Menu

Humanitarian Changemakers Network

About Humanitarian Changemakers Network

https://humanitarianchangemakers.net/

We’re a network of Aussies working to co-create social change

Posts by Humanitarian Changemakers Network:

PhD fieldwork

The Left vs Right, Poverty as Empowering, & a Defence of Child Sponsorship: profound insights from my PhD research

By Humanitarian Changemakers Network founder, Tiyana J

This week I had a few books I needed to push through as part of my PhD research, which is about women’s empowerment and gender equality in rural development across India. My research has a deep focus on ontology (I’ll spare you the philosophical details,) and I was surprised to find that one of the most profound insights I’ve had about social change in a while came from a philosophical passage about dualisms.

One of the biggest pitfalls of modern Western philosophy, largely born out of the work of Descartes (old mate known for saying “I think, therefore I am,”) is that we now understand the world in a way that reduces reality to categories and dualisms. Mind vs body. Individual vs collective. Micro vs macro. Left vs right. But what we often forget is that these are just different sides of the same coin; one does not exist without the other. When we focus on, or identify more strongly with, one side of a coin, it can be easy to criticise or tear down those more aligned with the other. But once we take a step back, and observe both sides, we will find that while we might personally align with and promote one side, as a larger social movement, we should be hearing from, and embracing both sides.

This insight came when was reading a text by the late contemporary philosopher Roy Bhaskar, who pointed out that one of the biggest problems the left must face is that projects directed at advancing social change have been aimed at transformations in social structure, and the right faces the problem that projects aimed at change typically focused on changes at the level of the individual being. The reality is to change our social world we must target all levels (Bhaskar actually identifies 4 levels, but that’s an article for another day.) This seems rather obvious, and it’s something I already teach in our workshops, but it has also changed the way I think about certain approaches to change.

In our social change workshops, when I’m teaching students the different types of social change, I usually pose the following question:

If a house was burning down, do you think it would be more important for the fire department to go inside and help the people trapped inside the house, or do you think they should focus on putting out the fire, so it doesn’t spread to neighbouring houses and endanger more people?

Clearly, the answer is that they should do both. They are the different sides of the same coin. This example illustrates the importance of addressing both the larger structural issues and roots causes of an issue, and also helping the individuals who are caught up in the system and in need.

But what made me think differently about this, was the fact that I’ve never really made the connection that it is typically the left who are more aligned with the need to promote structural, systemic change, and it is typically the right who are more aligned with promoting individual, personal change. Once I was able to make this connection, I began to realise a few things about the different approaches to change typically taken by the left compared to the right. To illustrate, I want to draw upon one the example of child sponsorship.

The child sponsorship model is a popular way for individuals and organisations to get involved in international development. In this model, a donor makes a financial contribution to support a specific child or group of children in a developing country. The donation typically covers the costs of education, health care, and other basic needs. In return, the sponsor receives updates on the child’s progress and may even have the opportunity to correspond with them directly. While it remains one of the most popular ways to get involved in development interventions, the child sponsorship model has faced some criticism over the past few years. I fully acknowledge that if it isn’t done ethically, child sponsorship can indeed do more harm than good. But many of these criticisms are ubiquitous across the development sector, not just for child sponsorship programs. For every example of child sponsorship going wrong, there are in fact examples of development interventions that were aimed at change at the community or collective level going wrong.

First, there is the argument that child sponsorship promotes “paternalistic tendencies” through its funding model, leading to a Western/white-saviour complex. This is of course, a fair criticism of child sponsorship if not done ethically. But this criticism could be extended to the notion that any development intervention (including those aimed at structural change) lead by any large external group or international NGO perpetuates a form of neo-colonialism. The problem isn’t inherent in child sponsorship any more than it is inherent in the work of large international NGOs: the problem is the perpetuation of unbalanced power relationships, which could be present (or not) in each. Our attention must instead be focused on ensuring that all development interventions, regardless of the model they use, are genuinely empowering and avoid perpetuating unequal power distributions.  

Second, there is the argument that people become child sponsors because of their need for a personal connection. It’s a fair claim, that the desire to engage with a development organisation on the basis of creating a personal connection is one that is selfish… but where does this notion that we must be disconnected from process come from? I will fully admit that I was once in the “child sponsorship is exploitative camp,” and this was my view several years ago. But I think there is an inherent problem in this notion that creating a personal connection with people is bad, when the alternative is that we give anonymously, or without forming any connection with the communities we are supporting. Does this not seem somewhat counterintuitive? Dehumanising the process, by creating a movement of anonymous relationship-free donors runs the risk of removing supporters from the process, and further leading to an us vs them mentality. Reflecting on my own experiences, I can now see that much of my criticism of certain approaches to development came from an internalised guilt associated with my ideas about the moral status of poverty.

While I can’t draw too many conclusions from my PhD research yet (I’m only halfway through my fieldwork,) nor can I make any general claims about empowerment and poverty as I believe they are quite contextual phenomena, I have uncovered some profound nuisances about poverty that really challenged some of my existing assumptions—assumptions which, I believe, came not only from my own experiences of privilege in the world as a Caucasian Australian-born woman, but from the vast literature on empowerment and development I have read as part of my research.

The women I have spoken to so far, have all told me that they do not find their poverty disempowering. In fact, some women have even gone so far as to say that they are empowered by the poverty that they have grown up around, as it motivates them to create better opportunities and future for children in their communities. They believe that opportunity for transformation, which they find in a state of poverty, is empowering. This blew my mind, not only because it contradicts much of the literature that claims reducing poverty is a necessary precondition to empowerment, but because it made me realise that poverty is not an inherently bad thing. Chances are, it’s more likely that those of us who have not grown up in a state of poverty that are more likely to perceive it as a negative thing. When we label certain things—like child sponsorship— as “poverty porn” for simply bringing the reality of poverty to people’s attention (assuming it done in a way that is not actually exploitative) we are further perpetuating the negative and misleading stereotype that poverty is a bad thing, which reinforces ideas that being in poverty, or asking for help, is something to be ashamed of. This argument is probably more a reflection of our own internalised beliefs, than it is of any specific model.

A final criticism of child sponsorship is based on the argument that the child sponsorship model promotes acts of charity, which is distinct from justice. Unlike in charity, actions that address justice “require a difficult look at who you are, what your role is in imbalanced relationships of power, and how you can act (sometimes at a cost to yourself) to undo the structural conditions that have produced that injustice,” says Simon Granovsky-Larsen, and international development scholar. There is no denying that development agencies that use child sponsorship models often don’t encourage sponsors to examine their role in global injustice, nor do they often attempt to reverse or undo the structural conditions that may have produced it. But this criticism, highlights the point I wish to make in this article. Charity and justice are two sides of the same coin. We should not be arguing for one without the other. Just as we need to both save people and stop the spreading of fire with our proverbial burning house, we also need to promote social change within the development sector that changes unjust structures AND supports those who are caught up in these structures.

The takeaway here for changemakers, is that we need to recognise when two seemingly conflicting ideas are actually two sides of the same coin. Next time you are going to be involved in an intervention, or find yourself criticising a particular approach, ask yourself these questions:

Is this really an either-or debate, or should we be finding a way to make both approaches work?Is my criticism of this approach actually true, or is it more of a reflection of my own personal beliefs or assumptions?Is my criticism only applicable to this particular approach/model, or if I take a step back is it actually a larger problem that could be present in my preferred approach?How can we take a more networked approach in our work—recognising that different actors and approaches probably represent two sides of the same coin— to ensure that we are complementing each other, rather than competing with each other, to create change at all levels

ChangeMaking Journal

Why we’re launching an academic journal… for non-academics?

The importance of academic research in promoting social change cannot be understated. By conducting rigorous studies and publishing their findings, academics are able to shed light on crucial issues and offer solutions that can help to improve the lives of people all over the world. In addition, academic research can help to raise awareness of social problems and mobilise support for change. For example, research on the link between poverty and poor health has helped to galvanise public support for initiatives to combat poverty. Similarly, research on the harms caused by child labor has led to calls for laws and regulations to protect children from exploitation. Ultimately, academic research is a powerfully tool for promoting social change.

Our founder Tiyana J has become acutely aware of the barriers to allowing academic research to promote social change, which is why in the midst of her PhD, she set out to launch an academic journal that prioritises real-world impact and innovation. There’s a lot of important knowledge locked up in academic journals. But unless you’re a student or researcher at a university, you probably don’t have access to most of it. And that’s a shame, because this knowledge can be used to improve people’s lives. Making academic journals and knowledge accessible to everyone would allow us to identify the gems that could make a real difference in the world. So, we’re ready to lead the change by opening up the ivory towers and let the good ideas flow!

With a vision founded on becoming an internationally-recognised trans/multi-disciplinary publication, the ChangeMaking Journal (originally to be titled the Changing Times Journal to align with our transmedia news platform) takes a transmedia approach to research and storytelling for social impact, whilst retaining academic rigour and integrity. The aim of the journal is to make the latest innovative research accessible to those engaged in grassroots action and promoting social change, and to allow lived experience, Indigenous knowledge, the arts, and citizen-lead projects to inform academic research.

A Transmedia Approach

What is transmedia storytelling? In a nutshell, it’s telling a story across multiple platforms. This could involve anything from creating a website or app to complement a movie or TV show, to developing an entire universe of characters and stories that span multiple mediums. Why transmedia? Well, for one thing, it allows storytellers to engage with audiences in new and exciting ways. It also enables stories to be told in a more immersive way, blurring the lines between fiction and reality. And last but not least, it gives audiences the opportunity to interact with the story in a variety of ways, making for a more personal and unique experience. There’s no denying that it’s a powerful tool for engage audiences and transporting them into new worlds; and we don’t think that the world of social change should be exempt from offering transmedia experiences.

Embracing Non-Traditional Forms of Academic Knowledge

There’s more to academic knowledge than the traditional empirical forms of knowledge, that can add their own value to the tapestry of human knowledge and how we make sense of the world. you learn in school. In fact, there are many different forms of knowledge that can add value to both communities of research and practice:

Lived experience: What you learn from your own life experiences can be just as valuable as what you learn from a textbook. After all, who knows better than you do about the things that have happened to you?

Community knowledge: The things we learn from the people we work with can be invaluable. Whether it’s learning about a different culture or simply getting a different perspective on an issue, community knowledge can broaden our horizons and deepen our understanding of the world.

Expertise: If you have expertise in a particular field, particularly from hands-on experience tackling the issues you care about, that knowledge is also valuable. Whether you’re an expert in history or science or art, or the oral histories of your community, your expertise can add another layer of understanding to the things we know about the world.

All of these forms of knowledge are important, and each one can contribute to our overall understanding of the world.

Addressing the Practice-Research divide

In many fields, there is often a disconnect between researchers and practitioners. Researchers may be focused on conducting studies and publishing papers, while practitioners are focused on working directly with clients. This disconnect can lead to a lack of communication and collaboration, which can ultimately hinder social change.

There are several reasons why the gap between researchers and practitioners exists. One reason is that they often have different priorities. Researchers may be more interested in pursuing knowledge for knowledge’s sake, while practitioners may be more interested in applying that knowledge to help people in need. Another reason is that they often have different skillsets. Researchers generally have more training in research methods and statistics, while practitioners generally have more training in social work practice. Finally, they often operate in different contexts. Researchers typically work in academia, while practitioners typically work in direct service settings.

Despite the challenges, it is important for researchers and practitioners to find ways to collaborate effectively. When they do, they can create a powerful force for social change. By pooling their resources and expertise, they can develop innovative solutions to complex social problems. They can also serve as check on each other’s work, ensuring that it is of the highest quality possible. Ultimately, only by working together can researchers and practitioners hope to make a lasting difference in the world.

Anthony-Albanese.png

Election Wrap: What TF Happened and Who TF is Our PM?

By HCN Political Editor Loughlin Patrick

Let out a weary sigh, Australia: the election’s over.  Well, almost…

Last week’s advertising blackout was a relief for many, providing Aussies everywhere welcome respite from sea shanties and TV tanties.  After weeks of press conference gaffes and debate night scraps, Saturday night was set to put an end to it all.

But even the best-laid schemes of mice and men often go awry.

I covered the election live for RMIT’s Swanston Gazette, armed with bar graphs and pie charts to call seats like an Aldi-knockoff Antony Green.  Focusing on the micro — the individual results of seats — made it difficult to know who was actually winning on a macro scale.

This wasn’t helped by the fact that no one really was winning.  Of course, there were some significant small wins, but things are more complicated than that.  As a whole, how parties fared exists on a sliding scale from ‘complete wipeout’ to ‘escaped with the least scratches.’

To me, this is the most interesting election result we’ve had in decades!  Your personal definition of interesting, as a hot and funny person who leads a richly rewarding life, may differ.  So, after weeks of explaining election issues for keen podcast listeners, here’s one last breakdown of where the parties stand, just for you.

Labor: Winner?  Sort of…

Some would say Labor were the most successful party this weekend, in light of their double-digit gain in seats.  Others may disagree, citing the party’s 0.5% decline in primary votes.  So let’s stay away from value judgments and stick with the facts.

Right now, Labor is the only party able to form a government.  That’s the assumption everyone’s working from.  Anthony Albanese was affirmed as Prime Minister on Monday before jetting off to Japan for international talks, and an interim cabinet of Labor MPs have been sworn in.

What we don’t know is what Labor’s government will look like after this interim stage.  If they manage to win 76 lower house seats, that gets them over the line as a majority government and makes things a lot simpler.  But another very possible scenario is Labor being forced to govern in minority.

If Labor can’t win control of the lower house, they’ll have to negotiate with the cross-bench, made up of a record number of minor parties and independents.  It means Albanese may have to make concessions on key policies when negotiating with other MPs to ensure Labor maintains control.

One misstep that may cost Labor its’ shot at a majority government is the party’s loss of the previously safe seat of Fowler.  Party officials chose to parachute in high-profile shadow minister Kristina Keneally, nixing a local candidate who’d already been pre-selected.  Locals showed Labor how they felt about that with a double-digit swing which lost it the seat.

Independents: Teal Takeover!

If Labor can’t reach a majority, they’ll have to look to a dynamic range of independent candidates for parliamentary support.  And right now, independents lead in ten lower house seats, setting up an incredibly large cross-bench for Labor to contend with.

Of those ten MPs, six new ‘teal’ independents will join two existing ones to make a team of eight teals wanting action on key election issues.  So who are the teal independents and what do they want?

‘Teal’ refers to the colour used in the campaigns of many (but not all) independent candidates who ran in safe Liberal seats.  That’s not all they have in common: many described themselves as socially liberal but economically conservative, positioning themselves as a centrist option to voters dissatisfied with the Liberals but who would rather die than vote Labor.

As independents, teal candidates campaigned with an eye to local issues, but many made two federal policies cornerstones of their campaigns.  Lots of teals are keen for a federal ICAC, supporting a proposal written by O.G. teal MP Helen Haines, who won Indi in 2019.  And many campaigned using funds from the Climate 200, an organisation advocating for greater climate action.

But there’s some ways the teals differ.  During the election, Warringah MP Zali Steggall said she’d never negotiate with our ex-PM Scott Morrison in government, while new Goldstein MP Zoe Daniel left the door open.  So while their colours and keystone policies are similar, the teals are still very much independent units and won’t hesitate to vote their conscience.

The Greens: A Queensland Greenslide?!

One party leader with no mixed feelings about the weekend’s election is Adam Bandt.  The Greens’ leader was on a plane before lunchtime on Sunday, announcing to Twitter he was headed to “Greensland”.

There’s a reason Adam was so excited.  Before this election, the Greens had just one lower house seat: Bandt’s in Melbourne.  Melbourne’s long been a political stronghold for the party, but its attention had turned to Brisbane in recent months as campaigning ramped up.

Supporters say they knocked on tens of thousands of doors over the course of the campaign, concentrating their efforts in the three seats of Griffith, Ryan and Brisbane.  They’ve now won the first two, and remain in contention for the third.  That’s at least a tripling of the Greens’ lower house representation, despite just a 1.4 percent increase in primary vote share.

It’s an outcome that’s shocked many, as the Greens’ have a complicated relationship with Queensland as a state.  The party’s last outing in the state centred around an infamous convoy led by former leader Bob Brown, which some political observers credit with sealing Labor’s defeat at the last election by getting farmers and miners in the regions off-side.

A subtler touch this time around allowed the Greens’ to successfully consolidate their efforts in three seats, allowing them to leverage their 10 per cent primary support in a targeted way.  Party strategists will be looking to other capital cities to see if this is something that’s repeatable during the 2025 election campaign.

The Nationals: Trouble at the Top

Now let’s turn our attention from the left and centre to the right side of politics.  It was definitely a disappointing weekend for those who hold conservative views, as the election brought the 9-year Abbott-Turnbull-Morrison Government to an end.  But Nationals MPs have gone into this week with something to smile about.

The National party have long positioned themselves as representative of the regions, and the party’s targeted focus saw all 9 Nationals seats maintained.  That’s despite a slide of 0.5 per cent in primary vote share amid challenges from independents.  So, the Nationals are the only conservative party to keep their lower house representation going into our next parliament.

But despite the comparatively good news, some in the Nationals party room are getting antsy.  Unlike the Liberal party, which have put protections in place against leadership spills to ensure continuity of leadership, the Nationals traditionally hold leadership spills after every single election.  Normally the party leader is re-elected, but that may not be the case this time.

The current Nationals leader is Barnaby Joyce — of ‘Pistol and Boo’ fame — who ousted previous leader Michael McCormack last June.  Now, McCormack is reportedly agitating to get his old job back, but there’s a desire among party members for a new face in the top job.  That new face may be David Littleproud, who favours climate action more than Joyce.

While the Nationals’ good result is a key reason to keep Joyce as leader, some blame his criticism of net-zero policies for the Liberals’ losses in city seats.  Electing Littleproud as leader may be a concession from the Nationals to rebuild the Coalition more broadly.

The Liberals: Washed Out

While it’s still not clear if Labor has won in its own right, it’s definitely clear the Liberals lost out this weekend.  The party’s primary vote share dropped 4.3 percent, with voters swinging away to Labor, the Greens and independent challengers in key city seats.  There’s now no way for the Liberals to form government, even with the Nationals’ support.

The election also saw high-profile scalps, with the Liberals losing safe seats and high-profile ministers.  After a gruelling campaign, Treasurer Josh Frydenberg wasn’t able to hang on to his seat of Kooyong in Melbourne.  Minister for Indigenous Australians Ken Wyatt also lost his seat, this time to Labor.

But what about our now ex-PM?  Scott Morrison was able to hold his seat of Cook, with a double-digit margin, successfully fending off a Labor challenger with a 5.8 percent swing.  But he resigned as Liberal leader on Saturday night, delivering a tearful speech to churchgoers on Sunday before quietly shuffling off to the backbench.

Many blame Morrison for the Liberals’ election loss, critiquing his damaged personal brand.  Morrison wasn’t able to get back into voters’ good books, despite bringing out his oft-mentioned wife Jenny as a “secret weapon” and apologising for being a “bulldozer” in the last week of the campaign.

This sets the stage for Peter Dutton to swoop in as the new party leader.  He’ll keep the Liberals firmly on the right, to the dismay of MPs who’ve called for greater moderation. 

The Anti-Vaxxers: A Jab Too Far

This leaves the conservative minor parties, who were hoping for a big election win after years of Covid lockdowns, restrictions and vaccine mandates.  But after months of telling voters to “put the majors last”, big-spending failed to eventuate into results on election night.

The United Australia Party went into this election with one seat, after ex-Liberal MP Craig Kelly defected to the Clive Palmer-led party over disagreements over Covid vaccines.  But Kelly lost his seat of Hughes on Saturday in a rare pick-up for the Liberals.  That leaves the UAP with no lower house representation.

There’s also possibly bad news for One Nation, with leader Pauline Hanson at risk of losing her Queensland senate seat.  Hanson, currently Covid-positive, also came out against Covid vaccines.  But the Legalise Cannabis Party, who share that view, may be about to swipe her seat.

That’s it for now.

If you can’t get enough election analysis, head over to the HCN podcast feed on your preferred podcast platform for a 45-minute deep dive into the results and what they mean for each party, plus more analysis of our voting system.  Follow the show and listen anytime on your preferred podcast platform.

AltFor_GIF-2-768x432.jpg

New Zealand Just Had a Historic Election. Across the Ditch, What If Australia Used the Same MMP System?

An MMP system would dramatically change Australia’s political landscape.

It was always going to be an unusual election.  Nearly 70% of votes were cast in advance of New Zealand’s 2020 election, making for a quiet Saturday at the polls, with only 3 in 10 New Zealanders opting to vote in person this year.

Unlike in Australia, voting is not compulsory in New Zealand.  Yet, voter participation reached a historic 21-year high of 82.5% of enrolled voters.  This was despite the new and unique challenges of holding an election amid a pandemic.

However, the uniqueness of the lead-up to Saturday night’s election result paled in comparison to what transpired when the votes were tallied.  (And no, I’m not talking about New Zealand electing what Newshub billed the “gayest parliament in the world.”)

For the first time in nearly a quarter of a century, New Zealand voters had awarded a single party majority control of the country’s parliament.  Since the introduction of New Zealand’s Mixed Member Proportional (MMP) system in 1996, many had considered this impossible.

As a result of this, political parties would face protracted closed-door talks in the weeks after past elections to negotiate coalition agreements.  Multiple times, party leaders have turned to far-right minority party NZ First leader Winston Peters to serve as a “kingmaker” of sorts, as Jacinda Ardern did in 2017.  But on Saturday, Winston was out, and Jacinda Adern was in.

But why did minority parties hold such great power in New Zealand’s parliament for so long?  The country’s MMP electoral system is a big part of the reason.  And, it turns out that the MMP system could be much more representative of voters’ intentions than those in Australia or the United States.

As voters in the Australian state of Queensland and the United States head to their respective state and federal elections in the next fortnight, how do their electoral systems stack up, and are their voters missing out?

What Does Mixed Member Proportional Mean?

In the early 80s, trust in New Zealand’s electoral system was extremely low.  Voters felt that the country’s First Past the Post system created parliaments vastly different to what they wanted, and the system concentrated power too heavily between the major Labour and National parties. In 1985, a Royal Commission into New Zealand’s electoral system was established.  When the Commission concluded in 1986, it proposed what was considered to be a radical recommendation at the time: set up a MMP system to determine the government.

The Royal Commission proposal involved increasing the size of New Zealand’s parliament to 120 MPs.  Half of the members would be elected in conventional geographical electorates, and the other half would be selected from a list of members made by each party in order of preference. The national vote share a party gets would be used to determine how many members they have elected to parliament.  If a party did not win enough electorates to match the total seats they were entitled to, the party would be allocated list seats to top up their total share.  This way, every party would have proportional representation in parliament.

The leaders of the major parties did not welcome these recommendations, as both benefited from the current electoral system.  However, both ended up promising to hold a referendum on the recommendation from the Royal Commission, with neither intending to uphold this promise.

When the National party won the election and did not follow through, voter confidence was at an all-time low.  Polling at the time showed that people respected politicians as little as used-car salespeople.  So, in the early 90s, the government held two referenda on the issue, and implemented the MMP system in 1996. Today, MMP functions largely the same as what the Commission proposed back in 1986.  Voters in 72 New Zealand electorates (7 of which are Māori electorates) receive two ballots at each election.  One ballot is to vote for the representative of their electorate, and one is a party ballot to determine each party’s share of the remaining 48 list seats up for grabs.

How Do Australia and the U.S. Compare?

In Australia, we use several systems to elect our representatives.  In the lower house, we use preferential voting to elect MPs in geographical electorates.  This allows voters to put minor parties as their first preference, but not “waste” their vote as it can still flow through to a major party.

In the upper house, this same preferential system is used, but similarities to New Zealand’s party list system are present.  If voters choose to vote for parties instead of candidates on their senate ballot, parties then distribute that vote to their candidates in order of party preference.

READ: AUSTRALIA’S ELECTORAL SYSTEM ISN’T THE ONLY THREAT TO AUSTRALIAN DEMOCRACY.  FORMER PM KEVIN RUDD SPEAKS OUT ABOUT MEDIA MONOPOLIES.

However, the geographical nature of Australia’s electoral system still puts minor parties at a disadvantage.  Parties that get a minority of the vote are unlikely to get proportional representation in parliament, but rather none at all.  This is because geographical borders separate support for minor parties between electorates and votes cannot coalesce.

Some argue that Australia’s system of government is also much less stable than in New Zealand.  By 2018, Scott Morrison had become our sixth Prime Minister in 11 years.  Morrison has still not exceeded the time in office of his predecessors Julia Gillard, Kevin Rudd, or Malcolm Turnbull.

Appearing on New Zealand radio at the time, Labour MP Michael Wood said: “People have often criticised MMP saying it would lead to instability — actually we’ve had incredibly stable Governments, and I think that’s something to take note of and feel good about.”  This comment aged like milk: he appeared on the program alongside National MP Judith Collins, who currently serves as the party’s third leader this year.

However, Australia’s system is still much more representative of voter intentions than the First Past the Post system that is used in the United States.  There, many voters register with a party to take part in the primary process.  This allows state legislatures to draw district boundaries that deliberately suppress support for a party across many electorates or concentrate votes in just a few. The United States is also not a democracy, but a constitutional republic that uses an Electoral College to decide the winner of elections.  This means that all votes are not equal, the value of one’s vote is contingent on where they live.

Even though Australia’s system is not as representative of voter intentions as New Zealand’s, it is certainly not as bad as the system in the United States, right?  After seeing what our parliament would look like if MMP were used at our last election, you may no longer agree.

The Impact of MMP in Australia.

To see what our parliament would look like if we used MMP in Australia, we first must make it a bit bigger.  40% bigger, specifically.

In New Zealand, 40% of the seats in their parliament are list seats filled by members who do not stand for a geographical electorate.  To make Australia’s parliament match, we could wipe out 40% of the electorates in the country, but deciding which to remove would make this exercise way too complicated.  If we did though, I reckon we could do without New South Wales.

So, our formerly 151-seat parliament is now made up of 251 MPs.  To establish a baseline, let’s increase the representation of each party by the same amount to see what that would look like.  Of course, we can only do this where possible: the representation of independent candidates cannot scale up unless someone invents human cloning.  Due to rounding issues, the allocation of one seat cannot be determined. So, meet Australia’s new 250-member parliament:

Here, the Liberal-National Coalition is still our government, but that is because we have not applied an MMP model to Australia’s votes in 2019.  So now, what would our parliament look like with that system: keeping our current 151 electorates the same and adding 100 list seats?

Before I show you Australia’s new parliament, I need to explain two more factors of New Zealand’s MMP system.  Firstly, parties must meet a minimum threshold of votes.  To be represented, parties must get 5% of the vote to get list seats or win one geographical electorate.

Secondly, if a party wins more geographical electorates than total seats they are entitled to, they keep the seats they have won but are given no list seats.  The electoral commission adds on the seats above their proportional share on to parliament as overhang seats so that other parties still get the number of seats they are entitled to. Both factors are present in Australia’s new MMP parliament below:

Here, we have four overhang seats for independent members and the Centre Alliance, but the big shock is a change in leadership.  Now, no major party has enough seats to form government on their own, and the more likely government here is a Labor-Greens coalition. If Australia used an MMP system, we would have a completely different government right now.  In particular, the share of power for the Greens is much more representative of the 12.2% of voters who support them. 

Making Your Vote Count, No Matter the System.

At the end of the day, it looks like Australia and New Zealand are not so different after all.  On Sunday, Jacinda Adern kept the option of a Labour-Green coalition on the table even though she has a historic single-party mandate, and it looks like we would get the same result here in Australia if we used New Zealand’s electoral system.

However, electoral reform is far from a priority in Australia right now, and it is certainly not happening in the United States during an election-in-progress.  So, with Queensland voters heading to the polls starting this week, and United States voters gearing up for a November election, how can they maximise their votes in the system they have?

LISTEN: HAVE QUESTIONS ABOUT HOW TO MAXIMISE YOUR ADVOCACY?  SEASONED CHANGEMAKER TIYANA J HAS ALL THE ANSWERS ON THE CHANGEMAKER Q&A PODCAST!

In Queensland, preferences are your friend for two key reasons.  If you align with the policies of a more niche minor party rather than those of the major parties, putting a minor party as your first preference means you can still support your preferred major party if your first choice doesn’t win.

But secondly, state elections are your chance to make a free-of-charge political donation to help advance the policies you believe in, just by filling out your ballot.  Every election, the Electoral Commission of Queensland supplies public campaign funding to each party based on how many first preference votes they get.

This year, parties will receive $3.14 in funding for each first preference vote that goes to one of their candidates if they get at least 6% vote share.  (A bill was passed that was supposed to increase this to $6 per vote, but this is not yet reflected in ECQ policy documents.)  You might think that is a small amount of money, but for every party that gets over the line, the minimum payout is $525,362.44 in funding.*

So, even if your first preference candidate won’t win their race, you can support their next campaign and help them create more public awareness of the policies that are important to you.  This is a particularly important mindset for voters in the United States to have, as they have less measurable control over their system.

In the United States, you cannot use preferences to make sure your vote is not thrown away, but you can participate in the primary and caucus process.  By supporting single-issue candidates who are not necessarily viable moderate candidates, you can signal to the eventual party nominee the issues that they should incorporate into their platform.

For example, Elizabeth Warren, Bernie Sanders, and Andrew Yang’s championed policies such as public healthcare and universal basic income throughout the Democrat primaries this year.  Now many have been discussed with Democratic-nominee Joe Biden’s campaign, and have much wider awareness and broader support than ever before.

And, of course, making change does not stop on election day.  Regardless of where you live, what system you use to vote, or what change you want to see in the world, the real work starts the day after election day.

Getting to know what makes your local member tick and contacting them with your concerns is a valuable civic tool in your Humanitarian Changemaker toolkit.  Perhaps those who are newly invested in the issue of electoral reform could start by sending their MP this article.

The Queensland State Election is on the 31st of October.  Enrolled residents can vote at a polling place on that day.  Or, they can vote from today at early voting locations, by post, or over the phone.  Go to ecq.gov.au to find voting information, the health measures taking place to keep you safe, and more.

The United States Presidential Election is on the 3rd of November.  Some enrolled citizens may vote at a polling place on that day.  Voting eligibility, regulations and deadlines vary by state.  Go to vote.gov to find out how, where and when you can vote.  Go to eac.gov to report instances of election fraud

*This amount of funding was estimated by taking Queensland’s voter enrolment as of June 2020 (3,330,589 people) and adjusting it by the turnout at the last state election in 2017 (~83.7% participation).  It is estimated that up to $9,631,644.79 in public funding will be awarded this election cycle.  The theoretical maximum is $10,458,049.46 given 100% turnout, no informal votes, and all contesting parties reaching the 6% vote share threshold.

Screen-Shot-2019-02-28-at-10.37.18-am.png

Making it count: how your donations are spent during disaster response

When disaster strikes, we often see the best of humanity; with people coming together to do what they can to support those in need and those on the frontline. When we can’t donate our time or skills, the best thing we can do is donate money to organisations that are on the ground doing the work. Knowing which organisation to donate to can be a tricky decision to make because not all donations are spent the same.

This is an important thing to note— and something to make people aware of— because the lack of public understanding of how donations are allocated and spent caused serious PR problems for frontline organisations during the 2020 bushfires, that prevented the public from supporting those most in need.

There tends to be a misconception that when you donate money to a charity, that charity is going to give your money to those in need. But that’s not how it works.

Different stages & roles in disaster response

Different organisations and charities perform different roles in disaster response, so any donations are spent according to what is needed for each organisation to best fulfil their role.

Stages of disaster response; initial response (search and rescue); relief (providing food, shelter, and sanitation); rehabilitation (basic services restored); reconstruction (restoration of full services); mitigation (risk assessment and prevention); preparedness (contingency planning and preparing for future emergencies).

While some organisations are involved in the initial response, with search and rescue efforts, other actors are there to support relief, rehabilitation, or reconstruction efforts.

If you would like to support initial response efforts during a disaster, and support those who are rescuing people that have been affected, donate to organisation like the State Emergency Services (SES), or rural firefighters.

Not everyone needs to be rescued during a disaster, others will need to be evacuated from their homes, or be provided with emergency accommodation. Disaster relief efforts, such as providing people with shelter, beds, meals, medical aid, and support during a crisis can be costly.

If you want to support these evacuations, outreach, and relief centres, donate to organisations like the Australian Red Cross.

People rarely receive money

During a disaster, people who have been affected will rarely receive cash themselves. If they need to buy clothing, food, fuel, or essential items, they might receive these items directly, or be given vouchers. This isn’t necessarily a bad thing— vouchers ensure that donations are actually being spent on the items that are needed, and organisations often have partnerships with local businesses or big corporations that allow them to buy in bulk or provide items to people that are needed but at a much more affordable rate than if individuals had purchased them for themselves.

If you want to support people who are trying to rebuild their lives during or after a disaster, Vinnies volunteers provide food, clothing and furniture, as well as other material and financial assistance.

Unrequested donations hinder recovery efforts

Sometimes you might think that items you have lying around your house could be going to good use, but more often than not, unwanted items only make recovery harder. Individuals and organisations know what they need, and they will request it. What’s worse, is when people see disasters as an opportunity to “donate” their old junk. It’s surprising to hear stories of the “donations” people receive after a disaster that are unusable, ranging from rotten food and clothing that is damaged to broken kitchen goods and toys. The rule is simple: if you wouldn’t want to receive it yourself, or if they don’t need it, don’t give it.

If you would like to donate specific items to individuals, families, or organisations working with communities on the frontline, GIVIT is a great organisation that publishes specific items that are needed. You can choose to donate the item if you have it, or fund the specific item yourself. If possible, it’s often better to fund the item during a crisis so that those affected can shop locally and support small businesses.

Citizen-scientists-1024x577.png

Engaging the Public in Citizen Science to Promote Conservation

Citizen science contributes to the work of scientists, by engaging the public in activities that assist with observation and data collection, in many domains of science, including conservation, natural resources, and environmental science. Last week, when I jumped in my car and headed on what I thought was going to be a fun little road trip to see some turtles, I had no idea that I was visiting one of the most globally significant conservation programs for endangered sea turtles, and one of the most successful citizen science conservation efforts in the country. Citizen science programs, when planned and prepared effectively, like at Mon Repos, can also equip people with the information and tools to make significant positive changes to their local area and, most importantly, see direct outcomes of science and conservation efforts; making citizen science a promising tool for environmental protection and biodiversity, informing policymaking, fostering public input and engagement, and promoting direct action.

Citizen science builds scientific knowledge

‘Citizen science’ is when members the public engage in activities that assist scientists in their research— by submitting data, sharing experiences, or spreading valuable information. Scientists who often face resource or time constraints can benefit from having more data available to analyse and a pool of volunteers willing to help. Citizen science programs can vary in type and scope. Some involve simple data collection work at the local level— like bird watchers who give feedback to scientists about the birds they spot, while others are larger-scale projects that might require volunteers to study up and learn protocols before heading into the field.

Citizen science can be a rigorous process of scientific discovery, one that can produce high-quality data and add to our scientific knowledge, and there are many types of projects can benefit from citizen science, provided they are well designed and include the right method of public participation.

Citizen science is a powerful tool for tackling conservation challenges

Citizen science doesn’t just provide a way to collect data; it also engages the general public in scientific issues and can be a powerful way to tackle conservation challenges. In an article about the benefits of citizen science for conservation (1), the authors conclude that “citizen science informs natural resource management, environmental protection, and policymaking and fosters public input and engagement.”

Citizen science programs can also be a tool to inform and educate the public about conservation challenges, and some of the solutions to the problem.

One reason that members of the public aren’t motivated to address climate change and other local or global environmental challenges is that the impacts are relatively distant from their day-to-day life. But engaging people first-hand in these issues, and showing them the consequences that we face, stops it from being such an abstract concept, and motivates them to at a minimum care about the issue, and hopefully to act.

Case Study: Mon Repos Turtle Centre, Queensland

Mon Repos Conservation Park, 14 kilometers east of Bundaberg at the Southern part of the Great Barrier Reef, is a globally significant site for research on and protection of the endangered loggerhead sea turtle, a prehistoric species thought to have emerged around 40 million years ago. The unique ecological conditions at Mon Repos Beach support a key stage in the ancient life cycle of the loggerhead and two other species – flatback and green turtles.

While loggerhead turtles spend decades at sea reaching sexual maturity and forage and breed many hundreds (or thousands) of kilometers away, the beach at Mon Repos where they were born is where the females return to lay their eggs from November to February. In February and March, the final clutches of hatchlings make their way into the ocean and travel via the East Australian Current past New South Wales and New Zealand, before making their way to South America. Only 1 in 1000 of the turtles will reach maturity, at about age 30, when the lucky survivors return to Mon Repos. The others will face threats like plastic waste; by the time the hatchlings have made it from Bundaberg to the Gold Coast, 50% of them will have ingested plastic.

Only 1 in 1000 of the turtles will reach maturity… by the time the hatchlings have made it from Bundaberg to the Gold Coast, 50% of them will have ingested plastic.

Turtle research has been ongoing at Mon Repos since the late 1960s when biologist Colin Limpus began tagging turtles to study them. At the time he was a high school teacher, who would bring his students down to the beach to learn about the turtles. As he became increasingly interested in finding answers to his questions about the turtles— like how far and how long they travelled before returning to Mon Repos— Col took up researching the turtles full time.

From the 1990s onwards, when the waters off the coast were established as a marine park, ecotourism to the region grew, formalised through the design and construction of a visitor centre, and by 2013, the visitor centre at Mon Repos was receiving more than 30,000 people annually to experience night-time turtle nesting and hatching through a ranger-led “turtle encounter.” Each night, from October to March each year, the team at Mon Repos also spend the entire night collecting data for the research centre, protecting the eggs and turtles from predators, tagging hatchlings, and ensuring that the hatchlings make their way safely to sea. In order to do this, Mon Repos relies on volunteer citizen scientists to assist rangers in their data collection and efforts to care for the turtles, making it one of the longest-running citizen science projects in the country.

The inspiration for this article, was my own turtle encounter at Mon Repos. I was inspired by the ways in which decades of citizen science, that began with a curious high-school teacher, has created the world’s most significant loggerhead turtle conservation site, and aided the world’s understanding of the manifold ways that humans impact on species loss, including fishing-related harms, plastic ingestion, ocean contamination and, more recently, climate change.

This project is just one example of how citizen science has made, and will continue to make valuable contributions to our understanding of the natural world. One of the things that has made Mon Repos so successful is that it carefully matches the right type of science project and the right method of public participation.

Project design must carefully combine the needs of science with public involvement

When properly designed, carried out, and evaluated, citizen science can provide sound science, efficiently generate high-quality data, and help solve problems. However, if not carefully planned and prepared, efforts to involve citizens in science can become futile and resource intensive, with little benefits to either party. Citizen science should follow the same rigorous process of scientific discovery and be indistinguishable from conventional science— apart from the participation of volunteers doing fieldwork.

To help science or conservation groups plan an effective citizen science project, the Australian Citizen Science Association has 10 guiding ‘Principles of Citizen Science’ which should inform all citizen science projects:

Citizen science projects actively involve citizens in scientific endeavour that generates new knowledge or understanding. Citizens may act as contributors, collaborators, or as project leader and have a meaningful role in the project.Citizen science projects have a genuine science outcome. For example, answering a research question, informing conservation action, or facilitating policy decisions.Citizen science provides benefits to both science and society. Benefits may include learning opportunities, personal enjoyment, social benefits, the publication of research outputs, contributing to scientific evidence that can influence policy on many scales (locally, nationally, and internationally), and connecting the wider community with science.Citizen scientists may participate in various stages of the scientific process. This may include developing research questions, designing methods, gathering and analysing data, and communicating results.Citizen scientists receive feedback from the project. For example, how their data are being used and the research, policy or societal outcomes.Citizen science, as with all forms of scientific inquiry, has limitations and biases that should be considered and controlled for. However, unlike traditional research approaches, citizen science provides greater opportunity for public engagement and participation, increasing accessibility of science in society.Where possible and suitable, project data and meta-data from citizen science projects are made publicly available and results are published in an open access format. Data sharing may occur during or after the project, unless there are security or privacy concerns that prevent this from occurring.Citizen scientists are suitably acknowledged by projects. This may include acknowledgement in project communications, result reporting and publications.Citizen science programs offer a range of benefits and outcomes which should be acknowledged and considered in project evaluation. Communication and evaluation of projects could include scientific outputs, data quality, participant experience and learning, knowledge sharing, social benefits, capacity building, new ways of science engagement, enhanced stakeholder dialogue, and wider societal or policy impact.The leaders of citizen science projects take into consideration legal and ethical considerations of the project. These considerations include copyright, intellectual property, data sharing agreements, confidentiality, attribution, participant safety and wellbeing, traditional owner consultation, and the environmental impact of any activities.

Changemaker chat with a conservationist

While visiting Mon Repos, I met Elisha, who I’d previously only connected with online, for a changemaker chat for the podcast. Elisha is not only a ranger at Mon Repos turtle centre, but also combined her love for travel with her passion for conservation, to create her very own eco-travel company, Chasin Clean Coasts, and a podcast, Chasin Travels.

I got to chat with Elisha and hear all about her story, travel tips, and of course, what it was like starting her very own travel company… right before the coronavirus pandemic. With the world opening up for travel post-covid, I know that I’m super keen to get back out there and experience the world— and I definitely recommend Mon Repos if you’re ever on the QLD coast!

It was also great to be reminded that if you want to start your own business or passion project, you don’t need to have the whole path mapped out, you just need to take the first step, and figure out the next step as you go…

Image-1-Google-Trends.png

MoneyHacks 2022: How High Flying Changemakers Can Find the Best Carbon Cancelling Deals

By Loughlin Shannon

Now entering its third year, Australia has seen many highs and lows during the global pandemic.  Covid’s impact stretched beyond just our health system, with Australia’s economy reaching record highs as businesses adapted to the changing times, but also record lows amid Covid case surges.

Few expected these economic highs and lows to occur so close together, but in true Roaring 20s style, 2022 brought us just that.  After a $21 billion Christmas cash splash, ANZ data shows Australia’s retail spend has now fallen to Covid lockdown levels.  And Sydney’s spending is at its lowest point since the pandemic began.

With many Aussies tightening their purse strings once again, changemakers may be wondering how to make a difference on a budget.  So, with Australian international and interstate borders (mostly) open, let’s start with an airline add-on most change-making travellers won’t think twice about.

Your Carbon Footprint: Polluter Propaganda?

Since British Petroleum popularised the idea of one’s own ‘carbon footprint’ in a 2003 advertising blitz, awareness of consumption-driven pollution has risen substantially.  And every step of the way, big businesses have been eager to encourage consumers to take personal responsibility for their environmental impact.

Carbon footprint calculators became widespread online, and although methodology varies between services, it’s now never been easier for one to seek out an estimate of their own environmental impact.  But the rise of e-commerce, spurred on by the pandemic, began the trend of bringing one’s footprint to them before they even asked.

Insert Graphic One

Buy-now-pay-later service Klarna’s app shows customers the emissions created from delivering their online shopping — a journey I covered extensively last year.  And the major Australian airlines go one step further, selling carbon offsets to their passengers when they check out online.

Those airline offsets may seem like a good deal for changemakers.  I took advantage of an offer to offset 149kg of carbon last year for just $1.70, and 100 per cent of my contribution was passed on to carbon offset projects around the country.  My donation was even matched dollar-for-dollar by the Qantas Group.

But a 2017 report from consumer advocacy group CHOICE found that while the airlines’ carbon offset programs were Australian Government accredited, none of them were certified by Gold Standard — an international standards body established by the World Wildlife Fund in 2003.

And ‘accredited’ programs don’t necessarily offset the exact amount of carbon you’re paying for.  A 2021 Guardian/Greenpeace investigation found 10 forest protection schemes made predictions that “were often inconsistent with previous levels of deforestation” and “overstated” the threat to the trees they allegedly protected.

Verra, the agency which accredited those projects, strongly disputes that investigation’s findings.  In a statement, they wrote “the Guardian article exhibits clear bias,” and “is riddled with substantive errors that betray ignorance about how carbon offset credits work”.

Price Match Carbon Credits From the Comfort of Your Couch…

So your mileage with carbon credits may vary, but let’s say you’ve been travelling over Christmas and you want to buy some anyway.  Where can you get the best deal, and how can you be sure every kilo of carbon you pay for is really offset?

The answer: airline offers aren’t the place to look.  While the airline I flew with charged me $11.41 per tonne of carbon, you can get a far better deal by shopping around.  And the United Nations operates an online marketplace where you can do just that.

The UN Carbon Offset Platform allows anyone to purchase carbon credits directly from Clean Development Mechanism projects around the world.  After you make a purchase, you get sent a certificate you can personalise, showing how much carbon you’ve cancelled and why you cancelled it.

So how does the UN’s platform stack up?  Right now, two-thirds of the CDM projects listed beat Jetstar’s offer on carbon price.  And the UN says all CDM projects “meet strict technological standards and are rigorously scrutinised through an international monitoring, reporting and verification process”.

The cheapest project on the platform right now — a rice husk based cogeneration plant with 2.5MW of generation capacity for the Indian electricity grid — will sell you a tonne of carbon for just $4.88.  That’s a whopping 57 per cent saving compared to Jetstar’s checkout offer.

SAVE SOME MONEY: Shop around for carbon credits to get the best deal!

You may be getting a raw deal buying carbon offsets with your plane ticket, but that’s not the airlines’ fault.  The ABC reported in December that 2021 was a “bull market” for domestic carbon credits, driving up prices for everyone.  But airlines do have control over another part of the carbon credit story.

…Or Leave the Airlines to it

Of course, you could save even more money on carbon credits by just letting your airline pick up the tab.  A 2016 agreement made by the member states of the UN International Civil Aviation Organisation (ICAO) requires airlines — including those in Australia — to buy a certain number of carbon credits every year themselves.

The agreement is called the Carbon Offsetting and Reduction Scheme for International Aviation (CORSIA), and it initially required airlines to have net-zero emissions growth beyond an average of 2019 and 2020 levels.  This would mean if an airline emitted more carbon in 2021 than the 2019/20 average, they would have to offset the difference.

But, just like everything else, Covid changed this plan for the worse.  2020 saw a halving of flight activity compared to 2019, which reduced CORSIA’s predicted emissions average by 25 to 30 per cent according to the International Energy Agency (IEA).

This would have substantially increased emissions reduction requirements, so the International Air Transport Association asked the ICAO to remove 2020 from the average.  ICAO agreed, increasing allowed emissions, which reduced carbon offsetting requirements by between 25 and 75 per cent.

The IEA says a combination of this change and a slow post-Covid recovery for the aviation industry will eliminate carbon reduction requirements for airlines entirely.  “If flight activity rebound takes as long as most industry projections expect, this decision will nullify any offset obligations during CORSIA’s pilot phase.”

So, don’t feel too guilty about skipping out on carbon credits when flying, the airlines sure didn’t.

SAVE EVEN MORE: Leave cancelling carbon to the big polluters — they’ll be required to.

Save money and the planet this January with the Humanitarian Changemakers Network!  We’ve got tips for getting the best deals on reducing your carbon footprint, shopping mindfully, and the most effective charities to support.  Just go to humanitarianchangemakers.net/news or search ‘Changemaker Q&A’ on your preferred podcast platform.

This week: are high flying changemakers getting a raw deal on carbon credits?  We’ve found the best deal for travellers to reduce their emissions — and it’s not from airlines.  Search Changemakers Q&A on your preferred podcast platform to listen now!

Best Carbon Cancelling Deals for High Flying Changemakers

Best Carbon Cancelling Deals for High Flying Changemakers

Now entering its third year, Australia has seen many highs and lows during the global pandemic. Covid’s impact stretched beyond just our health system, with Australia’s economy reaching record highs as businesses adapted to the changing times, but also record lows amid Covid case surges. With many Aussies tightening their purse strings once again, changemakers […]

cropped-TRANSPARENT-logo-symbol-32x32.png

🎧 Chasin’ Travels and Conservation | Changemaker Chat with Chasin Clean Coasts founder Elisha Petrie

We had a chat to Elisha Petrie, who combined their love for travel with their passion for conservation, to create their very own eco travel company, Chasin Clean Coasts, and podcast Chasin Travels. I’m excited to hear from Elisha about her story, travel tips, and of course, what it was like starting her very own travel company… right before the coronavirus pandemic. With the world about to open up for travel post-covid, I know that I’m super keen to get back out there and experience the world. It was also great to be reminded that if you want to start your own business or passion project, you don’t need to have the whole path mapped out, you just need to take the first step, and figure out the next step as you go.

Load More

Back To Top
Transmedia storytelling for social change, by the Humanitarian Changemakers Network.
We acknowledge the Traditional Owners of so-called Australia, and celebrate the stories, culture and traditions of Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Elders of all communities who also work and live on this land.