Fiji’s Home Affairs and Immigration Minister Pio Tikoduadua has ordered an inquiry into the “possible unauthorised issuance of passports” by immigration staff and “offered to step aside temporarily from role”.
In a statement on Thursday night, Tikoduadua said the passports in question were issued to the children of the South Korean Christian doomsday cult Grace Road Church, which is associated with human rights allegations.
This week, The Fiji Times reported that a Grace Road employee claimed she and others were physically abused and she was kept from seeing her children.
State broadcaster FBC reported that Grace Road had refuted the claims.
The group said in a statement on Thursday that it was a family dispute within the Grace Road community, which was exploited by the media.
Grace Road said it had stayed out of the issue, allowing the family to address their differences privately, but was disappointed when the media chose to sensationalise the matter and place undue focus on the Grace Road Church.
Immigration Minister Pio Tikoduadua steps aside temporarily . . . “If confirmed, this constitutes a significant breach of our protocols and raises serious concerns.” Image: Fiji Govt/FB/RNZ
Tikoduadua said the passports were issued without his knowledge or the knowledge of his permanent secretary and senior management of the immigration department.
“If confirmed, this constitutes a significant breach of our protocols and raises serious concerns about the internal oversight mechanisms within the [Immigration] department,” he said.
Immediate investigation “I have directed an immediate and thorough investigation to determine how the lapse occurred and to hold accountable those responsible,” he said.
The minister said stepping down was necessary to ensure the inquiry is conducted impartially and without any perception of undue influence from his office.
He has also informed Prime Minister Sitiveni Rabuka of his decision.
Tikoduadua assured that he would fully cooperate with the investigation and work towards restoring trust.
Meanwhile, opposition MP Jone Usamate has called for a “full-scale investigation into the allegations of human rights abuse”.
Fiji police have told local media that an investigation is already underway.
This article is republished under a community partnership agreement with RNZ.
Water is ubiquitous on Earth – about 70% of Earth’s surface is covered by the stuff. Water is in the air, on the surface and inside rocks. Geologic evidence suggests water has been stable on Earth since about 4.3 billion years ago.
The history of water on early Mars is less certain. Determining when water first appeared, where and for how long, are all burning questions that drive Mars exploration. If Mars was once habitable, some amount of water was required.
We studied the mineral zircon in a meteorite from Mars and found evidence that water was present when the zircon crystal formed 4.45 billion years ago. Our results, published in the journal Science Advances today, may represent the oldest evidence for water on Mars.
A wet red planet
Water has long been recognised to have played an important role in early Martian history. To place our results in a broader context, let’s first consider what “early Mars” means in terms of the Martian geological timescale, and then consider the different ways to look for water on Mars.
Like Earth, Mars formed about 4.5 billion years ago. The history of Mars has four geological periods. These are the Amazonian (from today back to 3 billion years), the Hesperian (3 billion to 3.7 billion years ago), the Noachian (3.7 billion to 4.1 billion years ago) and the Pre-Noachian (4.1 billion to about 4.5 billion years ago).
Evidence for water on Mars was first reported in the 1970s when NASA’s Mariner 9 spacecraft captured images of river valleys on the Martian surface. Later orbital missions, including Mars Global Surveyor and Mars Express, detected the widespread presence of hydrated clay minerals on the surface. These would have needed water.
The Martian river valleys and clay minerals are mainly found in Noachian terrains, which cover about 45% of Mars. In addition, orbiters also found large flood channels – called outflow channels – in Hesperian terrains. These suggest the short-lived presence of water on the surface, perhaps from groundwater release.
Most reports of water on Mars are in materials or terrains older than 3 billion years. More recent than that, there isn’t much evidence for stable liquid water on Mars.
But what about during the Pre-Noachian? When did water first show up on Mars?
There are three ways to hunt for water on Mars. The first is using observations of the surface made by orbiting spacecraft. The second is using ground-based observations such as those taken by Mars rovers.
The third way is to study Martian meteorites that have landed on Earth, which is what we did.
In fact, the only Pre-Noachian material we have available to study directly is found in meteorites from Mars. A small number of all meteorites that have landed on Earth have come from our neighbouring planet.
An even smaller subset of those meteorites, believed to have been ejected from Mars during a single asteroid impact, contain Pre-Noachian material.
The “poster child” of this group is an extraordinary rock called NWA7034, or Black Beauty.
Black Beauty is a famous Martian meteorite made up of broken-up surface material, or regolith. In addition to rock fragments, it contains zircons that formed from 4.48 billion to 4.43 billion years ago. These are the oldest pieces of Mars known.
While studying trace elements in one of these ancient zircons we found evidence of hydrothermal processes – meaning they were exposed to hot water when they formed in the distant past.
Trace elements, water and a connection to ore deposits
The zircon we studied is 4.45 billion years old. Within it, iron, aluminium and sodium are preserved in abundance patterns like concentric layers, similar to an onion.
This pattern, called oscillatory zoning, indicates that incorporation of these elements into the zircon occurred during its igneous history, in magma.
Iron elemental zoning in the 4.45 billion-year-old martian zircon. Darker blue areas indicate the highest iron abundances. Aaron Cavosie & Jack Gillespie
The problem is that iron, aluminium and sodium aren’t normally found in crystalline igneous zircon – so how did these elements end up in the Martian zircon?
The answer is hot water.
In Earth rocks, finding zircon with growth zoning patterns for elements like iron, aluminium and sodium is rare. One of the only places where it has been described is from Olympic Dam in South Australia, a giant copper, uranium and gold deposit.
The metals in places like Olympic Dam were concentrated by hydrothermal (hot water) systems moving through rocks during magmatism.
Hydrothermal systems form anywhere that hot water, heated by volcanic plumbing systems, moves through rocks. Spectacular geysers at places like Yellowstone National Park in the United States form when hydrothermal water erupts at Earth’s surface.
Finding a hydrothermal Martian zircon raises the intriguing possibility of ore deposits forming on early Mars.
Previous studies have proposed a wet Pre-Noachian Mars. Unusual oxygen isotope ratios in a 4.43 billion-year-old Martian zircon were previously interpreted as evidence for an early hydrosphere. It has even been suggested that Mars may have had an early global ocean 4.45 billion years ago.
The big picture from our study is that magmatic hydrothermal systems were active during the early formation of Mars’ crust 4.45 billion years ago.
It’s not clear whether this means surface water was stable at this time, but we think it’s possible. What is clear is that the crust of Mars, like Earth, had water shortly after it formed – a necessary ingredient for habitability.
Aaron J. Cavosie has previously received funding from the Australian Research Council, the US National Science Foundation and NASA.
But in today’s Europe, an inverted trend of coercive assimilation is emerging in northern nations grappling with high levels of immigration. As a part of what has been described as both “ethnic engineering” and among the “harshest immigration policies” in the world, Denmark is forcibly uprooting people from neighborhoods they call “ghettos” and redirecting them to alternative housing.
The uprooting of whole communities is controversial. This winter, Europe’s highest court, the European Court of Justice, is set to determine whether Denmark is violating the civil and human rights of those being rehoused. As an expert in displacement and immigrant incorporation, I believe that the court’s decision and the progression of Denmark’s program have great implications for the future of Europe’s immigrants and the true meaning of European citizenship for its people of color.
Denmark’s ‘ghetto package’
Denmark’s radical housing policy is years in the making. In 2010, the country’s authorities began compiling lists of “non-Western,” immigrant-majority neighborhoods that were failing to live up to set standards on lawfulness, employment, income and education levels. Areas that fell short in two of the four of these criteria were officially labeled “ghettos,” or “tough ghettos” if they fell short of more than two criteria.
In 2018, the social democratic Danish government launched the “Ghetto Package”, a legislative program aimed at breaking up the “ghetto” neighborhoods – and the social fabrics that sustain them. The package did not entail the same measures for “vulnerable areas.”
Proposals to this end consisted of reducing public housing to no more than 40% of total housing in the neighborhoods and measures to encourage white, wealthier residents to move in.
Denmark’s assimilation program does not stop at the breaking up of low-income, predominantly immigrant neighborhoods. Children born into “non-Western” families in state-designated ghettos must attend special programs for a minimum of 25 hours per week beginning at the age of 1, designed to immerse them in “Danish values,” including Christian holidays and Danish language education. Parents are not allowed to accompany them.
Residents and other critics of the package of measures argue that the designation of “non-Western” in practice means “nonwhite” or “Muslim,” pointing out the fact that non-Europeans such as Australians and New Zealanders are excluded from the criteria, and that Ukrainian refugees fleeing the Russian invasion in 2022 were permitted to move into social housing that “non-Westerners” had been forced to leave.
In response to the law, a dozen residents facing eviction from Mjølnerparken, a residential area categorized as a “tough ghetto” in Copenhagen, filed a case against Denmark’s Ministry of Social Affairs in 2020. In September 2024, the European Court of Justice held an initial hearing to determine whether the government’s Ghetto Package is discriminatory under Danish law, European Union law and the European Convention on Human Rights. Deliberations are underway.
Immigrants congregating in the same residential neighborhoods is nothing new.
In American social science, the term “ethnic enclave” is a relatively neutral concept that refers to a community dominated by a certain ethnic group or population. Prominent examples include Little Havana in Miami, Chinatowns in New York and San Francisco, or Boston and New York’s Little Italy.
In New York City, Chinatown and Little Italy rub up to each other. AP Photo
Historically, these communities formed their own social support systems, networks and economies in lieu of government support and have become important cultural centers.
But amid high levels of immigration in recent years, many European countries have become less accepting of the idea of immigrant-majority neighborhoods.
In those cases, integration is increasingly being seen as the cornerstone of sustainable immigration policy, even as state policies can be drivers of segregation between ethnic Europeans and immigrant communities.
Indeed, accusations of failed integration are a common political response to rising rates in crime and gang violence in Scandinavia, and Europe more broadly, and are the reasons cited for more restrictive immigration policy. Built into this notion is the assumption that immigrants of non-Western backgrounds are a bad influence on each other – and, in turn, on Europe.
In many European countries, the term “parallel societies” has cropped up. It is used to signal a development in which immigrant communities – predominately Muslim or from the Middle East and North Africa – are deemed not just a threat to local European culture and values but also to public safety.
To some politicians – initially just those on the right, but increasingly in political mainstreams – parallel societies such as those on Denmark’s list are potential breeding grounds for antidemocratic values, delinquency and violence.
But opponents of the “ghetto” policy say there is little evidence linking the culture of immigrant communities to problems of public safety. Instead, they point to the seductive techniques of predatory gangs, often online and with leadership based abroad, that target the young, disillusioned or impressionable.
While the “Ghetto package” claims to promote integration, it risks alienation. For immigrant communities and critics of the current policy in Denmark, the program raises the question of who is considered part of a national community and identity and who is considered an inherent outsider or threat to it.
“I felt Danish until recently,” an immigrant Danish resident told Al Jazeera in 2020. “The politicians created their ‘parallel society,’ with the bad reputation they’ve given Mjølnerparken so that ethnic Danes don’t want to live here.”
It is a feeling increasingly shared by immigrant groups across the continent. In recent years, European leaders have proposed and implemented anti-immigrant policies that would have been inconceivable in many political mainstreams just a few years ago – even as border crossings into Europe have decreased dramatically.
The Danish experience shows that this new wave of radical anti-immigrant sentiment is not targeting just incoming migrants but settled ones as well.
Selma Hedlund does not work for, consult, own shares in or receive funding from any company or organization that would benefit from this article, and has disclosed no relevant affiliations beyond their academic appointment.
The federal government’s proposed social media ban for under-16s has sparked widespread debate, affecting millions of young Australians, their families and educators. But will it actually work?
While the aim behind this ban is to protect children from online harm, it appears to be more of a kneejerk reaction to win votes.
In a world where technological advancement is accelerating and online communication is part of our everyday lives, teaching children about safe online use, rather than imposing bans, is a more effective way to protect them from harm while still allowing them to be technologically savvy.
Critics such as independent MP Zoe Daniel highlight potential issues such as social media sites becoming less safe as adults increasingly share any content, believing that children no longer have access:
What we’re doing is saying, ‘Well, we’re going to lock everyone under 16 out, and then everyone else can do whatever they want in there’. And also, we know that some people under 16 will get in.
Daniel is not the only person to express concern. Former Labor and now independent Western Australian Senator Fatima Payman used TikTok slang to highlight that young people often feel unheard in parliament.
Why a ban is the wrong way to go
Young people live a lot of their social lives online. Shielding youth entirely could disconnect them from peers and affect their social wellbeing. This has been demonstrated in a study on international high school students, who are particularly at risk of loneliness and isolation and are often living away from family and friends. While this study was on international students, the results have implications for others who are at risk of feeling lonely and isolated.
At 16, teens might face harmful content for the first time, including behaviours glorified on social media, which could be seen as “exciting”. This risks amplifying the very problems policymakers aim to prevent.
Australia recently revoked the visa of an OnlyFans star attempting to recruit 18-year-old boys at “schoolies” to create explicit content for her OnlyFans page.
This is being considered by many as new predatory behaviour to which young people might be exposed for the first time, with no education or support systems in place.
If young people are not allowed to navigate social media until they are 16, how will they navigate the risks once they can? Instead, teaching young people digital resilience offers a more sustainable approach.
The Finnish approach
Finland’s approach to digital literacy education is comprehensive and integrated. It aims to equip citizens of all ages with the skills to navigate the digital world effectively.
creating a secure and empowering connection with media is a shared educational responsibility that necessitates the active participation of both schools and families.
Integrating digital literacy into the education system ensures skills are not taught in isolation, but embedded across the system.
This approach has been in place, with considerable success, for a decade. In 2014, in response to the rise of misinformation, Finland’s government launched an anti-fake news initiative aimed at teaching residents, students, journalists and politicians how to counter false information designed to create division.
This initiative is part of a multi-pronged, cross-sector approach to prepare citizens of all ages for the complex digital landscape.
In addition, the education system was reformed to emphasise critical thinking. This taught students to identify bots, understand image and video manipulations, and recognise half-truths and false profiles. The approach has been practical, with Finland ranking first out of 35 countries in a digital media literacy index measuring resilience six times in a row.
Similarities to smoking
Some politicians have likened social media use to smoking in terms of addictive qualities and potential to cause harm. For example, South Australian Premier Peter Malinauskas said:
The evidence shows early access to addictive social media is causing our kids harm […] This is no different to cigarettes or alcohol. When a product or service hurts children, governments must act.
Drawing comparisons to smoking highlights the long-term challenges with tackling the issue. The proportion of Australians aged 14 and over who have ever smoked has significantly declined over the past two decades. But this is the result of a long-term change campaign that the government committed to in the 1990s. It has been successful largely due to a concerted public education campaign.
The government’s proposed legislation oversimplifies a deeply complex issue. Protecting young people requires long-term solutions such as fostering digital literacy, informed choices, and robust safeguards — not rushed, over-the-top, short-term measures.
Dr Aida Hurem’s cited research was funded by the Australian Research Council.
Susan Grantham does not work for, consult, own shares in or receive funding from any company or organisation that would benefit from this article, and has disclosed no relevant affiliations beyond their academic appointment.
With the start of summer just days away, many of us will be looking forward to long sunny days spent at the beach, by the pool, out camping or picnicking in the park.
Insects also love summer. This is when most of them breed and feed. But this shared appreciation of the season can sometimes lead to conflict.
Insects have long been prey to many species, including birds, mammals, amphibians and other insects. As such, they’ve evolved a diverse range of defences – perhaps none more familiar to humans than the sting.
Many ants have a sting at their rear end which they use to deliver venom. It’s not the sting itself that causes pain, but rather the venom. Ant venom contains a cocktail of different chemicals, some of which have evolved specifically to manipulate nerve endings in our skin to cause pain.
Let’s look at some of the different ant stings you might experience this summer in Australia, and how to respond.
Bull ants
Bull ants (also known as bulldog ants, jumper ants, or jack jumpers) are large, for an ant. Some species can reach a length of 4 centimetres. They are easily recognisable with their large eyes, long mandibles (jaws) and aggressive nature.
Their sting is immediate, hot, sharp, and unmistakable, not dissimilar to that of a honeybee. The intense pain will last only a few minutes, before it’s replaced by some redness and swelling around the sting site.
There are many different types of bull ants in Australia. Sam Robinson
Green-head ants
Green-head ants are also called green ants (but not to be confused with the green tree ants of northern Australia which do not sting). Green-head ants are common, and love our grass lawns.
At around 6 millimetres long, they are significantly smaller than bull ants. They can be recognised by their shiny green and purple exoskeleton.
Green-head ants tend to be less aggressive than bull ants, but they can still deliver a meaningful sting. The pain of a green-head ant’s sting can build more gradually, and create an intense, sticky ache.
Green-head ants can be recognised by their colour. Sam Robinson
Fire ants
Fire ants (or red imported fire ants) are originally from South America. They were first detected in Brisbane in 2001, thought to have hitched a ride in shipping containers, and have since spread across south-east Queensland.
Fire ants are reddish-brown and black and range in size from 2–6 millimetres long.
You’re most likely to encounter fire ants at their nests, which look like a pile of powdery soil. A fire ant nest doesn’t have an obvious entry, which is a good way to distinguish them from other similar ant nests.
Disturbing a fire ant nest will awaken an angry mass of hundreds of ants and put you at risk of being stung.
The initial pain from an individual sting is like an intense, hot itch, though manageable. But fire ant stings rarely occur in single digits. One ant can sting multiple times, and multiple ants can sting one person, which can lead to hundreds of stings. Fire ant stings can lead to pus-filled ulcers and scarring in the days afterwards.
If you live in an area where there are fire ants, it’s worth taking a few minutes to educate yourself on how to recognise and report them.
Electric ants
Electric ants are another nasty accidental import, originally from Central and South America. Currently restricted to Cairns and surrounds, these are tiny (1.5 millimetres long) yellow ants.
Like fire ants, these ants will typically defend en masse, so many will sting at once. Their sting is more painful than you’d expect from such a tiny creature. I liken it to being showered in red hot sparks.
You might be surprised to hear Australian ants don’t even make the podium for the most painful ant stings. Among the prize winners are harvester ants (North and South America) which cause an extreme, sticky ache, likened to a drill slowly turning in your muscle – for as long as 12 hours.
The gold medal goes to the sting of the bullet ant of South and Central America, which has been described as:
Pure, intense, brilliant pain. Like walking over flaming charcoal with a 3-inch nail embedded in your heel.
How to avoid getting stung (and what to do if you do)
Fortunately, the solution is usually very simple. Look before you sit on the ground or lay out your picnic blanket, avoiding areas where you see ant nests or lots of foraging ants.
Choice of footwear can also be important. In my experience, perhaps unsurprisingly, most stings occur on thong-wearing feet.
If you do get stung, in most cases it’s going to get better on its own. Pain will usually subside after a few minutes (sometimes a little longer for a green-head ant sting). The redness, swelling and itch that typically follow can last for a few days.
In the meantime, if needed, an ice pack will help with the pain. If it’s particularly bad, a local anaesthetic cream containing lidocaine may offer some temporary relief. You can get this over the counter at the pharmacy.
A small proportion of people may have an allergic reaction to ant stings. In very severe cases this might involve trouble breathing or swallowing. If you or someone you’re with experiences these symptoms after an ant sting, seek urgent medical attention.
Sam Robinson receives funding from the Australian Research Council, Australian National Health and Medical Research Council and the National Geographic Society.
Australia has a seriously big “nest egg”. The Future Fund – our sovereign wealth fund set up in 2006 – now manages about $230 billion.
Specifically, its remit is to “invest for the benefit of future generations of Australians”. That’s long been interpreted as earning the best possible return on investment, without unacceptable risk.
Along with a few other smaller public wealth funds, it’s managed independently, on behalf of the government.
So the government ruffled feathers this week when it announced a new investment mandate which, for the first time, will require it to prioritise specific investments in Australia:
increasing the supply of residential housing
supporting the energy transition
delivering improved infrastructure
These might all seem like reasonable priorities for Australia. But from those who thought this directive was a deviation from the Future Fund’s founding aims, criticisms came thick and fast.
Shadow Treasurer Angus Taylor accused Labor of “raiding Australia’s nest egg” for its own “pet projects”.
Peter Costello, who set up the fund when he was treasurer, said it would undermine the fund’s independence and lead to lower returns.
It’s quite possible, albeit unclear, that requiring the fund to prioritise certain kinds of investments will lead to lower returns.
There’s a more pertinent question. Why can’t the government fund these priority projects through debt rather than by spending sovereign funds?
The Future Fund’s initial purpose was actually to generate an asset pool that could cover government liabilities for future public sector pensions.
When it was established in 2006, the Australian economy was in a golden era of budget surpluses and revenues generated by mining and the China boom.
With public debt paid off, there were suddenly questions about the need for a government bond market (used to borrow money).
Australia was also asking whether it should invest its wealth in a new sovereign wealth fund.
The thinking behind the Future Fund was that Australia’s surpluses would not last forever, and a major liability that the government would one day have to face would be defined pension payments to the public service.
As we now know in hindsight, the global financial crisis brought an end to the era of budget surpluses. That created new questions about the role of the Future Fund.
With government debt rising, it was not obvious that maintaining a separate giant asset like the Future Fund continued to make sense. Why not simply use it to pay down debt?
As always, these questions come down to basic financial engineering.
If, hypothetically, the government was paying 5% interest on its debt, but could generate 6% on Future Fund earnings, it would be better to keep the Future Fund going than to spend it on debt reduction.
The Future Fund now manages assets of around $230 billion. National net debt is forecast at more than $880 billion for 2024–25 and is expected to keep rising.
The government also used this week’s announcement to promise there would be no drawdowns from the fund until at least 2032–33, by which time it’s expected to grow to $380 billion.
Nonetheless, this financial engineering equation will remain a key question for the government.
Will the new mandate affect returns?
Currently, the Future Fund’s mandate is to maximise returns, to build the biggest pool possible to fund the government’s future liabilities. Specifically, its mandate currently targets a return of 4–5% per year above the rate of inflation.
Will restricting what the fund can invest in reduce its total returns? It is reasonable to think that any constraint on investment decisions could have some negative impact on returns – and critics have certainly made that case this week.
There’s mixed evidence on how much prioritising certain kinds of investments can affect returns. Jacqui Martin/Shutterstock
The evidence on how mandates such as sustainability requirements affect investment returns is mixed. Analyses have shown that carefully constructed portfolios can perform well, but this is not always the case.
The key questions for the Future Fund become how much money gets allocated to these types of projects and how binding the mandates turn out to be.
Reasonable instructions to focus on green energy investments, housing and similar alternative assets might make sense in a national sense, but in terms of government debt and the purpose of the Future Fund, they muddy the waters.
Should the government just borrow for projects instead?
An alternative to having the Future Fund allocate funding to preferred government priorities would be to have the government simply borrow the money itself and keep the Future Fund assets separate.
If the government is going to support and fund these activities in either event, whether it does so via its debt or its assets doesn’t matter. The government’s net asset position is the same.
Australia is still in the position of having a relatively low national debt position relative to OECD countries, and funding costs are low. As long as we maintain fiscal discipline, this will continue to be the case.
Mark Crosby does not work for, consult, own shares in or receive funding from any company or organisation that would benefit from this article, and has disclosed no relevant affiliations beyond their academic appointment.
If someone’s heart suddenly stops beating, they may only have minutes to live. Doing CPR (cardiopulmonary resusciation) can increase their chances of survival. CPR makes sure blood keeps pumping, providing oxygen to the brain and vital organs until specialist treatment arrives.
But research shows bystanders are less likely to intervene to perform CPR when that person is a woman. A recent Australian study analysed 4,491 cardiac arrests between 2017–19 and found bystanders were more likely to give CPR to men (74%) than women (65%).
Could this partly be because CPR training dummies (known as manikins) don’t have breasts? Our new research looked at manikins available worldwide to train people in performing CPR and found 95% are flat-chested.
Anatomically, breasts don’t change CPR technique. But they may influence whether people attempt it – and hesitation in these crucial moments could mean the difference between life and death.
Heart health disparities
Cardiovascular diseases – including heart disease, stroke and cardiac arrest – are the leading cause of death for women across the world.
But if a woman has a cardiac arrest outside hospital (meaning her heart stops pumping properly), she is 10% less likely to receive CPR than a man. Women are also less likely to survive CPR and more likely to have brain damage following cardiac arrests.
Bystanders are less likely to intervene if a woman needs CPR, compared to a man. doublelee/Shutterstock
These are just some of many unequal health outcomes women experience, along with transgender and non-binary people. Compared to men, their symptoms are more likely to be dismissed or misdiagnosed, or it may take longer for them to receive a diagnosis.
Bystander reluctance
There is also increasing evidence women are less likely to receive CPR compared to men.
This may be partly due to bystander concerns they’ll be accused of sexual harassment, worry they might cause damage (in some cases based on a perception women are more “frail”) and discomfort about touching a woman’s breast.
Bystanders may also have trouble recognising a woman is experiencing a cardiac arrest.
Even in simulations of scenarios, researchers have found those who intervened were less likely to remove a woman’s clothing to prepare for resuscitation, compared to men. And women were less likely to receive CPR or defibrillation (an electric charge to restart the heart) – even when the training was an online game that didn’t involve touching anyone.
There is evidence that how people act in resuscitation training scenarios mirrors what they do in real emergencies. This means it’s vital to train people to recognise a cardiac arrest and be prepared to intervene, across genders and body types.
Skewed to male bodies
Most CPR training resources feature male bodies, or don’t specify a sex. If the bodies don’t have breasts, it implies a male default.
For example, a 2022 study looking at CPR training across North, Central and South America, found most manikins available were white (88%), male (94%) and lean (99%).
These studies reflect what we see in our own work, training other health practitioners to do CPR. We have noticed all the manikins available to for training are flat-chested. One of us (Rebecca) found it difficult to find any training manikins with breasts.
A single manikin with breasts
Our new research investigated what CPR manikins are available and how diverse they are. We identified 20 CPR manikins on the global market in 2023. Manikins are usually a torso with a head and no arms.
Of the 20 available, five (25%) were sold as “female” – but only one of these had breasts. That means 95% of available CPR training manikins were flat-chested.
We also looked at other features of diversity, including skin tone and larger bodies. We found 65% had more than one skin tone available, but just one was a larger size body. More research is needed on how these aspects affect bystanders in giving CPR.
Breasts don’t change CPR technique
CPR technique doesn’t change when someone has breasts. The barriers are cultural. And while you might feel uncomfortable, starting CPR as soon as possible could save a life.
put the heel of your hand on the middle of their chest
put your other hand on the top of the first hand, and interlock fingers (keep your arms straight)
press down hard, to a depth of about 5cm before releasing
push the chest at a rate of 100-120 beats per minute (you can sing a song) in your head to help keep time!)
An example of how to do CPR – with a flat-chested manikin.
What about a defibrillator?
You don’t need to remove someone’s bra to perform CPR. But you may need to if a defibrillator is required.
A defibrillator is a device that applies an electric charge to restore the heartbeat. A bra with an underwire could cause a slight burn to the skin when the debrillator’s pads apply the electric charge. But if you can’t remove the bra, don’t let it delay care.
What should change?
Our research highlights the need for a range of CPR training manikins with breasts, as well as different body sizes.
Training resources need to better prepare people to intervene and perform CPR on people with breasts. We also need greater education about women’s risk of getting and dying from heart-related diseases.
Jessica Stokes-Parish is affiliated with the Translational Simulation Collaborative, an academic and operational alliance formed by Bond University and Gold Coast Health to deliver better healthcare outcomes through improved simulation delivery techniques and the development of healthcare practitioners who can use simulation for their everyday quality improvement.
Rebecca A. Szabo, is the lead of Gandel Simulation Service based at The Royal Women’s Hospital in partnership with The University of Melbourne. Gandel Simulation Service uses translational simulation for all people who access and work in healthcare, responsive to the needs of all stakeholders, to develop high performing teams and improve patient safety.
Rebecca A. Szabo is an associate investigator for a validation study of a new dry-electrode ECG device for preterm infants. This is a researcher-initiated study. Laerdal Medical have provided the research team with NeoBeat MiniTM devices for the study. Laerdal Global Health have not been involved in study design or execution and have not funded the study beyond provision of the devices. Laerdal Medical have also provided the research team with a NeoNatalie Live Newborn Ventilation Trainer manikin and NeoBeatTM device for training related purposes.
NERMEEN SHAIKH: In The Hague, the International Criminal Court has issued arrest warrants for Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu and former Defence Minister Yoav Gallant for crimes against humanity and war crimes committed during Israel’s assault on Gaza.
In a statement, the ICC said the Israeli leaders had, “intentionally and knowingly deprived the civilian population in Gaza of objects indispensable to their survival, including food, water, and medicine and medical supplies, as well as fuel and electricity.”
The ICC also issued an arrest warrant for Hamas military commander Mohammed Deif, although Israel’s military claims it killed Deif in a July airstrike.
AMY GOODMAN: In related news, on Wednesday, the United States vetoed a Gaza ceasefire resolution at the UN Security Council for the fourth time, and the US Senate rejected a resolution brought by Senator Bernie Sanders that sought to block the sale of US tank rounds, bomb kits and other lethal weapons to Israel. Nineteen senators supported blocking the arms.
For more on all of this, we’re joined by Akbar Shahid Ahmed, senior diplomatic correspondent forHuffPost. His latest piece is “Exclusive: White House Says Democrats Who Oppose Weapons to Israel Are Aiding Hamas.”
Ahmed, thank you so much for being with us. As you write your book on the Biden administration in Gaza called Crossing the Red Line, clearly the ICC has ruled that today by issuing arrest warrants for Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu, as well as the former Defence Minister Yoav Gallant.
Can you talk about the significance of this move?
“A Great Day for Justice”: Palestinian Lawyer Raji Sourani on ICC Warrants for Netanyahu & Gallant https://t.co/TEb1VwShfn
AKBAR SHAHID AHMED: Yeah, Amy. This is just an absolutely huge development, and it’s significant for a number of reasons. It’s significant because the ICC has come out and amplified and affirmed the allegations of crimes against humanity, of war crimes. This is one more international body.
These are . . . international charges with a great deal of respect. This is a court that most of the world is a member of. And they’re coming out and saying, “Look, we think there are reasonable grounds to believe that these major international red lines have been crossed by the Israelis.”
What’s really important to remember is that this isn’t just a decision about Israel. By extension, it fundamentally is a decision about the United States, which has been the ultimate enabler of Israel’s offensives in Gaza and Lebanon, which are under consideration by the ICC.
And even in this ICC statement today, they point out that in the situations where Israel has addressed concerns over what it describes as starvation as a method of warfare — right? — depriving civilians, Palestinians, of food, water and medical equipment, Israel has really only done so in an extremely arbitrary and, what the ICC judges call, conditional way in response to the US. So, fundamentally, Amy, what we’re seeing is the ICC is saying yet again that Israel and the US, as its major enabler and backer, are in the dark and will continue to be in the dark for years to come.
This kind of adds to a broader picture in which there are now ICC warrants for the sitting Israeli prime minister and former Defence Minister Yoav Gallant, who remains a significant politician in Israel. Simultaneously, there’s the genocide case at the ICJ, the International Court of Justice, which is ongoing and will be ongoing for years to come.
And there’s the Geneva Conventions conference underway next year regarding kind of similar issues — right? — violations of international law, laws of war and the Israeli grave abuses that are alleged. So, the US and Israel will be kind of on trial on the international stage for years to come.
‘Wanted for war crimes in Gaza.’ Video: Democracy Now!
NERMEEN SHAIKH: So, Akbar, would you say that this move is mostly a symbolic one? Because, as you pointed out, of course, most countries are members of the International Criminal Court, but in this instance, perhaps most importantly, neither Israel nor the US are.
AKBAR SHAHID AHMED: Right, Nermeen. And that’s something that the ICC judges did get into today — right? — because Israel said, “Look, the International Criminal Court doesn’t have jurisdiction over us.” That said, the state of Palestine is a member of the court, and that’s why this becomes a relevant and interesting thing, because you’ve seen European nations recognise Palestine as a state. You’ve seen Palestine join the United Nations General Assembly over just last year.
So, yes, while the US and Israel continue to reject international scrutiny by the ICC, by the ICJ, of Israel’s conduct in Gaza and the occupied West Bank and Lebanon, there’s a growing international push to kind of challenge that, right?
And I think you will see the Biden administration and the incoming Trump administration assertively push back against the ICC. The Trump administration did actually target the ICC directly when President Trump was last in office, threatening to put sanctions on ICC officials. And we also know from reporting that the Israelis have spied on and threatened the ICC themselves, according to reporting by The Guardian. So, yes, there will be increased pressure.
But I think we’re really in a place that no one thought we would be even a few months ago, right? I think even the prospect of the ICC prosecutor successfully getting these warrants issued, it was initially thought that would be quite quick. It’s taken a long time. The fact that judges were able to issue those warrants suggests that even though it’s an uphill battle to get this international scrutiny, there’s a real determination and clear will.
And we’ve seen a lot of states turn around and say over 13 months, right? Since the October 7 attack by Hamas within Israel that did spark this current round of fighting, there have been calls to say, “We don’t want this to escalate,” right?
The US’s allies, Western countries have said, “We want to resolve this. We don’t want you on trial. Can the US and Israel please change course?” And what you’ve seen is a defiance from Tel Aviv and from Washington to say, “Actually, no, we’re continuing these wars.”
So, that does take it to a different forum to kind of change the policy.
NERMEEN SHAIKH: And, Akbar, could you also — while we’re looking at the way in which international organisations, multilateral ones, are responding to this, what about the latest vote at the Security Council and the fact that the US blocked it for the fourth time, a ceasefire vote?
AKBAR SHAHID AHMED: It’s really striking at this point — right? — to see the Biden administration totally alone. And you see how this develops over the course of the war. Initially, the US was able to get Britain, even France, kind of abstaining, standing with them.
And now, 13 months in, where conduct hasn’t changed, and you still have daily strikes that are killing dozens, sometimes over a hundred civilians, you have a mounting death toll of mostly women and children, the US is totally alone, where it’s shielding Israel on the world stage diplomatically.
And this is really important to see in the context of the Biden administration as an outlier even among American presidents and administrations. When President Barack Obama was in office, after he was in the lame-duck period that Biden is in now, he actually did abstain at the UN Security Council and said, “You know what? Go ahead and pass a resolution that Israel doesn’t like,” because tacitly the US acknowledged there was a basis, there were credible grounds for that resolution, which in that instance was about Israeli settlement activity.
Here, what you’re seeing from the Biden administration, even in their dying days — right? — two months to go, there’s an obstinacy, a defiance, and a real commitment to shielding Israel, even if they are totally alone against now their closest allies — Britain, France and everyone else on the Security Council.
So, I think the context of that veto kind of presages whatever may come in the next two months in terms of the Biden administration allowing any UN scrutiny of the wars.
AMY GOODMAN: Akbar, I want to play Palestine’s envoy to the United Nations, Majed Bamya, speaking yesterday.
MAJED BAMYA: There is no right to mass killing of civilians. There is no right to starve an entire civilian population. There is no right to forcibly displace a people. And there is no right to annexation. This is what Israel is doing in Gaza. …
Maybe for some, we have the wrong nationality, the wrong faith, the wrong skin color. But we are humans! And we should be treated as such. Is there a UN Charter for Israel that is different from the charter we all have? Tell us. Is there an international law for them, an international law for us? Do they have the right to kill, and the only right we have is to die?
Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Celeste Rodriguez Louro, Chair of Linguistics and Director of Language Lab, The University of Western Australia
Earlier this year, a Hong Kong finance worker was tricked into paying US$25 million to scammers who had used deepfake technology to pretend to be the company’s chief financial officer in a video conference call. Thinking the images on screen were his colleagues, the financier authorised the multi-million dollar transfer to fraudsters posing as friends.
It’s a dramatic example, but the bamboozled office worker was far from alone in being fooled by generative AI. This technology, which relies heavily on large language models trained on vast amounts of data to learn and predict the patterns of language, has become increasingly widespread since the launch of ChatGPT in 2022.
How can we explain why some people who interact with generative AI chatbots are so readily convinced they are having a conversation with a kind of person? The answer may lie in the rules of conversation itself – and how they are deeply ingrained in the way we interact with the world.
Why the hype?
Generative AI systems based on language models produce text that a linguist would call “ungrounded”: it lacks the mutual understanding that is an essential component of conversations between people. However, when humans engage in an interaction we tend to assume that our partner has a mind.
We are wired to anthropomorphise the various non-humans we interact with. Before the recent leaps in generative AI, this was mainly animals.
Now it is machines. Before generative AI, our interactions with computers generally involved minimal linguistic back-and-forth. With generative AI, however, computer systems acknowledge us in a way that seems real. This “seeming real” is a huge part of the technology’s success.
So how does it work?
Language and thought
In a recent paper, American scientists Kyle Mahowald, Anna Ivanova and colleagues argue that we are conflating language and thought. Because generative AI systems can use language somewhat fluently, we believe they can think. (For the record, they cannot.)
The authors distinguish between formal linguistic competence (knowledge of rules and statistical patterns in language) and functional linguistic competence (how to use language in real-world situations).
It’s not enough to produce rule-governed utterances. They must also be used appropriately in context. In this example (crafted with the help of ChatGPT-4o when prompted to produce an example of an accurate but inappropriate conversational response), Alex offers a response that, while factually correct, fails to address their friend’s need for support.
Friend: I am freaking out about my presentation tomorrow.
Alex: Stress activates your body’s fight-or-flight response, increasing heart rate and cortisol levels.
Mahowald and colleagues say our belief in the intelligence of generative AI systems comes from their capacity for language. However, a crucial piece of the puzzle is what happens to humans when we interact with the technology.
The rules of conversation
The key to understanding the allure of generative AI chatbots for humans lies in the genre the bots perform: conversation. Conversation is governed by rules and routines.
Conversational routines vary across cultures, and different expectations are in place. In Western cultures, at least, linguists often regard conversation as proceeding according to four principles or “maxims” set out in 1975 by British philosopher of language Paul Grice.
The maxim of quality: be truthful; do not give information that is false or not supported by evidence.
The maxim of quantity: be as informative as is required; don’t give too much or too little information.
The maxim of relevance: only give information that is relevant to the topic under discussion.
The maxim of manner: be clear, brief, and orderly; avoid obscurity and ambiguity.
Finding relevance at all costs
Generative AI chatbots usually do well in terms of quantity (sometimes erring on the side of giving too much information), and they tend to be relevant and clear (a reason people use them to improve their writing).
However, they do often fail on the maxim of quality. They tend to hallucinate, giving answers which may appear authoritative but are in fact false.
The crux of generative AI’s success, however, lies in Grice’s claim that anyone engaged in meaningful communication will abide by these maxims and will assume that others are also following them.
For example, the reason lying works is that people interacting with a liar will assume the other person is telling the truth. People interacting with someone who offers an irrelevant comment will attempt to find relevance at all costs.
Grice’s cooperative principle holds that conversation is underpinned by our overarching will to understand one another.
The will to cooperate
The success of generative AI, then, depends in part on the human need to cooperate in conversation, and to be instinctively drawn to interaction. This way of interacting through conversation, learned in childhood, becomes habitual.
Grice argued that “it would take a good deal of effort to make a radical departure from the habit”.
Next time you engage with generative AI, then, do so with caution. Remember it’s only a language model. Don’t let your habitual need for conversational cooperation accept a machine as a fellow human.
Celeste Rodriguez Louro does not work for, consult, own shares in or receive funding from any company or organisation that would benefit from this article, and has disclosed no relevant affiliations beyond their academic appointment.
Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Michael Hanaghan, Senior Research Fellow in Latin Christianity in Late Antiquity, Australian Catholic University
Warning: this article contains mild spoilers.
When Gladiator I was released in 2000, I was a high school Classics student and the film brought Classical literature to life for me. Dramatic depictions of ancient warfare seemed more real, the machinations of imperial politics all the more serious.
So it was with some trepidation, then, that I went to see Gladiator II. Could it live up to Gladiator I’s high standards? Would it be sufficiently plausible for me to enjoy?
I’m not here to fact-check the film – something already admirably done. Rather, I wanted to reflect on its “truthiness” and historical ambience, and specifically on its portrayal of two Roman emperors, the brothers Caracalla and Geta.
Caracalla and Geta do and say some very odd things in the film that may feel far-fetched to some. In fact, these brothers – and other Roman emperors – really did do some unhinged things.
An intense rivalry
Caracalla was a young boy when Commodus, the cruel and creepy emperor portrayed by Joaquin Phoenix in Gladiator I, died. The tumultous “year of the five emperors” followed, culminating in Caracalla’s father, Septimius Severus, becoming emperor.
In 198CE, Septimius appointed Caracalla – now a boy of ten – to be co-emperor. Then in 209CE he made Caracalla’s younger brother Geta also a co-emperor.
The father and sons ruled until Septimius’ death in early 211CE. The brothers then ruled together until Geta’s death in late 211CE, which was followed by Caracalla’s own death in 217CE.
It was clear the scriptwriters of Gladiator II drew at least in part on the Classical literature that informs our understanding of Ancient Rome.
Sometimes, this influence is obvious. At other times it is more subtle, such as the denouncement of imperialism informed no doubt by the classic anti-imperialist speech given by the Caledonian chieftain Calgacus in the historian Tacitus’ biography of Agricola, the Roman governor of Britain. Keen eyed Latinists will no doubt raise some eyebrows at the graffito easter egg later in the film.
The relatively little we know about Caracalla and Geta are from records by two Greek historians, Herodian and Cassius Dio. There’s also very dubious imperial history written in Latin called the Historia Augusta.
From these sources, it’s clear the brothers had an intense rivalry. This was largely kept in check while their father Septimius Severus was emperor.
But once Septimius died, their relationship devolved into outright hostility.
Bringing out the worst in each other
Geta’s behaviour seems to have been more moderate. The Historia Augusta tell a strange story of him enjoying banquets themed around letters of the alphabet, where every dish featured a food that started with the same letter.
Caracalla was far more unhinged. According to the Historia Augusta, he once fought a lion so he could boast he was Hercules.
He also apparently condemned to death anyone who had urinated near his statues. Interestingly, Caracalla was himself eventually assassinated when he dismounted from his horse to relieve himself.
During his invasion of Persia, he ordered the royal tombs to be desecrated and the bones of past kings to be scattered.
When put together, the brothers seemed to bring out the worst in each other. Not even dividing the imperial palace into two zones was enough to keep the peace.
Obsessed by spectacle
According to the Greek historian Herodian, Caracalla and Geta were obsessed by spectacles, something which suits the film’s depiction of gladiatorial combat well.
Interest in the games of the arena was a common imperial trait. It represented a great political opportunity for an emperor to put his power on display.
So in the film, Geta and Caracalla’s interest and excitement in attending the games strikes me as historically valid.
According to the Greek historian Cassius Dio, Caracalla fancied himself in particular as a fighter in the arena. He reportedly killed a hundred boars by himself in a single day, and solicited money from the crowd by saluting them with a whip from the ground of the arena.
Cassius Dio also alleges Caracalla and Geta befriended gladiators and chariot riders, and that Caracalla broke his leg in a fiercely contested chariot race with his brother.
In the end, Caracalla tricked Geta into a meeting with their mother, on the premise that the brothers might come to terms, and then had him assassinated in front of her.
Once Caracalla was sole emperor, his games featured a range of animals to be killed for entertainment.
These included elephants, rhinoceros, tigers, zebras, and even, Cassius Dio asserts, a crocotta – a mythical beast, somewhere between a dog, a wolf, a hyena and a lion.
None of our sources mention Caracalla’s appointing of a monkey to high office, a scene depicted in Gladiator II.
But while this is clearly outrageous, Roman emperors were known to act outrageously; there was political advantage to be gained in acting outrageously and getting away with it.
According to the Roman writer Suetonius, the first century Roman emperor Caligula planned to appoint his favourite horse Incitatus to the high office of consul. It may have been as a prank or a form of satirical criticism, the implication being that even a horse could do the job.
The film does miss a bit of an opportunity in that Caracalla and Geta’s mother, Julia Domna, does not feature in the script, given we know imperial mothers and wives often exerted significant influence.
Perhaps the decision to elide Julia Domna was taken so as not to distract from Lucilla, Commodus’ sister, who was a real historical figure (but who actually died before the time Gladiator II was set). Her engagement in the political intrigues of the plot may well have been inspired somewhat by Julia Domna.
In the film, Caracalla and Geta are pretty crazy, but this is more art imitating life than a flight of fancy.
Michael Hanaghan receives funding from the Australian Research Council.
When Prime Minister Christopher Luxon stood in Parliament last week to apologise to survivors of abuse in care, his words were among many fine speeches by government officials and survivors that day.
But to understand what is really happening, we now need to set those words alongside what the government has – and has not – been doing.
The apology arose from a recommendation in the Abuse in Care Royal Commission’s 2021 report on redress. At the time, the government announced it would launch a comprehensive redress system in mid-2023. That did not happen.
Then, in July this year, Luxon told the nation to expect a substantial redress program before the end of 2024. That will not happen, and his apology on November 12 did not restate that commitment.
Survivors must lead
The apology was an opportunity for the government to demonstrate a commitment to action. It was also an opportunity for survivors to participate in redress.
Originally, representative survivors were to respond in the debating chamber to Luxon’s speech, but the government decided to do things differently. Survivors would instead speak in the Beehive before the apology.
As they could not respond directly to the apology itself, they spoke about their shared struggles, hopes and fears. Although their speaking times were cut from ten to five minutes, and Luxon was not in the room, they laid down a clear challenge.
Government action to date has been inadequate, they said. Proper redress must acknowledge past and ongoing injuries. And it must implement the transformative changes needed to prevent systemic abuse in care.
As survivor Keith Wiffin said, adequate redress requires “direct involvement and leadership from survivors”. Overall, there needs to be partnership between survivors and the Crown, and between Māori and tauiwi (non-Māori).
Survivors are owed substantial redress for their injuries. Moreover, only the Crown has the power and resources needed to stop future systemic abuse in care. But survivors say the consultation model is broken.
A seemingly perpetual consultation process – in which the government asks survivors about its proposals, and survivors wait for yet another Cabinet paper – not only creates delays, but is also disempowering.
As survivor Tu Chapman said, the state has “continued to divide us survivors by picking and choosing when you want our insights and when you want us involved”. The government, Chapman added, should “give us what we need, so we can contribute. We, the mōrehu [survivors], have the answers.”
Questions of redress
The prime minister has now said the government intends to have a new redress system in place in 2025. But we also need to look at what wasn’t said in the apology.
He did not commit to any of the royal commission’s central recommendations on redress. Those included addressing survivors’ needs and claims holistically, the process being independent of offending institutions, embracing te ao Māori, including survivors of faith-based care, and being survivor-led.
Those are significant absences. The responsible minister, Erica Stanford, instead announced the government is “working towards introducing a new streamlined redress system next year”. This is not something survivors have been specifically requesting.
Some have speculated the redevelopment of ACC’s Integrated Services for Sensitive Claims might be an option the government is considering. This currently offers sexual assault survivors quicker access to an expanded range of social, economic, vocational, clinical and therapeutic services. But that is a long way from what the Royal Commission recommended.
Perpetrators and unmarked graves
Elsewhere, the apology itself offered few specific commitments. Luxon announced the government would seek to remove public memorials and other honours for those who are “proven perpetrators”.
What this means is unclear. Many abusers are dead, others are too old to be brought to trial. At present, there may be no mechanism to rescind honours posthumously, leaving alleged serial abusers such as Louise Miles undisturbed.
Luxon also committed to investigating unmarked graves. The Royal Commission identified the potential for unmarked graves at several large institutions and recommended an independent body investigate those sites.
How that will work is unknown, but it should include identifying who is buried, enable the return of remains to relatives where appropriate, and otherwise recognise these sites as cemeteries.
Prime Minister Christopher Luxon and Minister for the Crown Response to Abuse in Care, Erica Stanford. Getty Images
More than words
Finally, we need to watch what the government is doing at the same time as it responds to the abuse-in-care report.
And we have seen the end of a digitisation program designed to facilitate access to survivors’ care records that would underpin the work of a comprehensive redress program.
In his apology, Luxon announced that November 12 2025 will be a national remembrance day for survivors of abuse in care. Perhaps it should become an annual commemoration day, a perpetual reminder of the horrors endured by so many and an impetus for improvement.
When the date rolls around next year, we can expect more fine official sentiments. But without real action, Wiffin’s words on the day of the apology will still hold true:
We’ve heard those words from the state before, and they are meaningless because they have not resulted in change or progress.
The author acknowledges the contribution of Filipo Katavake-McGrath to the writing of this article.
Stephen Winter worked on the High Level Redress Design Working Group in 2023. His opinions are his own and do not represent those of that or any other group.
Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Flora Hui, Research Fellow, Centre for Eye Research Australia and Honorary Fellow, Department of Surgery (Ophthalmology), The University of Melbourne
The United States Food and Drug Administration has just approved the first-ever clinical trial that uses CRISPR-Cas13 RNA editing. Its aim is to treat an eye disease called wet age-related macular degeneration that causes vision loss in millions of older people worldwide.
This trial marks a new frontier in gene therapy – the process of treating or curing medical conditions by changing a person’s genes.
What makes it special is the fact the therapy targets RNA, instead of DNA. So, what does that mean, and why should we be excited?
What is gene editing and how is it used?
Genes are made up of DNA, or deoxyribonucleic acid. Nearly all cells in your body have the same DNA, the material that makes your body uniquely yours. If anything goes wrong in your DNA, it can result in various diseases.
Thanks to recent advances, we now have the tools to directly change someone’s DNA – this has paved the way for gene editing as a type of gene therapy.
It is done using the CRISPR-Cas9 system, which was created after scientists discovered that bacteria defend against invading viruses by capturing their DNA and destroying it.
This makes gene editing highly useful when designing new treatments for genetic conditions where you need to correct faulty DNA.
Gene editing causes permanent changes to a person’s genes, effectively rewriting parts of their DNA. But altering DNA comes with its own challenges and risks.
Care must be taken to avoid accidentally causing unintended but permanent changes to DNA elsewhere in the gene, which could lead to unwanted mutations.
One way to avoid the risks of editing DNA is to target RNA or ribonucleic acid instead.
RNA is also in all our cells, and plays a key role in their functions. One of its jobs is making proteins. If DNA is the set of genetic instructions, RNA is what reads and translates those instructions into making the proteins our cells need.
RNA editing, then, is also a type of gene therapy. Its goal is to change how RNA interprets genetic instructions to control how proteins are made. In most recent advancements, RNA editing uses the CRISPR-Cas13 system, a newer technique that was created specifically to help develop therapies that work with RNA.
DNA editing is permanent, which is needed to treat genetic diseases. RNA editing events, on the other hand, are transient in nature because RNA molecules are constantly being made and degraded in our cells.
RNA editing doesn’t permanently change a person’s DNA, but rather alters the steps that happen after the RNA molecule “reads” the DNA instructions.
This means it can be used to produce more targeted results by, for example, only altering how one specific protein is made. This also makes it a potentially safer option over DNA editing, with fewer unintended effects on other cells.
RNA editing also has an advantage where you can potentially control or reverse the therapy, providing a level of control DNA editing can’t provide.
This is an important factor to prevent over-treatment and makes it a versatile therapy for conditions where faulty DNA isn’t the cause of the disease.
So what is this first RNA editing trial going to do?
As the name suggests, age plays a role – it almost exclusively affects people older than 55 years. AMD affects the health of the macula, the central part of the retina, which processes what we see. It’s a leading cause of irreversible blindness around the world.
Wet AMD occurs when there is a build-up of fluid and new, leaky blood vessels underneath the macula, causing rapid and severe impact to a person’s central vision.
In wet AMD, leaky blood vessels grow beneath the macula, causing central vision loss. The Conversation/Shutterstock
Currently, it’s treated with regular drug injections into the eye to control the growth of the leaky blood vessels. The drugs block VEGF, or vascular endothelial growth factor, a molecule that tells our bodies to make new blood vessels.
This is where RNA editing comes in. In the lab, scientists have proven that the delivery of the RNA editing therapy via a safe, engineered virus allowed for an effective reduction of VEGF levels to stop new blood vessel growth in the eye through a one-off injection. For treating wet AMD, it would mean no more monthly needles.
The FDA-approved clinical trial will now assess the safety of RNA editing therapy for wet AMD. It’s also the first-ever clinical stage trial for a CRISPR-Cas13 RNA editing therapy, marking a significant milestone for the field of research.
While it’s early days for the technology, the new trial shows RNA editing therapies have arrived. It will be yet another powerful tool in humanity’s arsenal to develop safe new therapies for various medical conditions.
The authors do not work for, consult, own shares in or receive funding from any company or organisation that would benefit from this article, and have disclosed no relevant affiliations beyond their academic appointment.
Summer is nearly here. But rather than getting out the sunscreen, some TikTokers are urging followers to chuck it out and go sunscreen-free.
They claim it’s healthier to forgo sunscreen to get the full benefits of sunshine.
Here’s the science really says.
How does sunscreen work?
Because of Australia’s extreme UV environment, most people with pale to olive skin or other risk factors for skin cancer need to protect themselves. Applying sunscreen is a key method of protecting areas not easily covered by clothes.
Sunscreen works by absorbing or scattering UV rays before they can enter your skin and damage DNA or supportive structures such as collagen.
When UV particles hit DNA, the excess energy can damage our DNA. This damage can be repaired, but if the cell divides before the mistake is fixed, it causes a mutation that can lead to skin cancers.
The energy from a particle of UV (a photon) causes DNA strands to break apart and reconnect incorrectly. This causes a bump in the DNA strand that makes it difficult to copy accurately and can introduce mutations. NASA/David Herring
The most common skin cancers are basal cell carcinoma (BCC) and squamous cell carcinoma (SCC). Melanoma is less common, but is the most likely to spread around the body; this process is called metastasis.
Two in three Australians will have at least one skin cancer in their lifetime, and they make up 80% of all cancers in Australia.
Around 99% of skin cancers in Australia are caused by excessive exposure to UV radiation.
Excessive exposure to UV radiation also affects the appearance of your skin. UVA rays are able to penetrate deep into the skin, where they break down supportive structures such as elastin and collagen.
This causes signs of premature ageing, such as deep wrinkling, brown or white blotches, and broken capillaries.
Sunscreen can help prevent skin cancers
Used consistently, sunscreen reduces your risk of skin cancer and slows skin ageing.
In a Queensland study, participants either used sunscreen daily for almost five years, or continued their usual use.
At the end of five years, the daily-use group had reduced their risk of squamous cell carcinoma by 40% compared to the other group.
Ten years later, the daily use group had reduced their risk of invasive melanoma by 73%
Does sunscreen block the health-promoting properties of sunlight?
The answer is a bit more complicated, and involves personalised risk versus benefit trade-offs.
First, the good news: there are many health benefits of spending time in the sun that don’t rely on exposure to UV radiation and aren’t affected by sunscreen use.
Sunscreen only filters UV rays, not all light. Ron Lach/Pexels
Sunscreen only filters UV rays, not visible light or infrared light (which we feel as heat). And importantly, some of the benefits of sunlight are obtained via the eyes.
Visible lightimproves mood and regulates circadian rhythm (which influences your sleep-wake cycle), and probably reduces myopia (short-sightedness) in children.
So what is the benefit of exposing skin to UV radiation?
Exposing the skin to the sun produces vitamin D, which is critical for healthy bones and muscles.
Vitamin D deficiency is surprisingly common among Australians, peaking in Victoria at 49% in winter and being lowest in Queensland at 6% in summer.
Luckily, people who are careful about sun protection can avoid vitamin D deficiency by taking a supplement.
Exposing the skin to UV radiation might have benefits independent of vitamin D production, but these are not proven. It might reduce the risk of autoimmune diseases such as multiple sclerosis or cause release of a chemical that could reduce blood pressure. However, there is not enough detail about these benefits to know whether sunscreen would be a problem.
What does this mean for you?
There are some benefits of exposing the skin to UV radiation that might be blunted by sunscreen. Whether it’s worth foregoing those benefits to avoid skin cancer depends on how susceptible you are to skin cancer.
If you have pale skin or other factors that increase you risk of skin cancer, you should aim to apply sunscreen daily on all days when the UV index is forecast to reach 3.
If you have darker skin that rarely or never burns, you can go without daily sunscreen – although you will still need protection during extended times outdoors.
For now, the balance of evidence suggests it’s better for people who are susceptible to skin cancer to continue with sun protection practices, with vitamin D supplementation if needed.
Katie Lee receives funding from the National Health and Medical Research Council.
Rachel Neale receives funding from the National Health and Medical Research Council.
In humans and other animals, ageing is generally associated with a decline in biological function. But scientists are now discovering older animals perform vital roles in populations and ecosystems.
Unfortunately, however, old animals can suffer the most from human activity such as over-fishing and trophy hunting. And the value of old, wise animals is not usually considered when we manage animal populations and seek to protect biodiversity.
Our new review, published today in Science, draws on evidence from around the world to argue for a new approach called “longevity conservation”.
The loss of old and wise animals has devastating global consequences. Clearly, more must be done to prioritise their survival.
Benefits of a long life
Cold-blooded (ectothermic) animals such as fish and reptiles tend to keep growing throughout their life. This means older individuals are generally larger than younger individuals.
Being bigger has benefits, especially when it comes to feeding and reproduction. It’s widely known the number of offspring increases with age in fish and many other ectotherms. But it’s only recently been discovered that older mothers of some fish and sea turtles produce exponentially more offspring as time goes on. Their young may also have better chances of survival.
Survival rates are can be higher in offspring from older mothers in other species too. For example, in birds older parents and their helpers often provide more food and better habitat for their chicks, improving fledgling survival rates.
Females from a range of species tend to select older males as mates. These males commonly assume crucial social roles, such as leading long distance movements like migration, and regulating social structures, such as reducing aggressive behaviour. These behaviours influence decision-making with direct consequences for group and offspring survival.
Large estuarine crocodiles like this one from Roper River, Northern Territory were hunted almost to extinction within Australia, but now they are a recovering conservation success. Church Missionary Society Australia
With age comes wisdom
Some animals draw on experience accumulated over the course of their lifetime in order to make better decisions. In elephants, mothers and grandmothers are repositories of knowledge.
This “grandmother effect”, first studied in humans, also occurs in whales. Wise grandmother killer whales, which no longer reproduce, help their families find food when it is scarce and this benefits survival.
In a wide range of species, new research is showing how older individuals transmit their knowledge to others via a process called cultural transmission. The benefits of old age extend to animals such as migratory birds, pack-hunting carnivores, and even fish. For example, taking all the big fish from some populations has diminished their collective group memory often needed for migration and knowledge of spawning areas.
This family group of African elephants has been the subject of research into older animals. Phyllis Lee
Examining the loss of older animals
Our research set out to build understanding of the ecology and conservation of old animals.
We assembled an interdisciplinary team of experts who work on different animals and diverse ecosystems. Our team included behavioural and wildlife ecologists as well as freshwater, marine and fisheries scientists.
We searched the literature and wrote a review. In addition, we used a machine learning topic model to delve into more than 9,000 peer-reviewed papers.
Most research has focused on the negative aspects of ageing, particularly in humans, and short-lived animal models such as fruit flies. Yet emerging evidence is showing how old wild animals contribute to populations and ecosystems.
Many of these functions benefit people too, but are being lost as old individuals are removed from the wild.
Fishing has caused a systematic decline in the abundance of old fish, with these aged individuals reduced in 79-97% of the ocean populations examined.
But the loss of old individuals is not limited to large enigmatic species. Deep-sea coral and Antarctic sponges – which can live for thousands of years – are being harvested, damaged by fishing gear, and affected by climate change. These species cannot be replaced within our lifetime.
Species that live to advanced ages are often large, slow-growing, and slow to mature. These traits can make these species more vulnerable to extinction if older adults are killed by humans.
But when humans spare old individuals, these long-lived species are more resistant to environmental change and provide more stable ecosystem services, such as fisheries which supply protein to feed the world.
Retaining old animals tends to protect populations from poor environmental conditions such as drought and other extreme climate events, allowing species to persist against the odds. This buffering capacity is increasingly important in the face of global climate change.
Very old animals, like this 100+ year-old bigmouth buffalo, are declining because of over-harvesting and river regulation. This species is native to rivers of North America. Alec Lackmann
Introducing ‘longevity conservation’
Old animals play vital roles in the maintenance of biodiversity and ecosystem services.
Yet harvest management and conservation practices tend not to focus on preserving age structures within populations. And the loss of old individuals is not yet recognised by the International Union for Conservation of Nature as a means of listing threatened species, or as a type of over-fishing.
To protect old individuals and maintain or restore the age structure of wild populations, we propose “longevity conservation” measures.
Decisive new policy and actions are needed to protect and restore the crucial ecological roles and services old, wise, and large animals provide. For example, formally recognising and avoiding “longevity overfishing” should be incorporated into fisheries management to help ensure the long-term sustainability of fisheries.
Biodiversity conservation and threatened species policies should protect age structure. This is particularly important in long-lived species that produce more offspring with age, or where migration, social networks and cultural transmission of knowledge are required for survival.
Keller Kopf does research on long-lived animals and has received grants associated with the management and conservation of fisheries and wildlife.
Earlier this year, a caver was poring over satellite images of the Nullarbor Plain when he came across something unexpected: an enormous, mysterious scar etched into the barren landscape.
The find intrigued scientists, including my colleagues and I. Upon closer investigation, we realised the scar was created by a ferocious tornado that no-one knew had occurred. We outline the findings in new research published today.
Tornadoes are a known threat in the United States and elsewhere. But they also happen in Australia.
Without the power of technology, this remarkable example of nature’s ferocity would have gone unnoticed. It’s important to study the tornado’s aftermath to help us predict and prepare for the next big twister.
Tornadoes are not just a US phenomena – they can occur in Australia, too. Shutterstock
Australia’s tornado history
Tornadoes are violent, spinning columns of air that drop from thunderstorms to the ground, bringing wind speeds often exceeding 200 kilometres an hour. They can cause massive destruction – uprooting trees, tearing apart buildings and throwing debris over large distances.
Tornadoes have been reported on every continent except Antarctica. They most commonly occur in the Great Plains region of the United States, and in the north-east region of India–Bangladesh.
The earliest observed tornado in Australia occurred in 1795 in the suburbs of Sydney. But a tornado was not scientifically confirmed here until the late 1800s.
In recent decades, documented instances in Australia include a 2013 tornado that crossed north-east Victoria and travelled up to the New South Wales border. It brought winds between 250–300 kilometres an hour and damaged Murray River townships.
And in 2016, a severe storm produced at least seven tornadoes in central and eastern parts of South Australia.
It’s important for scientists to accurately predict tornadoes, so we can issue warnings to communities. That’s why the Nullarbor tornado scar was useful to study.
A whirlwind mystery
The Nullarbor Plain is a remote, dry, treeless stretch of land in southern Australia. The man who discovered the scar had been using Google Earth satellite imagery to search the Nullabor for caves or other karst features.
Karst is a landscape underlain by limestone featuring distinctive landforms. The discovery of the scar came to the attention of my colleagues and I through the collaborative network of researchers and explorers who study the Nullarbor karst.
The scar stretches from Western Australia over the border to South Australia. It lies 20 kilometres north of the Trans-Australian Railway and 90 kilometres east-north-east of Forrest, a former railway settlement.
We compared satellite imagery of the site over several years to determine that the tornado occurred between November 16 and 18, 2022. Blue circular patterns appeared alongside the scar, indicating pools of water associated with heavy rain.
My colleagues and I then travelled to the site in May this year to examine and photograph the scar and the neighbouring landscape.
Our results have been published today in the Journal of Southern Hemisphere Earth Systems Science.
Map showing tornado events in Western Australia and South Australia between 1795 and 2014. The location of the tornado scar in the study is shown with a red dot. Source: Severe Thunderstorm Archive/Australian Bureau of Meteorology
What we found
The scar is 11 kilometres long and between 160 and 250 metres wide. It bears striking patterns called “cycloidal marks”, formed by tornado suction vortexes. This suggests the tornado was no ordinary storm but in the strong F2 or F3 category, spinning with destructive winds of more than 200 kilometres an hour.
The tornado probably lasted between seven and 13 minutes. Features of the scar suggest the whirling wind within the tornado was moving in a clockwise direction. We also think the tornado moved from west to east – which is consistent with the direction of a strong cold front in the region at the time.
‘Cycloidal marks’ in the tornado scar, caused by multiple vortexes. Google Earth satellite imagery
Local weather observations also recorded intensive cloud cover and rainfall during that period in November 2022.
Unlike tornadoes that hit populated areas, this one did not damage homes or towns. But it left its mark nonetheless, eroding soil and vegetation and reshaping the Earth’s surface.
Remarkably, the scar was still clearly visible 18 months after the event, both in satellite images and on the ground. This is probably because vegetation grows slowly in this dry landscape, so hadn’t yet covered the erosion.
Predict and prepare
This fascinating discovery on the Nullarbor Plain shows how powerful and unpredictable nature can be – sometimes without us knowing.
Only three tornadoes have previously been documented on the Nullarbor Plain. This is likely because the area is remote with few eye-witnesses, and because the events do not damage properties and infrastructure. Interestingly, those three tornadoes occurred in November, just like this one.
Our research provides valuable insights into the tornadoes in this remote and little-studied region. It helps us understand when, and in what conditions, these types of tornadoes occur.
It also emphasises the importance of satellite imagery in identifying and analysing weather phenomena in remote locations, and in helping us predict and prepare for the next big event.
And finally, the results are a stark reminder that extreme weather can strike anywhere, anytime.
Matej Lipar does not work for, consult, own shares in or receive funding from any company or organisation that would benefit from this article, and has disclosed no relevant affiliations beyond their academic appointment.
Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Treena Clark, Chancellor’s Indigenous Research Fellow, Faculty of Design, Architecture and Building, University of Technology Sydney
Once located 250 metres to the east of the Art Gallery of South Australia, the grand beaux-arts style Jubilee Exhibition Building was constructed to house the 1887 Adelaide Jubilee International Exhibition and to celebrate the 50th anniversary of South Australian settlement.
Hosting interstate and international participants, the exhibition presented various items, including machinery, fine art, textiles and produce.
In the South Australian section, the Protector of Aborigines, responsible for controlling Aboriginal people in South Australia and the Northern Territory, exhibited cultural implements and artefacts.
Some of these items included bags and wallets made of “native hemp” from the Northern Territory.
This colonial presentation of forced and unpaid fashion labour from First Nations people was a practice that had commenced decades earlier.
By the mid-20th century, these wares ceased being displayed in the exhibitions and First Nations people had more autonomy in their craft production. This rise of self-determination led to the first wave of First Nations fashion design, of contemporary garment-makers and textile-designers.
A market for design
In Coffs Harbour in the mid-1960s, First Nations women made clothes for tourists at the Big Banana. Although the garments did not feature their designs, the women received income from crafting the dresses and sarongs.
In the late 1960s, textiles from the Tiwi Islands emerged and were later paraded in small fashion shows.
Other arts and crafts centres soon joined the textile movement, and an explosion of designs materialised in the market.
By the 1980s, First Nations fashion design had been cemented as a movement.
This was the time of individual designers presenting alongside the established arts and crafts centres and showcasing their designs on international runways.
Their designs and silhouettes were new: they told contemporary stories of colonisation, community, family and culture.
Self-determination
Today, First Nations artists and designers are self-determining the ownership of their cultural stories and the appropriate practices within the fashion, gallery, library and museum sectors.
Many First Nations artists and designers are presenting across multiple mediums and ensuring their designs and practices are culturally, environmentally and economically sustainable.
The First Nations pieces featured in the exhibition Radical Textiles traverse art and fashion design, taking the item off the body and onto a mannequin or frame. These works of art share a common thread of honouring and celebrating tradition, ancestors, family, community and Country.
The pieces embody wearable art from a purely experimental or commercial approach.
Trudy Inkamala (Western Arrernte/Luritja people) (1940–2023) and Sheree Inkamala’s (Western Arrernte/Luritja/Pitjantjatjara people) (b. 1995) Dilly bags everywhere (2021) features a contemporary vibrant bag and striking bold dress print depicting women and animal motifs.
Sustainable and recycled materials, including used woollen blankets, discarded metal and cotton dyed from plants, are prominent in this work.
Trudy Inkamala was a respected Elder and knowledge-keeper who crafted fibre and hand-painted art that depicted and featured people and wildlife. Her younger relation, Sheree Inkamala, is an emerging sculptural textile and print artist.
Their designs embody the Yarrenyty Arltere Artists style, an Aboriginal-owned and run art centre in Mparntwe (Alice Springs), renowned for its colourful and playful soft sculptures, works on paper, textiles and film.
Annabell Amagula’s (Anindilyakwa people) (b. 1965) representation of Country, culture and sustainability in her Ghost Net Bag and Dress (2020) highlights technical skill and intricate detail in several layers of craft.
Amagula’s dress and bag make use of fair-trade silk, a handwoven ghost net, and recycled miners’ high-vis uniforms.
The silk pattern depicts an existing image of Amagula’s ghost net crab sculpture, which has been repeated and digitally printed. A recycled miner’s uniform is used to edge the dress and, along with the ghost net, construct and shape the bag.
Amagula is a senior artist from Groote Eylandt in the Northern Territory and a member of Anindilyakwa Arts, whose family has significantly assisted her in the art of paint and bag creation.
Always was, always will be
Clothing The Gaps’ iconic Power Tee boldly incorporates the Aboriginal flag colours and features the historically significant message “Always Was, Always Will Be”, a powerful acknowledgement that Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander people are the rightful custodians of this land and sovereignty was never ceded.
Clothing The Gaps is a majority Aboriginal-owned social enterprise located in Victoria, co-founded by Laura Thompson (Gunditjmara people) and Sarah Sheridan. The organisation designs wearable clothing for First Nations peoples and allies and uses colours and slogans to highlight the profoundly important themes impacting First Nations people.
Ethically made in Australia on Wurundjeri Country, Victoria, their clothes embody wearable activism, which calls for and influences social change.
Paul McCann’s (Marrithiyel people) (b. 1984) Sovereignty Never Ceded Gown and Suit (2023) speaks to the trauma and resilience of First Nations people and the importance of sovereignty and self-determination.
As a commissioned set for the 2023 Melbourne Fashion Festival, McCann’s gown features cream satin, blue organza and gold hand-painted designs. The black vintage suit is adorned with blue and gold hand-painted motifs.
A fashion design graduate, McCann was inspired by his grandmother’s vintage outfits and his family’s cultural stories and art. His design ethos is that of culture and glamour and he often adds hand-painted art and embellishments to garments and jewellery that tell stories of tradition and Country.
These four works of art and fashion have multiple interwoven messages, themes and creative practices. Some are wildly colourful, while others are subdued. Some represent contemporary graphics, while others traditional art. Some overtly speak to sovereignty, while others are subtle in their message.
Their commonality advocates and showcases culture, craft, sustainability and a desire for truth-telling.
This essay was originally published in the Radical Textiles publication from the Art Gallery of South Australia and is republished with permission.
Treena Clark has received funding through the University of Technology Sydney Chancellor’s Indigenous Research Fellowship scheme.
The 25-year-old’s life was tragically cut short in 2014 when a bouncer struck the back of his neck during a match for South Australia.
Despite wearing a helmet, Hughes never regained consciousness after the ball struck an unprotected area just below his left ear.
A decade later, another supremely talented batsman, Will Pucovski, is facing premature retirement due to concussion-related concerns.
With player safety such a high priority area in cricket, how have the rules changed over the past decade? And even if you only play cricket at a community level, what do you need to know to stay safe?
Managing risk in a dangerous sport
Batting is a daunting and dangerous activity: batters stand about 18 metres away from bowlers who can hurl a hard leather cricket ball at speeds exceeding 130 kilometres per hour for women and 150 km per hour for men.
The coroner also noted Hughes was not wearing a helmet that complied with the highest-level safety standards at the time. He said cricketers’ personal protective equipment was “essential if death and injury is to be minimised”.
He recommended Cricket Australia continue collaborating with developers and players’ associations to identify a neck protector that could be mandated for use in all first class cricket matches.
Cricket Australia changed the playing conditions for the 2023–24 season, and now all Australian players in international and domestic cricket must wear neck protectors.
Deaths in cricket
The death of Hughes was not the first to occur in a cricket match. But it served as the catalyst for researchers to take a closer look and gather data on cricket-related fatalities.
One historical review found cricket-related fatalities in Australia date back to 1864, with 174 deaths related to the game – of those, 83 were in organised settings, such as club or school competitions. The others were in informal play such as in backyards and on beaches.
In organised cricket, the most common cause of death was a batter suffering “a ball to the head (temple, forehead or face), to the side of the head, below or behind the ear, or on the neck”.
Notably, these fatalities decreased significantly after the introduction and widespread use of helmets by batsmen from the 1980s.
Concussion and traumatic brain injury
Even with the protective equipment available to players today, batters, wicket-keepers and even umpires and bowlers are still at some risk of severe facial and skull fractures, concussion and traumatic brain injury.
A 2022 UK study involving about 2,300 mostly male cricketers found 10% of players experienced at least one concussion during their career.
In Australian elite male and female cricket players, concussions were the third most frequent injury (in terms of time lost to a sport) from 2015 to 2022.
Closer to home, the collapse of Australian batsman David Hookes after being struck in the jaw in the same year was the catalyst for changing attitudes towards helmet use.
Over the past decade, the International Cricket Council (ICC) and many national members have supported the United Kingdom’s Loughborough University research to improve the design of helmets.
This research is used to improve many of the rules regarding helmet use, and concussion testing and management approaches.
Helmet design technology is continuing to develop. High-impact materials are being used to reinforce the hard outer shell of the helmet (including the face guard), with the protective inner shells being further refined to better distribute and absorb ball impact forces.
As observed by the coroner in the Hughes inquest, helmets must now comply with what is known as the British Standard.
Who needs to wear helmets?
At all levels of the sport, the ICC and Cricket Australia owe a duty of care to players and helmet rules now apply across all levels.
International level
At international level, the ICC issued a directive in 2015 making it mandatory for elite cricketers to wear a compliant helmet in ICC-sanctioned matches.
For example, in Test matches, a helmet must be worn by batters who are facing pace bowlers, wicket-keepers who are standing up to the stumps, and fielders who are close to the batter in front of the wicket.
The ICC states “the use of a neck protector when batting in international cricket is optional”.
National level
Since the 2019–20 season, Cricket Australia mandated players wearing British Standard-compliant helmets when batting, wicket-keeping up to the stumps and fielding close to the batter.
It changed the playing conditions for the 2023–24 season, making it mandatory for batters in all Cricket Australia-sanctioned competitions to wear neck protectors when facing fast or medium paced bowlers.
The 2023-2024 playing conditions also state the umpires are the sole judge of whether bowling is fast or medium-paced.
Community level
Cricket Australia developed simplified playing conditions to help community clubs navigate the rules and enforcement options.
These recommendations and resources reflect its administrator role as the custodian of the game of cricket in Australia.
On the use of helmets, Cricket Australia “strongly” recommends community club players use British Standard-compliant helmets when batting, wicket-keeping up to the stumps and fielding close to the batter.
Cricket Australia also strongly recommends participants wear neck protectors.
Some leagues are going above and beyond these recommendations in an attempt to make their competitions safer.
For example, in October, Cricket Gold Coast introduced a rule making helmets compulsory in all competitions.
Cricket administrators at all levels are moving in the right direction in terms of helmets and player safety.
Whether neck guards for all international matches should be mandatory continues to be debated. Even if the risk of cricket related fatalities is rare, administrators still need to take precautions due to the greater knowledge around the dangers of head injuries.
The sport’s administrators need to remain vigilant by ensuring rules remain consistent with research evidence, are fit for purpose, and compliance is consistently enforced.
Annette Greenhow has previously received funding from SSHRC Partnership Development Grant. Annette is a Board Member of the Australian and New Zealand Sports Law Association. The views expressed in this article are her own.
Justin Keogh does not work for, consult, own shares in or receive funding from any company or organisation that would benefit from this article, and has disclosed no relevant affiliations beyond their academic appointment.
Former New Zealand prime minister John Key has three white rabbits painted on his helicopter, a nod to his “massively superstitious” habit of repeating “white rabbits” three times at the start of every month.
Tennis champion Rafael Nadal performs the same sequence of actions (shirt-tug, hair-tuck, face-wipe) before every serve. Taylor Swift paints “13” on her hand for good luck before a show, while Rihanna won’t allow anything yellow in her dressing room.
Perhaps you, too, are superstitious. Maybe you have a lucky number, avoid black cats, or shudder at the thought of opening an umbrella indoors.
We humans are particularly susceptible to superstitions. But why are we so quick to develop superstitious behaviours, and do we really believe they can bring good or bad luck?
In our new research, we set out to answer this question. We tested whether people could tell the difference between outcomes they caused and outcomes they didn’t cause, and this told us something about the cognitive roots of human superstition.
Learning about cause and effect
From as early as four months, infants learn their actions produce outcomes – kicking their legs shakes the crib, shaking a rattle makes an interesting noise, dropping a toy on the floor means mum or dad picks it up.
Lucky 13: Taylor Swift in concert. Getty Images
As we grow older, we develop a more sophisticated understanding of cause-and-effect relationships, asking “why?” questions about the world around us.
This sensitivity to causes and effects sets the stage for important developmental milestones, like imaginative play, planning actions to achieve a goal, predicting others’ intentions, anticipating and regulating emotions, and cooperating with others.
The ability to learn about relationships between causes and effects is a defining feature of human cognition. But how does this square with our superstitious tendencies?
When cause and effect is an illusion
We learn about causes and effects from experience. When our behaviour is followed by an outcome, we learn about the relationship between our action and that outcome. The more often this action-outcome pairing occurs, the stronger the perceived link between them.
This is why we repeat behaviours that produce rewarding outcomes, and avoid repeating behaviours that produce punishing ones.
But what happens if an outcome follows our actions by coincidence? If I wear my lucky socks and my favourite sports team wins, this is probably just a coincidence (it’s unlikely my sock-wearing actually caused the win). But if this happens a few times, I may develop a superstition about my lucky socks.
This suggests superstitious behaviour arises because we aren’t particularly good at discerning when our actions cause an outcome, versus when our actions just coincide with (but do not cause) an outcome. This is a common explanation for superstition – but does it have any weight?
Testing our ability to detect causality
We can test what underpins superstitious behaviour by simply asking people “who caused that outcome?”. Getting it right would suggest we can discern action-outcome relationships (and therefore that there must be some other explanation for superstitious behaviour).
Our research did exactly that. We asked whether people could tell when their actions did or didn’t cause an outcome.
Cause and effect. Getty Images
We recruited 371 undergraduate students from a large New Zealand university, who participated in one experimental session for a course credit. Participants played a game where a positive outcome (winning) or a negative outcome (losing) occurred either after their own action (clicking a button), or independently of their action.
Importantly, participants weren’t given any information beforehand about the type of outcome or whether it would depend on their behaviour. This meant they had to rely on what they actually experienced during the game, and we could test their ability to judge whether they had caused the outcome.
This also meant participants’ preexisting superstitions and other characteristics (such as age) didn’t affect our results. Their behaviour during the task was representative of human behaviour more generally.
Participants’ scores indicated they often got it right: in about 80% of trials, they knew when they’d caused the outcome, and when they hadn’t.
A built-in bias
The distinction between causing and not causing the outcomes was sometimes very subtle. This made it more difficult for participants to tell what had occurred.
When they weren’t sure, participants defaulted to saying “I caused it”, even if they actually hadn’t. They were biased to attribute outcomes to their own actions, particularly after winning outcomes.
This bias may be the key to explaining why we’re superstitious: something I did caused something to happen, even if I can’t be sure what it was. And it suggests knowing superstitions aren’t real may not actually stop us from behaving superstitiously.
On the surface, this may not make sense – why expend energy doing things we know don’t affect outcomes? But if we look deeper, this bias serves an important purpose, because it helps ensure we don’t miss any potential connections between our actions and their outcomes. In other words, it’s better to be safe than sorry.
The tendency to attribute positive outcomes to our actions (as we found) can boost self-esteem and psychological wellbeing. So, perhaps we’d all benefit by indulging in a little superstitious behaviour. Touch wood.
The authors do not work for, consult, own shares in or receive funding from any company or organisation that would benefit from this article, and have disclosed no relevant affiliations beyond their academic appointment.
Richard Marles is an ambitious man who hasn’t given up the dream of one day reaching the top job. But, despite being deputy prime minister, his profile is much lower than that of Treasurer Jim Chalmers, the candidate considered most likely to succeed Anthony Albanese as Labor’s leader.
The treasurer was at his most hyperactive this week, with an economic statement to parliament, reforms to superannuation, and a new set of priorities (investment in housing, the energy transition, and infrastructure) for the Future Fund, the nation’s $230 billion sovereign wealth fund. The latter immediately opened the government to opposition claims it was trying to bend the independent fund to its will (Chalmers’ retort was to accuse the opposition of wanting less investment in these areas).
But it was Marles’ dead-bat performance in question time that was most useful to the government in this penultimate parliamentary week of the year.
The government appeared blindsided, and the opposition was delighted, by a US–UK agreement to accelerate the deployment of “cutting-edge” nuclear technology. The agreement was released during the COP29 climate conference in Baku, which Energy Minister Chris Bowen was attending.
Australia refused to be party to the agreement; the government’s awkward position was accentuated by the UK government’s statement on the agreement initially (mistakenly) saying Australia was expected to join.
On Tuesday and Wednesday Marles, acting prime minister while Albanese was overseas, kept his answers on script, sticking to the formula that Australia doesn’t – and under Labor wouldn’t – have a domestic nuclear industry and so wasn’t signing up. He couldn’t smother the issue, but he did limit the smoke.
The parliamentary week had started badly for the government, with the opposition refusing to support its plan for caps on universities’ foreign students.
This had been a surprise, and adds a layer of uncertainty to a university sector already in considerable chaos, with the finances of some institutions in deep trouble, leading to extensive job cuts.
The government continued to pile new legislation into a stretched parliament, notably bills for a ban on children under 16 accessing social media, and for a far-reaching shakeup of electoral donations and spending. The Coalition is supporting both.
The social media ban has been panned by some (though not all) experts, but will be very popular with parents. Platforms, rather than parents or children, will have the responsibility for compliance, facing hefty fines for systematic breaches.
The legislation is “about helping families”, Communications Minister Michelle Rowland told parliament in Thursday’s question time. Unusually, her opposition counterpart David Coleman jumped up immediately to support her, saying “this issue of the safety of Australian children online from social media is one of the defining issues of our era”.
Like the social media ban, the electoral changes are also on track to be passed next week, given a deal between the major parties. But they have sparked angst from the minor players including the teals.
There is general agreement “big money” should be taken out of politics. However, one person’s “big money” is another person’s positive support to “level the playing field” for new players.
Most would see Clive Palmer’s about $120 million spend for the last election as over the top. But many would take a different attitude to the $13 million spent by Simon Holmes à Court’s Climate 200, that helped a number of teals become MPs.
When it comes to electoral reform, it’s a matter of balance – curbing excess but enabling aspirants who do not have the backing of big parties or incumbency to have reasonable access. There’ll be continuing argument about whether the government’s package has that balance right.
The Liberals’ interest in signing up was not unexpected, in light of their vulnerability to teals and other independents. Although the changes don’t come in for this election, the Liberals want to contain what could be a longer-term trend.
So does Labor. It has not yet been hit like the Liberals have by the wave of community candidates (although it lost its previously safe NSW seat of Fowler to one). But with a primary vote around 30% and no sign the public disillusionment with the main parties is waning, it knows the risk that’s looming. It also has the challenge of Greens candidates in its inner-city seats.
The electoral legislation has given the teals an issue for next year’s poll. They can use it to boost the case for their own re-election (before the system changes) and it possibly opens the way for them to say that if there is a minority government they might press for changes to make the arrangements, in their view, “fairer”.
Meanwhile, voters’ attention remains firmly on matters closer to the kitchen table. They don’t see much good news. The prospect of interest rate falls appears to be receding even further into the depths of 2025, and the economy is likely to remain stagnant for the time being.
Chalmers, in his economic statement, was upbeat. We’re having a “soft landing”, he said. Inflation is falling. Treasury is expecting a “gradual recovery in the economy”. Real wages are growing (slowly).
People’s experiences and perceptions are, however, baked in hard. The Freshwater poll in the Australian Financial Review this week found the top issue of concern to people, the cost of living, had risen in the past month by 5 points to 77%. When people were asked about managing key issues, the Coalition had a 12-point lead on cost of living and a 17-point lead on economic management.
By Thursday, Albanese was back in parliament after his week away at APEC and the G20. He was just in time to hear his old rival Bill Shorten, the former Labor leader who came close to being prime minister, deliver his valedictory.
It had a salutary message in what, for Australia, is a time of division.
“I’m a proud moderate,” Shorten said. “Being in the centre is an acknowledgement that Australians hold broad, diverse views. The majority in the middle should never be hostage to the intolerant few on the zealous fringe.”
Michelle Grattan does not work for, consult, own shares in or receive funding from any company or organisation that would benefit from this article, and has disclosed no relevant affiliations beyond their academic appointment.
Bill Shorten has declared himself “a proud moderate” in a valedictory speech declaring parliament has the responsibility to ensure the extremes of left and right do not set the terms of political debate.
Shorten, former Labor leader and current cabinet minister, told parliament: “I reject outright the argument that being moderate is a sign of conservatism or apathy.
“You can be in the centre and be a reformer, a humanitarian, or radical in terms of your ambition to get things done for the Australian people.
“Being in the centre is an acknowledgment that Australians hold broad, diverse views. The majority in the middle should never be hostage to the intolerant few on the zealous fringe.”
Shorten retires from parliament in February to take the position of vice-chancellor of the University of Canberra. He was a minister in the former Labor government, and opposition leader from 2013-19, narrowly losing two elections. He is Minister for the National Disability Insurance Scheme and Minister for Government Services and has been devoting his efforts to getting the NDIS back on track after a huge spending blow out.
In his speech, Shorten said parliament “must rise to the big issues and engage with them thoughtfully and respectfully.
“Let’s not be a stage for noisy actors talking at each other, over each other and past each other.
“Parliament has the responsibility to ensure the extremes of the left and right do not set the terms of debate. Otherwise, the ideological trenches become deeper – and the centre ground becomes a no-man’s land”.
Shorten outlined what he saw as some key priorities for the parliament in the future, including being ambitious on climate change and tax reform.
He said the tax system still taxed property lightly and income heavily.
This meant young Australians carried a disproportionate share of the tax burden and paid more tax than a generation ago.
It was harder than ever for young people to save for a home, and increasing supply was an essential part of solving this problem, Shorten said.
“We must not become a society where realising the dream of home ownership is dependent on having rich parents.”
Shorten also there was also unfinished business on defence and foreign policy.
“We need to develop even further our own defence capabilities within the bonds of existing alliances.
“And prioritise, even more, Australian foreign policy with an Australian accent.”
Shorten said parliament had “unfinished business” with First Nations people, including their being recognised in the constitution.
“I remain hopeful that – with good faith on all sides – we can achieve recognition of Indigenous Australians in our nation’s birth certificate.”
He said parliament and Australians generally also had “unfinished business on equal treatment of women.
“Because there is no more shocking measure of inequality between men and women than domestic and family violence.”
Shorten urged the parliament: “Be ambitious for this place. This great democratic institution and its power to forge a path to a more productive, moderate, inclusive, compassionate and equal Australia.
“I’ll be urging you on – and wishing you well.”
Michelle Grattan does not work for, consult, own shares in or receive funding from any company or organisation that would benefit from this article, and has disclosed no relevant affiliations beyond their academic appointment.
We all know how important it is to save enough money for retirement – but what about spending it wisely when we get there?
Even for those who have built up a suitable nest egg, managing money well in retirement isn’t necessarily straightforward. Now, the federal government has said it wants to make it easier.
On Wednesday, Treasurer Jim Chalmers announced a broad package of reforms to the retirement phase of the superannuation system.
Key aims include expanding access to reliable information, supporting more innovation in super products, and introducing a new reporting framework focused on retirement outcomes.
There’ll also be a new set of voluntary “best practice principles” for the industry, to help it design “modern, high quality” retirement products.
Next year, the government will consult on a draft version of these principles. The Conversation asked five experts what they thought the most important focus should be.
Sweating is our body’s way of cooling down, a bit like an internal air conditioner.
When our core temperature rises (because it’s hot outside, or you’re exercising), sweat glands all over our skin release a watery fluid. As that fluid evaporates, it takes heat with it, keeping us from overheating.
But sweating can vary from person to person. Some people might just get a little dewy under the arms, others feel like they could fill a swimming pool (maybe not that dramatic, but you get the idea).
So what’s a normal amount of sweat? And what’s too much?
Why do some people sweat more than others?
How much you sweat depends on a number of factors including:
your age (young kids generally sweat less than adults)
your sex (men tend to sweat more than women)
how active you are.
The average person sweats at the rate of 300 millilitres per hour (at 30°C and about 40% humidity). But as you can’t go around measuring the volume of your own sweat (or weighing it), doctors use another measure to gauge the impact of sweating.
They ask whether sweating interferes with your daily life. Maybe you stop wearing certain clothes because of the sweat stains, or feel embarrassed so don’t go to social events or work.
People with this condition most commonly report problematic armpit sweating, as you’d expect. But sweaty hands, feet, scalp and groin can also be an issue.
But hyperhidrosis can have no obvious cause, and the reasons behind this so-called primary hyperhidrosis are a bit of a mystery. People have normal numbers of sweat glands but researchers think they simply over-produce sweat after triggers such as stress, heat, exercise, tobacco, alcohol and hot spices. There may also be a genetic link.
OK, I sweat a lot. What can I do?
1. Antiperspirants
Antiperspirants, particularly ones with aluminium, are your first line of defence and are formulated to reduce sweating. Deodorants only stop body odour.
This might seem obvious, but staying cool can make a big difference. That’s because you have less heat to lose, so the body makes less sweat.
Avoid super-hot, long showers (you will have more heat to loose), wear loose-fitting clothes made from breathable fabrics such as cotton (this allows any sweat you do produce to evaporate more readily), and carry a little hand fan to help your sweat evaporate.
When exercising try ice bandanas (ice wrapped in a scarf or cloth, then applied to the body) or wet towels. You can wear these around the neck, head, or wrists to reduce your body temperature.
Try also to modify the time or place you exercise; try to find cool shade or air-conditioned areas when possible.
If you have tried these first two steps and your sweating is still affecting your life, talk to your doctor. They can help you figure out the best way to manage it.
3. Medication
Some medications can help regulate your sweating. Unfortunately some can also give you side effects such as a dry mouth, blurred vision, stomach pain or constipation. So talk to your doctor about what’s best for you.
Your GP may also refer you to a dermatologist – a doctor like myself who specialises in skin conditions – who might recommend different treatments, including some of the following.
4. Botulinum toxin injections
Botulinum toxin injections are not just used for cosmetic reasons. They have many applications in medicine, including blocking the nerves that control the sweat glands. They do this for many months.
A dermatologist usually gives the injections. But they’re only subsidised by Medicare in Australia for the armpits and if you have primary hyperhidrosis that hasn’t been controlled by the strongest antiperspirants. These injections are given up to three times a year. It is not subsidised for other conditions, such as an overactive thyroid or for other areas such as the face or hands.
If you don’t qualify, you can have these injections privately, but it will cost you hundreds of dollars per treatment, which can last up to six months.
This involves using a device that passes a weak electrical current through water to the skin to reducing sweating in the hands, feet or armpits. Scientists aren’t sure exactly how it works.
But this is the only way to control sweating of the hands and feet that does not require drugs, surgery or botulinum toxin injections.
This treatment is not subsidised by Medicare and not all dermatologists provide it. However, you can buy and use your own device, which tends to be cheaper than accessing it privately. You can ask your dermatologist if this is the right option for you.
6. Surgery
There is a procedure to cut certain nerves to the hands that stop them sweating. This is highly effective but can cause sweating to occur elsewhere.
There are also other surgical options, which you can discuss with your doctor.
7. Microwave therapy
This is a newer treatment that zaps your sweat glands to destroy them so they can’t work any more. It’s not super common yet, and it is quite painful. It’s available privately in a few centres.
Michael Freeman is a founder of, and works at, The Skin Centre, a private dermatology practice on the Gold Coast, Queensland. The Skin Centre provides botulinum toxin injections for axillary (armpit) hyperhidrosis.
Australia’s drug regulator has issued a safety warning over the medicine Phenergan and related products containing the antihistamine drug promethazine.
The Therapeutic Goods Administration said the over-the-counter products should not be given to children under six due to concerns of serious side effects including hyperactivity, aggression and hallucination. Breathing can also become slow or shallow, which can be fatal.
When high doses are given, young children may also experience difficulties in learning and understanding, including reversible cognitive deficit and intellectual disability, the TGA said.
The latest alert follows international and Australian concerns about the medicine in young children, which is commonly used to manage conditions such as hay fever and allergies, travel sickness and for short-term sedation.
What is promethazine?
Promethazine is a “first generation” antihistamine that has been sold over the counter at pharmacies in Australia for decades for a range of conditions.
Unlike many other drugs, first generation antihistamines can cross the blood-brain barrier. This means they affect brain chemistry, resulting in people feeling drowsy and sedated.
In adults this may be useful to bring on sleep. But in children, these drugs can have serious side effects on the nervous system, including those listed in this week’s safety alert.
We’ve known about this for a while
We’ve known about the serious side effects of promethazine in young children for some time.
Advice about 20 years ago in the United States was not to use the drug in children under two years of age. In 2022, the Australian Advisory Committee on Medicines issued its own recommendation to increase the age to six. New Zealand issued a similar warning and advice in May this year.
Over the past ten years, 235 cases of severe side effects to promethazine in both children and adults have been reported to the TGA. From the 77 reported deaths, one was a child under six.
The reported side effects for both adults and children included:
13 cases of accidental overdose (which resulted in 11 deaths)
eight cases of hallucination
seven cases of slow or shallow breathing (which resulted in four deaths)
six cases of lowered consciousness (which resulted in five deaths).
The TGA’s safety alert comes after an internal investigation by the manufacturer of Phenergan, Sanofi-Aventis Healthcare. This investigation was prompted by the 2022 advice from the Advisory Committee on Medicines. The company has now updated its information for consumers and health professionals.
What can you use instead?
For allergies or hay fever in young children, non-sedating antihistamines such as Claratyne (loratadine) or Zyrtec (cetirizine) are preferred. They offer relief without the risks of sedation and the other worrying side effects of promethazine.
For cold or cough symptoms, parents should be reassured these typically get better with time, fluids and rest.
Saline nasal sprays, adequate hydration, a humidifier, or elevating the child’s head can alleviate congestion associated with hay fever. Oral phenylephrine products, marketed for nasal congestion, should be avoided, as evidence shows they are ineffective, but nasal spray formulations of the drug are fine to use.
For fever or discomfort, paracetamol remains a safer choice.
What else can I do?
If you have a bottle of Phenergan or a related product, avoid tipping the medicine down the sink or throwing the bottle in the bin, as this can harm the environment. Instead, return it to the pharmacy for safe and responsible disposal.
A pharmacist can also advise on choosing the most appropriate treatments for your child, and knowing when to seek medical attention.
If your child has concerning side effects from taking promethazine, or any other medicine, call the Poisons Information Centre immediately on 13 11 26. In an emergency in Australia, call 000.
Nial Wheate in the past has received funding from the ACT Cancer Council, Tenovus Scotland, Medical Research Scotland, Scottish Crucible, and the Scottish Universities Life Sciences Alliance. He is a fellow of the Royal Australian Chemical Institute, a member of the Australasian Pharmaceutical Science Association and a member of the Australian Institute of Company Directors. Nial is the chief scientific officer of Vaihea Skincare LLC, a director of SetDose Pty Ltd (a medical device company) and was previously a Standards Australia panel member for sunscreen agents. Nial regularly consults to industry on issues to do with medicine risk assessments, manufacturing, design, and testing.
Associate Professor Tina Hinton has previously received funding from the Schizophrenia Research Institute (formerly Neuroscience Institute of Schizophrenia and Allied Disorders). She is currently a Board member of the Australasian Society of Clinical and Experimental Pharmacologists and Toxicologists.
Jasmine Lee does not work for, consult, own shares in or receive funding from any company or organisation that would benefit from this article, and has disclosed no relevant affiliations beyond their academic appointment.
Jack Maggs is a delight and a homage to theatrical storytelling in Australia.
Based on Peter Carey’s bestselling novel, Jack Maggs follows the ex-convict as he lands back in London and sets out to find his “son”. Adapted by Samuel Adamson for the State Theatre Company of South Australia, Adamson’s layered play tells the story of Maggs’ return through the eyes and perspective of Mercy Larkin, the maid.
Carey’s novel is a retelling of Dickens’ Great Expectations, so the resonances telescope further and further as we are brought into the world of Dickensian London, and its brutal counterpart in New South Wales.
Brilliantly directed by Geordie Brookman, the world he creates is lively, physically inventive and glorious. With a nod to early Australian theatre, Georgian London footlights and grime, the worlds of Sweeney Todd and Oliver Twist, Brookman’s ensemble are comic, heartbreaking, immersed and transformative.
We are never allowed to forget, however, that this is a story and in the telling, the world is all smoke and mirrors.
The world is all smoke and mirrors. Matt Byrne/STCSA
Brookman and Adamson centre our focus on the idea of “home” and the search for that sense of homecoming within ourselves. Every person in the audience who has ever longed to go back to “the mother country”, whatever that is for them, shared in Maggs’ determination to shake off his convict past and embrace his home. Maggs however finds his home is a chimera, where he is reviled, tricked, cornered and shut out.
Actors as storytellers
The play begins with the actors as storytellers: we enter the theatre to find actors, wearing 18th century white(ish) well-worn underwear, warming up and wandering the stage.
They transform into the characters by putting on a costume item or two, tell the story, and return at the end to speak to us as actors.
By reframing the narrative as Mercy Larkin’s story, which ends up in colonial Australia, we are reminded of how many of colonial “success stories” had brutality at their start.
Ahunim Abebe is theatre magic as Mercy Larkin. Matt Byrne/STCSA
The ensemble appear suddenly to give melodic voice to the horrors in ex-convict Maggs’ head, to sing colonial ballads and to create unsettling or comic street scenes. Brookman has them changing scenes in choreographed or cheeky movements, creating sound effects from the sides, singing in harmony, creating set pieces and staging shadow puppet plays to help tell the gothic parlour stories contained in Maggs’ story.
Ahunim Abebe is theatre magic as Mercy Larkin. She shines, sparkles and charms, moving effortlessly from knockabout nosy maid to stillness and sorrow, directly addressing the audience. Then, in a heartbeat, sitting within an intimate monologue.
Mark Saturno’s Maggs is mesmerising, unsettling and enigmatic, and one of his best performances from an impressive list of credits. His slow revelation of the layers of love and hurt beneath the formidable exterior, peeled away by Mercy’s insistence, is thrilling to watch.
Mark Saturno (centre) as Jack Maggs is mesmerising, unsettling and enigmatic. Matt Byrne/STCSA
Theatre icon Jacqy Phillips is wonderful as Old Mercy, Ma Britten and Mrs Halfstairs. She revels in the physicality and vocal qualities of each character. You can’t take your eyes off her; it is a joy to see her on stage.
Dale March, Nathan O’Keefe, Rachel Burke and Jelena Nicdao are all excellent, multitalented performers. They find depth, humour, pathos and comedy in their contrasting characters, seamlessly moving from scene to scene and story to story. O’Keefe’s physical comedy as the spineless Percy Buckle is masterful.
As the Dickens figure Tobias Oates, James Smith revels in the desperate and social-climbing writer, thoroughly enjoying the morally murky depths of Carey’s “story thief”. His “mesmerist” scenes with Maggs, where he records the convict’s story without his knowledge, are horrific while entrancing. The writer’s obsession is palpable.
The use of what’s to hand
Dominating the stage is a massive patched curtain, reminiscent of a much-mended sail from a tall ship. Raised on command at the beginning of the play, it creates backdrops for rooms, walls of streets and houses, and the shadow puppet screen.
The use of “what is to hand” to make costumes, sets and character reminds us Australian theatre itself started with convicts (a production of The Recruiting Officer in 1789).
Ailsa Paterson’s detailed design is a symphony of the “mend and make do” reality of both the penal colony and of theatre: old, patched once-grand costumes are hitched, tied, bunched and tacked on in a delicious riot of theatrical invention.
Ailsa Paterson’s detailed design is a symphony of ‘mend and make do’. Matt Byrne/STCSA
The audience willingly colludes in the suspension of disbelief to create the characters’ finery and the set: hanging garments from a large Georgian furniture frame become curtains in a coach, cupboard doors become front doors, desks and chairs whisk past stationary characters to show the passing of time.
Nigel Levings’ detailed and rich lighting design wonderfully invokes the grimy, fog-filled streets, Maggs’ sudden pain and nightmare voices, storms, stuffy genteel houses, and candlelit drawing rooms.
Nigel Levings’ lighting design wonderfully invokes the grimy, fog-filled streets. Matt Byrne/STCSA
Music elements are woven throughout, expertly set and arranged by Hilary Kleinig. The use of colonial ballad-style singing, using words from Maggs’ story as lyrics, is inspired.
Opening night of Jack Maggs was on International Men’s Day. The juxtaposition of a play about a man by a man, based on a book by a man, in response to a book about a man, by a man, meant centring the story as Mercy Larkin’s – without developing her story or character except in relation to Maggs’ – wasn’t quite enough to address gender imbalance in this particular story.
It is nonetheless an impressive production. Jack Maggs is energised, playful, multi-layered theatre; so thoroughly enjoyable that, at interval, I wanted to go back in and see the first half again.
Jack Maggs is at the State Theatre Company of South Australia until November 30.
Catherine Campbell does not work for, consult, own shares in or receive funding from any company or organisation that would benefit from this article, and has disclosed no relevant affiliations beyond their academic appointment.
Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Daniel Angus, Professor of Digital Communication, Director of QUT Digital Media Research Centre, Queensland University of Technology
The federal government today introduced into parliament legislation for its social media ban for people under 16 years.
Communications Minister Michelle Rowland said:
This is about protecting young people, not punishing or isolating them, and letting parents know we’re in their corner when it comes to supporting their children’s health and wellbeing.
Up until now details of how the ban would actually work have been scarce. Today’s bill provides a more complete picture.
But many ambiguities – and problems – still remain.
It introduces a new definition for an “age-restricted social media platform” whose sole or significant purpose is to enable users to post material online and interact socially with other users.
This includes platforms such as Facebook, Instagram, TikTok and Snapchat, but also many more minor platforms and services. It includes an exclusion framework that exempts messaging apps such as WhatsApp, online gaming platforms and services with the “primary purpose of supporting the health and education of end-users” (for example, Google Classroom).
The bill will attempt to force owners of newly defined age-restricted platforms to take “reasonable steps” to prevent people under 16 from having a user account. This will include young people who have an existing account. There are no grandfather provisions so it is unclear how platforms will be required to manage the many millions of existing users who are now set to be excluded and deplatformed.
The bill is also vague in specifying how social media platforms must comply with their obligation to prevent under 16s from having an account – only that it “will likely involve some form of age assurance”.
Oddly, the bill won’t stop people under 16 from watching videos on YouTube or seeing content on Facebook – it is primarily designed to stop them from making an account. This also means that the wider ecology of anonymous web-based forums, including problematic spaces like 4chan, are likely excluded.
Age-restricted platforms that fail to prevent children under 16 accessing their platforms will face fines of nearly A$50 million.
However, the government acknowledges that it cannot completely stop children under 16 from accessing platforms such as Instagram and Facebook.
Australia should be prepared for the reality that some people will break the rules, or slip through the cracks.
The legislation will take effect “at least” 12 months after it has passed parliament.
How did we get to this point?
The government’s move to ban under 16s from social media – an idea other countries such as the United Kingdom are now considering – has been heavily influenced by News Corp’s “Let Them Be Kids” campaign. This campaign included sensitive news reports about young people who have used social media and, tragically, died by suicide.
The New South Wales and South Australian governments last month held a summit to explore the impact of social media on the mental health of young people. However, Crikey today revealed that the event was purposefully set up to create momentum for the ban. Colleagues who attended the event were shocked at the biased and unbalanced nature of the discussion.
The announcement and tabling of the bill today also preempts findings from a parliamentary inquiry into the impact of social media on Australian society. The inquiry only tabled its report and recommendations in parliament this week. Notably, it stopped short of recommending a ban on social media for youth.
There are evidence-based alternatives to a ban
The government claims “a minimum age of 16 allows access to social media after young people are outside the most vulnerable adolescent stage”.
However, multiple experts have already expressed concerns about banning young people from social media platforms. In October more than 140 experts, me included, wrote an open letter to Prime Minister Anthony Albanese in which we said “a ‘ban’ is too blunt an instrument to address risks effectively”.
The Australian Human Rights Commission has now added its voice to the opposition to the ban. In a statement released today it said:
Given the potential for these laws to significantly interfere with the rights of children and young people, the Commission has serious reservations about the proposed social media ban.
In its report, the parliamentary inquiry into the impact of social media on Australian society made a number of recommendations to reduce online harm. These included introducing a “duty of care” onto digital platforms – a measure the government is also moving ahead with, and one which is more in line with best evidence.
The inquiry also recommended the government introduce regulations which ensure users of social media platforms have greater control over what content they see. This would include, for example, users having the ability to change, reset, or turn off their personal algorithms.
Another recommendation is for the government to prioritise the creation of the Children’s Online Privacy Code. This code will better protect the personal information of children online.
Taken together, the three measures above manage the risks and benefits of children’s digital media. They build from an evidence base, one that critically includes the voices and perspectives of children and parents. The concern then is how a ban undermines these efforts and possibly gives platforms a hall pass to avoid obligations under these stronger media policies.
Daniel Angus receives funding from Australian Research Council through Discovery Projects DP200100519 ‘Using machine vision to explore Instagram’s everyday promotional cultures’, DP200101317 ‘Evaluating the Challenge of ‘Fake News’ and Other Malinformation’, and Linkage Project LP190101051 ‘Young Australians and the Promotion of Alcohol on Social Media’. He is a Chief Investigator with the ARC Centre of Excellence for Automated Decision Making & Society, CE200100005.
The United States has vetoed a UN Security Council ceasefire resolution — for the fourth time — in Israel’s war on Gaza, while Hezbollah demands a complete ceasefire and “protection of Lebanon’s sovereignty” in any deal with Israel. Amid the death and devastation, Joe Hendren reflects on his time in Lebanon and examines what the crisis means for a small country with a population size similar to Aotearoa New Zealand.
SPECIAL REPORT:By Joe Hendren
Since the Israeli invasion of Lebanon I can’t help but think of a friend I met in Beirut.
He worked at the Regis Hotel, where I stayed in February 2015.
At one point, he offered to make me a Syrian dish popular in his hometown of Aleppo. I have long remembered his kindness; I only wish I remembered his name.
At the time, his home city was being destroyed. A flashpoint of the Syrian Civil War, the Battle of Aleppo lasted four long years. He didn’t mention this of course.
I was lucky to visit Lebanon when I did. So much has happened since then.
Economic crisis and a tragic port explosion Mass protests took over Lebanese streets in October 2019 in response to government plans to tax WhatsApp calls. The scope of the protests soon widened, as Lebanese people voiced their frustrations with ongoing economic turmoil and corruption.
A few months later, the covid-19 pandemic arrived, deepening the economic crisis and claiming 10,000 lives.
On 4 August 2020, the centre of Beirut was rocked by one of the largest non nuclear explosions in history when a large amount of ammonium nitrate stored at the Port of Beirut detonated. The explosion killed 218 people and left an estimated 300,000 homeless. The government of Hassin Diab resigned but continued in a “caretaker” capacity.
Tens of thousands of protesters returned to the streets demanding accountability and the downfall of Lebanon’s political ruling class. While some protesters threw stones and other projectiles, an Al Jazeera investigation found that security forces violated international standards on the use of force. The political elite were protected.
“The Lebanon financial and economic crisis is likely to rank in the top 10, possibly top three, most severe crises episodes globally since the mid-nineteenth century. This is a conclusion of the Spring 2021 Lebanon Economic Monitor (LEM) in which the Lebanon crisis is contrasted with the most severe global crises episodes as observed by Reinhart and Rogoff (2014) over the 1857–2013 period.
“In fact, Lebanon’s GDP plummeted from close to US$ 55 billion in 2018 to an estimated US$ 33 billion in 2020, with US$ GDP/capita falling by around 40 percent. Such a brutal and rapid contraction is usually associated with conflicts or wars.”
The Lebanon Poverty and Equity Assessment, produced by the World Bank in 2024, found the share of individuals in Lebanon living under the poverty line more than tripled, rising from 12 percent to 44 percent. The depth and severity of poverty also increased over the decade between 2012 and 2022.
To make matters worse, the port explosion destroyed Lebanon’s strategic wheat reserves at a time when the war in Ukraine drove significant increases in global food prices. Annual food inflation in Lebanon skyrocketed from 7.67 percent in January 2019 to a whopping 483.15 percent for the year ending in January 2022. While food inflation has since declined, it remains high, sitting just below 20 percent for the year ending September 2024. The World Bank said:
“The sharp deterioration of the Lebanese pound, which lost 98 percent of its pre-crisis value by December 2023, propelled inflation to new heights. With imports constituting about 60 percent of the consumption basket (World Bank, 2022), the plunging currency led to triple-digit inflation which rose steeply from an annual average of 3 percent between 2011 and 2018, to 85 percent in 2019, 155 percent in 2020, and 221 percent in 2023 . . .
“Faced with falling foreign exchange reserves, the government withdrew subsidies on medication, fuel, and wheat further fuelling rising costs of healthcare and transport (Figure 1.2). Rapid inflation acted effectively as a highly regressive tax, striking hardest at the poor and those with fixed, lira-denominated incomes.”
The ongoing crisis of the Lebanese economy has amplified the power of Hezbollah, a paramilitary group formed in 1982 in response to Israel’s invasion and occupation of Lebanon.
“Hezbollah is famous for entrenching its power in an elaborate social infrastructure of Islamic welfare. The social grip of those structures and services is increased by the ongoing crisis of the Lebanese economy. When the medical service fails, desperate families turn to the Hezbollah-run health service,” says Adam Tooze
As banks imposed capital controls, many Lebanese lost confidence in the financial system. The financial arm of Hezbollah, the al-Quad al-Hassan Association (AQAH), experienced a significant increase in clients, despite being subject to US Treasury sanctions since 2007.
The US accuses Hezbollah of using AQAH as a front to manage its financial activities. When a 28-year-old engineer, Hassan Shoumar, was locked out of his dollar accounts in late 2019, he redirected his money into his account at AQAH: “What I care about is that when I want my money, I can get it.”
While Hezbollah portrays itself as “the resistance”, as a member of the governing coalition in Lebanon, it also forms an influential part of the political elite. Adam Tooze gives an example of how the political elite is still looking after itself:
“[T]he Lebanese Parliament in a grotesque act of self-dealing in January 2024 passed a budget that promised to close the budget deficit of 12.8 of GDP by raising regressive value-added tax while decreasing the progressive taxes levied on capital gains, real estate and investments.
“For lack of reforms, the IMF [International Monetary Fund] is refusing to disburse any of the $3bn package that are allocated to Lebanon.”
While the protest movement called for a “technocratic” government in Lebanon, the experiences of Greece and other countries facing financial difficulties suggest such governments can pose their own risks, especially when they involve unelected “experts” in prominent positions.
One example is the political reaction to the counterproductive austerity programme imposed on Greece by the European Commission, European Central Bank and IMF in the aftermath of the 2007-2008 financial crisis. This demonstrates how the demands of international investors can conflict with the needs of the local population.
Lebanon carries more than its fair share of refugees Lebanon currently hosts the largest number of refugees per capita in the world, despite its scarce resources. This began as an overflow from the Syrian conflict in 2011, with nearly 1.2 million ‘displaced’ Syrians in Lebanon registered with UNHCR by May 2015.
When I visited Lebanon in 2015, I tried to grasp the scale of the refugee issue. In terms of population, Lebanon is comparable to New Zealand, with both countries having just over 5 million people.
I imagined what New Zealand would be like if it attempted to host a million refugees in addition to its general population. Yet in terms of land area Lebanon is only 10,400 square kilometres — about the size of New Zealand’s Marlborough region at the top of the South Island.
Now, imagine accommodating a population of over 5 million in such a small space, with more than a fifth of them being refugees.
While it was encouraging to see New Zealand increase its refugee quota to 1500 places in July 2020, we could afford to do much more in the current situation. This includes creating additional visa pathways for those fleeing Gaza and Lebanon.
#BREAKING United States VETOES Security Council draft resolution that would have demanded an immediate, unconditional and permanent ceasefire in Gaza, and the release of all hostages
On top of all that – Israeli attacks and illegal booby traps Since the Hamas attack on Israel on October 7, 2023, and the ongoing Israeli invasion of Gaza, Israel and Hezbollah have exchanged fire across Lebanon’s southern border.
Israel makes much of the threat of rocket attacks on Israel from Hezbollah. However, data from US based non-profit organisation Armed Conflict Location and Event Data (ACLED) shows Israel carried out 81 percent of the 10,214 attacks between between the two parties from October 7, 2023, and September 20, 2024.
These attacks resulted in 752 deaths in Lebanon, including 50 children. In contrast, Hezbollah’s attacks, largely centred on military targets, killed at least 33 Israelis.
Hezbollah continues to offer an immediate ceasefire, so long as a ceasefire also applies to Gaza, but Israel has refused these terms.
While the Israeli Defence Force (IDF) disputed these figures as an “oversimplification”, the IDF do not appear to dispute the reported number of Lebanese casualties. Hezbollah continues to offer an immediate ceasefire, so long as a ceasefire also applies to Gaza, but Israel has refused these terms.
In a further escalation, thousands of handheld pagers and walkie-talkies used in both civilian and military contexts in Lebanon and Syria suddenly exploded on September 17 and 18.
Israel attempted to deny responsibility, with Israeli President Isaac Herzog claiming he “rejects out of hand any connection” to the attack. However, 12 defence and intelligence officials, briefed on the attack, anonymously confirmed to The New York Times that Israel was behind the operation.
Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu later boasted during a cabinet meeting that he had personally approved the pager attack. The New York Times described the aftermath:
“Powered by just a few ounces of an explosive compound concealed within the devices, the blasts sent grown men flying off motorcycles and slamming into walls, according to witnesses and video footage. People out shopping fell to the ground, writhing in agony, smoke snaking from their pockets.”
The exploding devices killed 42 people and injured more than 3500, with many victims losing one or both of their hands or eyes. At least four of the dead were children.
Lebanese Prime Minister Najib Mikatri called the explosions “a serious violation of Lebanese sovereignty and a crime by all standards”.
While around eight Hezbollah fighters were among the dead, most of those killed worked in administration roles and did not take partin hostilities. Under international humanitarian law targeting non-combatants is illegal.
Additionally, the UN Protocol on Mines, Booby-Traps and Other Devices also prohibits the use of “booby-traps or other devices in the form of apparently harmless portable objects which are specifically designed and constructed to contain explosive material”. Israel is a signatory to this UN Protocol.
Israel’s decision to turn ordinary consumer devices into illegal booby traps could backfire. While Israel frequently stresses the importance of its technology sector to its economy, who is going to buy technology associated with Israel now that the IDF have demonstrated its ability to indiscriminately weaponise consumer devices at any time?
International industry buyers will source elsewhere. Such a “silent boycott” could give greater momentum to the call from Palestinian civil society for boycotts, divestments and economic sanctions against Israel.
The booby trap pagers are also likely to affect the decisions of foreign airlines to service Israel on the grounds of safety. Since the war began in October 2023, the number of foreign airlines calling on Ben Gurion Airport in Israel has fallen significantly. Consequently, the cost of a round-trip ticket from the United States to Tel Aviv has risen sharply, from approximately $900 to $2500.
Israel targets civilian infrastructure in Lebanon Israel has also targeted civilian organisations linked to Hezbollah, such emergency services, hospitals and medical centres operated by the Islamic Health Society (IHS). Israel claims Hezbollah is “using the IHS as a cover for terrorist activities”. This apparently includes digging people out of buildings, as search and rescue teams have also been targeted and killed.
Israel accuses the microloan charity AQAH of funding “Hezbollah’s terror activities”, including purchasing weapons and making payments to Hezbollah fighters. On October 20, Israel attacked 30 branches of AQAH across Lebanon, drawing condemnation from both Amnesty International and the United Nations.
Ben Saul, UN Special Rapporteur on Human Rights and Counter-terrorism maintains AQAH is not a lawful military target: “International humanitarian law does not permit attacks on the economic or financial infrastructure of an adversary, even if they indirectly sustain its military activities.”
Where the author ate his Za’atar man’ousheh – Pigeon’s Rock, Corniche, Beiruit. Image: Joe Hendren
On top of all that — an Israeli invasion In 1982, Israel attempted to use war to alter the political situation in Lebanon, with counterproductive results, including the creation of Hezbollah. In 2006, Hezbollah used the hilly terrain of southern Lebanon to beat Israel to a stalemate. Israel risks similar counterproductive outcomes again, at the cost of many more lives.
Yet on 1 October 2024, Israel launched a ground invasion of Lebanon, alongside strikes on Beirut, Sidon and border villages. The IDF confirmed the action on Twitter/X, promising a “limited, localised and targeted” operation against “Hezbollah terrorist targets” in southern Lebanon. One US official noted that Israel had framed its 1982 invasion as a limited incursion, which eventually turned into an 18-year occupation.
Israeli strikes have since expanded all over the country. According to figures provided by the Lebanese Ministry of Public Heath on November 13, Israel is responsible for the deaths of at least 3365 people in Lebanon, including 216 children and 192 health workers. More than 14,000 people have been wounded, and more than one million have been displaced from their homes.
Since September 30, 47 Israeli troops have been killed in combat in Southern Lebanon. Around 45 civilians in northern Israel have died due to rocket fire from Lebanon.
So, on top of an economic crisis, runaway inflation, unaffordable food, increasing poverty, the port explosion and covid-19, the Lebanese people now face a war that shows little signs of stopping.
Analysts suggest there is little chance of a ceasefire while Israel retains its “maximalist” demands, which include a full surrender of Hezbollah and allowing Israel to continue to attack targets in southern Lebanon.
A senior fellow at the Carnegie Middle East Center in Beirut, Mohanad Hage Ali, believes Israel is feigning diplomacy to push the blame on Hezbollah. The best chance may come alongside a ceasefire in Gaza, but Israel shows little signs of negotiating meaningfully on that front either.
On September 26, the Lebanese Foreign Minister Abdallah BouHabib summarised the mood of the country in the wake of the pager attack:
“[N]obody expected the war to be taken in that direction. We Lebanese—we’ve had enough war. We’ve had fifteen years of war. . . .We’d like to live without war—happily, as a tourist country, a beautiful country, good food—and we are not able to do it. And so there is a lot of depression, especially with the latest escalation.”
In Aotearoa New Zealand, the Māori phrase “Kia kaha” means “stand strong”. If I could send a message from halfway across the world, it would be: “Kia kaha Lebanon. I look forward to the day I can visit you again, and munch on a yummy Za’atar man’ousheh while admiring the view from the beautiful Corniche Beirut.”
Joe Hendren holds a PhD in international business from the University of Auckland. He has more than 20 years of experience as a researcher, including work in the New Zealand Parliament, for trade unions and on various research projects. This is his first article for Asia Pacific Report. His blog can be found at http://joehendren.substack.com
Where I ate my Za’atar man’ousheh – Pigeon’s Rock, Corniche Beiruit
Lenora Qereqeretabua, the deputy speaker of Fiji’s Parliament, at the COP29 climate summit.IISD/ENB/Mike Muzurakis, CC BY-SA
As this year’s UN climate summit reaches its final stage of negotiations, Pacific scholars are calling on world leaders to improve the dispersal system of climate finance to support people living in small island nations.
Last week, we presented the Conference of the Parties (COP29) with a report from the largest Pacific climate adaptation study. The Pacific Ocean Climate Crisis Assessment (POCCA) amplifies voices of people with lived experience. It collates data and case studies about climate impacts island nations are already facing and local adaptation strategies they are already practising.
The report shows that climate finance has been mainstreamed into global financial structures which follow the same patterns as development aid.
This means the main global financial institutions, including the World Bank and the International Monetary Fund, become the “accredited” institutions involved in dispersing funds, adding loan components and making direct access difficult for Pacific nations.
Loading recipient countries with more debt
As a result, some 72% of the money is in the form of loans by the time it reaches people on the ground. The real beneficiaries are private contractors in developed countries who are brought in to build climate-resilient infrastructure.
What may have started off as a humanitarian gesture has ended up loading recipient countries in the Global South, particularly in the Pacific, with more debt.
Recent research shows extreme weather is already costing vulnerable island nations US$141 billion each year. Estimates suggest this will rise to $1 trillion annually by 2030.
Last year’s climate summit in Dubai agreed to establish a new fund to compensate developing countries for losses and damages from natural disasters caused by climate change. This diplomatic effort was spearheaded by a group of small island developing states and it is important this fund fills the gaps in current climate finance.
However, closing the gap between the funds currently available and the money needed is only one aspect. We must also transform the process of dispersal to make sure money directly benefits people who already face climate impacts on a daily basis.
Our report also highlights a range of climate adaptation strategies, including relocating households and villages, already employed by Pacific peoples across the region.
As descendants of great navigators and oceanic settlers who traversed the world’s largest ocean for millennia, Pacific peoples have long developed sophisticated adaptive capacities. Despite living in some of the planet’s smallest and most environmentally challenging places, they have been responding to change in locally relevant and innovative ways for centuries.
This includes traditional building techniques which produce more flexible houses that are easier to rebuild and coastal protections against sea-level rise and beach erosion.
Adaptation practices used in Pacific Islands are mostly based on community Indigenous knowledge and skills passed down over generations. For example, in French Polynesia, the traditional practice of building elevated houses with floors 1.5m above ground level is now subsidised by the government as part of risk prevention.
Pacific peoples are intrinsically connected to the ocean and have developed systems of social and ecological resilience which allows them to bounce back quickly from disruption.
Many Pacific people are indeed affected by climate change. But the
constant narrative of vulnerability is problematic. It undermines the very idea of Indigenous and local Pacific agency and resilience.
The complexity of climate impacts requires us to look at what is happening on the ground, especially when applying science-based models and their inherent uncertainties to inform local adaptation decisions.
The report recommends enabling pathways that combine Indigenous knowledge, contemporary science methods and government decision tools to safeguard a balance between ground-up and top-down approaches to adaptation and resilience.
Pacific Island communities have always lived on islands affected by drought, tsunami and tropical cyclones. They had to survive on islands with limited resources.
Over millennia, Pacific peoples developed local knowledge, including cultural
principles and social structures, to thrive in these circumstances. Given existential threats and challenges, especially those facing atoll island communities, we need to draw on climate-related Indigenous knowledge and practices.
In contrast to narratives of vulnerability, legacies of resilience are key to successful climate adaptation.
Steven Ratuva does not work for, consult, own shares in or receive funding from any company or organisation that would benefit from this article, and has disclosed no relevant affiliations beyond their academic appointment.
Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Jordan Peter Anthony Pitt, Associate Dean of Indigenous Strategy and Services (Faculty of Science), University of Sydney
An enduring challenge facing science around the world is how to best include and engage Indigenous communities.
Leading Indigenous academics from all three nations attended the summit. They gave talks on topics such as the United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples, Indigenous leadership in academic institutions and the role of Indigenous engagement in expanding and improving research and education.
Many of the issues Indigenous academics raised at the summit were common to all three nations.
We heard of structural issues such as lack of recognition and protection of Indigenous Cultural Intellectual Protocols. We also heard about the problem of research being about us but without us and the barriers to increasing the number of Indigenous academics.
One of these barriers is the historical erasure and suppression of Indigenous cultures and their associated knowledges. Another is the education pipeline: only 68% of Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islanders aged 20–24 have completed Year 12 or equivalent. A third barrier is the cultural safety for both university students and staff.
These barriers were highlighted by deeply personal stories shared throughout the summit, including from residential school survivors and academics who had experienced racism in their workplace.
Fundamentally these issues are all rooted in the same thing: the significant power imbalance between Indigenous communities and the academic community seeking to engage them.
This has resulted in previous engagement being a purely extractive process. Researchers have taken knowledge from Indigenous communities, without giving anything back. This has eroded trust.
There is movement to improve engagement by moving from projects done “on us” to projects done “with us” and “by us”. But achieving this goal will require long-term, strategic engagement of Indigenous communities to move from merely nice-to-have representation to genuine partnership.
But even though it may take time, this is worthwhile work.
For communities with genuine partnership and benefit sharing, engagement with academia and the learned academies could meaningfully uplift communities.
For example, Indigenous-led organisation Trioda Wilingi employs Indigenous people at all levels and is working with scientists from the University of Queensland to produce medical gels from spinifex grass. These gels can treat painful conditions such as arthritis.
As the summit began, we heard of the passing of the First Nations Canadian politician and lawyer the Honourable Murray Sinclair. His presence looms large in matters of Indigenous engagement – he chaired the Indian Residential Schools Truth and Reconciliation Commission in Canada.
Thanks to his extensive work in this area, his presence and words echoed through every talk and panel. The most notable are two quotes from his time chairing the commission. One describes the commission’s work:
We have described for you a mountain. We have shown you the way to the top. We call upon you to do the climbing.
The second quote reflects on the role of education in reconciliation:
Education got us into this mess, and education will get us out of it.
These are statements that reverberate across the three nations that took part in the summit. They highlight the ongoing issues in the engagement of the learned academies and academia more broadly with Indigenous peoples.
Transformational education
There is still a mountain to climb – and education remains key.
But to overcome history, education must be developed in the communities’ interests with their voices at the table to create genuinely transformational education.
Hampering the climb is easy, but it doesn’t make the mountain disappear.
The summit in Vancouver was supported by the Royal Society of Canada, the Australian Academy of Science, and the Royal Society Te Apārangi (Aotearoa New Zealand). There will be another summit next year in Aotearoa New Zealand. The final one will be in 2026 in Australia.
Jordan Peter Anthony Pitt is Associate Dean Indigenous Strategy and Services of the University of Sydney. The Australian Academy of Science funded Dr Pitt’s attendance at the Summit. Dr Pitt is the Chair of the Early and Mid-career Researcher Forum, which is affiliated with and supported by the Australian Academy of Science.
Cricket originated in England, but has been spread worldwide by British soldiers and settlers in the past few hundred years.
It is now the second most popular sport in the world in terms of number of fans, after soccer.
This spread has been most successful in the Indian sub-continent, which is now considered the epicentre of world cricket.
This region includes countries such as Bangladesh, India, Pakistan and Sri Lanka.
According to the International Cricket Council (ICC), 90% of the world’s cricket fans are from the sub-continent.
History of cricket in the Indian sub-continent
Cricket was introduced to the Indian sub-continent by sailors and traders from the East India Company in the early 18th century.
The first recorded cricket match in this region was played between British sailors in western India in 1721.
Introducing English sports and traditions was intended to assert British dominance and cultural superiority. However, Indian elites embraced cricket as a way to gain favour with their rulers.
Over time, cricket became popular with the entire population.
Cricket matches between India and Pakistan are considered one of the biggest sporting events in the world, and are regularly watched by nearly half a billion fans.
While cricket is also very popular in other successful cricketing nations such as Australia, South Africa and the United Kingdom, it does not enjoy the same unrivalled status as it does in the Indian sub-continent.
It has the ability to cut across regional, ethnic, social class and religious divides, and unitecountries in a way no other sport or cultural institution can.
Indeed, cricket has been described as a religion, particularly in India where it brings people of all faiths and backgrounds together.
It even has the power to temporarily stop civil wars. In 2007, the Tamil Tigers militant group declared a ceasefire with the government of Sri Lanka for the duration of the Cricket World Cup.
Why is cricket so popular?
Cricket can be played anywhere. In large South Asian cities, it is often played in cramped spaces such as rooftops, markets and busy streets.
Variations such as “tape ball cricket” and “street cricket” mean players can simply use a rubbish bin, milk crate, or marks on a wall as the wickets.
The bat can be a stick, and a rubber or tennis ball can be taped to ensure it deviates in the air to make things more challenging for a batter.
Games of cricket can be seen just about anywhere on the Indian sub-continent.
This softer ball means equipment such as pads and helmets are not needed.
Many of South East Asia’s cricket legends such as Wasim Akram and Sachin Tendulkar first honed their skills in chaotic street games that required quick reflexes and improvisation.
Winning the Cricket World Cup in 1983 (India), 1992 (Pakistan), 1996 (Sri Lanka) and 2011 (India) made cricketers heroes and role models for new generations.
A lack of success in other sports – except India and Pakistan in hockey, particularly during the 20th century – means cricket has little competition for the hearts of sports fans in the region.
Media momentum
Huge media coverage and sponsorship across the sub-continent has ensured significant money and resources have been invested back into cricket.
For instance, the Board of Control for Cricket in India (BCCI) has previously earned billions of dollars over a five year period from lucrative television rights.
Much of this money is from the Indian Premier League – a Twenty20 competition that has quickly become the biggest cricket league in the world.
Similar successful (but not as profitable) T20 competitions have been set up in countries such as Bangladesh, Pakistan and Sri Lanka.
The majority of the ICC’s revenue now comes from India. Consequently, the BCCI has increasing control over the ICC and its decisions.
Additionally, India will be given 38.5% of the ICC’s profits in the 2024-2027 cycle – 105 nations will share the other 61.5%.
While these investments help build future cricket pathways and facilities for the next generation of aspiring Indian cricketers, the ICC profit split has been criticised for making the richest countries richer and missing the chance to grow the game in other countries.
What about women’s cricket?
Cricket has the potential to be even more popular in the region if it embraces gender equality. One example of this would be Afghanistan, if the Taliban lifts its currentban on women playing cricket.
Countries such as Australia have refused to play men’s cricket matches against Afghanistan until conditions for women and girlsimprove.
However, the success of women’s teams has resulted in increased acceptance of women’s cricket in the Indian sub-continent in recent years.
Notable recent initiatives include the BCCI launching a successful women’s T20 competition in 2023. The recent ICC T20 World Cup was the first time women received the same prize money as their male counterparts.
These decisions align with the ICC prioritising the growth of the women’s game.
Continued popularity and growth
The deep passion for the game and continued success of teams from the Indian sub-continent is likely to ensure cricket’s continued popularity.
Cricket is also growing in popularity in countries like the United States, thanks to large Indian communities – in fact, the US co-hosted the 2024 T20 World Cup.
The addition of cricket to the Los Angeles Olympic program in 2028, should ensure that sub-continent cricket fans support the popularity of cricket in the years ahead.
The authors do not work for, consult, own shares in or receive funding from any company or organisation that would benefit from this article, and have disclosed no relevant affiliations beyond their academic appointment.
As America takes stock after Donald Trump’s re-election to the presidency, it’s worth highlighting the AI-generated fake photos, videos and audio shared during the campaign.
A slew of fake videos and images shared by Trump and his supporters purported to show his opponent, Kamala Harris, saying or doing things that did not happen in real life.
Of particular concern are deepfake videos, which are edited or generated using artificial intelligence (AI) and depict events that didn’t happen. They may appear to depict real people, but the scenarios are entirely fictitious.
Russian actors continue to create AI-enhanced deepfake videos about Vice President Harris. In one video, Harris is depicted as allegedly making derogatory comments about former President Donald Trump. In another […] Harris is accused of illegal poaching in Zambia. Finally, another video spreads disinformation about Democratic vice president nominee Tim Walz, gaining more than 5 million views on X in the first 24 hours.
If left unchallenged, political deep fake videos could have profound impacts on Australian elections.
It’s getting harder to spot a deepfake
Images have stronger persuasive power than text. Unfortunately, Australians are not great at spotting fake videos and images.
The prevalence of deepfakes on social media is particularly concerning, given it is getting harder to identify which videos are real and which are not.
AI-based methods for detection are marginally better than humans. However, these methods become less effective when videos are compressed (which is necessary for social media).
As Australia faces its own election, this technology could profoundly impact perceptions of leaders, policies, and electoral processes.
Without action, Australia could become vulnerable to the same AI-driven political disinformation seen in the US.
Deepfakes and disinformation in Australia
When she was home affairs minister, Clare O’Neil warned technology is undermining the foundations of Australia’s democratic system.
Senator David Pocock demonstrated the risks by creating deepfake videos of both Prime Minister Anthony Albanese and Opposition Leader Peter Dutton.
The technology’s reach extends beyond federal politics. For example, scammers successfully impersonated Sunshine Coast Mayor Rosanna Natoli in a fake video call.
We’ve already seen deepfakes already in Australian political videos, albeit in a humorous context. Think, for example, of the deepfake purporting to show Queensland premier Steven Miles, which was released by his political opponents.
While such videos may seem harmless and are clearly fabricated, experts have raised concerns about the potential misuse of deepfake technology in future.
As deepfake technology advances, there is growing concern about its ability to distort the truth and manipulate public opinion. Research shows political deepfakes create uncertainty and reduce trust in the news.
The risk is amplified by microtargeting – where political actors tailor disinformation to people’s vulnerabilities and political views. This can end up amplifying extreme viewpoints and distort people’s political attitudes.
Not everyone can spot a fake
Deepfake content encourages us to make quick judgments, based on superficial cues.
Studies suggest some are less susceptible to deepfakes, but older Australians are especially at risk. Research shows a 0.6% decrease in deepfake detection accuracy with each year of age.
Younger Australians who spend more time on social media may be better equipped to spot fake imagery or videos.
But social media algorithms, which reinforce users’ existing beliefs, can create “echo chambers”.
Research shows people are more likely to share (and less likely to check) political deepfake misinformation when it shows their political enemies in a poor light.
With AI tools struggling to keep pace with video-based disinformation, public awareness may be the most reliable defence.
Deepfakes are more than just a technical issue — they represent a fundamental threat to the principles of free and fair elections.
The authors do not work for, consult, own shares in or receive funding from any company or organisation that would benefit from this article, and have disclosed no relevant affiliations beyond their academic appointment.
Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Kira Morgan Hughes, PhD Candidate in Allergy and Asthma, School of Life and Environmental Sciences, Deakin University
When spring arrives, so do warnings about thunderstorm asthma. But a decade ago, most of us hadn’t heard of it.
So where did thunderstorm asthma come from? Is it a new phenomenon?
In 2016, the world’s most catastrophic thunderstorm asthma event took Melbourne by surprise. An increase in warnings and monitoring is partly a response to this.
But there are also signs climate change may be exacerbating the likelihood of thunderstorm asthma, with more extreme weather, extended pollen seasons and a rise in Australians reporting hay fever.
A landmark catastrophe
The first time many Australians heard of thunderstorm asthma was in November 2016, when a major event rocked Melbourne.
During a late night storm, an estimated 10,000 people were rushed to hospitals with severe asthma attacks. With thousands of calls on emergency lines, ambulances and emergency departments were unprepared to handle the rapid increase in people needing urgent medical care. Tragically, ten of those people died.
This was the most catastrophic thunderstorm asthma event in recorded history and the first time deaths have ever occurred anywhere in the world.
In response, the Victorian Department of Health implemented initiatives, including public awareness campaigns and improvements to health and emergency services, to be ready for future thunderstorm asthma events.
A network of pollen monitoring stations was also set up across the state to gather data that helps to predict future events.
A problem for decades
While this event was unexpected, it wasn’t the first time we’d had thunderstorm asthma in Australia – we’ve actually known about it for decades.
Melbourne reported its first instance of thunderstorm asthma back in 1984, only a year after this phenomenon was first discovered in Birmingham in the United Kingdom.
Thunderstorm asthma has since been reported in other parts of Australia, including Canberra and New South Wales. But it is still most common in Melbourne. Compared to any other city (or country) the gap is significant: over a quarter of all known events worldwide have occurred in Melbourne.
Why Melbourne?
Melbourne’s location makes it a hotspot for these kinds of events. Winds coming from the north of Melbourne tend to be dry and hot as they come from deserts in the centre of Australia, while winds from the south are cooler as they come from the ocean.
When hot and cool air mix above Melbourne, it creates the perfect conditions for thunderstorms to form.
Northern winds also blow a lot of pollen from farmlands into the city, in particular grass pollen. This is not only the most common cause of seasonal hay fever in Melbourne but also a major trigger of thunderstorm asthma.
Why grass pollen?
There’s a particular reason grass pollen is the main culprit behind thunderstorm asthma in Australia. During storms there is a lot of moisture in the air. Grass pollen will absorb this moisture, making it swell up like a water balloon.
If pollen absorbs too much water whilst airborne, it can burst or “rupture,” releasing hundreds of microscopic particles into the air that can be swept by powerful winds.
Normally, when you breathe in pollen it gets stuck in your upper airway – for example, your nose and throat. This is what causes typical hay fever symptoms such as sneezing or runny nose.
But the microscopic particles released from ruptured grass pollen are much smaller and don’t get stuck as easily in the upper airway. Instead, they can travel deep into your airways until they reach your lungs. This may trigger more severe symptoms, such as wheezing or difficulty breathing, even in people with no prior history of asthma.
A grass pollen rupturing. Kira Hughes/Supplied, CC BY
So who is at risk?
You might think asthma is the biggest risk factor for thunderstorm asthma. In fact, the biggest risk factor is hay fever.
Up to 99% of patients who went to the emergency department during the Melbourne 2016 event had hay fever, while a majority (60%) had no prior diagnosis of asthma.
Every single person hospitalised was allergic to at least one type of grass pollen. All had a sensitivity to ryegrass.
Is thunderstorm asthma becoming more common?
Thunderstorm asthma events are rare, with just 26 events officially recorded worldwide.
However there is evidence these events could become more frequent and severe in coming years, due to climate change. Higher temperatures and pollution could be making plants produce more pollen and pollen seasons last much longer.
Extreme weather events, including thunderstorms, are also expected to become more common and severe.
In addition, there are signs rates that hay fever may be increasing. The number of Australians reporting allergy symptoms have risen from 15% in 2008 to 24% in 2022. Similar trends in other countries has been linked to climate change.
What happens to your clothes after you don’t want them any more? Chances are, you will donate them to op shops run by a charity organisation.
There are more and more clothes in circulation, and they are getting cheaper and lower quality. That means the clothes you give away are worth less and less. For charities, this means donated clothes are less gift, more rubbish.
Our new research explores what happens to clothes and other textiles after we don’t want them across nine cities in Europe, North America and Australia. The pattern was the same in most cities. The sheer volume is overwhelming many shops. In Geneva, donations to charity shops have surged 1,200% in three decades, from 250 tonnes in 1990 to 3,000 tonnes in 2021. Worldwide, we now dump 92 million tonnes of clothes and textiles a year, double the figure of 20 years earlier.
There’s less and less value in managing these clothes locally. As a result, charities are forced to send more clothes to landfill – or sell bale after bale of clothing to resellers, who ship them to nations in the Global South.
Local governments usually handle other waste streams. But on clothes and textiles, they often leave it to charitable organisations and commercial resellers. This system is inherited from a time when used clothing was a more valuable resource, but the rising quantity of clothing has pushed this system towards collapse.
From January, all EU states have to begin rolling out collection services for used textiles. But in Australia and the United States there are no moves to do the same – even though these two countries consume the most textiles per capita in the world. As we work towards creating circular economies, where products are continually reused, this will have to change.
Textile waste is a new problem
Historically, textiles were hard to make and hence valuable. They were used for as long as possible and reused as rags or other purposes before becoming waste. These natural fibres would biodegrade or be burned for energy.
But synthetic fibres and chemical finishings have made more and more clothes unable to biodegrade. Fast fashion – in which high fashion trends are copied and sold at low cost – is only possible because of synthetic fibers such as polyester.
These clothes are often worn for a brief period and then given or thrown away.
What happens to this waste? To find out, we looked at textile waste in Amsterdam, Austin, Berlin, Geneva, Luxembourg, Manchester, Melbourne, Oslo and Toronto. In eight of these cities, charities and commercial resellers dealt with the lion’s share of clothing waste. But in Amsterdam, local governments manage the problem.
Across the nine cities, most donated clothes go not to charity shops shelves but to export. In Oslo, 97% of clothes are exported.
The flood of clothes is producing strange outcomes in some places. In Melbourne, charities are now exporting higher quality secondhand clothes to Europe. But we found this forces independent secondhand clothing outlets to import similar clothes back from Europe or the US.
Charity organisations usually export the clothes across the Global South. But shipping container loads of secondhand clothes and textiles can do real damage environmentally. Clothing that can’t be sold becomes waste. In Ghana, there are now 20-metre-high hills made of clothing waste. Synthetic clothes clog up rivers, trap animals and spread plastics as they break apart. This practice has been dubbed “waste colonialism”.
Uganda has recently banned imports. The secondhand clothing export industry provides work, but its social and environmental impacts have been devastating.
What should we do?
At present, charities and resellers are struggling with managing the rising volume of donations, but they have little room to change. Exporting excess clothing is getting less profitable, but moving to local sorting and resale would be even less so due to higher costs and too many clothes collected relative to demand for secondhand items.
These clothes are disposed of by consumers who live in cities in wealthier countries. The actions city leaders take can reduce the problem globally, such as encouraging residents to buy fewer new clothes and boosting local reuse, repair and recycling efforts.
We are already seeing seeing grassroots initiatives emerging in all nine studied cities promoting local reuse and repair, with some receiving government support and others operating independently.
To make real change, municipal governments will have to take on a larger role. At present, municipal governments in most of the cities we studied have limited roles, ranging from sending clothing waste to landfill to sharing data on clothing recycling bins, letting charities and resellers set up collection points and supporting repair and swapping.
Here are three ways local governments could take the lead:
1. Curb overconsumption
Dealing with waste is a major role for municipal governments, and comes with major costs. To reduce clothing waste, cities could launch campaigns against overconsumption by focusing on the environmental damage done by fast fashion – or even banning ads for clothing retailers in city centres.
2. Boost reuse
Local governments could stop charging charities for the right to collect clothing and instead offer compensation for every kilo of collected textiles to help replace the money they get from sending clothing bales to resellers for export. Cities can also train and support circular economy practitioners, such as those involved in repair and upcycling.
3. Reduce exports of clothing waste
City leaders could reduce textile exports by recognising them as a waste stream and including textiles in their waste management planning.
One thing is certain – if we keep going as we are, flows of clothing waste will only grow, leading to more waste locally – and greatly increase the waste problem overseas.
The authors do not work for, consult, own shares in or receive funding from any company or organisation that would benefit from this article, and have disclosed no relevant affiliations beyond their academic appointment.
Prime Minister Anthony Albanese didn’t see this coming. At the global COP29 climate talks in Baku, the Australian government was indirectly criticised by two allies, the United States and the United Kingdom, over its refusal to sign onto the goal of tripling nuclear power globally by 2050.
The UK’s original press release said Australia was “expected” to sign on to the nuclear push, under the umbrella of a long-running nuclear research pact known as the Gen IV Forum. Australia signed up to this pact in 2016, under a previous government, and in 2021 signed onto the AUKUS security pact to procure nuclear submarines from the US. This is perhaps why UK leaders assumed Australia would back the broader push to promote nuclear power around the world.
Not so. While Australia has signed up for nuclear submarines, it has not made any effort to adopt nuclear power. But nuclear power is shaping up as a major election issue, with the Coalition pushing for Australia to go nuclear and Labor pointing out the improbable economics of nuclear in a sun and wind rich country.
“As Australia does not have a nuclear energy industry, and nuclear power [is] illegal domestically, we will not be signing up to this agreement,” a government spokesperson said.
Nuclear or solar? Australia’s calculations are different to other nations. Yuri Hoyda/Shutterstock
What exactly is this nuclear initiative?
The US and UK initiative announced at Baku is intended to supersede the Generation IV Forum set up in 2001 to produce designs for fourth-generation nuclear reactors and eventually replace the Gen III designs currently running in many countries. More than 20 years later, there is only one prototype Gen IV reactor, which began operating in China this year. Plans for a larger successor appear to have been shelved for the moment.
The US and UK have had nuclear power since the late 1950s. But the goal of tripling nuclear capacity in 25 years is wildly unrealistic, certainly as far as the US and UK are concerned.
In 2023, about 9% of the world’s electricity came from the roughly 400 nuclear reactors producing power. In recent years, nuclear growth has been concentrated in Asia – especially China, which has 30 reactors under construction – followed by Russia and Eastern Europe. Tripling the world’s nuclear power output would be a herculean feat.
Since the US completed the Vogtle plant in 2023, years behind schedule and billions over budget, there have been no commercial nuclear plants under construction in the country. A handful of proposals approved during the much-touted “nuclear renaissance” of the early 2000s could in theory be commenced, but there is no sign of that happening. The idea of building any substantial number of plants by the mid 2030s, as is proposed in the US strategy, is a fantasy.
The UK has two nuclear reactors under construction at Hinkley Point, both massively overdue and over-budget. A number of other projects announced in the early 2000s have been abandoned, leaving only the Sizewell C plant, a 3.2-gigawatt power station proposed in England.
Sizewell C was officially approved in November 2022 but financing has proved problematic. The UK government has repeatedly deferred a final decision, currently planned for early next year. Assuming a positive outcome, Sizewell C might be in operation by 2035. After that, there are no large-scale plants in the pipeline.
With no large-scale nuclear on the horizon, attention has switched to the idea of “small modular reactors”, ranging from 70 to 300MW in size. This category includes truly modular designs, built in a factory and shipped to the construction site, as well as cut-down versions of existing large reactors. A notable example is the Westinghouse AP300, which is based on the AP1000 used at Vogtle.
Although no SMRs have yet been constructed (or perhaps precisely because there have been no real-world tests of ambitious claims), advocates suggest they can be constructed in five to seven years at a lower cost per megawatt than existing large models. But in Australia, CSIRO modelling suggests power from SMRs will actually be more expensive than large nuclear – which is much more expensive than renewables firmed with storage and transmission.
There has been a recent burst of enthusiasm for the idea of using SMRs to power data centres for cloud and AI systems.
But a closer look suggests caution. Big tech giants such as Amazon, Google and Microsoft have announced plans for delivery in the early 2030s, but in each case, the proposed capacity is 1GW or less.
As a result, it’s highly unlikely they will amount to more than 5GW of new capacity over five years.
By contrast, renewables are only gaining strength. In the second half of 2024 alone, the US is expected to install more than 40 GW of utility-scale capacity, including 10GW of battery storage. China is installing renewables at truly prodigious rates, with around 330 GW installed or under way.
Doesn’t the AUKUS deal pave the way to nuclear power?
Many commentators have this week drawn a line between this nuclear announcement and AUKUS. But this contradicts previous assurances that the submarine deal was not linked to the legalisation of nuclear energy
When the nuclear submarine pact was first announced, even strong nuclear advocates moved to distinguish between nuclear subs and nuclear plants. As Liberal-National MP Ted O’Brien said in 2021, the AUKUS deal was not related to nuclear power:
They are two entirely different offerings. The nuclear-propelled submarines do not require a change in Australian law. So legally they are completely different issues for the parliament to deal with. There is no moratorium that needs to be lifted
The US and UK proposal to triple nuclear power involves a large amount of wishful thinking and very little reality.
But that doesn’t help the Albanese government much. Opposition Leader Peter Dutton, whose party now has a platform of creating a domestic nuclear power industry in Australia, can fairly claim that his ideas are consistent with the announced positions of our AUKUS allies.
The government is also open to attack from the Greens and other critics of AUKUS. With a recently announced decision to store AUKUS-related nuclear waste at submarine shipyards, it’s becoming increasingly arguable that, contrary to earlier assurances, participation in AUKUS will lock Australia into the full nuclear fuel cycle, potentially including reprocessing and nuclear energy generation.
Then there’s the Trump factor. Donald Trump’s return as US President could render all these calculations irrelevant. Although Trump is strongly pro-nuclear in his rhetoric, he is likely to abandon the green industrial policy of Biden’s Inflation Reduction Act which provides US government support for nuclear power. And, if the AUKUS deal begins to look troublesome, he will have no hesitation in repudiating it or demanding a renegotiation on unfavourable terms.
John Quiggin does not work for, consult, own shares in or receive funding from any company or organisation that would benefit from this article, and has disclosed no relevant affiliations beyond their academic appointment.
Stan’s new Christmas film Nugget is Dead is a colourful production that follows the rules of the seasonal genre film to a tee – with an Aussie twist and a dash of queer multiculturalism thrown in for good measure.
Most screenwriters refer to the Hallmark Channel as the generic yardstick of Christmas films. The US cable network pumps out dozens of tinsel-tinged offerings each year.
But what exactly are the rules of a Christmas movie? And how does Nugget is Dead fit in with the rest?
A cast stuffed with homegrown talent
Christmas movie screenwriting blogger and podcaster Caryn McCann has laid out the steps of the Christmas film formula, which can be applied to the case in point.
Step 1: choose a cute regional location situated a good distance from the big smoke. Christmas in Australia is, of course, in summer, so no snow-covered Midwest town for us. Instead, what better than an unnamed seaside location reminiscent of a less desirable version of Home and Away’s Summer Bay?
Step 2: find a key character who’s down on love. Enter struggling bisexual registrar Steph Stool (played by Vic Zerbst, who also cowrote the film). Steph’s swanky millennial boyfriend (Alec Snow) has it all, including a double-barrelled surname and an overbearing mum (Tara Morice) from Sydney’s North Shore. But their relationship is floundering at this crucial time of year.
Steph’s zany family, on the other hand, are on the more bogan end of the Australian social order. Notable mention goes to Steph’s OTT (over-the-top), recently separated parents, Jodie and John Stool (Gia Carides and Damien Garvey).
Vic Zerbst plays Steph Stool, with Gia Carides as her mother Jodie Stool. Lisa Tomasetti
Meanwhile, cowriter Jenna Owen hurls herself into the fun role of ditzy eshay cousin Shayla, who probably gets the most laughs as a foil to Zerbst’s uptight Steph.
The film mostly plays out in the Stool brood’s hometown, but crosscuts to Steph’s boyfriend’s affluent family’s celebrations.
Comedy doubling as class commentary
When Steph is called back home to attend to her dying dog, the titular Nugget, she encounters Step 3: the love interest. In this case, the attractive distraction appears in the form of her poor pooch’s new vet, Ella Lander (Priscilla Doueihy), who quickly becomes enmeshed in the Stool way of life.
Steps 4 and 5 of the form involve the careful balancing of cheerful Christmas traditions alongside drama aplenty. True to form, Nugget is Dead has more than enough fruity pavlova, Christmas crackers and sizzling snags on the barbie.
There are no shortage of Christmas tropes in this film. Lisa Tomasetti
These elements serve as a vital backdrops to several hectic – and silly – family barneys. I tip my festive headwear to emerging director Imogen McCluskey and director of photography Kate Cornish for capably managing dialogue-heavy scenes that include a large ensemble cast.
The humour in these sections comes from mix of comedic voices, as well as by contrasting ocker “realness” (and groan-worthy dad jokes) with urban upper-middle-class vapidity.
Director Imogen McCluskey experlty handles dialogue-heavy scenes featuring a large ensemble cast. Lisa Tomasetti
Out with the old
The final steps of the Christmas movie formula come down to the hero, heroine or non-binary protagonist embracing the true spirit of the holiday season – and restoring his, her or their reliance on romance and family values. On this front, Nugget is Dead does not deviate.
The film has an endearing core message about being accepting of poeple’s differences, which helps to extend it away from the genre’s norm.
The film’s core message is about accepting poeple’s differences. Julia Firak
In an Australian context, the film dabbles in the dreaded cultural cringe. I wasn’t sure if this was a deliberate wink to those in the know, or the result of trying to write for a wider audience and becoming a bit reductive in the process.
Nugget is Dead demonstrates the many ways in which our Christmas customs are becoming less white-bread and heteronormative.
Nugget is Dead is streaming on Stan from November 21.
Phoebe Hart does not work for, consult, own shares in or receive funding from any company or organisation that would benefit from this article, and has disclosed no relevant affiliations beyond their academic appointment.
Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Biswa Das, Associate Professor of Community and Regional Planning and Extension Economist, Iowa State University
Young families with children are a shrinking part of the U.S. population in many areas. The decline is especially pronounced in major urban centers, including Boston, San Francisco, New York, Minneapolis, Chicago, Los Angeles, Detroit, Seattle, Philadelphia, San Jose and Washington, D.C.
During the COVID-19 pandemic shutdown, many families with children moved to suburban or rural areas in search of more space. From mid-2020 through mid-2022, populations of young children fell by 10% in large urban counties that make up metro New York City, San Francisco, Los Angeles and Chicago.
This trend has continued: Americans ages 25 to 44 – the years when people typically start families – are increasingly moving to rural counties and small metro areas.
From my research in economic development and public finance, I have observed unique local factors that influence this trend, but also recurring themes. Here are some reasons why major cities are losing young families, and the effects that follow.
What young families contribute to cities
Families form the backbone of thriving communities. Their presence positively affects city infrastructure, local economies and overall quality of life.
Some people may wonder how this can be true when school districts within cities have to spend money on public schools. In fact, along with property tax payments, young families contribute to the economy by spending on housing, groceries, child care, health care, recreation and education. They create demand for family-oriented goods and services, which helps generate stable jobs in sectors such as education, health care, retail and hospitality.
By participating in local events, volunteering and connecting with their neighbors, young families help create lively communities. This kind of engagement fosters a sense of belonging and helps strengthen cities’ social fabric.
Young families help cities maintain or increase their population, which can counter urban shrinkage and decline. They are important advocates for high-quality public services such as schools, parks and libraries, and recreational amenities such as swimming pools and playing fields.
Families often advocate for features that promote healthy living, and for cleaner environments with lower pollution levels and reduced traffic congestion. Neighborhoods with young families tend to have lower crime rates due to parents’ investment in their children’s safety and well-being.
Together, these drivers make many cities less attractive environments for families. Many families are choosing suburban or rural locales where they perceive a better quality of life for raising children.
Declining birth rates also help to explain why the number of households with children continues to shrink in major cities. For many reasons, including concerns about the future as well as current economic conditions, younger Americans are having fewer children, which is reducing household size.
High living costs are a major factor driving young families out of many large U.S. cities.
Cities without kids
When cities lose significant numbers of young families, there can be far-reaching social, economic and demographic impacts. Declining numbers of students can lead to school consolidations or closures.
Reduced demand for family-sized homes and rental properties may depress property values. The city’s labor force can shrink, affecting its local economy and tax base.
As young families leave, declining property and sales tax revenues can make it harder to fund services and maintain infrastructure. Since schools and youth organizations often are hubs for community engagement, residents’ sense of community may weaken over time.
Where the kids are
Some cities are bucking this trend. For example, Austin, Texas, has become a major tech hub in recent years, with many companies relocating or expanding there and creating jobs. Austin’s relatively low cost of living, strong public school system and abundant parks and recreational activities make it a destination that’s often highly rated for families.
Raleigh, North Carolina, is another popular draw for young families with children. It offers a strong job market in technology, health care and education; affordable housing; high-quality schools; and a growing population of young professionals and families.
Other “baby boomtowns” currently attracting young families include Dallas-Fort Worth, Charlotte, Boise, Salt Lake City, Orlando and Nashville.
Attracting young families
Overall, families with children consider many factors in choosing a place to live. Affordable and family-friendly housing is usually a top priority. Cities seeking to attract families could prioritize developing affordable single-family homes, townhomes and apartments with family-friendly features, such as common play spaces.
Developers may require incentives to build two- to four-bedroom units, instead of the studios and one-bedroom units that typically are marketed to young professionals. Creating mixed-income housing developments is a way to foster diverse, vibrant communities and avoid gentrification.
Another priority for attracting and retaining young families is well-funded public schools with excellent teachers, resources and extracurricular activities. School systems may be able to collaborate with local colleges and universities to offer family-friendly programs, dual enrollment for high school students and continuing education for parents. Working families also need access to affordable, high-quality preschools and day care centers.
Investing in community policing strategies, neighborhood watch programs and youth engagement initiatives can help to build a sense of safety. Adopting traffic-calming measures by constructing more pedestrian crossings and providing safe routes to schools can reduce the risk of accidents and make streets safer for families.
Recreation is another important area for investment. Creating and maintaining safe parks, with playgrounds, picnic areas and sports facilities, will serve residents of all ages. Walkable neighborhoods, with bike paths and green spaces that promote active lifestyles, are also very appealing to young families.
Parks can build community by offering recreational programs, sports leagues, cultural events, summer camps, art classes and holiday celebrations. Activities like these can help make cities feel like welcoming places. Cities can host events such as farmers markets, outdoor movie nights and seasonal festivals, and promote community sharing to create a sense of belonging.
Most cities don’t have the resources to pursue all of these goals at once. But to attract and retain young families, I believe picking one or two as targets is a good way to move forward.
Biswa Das receives funding from the National Science Foundation and the U.S. Department of Agriculture
The Albanese government has rewritten the mandate of the Future Fund – the nation’s sovereign wealth fund – to urge it to direct investment into the “national priorities” of housing, the energy transition and infrastructure, where the risk and returns are acceptable.
Treasurer Jim Chalmers and Finance Minister Katy Gallagher said a new “investment mandate” and “statement of expectations” would modernise, refresh and renew the fund so it played “an enduring and prominent role” in the economy.
The ministers said the Australian economy faced big structural shifts coming from the global net zero transformation as well as technological and demographic changes and global fragmentation.
The $230 billion fund, which is independent in its investment decisions, is headed by former Labor minister Greg Combet.
The new investment mandate “will require the fund to consider Australia’s national priorities in its investment decisions, where possible, appropriate and consistent with strong returns”.
These priorities are:
boosting the housing supply
supporting Australia’s energy transition
delivering improved infrastructure including economic resilience and security infrastructure
The government stresses the new mandate does not mean the fund would be making riskier or less profitable investments.
To provide certainty to the fund, the government says it would not start any draw-dwns until at least 2032-33. By then, the fund is expected to reach a worth of $380 billion, from its present $230 billion.
“The government remains committed to the Fund’s independence and commercial focus,” the ministers said.
“Its primary objective will continue to be to maximise returns, the benchmark return rate will remain at between 4% and 5% above CPI per annum over the long term, and there will be no change to the expected risk profile.
“The Fund will provide the same strong returns to the government’s balance sheet while supporting national priorities where it can.”
No legislation is needed for the changes.
The Future Fund said in a statement that the government’s announcement was an endorsement of its work over 18 years to deliver a “demanding investment mandate of CPI+ 4-5% a year over the long term”.
It said delivering this investment target remained the fund’s focus under the new investment mandate. The fund’s Board of Guardians “will continue to make investment decisions independent of the government with the priority of generating commercial returns”.
The fund said the priorities it had now been given aligned with its thinking.
It also noted various investments it presently has in infrastructure and the energy transition. It plans to appoint an executive director, energy transition, to help with efforts in this area.
Social media age ban: companies face fines up to $50 million
The government on Thursday will introduce its legislation to ban minors under 16 from accessing social media, with companies facing fines of up to $50 million for breaches.
Under the legislation, the onus will be on the plaforms, not the parents or children, who will not face penalties.
The penalties of up to $50 million will be for companies that systematically breach the law as well as for violations of enforceable industry codes and standards.
The bill also allows the minister to exclude specific classes of services that support the health and benefit of children.
It contains privacy provisions including that platforms ring-fence and destroy any information collected.
Michelle Grattan does not work for, consult, own shares in or receive funding from any company or organisation that would benefit from this article, and has disclosed no relevant affiliations beyond their academic appointment.
Two Australian teenagers are severely ill in hospital in Thailand after experiencing suspected methanol poisoning while they were travelling in Laos.
The pair are reportedly among several foreign nationals to become ill after unknowingly consuming alcoholic drinks containing methanol in the south-east Asian country.
So what is methanol, and how does it make people sick?
The difference is in how methanol is metabolised, or broken down in our bodies.
Ethanol is metabolised into a chemical compound called acetaldehyde. Acetaldehyde is toxic, but is rapidly converted to acetate (also known as acetic acid, found in vinegar). Generating an acid may sound bad, but acetate actually produces energy and makes important molecules in the body.
By contrast, methanol is metabolised into formaldehyde (a chemical used in industrial glues and for embalming corpses, for example) and then to formic acid (the chemical in some ant bites that makes them hurt so much).
Unlike acetate, which the body uses, formic acid poisons the mitochondria, the powerhouses of the cells.
As a result, a person exposed to methanol can go into severe metabolic acidosis, which is when too much acid builds up in the body.
Methanol poisoning can cause nausea, vomiting, and abdominal pain. The acidosis then causes depression of the central nervous system which can cause people with methanol poisoning to fall unconscious and go into a coma, as well as retinal damage leading to vision loss. This is because the retinas are full of active mitochondria and sensitive to them being damaged.
Death is not inevitable if only a small amount of methanol has been consumed, and rapid treatment will greatly reduce damage.
However, permanent vision damage can occur even at non-lethal doses if treatment is not administered quickly.
What does treatment involve?
Treatment is mainly supportive care, such as intubation and mechanical ventilation to help the patient to breathe.
But it can also involve drugs such as fomepizole (which inhibits the generation of toxic formic acid) and dialysis to remove methanol and its metabolites from the body.
Methanol poisoning can cause serious illness and death. NATNN/Shutterstock
How does methanol get into alcoholic drinks?
Methanol can turn up in any alcoholic beverage, but it’s most likely in beverages with higher alcohol content, such as spirits, and traditionally brewed drinks, such as fruit wines.
Methanol can get into alcoholic beverages in a number of ways. Sometimes it’s added deliberately and illegally during or after manufacturing as a cheaper way to increase the alcohol content in a drink.
Traditional brewing methods can also inadvertently generate methanol as well as ethanol and produce toxic levels of methanol depending on the microbes and the types of plant materials used in the fermentation process.
We don’t yet know how the Australian teenagers came to be poisoned in this tragedy. But it is a good idea when travelling (particularly in areas with traditionally fremented drinks, such as south-east Asia, the Indian subcontinent and parts of Africa) to always be careful.
The Australian government’s Smartraveller website advises that to avoid methanol poisoning you should be careful drinking cocktails and drinks made with spirits, drink only at reputable licensed premises and avoid home-made alcoholic drinks.
Drinking only mass-produced commercial brews can be safer, though understandably people often want to try locally made drinks as part of their adventure.
Ian Musgrave has received funding from the National Health and Medical Research Council to study adverse reactions to herbal medicines and has previously been funded by the Australian Research Council to study potential natural product treatments for Alzheimer’s disease. He has collaborated with SA Water on studies of cyanobacterial toxins and their implication for drinking water quality.
The government says it will take “big money” out of election campaigns – or, more realistically, curb it – with its legislation imposing donation and spending caps and real-time disclosure.
But crossbenchers and other critics are up in arms, about the effect on small players and the fact the package is being rushed through parliament in a fortnight.
On this podcast we are talking with Special Minister of State Don Farrell about the bill and the criticisms.
Why the rush? Farrell argues people knew what was coming:
Nothing in this bill is a surprise to anybody who’s been involved in the process that has taken place over the last two and a half years. We went to the last election saying we were going to reduce the disclosure threshold, saying that we were going to introduce real-time disclosure of donations, saying that we were going to introduce caps on spending and donations. And that’s exactly what we’ve done in this legislation and there’s now been two Senate inquiries into this legislation. And all of the parties have absolutely adequate time to have looked at the recommendations.
Why do we need to get it through so quickly? Well, these are significant changes to the electoral system. They’re probably the most significant changes to the Australian electoral system in decades. And it’s going to take time to set up the systems that are going to be required to implement this.
Farrell has introduced truth-in-advertising provisions but he won’t push them this time, given a lack of bipartisan support. They will be a matter for another term:
We’ve had truth in political advertising in South Australia. We had a [state] byelection in South Australia last weekend and that legislation was used to clarify some statements that the opposition were claiming against the state government. So I think it’s a good provision. I’ve said all along that I want to get the maximum support for any piece of legislation in the electoral space.
Just at the moment, we haven’t been able to convince enough people that the legislation is worth their support. But I’m going to be continuing to work on that and one day we will get legislation through for truth in advertising.
Labor’s changes have also been criticised for not disallowing certain groups and industries from donating, such as those associated with the gambling industry. Farrell says:
If we were to do what you’re suggesting there, and then ban some companies, I think we would run into exactly the issues that [constitutional expert] Anne Twomey was talking about in her article in The Guardian Australia. One thing that would guarantee a challenge and perhaps a successful challenge is if we started to pick which companies in this country could donate. The cap that we’re applying, $20,000, really does limit the ability of any company, or any union for that matter, or any other party, or any individuals to dramatically influence the outcome.
We’re seeing Clive Palmer putting at the last election, $117 million dollars into the electoral process. I don’t think that’s what Australians want to want to see. But if I was to ban, say, the companies I don’t like from donating, I think that would result in a challenge to this legislation.
When asked if he intends to serve out the rest of his term as a senator (which isn’t due to end until 2028) Farrell says
Yes.
I love my job. I’ve got three terrific portfolios trade, tourism and special minister of state. I enjoy all of them equally. I think I can continue to contribute to political debate in this in this country. Just in my trade space: we started with $20 billion worth of trade impediments from China. We’ve managed to get that removed, or certainly by the end of the year to get that removed.
I think I can look back on a number of things in the tourism space – we’ve pretty much got back to where we were pre-COVID.
I like being involved in politics. I enjoy the process. And I’d like to continue doing it.
Michelle Grattan does not work for, consult, own shares in or receive funding from any company or organisation that would benefit from this article, and has disclosed no relevant affiliations beyond their academic appointment.
An overview for our international readers of Asia Pacific Report.
BACKGROUNDER:By Sarah Shamim
A fight for Māori indigenous rights drew more than 50,000 protesters to the New Zealand Parliament in the capital Wellington yesterday.
A nine-day-long Hīkoi, or peaceful march — a Māori tradition — was undertaken in protest against a bill that seeks to “reinterpret” the country’s 184-year-old founding Treaty of Waitangi, which was signed between British imperial colonisers and the Indigenous Māori tangata whenua (people).
Some had also been peacefully demonstrating outside the Parliament building for nine days before the protest concluded yesterday.
On November 14, the controversial Treaty Principles Bill was introduced in Parliament for a preliminary first reading vote. Māori parliamentarians staged a haka (a traditional ceremonial dance) to disrupt the vote, temporarily halting parliamentary proceedings.
So, what was the Treaty of Waitangi, what are the proposals for altering it, and why has it become a flashpoint for protests in New Zealand?
Thousands of marchers protesting government policies that affect the Māori cross the Auckland Harbour Bridge on day three of the nine-day journey to Wellington. Image: AJ
Who are the Māori? The Māori people are the original residents of the two large main islands now known as New Zealand, having lived there for several centuries.
The Māori came to the uninhabited islands of New Zealand from East Polynesia on canoe voyages betweemn 1200 and 1300. Over hundreds of years of isolation, they developed their own distinct culture and language. Māori people speak te reo Māori and have different tribes, or iwi, spread throughout the country.
The two islands were originally called Aotearoa by the Māori. The name New Zealand was adopted by the colonisers who took control under the Treaty of Waitangi in 1840.
While Dutch explorer Abel Tasman was the first European to “discover” New Zealand in 1642, calling it Staten Land, three years later Dutch cartographers renamed the land Nova Zeelandia after the Dutch province of Zeeland.
British explorer James Cook later anglicised the name to New Zealand.
New Zealand became a “dominion” under the British crown in 1907 after being a colony.
It gained full independence from Britain in 1947 when it adopted the Statute of Westminster.
However, for a century the Māori people had suffered mass killings, land grabs and cultural erasure at the hands of colonial settlers.
There are currently 978,246 Māori in New Zealand, constituting around 19 percent of the country’s population of 5.3 million. They are partially represented by Te Pāti Māori — the Māori Party — which currently holds six of the 123 seats in Parliament.
New Zaland Māori demographics. Graphic: AJLabs/Al Jazeera/CC
What was the Treaty of Waitangi? On February 6, 1840, the Treaty of Waitangi, also called Te Tiriti o Waitangi or just Te Tiriti in te reo, was signed between the British Crown and around 500 Māori chiefs, or rangatira. The treaty was the founding document of New Zealand and officially made New Zealand a British colony.
While the treaty was presented as a measure to resolve differences between the Māori and the British, the English and te reo versions of the treaty actually feature some stark differences.
The te reo Māori version guarantees “rangatiratanga” to the Māori chiefs. This translates to “self-determination” and guarantees the Māori people the right to govern themselves.
However, the English translation says that the Maori chiefs “cede to Her Majesty the Queen of England absolutely and without reservation all the rights and powers of Sovereignty”, making no mention of self-rule for the Maori.
The English translation does guarantee the Māori “full exclusive and undisturbed possession of their Lands and Estates Forests Fisheries”.
“The English draft talks about the British settlers having full authority and control over Māori in the whole country,” Kassie Hartendorp, a Māori community organiser and director at community campaigning organisation ActionStation Aotearoa, told Al Jazeera.
Hartendorp explained that the te reo version includes the term “kawanatanga”, which in historical and linguistic context “gives British settlers the opportunity to set up their own government structure to govern their own people but they would not limit the sovereignty of Indigenous people”.
“We never ceded sovereignty, we never handed it over. We gave a generous invitation to new settlers to create their own government because they were unruly and lawless at the time,” said Hartendorp.
In the decades after 1840, however, 90 percent of Māori land was taken by the British Crown. Both versions of the treaty have been repeatedly breached and Māori people have continued to suffer injustice in New Zealand even after independence.
In 1975, the Waitangi Tribunal was established as a permanent body to adjudicate treaty matters. The tribunal attempts to remedy treaty breaches and navigate differences between the treaty’s two texts.
Over time, billions of dollars have been negotiated in settlements over breaches of the treaty, particularly relating to the widespread seizure of Māori land.
However, other injustices have also occurred. Between 1950 and 2019, about 200,000 children, young people and vulnerable adults were subjected to physical and sexual abuse in state and church care, and a commission found Māori children were more vulnerable to the abuse than others.
On November 12 this year, Prime Minister Christopher Luxon issued an apology to these victims, but it was criticised by Māori survivors for being inadequate. One criticism was that the apology did not take the treaty into account.
While the treaty’s principles are not set in stone and are flexible, it is a significant historical document that upholds Māori rights.
Generation Kohanga Reo . . . making a difference at the Hīkoi. Image: David Robie/APR
What does the Treaty Principles Bill propose? The Treaty Principles Bill was introduced by Member of Parliament David Seymour, leader of the libertarian ACT Party, a minor partner in New Zealand’s rightwing coalition government. Seymour himself is of Māori heritage.
The party launched a public information campaign about the bill on February 7 this year.
The ACT Party asserts that the treaty has been misinterpreted over the decades and that this has led to the formation of a dual system for New Zealanders, where Māori and pākehā (white) New Zealanders have different political and legal rights. Seymour says that misinterpretations of the treaty’s meaning have effectively given Māori people special treatment.
The bill calls for an end to “division by race”.
Seymour said that the principle of “ethnic quotas in public institutions”, for example, is contrary to the principle of equality.
The bill seeks to set specific definitions of the treaty’s principles, which are currently flexible and open to interpretation. These principles would then apply to all New Zealanders equally, whether they are Māori or not.
According to Together for Te Tiriti, an initiative led by ActionStation Aotearoa, the bill will allow the New Zealand government to govern all New Zealanders and consider all New Zealanders equal under the law.
Activists say this will effectively disadvantage indigenous Māori people because they have been historically oppressed.
Many, including the Waitangi Tribunal, say this will lead to the erosion of Māori rights. A statement by ActionStation Aotearoa says that the bill’s principles “do not at all reflect the meaning” of the Treaty of Waitangi.
Why is the bill so controversial? The bill is strongly opposed by political parties in New Zealand on both the left and the right, and Maori people have criticised it on the basis that it undermines the treaty and its interpretation.
Gideon Porter, a Maori journalist from New Zealand, told Al Jazeera that most Maori, as well as historians and legal experts, agree that the bill is an “attempt to redefine decades of exhaustive research and negotiated understandings of what constitute ‘principles’ of the treaty”.
Porter added that those critical of the bill believe “the ACT Party within this coalition government is taking upon itself to try and engineer things so that Parliament gets to act as judge, jury and executioner”.
In the eyes of most Maori, he said, the ACT Party is “simply hiding its racism behind a facade of ‘we are all New Zealanders with equal rights’ mantra”.
The Waitangi Tribunal released a report on August 16 saying that it found the bill “breached the Treaty principles of partnership and reciprocity, active protection, good government, equity, redress, and the … guarantee of rangatiratanga”.
Another report by the tribunal seen by The Guardian newspaper said: “If this bill were to be enacted, it would be the worst, most comprehensive breach of the Treaty … in modern times.”
Treaty Principles Bill . . . submissions. Image: APR screenshot
What process must the bill go through now? For a bill to become law in New Zealand, it must go through three rounds in Parliament: first when it is introduced, then when MPs suggest amendments and finally, when they vote on the amended bill. Since the total number of MPs is 123, at least 62 votes are needed for a bill to pass, David MacDonald, a political science professor at the University of Guelph in Canada, told Al Jazeera.
Besides the six Māori Party seats, the New Zealand Parliament comprises 34 seats held by the Labour Party; 14 seats held by the Green Party of Aotearoa; 49 seats held by the National Party; 11 seats held by the ACT Party; and eight seats held by the New Zealand First Party.
“The National Party leaders including the PM and other cabinet ministers and the leaders of the other coalition party [New Zealand] First have all said they won’t support the bill beyond the committee stage. It is highly unlikely that the bill will receive support from any party other than ACT,” MacDonald said.
When the bill was heard for its first round in Parliament last week, Māori party lawmaker Hana-Rawhiti Maipi-Clarke tore up her copy of the legislation and led the haka.
Is the bill likely to pass? The chances of the bill becoming law are “zero”, Porter said.
He said the ACT’s coalition partners had “adamantly promised” to vote down the bill in the next stage. Additionally, all the opposition parties will also vote against it.
“They only agreed to allow it to go this far as part of their ‘coalition agreement’ so they could govern,” Porter said.
New Zealand’s current coalition government was formed in November 2023 after an election that took place a month earlier. It comprises the National Party, ACT and New Zealand First.
While rightwing parties have not given a specific reason why they will oppose the bill, Hartendorp said New Zealand First and the New Zealand National Party would likely vote in line with public opinion, which largely opposes it.
Why are people protesting if the bill is doomed to fail? The protests are not against the bill alone.
“This latest march is a protest against many coalition government anti-Māori initiatives,” Porter said.
Many believe that the conservative coalition government, which took office in November 2023, has taken measures to remove “race-based politics”. The Māori people are not happy with this and believe that it will undermine their rights.
These measures include removing a law that gave the Maori a say in environmental matters. The government also abolished the Maori Health Authority in February this year.
Despite the bill being highly likely to fail, many believe that just by allowing the bill to be tabled in Parliament, the coalition government has ignited dangerous social division.
For example, former conservative Prime Minister Jenny Shipley has said that just putting forth the bill is sowing division in New Zealand, and she warned of potential “civil war”.
Sarah Shamim is a freelance writer and assistant producer at Al Jazeera Media Network, where this article was first published.
The Northern Territory and Australian Capital Territory have won bragging rights for having the fastest growing economies within Australia.
Their growth was highlighted in annual data on gross state product, released by the Australian Bureau of Statistics on Wednesday.
The ABS defines GSP as the total market value of goods and services produced in a state or territory after the costs of goods and services used in production are deducted.
Unsurprisingly, New South Wales and Victoria, the most populous states, have the largest GSP. They account for 31% and 23% of our national economy.
But the Australian Capital Territory, with a population of 473,000, has a larger GSP than Tasmania despite the Apple Isle’s bigger population of 576,000.
Where the growth occurred
The fastest growing economy in 2023-2024 was the NT, which expanded by 4.6% followed by the ACT, whose GSP was up by 4.0%. These figures, given in real terms, exclude the impact of inflation. Unlike many recent years, the figures are not distorted by the impact of the COVID lockdowns.
The ABS attributes the NT’s strong growth in 2023-24 to
a bounce back in mining production which was hampered by maintenance work and plant shutdowns in 2022-23.
The ACT economy was boosted by “the expansion of government agencies”.
The bronze medal went to Queensland, but it was well behind the territories. Its economy grew by 2.1%, helped by increased coal production.
The laggard was Western Australia, whose economy grew by only 0.5%. Mining and oil and gas production fell due to weather disruptions.
Tasmania’s economy expanded by the national average of 1.4%. But given population growth has been much less there, Tasmania was the only state (along with the territories) whose economy expanded in per person terms.
The recession-proof economy?
Collection of the GSP data started in 1989-1990. Since then the fastest average growth has been recorded by Queensland and the ACT, an annual average of 3.6%.
Last year, the ACT could claim the unique status of being the only state or territory never to have economic activity contract in any of these years. The statisticians have now revised the 1995-96 number (the year the Howard government came in with plans to cut the public service) to a minuscule -0.1% contraction.
But it is still the case that being more services-based makes the ACT economy less volatile.
Growth is down but WA still the wealthiest
The state with the highest level of real GSP per person is Western Australia. It has led in every year the data have been compiled. Real GSP per person has been lowest every year in Tasmania.
WA’s GSP per person is more than double that in Tasmania. This means WA has GSP per person higher than global leaders such as Norway and Switzerland.
Tasmania’s is more like that in Poland. To put it another way, the real GSP per person in Tasmania is only now where the rest of Australia was in 1999.
What causes the differences?
One important cause of these differences is the different structure of industry in the various states.
WA (and the Northern Territory) benefits from its mineral resources. Mining accounts for almost half of WA’s income. Mining is no longer the labour intensive activity it was when men were swinging a pick “down the pit”. It now takes few people to generate a lot of mining revenue.
Tasmania has the smallest proportion of its population working (58% compared to a national average of 64%). One reason is that more than a fifth of Tasmanians are aged over 65. This is the highest proportion of any state.
Furthermore, only a quarter of Tasmanians hold a university degree compared to almost half of Canberrans.
These data on economic performance do not mean the quality of life or wellbeing is lower in Tasmania.
GSP does not reflect factors like the world’s cleanest air being found in Tasmania, for example.
John Hawkins is a former senior economist with the Australian Treasury. He lives in the ACT.
