Submission from Chris Baulman.
15/9/2011
I would like to look at the foundations for human rights and then at how things might change.
If all human rights are built on the foundation of a right to life, then it follows that we must have access by right to the basics for life.
Most would agree that the right to things like food and shelter is more fundamentally the right to have access to the basics provided by nature. With access to these gifts of nature we may work to grow food and build shelter, as distinct from a right to have the food or shelter produced by others laid on for you by right. Whether you like that distinction, we could agree (see HREOC letter) that to work with nature’s gifts to produce food and shelter is the fundamental right, and that in choosing to exercise this right, the responsibility would be to do so sustainably (ie in a way that everyone who wanted to do likewise could follow without adversely impacting the same opportunity for others.)
I believe that the basics for life are not currently protected by right, and so that the right to life is not secured. If this is the case then it is nonsense to pretend that other rights exist, like freedom of speech etc..
Because our social and economic system provides the opportunity to work with nature’s gifts of air, water sunlight & land through a system of cooperation with each other, it is said that the individual right to life is protected – but is this true?
I want to explore the “opportunity”.
Opportunity implies choice – real choice requires more than the choice between survival by using the system or death if you do not.
Freedom to make sustainable choices is essential to the idea of human rights. However the current opportunity for work is limited to what the system deems to be valuable. The system does not recognise the individual right to work directly with nature’s gifts to grow your own food and build your own shelter.
We did not always have the current modern system. In the past, man has proven capable of working alone or with others directly with the gifts of nature. These days we don’t have that free choice because access to land has been almost entirely commodified by the system. To get access to land where you could grow food and build shelter, you must first find a way to serve that system – no choice in that.
We must now work for our sustenance in any available job that we are capable of within the system, regardless of whether that is our choice, regardless even if the work available is harmonious with nature or not.
Is there any viable democratic alternative that would be complimentary to the system many people find entirely to their liking?
Let’s consider if our basic right to work with nature’s gifts of air, water sunlight and land was restored, how many people would be in a position to exercise that right to grow their food and build their own shelter – who would be eligible and what could be achieved?
Only those whose environmental footprint was sustainable could claim additional land access by right. The amount of land they could access by right would depend on their footprint, which would include all benefits they receive from society.
Both the earning and the spending of income is a good measure of footprint. Only those getting and spending no more than around $200pw could lay claim by right to enough additional land to build a house and grow some food. They would then have the responsibility to be sustainable in what they do.
If they also want to retain an income of $200 per week for things that make for a modern life, they have additional responsibilities – either to an employer or to the society that might pay them social security benefits as part of a “mutual obligations” contract.
If we start thinking of human rights and responsibilities from this foundation of birthrights and choice, it is clear that Centrelink’s “mutual obligations” definition should change, firstly in recognition of the fact that our heritage skills for success in growing food and building shelter have been taken over by the system - secondly, in recognition of the contribution to society of those skills and new sustainable work opportunities. The effect would be a rapid development of sustainable processes to meet needs including food and housing, expanding work, an end to the social frustrations that result from the denial of freedom and from the denial of abundant honorable work, and an end to the concoction of an immigration problem.
The change needed is not as big as it might seem – indeed it is possible to see it as simply a matter of new understanding, requiring no major change or cost but with big productivity gains.
Unemployed people in public housing already have access to land through their housing, and it is often space enough to grow some food. To meet Centrelink’s “mutual obligations” and receive social security, those who are over 55 can already choose to either look for paid employment or do 15 hrs/wk voluntary work, which for example could be with an approved community garden group.
This is an option which could easily be expanded to all ages. The identification by this enquiry of the basic human right to grow food and build shelter could encourage this change to Centrelink requirements to comply with this human rights revision rather than for it to be seen as a welfare concession.
If an unemployed person chose to grow much of their own food and to substantially contribute to building their own house (like in the Habitat for Humanity program), the $200 would be largely available to them for other things. Their skills and confidence would grow and they would look for ways to improve. If that resulted in an increase in income, their rent would adjust toward market value as is already calculated by government for its rent and rent assistance.
Regards
Chris Baulman
29/8/11