in prison has been less than pleasant.

Jaymes Todd, who raped and murdered Melbourne comedian Eurydice Dixon, will be taken to be sentenced for his crime in August this year. Let’s hope that he receives a reasonable sentence. Say, maybe… The death penalty?

Jon Venables, killer and mutilator of 2-year-old child James Bulger, was only 10 years old himself when he murdered poor James. James’ body was found mutilated on the train tracks two days after Jon and his buddy Robert Thompson led James away from a market 25 years ago. You might be thinking “isn’t this too long ago to be able to morally trial him for something that he did when he was 10, 25 years later?” Yes, for this particular act. The thing is however, he has since been to prison twice for possession and distribution of child pornography. This adds to the disgusting nature of this man, and in my opinion, it is clear that his time living among us, should be over for good. This isn’t the case however, it gets worse. An article published on the 24th of June this year, states that Jon is to be moved to Australia, complete with a new identity so that no one is able to identify him as the murderer of James Bulger. Jon could end up being your neighbour or the father of your child’s friend, and you would never know that years ago this man murdered a young boy, and left his body on the train tracks to be run over again and again. How much better for the community of Australia would it be for him to have been buried six-feet-under 25 years ago?

On a more sensitive topic, and not naming any names, a certain cardinal has been convicted as a child sex offender. It is my opinion that anybody who harms a child in any way whether it be through molestation, torture or even murder, is a viable candidate for the death penalty, no matter who this person may be.

Need I Name More? If the death penalty is re-introduced, it will alleviate some of this pressure, both because it deters crime and it costs less than life imprisonment. I argue that retribution or “an eye for an eye” honours the victim, helps console grieving families and ensures that the perpetrators of heinous crimes never have an opportunity to cause future tragedy, as the current system allows prisoners the chance of parole or escape, giving criminals another chance to offend.

Ivan Milat is soon to die of Oesophageal cancer, a fitting ending for such a disgusting person, don’t you think? It might have been more satisfying for the families of his victims on the day of his hearing years ago, to find that he’s to be executed by fatal injection for his crimes, instead of receiving the medical treatment which us taxpayers are unable to afford, for the many years he’s been in prison. May God have mercy on… his victim’s souls.

Should the media be censored? Who should censor the media? And can self-censorship work? In order to answer these difficult questions, there must be an understanding of censorship laws, how censorship functions in society, specifically within Media Production and how the Media functions. Using a case study and law and ethics research, this paper will draw conclusions and propose in depth answers to these questions.

Australia’s media is currently subject to broad censorship laws that are divided into a range of categories. Australia’s censorship structure is often surrounded by controversy. This is more so present with the recent introduction of Internet censorship (Broadcasting Services Amendment Act, 1999). There have also been recent changes to the censorship legislation and often regular reviews of the classification guidelines for media (Jackson, 2001).

As it stands in Australia’s legal system, films, computer games and publications classifications are administered by the Classification Board (McKenzie, 2004 p.52). The Classification Board ensure that films are given classifications such as M or MA, according to their content and are shown only at designated times (Australian Law Reform Commission, 2012). Television, radio and internet are all subject to content regulations by the Australian Communications and Media Authority (ACMA), which can refer online content for classification by the Classification Board (Jackson, 2001). In the music industry, there is system of voluntary labelling guidelines for audio tapes, records and CDs manufactured in Australia has been developed by the Australian Record Industry Association (ARIA) and the Australian Music Retailers’ Association (AMRA) (Jackson, 2001).

Internet censorship, however, is a vastly different medium when it comes to enacting censorship regulations. ACMA does have the ability to enforce content restrictions on Internet content that is hosted within Australia and they maintain a blacklist of overseas websites which is then provided for use in filtering software (Jackson, 2001). These restrictions focus offences such as child pornography, sexual violence, and other illegal activities. These are mostly accumulated using a consumer complaint process (Jackson, 2001).

However, the digital and online space is heavily unregulated and does not follow the same laws as other media forms in Australia. The internet has made state enforced censorship almost totally ineffective (Coleman, 2014). There is a massive amount of digital media that makes censorship enforcement very difficult. Social media sites, such as Facebook and Twitter have their own terms and conditions that allow them to remove posts and accounts that breach their set terms (Heins, 2013). This has no legal precedence and allows for individuals to publish what they please so long as it meets the sites terms and conditions.

The case of the Sunrise Indigenous adoption segment aired in 2018, highlights the necessity, implications and limitations of censorship within the field of Media. In March 2018, Sunrise aired a panel discussion about the removal of Indigenous children from dangerous or abusive family situations (Schetzer, 2019). It wrongly claimed that Indigenous children could not be fostered by non-Indigenous families. During the segment, commentator Prue MacSween suggested that “the Stolen Generation might need to be Repeated to save children from physical and sexual abuse” (Schetzer, 2019). This segment was quick to be condemned by the public for the untruthful and insensitive handling of the topic. Many media watch dogs and journalists have pointed out that the segment featured no experts or any Indigenous panellists. ACMA announced that the Channel Seven breakfast show did indeed breach the Commercial Television Industry Code of Practice in airing false claims that Indigenous children could not be placed with white families (ACMA, 2019). It was also found that the segment provoked “serious contempt on the basis of race in breach of the Code as it contained strong negative generalisations about Indigenous people as a group” (ACMA, 2019).

Seven attempted to defend their actions by labelling the ACMA’s decision as “censorship” and “a direct assault on the workings of an independent media” (Schetzer, 2019). This case shows Media often using censorship as a label in defence to breaches of the law. Deformation law and contempt are greater sources of state-sponsored censorship. Here we can see the clear link between censorship, deformation and contempt. In a statement released on September 4, 2018, by the ACMA chairwoman, Nerida O’Loughlin, it was emphasized that, “…broadcasters can, of course, discuss matters of public interest, including extremely sensitive topics such as child abuse in Indigenous communities. However, such matters should be discussed with care, with editorial framing to ensure compliance with the Code.” (O’Loughlin, 2018). This distinction shows how in order to act professionally, self-regulation in sensitive topics is important, to not only avoid deformation and contempt, but in producing unbiased and truthful media.

There needs to be some standard to provide balance between free-flowing discussion and reasonable censorship for Broadcast Media and Publications. Classifications being a form of censorship, may be limiting but are necessary. The issue is that there are many other forms of censorship. As individuals we have agency in what we choose to consume. What should be censored is often subjective. Censorship that is the withholding of information, hinders free-flowing communication in society (Martin, 2008). This brings forward the notion of media producers self-censoring.

Self-censorship is a necessary, yet complicated form of censorship (Hills, 2010). Media producers, in order to act ethically, must weigh all possible consequences, legal or not before a work is published. Self-censorship seems very straightforward given legal consequences but acting ethically in regards to external or societal consequences is not an explicit in nature. At times it seems there is arbitrary and heavy-handed nature to state-sponsored censorship (Hills, 2010). Self-censorship, by contrast, is less obvious and more complex. It can apply at every step of the Media Production process; research, pre-production, production and editing. No individual can accurately predict when and if censorship will occur, but the risk can be minimized and, simultaneously, the likelihood of self-censorship can be decreased by being adequately prepared (Hills, 2010).

John Horton, 2011 states, “focusing on authorship tends to lead to seeing self-censorship as more akin to a freely chosen act of self-restraint, while focusing on the self-censor as instrument presents it as one specific form of ordinary censorship.” (Horton, 2011). In other words, when an individual chooses to self-censor it seems like a conscious use of agency and free will, whereas the holistic notion of self-censorship is just another form of regular censorship.

There needs to be a free flow of information for an open and free society. Censorship of the Media is quite often when laws such as Deformation and Contempt are broken. Individuals can employ their own agency in what media they choose to consume. Classifications can be seen as a form of censorship but are necessary in providing consumers information on the content a film or show contains, so they are able to choose to view it or not. Self-censorship carries many risks, and not all individuals will follow ethical procedures and censor themselves in the right situations. However, it is the ethical responsibility of media producers to assess the consequences of what they will publish before it is. As seen in the Sunrise case study, self-censorship at any point of the production stages of that segment, would have reduced the consequences and spread of misinformation drastically. State-enforced censorship has the potential to overstep boundaries of freedom of speech or expression, but this does not mean that censorship itself hinders freedom. A media producer publishing works unedited and unregulated could do more damage to discourse in society than it does good. Media Producers then, must self-regulate the work they publish from a position of ethical responsibility and ensure there is a standard of truthfulness.

This essay will look at how people smuggling and illegal immigration have evolved through time and how and what policymakers have and should do as a response. People smuggling is the act of assisting individuals to cross international borders without official authorization in return for compensation that is either financial or material (Hidalgo, 2016). This essay will look to examine why this is considered an international crime, the reasons behind the motives of both migrants and people smugglers as well as the consequences of this form of migration. The contrast will also be shown between what is perceived as ethical smuggling as well as exploratory smuggling and how international policies along with specifically Australia have framed their legislations in their attempts to prevent illegal people smuggling and immigration. Recommendations will also be highlighted based on the literature cited throughout in order to address how policymakers can frame new policies and procedures that can effectively combat the issue of illegal people smuggling.

There have also been studies in which the incentives to the illegal smuggling of people have been prevalent for organized crime groups. Research has shown that these groups frame their facilitation of this act as a business and often have a well-structured business model. This can also include combining people smuggling with other illegal trade such as drugs and/ or arms trading, however, this is not always the case. These business models are mostly based upon supply and demand with the aims of high profits and low risks as well as the involvement of a number of ‘staff’ who carry out different roles within the process (Interpol. int, 2019). These roles include recruiters, boat captains, and crew members, people who can provide illegal documentation, and those who can provide accommodation along the journey if needed. Interpol has recognized that these organized crime groups have identified weak legislation and use this to their advantage when seeking ways in which they are able to dodge persecution as a result of these loopholes (Interpol. int, 2019).

In recent years there has been a population increase due to globalization, this has been especially significant in underdeveloped countries, this has led to an increased interest in migrating. However in contrast this surge of migration has also seen a reduction in legal opportunities for migration in many countries (Australian institute of criminology, 2001). This reduction is largely due to research that suggests that this demand for migration especially illegally has opened opportunities for both opportunistic criminals as well as organized crime networks to exploit vulnerable individuals for their own profit as well as fears they are using this act to transport other illegal substances such as drugs and weapons (Australian institute of criminology, 2001). Research by Zhang, Sanchez, and Achilli, (2018) looks at the juxtaposition of people smuggling as an organized crime and people smuggling out of necessity as well as how governments shape the perception of the act. The authors challenge the accounts by governments that the increased numbers of people smuggling to western countries are the responsibility of illicit business networks or criminal gangs. The authors challenge this by presenting research that shows that in many cases migrants obtain smuggling services through their community and often through family and friends. This way the chances of the trip being successful, as well as their human rights being upheld, is increased and more likely than if it was organized by opportunistic criminals (Zhang, Sanchez, and Achilli, 2018). The framing of this act by Western governments has developed the public perception of the brutalities and vulnerability of migrants as the result of criminal activity legislation has been introduced for that purpose. However, although this perception has been challenged through countless literature there have also been articles that look to highlight and explain how organized crime groups are using illegal migration through people smuggling to their advantage. People smuggling is also becoming the only option readily available to migrants fleeing their origin country in order to escape events such as war, persecution, poverty, and natural disasters. The case of Mr. Hadi Ahmadi is an example of how some smugglers become involved in such activities out of compassion and a sense of duty to people within their community who need help (Schloenhardt and Martin, 2012). Mr. Ahmadi, facilitated the smuggling of 911 asylum seekers from Indonesia to Australia as he believed that they were facing persecution or death as a result of staying in their country of origin (Schloenhardt and Martin, 2012).

However on the other hand there are smugglers who are simply in it in order to seek a profit, these cases often result in the exploitation of vulnerable asylum seekers. The power that people smugglers have over migrants is tremendous once the journey has begun and it is because of this that maltreatment occurs to those being smuggled. These mistreatments happen during the process and can include the removal of personal belongings including identification, poor conditions in which they are transported for example small fishing vessels and also being subject to violent abuse (Unodc.org, 2019). However, these exploratory methods have also been seen to have an impact on the families of the migrants who were not even on the journey to seek asylum. This can be seen through blackmailing or debt bondage leading families to feel threatened to pay off large debt or otherwise risk violence or their family members being deported (Unodc.org, 2019). Along with these risks, there is also the risk of never making it to their destination, since 2014 there have been 4000 reported fatalities annually on a global scale, however, it is also evident that there may be many more that are unrecorded (Migration data portal, 2019).

In response to the increased immigration rates, Western international organizations have attempted to address the issue of illegal people smuggling. The UN Convention against transnational organized crime was created in 2004 and has the support of 141 countries. As defined by the UN people smuggling or smuggling of migrants as “the procurement, in order to obtain, directly or indirectly, a financial or another material benefit, of the illegal entry of a person into a state party of which the person is not a national or a permanent resident” (Chonghaile, 2019). The agreed-upon protocol of this convention is that that criminalization should only be considered as a penalty to the smugglers and not the migrants as well as a heavy emphasis on the protection of the human rights of the migrants (Chonghaile, 2019). In legislation people, smuggling emphasizes the illegal crossing of national borders in return for a profit (Australian institute of criminology 200). Australia itself has attempted to take on an international approach to people smuggling through the use of technological advances, intelligence sharing, and participation in a number of international forums in their attempt at addressing illegal people smuggling (Australian Federal Police. 2019). Interestingly Australian policies do not address the act of people smuggling for profit as the main crime but instead look at the crime of anyone who crosses the border without legal authorization. This can be seen in Australian policy in Sections 233, 233A, 234, 235, and 236 relating to harboring illegal entrants, using fraudulent documents in connection with the entry, and other offenses. The above offenses within legislation do not involve any component of profit by the facilitators of people smuggling but rather recognizes the real crime as knowingly organizing assisting the crossing of national borders without the legal rights to do so (Australian institute of criminology, 2001). Australia has also introduced a number of initiatives that have proven to make a difference in both preventing and catching people smugglers (Munro, 2011). These include the establishment of the Australian Federal Police Transnational Crime Centres which are located in both key transit and sending countries, the formation of a Joint approach with Australian Federal Police working along with Immigration and people-smuggling strike teams, the formation of initiatives targeted at a regional capacity that assist police and immigration agencies in especially in Southeast Asia to combat the act as well as increasing support of regional governments to develop anti-people-smuggling legislation (Munro, 2011). However, despite the implemented policies and challenges from law enforcement, pressure and competition from other criminal groups, and the natural and social environment under which organized crime groups operate people smuggling within they are still remaining to prove both increasingly adaptable and resilient to these setbacks. People smugglers are finding ways in which they can get past Australia’s harsh penalties, for example, the use of escort vessels that take the migrants across the border while organizers turn back in the original vessel (Barker, 2013). Another example of their adaptability is their use of minors to smuggle people across borders, this is due to Australia’s policies differing when dealing with minors and therefore the penalty is usually the returning of the minor to their country of origin which often does not lead to persecution (Barker, 2013).

However, criminologists have identified that present policies do not always properly address people smuggling in response to migration due to a number of factors that are present. These include the relationship present between migration policies in contrast to the contexts in which individuals choose to migrate, the role of the media on public perception and policy development, the process of migration agencies in contrast to people smugglers (Guia and Skilbrei, 2019). These considerations further include the link between migrants committing or being subject to crime as a result of debates and fears surrounding migration and also how this overall impacts the perception of societies towards migrants and foreigners alike (Guia and Skilbrei, 2019). It is because of this that Western countries in today’s world are finding it difficult or possibly not fully grasping how their policies and procedures could make an effective impact on both increasing the safety and wellbeing of people simply wishing to migrate out of fear of their safety; as well as realizing how this would reduce both illegal migrations along with the incentives and potential profit-making for both crime groups and opportunistic criminals to find business out of this act.

A number of large international organizations such as the United Nations have attempted to advocate for legislation that aims to look at improving existing policies through the cooperation of member states (Zhang, Sanchez, and Achilli, 2018). The central responsibility for the increase of illegal immigration emphasizes the importance of combatting smuggling organizations (Zhang, Sanchez, and Achilli, 2018). A study by Munro, (2011) attempts to address how policymakers should look at how and why some organized crime organizations have become so resilient in their efforts to smuggle individuals illegally into Australia. The author suggests that using existing law enforcement in conjunction with the law enforcement within countries in which a large number of crime organizations facilitating illegal people smuggling (Munro, 2011). In contrast research by Ventrella, M. (2016) suggests that policies should take a more supportive approach to the victims of these crimes, for example, assisting migrants whether smuggled or not to integrate into the country in which they have migrated to. The attempted result of this approach is to provide a supportive environment for new migrants who in return may cooperate with law enforcement by providing information that could be useful in the prevention of illegal smuggling (Ventrella, M. 2016). Due to the evidential resiliency of organized crime groups that facilitate people smuggling, research by Munro, (2011) has suggested that criminal networks should be subject to persistent external shocks that impede on their functioning in order to disrupt both their markets. This results in deterring potential ‘clients’ from pursuing their business as well as limiting their ability to trade (Munro, 2011). The author has also identified that a major factor that has led to the flourishing of people smuggling in this case from Indonesia to Australia is the lack of knowledge that local officials and communities had on this issue as a transnational crime (Munro, 2011). This resulted in a lower level of concern from countries who didn’t see the action as a serious issue which in return lead to communities openly assisting people smugglers providing them with support and therefore making the process easier (Munro, 2011).

In conclusion, a number of factors should be considered when looking at people smuggling and illegal immigration. These factors include the reasoning for both the migrants and the people smugglers for committing the act including how each of these different scenarios can be prevented through the introduction of appropriate policies. The literature above portrays the different criminological understanding of both why migrants are becoming more reliant on illegal immigration as well as the incentives that are present for those facilitating the smuggling of people across borders as well as the incentives present for those seeking to be smuggled. Although there have been a number of efforts implemented on a global scale, research shows that this is making little impact on the combating of illegal people smuggling, especially in the case of organized crime. The resilience of these organizations is becoming more apparent and a persistent and international united effort where all available resources are being used including the cooperation of countries from which illegal people smuggling is present in both sending and receiving migrants is important to the prevention of the crime. It is also evident that the limited legal opportunities for people to migrate to another country are another factor in which is steering individuals to traveling illegally. Western governments that can afford this protection to vulnerable migrants should consider introducing better processes in which at-risk migrants can easily access and obtain legally.

Introduction

Privacy is the right of people to keep their personal data or other related matter and relationship secret from other. Privacy is a broad, abstract and unclear concept which can be easily shortened in meaning but which can also, on the other hand, easily be understood as a constitutional ban against many things. It always includes and refers to sovereignty and dignity. Privacy is important in terms of different perspectives.

Philosophically, people are regarded as being very important for their own sake. The concepts of human dignity and integrity play important role in some countries while in some tradition and jurisdictions, these are the ideas that highlight the nation and significance of human rights.

Psychologically, people need private space. We need to be able to look around, judge whether the people in the locality are a danger, and then perform actions that are potentially embarrassing, such as breaking wind, and jumping for joy.

Sociologically, people need to be free to behave and associate with others, subject to broad social mores, but without the continual threat of being observed. Otherwise we reduce ourselves to the appalling, inhuman, unnatural context that was imposed on people in countries behind the Iron Screen and the bamboo Screen.

Economically, people need to be free to innovate, International competition is intense and countries with high labour-costs need to be continually reinvented. All innovators are by definition different from the norms of the time, and they are both at risks and perceive themselves to be at risk if they lack private space in which to experiment.

Politically, people need to be free to think, and argue and act. Surveillance chills behavior and speech and undermines democracy.

In Australia the practical or operative approach tends to dominate the philosophical. Of the four bases on which it can be argued that privacy is needed the most dominant in discussion tends to be the psychological perspective. Privacy-invasions are seriously harmful to the societies, economics and polities in which human have succeeded. Balances must be required and privacy protection must be planned with that in mind.

LAW VS ACT

Law is very wider and broader term, which includes Acts, notifications, Government orders and many more. Law is simply a word, which is easily understood by every people. Law is the rules and regulation that are made and set up by social institution to control behavior.

While, Act is a specific term, which is used for collected set of rules and regulations passed by parliament. Act is officially called as bill. An act officially becomes law when a legislature votes for a bill. Act is a piece of legislation that is more certain and operates to particular conditions and particular people. By these we can say that act is more specific and law is universal. Until and unless an act is passed by the parliament, it cannot be considered as law and cannot become a law. But Law is always considered as law because it is something that is already maintained and established.

Privacy law can be defined as the regulation or law that protect someone right to rule by himself or herself and manages collection, storage, and issue of his or her financial, medical, and other personal information. In Australia there are number of statutory schemes or provision that confer unreliable degrees of protection to privacy interests across the nine jurisdictions. The nine jurisdictions are including six separate states: New South Wales, Victoria, Queensland, Western Australia, South Australia, Tasmania and two Australian Territories Northern Territory and Australian Capital Territory and the final is Australian Commonwealth Government. At the federal level, the main statute dealing with privacy is the privacy act 1988.

The first privacy commissioner was appointed in 1989. The role of privacy commissioner sat with the Australian human rights commission until the 2000 when an independent office of the privacy commissioner was established. With the establishment of the office of the Australian information commissioner (OAIC) in 2010, this role of privacy commissioner was merged into the new office. The Australian information commissioner, supported by the staff of the office of the Australian information commissioner is responsible for administering the privacy act 1988.

The Privacy Act 1988

The Privacy Act 1988 (Privacy Act) was passed by the Australian Parliament at the end of 1988 and commenced in1989. The privacy act gave the effect to Australia’s agreement to implement the Organization for economic cooperation and development (OECD) Guidelines for the protection of privacy and transborder flows of personal data, as well as to its obligations under Article 17 of the international convenant on civil and political rights. Under Article 17 it includes:

• No one shall be subjected to arbitrary or unlawful interference with his privacy, family, home or correspondence, nor to unlawful attacks on his honour or reputation.
• Everyone has the right to protection of the law against such interference or attacks.

Initially the privacy act had two objectives:

• Protect personal information in the possession of Australian Government agencies- the privacy act includes eleven information privacy principles, which were based on OECD guidelines and set out standards in relation to Australian Government agencies collecting, storing, using and disclosing, providing access to and correcting personal information.
• Implement safeguard for the collection and use of tax file number- the privacy act includes the Interim Tax file Number Guidelines, which regulates the handling of tax file numbers.

The privacy act 1988 controls the collection, expose and use of personal and private information.

Expanding the coverage of the privacy act

1991 – Credit reporting: The privacy amendment act 1990, which was commenced on 24 September 1991 first introduced privacy act controlling the behavior of consumer credit report by broadcasting the credit agencies and credit providers.

1994- Australian Capital Territory:

Conclusion

Yes there are laws and laws are to protect each and every ones privacy but in fact the opposite things happens as we devour the private secrets of hundreds of people each and every day. Yes we all do respect and value the privacy, but not as much as we hunger to know about the things. Privacy is right of people to keep their data and information secret from other. Different laws are implemented to keep protect and maintain the privacy.