Employment & Education

What is happening in this category

>

Bill Wyatte is now contributing to a Challenge Dispersed Expertise

>

Bill Wyatte commented on the Challenge Dispersed Expertise

Perhaps more exploration of the problem may confirm that there are many pathways towards solutions.

Bureaucracies are advantaged by power funnelled to them via delegation.  People in advantaged groups tend to defend and bolster the status quo and discourage alternatives.  This can create boundaries to inputs, thinking and behaviours.  In Government, this is the disconnect from the diversity of knowledge and awareness of the people it serves.

I believe permeability and diversity are antidotes, but require conscious choices that have not yet been made. 

>

James Dowsett is now contributing to a Challenge Dispersed Expertise

>

Peter Grimbeek commented on the Challenge Dispersed Expertise

I immediately envision an on-line democracy not only with instant crowd-sourced votes but also with in-depth crowd-sourced discussion of policy options.

Some would say that this envisioned world might move a bit too quickly. Perhaps we need non-online deliberations at a slower pace.

In some ways, this is an Obama vs. Trump kind of moment. Obama deliberated slowly and possibly painfully about how to proceed but his actions were fruitful. Trump on the other hand favours instant responses that might or might not be fruitful (except in a bitter way). 

>

Peter Grimbeek is now contributing to a Challenge Dispersed Expertise

>

Richard Ferrers is now contributing to a Challenge Dispersed Expertise

>

Richard Ferrers commented on the Challenge Dispersed Expertise

As a value researcher, I am interested in what people value, and how it changes over time. 

The digital revolutions have empowered and connected adults this century, in the way widespread education did in the 20th Century. Yet government in Australia has barely if at all changed since Europeans came to Australia.

I think there is a lot to learn from the Swiss who are experimenting with several attempts at more direct democracy. Government moves far too slow for a always connected, wikipedia and google at our fingertips, open data type world.

If government was to ask what do people need, it is an ongoing consultation with their representatives, rather than every three years. Government should tap the crowd for ideas, priorities, and time to reduce services we don't need, and prioritise those we do.

We need an ongoing community discussion about reinventing government for a new century, for a always connected, data deluge world.

>

Ed Bernacki is now contributing to a Challenge Dispersed Expertise

>

Gail Fairlamb is now contributing to a Challenge Dispersed Expertise

>

Sharon Zivkovic is now contributing to a Challenge Dispersed Expertise

>

A new Solution was published Dispersed Expertise

>

Vern Hughes is now contributing to a Challenge I am that girl

>

Rosie Odsey is now contributing to a Challenge I am that girl

>

Kathryn Hedley is now contributing to a Challenge I am that girl

>

Peter Grimbeek commented on the Challenge I am that girl

Thank for clarifying that.

>

Mike Metcalfe commented on the Challenge I am that girl

So in thinking about what issues a law might need to address, we could use systems thinking, that is, what set of concepts are to be used to think about this dreadful problem? 

My guess is:

Protection, from harm and false claims?

Intoxication, consent is not possible when either party is drunk?

Consent, might include context and histories? 

Peer pressure/social norms, causing embarrassment/barrier to prosecution? 

Definitions/severity, are all rape events equal? 

Mike

>

Peter Grimbeek commented on the Challenge I am that girl

It looks as if silence tends to be interpreted as assent.

>

Peter Grimbeek commented on the Challenge I am that girl

Mike Metcalfe, I agree that intoxication is probably the most salient indicator that consent cannot be assumed. I also agree that societal shifts are far more effective than increased legal regulation. However, it might be necessary to toughen up consent laws in the short term while we work on a more human future in which humans don't feel the need to take advantage of others. Finally, I agree that not all claims of assault, etc, are necessarily above board.

>

Peter Grimbeek commented on the Challenge I am that girl

Gary, these Four Corners based challenges are supposed to supplement rather than replace other challenges.

The distinction between a challenge and discussion board has blurred at times in doing so. I personally tend to meander even the midst of policy driven challenges in the belief that doing so adds to policy driven discussions, and possibly that has put you off. Also, I did not frame the policy aspect of the present discussion clearly enough.

It's my understanding that Mindhive aims to draw in expertise beyond that already available in-house. Again, the distinction between that aim and the goal of driving people to this site blurs at times.

I recently invited an acquaintance with relevant expertise to join the discussion only to find that they were put off at the point of signing up by the Mindhive aim of "building the world's largest crowd of problem solvers, etc". So, some who are comfortable at Reddit are not comfortable here because they are put off by the sign on the door.

Not sure how to exclude you from such challenges in the future given that your selection is based on specific expertise (i.e., you are invited as part of a group with such expertise) but I will enquire.

>

Gary Pitts commented on the Challenge I am that girl

I thought Mindhive was supposed to be about developing and providing feedback into actual policy. If it is just being used as a miscellaneous discussion board then I can go to something like Reddit for that.

Hijacking such a serious issue as a "sponsored challenge" with no apparent goal other than driving people to your site doesn't sit right with me. Please don't invite me to any more of these.

>

Gary Pitts commented on the Challenge I am that girl

I thought Mindhive was supposed to be about developing and providing feedback into actual policy. If it is just being used as a miscellaneous discussion board then I can go to something like Reddit for that.

Hijacking such a serious issue as a "sponsored challenge" with no apparent goal other than to drive people to your site doesn't sit right with me. Please don't invite me to any more of these.

>

Peter Grimbeek commented on the Challenge I am that girl

I've formed an impression over the years that in cases of rape the onus is on the victim to demonstrate lack of consent, which makes court appearances unpleasant and gives rise to the possibility of negative press coverage and damage to personal reputation as well.

This is why I mentioned the #Metoo movement earlier, as a way for multiple victims to come forward. Though I imagine that the court system could be unkind to #Metoo-ers as well.

>

Mike Metcalfe commented on the Challenge I am that girl

Having to prove consent might swing things too much the other way. But agree the presence of excess alcohol should be heralded as a red light to attackers. Perhaps, If either is drunk, then consent has to be proved. 

i like the imitation theory of human behaviour, that our decisions are largely based on imitating our role models, and the consequence of that, rather than primarily we are utilitarian or rational beings. So, my advice for changing social norms would be to promote more appropriate role models for men and women in some targeted way. 

Do need to be aware of the dangers of false claims and that men can be pressured into sex they don’t want. Plus need to place rape in a continuum with other forms of assault, including stabbing and now acid attacks. 

 

 

 

>

Alison Bailey commented on the Challenge I am that girl

The current law around consent may be interpreted as 'If I don't outright say NO, or STOP clearly and obviously struggle to get away, then I'm consenting by default'. The onus should definitely be the other way around. 

I'm not sure how it's possible to overcome the 'one said, the other said' situation, but corroborating evidence that (for example) a complainant was very intoxicated, would tend to throw the onus onto the defendant to indicate how they obtained clear consent in that situation.

 

@Mike Metcalfe - I think your first two points are correct. I think most jurisdictions already have a statute of limitations, but no doubt this varies from state to state. I'm not sure what time limit you would suggest, but I can tell you that some assault victims are very traumatised and find it incredibly difficult to come forward. I'm not sure what an 'ideal' situation would be - perhaps one where sexual assault doesn't occur at all? Failing that utopian situation, do you have any thoughts on how the process could be improved?

The subject is far broader than redefining consent in NSW law, but anything that sends a message that consent is necessary, not optional, is progress, no matter how slight. Cultural change takes a long time (too long) but every little helps.

>

Peter Grimbeek commented on the Challenge I am that girl

Based on what I've read, consent in this case was implied because the young woman did not move away or struggle in any other sense of the word.

>

Mike Metcalfe is now contributing to a Challenge I am that girl

>

Mike Metcalfe commented on the Challenge I am that girl

So the present legal position seems to be... In the process of establishing that the defendant has committed a criminal offence it must be demonstrated that the complainant was not consenting to the sexual act.

How exactly might this be revised?

“It must be demonstrated that the complainant was consenting”? 

Or “that the complainant was always capable of consenting”?

or, that a complain must be made within a certain time frame

Might improve things but not ideal?

Sometimes other boyfriends pressure a woman to complain to get at a rival? 

Mike

>

William Bell commented on the Challenge Tipping the Scales

 Yes. Exactly. The political debate creates a false dichotomy that obesity induced by sugar consumption can be overcome by personal choice rather than through taxation. For example the glib comment "People should just go for a run."

This ignores the fact that the sugar industry has a massively influential and powerful advertising, research and political donation budgets pitied against the individual.  A tax would go some way to balance the power of the individual against these powerful vested interests.  The tax does not detract from "Going for a run (or walk)" as a positive lifestyle change that should also be encouraged. 

>

Peter Grimbeek commented on the Challenge Tipping the Scales

William Bell, what you're saying is that the options are both-and rather than either-or.

>

William Bell is now contributing to a Challenge Tipping the Scales

 
Show More Category Activity ▼

Education and employment are the two areas that drive Government decision-making processes, and these decisions influence each one of us without exception. With tremendous potential to create a profound impact on the Nation’s future, education and employment policies require a element of substantial public endorsement. MindHive, as a crowdsourcing platform, is a public vehicle that brings Government, Universities, Business and the broader community into one digital room. Through the MindHive platform effective policymaking, is empowered by the depth of the discussion, encompassing the views of each diverse and individual contributor.

How should Australia’s employment policy and strategy be defined? How to ensure the effectiveness of our nation’s education policy and strategy? What are the solutions to current and recurring education and employment issues?

Discuss. Analyse. Exchange. Learn. Inform

Join MindHive discussions and be an active contributor to Australia’s policymaking initiatives; help education funding to be channeled to the right areas.

The major challenges

Are you sure you want to do this?