In identifying social justice in Australia, and indeed elsewhere, we must first distinguish two levels of social justice.
Firstly by identifying the circumstances where each is a possibility. Absolute justice, which is a highly theoretical and abstract level of achievement, is not possible in practical everyday settings, because of the limitations of the human condition. This is due, to factors stemming from imperfect information and other factors such as those required for human accomplishment, including personal development, and the inadequate range and appropriateness of management and leadership skills available to individuals and organisations at present and for the foreseeable future. In these circumstances when problems of justice are analysed, it appears appropriate to distinguish then between absolute (a theoretical or academic concern) and relative justice (normally referred to as a fair go) but recognised as a form of imperfect justice.
It would therefore be appropriate to observe the activities used to improve social justice, in a country such as a Australia, especially through development of appropriate government policy and monitoring of justice concerns (aspects therefore of relative justice), rather than the highly desirable, but not realisable concerns of absolute justice.
Consequently the object of individuals, organisations and groups should be to optimise solutions in such a manner, which recognises constraints, and development paths, which cannot be altered for some time. It is consequently well known, (and consistent with the expectations outlined above) that the available established channels to justice to an individual or society wide in Australia are often too restrictive.
This has often been observed in a variety of facets of Australian life, especially the legal profession. Consequently the formal legal process in our society (especially court processes and conveyancing), which can embrace judicial review of statutes and resolution of conflict between aspects of legislation, the interpretation of the common law and, the future requirements that might stem from the emergence of a Bill of Rights, has meant that the current Australian legal process is very bureaucratic, and the process design and leadership competencies of practioners, is now restricted usually to the access provided by trained professionals (individual lawyers and those responsible for formal roles within the justice system such as the judges).
The legal system has therefore, principally provided channels for decision makers and advocates within the justice system, to lead and develop the legal profession by reliance on formal university and similar competencies, (of a legal nature), rather than also seek access to the advantages of leadership resources and competencies, which can be often more comprehensive than traditional legal frameworks.
The net result, as a result of using the Australian legal system is that only questions of relative justice (a fair go) are the usual outcome and not an absolute (a completely idealistic solution) of a problem when tackled is achieved.
This observation has been frequently asserted and can mean that other approaches to changing policy and governance processes should be brought into play to achieve better results rather than rely on the present pattern of the Australian legal system, as in the case of lobbying for policy change and implementation.
It is a widely held belief that Australia is a just society because all votes are approximately equal in value. However reliance on the electoral system does not guarantee equality of influence, which one would expect to be the outcome of a just society. Lobbying in Australia (and indeed elsewhere) is highly organised, well funded but insufficiently transparent to ensure that lobbying processes are fair and democratic (qualities expected in a just society).
Thus it could be the case that some individuals or organisations taking part, are more equal than others. Consequently there is a danger that when lobbying is linked to campaign donations then situations of frank corruption may result. It has been observed for a long period that lobbyists wine and dine for the benefit of clients, Members of Parliament and public servants and also implement expensive information campaigns, but no proper public record is usually kept of this. Consequently these activities may well be inimical to the public good and undermine other processes making possible a better society.
Therefore there appears to be much more that needs to be done to subject lobbying activities in Canberra to scrutiny, if Australian Government policy is to be directed to achieve a just society.
There are model ways forward which Australia could emulate such as the monitoring and regulation of lobbyists in Canada, the United States Congress, US States administrations and those of the European Community, each of which places great emphasis on much better keeping track of lobbying activities and campaign donations through better provision and maintenance of the public record. Each Australian, State, Territory and local government also needs much better monitoring and control of this type through legislation and better licensing requirements.
Justice outcomes are not just the result of the legal process and lobbying as outlined above. Justice for an individual and Australian society can be directly affected through application of leadership and management skills (which are becoming increasingly much the same), in the Australian community. These skills are an outcome of support of business welfare and efficiency through maintenance development of management organisation development practices, which optimise both technical and human performance goals.
Although attempts to identify those best at leadership has been attempted for over a long period it was not till the late 1980s and 1990s that the management and personal development book sellers in Australia, helped promote works to help identify the qualities and performance requirements of an effective leader, which could best achieve high levels of business performance and business development. We therefore need to enhance leadership selection, research and development if Australia is to thrive in a dramatically altered world where creativity and innovation are the drivers of prosperity.
The underlying reason for this is that leadership is a complex issue and so open to many variations when required to solve business and community issues because leaders are expected to stimulate others, and be creative in a fast-paced and unpredictable world.
For some organisations (especially when outsourcing and networking occurs) this has meant dramatic change with the consequence that leadership must now operate across multiple networks. Motivating others in these circumstances is a key competency of such a leader. However although there have been numerous studies concerning the identification leaders (which would include social justice skills) no individual study was able to discern any traits that could be reliably used to set leaders apart from others for business or community purposes.
This report also found that it was better to rely on organisational and a community wide recognition process to identify leaders rather than rely on artificial techniques to do so, but it was true that good leadership would lead to satisfactory or better results and inferior leadership to poor or worse results. The research, which had been commissioned by the David Karpin “Industry Task Force on Leadership and Management Skills” of 1995 reported to the Australian Government, suggesting a range of measures to support leadership training and development, including a community wide, leadership skills development program, because of the needs for continuos improvement in this critical area..
When seeking a just society in Australia it is necessary to recognise that achievement of justice, society wide and at the individual level cannot be achieved in an absolute sense. This approach arises because absolute justice is a theory based ideal concept only, which cannot be achieved in reality. It is only therefore possible to seek an optimisation to a series of constraints, which restrict the solution possible until other circumstances apply. This type of result can be achieved for example by waiting for an opportunity, which might arise when improvements to existing constraints no longer apply at some other point in time.
Acceptance of this approach means that to be effective when settling current issues of justice stemming (as illustrated) from legal processes, the activities of professional lobbyists and when applying management and leadership skills at the organisational level and indeed community wide (a significant level of patience) may be needed for a better outcome to be possible for the time being.
References
Holden, J 2006, The Culture of Leadership” [on line] http://www.ozco.gov.au/news_and_hot_topics/speeches/the_culture_of_leadership/ [accessed 11 March 2007].
Kendal, S 2007, “Development of Leadership Competencies in Australia”, Public Administration Today, Issue 11, April-June 2007.
Lawrence, C MP 2007, “Railroading Democracy”, Democratic Audit of Australia, Paper 6/07, March.
