THE Indigenous Affairs Committee tabled its report on food pricing and food security in remote Indigenous communities on December 7..
The report found that food costs were very high in many remote communities, reinforcing long-held concerns regarding food security for Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Australians who are living remotely, however it did not find evidence of systemic price-gouging taking place in remote community stores.
Julian Leeser MP, Chair of the Committee, said, "Food security issues for remote Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander communities are not new. For many people living remotely, food security is a constant concern. The supply of quality and affordable food is often unstable due to poor infrastructure, seasonal changes, the high costs of living and operating stores remotely.
"However, despite these challenges, the Committee also learned that there is a very good story to be told about what happened in remote communities this year during COVID-19. We have an opportunity to harness some of the lessons of the Supermarket Taskforce and the Food Security Working Group that were established this year in response to this pandemic and can build on the networks and goodwill generated through that process.’
The report recommends several measures to build on the cooperative momentum of 2020 including:
real-time price monitoring and a disclosure mechanism through a point of sale data system across all remote community stores.
a national scheme of licensing and inspection of remote community stores.
support for local food production schemes and enterprises.
maintaining the Food Security Working Group established during the COVID-19 pandemic.
Mr Leeser noted that while the committee did not find evidence of price-gouging, the persistent disquiet on the matter meant that allegations should be further considered and settled by a body equipped to do a thorough, forensic examination of what is taking place.
"It is important to acknowledge that this is the third time this matter has been examined in recent years and none of those inquiries has resolved the concerns about food prices and security that have been expressed," he said.
"Consequently, complaints concerning food pricing need to be examined by a body that is equipped to do the thorough, forensic examination that will satisfy the public. That is why the Committee is recommending these matters be investigated by the ACCC undertaking an enhanced market study which they have never done in remote communities."
The report also recommended measures to improve governance and oversight of community stores, to develop a national food security and nutrition strategy, and to encourage more competition between remote store management groups.
The report makes 16 recommendations to government and can be accessed and downloaded from the inquiry website.
CONSUMER groups have called for a radical overhaul of privacy laws to provide greater protections for consumers to counterbalance the increased use and exploitation of big data by business and industry.
A joint submission by Financial Rights Legal Centre together with Consumer Action Law Centre and Financial Counselling Australia to the Attorney-General’s Department Privacy Act Review, Issues Paper, October 2020 argues that substantial reform is needed to rebalance Australians’ right to privacy and ensure our laws keep pace with future economic and technological change.
Financial Rights chief executive officer Karen Cox said the review of the Privacy Act 1988 was well overdue.
“Australians want a safe and secure data environment that puts their privacy ahead of the increasingly rapacious data desires of industry,” Ms Cox said.
“Australians have had very little power to stop the trade, misuse and abuse of their personal information. The time to strengthen our right to privacy is now.”
The joint submission describes how the rapid pace of technological change has led to a data saturated economy and the development of new business models and markets centred on the harvesting of surplus behavioural data for predictive purposes.
Calls coincide with research released by the Consumer Policy Research Centre today which reveals:
94 percent of Australian consumers are uncomfortable with how their personal information is collected and shared online;
88 percent of Australian consumers do not have a clear understanding of how their personal information is being collected and shared;
94 percent of Australian consumers reported not reading all of the privacy policies or T&Cs that applied to them in the past 12 months.
Of consumers who had read privacy policies, 69 percent reported accepting terms even though they weren’t comfortable with them – the main reason for doing so was it was the only way to access the product or service.
Consumers should be free to decide how much or how little of their information they wish to share in exchange for the use of services, Ms Cox said.
“Privacy agreements, privacy preferences, and terms and conditions are often complex and unclear so consumers don’t know what they are consenting to,” she said.
“Yet, declining to participate in data driven technologies is increasingly not an option for many consumers. Services are offered on a like it or lump it basis, meaning people have the choice to either fully participate in the modern economy or retain reasonable control of their personal data, you simply can’t do both.”
The Consumer Policy Research Centre research also found that Australian consumers believe that government has an important responsibility to ensure that consumers are protected:
94 percent of consumers expected government to protect them against the collection and sharing of their personal information (67% high responsibility, 27% moderate responsibility);
93 percent of consumers expected government to improve their understanding of how personal information may be collected and shared (67% high responsibility, 26% moderate responsibility);
94 percent of consumers expected government to protect them from having their information being used in a way that makes them worse off.
Consumer Policy Research Centre chief executive officer Lauren Solomon said the message from Australian consumers was clear.
“Companies have too much control over their personal information. Australians expect a modern protection and enforcement regime that gives them more control and ultimately ensures that they receive fair treatment,” Ms Solomon said.
Ms Cox said while ensuring consent is freely given and informed is difficult if not impossible, there are simple reforms that could improve the process in line with reform under the Consumer Data Right.
Data collection and use exists on a spectrum from the relatively benign, through invasive but justifiable, to outright exploitation. Regulation should reflect this, with controls appropriate to the circumstance and clear prohibitions on more egregious practices, she said.
“The concept of consent has been rendered completely meaningless when it comes to protecting our privacy.” Ms Cox said. “It is time for the Privacy Act be overhauled to deliver real life protections for the modern world, rather than a cloak of legitimacy for poor practices and exploitation.”
Update the Objectives of the Act to among other things recognise that Australians have a right to privacy and the Act must promote the protection of that right; Acknowledge the failures of disclosure, notice and consent as an effective regulatory tool; Build privacy and safety into the very design of data collection and handling; Overhaul notification and consent process to make them more effective; Introduce higher privacy standards including restricting, limiting or prohibiting certain uses and disclosures that are anathema to privacy rights such as screen-scraping, secondary direct marketing, the collection of genetic test results in life insurance, for-profit trade in personal data through data brokers/data vultures; Establish a right to erasure, a direct right of action, a statutory tort and an unfair trade practices law; Establish specific privacy protections for children.
NEW RESEARCH FROM
THE CONSUMER POLICY RESEARCH CENTRE
Transparency and informed choice
Privacy Policies and Terms and Conditions (T&Cs) continue to be ineffective at informing consumers of company data-handling practices – with 94 percent of Australians reported not reading all policies that applied to them in the past 12 months
Of consumers who had read Privacy Policy or T&Cs in the past 12 months, 69 percent admitted to having agreed to them for at least a few products/services despite feeling uncomfortable doing so
Fair practices and treatment
85 percent of consumers consider it is unfair for companies to share personal information they’ve provided with other companies – while 90 percent think it is unfair for this information to be sold to other companies
A large majority of consumers also find it unfair when companies collect more information than is necessary to deliver the product or service they are receiving (88%)
Expectations of companies and government
The vast majority of Australians think government has a significant responsibility to:
Protect consumers against collection and sharing of their personal information (67% high level of responsibility, 27% moderate level of responsibility);
Protect consumers against information being used in ways that make them worse off (79% high level of responsibility, 15% moderate level of responsibility);
Improve consumer understanding of how personal information may be collected and shared (67% high level of responsibility, 26% moderate level of responsibility);
Ensure options to opt out of what data consumers provide, how it can be used and shared with others (68% high level of responsibility, 25% moderate level of responsibility);
Develop protections to ensure no one is excluded from essential products and services based on their data and/or profile (80% high level of responsibility, 17% moderate level of responsibility).
The inquiry will examine a range of sustainability challenges, economic opportunities and environmental issues.
Committee Chair Anne Webster MP said: “The inquiry will look at ways the economies of Cocos (Keeling) Islands and Christmas Island could be diversified, while balancing social and environmental considerations.
“We look forward to engaging with communities in the Indian Ocean Territories and hearing their views during the inquiry process. We want to hear from all interested people and organisations, including residents, businesses and community groups.”
The inquiry terms of reference include topics such as education, research, citizen science, biodiversity, job creation, costs of living and socially responsible development.
The Committee is accepting submissions addressing the terms of reference until January 27, 2021. Further information on how to prepare and lodge a submission can be found on the inquiry website. Public hearings are expected to be held during 2021.
This inquiry will be conducted concurrently with the Committee’s inquiry into communications infrastructure.
Chair of the Committee, Barnaby Joyce MP, said, "This report addresses the dilemma in some way that the rubbish a nation creates in 2020 must be effectively, efficiently and sustainably dealt with by the nation that creates it. Finding big old holes in the ground to throw it in is a poor reflection of a nation that wishes to present itself as a clever country."
A key finding of the Committee was that Australia must be effective in delivering a unified approach across states and territories when it comes to waste management, and that the aim of a circular economy is to essentially ‘design out waste’.
The Committee has made 24 recommendations including that the Commonwealth Government, in consultation with state and territory governments, implement a pathway to a predominantly national circular economy. This pathway should pay attention to the design and composition of products to enable the greatest capacity for end of life recycling, and consider regulation and incentives to encourage greater repair, reuse, recycling and recovery of materials.
The Committee also looked to maximising the opportunities offered by rural and regional communities. It has recommended that the Federal Government prioritise its coordination and leadership by assessing the potential of rural and regional towns to manage and process waste, and by assisting with investment in the necessary infrastructure to support a local industry.’
A copy of the report is on the Committee’s website.
AUSTRALIA should enact a world-leading law, first actioned by the US against Russian nationals, to apply targeted sanctions to perpetrators of serious human rights abuse and corruption, according to a new Australian Parliament report.
Tabling the report in December, chair of the Human Rights Sub-committee of the Joint Standing Committee on Foreign Affairs, Defence and Trade, the Kevin Andrews said Magnitsky-style targeted sanctions would align Australia with a global movement seeking to limit opportunities for human rights abusers, corrupt officials and their beneficiaries to enjoy the proceeds of their abuses.
"These recommendations would see Australia strengthen our commitment to protecting the human rights of people around the world. The report’s recommendations would see Australia implement a world leading version of Magnitsky legislation," Mr Andrews said.
The recommended targeted sanctions would include banning entry to Australia, and the capacity to seize assets.
"We cannot control whether perpetrators are brought to justice within their home country, but targeted sanctions legislation will make Australian beaches, schools, medical care and financial institutions off-limits to people who have profited from unconscionable conduct," Mr Andrews said.
"A targeted sanctions regime for serious human rights abuse and corruption will close the gap of opportunity for perpetrators and stop Australia becoming a safe haven for these people."
LONG PREPARATION
The report follows a wide-ranging inquiry which commenced in 2019 and incorporates submissions from over 160 individuals and organisations from around the world.
During the inquiry, the sub-committee heard evidence from a range of expert witnesses including lawyer Geoffrey Robertson OAM QC, lawyer and human rights activist Amal Clooney and Russian world chess champion and human rights advocate Garry Kasparov.
Chair of the Foreign Affairs, Defence and Trade Committee, Senator David Fawcett, endorsed the Sub-committee’s report.
"The community, legal experts, victims of human rights abuse, and our allies have spoken and the Committee has listened," Senator Fawcett said.
"Australia has an opportunity to become a leader in addressing human rights abuse and corruption, and we should do so at the first opportunity.
"Cooperation with like-minded nations on this matter has the potential to protect the human rights of countless citizens around the world. Australia is an attractive destination for investment and lifestyle, and we have the opportunity to reduce incentives for corrupt and unscrupulous human rights abusers.
"Respect for individuals and the freedoms that underpin the Universal Declaration of Human Rights lie at the heart of the values that have enabled the global rules based order to bring increased security and prosperity to the people of so many nations in recent decades."
Debtset – Bailiff-Sheriff Aust MEMBER Login
How to resolve AdBlock issue? 
