The decline of accountability and the erosion of rights

Justine Nolan: Hello and thanks for joining us today for session two of the Australian Human Rights Institute's Conference on Accountability in Crisis. I'm Justine Nolan. I'm the director of the Australian Human Rights Institute here at UNSW and I'd like to begin by acknowledging the Bidjigal people on whose land UNSW stands and pay my respects to their elders, past and present and all Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander people who are joining us today.

We're going to be looking at the decline of accountability and the erosion of rights. We've got a stellar panel that's going to speak to you today, including human rights practitioners, media and business representatives, along with human rights advocacy who have been focusing on really important issues that are both global and local. We're going to focus on practical examples, showcasing the decline of accountability and the methods that all of our experts are using to protect human rights, both in Australia and internationally.

We're going to be exploring the intersections between accountability and democracy through the lens of issues like climate change, corporate responsibility, technology and democratic institutions that are facing, that are under threat. We're going to explore the role that individuals and NGOs play in holding institutions to account and the role of media as both a sort of part of the problem and a solution to questions around accountability.

So let me begin by introducing our expert panel. Today, we're fortunate to be joined by Larissa Baldwin-Roberts, who is the CEO of GetUp! An independent movement of more than 1 million people working to build a progressive Australia. Brynn O'Brien is the executive director of the Australasian Center for Corporate Responsibility, a shareholder advocacy and research organisation working to drive real world emissions reductions across the economy.

Lizzie O'Shea is the founder and chair of Digital Rights Watch, which advocates for human rights online and is the principal lawyer in the class actions department of law firm Maurice Blackburn. Siobhan Toohill is Westpac's Chief Sustainability Officer and her role includes sustainability, governance, climate change and human rights. And Christopher Warren, an Australian journalist and writer. He's currently the media correspondent for Crikey, an independent Australian source for news and analysis.

So let me begin by sort of just setting the scene a little bit on why we decided to focus on this topic of accountability. And we're certainly not short of examples of either domestically or globally where our institutions have been found wanting in terms of accountability. Most recently, there's been a lot of attention on the Government's Robodebt scheme, the former government's Robodebt scheme, which caused untold and avoidable human suffering.

And it was described by a Liberal Party MPs, Zoe McKenzie, as one of the poorest chapters of public administration in Australian history, and out of sync with notions of personal responsibility and integrity in government. Rio Tinto's destruction of Juukan Gorge a few years ago. More recently the PWC tax leak scandal and privacy and data breaches at multiple companies both in Australia and internationally, are example of a lack of responsible conduct and where accountability has been seen by many as lacking.

But perhaps one of the most ominous displays of moral blindness by government, in collaboration with corporate Australia, has been the ongoing approval of fossil fuel products as we hurtle towards irreparable damage to our planet. Former Fire and Rescue New South Wales Commissioner Greg Mullins has declared that the Federal Government's persistence sale of coal and approval of new coal mines as incomprehensible given the Government's acceptance of the science of climate change.

So let's kick off on that topic with some examples around the issues of climate. And if I turn to you first, Brynn, what does accountability mean to you in this context of climate change and how it's being debated? And do you see that there's an accountability deficit in relation to discussions on the climate crisis? 

Brynn O’Brien: Certainly an accountability deficit, but accountability is kind of something that happens later when there's an acceptance that something is wrong, something quite specific is wrong, and then an increasing alarm or outrage in society about that wrong.

And while I think in Australia and globally, we have accepted in a way, the science of climate change, we have not yet accepted what it calls on us to do, which is to stop emissions going up. And we also, there’s this new kind of denialism about the consequences of not accepting that and not taking action. So while in the last federal election, the you know, the Labor Party says that they won that election on a climate mandate, as you say, they are continuing to expand Australia's fossil fuel export profile, fossil fuel production profile and that is totally at odds with even a basic understanding of what needs to happen.

So I would say there's an accountability deficit, but there's also an alarm deficit, an outrage deficit. And I think that is a precursor to the accountability. So what needs to happen is that emissions need to go down, they’re still going up. The IEA, and it is predicted the International Energy Agency has projected that globally demand for fossil fuels will peak before 2030.

But I just want to note that it's 2023 and fossil fuel demand has not yet peaked. New fossil fuels projects are being opened up all the time, and this is permitted by governments and and pursued by corporations. So this is a real problem for us. I would say that legal, social and political accountability is always a lag process, comes after harm, and our focus needs to be on preventing harm because unfortunately for us, there is one kind of accountability that we can't avoid.

That is coming for us, whether we like it or not. It is the accountability of the physical world. So we are very, very fast approaching physical limits that once transgressed you cannot undo. So we are approaching concentrations of carbon or greenhouse gas emissions in the atmosphere that will lead us to tipping points like huge dieback of the Amazon rainforest, which in the last couple of years the Amazon rainforest going from a carbon sink to a carbon source that is that deeply, deeply troubling.

These processes and the planetary boundaries that we are now pushing up against are contributing to a really sick world, to a world that is less resilient, is less able to use its own systems to fix the problem. So that is, unfortunately for us, a physical accountability that we are hurtling towards and we really need to be focused on the actions that will present us going over those physical limits right now.

And we certainly don't see any of that from the government in Australia. Most governments worldwide, certainly not from the corporate directed class in Australia either. 

Justine Nolan: So let me follow up on your first point where you talked about sort of this denial of alarm status. And part of that comes from the notion of what information is out there, what people are hearing, what people believe.

And in our session this morning, we had a little bit of a discussion around the role of the media in misinformation and disinformation. And I'm going to come to you in a moment, Chris, to talk about that. But first, I want to sort of get a practical example from you, Larissa, around… during your work with GetUp! I mean, when you're seeking accountability, you're working in an advocacy organisation, and you've obviously been one of the lead organisations campaigning for the Voice, most recently in Australia.

So how do you think about accountability in terms of combating that level of misinformation and disinformation and and how you how you, you know, how you addressing it? But also, what are you confronting in that realm? 

Larissa Baldwin-Roberts: I would say a couple of things about mis and disinformation, like in a way that I think we've never seen it, it has been mobilised in a federal campaign in the referendum.

And I think there's some things that kind of created that space where, you know, referendums are a binary choice. Culture wars help create mis and disinformation. But I think also at its core, mis and disinformation doesn't just exist online because of lack of information. It exists because of bots, because of people who want to undermine democratic institutions as well. And so you say, particularly in the Voice campaign, in the referendum, we're seeing an overwhelming influx of, you know, bots and that sort of stuff, creating conversations, saying things that are beyond the pale and really racist and lots of, you know, confusing people and that sort of stuff.

And there's no regulation around that. That's one thing. But the other thing that is really hard is that the average person, like, we talk about the, you know, the difference between left and right. But actually the biggest end, the divide that’s there, the biggest divide is between people who consume political news that you have to seek out and people that don't.

And so the idea of mis and disinformation can become really deadly in a scenario like the referendum, because you see one, people don't know that it's not real. And some of the arguments that are being had there and because they're saying people that are looking like, you know, it's AI or these people that have been enabled through missing disinformation, they're repeating these things and we're seeing it, it's not just in the this campaign we're seeing and also how it moves through different. 

So age groups are, particularly in the referendum, women under 45 who have never voted conservative are likely to vote no in this referendum, who are typically an audience that would be gettable for First Nations justice issues. And one of the things that we think is affecting them is the idea around this being a culture war, when it moves into a fringe debate, people don't want to and who don't feel equipped to be within the ongoing or expert.

They step out in a disengage. And I think on the other spectrum, we're seeing a lot of young people who are an incredibly empathetic generation. But if you have a look on TikTok on what's being said right now, there is so much mis and disinformation being repeated and it's almost this contest of who has the most fringe ideas and people kind of using that as knowledge, and what's missing within that debate is like it's a really dehumanising story that you're telling about First Nations people.

And I think that that we're seeing is through the influence on policy as well, like politicians are really influenced by what they're seeing online. The easiest way to make things go viral is to start an argument. And, you know, I've had disability advocates tell us, like throughout the Royal Commission and stuff like that and different policy advocacy work, the inside track work that they've been doing, is getting back responses from politicians is that ‘Oh I don't think this thing is, you know, resonating with the voters out there. It's not popular.’ And then stating stories and messages that are definitely, there is you know, what we're seeing is influx into our organisation is bots. So there's a lot of work to do to overcome that. And I think for us, this referendum campaign is a really big moment to reflect on what is the role of the media and what information…  And, you know, do you cover, you know, political fights in terms of a two horse race and what information divide is actually made and how do you get that to them? But I think more as well, in civil society, we do not have the capability right now to overcome this. We've seen like the far right, the Conservative Political Action Conference come in and seriously step up the game of the No campaign.

And we need to work on what our capability is, because getting the truth out there to people is so critical to creating change. 

Justine Nolan: Yeah, I mean, that's a really good point around the sort of the value of so, you know, the truth and transparency in seeking accountability. So Chris, I'd invite you to come in and sort of, you know, you see the, as I said at the start, media being both, you know, people see it as part of the problem.

People see it as part of the solution. Larissa is talking about, you know, the need for civil society organisations to have to step up and counter this. But, you know, the reality is that often they don't have the resources or ability to do that. So there is still, you know, whether it's issues that are exploding in the world this week around Israel and Palestine or the Voice we're seeing, you know, multiple sources of information come out.

So how do you see the role of the media and more broadly, potentially social media? Because, Crikey, you're getting a lot of your audience online as well in addressing this? 

Christopher Warren: Well, I wouldn't say the media were part of the problem. I think the media are the core of the problem, particularly in Australia, where the media is dominated by News Corp and News Corp media, almost all the kind of fake news or sham news, I don’t think we've got a better way of thinking about it, that gets get circulated, originates within the News Corp ecosystem, and a large part of the power of News Corp is not not their ability of talking to their specific audience, which is actually quite a small audience hidden behind a paywall, demographically very constrained, mainly men over 60.

But the problem is the power they have in setting the news cycle for all the other media, particularly media like the ABC, which is clearly deeply intimidated by News Corp and concerned to protect itself against News Corp. So I think the existence of News Corp, the News Corp business model, is the is one of the core drivers of the polluted information environment that we live in in Australia, not just because of what they do, but because of the way the rest of the media and the rest of the traditional media at least react to that.

And one of the ways that the rest of the media reacts to that is to undermine the way in which this is being dealt with globally, which is through the emergence of new media. And so the result of that is the new media is seen as somehow, like Crikey, for example, but not just Crikey - is seen as somehow outside the real media environment and doesn't get the support from, say, the ABC or other organisations that would enable it to put a counter voice.

But I compare that to, say, New Zealand, where the public broadcaster Radio New Zealand is one of the really active supporters of the emerging new media environment within New Zealand. So until we as journalists acknowledge that actually we are a large part of the problem and start to address it in a holistic way, then we're not really going to be able to clean up or hold this polluted environment to account in the area of both fake news and and and sham news. And I think that's particularly true in the area of climate change. 

Justine Nolan: Yeah. I mean, and one of the things, Lizzie, that Larissa mentioned when she was speaking was the fact that there is so little regulation or in some places, you know, no regulation almost around this use of media and technology, etc..

Now, in your experience looking at that, you know what, how do you see that? You know, some people would say technology is the great enabler, the great equaliser, where people have access to more information. And obviously, you know, the old idea of, you know, the more information out there, the more transparency, sunlight being the greatest disinfectant.

But we know that, you know, from what Chris is saying, too, is that not all information is equal or not all forms of media or release of media is equal. So how do you see the role of technology in this debate around accountability? You see it more as a problem or more as a tool to seek accountability?

Lizzie O’Shea: Thanks, Justine. It is an ambitious question. It's an ambitious topic. I'm grateful for the opportunity to participate in this discussion, because sometimes I think those questions are left unexamined, which is a problem. But I do want to just acknowledge the breadth of it. I mean, I suppose I'd say about the general idea of technologies, I'd probably refer to the great historian of technology, Melvin Kranzberg’s first law of technology, which is that it is neither good nor bad, but nor is it neutral. 

And I think in my view, what I've seen as an observer of this space is that it is really a function of power, how it's deployed in these different kinds of settings, which, you know, refers me to the other maxim from Stanford via the, you know, the founder essentially of cybernetics who made the claim that the purpose of a system is what it does.

And that in respect of technology, I think technology has a particular role to play, I think in concealing accountability or forms of accountability or transparency around who ought to be held accountable, understated intentions, and that this really does involve inflicting huge amounts of harm on people who are forced to endure it at the hands of the powerful. And so what I would say, I suppose, is that at least in the information space, there is a really interesting discussion that's now going on that it has advanced significantly in recent time.

So Mark Zuckerberg once said a little while back and he's never repeated it, I think for obvious reasons, that he revealed that.. how he perceives Facebook is much more like a government than a traditional company. And that's in part because he has the capacity to dictate policy, including on some of these topics we're discussing about how information is shared, what the public space looks like, whose rights get violated, who gets to say what they want to say, who gets to shape that narrative.

And he's…  I think the addendum to that comment is that he's wholly unqualified and wholly, I think, wholly, largely uninterested in doing much about the collective problems that this presents. So people often think about regulation of technology as being a simple, straightforward response to a lack of accountability in this space. I think it is more complex than that.

There's multiple ways in which technology can be regulated. It can be regulated in respect of individual rights to protect people from harmful business models. It can also be regulated in a consumer setting or in a competition setting to look at how some of these companies have too much dominance as platforms. And then that has implications not just for people's rights as consumers to get things in for good value or to be able to access goods and services on an equal footing in the marketplace, but also that they're subject to predatory marketing and a whole business model around predatory marketing.

But more generally, and probably what I'm most concerned about is the erosion of collective rights, that is the right to a public space that is functional, where the capacity to speak, to be heard, to have some sense of central truth, is fundamentally compromised by a data driven business model, and that governments also are complicit in some of these erosions of rights of collective spaces.

And that, I think, is the big problem in relation to technology; who is big enough to regulate these massive companies that are operating more like governments than private corporations? And we often look to government, and I think that's an important place to look. But governments are often complicit in taking some of the spoils of this kind of mass surveillance technology that's being established and are prepared to be critical of technology companies, but also use them to their advantage when they say fit.

And I think then it does raise some of the questions that have been asked by other members of this panel. What is the role then of civil society, Of people involved in the technology sector, about building alternative technologies, about supporting ideas of human rights, to be able to build out an alternative to just relying on sheer regulation as the answer to some of the problems that the level of complexity that we're seeing in relation to technology.

Justine Nolan: So, I mean, that's a good point that you raised around sort of the role of regulation, the role of individuals, the role of civil society. But what you've also touched on also is the role of corporations about how you shape the narrative. So Siobhan, I wanted to come to you in terms of thinking about, you know, the role of corporations.

You know, 30 or 40 years ago, your role didn't exist generally in companies. There wasn't a sustainability, you know, officer looking at it. And now some companies are making great strides in that area. Some are, you know, burying their heads in the sand and some are being negative, you know, being obstructionist around it. So how do you sort of negotiate, I guess, this minefield, which is now that corporations are expected to respect human rights, are expected to understand and respect that they have a role in relation to social issues, and we've seen this debated in Australia in particular.

But how do you think about accountability and the role of corporations? 

Siobhan Toohill: Yeah, I mean it's so important that we, our reflection for Westpac is that we recognize we've got a really important role to play. We're clear that we respect human rights and for us that kind of starts with asking the question, could we? But in fact should we?

And for us, we're very much guided by the UN Guiding Principles on Business and Human Rights. But what does that actually really look like? It's about kind of really, I guess, unpacking that in terms of understanding what is our role, what is our role as a lender, what's our role as an employer? What is our role as a picture of goods and services, our role as a support of communities?

And then reflecting on that, how we govern that, how we talk about that, but most critically, actually, how do we do that? And that's really very much a program of engaging our front lines to help them understand what we expect them to do. So, for example, when it comes to lending, we expect that our bank is working through ESG risks, that we are strengthening their capability to understand their roles around undertaking due diligence.

For example, all you know, when we get it right, I get it wrong reflecting on what is our role and what we need to do around that particular matter and speaking to those examples. And I think increasingly it's not just around human rights, but also it's around how these themes actually start to intersect. And so we're seeing increasingly, a deeper expectation and understanding around how climate change, human rights, intersect around how human rights and responsibilities around nature intersect.

And again, what is our role as a bank that cuts across, right across the economy and how do we think about it, particularly in relation to the different sectors that we bank, but also, as I said, as an employer and our role more broadly in the community. So we also undertake a process around thinking about what are our most salient issues each year.

It's discussed at various governance levels within the organisation as well, and we also seek the perspective of external stakeholders, including civil society, in terms of how we arrive at what we deem to be those most salient themes - and we’ve actually undertaking an even deeper dive around that at the moment, but, you know, not not surprisingly, some of the topics that come up for us as I as my standing and themes are around privacy concerns, transparency for us as a bank, we've got to respect the privacy of our customers, their personal information, but also of our employees. Data and emerging technologies - 

Thinking about what are our responsibilities around the role of how we work through that in a really appropriate way. And of course, the issue and the role that we play around understanding the principles of free prior and informed consent. So as a supporter of the UN Guiding Principles on Business and Human Rights and the UN Declaration of Rights of Indigenous Peoples, now when we are banking certain sectors, we need to better understand what is, what do we need to understand in relation to how free prior and informed consent has been achieved or worked through in relation to a specific project or a specific organisation.

And I think we're beginning to understand it's not just the traditional sectors, but in fact it's playing out in a raft of different sectors as well. And then, you know, as I said, the intersections,  particularly around climate change and environment. So really understanding things like just transition, what is our responsibility, what's the role of a bank in relation to just transition?

And I think in particular that emerging really thorny topic of clean technology, how it's being manufactured, what are the on slavery risks perhaps? So we're seeking to achieve delivery of renewables, but there may also be significant questions around the technology that we're using and what is our role in terms of applying leverage to address better outcomes.

I guess to come back to the importance of risk assessment and the role of governance and how we escalate those sorts of risks and certainly in banks, this is taken very seriously. I was in a discussion this morning, for example, where a matter was escalated for a high level discussion with more senior executives to work through, how do we approach this decision, what information do we need in order to be able to make that decision?

And then I just want to go back to the earlier discussion that we had around the Voice. So for us, Westpac, we’re Australia's first and oldest company and we have a significant presence in remote communities. So we as an organisation have decided that for this topic it is an important one for us to take a position. And we have as an organisation said that we do support a Voice but at the same time respect the views of our employees and our customers, and that we believe that a Voice is a really important mechanism to address the gap and improve wellbeing outcomes for First Nations Australians.

We think that's in our best interest as a bank and that's, as you can imagine, a really complex topic to work through and the level of discussion and governance required around that, but most importantly that we've consulted. And in fact that's that decisioning has been led by our First Nations employees as well as discussions with First Nations leaders and of course then taken through to the most senior levels of the organisation and importantly, given the, you know, the complex environment, we face into to at the moment, and that negative environment that was placed support around our employees as well, in particular appointing an elder in residence to support our employees as they face these kinds of issues and addressing those aspects of human rights and the risk of harm to our people. 

Justine Nolan: We've been talking about some of the problems around accountability. The accountability deficits when we heard was a lack of transparency, misinformation, disinformation. But another one is around leadership and sort of this notion of shared responsibility around a lot of things. And so far we've touched on, we've touched on governance, we’ve touch on corporations, we've touched on civil society, individuals, even international institutions, the media.

And so of all the issues that we've talked about, whether it's government mishaps, corporate mishaps, climate, Voice and other issues, sometimes this notion of shared responsibility. And I sometimes feel that when we sort of focus on shared responsibility, then, there’s, no one's responsible because we're so busy dispersing that responsibility around. And Brynn if I can come back to you, and if you think about leadership as a key to accountability in the climate space, how do you think about that? And, you know, who are the key players here? Because so much is like, ‘Go home and turn off the lights and everything will be solved’. And, you know, it's like, well, ‘Put it back on civil society’ and I'll come back to the media.So how do you think about leadership as a value of accountability and pushing it in your area? 

Brynn O’Brien: It's pretty simple in some ways in Australia. So leadership could be shown by the Federal Government in saying we're going to act in line with the science and we're not going to permit new fossil fuels, exploration and expansion. We're not getting that kind of leadership.

In fact, I think there is a legal case run by Environmental Justice Australia against Tanya Plibersek, Environment Minister, that will be, the decision will be handed down today about exactly that question. Do you need to consider climate harm when you're making decisions about exploration and expansion projects? So, we're not seeing that leadership. And I think that the way that we need to change that is to create political pressure.

We're not really seeing corporate leadership. And I guess the challenge to organisations like Westpac and the other major banks whose, literally future business depends on society regulation, an economy in which their business activities can occur, which is under threat from climate change. If people don't understand that, I just need to emphasise that, but that everything is on the line, that financial markets are absolutely on the line, that the society and the economy in which Westpac and other major banks operate is at risk, very, very grave risk and very, very soon.

So what we could see, and the challenge would be, is for the businesses and the business leadership that understands this - and there are lots of business leaders who do understand this, to start acting like it. To actually start saying, well, there are a handful of companies in Australia, both Australian listed companies and foreign multinational companies, that are still pursuing fossil fuels, exploration, expansion, extraction beyond our planetary limits.

And it is to recognise that those business activities are a direct threat to other business activities, like the business of the major banks and institutional investors, and to hold them to account. So to have these kind of peer to peer leadership. But really, you know, Tanya Plibersek could make these decisions today and that's what she should be doing.

Justine Nolan: I mean, so you're saying that I mean, because I want to come back to I think it was Lizzie's point earlier around the role of regulation as well, which is particularly lacking in the tech space. But when you're saying that Brynn, are you saying that we need regulation? Like you would look first to government, that's where you're looking first? And then…

Brynn O’Brien: Well we don't need any new laws. The existing laws could deal with this problem now. The existing processes that the Environment Minister and the Prime Minister oversee could put an end to fossil fuels expansion in Australia. Absolutely. And we're not talking about switching a lot so far overnight. We're talking about an orderly transition, a just transition for Australia's economy, Australia's export economy, into something entirely different that does not put everything we know and love at stake.

Justine Nolan: Yeah, I mean, and Lizzie, you sort of talked about the value of regulation or the lack of regulation. So particularly in the tech space, we see a lack of regulation in at the moment in social media, in AI, etc.. Is it the law that's going to solve this or do you think it's you know, we need people to act, we need civil society? What is the magic sort of lever that you think would push accountability more? 

Lizzie O’Shea: Unfortunately, I don't think there is a magic lever, but I understand that there is a role for regulation to play. I mean, it's why I spend a huge amount of time putting in submissions about law forms that are proposed by government or general inquiries.

There are models also for laws we could easily apply in Australia that we don't. You know, we are going through a review of our Privacy Act to the minute, but it's been largely untouched for 40 years in a context in which technology has quickly outpaced the capability of these laws to respond to the scenario wherein. So, you know, absolutely there's a role for lawmakers to update our laws to reflect concerns that are presented by technology and to make sure that ideas like privacy reflect what our community conceptions of those rights in law, which they currently don't do.

And in places like Europe, even in the United States, there are better protections for these things that just don't exist in Australia. So we’re miles behind and in part, I think is that we don't have a Human Rights Act. So, you know, lawmakers need to wake up to these, start acting as quickly as possible and I’m pleased to say the attorney general at least is planning to move on privacy, which is a huge step forward.

And I would welcome that. I mean, I think it's interesting to think about whether there is a similar kind of idea that could be applied that Brynn was just talking about, whether corporations need to stop trading the crisis that  has been created by new technology with a bit more seriousness. And I would say my experience of of observing large technology companies, whether they're the major platforms that most people are familiar with, but also large artificial intelligence companies and other companies operating at the edge of developing technologies, is that they largely have no concern for the welfare of individual people or for collective institutions or collective spaces that that are facilitated by some of these companies.

So they are they operate with impunity. I don't think they, they may sometimes talk about the need for regulation. Sam Altman, the head of Open AI wandered around saying how important regulation is in relation to artificial intelligence but doesn't really meaningfully do anything about that. I think it's largely window dressing to be honest with you. Part of the problem is that we have scenarios where individuals are capable of acquiring billions of dollars to pursue passion projects, vanity projects, Elon Musk being one, but he's now situated himself, is quite central to a number of different, you know, a social crisis that exist, one of which is of course, social media, but the other is climate.

And his capability or interest in responding to some of these crises will have a huge impact on how our policies respond. And that's an enormous problem. So inequality of wealth is not something that sits just apart from some of these questions that we're talking about, the fact that there are billionaires dictating policy solutions to some of the problems that we're discussing is an enormous problem for getting good outcomes.

I think in this field. And technology is a prime example, just because the number of billionaires that it's produced and the number, the billions of people that it's impoverished and enforced upon them, human rights abuses. So I do want to just make that clear that I think governments have a very big role to play in terms of managing wealth inequality at the very minimum, so that we can get to a world in which billionaires aren't in charge or hugely influential in how we might respond to some of these problems and technologies. The technology industry is a good example. 

Justine Nolan: Chris, How do you how do you respond to that? I mean, you sort of you know, we've been talking about the role of regulators and law. I mean, the media is regulated. Sometimes people say overregulated. And you talked about the imbalance of power in some situations. How do you respond to the comments that Lizzie and Brynn have made around that imbalance of power?

Christopher Warren: Well, I think it's one of these areas where journalists, at least more than the media, have a responsibility or on both sides, they both contributing to the regulatory climate. If you want to be in a sense, by the way, in which they can mobilise public opinion around particular stories, there’s some quite exciting stuff happening by individual journalists and by small groups of journalists around the world that are doing that.

I think particularly if you look at most of the reporting about the crisis in the Amazon Orinoco Basins, which are part climate change, part social, part everything - most of that's been driven through a really powerful network of local, national, new media and global investigative organisations. So there are ways in which journalists can actually practically intervene to help in regulation.

I think one of the problems here in the Australian environment is that the media is an institution, that is traditional media as an institution, have used their their political power and influence to regulate technology in their own interests so that the major and really the only initiative, regulatory initiative, that's happened with technology and with technology companies in Australia has been to force them to pay old media money for as a kind of a shakedown really for power as a process of price of operating.

And of course, as we know now, they were happy to do that three years ago, but now are unlikely to continue to do that when those agreements come up for renewal next year. And that's going to be a crisis for the government with a wedge between large corporations that don't want to act and local corporations or corporations with local power will want them to intervene.

Ultimately, when you're talking about technology or the large technology companies, it's only government that can regulate them either at a global or at a sub international level. In particular I think the work of the European Union is probably the most interesting in that space, and I think that will kind of set the ground rules in large enough market to become a bit the global baseline, I think for technology regulation.

But one of the other things we need to consider is the role of courts and litigation in resolving this matters because ultimately what is going to destroy News Corp and is already close to destroying News Corp, has been the large scale actions against them through the hacking cases in the United Kingdom, which had already cost News Corp over 2 billion AUD, both in payouts and in their own in their own legal costs.

The large payout that they had to make to the Dominion Voting Systems case over fake news in in the 2020 election already cost them $1.2 billion plus their own costs and the forthcoming cases, prosecutions against them and other media by Prince Harry and others in the United Kingdom that of course the Smartmatic case in the United Kingdom and most importantly, the shareholders action against News Corp, against Fox, at least in the United States, which is seeking to say that it was a failure of management and controlling ownership of Fox News, that is the Murdoch family, who are responsible for this, and that they should reimburse Fox for the Fox as a corporation for the

costs that their actions incurred the company. So, yes, journalists need to play a role. They need to think of their own luck and talk a bit about the limitations on that. In terms of journalistic practice, journalism, media need to play a role. Governments need to play a big role because they're the only ones big enough to actually regulate.

But also, I think we will find that the courts will increasingly play a role in imposing the financial penalty. I might also add, in the area of climate change, there's a really interesting example in which business, the business industry can play a role, which is the Hindenburg investigation and subsequent short shorting of the Adani Group, which really didn't get much publicity in Australia, although funnily enough, the improprieties they were identifying were occurring largely in and about Australia.

So there are also, funnily enough, I think, the financialisation of the world system does also provide a vehicle for some regulation or some accountability in these areas. 

Lizzie O’Shea: Justine, do you mind if I just jump in quickly? I just wanted to add to Chris's comment. I don't disagree that government is the only entity that's capable of regulating big tech companies that we know of.

But what I would say is I think there are other things that government can do in addition to just making laws. They can invest in alternatives. They can create space for alternatives to evolve. They have a procurement capability that is rarely discussed or talked about in this context that is influential, and much in the same that, you know, we we you know, many of us would like to see government invest in clean technologies for energy production to a greater degree.

I think the same is true of the tech space. I mean, partly I spend so much of my life advocating around these issues because until we dismantle these systems, our public spaces are going to be dominated by disinformation, by bad actors who are interested in preserving the status quo for their own vested interests, rather than having a genuine public discussion about how we might get into a position where we can face the climate challenges of the future, where, you know, we have racial and social justice, you know, all these kinds of things.

And at the moment, I think the tech space, the tech industry is limiting the capacity for public space to be developed. Government has a role to play in investing, in building out alternatives for places in which we can congregate and discuss these things, have a shared sense of truth or an understand  the challenges that we face. And they've done it before.

You know, I do think an overwhelming investment in the ABC would be a good money well spent for this kind of purpose experiment, putting in alternative forms of communicating with people, not just traditional one-to-many kind of journalism, but lots of different ways in which we could experiment. You know, I've written about this with other activists in this space talking about how you could build public a public digital square that is functional, or at least it has the right starting point that it wants to create accountable public spaces that discuss the breadth of these issues rather than catering to the interests of shareholders and the interests of advertisers, which is essentially the motivation for a lot of the owners of these spaces. 

Christopher Warren: Can I just say I agree with everything Lizzie said, except for her enthusiasm about the ABC, right? 

Justine Nolan: It’s good to have disagreement, Chris. 

Christopher Warren: I think the ABC is effectively no longer fit for purpose either for the historical purpose that it had or for or for taking on these new responsibilities. And I think we need to be looking at ways in which, I agree, governments can intervene and do this, but I'm not sure that the ABC is right.

And that's a bit because my  view of the way old media has adapted to the new world is that almost in every case they have failed to adequately be fit for purpose. And so I don't know why we should assume that the ABC will be any different without substantial internal and external changes to the ABC. It may well be actually that SBS, which is traditionally a much more community based public broadcaster, would be, if you wanted to start from something that was already there, would be a better way of starting than dealing with that, the dead hand of bureaucracy that continues to be a dead weight on the ABC. 

Justine Nolan: Larissa do you want to jump in here? Because I mean, I think you've been, you know, particularly dealing with this in the last few months where in the media we've been seeing this endless, you know, striding for balance around issues. Like, we have you know, we have one Yes, we have one No campaigner. No, you know, we have this - and it's not always actually giving perhaps a correct views or giving, you know, that that illustrates the balance is that what we need in this area? Is that what civil society needs to advance accountability? Is balance always the answer? How do you deal with that in your own work?

Larissa Baldwin-Roberts: Yeah, I mean, I have a lot to say and I think that this referendum campaign hopefully is a good point of reflection for the media in Australia and how they've covered this debate and actually created the terms of this debate. And I think I agree a lot of work.. you can have billions of more dollars into the ABC, but I really think about the way that they have got to go on like this kind of 1 to 1.

And the idea that you have like someone who's for Yes. And then someone who says absolute extreme views and the idea that those two things are the polar ends of the debate and those are the ones that should be heard is so damaging. You know, I was looking at some headlines the other day around, we're talking about this stuff around Clive Palmer, how he tried to do the court challenge around the idea that a cross should equal and no, and so much of the reporting was talking about you know Clive Palmer doing this and you know, giving him so much space.

I think the media also, particularly not just the ABC, but I think the media is intimidated  on how it covers people who have a lot of power in this country as well. And I think about, you know, and NITV and indigenous media and, you know, that was part of a call out that we did early in the piece in the referendum where we said, you know, the role of black media was set up as protest to give our communities a voice, right? And thinking about actually the media is a fourth estate, isn't it, to referee this fight, it's actually to give people the information that's needed here.

And it's so overwhelmingly we're adding poles in remote communities in regional Australia and people are just like, I have no idea what this thing is about, What is it about? And just that information has not cut through. And I think that that is so damaging. But I don't necessarily know that the media are going to be the kind of… I don't know if they're going to be the people that are going to bring the truth through in the right way.

Kind of have the courage to actually articulate these fights in the same way or look too partisan when actually we do need to? And I think there was some reflection when you look at the, you know, the way that the US media had covered Trump or how they covered the debate in the UK around Brexit and that sort of stuff and really took stock of actually: we contributed to the situation where people post those votes who like we were misled.

The media had a huge role in it and I do believe this referendum is from the conversations of having and you looking at the way that the vote, I think people are going to be really shocked around what is the result of this referendum and what was the intention of this referendum. We’ve turned this debate into a debate on what First Nations people deserve?

And in that debate, First Nations people have not been platformed adequately. You know, the any you know, you you go into the hand-selected people versus going to communities and understanding, you know, the idea that you can cover like the progressive No. And that's like we pushed really hard for other voices to be covered within this debate because there needs to be some balance here.

And it is totally fine to have a bunch of Aboriginal communities coming together and saying this isn't good enough. Overwhelmingly, people in this country do not understand the oppression and dispossession that is our lived experience. And so, you know, I see the space as mis and disinformation, how you know, how influential it can be in our communities, because we have a lived experience of not being able to trust government.

And so I think there's a lot of things, you know, you look at the corporate sponsorship as well that comes around the referendum. I think that has played a huge role in not just us, but other communities not trusting the amount of mining companies that have paid into this. And you know, our communities, you look at the most influential people on Aboriginal policy, Twiggy Forrest looking at social reform, CDP, look at the last amendment to the Native Title Act was called the Adani Amendment when was brought in, and the work that George Brandis did to retrospectively change the way decisions were making across Native Title. We’ve had a lot of influence from business councils from corporate Australia who haven't told the truth. 

And you know, part of this debate when it started around the referendum going off in tenure, but you know, look at the situation that happened in January, Alice Springs and people covering what was, you know, grog everywhere, but there was no coverage in the media that there had been massive floods in remote communities is huge climate disaster.

The idea that people were unhoused and thousands of people got moved into Alice Springs had nowhere to go. And so obviously there was dysfunction there. Yes, it's exacerbated by, you know, not having any services there and already the issues that are there. But the way that it is covered - and you have Peter Dutton coming out and calling for, you know, an inquiry into child sex abuse in Aboriginal communities and just like, hang on a minute, that is part of the referendum debate that you try and start here, because it works to your advantage to put Aboriginal people at a disadvantage and use us for your own political gain.

But there was no calling out of that in the media. So I don't… media regulation or whether media are actually going to be the way. This is why I think we need to do more work around organising in civil society and building that back up because post-pandemic people are terrified of having real conversation with people and there's so much work to do there.

Justine Nolan: So that's a perfect lead in because we're coming to the end of this. You know, where we go next in terms of your work in each of your areas. So Siobhan, if we're starting with you. If you were thinking about how you need to adjust your practice or adjust your work in relation to this sort of impunity around accountability, to deal with, and often dealing with human rights and social abuses, how do you see having to adjust to that?

Because there's not the accountability is not always there, whether it's government or corporations or through regulation. And we've talked about the value of law in being a regulator, but we haven't actually also talked about the value of law in suppressing, you know, protest, which Australian states around the country have got increasingly draconian laws prohibiting protest, particularly around climate protest, but other protesters as well.

So law can be this sort of, you know, work both ways, giving it a bit more of a gloss. So how do you think about your work and how you have to adjust to deal with the accountability deficits? 

Siobhan Toohill: Yeah, look, I mean, so often we work through kind of issues or positions where we might take a position that's beyond the requirements of the law.

I guess an example for us was some years ago we were particularly concerned around the harm, for example, of lending. There was no law making that activity necessarily illegal and regulators were giving it some focus. And we worked through that a number of years and actually ended up taking the position that this was not a sector that we wanted to operate in.

And so we took that position ahead of the regulatory requirements. But we thought the risk of harm, the fact that people were being harmed by this particular activity, that we needed to take a particular stand at a level. I think when I go back and think about…  and it took time, I think that's the other cases.

Often these pieces of work that complex, not all stakeholders are going to agree with you. It does take some time to work through and to bring people with you around how you arrive at a final decision. I think, on climate change, and I guess taking a slightly different approach is also then how businesses can work together and also with civil society.

And so I've been involved in the unit for the United Nations Environment Program Finance Initiative Principles for Responsible Banking. We established those back in 2019. We now have half the world's banks supporting those principles. And what it means is that you're supporting Paris Agreement and the Sustainable Development Goals. But importantly, we also established a civil society advisory body and at the time of setting that civil society advisory body up when we were a small number of banks at that stage there was a real resistance and a real nervousness around having dialog with civil society.

And I certainly was one of those people said, ‘No, no, this is really important’. The importance of listening to civil society, understanding the issues that are emerging, that civil society can hear about, that we may not be able to listen to as well, but also giving us a view that then us as a group of banks can then listen to it collectively and then work through solutions and methods together to set, if you like, voluntary standards around how we approach some of these topics has been really powerful and we don't always get it.

And certainly that civil society advisory body has given us feedback that we're not moving fast enough. But they've also called out specific issues with an expected us to lean in. So two years ago they provided commentary on our feedback report that we need to do more around nature. So, you know, we've obviously done a lot of work around facing into the role of the task force and actually nature related financial disclosures.

But also we're now resetting the principles and we're shifting away from just a focus on climate and SDGs and getting much more focused around climate, nature, financial inclusion and human rights. And you can imagine that for some banks in some jurisdictions, this is a really, really complex topic. This is not a topic that they necessarily feel comfortable with, but the dialog with civil society has been really powerful. The dialog with other banks that perhaps more progressed around this topic has also been really useful in order for us to then work through, how do we then start to look at, I guess, shared frameworks or shared ways that we can move forward on these sorts of topics ahead of what regulatory requirements need us to do. 

But actually as a sector, what ought we do, I think has been really quite interesting and important approach.

Justine Nolan: Thanks. So I've got a minute from each of you now with each of you- sort of your final comments on, you know, what would be the issue that you would like, you know, participants to take away from this discussion around either accountability deficits or where we're sort of moving in your particular areas of expertise. Lizzie, would you like to start?

Lizzie O’Shea: Yeah. So I would say that the thing I've probably neglected to discuss in this context is that there is a huge role to play in the capabilities unleashed by technology to give people a voice that otherwise we're excluded, particularly from mainstream media. And I accept the criticisms of the ABC and I think there's a limits to which mainstream media and government investment in alternatives is able to deliver on the promise of human rights and in fact that there's enormous capabilities within technology.

Like, you know, we're watching a war unfold in the Middle East, for example. We're getting a lot of disinformation being put out there as well, as well as a capacity to hear from people, particularly in Gaza, who we'd never hear from by a normal standards, often in mainstream journalism as well. And, you know, that's true for police accountability and the like as well.

We've seen huge amounts of gains in terms of understanding the problem through the use of citizen media. And so what I do think is worth saying is that there is great potential in the development of technology to improve and elevate human rights. The question is, is power within the industry being exercised and what role does government have to either facilitate that kind of power or to limit it, to to roll it back, to create alternatives that make sure that human rights are protected?

And I would just want to finish with that, I think there's a real role for human rights to be protected as a result of new technology and that there's a facilitation role that technology can play, but not if we leave the current baseline distribution of power untouched and unmodified and unregulated. And, you know, I agree with Brynn, there's an outrage factor there that probably needs to be stoked in order for that change to occur.

Justine Nolan: Great points. Brynn, would you like to provide us with your final thoughts? 

Brynn O’Brien: So just on the criminalisation of protest and in defence of the ABC, I'd encourage everyone to watch Monday night's Four Corners, which was the ABC's coverage of the civil disobedience in relation to some activists in Western Australia protesting outside the home of Woodside CEO Meg O'Neill, and the incredibly disproportionate response of West Australian police in relation to that.

So go and have a look at it in terms of what I was doing on the accountability front. Well, we are taking legal action. We have sued Australia's second largest oil and gas producer, Santos, for what we allege, the misinformation they have put into the market about their plan. So keep an eye on that. The court will be hopefully making a decision in 2024.

We're pursuing accountability for company directors. We think that company director elections are really important moments, that institutional investors need to be voting for the right directors on company boards and the wrong directors need to lose their jobs. And finally, there's this myth out there that, you know, we have to communicate in soft and gentle ways for people to understand and accept and take up our message.

We think that the answer that that's actually been disproven, that the answer is more science, not less, more hard realities, not less. And more alarm, not less. 

Justine Nolan: That’s really clear. Thanks so much for that. That's great points. Chris, what would be your takeaways from this? 

Christopher Warren: I think there's a big responsibility for journalists to rethink what we mean by journalism and how journalism works and that's going to mean we need to rethink it  from the bottom up.

And I think we are already seeing a lot of that reform happening from the bottom up. Larissa referred to Australia's black media, which I think has been one of the most exciting innovations and changes in the media almost totally outside and ignored by mainstream media, very similar in the United States to where we're most of the reform, particularly around the racial reconciliation, the racial reckoning in the United States is occurring a largely driven by some very exciting developments in black owned, black driven, black written media.

So I think, and similarly in Europe, some of the exciting stuff about the immigration crisis is happening from the bottom up. You know, you can look at the big reforms in the dramatic change in Ukrainian media as a result of the collapse of the pro-Russian oligarch class with, in the war. And again, incredibly exciting things happening from the bottom up.

The same happening in India. It's not happening in Australia for a whole lot of structural reasons and it's not happening in journalists rethinking the way they do their job, but either in our media or in or in new media. And I think that's where we're going to see a fundamental change in journalism’s role, I can't speak for media, but certainly journalism's role in accountability, in dealing with various crises in which we find ourselves.

Justine Nolan: That’s a perfect segue way to you, Larissa, with the reference to sort of what we need from the bottom up, which is very much your focus in your work and, and taking those voices out.

So what would be your final thoughts around, you know, this concept of accountability in relationship to human rights and where we're going in your work?

Larissa Baldwin-Roberts: Our job as civil society is to popularise this idea that another world is possible. The idea that we can build power for different changes and get people to understand how change happens. What is the role of governments in decision makers and that sort of stuff, but also to create campaigns where we give people viable ways to take action and also give people space to win. 

Because if people don't win, we cut the power of our movements. And so we're very strategic in where we put our capacity. But I think more immediately to focus on the referendum result for me is the thing that… because there's one thing around building people, but there's also a role of disruption. And I think this result, the campaign has been what it is.

And you can argue how the campaign was won, what the role of mis and disinformation was. That deserves a post mortem. And we need that to happen here because it says something about this country. And absolutely, international media will be looking at the results and making their judgments around what happened here and not have the nuance and understanding of what happened in that debate.

But I think for us, you know, critically, there are a bunch of reforms of First Nations people that on the table, looking at the bipartisan support around cultural heritage legislation at federal level, looking at the different welfare reforms and housing investment. There has been huge attacks from the far right on Aboriginal controlled organisations, whether they should exist anymore.

There was a Senate inquiry that lost by one vote looking at kind of looking into our land councils and with a view of people that they should disband them. And the idea that our resources and our land tenure should be wrapped up into some other government process that isn't held by us, I think there is a big attack I give.

We have a result in Victoria where the popular vote is under 50%, what does that mean for treaty in processes in Victoria? There are things I think that are at stake here and I think if you don't understand what this representative body is, understand that the impact of this vote is going to send a message to every federal, state and Territory government on whether or not Indigenous affairs is something that voters care about and the debate is about us. I would say also there's a huge role for persuasion here still, but the disruption and how we come together this and actually draw a line in the sand around line, in the sand around racism and the impact that has had on this debate and how far it will take us backwards. I think we need to put our energy there and understand that if you didn't play in this referendum and were part of the campaign, but you believe in human rights, then there's a lot of work to do.

Justine Nolan: Thank you all so much for your, you know, your expertise in this area. I believe that, you know, what you've said is, we know that Australia, particularly is at this critical juncture right now in relation to human rights, but its human rights intersection with many things. It's human rights and climate, it's human rights and tech, human rights and journalism, it's indigenous rights, it's corporate responsibility.

And we all have a role that we can play to show that Australia is an inclusive country, is an equitable, where voices can be heard, and whether that's climate protests or indigenous rights or balancing, you know, sort of what media voices are heard. So thank you so much for your input today. It's much appreciated. Thanks to The Australian Human Rights Institute work. You can see more information on our website. Thanks for joining us today. 

UNSW Centre for Ideas: Thanks for listening. For more information, visit Centre for Ideas dot com. And don't forget to subscribe or wherever you get your podcasts.