Yesterday’s strike by NSW hospital staff over security concerns has highlighted just how serious the issue of workplace violence has become for health-care workers.
The Health Services Union, whose members include administration, cleaning and security staff, as well as paramedics and other health professionals, has reportedly called for measures including 250 more security guards across the state to better protect workers.
But tackling the growing problems of violence in our hospitals is about more than beefing up security numbers. Violence in our health-care system is also not limited to inner city hospitals, and it doesn’t just affect staff in emergency departments.
The levels of violence in hospitals have been steadily increasing across Australia.
For example, in NSW there was a 50% increase in the number of police-recorded assaults on hospital premises between 1996 and 2006. This number has continued to rise with an average increase of 5.8% a year between 2010 and 2015. In Western Australia, there was a 38% increase in assaults on nurses between 2017 and 2018.
Patients are the main source of this violence, and this includes the parents of children admitted to hospital.
Violence against health-care workers is also recognised internationally. The World Health Organisation sees it as a significant issue. And a US government report says many health-care workers see it as an inevitable part of their job.
Media attention is often focused on high-risk areas like the emergency department and mental health settings. However, violence occurs everywhere in the health-care system, from the community to hospital wards, even birthing suites.
The impact of violence on health-care staff includes physical and psychological reactions. Symptoms associated with post-traumatic stress disorder such as sleeplessness, nightmares and flashbacks have been reported and can persist for up to 12 months.
Violence towards health-care staff has also been linked to perceived poorer patient care.
Where do security guards fit in?
Rising levels of violence against health-care workers suggest current security measures are not a sufficient deterrent.
Despite union calls for more security guards, an interim report NSW Health commissioned looking at how to improve hospital security did not recommend this.
But an increase in security guards is warranted when you consider that some rural and regional hospitals have minimal, or no security presence; staff in these facilities have to rely on the police for help if they encounter a violent patient.
A NSW Health spokesperson says the author of its hospital security report is visiting hospitals in rural and regional areas to understand their security challenges and this information will be included in the final report, due by the end of the year.
While an added security presence may be warranted in some circumstances, more security guards would not impact staff working outside hospitals, including paramedics and community nurses.
Then there’s the quality of security guards. Health is a unique environment where traditional security measures can be counter-productive. For instance, if guards use inappropriate communication when people are anxious and stressed they can increase the chance of a situation escalating.
What’s needed are specially trained health security guards, working with doctors and nurses, as part of a multidisciplinary rapid response team. This doctor-led team would be called in to manage violent behaviour, for instance to “take down” a violent patient.
The Health Services Union has reportedly called on the NSW government to commit A$50 million for a proactive security team at hospitals, including staff trained in mental health, drug and alcohol abuse.
This makes sense as patients under the influence of alcohol and/or drugs, including ice, and those with mental health issues, are the ones most likely to be violent.
It’s not just about emergency departments
A spokesperson for NSW Health says A$19 million has been invested to improve security in emergency departments at public hospitals, and more than A$5 million to upgrade duress alarms for staff in emergency departments.
However violence in health care extends beyond the emergency department to all clinical specialities and beyond the walls of a hospital.
In a recent study of NSW nurses and midwives, staff discussed the physical design and layout of wards, and areas that should be secure but aren’t, as reasons they felt unsafe at work.
In particular, they described feeling unsafe returning to the car park in the dark, often with no security personnel present and in poorly lit conditions. Lack of duress alarms, poor placement of duress alarms or non-functioning duress alarms were also an issue.
The NSW interim report into hospital security acknowledges some shortcomings in the current management of violence in health care and as such is a positive step in reducing the risk to staff.
However, the persistent nature and increasing levels of the violence mean that the state government needs to prioritise the safety of all health-care staff.
China now buys almost a third of Australia’s exports – about twice the value bought by second-placed Japan, and about nine times fifth-placed United States.
It’s a situation that sparks fears of a Chinese economic slowdown, or a backlash if we offend China’s government in some way, such as by criticising its actions in Xinjiang or in the South China Sea.
In February and March customs officials in Chinese ports reportedly held up Australian coal imports. This was interpreted as a signal from Beijing about moves in Canberra to limit Chinese influence in Australia.
The Chinese government has a track record of using economic muscle to apply diplomatic pressure, including against Canada, South Korea and Palau.
“We are incredibly dependent on China – in some ways we are a state of China,” said business commentator Robert Gottliebsen. “China is now the world’s number two country and they will not stand for being lectured to by anyone — let alone a minnow like Australia.”
Is Australia really that dependent on China?
As a commodity exporter, Australia is vulnerable to any downturn in global markets due to a Chinese economic slump. This makes the fallout from the US-China trade conflict concerning.
But being penalised as a supplier by China for some perceived diplomatic slight is a different matter.
Using a global economic model with many commodities and countries, we modelled the effect of Beijing permanently cutting China’s imports of Australian coal by 25%.
Australia’s coal exports to China in 2018 were worth about A$15 billion – or about 1% of what the nation spends on private and public consumption in a year.
One might think losing a quarter of coal exports to China will knock about 0.25% off our spending capacity. In economic terms that’s a big number. Our results, however, point to a much smaller loss – just 1/6th the impact, or about 0.04% lower national consumption. That equates to every person having $24 less to spend in a year.
Four determining factors
Any economic model necessarily abstracts from potentially important real-world elements, so its potential accuracy depends on the detail and data that goes into it.
So perhaps more important than the specific results of a cut to coal exports is how our modelling shows four interconnected factors determine to what degree the economy will be hurt by sanctions on any export.
The first factor has to do with the capacity to redirect exports to other markets. How easily can exporters find other buyers? How much will the price need to be cut to interest buyers? We call these “trade diversion effects”.
If Australia could not divert exports elswehere, China buying 25% less coal would see the volume of total Australian coal exports fall by about 6%. Our modelling shows the likely fall would be about 1/12th of this, at 0.5%.
The chart below shows our results. The blue line shows the effect on the total value of coal exports. The stacked columns show the effect of China’s cutback being offset by sales to other markets – notably Japan, South Korea and countries in Southeast Asia.
Trade diversion effects on Australia’s coal exports, by destination (% deviation from baseline)source, Author provided (No reuse)
To sell more to another buyer, it’s likely exporters will need to reduce prices. Our model anticipates the Australian coal price will fall by about 3%.
The second factor is how easily resources can switch from coal production to other activities.
For any resource that can move to alternative uses, the impact of the trade sanction will be reduced. Labour is an example. A miner no longer needed to meet demand for coal will generally have skills transferable to other jobs, although this might require working at a lower wage in another region.
For any resource that cannot easily move – the capital invested in specific coal-mining equipment or transport infrastructure, for example – lower export revenue will mean lower profits from these assets.
How do lower profits affect Australian living standards? This depends on who owns the affected assets, and how much tax they pay.
So the third factor is the level of foreign ownership. More foreign ownership means more profits go overseas. This dampens any impact of lower profitability on Australian living standards.
For our modelling, we set foreign ownership of the coal industry at 80%, based on Reserve Bank of Australia estimates and an analysis of mine ownership in New South Wales coalfields. With just 20% of the after-tax profits staying in Australia, the impact of any change is minor.
The local economy, however, can also suffer due to lost taxes on the income of those foreign owners.
Taxation effects are the fourth factor.
Australian governments collect taxes through mining royalties (a tax on the value of production), corporate tax (on profits), and withholding tax (on interest and unfranked dividends).
We set the coal royalty rate at 8% of the value of coal production, and the taxation rate on foreign capital at 17% because the effective tax rate on foreign capital is about half the corporate tax rate.
A smaller cost than some think
With all these factors in play, our modelling suggests there is less to fear from the Chinese government throwing its economic weight around than some think.
We think our conclusions probably hold for many of Australia’s exports to China, but acknowledge our investigation is preliminary.
For example, what would happen if the Chinese government decided to restrict the number of Chinese students studying in Australia? Finding new markets for education services might be tougher than for primary products. Resource redeployment might be easier, however.
Notwithstanding these caveats, this type of modelling could provide a clear framework to assess Australia’s economic vulnerabilities.
Perhaps no price should be put on upholding and expressing our liberal democratic and human rights values, and protecting our security interests, but the cost of economic sanction might well be less than many fear.
A tribute to STEVE SAWYER by former Rainbow Warrior captain PETER WILLCOX, who was skipper at the time of the Rongelap evacuation and the bombing in 1985.
I MET Steve in 1981 in New Bedford, Massachusetts, on the first Rainbow Warrior. I was answering a job advert he had placed in the National Fisherman. We spoke in his cabin for a while, and then went to the mess to meet the crew.
One of the things Steve liked about the manager’s job on the RW was that he got to do real physical work as well as intellectual organising. The crew was all giving him a hard time about his painting technique. It seems the day before, Steve, while climbing down into an inflatable (not a rhib by a long shot), had stepped directly into a five-gallon bucket of paint.
That he took the ribbing good-naturedly and laughed with everyone else was to me an excellent sign of life on board that ship.
Steve was the first guy I ever worked for who was younger than I. I was 28, and he 25 in 1981. But I learned fast not to mess with him. He could argue you into a corner quickly, and he did not suffer fools.
A few months later, we were up in Maine, replacing the motor and generators with new diesels. And Steve was right in the thick of it. One time he was underneath the new 16-cylinder GM diesel, I think drilling a hole in the steel engine bed to run a fuel line. I can safely say that it was not an OSHA approved work site.
Steve was sitting on a 2 x 12 plank over a ton or so of diesel and motor oil, the engine room bilge. He was drilling with a 120-volt drill, and it was tough work. Then the drill stopped. He looked by down the electric cord, and saw that he had pulled the plug and socket into the oil. He quickly pulled it out and it burst into flame. He dropped it back in the diesel, and squirmed his way out from under the engine with rather a serious expression on his face.
First big campaign
Steve studied philosophy in college, and was a near All American baseball pitcher. I will explain the significance of this in a minute.
The first big campaign we did was a Canadian seal campaign. I mentioned Steve had studied philosophy in college. The campaigner, a Canadian whose name I will not mention (but his initials are P.M.), threw the I Ching many times during the campaign, mostly as a way to get me back to the bridge to push further and further into the ice. The first RW had no kind of ice class, or any kind of class for that matter. The year before with a fancy ice pilot on board, they had bent the propeller.
Every time the Canadian would throw the I Ching he would claim it said, “Go forward”. This would drive Steve crazy. I could see him cringing. And I know he never forgave the Canadian campaigner.
I’m sure Steve was the one who convinced the organisation to put sails on the first Warrior. I am not sure how he did it. But we built the masts, got the sails, cut the bridge wings off, made a bowsprit, did a lot of work in the engine room all for around $120,000 US. This was in the days when we did 90 percent of the work ourselves, before we would just pull into a ship yard and tell them to get busy.
The next campaign we did was also organised by Steve. It was the evacuation and resettlement of the people from Rongelap. Our mission that year, 1985, was to protest against nuclear testing in the Pacific. The first part of the trip was in the Marshall Islands, and Steve went out there in 1984 to see what we could do.
“Give us a ride”, he was told. And that’s how we moved 350 people 120 miles across the ocean with everything but their church and livestock. I am sure that many of my shipmates would agree that it was probably the most significant thing any of us ever did. I certainly feel that way. Thanks to Steve.
Fastball folly
It was during this campaign that I received a batch of Sports Illustrated magazines from home. I got into an article about a young baseball pitcher for the Mets named Sidd Finch, who could throw a fastball at a ridiculously high speed. After finishing the article, I ran down to the mess to show it to Steve.
Steve got about a quarter of the way through it, closed it, looked at the date, chuckled, and threw it back to me.
“Total bullshit” was all he said.
Steve immediately knew that no one could throw a baseball at 168 mph. He also caught that the article was written by George Plimpton, a founder of the Paris Review and a literary critic, not a sport journalist. The other clue was the date on the cover: April 1st, 1985. But that was Steve. Way smarter than the average bear.
It was a year to two before that that Steve met Kelly. They became, I think the best couple I have ever met, outside of Pete and Toshi Seeger. Both terrifically hard working and dedicated, to the environment and their family.
Steve went on to become an ED of both GpUSA and International, and I saw him less and less.
When I think about it now, he had an absolutely huge impact on my life.
Recent news that more than a dozen cosmetic beauty operators have been shut down across Victoria in the last year will give many people cause for concern.
One beauty therapist was allegedly found to be operating at the back of a jewellery store, offering risky procedures including mole removal, facial fillers and skin tightening. In many cases, plastic surgeons and dermatologists have been required to treat the damage caused at these rogue salons, including swelling, scarring, and infection.
While low-cost procedures can be alluring, there are several things to keep in mind to ensure the treatments you’re getting are safe and reputable.
The skin is the largest and most accessible organ of the body, making skin procedures like laser, dermabrasion, microneedling, skin peels, toxin injections and fillers very common among unqualified or minimally qualified people and clinics.
The Medical Board of Australia, supported by the Australian Health Practitioner Regulation Agency (AHPRA), are the governing bodies for medical professionals. They register practitioners, and enforce guidelines for cosmetic medical and surgical procedures, which serve to protect the community.
There have been cases where registered medical practitioners, including general practitioners, have performed procedures outside their area of expertise or have not conformed with codes of conduct, sometimes with tragic consequences. But in many of these cases, the regulations in place have helped to identify offending practitioners and ensure disciplinary action is taken.
Yet for non-medical operators, for the most part, no training or educational requirements need to be met, no uniform national professional standards or codes of conduct exist, and there is no governing body to whom people can direct concerns.
Essentially, these beauty salons and non-medical clinics are simply not regulated by an external body or organisation.
The importance of medical training
The skin is an organ, just like the heart or lungs. Its structure and function is complex. In order to practise as a dermatologist, a person needs to first complete their medical degree, and then complete a further six years of specialist training in all matters related to the skin, hair and nails.
Laser treatment is commonly offered to treat things like redness on the skin, brown spots, and to improve skin texture and tone.
In order to deliver safe laser treatments, an accurate diagnosis is important. Is the brown spot on your cheek you want to remove a freckle, melasma (a discolouring of the skin) or a melanoma? A person without a medical background could easily mistake a melanoma for a freckle, which could be deadly.
Even if you do have just a freckle, what laser settings will be safe and effective? An intimate understanding of the structure and function of the skin and the physics of the laser is necessary to make these important decisions.
The regulations surrounding who can operate a laser differ from state to state. In Western Australia, unless you’re a medical doctor, nurse, or hold a diploma or certificate IV in beauty therapy (or equivalent) with a licence, you cannot operate a laser for the purpose of hair removal. Further restrictions apply to the use of lasers for cosmetic procedures and tattoo removal. In Queensland and Tasmania, only those with relevant licences can operate laser devices.
For the rest of the country, no regulation exists. This means anyone can offer skin treatments – a person who has done some online training or a weekend course could hang a “laser certificate” on the wall and start using lasers and other devices to treat skin.
In some Australian states, a person performing laser treatment doesn’t need to have had any training.From shutterstock.com
The same can be said for microneedling, the insertion of very fine, short needles into the skin for the purposes of rejuvenation or to reduce acne scarring. While some states regulate procedures involving skin penetration, particularly around infection control, no uniform minimum training requirements exist for providers.
The depth of penetration of the microneedling device, the type of needle chosen, and pre- and post-treatment care are critical to maximising the benefits and minimising the risks of the procedure.
Similarly, for anti-wrinkle injections and fillers, an intimate understanding of facial anatomy is required to ensure safe and successful treatment. Complications can range from local injection site infection through to blindness. To have people performing these procedures who are not medically trained is very risky.
Medical professionals take precautions to minimise the risk of complications and are trained to recognise and deal with complications that will inevitably occur from time to time. They can also prescribe relevant medications to help with things like infection or pain, if necessary. Non-medical providers cannot.
There are hundreds of different lasers, microneedling and skin care devices around. There are different brands, different models, and different safety features. So, varying outcomes can be seen with different devices.
Any piece of equipment that penetrates the skin needs to be sterilised in a medical-grade steriliser. Sterilising the equipment prevents the transmission of blood-borne infections like hepatitis B, hepatitis C and HIV. Failing to sterilise properly or not doing so at all places patients and the community at risk.
It must be said that there are many trained non-medical practitioners who adhere to infection control measures, understand what is safe and what is not, and who administer treatments in sanitary conditions.
What needs to change?
Regulatory bodies and the government need to work together to safeguard the community. We need to better regulate who can operate lasers and other skin devices, who can inject, cut and treat skin and in what type of environment this can take place. And we even need to regulate advertising – who can use the words “skin specialist”, “medical grade skin peels”, and so on. Because right now, anyone can.
So how can a consumer know how to access treatment from a qualified practitioner? Given there are little or no regulations in some parts of the country, it’s very hard to be sure, but these tips can help:
if you want to be treated by a medical practitioner, look up the APHRA website to see if the practitioner you are going to consult with is registered
you only get what you pay for. If consultations and treatments are very cheap, you may want to look into the quality of the equipment and the experience of the provider
don’t believe everything you read online. Medical professionals are not allowed to have testimonials on their websites, so don’t decide on a provider on this basis
trust your gut – if something doesn’t feel right about the place or person, walk away.
As an astronomer, I’m used to talking about the stars – the ones above, the distant suns and the worlds that orbit them. But this week, I’ve been swept along in discussions of an entirely different kind of star – and it’s all thanks to a reality TV show called The Bachelor Australia.
The reason? This year’s Bachelor is Matt Agnew, who just finished his PhD at Swinburne University. I had the great privilege of helping to supervise Matt’s studies, so it’s been really bizarre to see him in a whole new light, handing out roses rather than prospecting for alien worlds.
While he’s reportedly already chosen one of the 28 candidates on the show, I know Matt is also passionate about the search for alien worlds, with TESS (as I’ll explain in a moment).
Our latest Bachelor did some amazing work for his PhD – and if his very public search for true love helps to also spread the word of his amazing research, then that’s a win-win as far as I’m concerned!
So what did Matt do, before he became a heart-throb? And who, or what, is TESS?
Helping to prospect for alien worlds
Astronomers searching for planets around other stars face a big problem. Simply put, we are finding planets around huge numbers of stars, at an ever-accelerating rate.
But there are far too few facilities available on the ground to follow up on all those planetary systems and learn more about them. As a result, we have to find ways to work smarter, not longer – to make our searches ever more efficient and effective.
That problem will only become more pronounced in the coming years, with NASA’s Transiting Exoplanet Survey Satellite (that’s TESS) expected to discover thousands of new alien worlds.
That’s where Matt’s PhD research comes into play. My colleagues and I have, for the past decade or so, used computer modelling of proposed planetary systems to separate the wheat from the chaff – to identify planetary systems that are not all they seem to be.
By studying how the proposed planets in a given system would interact with each other over millions of years, we can show that some of those systems simply don’t work. The planets we thought were there just don’t exist.
From a certain point of view
Matt turned this idea on its head. If you turn this technique around, you can predict the best places to search for new alien worlds.
Imagine that we find a new planetary system, with a huge planet, maybe as big as Jupiter, moving on an orbit that takes 100 days to complete around its host star. That planet will exert a strong gravitational pull on other objects in the same system, stirring them up, and clearing the space around it.
Now imagine you want to search for other planets in that system. Where should you look?
One approach would be just to study the star continuously, watching day-in, day-out, for any sign that it hosts additional planets. That allows you to find planets on a wide variety of orbits, from those close to their host to those that lurk in the icy depths, far from the star.
But that method is really resource-intensive and inefficient.
Imaginary planets
That’s where Matt’s work came in. We can simulate the effect of the first planet we discover on imaginary planets moving on a wide variety of orbits around their host star. With modern computers, we can run simulations that cover millions of virtual years in just a few hours, or a few days at most.
That allows us to discover which of those imaginary planets could actually exist. Those that aren’t feasible might crash into their host star, or collide with the known planet (in the simulation).
In other words, they aren’t physically feasible. So there’s no point spending huge amounts of precious resources (telescope time) searching for planets that can’t be there in the first place.
Matt published his work in four peer-reviewed papers, which are freely available online (here, here, here and here).
They’re well worth a read, and tell a fantastic story of how we can use theoretical methods, and fast computers, to help make the search for alien worlds an easier and more productive game.
The future – planets and roses
Matt did fantastic work during his PhD – and I’m confident his work will be important in the years to come. We’re implementing his results into our work with the new Minerva-Australis observatory, our very own planet-finding facility.
By making sure we only search for planets that could realistically exist, we’ll be able to scour the sky more efficiently, helping us to find and characterise as many alien worlds as possible.
Hopefully, his time on The Bachelor will be as productive. While I’ve seen and heard conflicting views among scientists as to the value of having an astrophysicist front and centre on that kind of show, I’m personally really positive about it.
Matt Agnew has reportedly already made his choice of the 28 candidates: who will it be?Network 10
I’d like to think Matt will be a fantastic advocate for science and astronomy. He’s an eloquent communicator, and passionate about our search for new worlds and for life elsewhere.
In much the same way the particle physicist Brian Cox (who also happens to be a famous rock star) has been able to engage huge numbers of people in science who might previously have had little interest, it might well be that Matt’s stint as The Bachelor will encourage his audience to learn more about the universe around them.
University of Canberra Vice-Chancellor Professor Deep Saini discusses the week in politics with Michelle Grattan. They examine Anthony Albanese’s approach to passing legislation, given the hard reality for Labor in the senate. They also talk about Barnaby Joyce’s support for an increase in Newstart and Julie Bishop’s appointment as the first female chancellor of ANU.
Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Amanda Tattersall, Postdoc in urban geography and Research Lead at Sydney Policy Lab. Host of ChangeMakers Podcast., University of Sydney
The past few weeks has seen a drastic escalation in violence on the streets of Hong Kong. On Tuesday night, a police officer aimed a shotgun at protesters who had gathered outside a police station, while a car launched fireworks into the crowd.
And the week before, following a protest of 430,000 people, vigilante thugs, dressed in white and carrying bamboo sticks, beat up democracy protesters at a train station.
This long summer of protests began in response to a proposed extradition bill just days after the 30th anniversary of the Tiananmen Square massacre. But now, over eight weeks on, the protesters continue to take to the streets with a broader set of demands – and the confrontations with police are threatening to spiral out of control.
Protest is a familiar tactic in Hong Kong, but this movement has adopted a series of new approaches from the lessons of other protests over the last 30 years – in particular the failures of the 2014 Umbrella Movement.
In doing so, they are building something that is – at least until now – showing resilience to Beijing’s authoritarianism.
The current protest movement isn’t a single movement. It has two dominant wings – one is passive, the other more militant. These wings accept and recognise each other’s role.
This is new. In 2014, Hong Kong democracy leaders staged a 79-day occupation to fight for universal suffrage. Called the Umbrella Movement, the occupation had two sets of leaders – older democracy leaders (known as the Occupy Trio) and younger student leaders (notably Joshua Wong and Nathan Law).
Originally, the Occupy Trio had planned a multi-year campaign to build public and political pressure for universal suffrage, but the students were more confrontational. They staged a sit-in at Civic Square on Hong Kong Island and the occupation was off and running.
During the occupation, these different views led to irreconcilable conflict, making it impossible to talk about overall strategy. When the occupation finally ended – without achieving universal suffrage – there was great acrimony between the groups that lasted for years.
A new set of principles
Realising how counter-productive this split was, the protesters were keen not to let strategic differences get in the way this time around.
As organisers made plans for the June 9 rally against the extradition bill, several new principles emerged to define how the different groups could work together and avoid falling into the deep conflict of the past.
They included such maxims as “respect the role of the different groups”, “we all lead”, “no one is left behind” and “be water” (as in, to flow from place to place, building continuous pressure). More than the power of any individual leader, these principles came to define how the movement would function and grow.
The principles reinforced one another. The decision not to have a single leader was born from the experience of the Umbrella movement. Every visible leader of that movement was jailed or threatened with jail following the occupation. (Two of the Occupy Trio received 16-month jail sentences this year).
The Extradition movement learned it was too dangerous to have figurehead leaders. If everyone led, what could Beijing do? They couldn’t jail everyone.
And when it came to respecting the role of different groups, this principle allowed those who wanted to pursue a more militant strategy to do so without fear of rebuke. Everyone was encouraged to do what they thought was needed.
The confrontational wing was battle-ready. They had re-purposed everyday items like medical masks, plastic wrap, helmets, goggles, umbrellas and towels into tools of protest. The Umbrella occupation had taught them the police would likely use excessive force – so they dressed accordingly.
The younger protesters come prepared for battle.Jerome Favre/EPA
Hong Kong leader Carrie Lam was unmoved by a million-person march, but did shift her position and suspend the extradition bill when faced with a street confrontation. This sent a loud message to the protesters about what it will take to win under her authoritarian government – militancy was more potent than passive protest.
Protesters got the message. Every mass protest since then has seen these two protest wings in operation. As an elected member of Hong Kong’s government explained to me, they are “codependent” – they need each other to exist.
The government aired the violence on television, hoping it would turn public opinion against the protesters and split the movement. Yet, older democracy leaders did not criticise the students, instead reiterating that “everyone in the movement has their place.”
Popular opinion is still with the protesters, and the protests are still enormous.
Flowing from protest to protest
Another form of protest also emerged to supplement the two-wing approach – the movement turned “to water”.
The protests now have a flow they didn’t have during the Umbrella occupation. Protesters don’t simply show up for weekly mass marches and then go home; they have begun organising smaller protests in their districts on a daily basis.
“Lennon walls” featuring thousands of protest messages have emerged, for instance, in every one of Hong Kong’s districts. Random Airdrop notifications share details about impromptu protests, such as last week’s sit-in at the airport. With everyone leading and the action constantly flowing from one place to the next, this protest is hard to stop.
The Umbrella movement, in contrast, was physically fixed in three locations and maintained with tents and nightly sleep-outs. The rigidity of the occupation was exhausting and took a toll on the participants.
A government can wait out an occupation, but how do you capture something that is constantly moving?
Lennon protest walls have sprouted up on walls and pedestrian bridges across the city.How Hwee Young/EPA
Where will it end?
Its hard to predict where the current protest movement goes next. At the moment, there are no negotiations between the government and protest leaders. The protest movement has five key demands that continue to sit on the table, ranging from withdrawing the extradition bill completely to an independent investigation into police brutality to Lam’s resignation.
But it is unclear whether the protests would end even if the demands are agreed to. All the while, Beijing makes infrequent statements in support of Lam, but it also has thousands of troops already stationed in Hong Kong – and a build-up of more across the border.
What is certain is that a long-standing democracy movement has powerfully connected to the next generation. Young students are terrified about their future and feel they have to do everything they can to fight for their rights.
But the stakes are extremely high. Is it possible for water to move so quickly that it escapes the barrel of the gun?
This week, a heated row blew up in the senate and on social media when Shadow Home Affairs Minister Kristine Keneally demanded that a controversial political figure, Raheem Kassam, be denied a visa to speak at a political event in Australia.
Many Australians have never heard of Kassam, although he’s known in the UK for his hard right “politically incorrect” views on migration, Muslims, and women. He’s also posted offensive anti-Semitic comments online.
The Kassam visa dispute has now developed into a “free speech versus hate speech” debate on the international stage, with Donald Trump Jnr tweeting his support of Kassam.
In Australia, Senator Mathias Cormann labelled Kassam’s views as disgusting, while also defending the decision to let Kassam in on the basis of freedom of speech, thought and expression.
Meanwhile, Labor senators have described the event Kassam is attending as “normalising the extreme right wing in Australia”. And Kassam’s co-hosts in Australia have ridiculed Keneally for calling a man who was raised Muslim an Islamophobe.
This isn’t the first time in the past year that controversial right-wing speakers have faced visa bans. Far-right provocateur Milo Yiannopolous, conspiracy theorist David Icke and western chauvinist Proud Boy Gavin McInnes have all been turned away. And each time we see a re-run of the “free speech vs hate speech” debate.
So who is Raheem Kassam?
Raheem Kassam is a British political activist with a decade-long involvement in political campaigns on the hard right in the UK.
Now an atheist, he describes himself as philosophically conservative but radical in practice. He is notorious for provocative public statements.
His most well-known roles have been as a senior adviser to Nigel Farage during the 2015 general election and as a (failed) candidate for the UK Independence Party (UKIP) leadership. Echoing Trump, his election slogan was “Make UKIP great again.”
He is a strong nationalist and an anti-refugee critic of immigration.
We should be proud of what I call Faragism – a belief in your country, a belief in your culture, a belief in the people of this great nation.
Kassam is deeply embedded in the far-right ecosystem of anti-Islam, anti-immigration, anti-feminist sentiment. And until 2018, he was the London-based editor of the American far-right media outlet Breitbart, one of the most influential media outlets, under the guidance of Steve Bannon.
As an ex-Muslim who is not white, Kassam operates as a provocateur in much the same way as the openly gay (with a black husband) Milo Yiannopolous. Both use their identity to counter criticism of their extreme views as racist or intolerant.
Despite being from an immigrant background and having Muslim parents, Kassam has published books strongly against Muslim immigration. He has called the Koran “fundamentally evil”, and Islam a “fascistic and totalitarian ideology.”
Why do Labour want to keep him out?
Keneally says Kassam’s extensive track record of vilifying others on the basis of race, religion, sexuality and gender makes him a “career bigot”.
She has asked Minister of Home Affairs Peter Dutton to deny Kassam a visa under Section 501 of the Migration Act on the grounds that he is at risk of vilifying others, inciting discord, and putting sections of the community in danger if he is let into Australia. As a result, Kassam has threatened to sue Keneally for defamation.
For Labor, Kassam’s presence at the upcoming Conservative Political Action Conference (CPAC) is symbolic and significant for more than just his views.
CPAC: the ‘dark arts of hate speech’?
CPAC brings together a range of like-minded conservative politicians and lobbyists from Britain, the USA and Australia for the first time.
The list of speakers is a who’s who of hard conservative politics in Australia: One Nation’s Mark Latham, MP Craig Kelly, Senator Amanda Stoker, Tony Abbott, Campbell Newman, Ross Cameron, Peta Credlin, Janet Albrechtsen, and Rohan Dean. And visiting speakers include influential republican congressmen Matt Gaetz and Mark Meadows, and UK Brexit Party Leader Nigel Farage.
The aim of CPAC is to establish a solid base for conservative lobbying and campaigning in Australian elections. Its motto is “Protect the future – fight on”, and one full day is dedicated to grassroots political campaigning.
Keneally describes this inaugural Australian CPAC as an attempt to normalise the extreme right in Australia and a “cavalcade of intolerance at the CPA talkfest of hate.” Labor Senator Penny Wong has called the annual CPAC in the USA as an extremist breeding ground of bigotry, and the “dark arts of hate speech”.
Hate speech vs free speech?
Canadian far-right anti-Islam provocateurs Stefan Molyneux and Lauren Southern jointly toured Australia in 2018..
Before his ban in 2019, Milo Yiannopolous toured in 2017 and even spoke in Parliament House at the invitation of Senator David Leyonhjelm.
Both tours generated violent clashes between opposing groups of protesters and fans. Both tours were costly in terms of police resources and security. And inflammatory, insulting and derogatory statements targeting Aborigines, women, Muslims and LGBTIQA people were made by all three speakers.
There is no evidence that Kassam uses the same extreme strategies to stir up audiences. But it’s clear he acts as an agent to goad opponents and push a hard-right conservative agenda.
It’s also clear the American-style campaigning of inaugural Australian CPAC has truly arrived. This is a style marked by divisive and hate-filled campaigns designed to increase divisions with society using the mass circulation of highly partisan and fake news on social media.
It could be a defining moment in Australian politics.
A journalist has been taken in for police questioning while documenting the land struggles of Temiar Orang Asli, an indigenous community in Kampung Sungai Papan, Malaysia, reports the Malay Mail.
Alexandra Radu from Romania said she was taken to the Gerik district police station yesterday morning after talking to the indigenous villagers about the blockade they had set up to prevent loggers from felling trees on their customary land.
“First the police told me that they are arresting me, but later they said that they only took me to the police station for documentation purposes,” she said.
“I’m still here at the police station,” she told Malay Mail when contacted yesterday.
A journalist for Japanese news organisation The Diplomat, Radu said she went to Temiar village on her own and not at the invitation of anyone.
– Partner –
“I went there to cover the life of the Orang Asli there and their blockade issue,” she said.
According to online news site Malaysiakini, loggers and forestry officials destroyed the blockade yesterday which was blocking access to 42 hectares of Orang Asli customary land.
Speaking about the incident, the Organisation for the Preservation of Natural Heritage Malaysia (Peka Malaysia) said: “We regret that the state authorities and loggers are adamant and continuously encroaching upon their (Temiar) customary lands, despite numerous police reports and complaints being lodged with the relevant authorities and ongoing investigations.
“We hope there should not be any attempt to curb any media’s right of information and the public’s right to know any matters pertaining to Orang Asli in this regard.”
Alexandra Radu has since been released. Police have told media that she was not arrested, only brought in to record her statementas a witness to the demolition of the blockade.
While the local government approved logging in the area last year, it has been met with dogged resistance with three Orang Asli villages arrested in mid-July for impeding logging activity.
The Orang Asli are the indigenous people and the oldest inhabitants of peninsula Malaysia and have a powerful connection with the land.
According to Al Jazeera, much of their customary land and its biodiversity is being lost to palm oil plantations which are expanding rapidly throughout Malaysia.
In the weeks after the 2019 federal election, the Sydney Morning Herald reported that the turn-out of voters was the lowest since the introduction of compulsory voting in 1925.
It also reported there had been high rates of absenteeism of young voters who, while willing to participate in the recent marriage equality survey, had “turned their back on democracy” in the federal election.
The article continues a narrative about a decline in voter participation, which the federal parliamentary Joint Standing Committee on Electoral Matters (JSCEM) review of the the 2016 election described it as a “concerning trend”.
But it turns out the SMH report – which was based on the actual vote count undertaken by the Australian Electoral Commission – got it wrong, because it reported on the 2019 result before the count had been completed. In fact, voter participation in 2019 was actually 0.88% higher than in 2016.
Despite this, the national participation rate hasn’t returned to the 95% rate achieved in 2007. So what’s behind the apparent decline in civic duty?
Political disengagement is one factor, but data show that low turn-out also happens in seats with a high proportion of Indigenous people, and seats with a high proportion of renters.
Electorates with the lowest participation
Looking at the participation performance of individual federal electorates can show what might be happening.
Among the litany of divisions with the lowest participation rates, two distinct electorate clusters emerge of what might be thought of as under-performing seats.
By far the most consistent under-performing seats are remote regional districts including Lingiari and Solomon (Northern Territory), Durack (Western Australia and previously known as Kalgoorlie) and Leichhardt (Queensland).
These are also the four federal seats with the highest proportion of voters who identify as Indigenous, according to the 2016 Australian census. In the case of Lingiari, 44.5% of residents identified as being Aboriginal or Torres Strait Islanders, 17.9% in Durack, 9% in Solomon and 6% in Leichhardt.
The next cluster of persistent under-performing seats are inner urban divisions whose residents are among the best educated and most affluent in the nation. This includes Sydney, Wentworth, Melbourne and Melbourne Ports (these days known as Macnamara).
They are also characterised by their comparative youthfulness. These are seats that have significantly larger proportions of citizens in the 19 to 39 year age groups than the national age distribution and, indeed, seats like Lingiari and Durack.
Based on data from the Australian Electoral Commission.Author provided
The relatively low turn-out rate and youthfulness of these inner urban electorates supports the argument that young people are enrolling, but not voting.
While this might be the case, it’s also true that the rate of participation in the inner urban cluster of seats is much stronger than for the remote rural cluster.
In short, lower election turn-out rates tend to be associated more with seats with comparatively higher proportions of Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander voters than with youthful electoral districts.
This is an interesting aspect to electoral behaviour, especially when there is so much debate about how Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islanders could be given greater input to the political process by way of reforming the Australian constitution.
The role of renting
These two clusters of seats could not be more different from each other. And yet they do share a significant socioeconomic characteristic.
Both the inner urban and remote seat clusters are characterised by the comparatively large number of citizens with rented, rather than purchased, accommodation.
The 2016 census found that slightly more than 30% of Australians were renters. In contrast, 60% of residents in the seat of Sydney and 52.9% of residents in Lingiari were renting.
With renting comes the possibility of citizens changing their residential address and this, in turn, can make it difficult to maintain the electoral roll.
A political crisis?
Are these trends a sign of a political crisis, or are they simply “concerning” (to borrow from the JSCEM report)?
If the data indicates disengagement, it’s doing so at a fairly minimal rate. And at the last election, attendance rates improved compared with the previous election.
What’s more, the correlation of renters to under-performing electoral districts might even indicate that the problem is administrative rather than the product of civil disobedience.
Having said that, if the government feels the need to address the turn-out rate, they can use coercive powers to reinforce compulsory voting. This would involve imposing bigger fines for those who do not turn up to vote.
The existing legislation allows for a significant fine to apply (one penalty unit) when a voter hasn’t turned up. But the law as it currently stands does allow a wide range of excuses to permit a much less onerous sanction of a A$20 fine.
Were the parliament to be truly concerned about participation it could seek to alter the act and strengthen the hand of the AEC.
Hype continues to surround the roll-out of 5G technology in Australia and across the world.
While there is promise of faster network speeds, and talk of exciting technologies like driverless cars, there’s also a growing movement to stop the implementation of 5G due to concerns about the effects it may have on our health.
But the scientific evidence we’ve got assures us there’s no reason to worry. The radio frequencies powering 5G will be well below the exposure limits known to cause harm.
5G is the 5th generation of mobile phone technology. All generations of mobile phones work using what’s called electromagnetic energy. The specific type of electromagnetic energy used by mobile phones is known as radiofrequency, sometimes called radio waves.
This type of radiation is non-ionising, so it doesn’t damage our DNA like ionising radiation can, such as that from the sun or x-rays. Ionising means there’s enough energy to remove electrons from the atoms they are attached to. This makes them unstable and is something non-ionising radiation, such as that used by mobile phones, lacks the power to do.
Initially, 5G will use the same type of radio waves as used in 4G. But in the future it will operate at higher frequencies. Higher frequencies allow for faster connections and response times, while also increasing capacity for more users to be connected.
The higher the frequency, the shorter the distance the radio waves travel. As the 5G frequencies will be higher than those used by previous mobile phone technologies, a lot more mobile phone base stations will be required.
Much of the public concern has centred around these two new elements – that the frequencies used will be higher, and that there will be more mobile phone base stations. While some people believe these two factors alone will lead to higher exposures, the reality is actually very different.
Higher frequencies don’t travel as far, meaning exposure is not as deep as previous generation technologies. This results in more superficial exposures which are mostly absorbed by the skin rather than deeper in the body.
The idea that more base stations lead to higher exposures is also a common misconception. A larger number of base stations will actually provide a more efficient network. This means mobile phones can operate at a reduced power, which is likely to result in reduced overall personal exposure.
We know a lot about how radiofrequency interacts with the human body. Health effects occur from exposure when there is a large rise in body temperature. But this will only be seen at power levels far higher than those used in telecommunications, like from a microwave oven.
The temperature changes associated with mobile phones are very small, especially when compared with normal day-to-day or exercise-induced temperature variations.
5G is the next generation of mobile phone technology, and is currently being rolled out.From shutterstock.com
Exposures from mobile phones and their base stations are tightly regulated. In Australia, safety standards are set by the Australian Radiation Protection and Nuclear Safety Agency (ARPANSA).
These standards are based on the current scientific evidence. They also cover the new frequencies that will be used by 5G. Importantly, the safety limits are set well below levels known to cause harm. And although technology can legally run at the safety limit, in reality, exposures are typically hundreds of times below these safety limits.
Challenging misconceptions
There is a lot of misinformation out there regarding 5G, and the electromagnetic energy associated with telecommunications more generally. While there’s no evidence of harm from such electromagnetic energy, there is evidence fear and anxiety can be harmful to our health and overall well-being.
While anti-5G sentiment and campaigning might be well-intentioned, without the scientific evidence to back these sentiments, it’s likely doing more harm than good. The challenge we now face is counteracting the misinformation out there.
Melbourne’s existing water supplies may face pressure if global warming hits the 2℃ level, according to our new research published today in Environmental Research Letters.
The effects of drying and warming in southern Australia are expected to reduce natural water supplies. If we overshoot 2℃ of warming, even the desalination plant might not provide enough drinking water to a growing population.
However, keeping warming to 1.5℃ would help avoid many of these negative consequences. This brings home the local benefits of acting swiftly to limit global warming. Luckily, there are options available to secure our water supply.
Warming and drying effects
The Earth has warmed by about 1.1℃ since pre-industrial times, causing ongoing global changes to our atmospheric composition. The Paris Agreement commits the world to holding the increase to “well below” 2℃, and “pursuing efforts” to limit the increase to 1.5℃.
While we’re confident there will be more hot extremes and fewer cold extremes as global temperatures rise, the consequences of further global warming for other climate extremes – such as drought – in different parts of the world are harder to pinpoint.
Our study uses climate models to identify the possible changes in average rainfall and temperature in four different worlds:
the “Natural” world, where humans have had no influence on the climate,
the “Current” world, which approximates the impacts humans have had to date, and
two future worlds, which are “1.5℃” and “2.0℃” warmer than pre-industrial times.
In line with previously published results, southern Australia is projected to undergo drying and warming. But we are not alone. The Mediterranean and Southwestern North America are also predicted to dry out.
Desalination is increasingly important
Most Australians recall the severity and length of the Millennium Drought. This event severely stressed agricultural and natural systems, and led to the commissioning of desalination plants in the five largest cities in Australia, at a cost of several billion dollars.
Desalination offers an important lifeline. Although it comes with high short-term costs, it supplies vital water security over the long term. Successful efforts to improve water-use efficiency have reduced per capita demand rates, but growing populations in major centres will lead to increasing water demand.
Rainfall deficiencies over Australia for the 18 months between 1 Feb 2018 and 31 July 2019.Bureau of Meteorology
Right now, large parts of southeastern Australia are in the grips of another drought. Although drought is a common natural feature of Australia’s climate, in recent decades we have observed long-term drying trends over much of southern Australia.
Currently, all capital city urban reservoir systems in southern Australia are below 60%, and several are nearing or below 50%. The Victorian government recently ordered 125 gigalitres of water from the desalination plant.
Urban water storage levels for Australia’s capital cities.Bureau of Meteorology
With these challenges in mind, our paper explores the effects of future climate change on the surface water supply infrastructure for Melbourne.
Climate models and hydrological models together indicate future declines in catchment inflows as global warming increases from 1.5℃ to 2℃. The good news is when desalination is added to the mix, which it is, pressure on our water storage is dramatically reduced. However, population growth and climate change remain key challenges into the future.
The buffer is shrinking
The take-home message is, if global warming approaches 2℃ and beyond, the combined impacts of climate change and population growth will ultimately begin to outstrip the buffer desalination provides for us without ongoing investment in water security. Fortunately, desalination plants, storm water, water recycling and continuing to improve efficiency are all viable options.
To ensure our water security, and with it, the safety and prosperity of the urban centres which are the engine houses of the Australian economy, we all need to be vigilant in managing water resources.
We also all need to play an active part in the global effort to reduce the impacts of climate change. The commitments by the world’s nations for the 2020-30 period remain insufficient to achieve the temperature goals. Global emission rates continue to rise, and atmospheric greenhouse gas concentrations are steadily accelerating.
The task of turning around our emissions in time to avert many of the serious impacts of climate change is becoming ever more implausible. In the coming 10–20 years, we expect to shoot past 1.5℃.
With so much momentum in both human and natural systems it is becoming increasingly unlikely that we will avoid warming beyond 1.5℃. However, if we can achieve it, the list of benefits includes greatly reduced stress on the water supplies we rely on for our very existence.
Australia has been ranked as one of the top destinations to study internationally. The QS Best Student Cities Ranking released yesterday, which incorporates feedback from more than 87,000 current and prospective international students, ranked Melbourne as the third-best city to study. Sydney came in ninth.
London and Tokyo were number 1 and 2 respectively out of the world’s 120 top student cities. Melbourne and Sydney were joined in the top 50 globally by Brisbane (22), Canberra (23), Adelaide (26, up 15 places from last year) and Perth (41).
These results are rigorous and evidence-based, drawing on a variety of indexes (such as livability and affordability) and the student survey. When it came to the quality of life index (known as desirability), QS director of research Ben Sowter said:
Six of the world’s 30 highest-performing cities for our Desirability indicator are Australian: a record bettered by no other nation.
These results are highly influential and clearly drive education decision-making. We know students wishing to study overseas take serious account of universities that score well on independent rankings, for instance, and there’s no reason why these should be any different.
So the performance of Melbourne and Sydney on this international platform speaks volumes for the position of the country as a study destination.
What makes a good student city?
QS uses six metric groups to compile the ratings:
desirability: will students enjoy a high quality of life here? Do students want to study in this city?
university rankings: how many top-ranked universities are in the city?
employer activity: will a chosen city have job opportunities after graduation?
student mix: what proportion of a city’s population is made up of students? How diverse is that student population?
affordability: can students afford to study here?
student voice: what do students studying in this city think of it?
So, how should we read this?
In assessing quality of life the QS looks to measures such as the Economist Intelligence Unit’s Global Liveability Index where in 2018 Melbourne, Sydney and Adelaide were in the top ten of the 140 cities surveyed.
Melbourne held the top spot for seven consecutive years, only this year being edged out by Vienna by 0.7 of a percentage point.
Ben Sowter said:
This year’s edition of the QS Best Student Cities Ranking indicates that one of the primary incentives for any prospective international student to study in Australia is the high quality of life on offer there.
Quality of life includes a range of elements such as recreation facilities, public services and transport, housing and the natural environment. According to Mercer’s 2019 Quality of Living City Rankings, Melbourne and Sydney are in the top 20 worldwide.
And then there is safety.
There have been some recent challenges for Australian universities in the area of student safety, including robberies and attacks on international students at a Melbourne university.
When it comes to the student mix indicator, the QS ranking puts Melbourne as the world’s best city. This is a measure that includes tolerance and inclusion, reflecting the importance for many international students of choosing a study environment that is likely to be hospitable to their own cultural background, lifestyle and identity.
While there are admittedly periodic reports in the media about racist behaviour in Melbourne, and the government is well aware of this, Melbourne is widely recognised as culturally diverse, tolerant and welcoming. On these measures we can trust the QS ranking.
Melbourne came third in the student voice, which accounts for the experience and study destination preferences of more than 87,000 students.
Sydney ranked second on student mix and ninth on employer activity, obtaining a job at the end of their studies being a very important consideration for international students.
The QS results are in keeping with the high levels of international student satisfaction reported for Australian higher education, especially for safety, living, learning and support.
Where we can improve?
The 2019 QS ranking shows Australian universities are at a slight global disadvantage on measures of affordability. This is an observation previously made in The Times Higher Education World University Rankings.
Australian costs are generally comparable to those of the US and the UK, but far higher than Japan, Spain, Germany or Russia, which are all serious competitors in the international student market.
But cost is not the only consideration. A benchmark HSBC report of 4,592 parents in 15 countries around the world said they would consider sending their child abroad for a better university education.
And this is where Australia has a competitive advantage.
We make up for cost when it comes to education quality. The QS results endorse government initiatives such as Study Melbourne and Study Sydney that provide international students with employment assistance, career guidance and day-to-day living support – all of which contribute to a positive international student experience.
While the results are commendable we, shouldn’t be complacent. We know the biggest concerns for prospective students relate to everyday life rather than their studies.
Issues around the cost of living, finding accommodation and employment, and safety rank among the greatest concerns. In the Australian context dealing with racism needs to be urgently addressed.
The battle for domination of the physical and digital public realms has been crucial to the fortunes of the Hong Kong protesters. Their overwhelming numbers in the tense stand-off with the might of the People’s Republic of China (PRC) has captured our attention over the past eight weeks.
However, there are less obvious dynamics at work as protesters use public space – both physical and digital – to maintain their advantage. An understanding of these public realms is critical to understanding why freedom of expression either flourishes or dies in particular urban contexts.
Hong Kong protesters have drawn the world’s attention to the fragile state of democratic rights in this Special Administrative Region of China. As many as 2 million people, out of a population of 7.5 million, have poured into the streets, protesting the erosion of their special status.
As many as 2 million people have joined the Hong Kong protests.
These protests have been remarkably effective in the face of a PRC-aligned Hong Kong leadership, which has for now backed down on a contentious proposal to make it easier to extradite Hong Kong residents to mainland China.
In physical terms the public realm means places to gather freely with diverse others with high visibility. This makes them a focus for expressions of democratic conviction. Many great cities of the world contain iconic public places, such as Taksim Square in Istanbul, the National Monument in Jakarta, Trafalgar Square in London and, of course, Tiananmen Square in Beijing. But with varying levels of surveillance and restriction, not all of these places qualify as functioning public realms.
Hong Kong, one of the most densely built and populated cities in the world, has few recognisable public places. None is capable of holding even a fraction of the numbers of protesters that have mobilised.
For that reason, crowds have taken to the streets. These are usually a degraded form of public space, but protesters have turned them from thoroughfares for vehicles to a vibrant public realm, allowing an impressive show of willpower.
The protests have been well organised and until last week were free from violence. The involvement of alleged China-backed triad criminals escalated the risk for ongoing demonstrations and the fragile public realm in Hong Kong is now threatened.
… and digital space
The success of the protests is not entirely dependent on the use of physical space. The speed and coordination of the protests would not have been possible without access to a public realm in the abstract. We see it in an active and independent press and media, and in the ability of protesters to communicate with each other quickly and freely through the digital public realm provided by social media and encrypted messaging apps.
The sheer volume of people on the streets implied spontaneous anarchy. However, the use of social media, even in the presence of covert and overt surveillance by security forces and China-friendly media, enabled organisers and protesters to retain a tactical advantage.
They have been using anonymous calls in encrypted chat applications like Telegram and Signal to coordinate efforts. These apps allow users to create public and anonymous channels to share information, as well as smaller, more private, group chats.
LIHKG is often referred to as the ‘Hong Kong version of Reddit’.LIHKG
The protest was coordinated visibly on LIHKG, an online forum that ranks posts by popularity in a similar manner to Reddit. These forums allow protests to move fluidly and quickly, responding to changing conditions on the ground.
Protesters used social media to rapidly distribute photos to counter security authorities’ attempts to deliberately and drastically underestimate crowd numbers to downplay the strength and size of the opposition.
There was also a need to avoid particular technologies. China employs sophisticated surveillance of its citizens.
However, protesters have taken effective evasive measures. These included simple physical acts such as standing in huge queues at the Metro for paper tickets to avoid being tracked on transit smart cards. Protesters also used umbrellas, face and eye masks to prevent facial recognition and to shield themselves from teargas attacks and drone surveillance.
The digital public realm has been used successfully in other contexts as a potent intensification of physical protest. Digital spaces can amplify, broadcast and coordinate physical action.
For example, social media catalysed the Black Lives Matter protests in the US. In 2016 Philando Castile’s death was live-streamed on Facebook by his girlfriend after police shot him through the open window of his vehicle. Twitter was used extensively to publicise and coordinate the subsequent Black Lives Matter protests.
Urban protests in many cities, like Hong Kong, are defined by their limited access to sanctioned public space. The co-opting of other public commons like highways and inner-city roads becomes necessary. This has been particularly successful in the American context where public space is degraded or privatised, and roads are “neutral” space.
Public space does not always look the way we imagine it. When access to public space is untenable, protesters with sufficient will can turn privatised or commercial space into a new public realm.
The Hong Kong protests have turned the international airport terminal into a temporary public realm for this purpose. The “yellow shirt” protesters did the same in Bangkok in 2008. The continued visibility of these public sites and the desire by security forces to close down protest create an uneasy stand-off, testing authorities’ resolve to respond under international scrutiny.
There is now more to the public realm than just a place to gather. Protesters need to combine their determination with a sophisticated appreciation of the digital environment and the nature and limits of public and private space.
Over the past two days the 20 leading contenders for the role of the US Democratic Party’s 2020 presidential candidate have faced off in two debates.
The exchanges between them – sometimes sharp – revealed a stark divide on economic matters. In many ways, the party’s core economic narrative is up for grabs for the first time since Bill Clinton reshaped it in the early 1990s.
There were so many contenders that there had to be two rounds, each with 10 candidates, over two nights.
But it was debate 1 in Detroit that was perhaps the most revealing about the distinct economic philosophies.
(Aside: debate 2 also had big names and serious contenders like Kamala Harris and Joe Biden, so it was also important, but it didn’t add much that would illustrate the economic divide.)
Debate 1 featured self-avowed “democratic socialist” Bernie Sanders, the man who was Hillary Clinton’s bete-noire in the 2016 primaries. In addition, Massachusetts Senator Elizabeth Warren, South Bend Indiana Mayor Pete Buttigieg, and Congressman Beto O’Rourke – all names even ordinary Americans might be familiar with.
Less well known, but critical, players in the opposing economic philosophies are Senator Amy Klobuchar and Congressman John Delaney.
You really don’t need to focus much on the other participants like the quirky but entertaining self-help guru Marianne Williamson, and the very likeable and reasonable Tim Ryan and John Hickenlooper.
The biggest battle line
The biggest distinction is between those candidates who believe in markets and those who basically don’t.
Sanders and Warren basically don’t. They want the US government to rail against corporations making lots of money. They think those companies make that money by corrupting politics. They want to aggressively tax the wealthy.
Delaney has a lot more faith in markets and free enterprise. He was an entrepreneur who took two companies public before the age of 40 and has a net worth of US$65 million.
Klobuchar doesn’t have the same background (she was a prosecutor before entering politics) but also doesn’t think government should do everything.
Buttigieg (or “Mayor Pete” as he is commonly known) was a McKinsey consultant (and Afghanistan War veteran) who is more technocratic, thinking that a good Excel spreadsheet piloted by smart folks can solve a lot of problems.
The two main issues that illustrate the big divide healthcare and taxation.
Medicare makes the difference stark
On healthcare there is no dispute that it should be universal, that every American should be covered.
The divide is between those who want there to be only government-provided health insurance, and those who want there to be a mix of government and privately-provided insurance.
A little background. “Medicare” in the US is a government-provided free plan for those 65-years and older. Other Americans get their health insurance either through their employer, don’t have health insurance, or since the advent of “Obamacare” (the Affordable Care Act) buy it themselves with a subsidy.
Sanders and Warren want what they call “Medicare for all”. By that they mean a single-payer system with no private insurance, everyone on Medicare.
Delaney, Klobuchar and others (especially Joe Biden from debate 2) think that’s nuts. That’s because it implies that the millions of Americans who have and value private insurance would lose it, either because bit was made illegal or because Medicare would price it out of the market.
They say they want a mere public “option”: if you like your insurance you can use it instead of Medicare, otherwise otherwise you use Medicare.
That’s a pretty stark distinction: between banning private commerce and not.
Over tax, the differences are just as stark
On taxation, again there is some agreement. All the candidates agree that wealthy Americans should pay more. What’s in dispute is how, and how much.
Warren wants a wealth tax that would take 2% of people’s wealth (not income) in excess of US$50 million (and take 3% of wealth in excess of US$1 billion).
The idea has been heavily criticised by luminaries such as former Treasury Secretary Larry Summers who say it won’t raise much money and will dampen incentive. They are pushing for laws which will close loopholes and tax shelters instead.
The idea has also been sharply opposed in the debate by John Delaney, who wants instead to increase the rate of capital gains tax (which, as in Australia, is lower than the income tax rate) and reverse Donald Trump’s tax cuts.
Here again, the contrast is between candidates trying to get more money from the wealthy while preserving incentives and candidates who see significant wealth as essentially immoral.
For years to come, the winner will take all
In essence the 2020 candidates are arguing about whether the third-way, market-oriented approach that Bill Clinton brought to the Democratic Party will endure, or be replaced with democratic socialism that “soaks the rich” and views private enterprise with scepticism.
At this stage there’s no telling which side will prevail. The result will have profound consequences for Americans for years to come.
A report has detailed shocking levels of physical violence and neglect towards millions of Pacific Islands children, sparking calls for better-targeted aid programmes from countries like New Zealand and Australia
The report team, from combined aid agencies, investigated child-rearing practices in seven Pacific countries, as well as Timor-Leste.
The report found as many as four million children experience violence at home across the Pacific – a staggering 2.8 million in Papua New Guinea alone.
More than half of all sexual violence referred to medical clinics involves children in PNG, where almost one in three parents report beating children “as hard as they can”.
The research also outlines a range of factors that contribute to the abuse, including Pacific societies with high levels of gender inequality; social acceptance of physical punishment of children, weak governance, and growing poverty and inequality.
– Partner –
The report’s authors said the research shows the critical lack of overseas aid invested in programmes aimed at ending violence against children, and programmes by countries like New Zealand and Australia need to be more targeted.
Carsten Bockemuehl, World Vision’s advocacy campaigns lead for the Pacific, said the study painted a “pretty bleak picture” of regional and donor governments that had failed to prioritise children’s rights.
“It’s a massive development issue that is really negatively impacting on children and societies as a whole,” he said.
Around 0.1 percent of all Australian foreign aid to the Pacific and Timor-Leste in 2017 was directed to programmes specifically addressing violence against children, according to aid group Save The Children, which claimed just $US2.3 million was spent in total by all foreign donors “on this critical issue”.
Bockemuehl said violence against children will make societies less prosperous and will exacerbate risks to health and criminal justice systems and that there needed to be a “rebalancing” of aid priorities in the Pacific.
“It’s actually an economic issue, it makes countries poorer, so that’s why, out of the many competing priorities in developing countries, we just advocate for violence to be recognised as a critical development issue.”
This article is published under the Pacific Media Centre’s content partnership with Radio New Zealand.
Review: The Australian Dream, Melbourne International Film Festival
The Australian Dream is an affectionate portrait of a man, his sport, and his country. The documentary, which has premiered at the Melbourne International Film Festival, examines the racist booing of Indigenous AFL player Adam Goodes in 2015.
Written by and featuring Stan Grant, a Wiradjuri man, the film journeys back from the events of 2015, to trace the prevalence of racial vilification throughout the AFL’s – and colonial Australia’s – history. If you love your footy, if you love your country, this is a must watch.
Stan Grant.Mick Tsikas/AAP
The Australian Dream follows the recent release of The Final Quarter – a film by Ian Darling about the last three years of Goodes’ career before his retirement in 2015. That film comprised archival footage only. This one features interviews with Goodes and other noted Indigenous sportspeople, resulting in a much more personal account of the booing saga.
Goodes is a two-time Brownlow medallist, a two-time premiership player, and a four-time All Australian Player — but these accolades are only briefly mentioned in The Australian Dream. Instead, director Daniel Gordon utilises TV footage from various games to underscore the astonishing athleticism with which Goodes played Aussie Rules.
His talent for the game is palpable: every mark, every spoil, every goal-scoring-kick seems effortlessly powerful and precise. This footage is intercut with a voiceover from Goodes who talks of finding an identity in football and finding a tribe with The Sydney Swans. This motivated him, in turn, to act as an elder for the younger men on the team and to return to his roots as an Adnyamathanha man, eventually leading to his public activism against racism.
Goodes used his platform as an elite AFL player to address the persistent racial issues faced by First Nations peoples in Australia. This was not received well by many footy fans, who found his anti-racism acceptance speech for 2014 Australian of the Year to be “un-Australian”. The footage shown of the vehemence of both YouTubers and online commenters against Goodes is shocking.
Adam Goodes in The Australian Dream: stoicism amid an outpouring of hatred.
When Goodes continued to publicly and unapologetically call out racist slurs in 2015, fans of opposing teams across the country booed every time he was near the ball. The film details how heavily these boos weighed on Goodes, affecting both his ability to play the game, and his psychological well-being. It also underscores his stoicism amid an outpouring of hatred.
The Australian Dream makes it abundantly clear that this was not an isolated moment in AFL’s history. Footage from 1999 of Sam Newman in blackface mocking Indigenous player Nicky Winmar, and his smirking quasi-apology the following day, is evidence enough of a culture that seemed to want Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander men performing on the field but silent off the field.
Nicky Winmar pictured in 2013.Hamish Blair/AAP
Testimony from Winmar and Gilbert McAdam details the historical prevalence of racist catcalls from footy fans, players and coaches alike. Like Goodes, these men speak of their love for the game, framing it through a connection to the Indigenous game Marngrook: when they touch the ball it is like the connection they feel with the land, it’s spiritual.
The tragedy of this, for Winmar, was that the racial vilification he experienced took this important connection away for him. His love for the game was replaced by hatred. Like Goodes, he retired early.
A portrait of a colonial country
Inevitably, perhaps, this portrait of a man and his sport, becomes a portrait of a colonial country. It details the historical abuses enacted by Australian colonisers – government and settlers – against First Nations peoples, and the continual proliferation of racially motivated violence against Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander communities.
The Australian Dream is also a portrait of a nation.Melbourne International Film Festival
The booing of Goodes was a moment in which this country’s systemic, historical, and persistent racism was brought to the forefront of our social consciousness. The film holds those who booed accountable, showing extensive footage of the booing, and of the racist commentary across media outlets that followed.
Inter-cutting footage from present-day interviews with Grant, and his IQ Racism Debate speech from 2015, the film asks its white spectators to front up to their part in what he calls, “the howls of humiliation” that vilify this country’s first peoples. These howls, Grant says, “echo across two centuries of dispossession, and injustice, and suffering”.
This racism is an indictment of the “Australian Dream”. It is a reminder of Australia’s violent colonial history, and a reminder that this colonisation persists: the boos and ape-jokes thrown at Goodes were masked by the myth of the “Aussie Larrikin”, who could elide the harm of those catcalls as “just a joke”. This is most evident in the footage from 1999, when Eddie McGuire smirks his way through Newman’s stunt.
This archival footage, which is edited seamlessly into the telling of Goodes’ story, reminds the audience that these jokes are part of a racist history.
The Australian Dream ends on an optimistic note.Melbourne International Film Festival
But The Australian Dream is also optimistic. Grant and Gordon frame this narrative as a conversation, one that could change our culture forever.
Gordan films Goodes with his feet in the soil of Adnyamathanha tribal lands. He is filmed speaking with his elders, and he nods as they tell him that we must be willing to listen and learn.
The final shot of The Australian Dream is the most optimistic of all: a couple of kids in the desert kicking a red footy against red sunset. This rough-and-tumble round of Aussie Rules, wrapped up in a uniquely Australian landscape, closes the film with a reminder of our love for the game, and holds out hope for the next generation of Indigenous players.
My new book, The Law of Politics, offers a detailed examination of the laws surrounding Australian elections. Here, I’ll offer a potted explanation of the substance and process at play in the challenges to the results in these two Victorian seats at the 2019 federal election.
Amid all the recent concerns about online political disinformation worldwide, and about MPs’ qualifications in Australia, it is almost reassuring to be back on the terrain of old-fashioned, misleading campaign material.
The petitions allege that physical posters used at polling stations by the Liberal Party were likely to mislead electors in “casting” their votes.
The posters were written in Chinese and used in two seats with significant proportions of Chinese immigrants. Headed “CORRECT VOTING METHOD”, the posters went on to advise electors to vote “1” for the Liberal Party, then number the other boxes. The posters were authorised, in small print at ankle height, by the Liberal Party. But their appearance aped the purple and white used by Australian Electoral Commission posters.
Outside South Australia, there are no “truth in political advertising” laws in Australia. So what constitutes the offence of misleading an elector in casting a vote?
The commission did not seek to have the posters removed on election day. It’s hard to get a court injunction in the space of a couple of hours. The commission doesn’t have copyright in its colours, but having spent public money establishing a brand, it needs to protect it. Instead, an independent candidate and another citizen have filed these petitions.
Election petitions go back centuries. They aren’t vehicles for purifying elections. They are tough to mount and to win.
The first hurdle was a tight time limit. The petitions had to be filed within 40 days of the election “writs” being finalised. That’s just 40 days to brief lawyers, assemble basic evidence and plead the claim.
As for winning a case – which means forcing a fresh election in either seat – it is not enough to show that the posters were likely to mislead. It must also be shown that the election outcomes were likely to have been affected.
In Kooyong, Josh Frydenberg’s margin over the Greens was 11,289 votes. There is no way upwards of 6,000 electors not only read and understood the signs, but were likely to have been fooled into voting differently.
In Chisholm, Gladys Liu’s majority over Labor was 1,090. It’s theoretically feasible that over 550 voters were swayed, especially as Chisholm is heavily populated with Mandarin and Cantonese speakers (both groups can read Chinese script).
But how could this be proven? Might a psephologist like Antony Green be called? Is there any evidence of a strong and clear benefit to the Liberal vote where the posters appeared, as opposed to results at, say, early voting booths? And what is the control group for such comparisons?
One quirk of election petitions is uncertainty about where the onus of proof lies. On one view, the petitioner must prove their case on the balance of probabilities. It’s a big thing to unseat an MP and march the voters back to the polls.
On another view, elections are about public trust, so if the posters seem legally dodgy and widespread, it is up to the Liberal Party to demonstrate there was little chance the election result was affected.
On top of this, the law beseeches the court to act quickly. The status of parliament needs to be finalised sooner rather than later. The High Court usually does not try fact-heavy petitions, so it’s likely to refer them to the Federal Court.
Then there’s the question of legal costs. In civil cases, costs are routinely awarded to the winning litigant. This isn’t to punish the loser, but to indemnify the other side for the decision to keep litigating.
But, as we just noted, election petitions are not routine commercial litigation. There is an overarching public interest at stake.
If the Liberal Party is found to have engaged in misleading behaviour, the court can require it to bear the costs of its defence. That happened to the Labor Party in a Queensland case.
It’s folly to predict the outcome of litigation without hearing the case. But it’s telling that the Labor Party, which would stand to gain most from a fresh election especially in Chisholm, has not sued.
From this vantage, the court may well find the Liberal Party breached the law and therefore must bear most of its own costs.
But there is no way Frydenberg’s win in Kooyong will be imperilled, and it would take an intuitive leap to find that Liu’s majority in Chisholm is unsafe.
In short, the petitioners may win the battle but lose the war.
Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Andrew Dempster, Director, Australian Centre for Space Engineering Research; Professor, School of Electrical Engineering and Telecommunications, UNSW
Now all the celebrations of the 50th anniversary of the Moon landing have died down it’s worth considering where we are with future lunar missions half a century on.
Australia has long played a role in space exploration beyond helping to bring those historic images of the first moonwalk to our television screens back in 1969.
Labor MP Peter Khalil has already called for Australia to be involved in a mission to the Moon, and later to Mars. He is co-chair of the recently reformed Parliamentary Friends of Space, along with the National’s MP Kevin Hogan.
There is no doubt the Moon has once more captured the world’s interest. One of the reasons for this is human exploration, and that a Moon presence is now recognised as being essential to any future mission to Mars.
Water on the Moon
Another is the presence of water on the Moon, and the usefulness of water for all sorts of reasons in space.
By the time we hosted the second Off-Earth Mining Forum in 2015, it was clear water was the space resource of most immediate interest.
But the companies that existed at that time were mainly looking to source that water from asteroids. It has only been in the past two years that companies like iSpace have come to the fore, aiming at extracting water from the Moon.
Australia has reacted quite quickly to this evolving environment. Only last month, the first workshop met to establish a Remote Operations Institute in Western Australia to look at operating automated machines at a distance – remote mines and space.
The CSIRO identified nine potential “nation-building” flagship space missions, of which four relate to the Moon. One (disclosure, championed by me) is an orbiter and lander aimed at extracting water, but the other three could all support such a mission. Of those nine, four (including mine) have been selected for further examination at a workshop in mid-August in Brisbane.
Since January, we have been working on the Wilde project, where we have re-focussed our space resources research towards the permanently shadowed craters at the Moon’s poles, where water is highly likely to occur in acceptable concentrations.
We are also looking to reduce the risk of investing in a water extraction venture, including the design of orbiter and lander missions.
Explosion of Aussie interest
These Australian initiatives are all being driven in part by the explosion of the Australian space sector. One symptom of this is the establishment of the Australian Space Agency. The agency’s very existence and its promise have further emboldened space businesses and researchers.
But more than a year after its founding we still await any real missions, or commitment to upstream projects (upstream in space projects means those that are actually in space – those great Australian contributions to Apollo were all on the ground – downstream).
The other important driver for the new space projects mentioned above is that Australia has such a strong mining industry, and that so much mining innovation is created in Australia.
As disciplines, space and mining have a lot in common: both involve complex engineering systems, work in hostile environments, and human control is increasingly handed over to autonomous robotics. Exploiting resources in space represents a genuine opportunity for Australia to establish a niche around which a sustainable space industry can be built.
So now is a perfect time for Australia to consider a new Moon mission. The industry is growing rapidly and a flagship mission would give it something around which to build.
Our special expertise in resource extraction offers a unique opportunity, which others have only just started to pursue. And a community of companies and researchers has been gathered for the task.
Hopefully it won’t be another 50 years before Australia has its own presence on the Moon.
The term herd immunity comes from the observation of how a herd of buffalo forms a circle, with the strong on the outside protecting the weaker and more vulnerable on the inside.
This is similar to how herd immunity works in preventing the spread of infectious diseases. Those who are strong enough to get vaccinated directly protect themselves from infection. They also indirectly shield vulnerable people who cannot be vaccinated.
There are various reasons a person may not be able to be successfully vaccinated. People undergoing cancer treatment, and whose immune systems are compromised, for instance, are impaired in their ability to develop protective immunity from all vaccines. Often, people who can’t be vaccinated are susceptible to the most serious consequences from being infected.
Another vulnerable group are babies. Infants under six months of age are susceptible to serious complications from influenza. Yet they can’t be given the flu vaccine as their immune systems are not strong enough.
For a contagious disease to spread, an infectious agent needs to find susceptible (non-immune) people to infect. If it can’t, the chain of infection is interrupted and the amount of disease in the population reduces.
Another way of thinking about it is that the disease needs susceptible victims to survive in the population. Without these, it effectively starves and dies out.
If most of the population is immunised, the disease dies out.NIAID, CC BY
What level of coverage provides herd immunity?
How many people need to be vaccinated to achieve herd immunity varies from disease to disease.
Measles can be transmitted through coughing and sneezing and the virus causing measles can survive outside the body for up to two hours. So it’s possible to catch measles just by being in the same room as someone who is ill if you touch a surface they’ve coughed or sneezed on.
In contrast, Ebola can only be spread by direct contact with infected secretions (blood, faeces or vomit) and therefore requires close contact with an ill person. This makes it much less spreadable.
We can determine how contagious a disease is by tracking its spread throughout a population. In doing so, we can attribute each disease a reproductive number denoted by the symbol Ro. The bigger the Ro the more easily the disease is spread throughout the population.
If everyone who has a disease on average infects two people, the Ro for that disease is 2. This means the disease, relatively speaking, is not particularly contagious. However, if everyone who has a disease infects ten people on average, it would have an Ro of 10, which means it’s a much more contagious disease.
We can use the Ro for a disease to calculate the herd immunity threshold, which is the minimum percentage of people in the population that would need to be vaccinated to ensure a disease does not persist in the population. The more contagious a disease, the higher the threshold.
Measles is one of the most infectious diseases to affect humans with an Ro of 12-18. To achieve herd immunity to measles in a population we need 92-95% of the population to be vaccinated.
Current data indicates full vaccine coverage for five year olds in Australia is sitting at around the 95% level. However, vaccination rates in some communities have fallen below ideal levels, making them susceptible to measles outbreaks.
The overwhelming success of measles vaccinations means many people have no memory of what this disease looks like, and this has resulted in its effects being underestimated. Measles can cause blindness and acute encephalitis (inflammation of the brain), which can result in permanent brain damage.
Herd immunity, or community immunity, as it’s sometimes called, is a powerful public health tool. By ensuring those who can be vaccinated do get vaccinated we can achieve herd immunity and prevent the illness and suffering that comes from the spread of infectious diseases.
Question Time is, in a sense, the highlight of any day of parliament. It is televised and attracts the attention of the media, providing political leaders with fairly regular public exposure.
If parliament is about theatre, this is the headlining act. It is a major opportunity for the government of the day to strut its stuff and for the opposition to embarrass the government.
In theory, question time is about accountability. But in practice, it is about politics.
And herein lies the problem. Amid concerns the institution has become a venue for grandstanding, heckling and other questionable behaviours, members of parliament’s procedures committee are finalising the terms of an inquiry on how question time can be improved. The public will be permitted to lodge submissions.
Perhaps former Foreign Minister Julie Bishop put it best when she described how question time had devolved in recent years.
It ends up as an embarrassing circus. Ministers and shadow ministers are judged on their performance in question time and the more you sledge, the more you ridicule, the more you’re applauded.
So, how did we get to this point, and how can we fix it?
Prime Minister Scott Morrison has proven a deft performer during question time.Mick Tsikas/AA{
What question time was intended to do
Question time is regarded as one of the central features of the Australian version of the Westminster system. It occurs in both the parliaments of the Commonwealth and states.
Its role is based on the idea of “responsible government” – that the government of the day should be answerable or accountable to parliament and hence to the people who elected parliament.
As it is part of the tradition of responsible government, its practice is not defined by the Constitution but by the conventions of parliament. It has evolved over time.
Two types of questions can be asked: questions with notice that are submitted and answered in writing, and questions without notice that are asked orally during the period of parliament known as “question time”.
The practice is to allow the government and opposition to ask questions in turn, with some provision made for crossbenchers. The session is meant to focus on big issues, particularly those of immediate relevance. Hence, it is the most “political” aspect of parliament.
There was a time during the second half of the 20th century when there was a concern that too few questions were being asked. Today, the concern is there are too many “Dorothy Dixers”, or easy questions lobbed up by backbenchers who support the government.
These softball questions provide an opportunity for the government to display its wares, as their supporters can ask questions that have been prepared in advance and ministers can deliver “good news.”
Most of the other questions come from the opposition – an opportunity to paint the government in a bad light. The prime minister and other ministers cannot know exactly what questions are coming, but they can anticipate some of them and get their staff to prepare briefings.
How performance leads to boorishness
The central feature of question time is performance. It provides the prime minister and leader of the opposition, in particular, a platform to demonstrate that they are worthy of their jobs. Ministers are also given the opportunity to perform, demonstrate their capacity to think on their feet, and reveal their wit and mastery of their portfolios.
A good performance in question time helps to raise the spirit of the “team” and to establish psychological dominance within parliament. It also allows the government, when it is performing well, to radiate its confidence and dominance to a much wider audience.
But there is a downside to question time that comes from this quest for dominance. Parliamentarians can sometimes forget they are speaking to a wider audience. Too often, they put on an exhibition that is not particularly edifying and undermines their goals.
What appears to them to be wit and playfulness can come across to the public as boorishness and childishness.
The “optics” of the behaviour of MPs is increasingly a source of concern. When many of them were caught playing on their mobile phones during question time this week, they looked like children in class who were not paying attention.
Ministers answering Dorothy Dixers also do not make for good television and are more likely to inspire contempt than respect in those watching. The impending inquiry will likely examine whether these questions should be eliminated and it may be in the interests of political leaders to do so.
There may well be an argument that politicians need to clean up their acts and make question time more suitable for a 20th century audience. Wit is a good thing, and has long been a feature of our parliamentary system, but it needs to be accompanied by good taste.
That said, we should appreciate question time for what it is – a once-a-day performance that is, in reality, much more about politics than accountability. It is a tradition of our political life and the robust exchanges are part of that tradition.
On July 18, the former chief justice of the High Court of Australia, Murray Gleeson, delivered a powerful endorsement of the proposal for constitutional recognition of Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander peoples through a First Nations Voice, describing it as a “worthwhile project”.
Two weeks later, another former chief justice, Robert French, wrote an essay in The Australian explaining that the constitutional entrenchment of a First Nations Voice would be part of Australians’ journey to know “who we are as a nation”.
The intervention of two esteemed and vastly experienced judges in a controversial and complex debate is significant and provides an important signal of hope in finding a way towards political agreement on the issues.
Why their views matter
Gleeson was appointed by the Howard government and he served as chief justice between 1998 and 2008. The Rudd government appointed French to succeed Gleeson and he served until our current chief justice, Susan Kiefel, was appointed in 2017.
The importance of Gleeson’s speech extended beyond his status as a former High Court chief justice. Gleeson is one of Australia’s most respected thinkers on constitutional law.
Former chief justice of the High Court Murray Gleeson.AAP/Paul Miller
While appointed by the Howard government, Gleeson was never considered to be a political or partisan conservative. Rather, he maintained wide respect across the political spectrum as what is referred to as a legally (as opposed to politically) conservative, or orthodox, judge. His legal decision-making was closely confined to established legal rules and steered clear of controversial policy issues.
While Gleeson has largely kept himself out of the public spotlight since his retirement in 2008, he did accept an appointment to the Referendum Council. The council was convened in December 2015 to advise the prime minister and leader of the opposition on progress and next steps towards a referendum to recognise Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander peoples in the Australian Constitution.
In its final 2017 report, the council endorsed the proposal from the Uluru Statement from the Heart. It recommended that a referendum be held to provide in the constitution for a body that gives Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander First Nations a Voice to the Commonwealth Parliament. So the former chief justice delivering a speech endorsing the proposal may have come as little surprise.
However, it represented an important and new contribution to the current debate. It revealed, for the first time, one of Australia’s most highly respected, legally conservative mind’s understanding of why the Voice was consistent with our constitutional system, and why it should be pursued as “a worthwhile project”, as he put it.
French is also one of Australia’s most respected constitutional lawyers. Before his appointment to the High Court he was the president of the Australian Association of Constitutional Law. French was, and is, well respected across political lines. Indeed, as a young man he had run for office in Western Australia as a Liberal candidate against Kim Beazley senior.
French’s intervention in the current debate also drew on his extensive experience working with Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander people. As founding member of the West Australian Aboriginal Legal Service, he was involved in many native title cases as a Federal Court judge from 1986-2008. He was president of the Native Title Tribunal from 1994-1998.
French’s essay, which largely endorses and expands upon the position of Gleeson, is heavily informed by this extensive experience with Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander people, particularly in relation to native title claims, over the course of his career.
‘A worthwhile project’
Australia, Gleeson explained in his speech, has undergone fundamental legal developments in the last 30 years. In this time, the Australian people have changed in their social and cultural attitudes towards Indigenous people. He argues that these changes, particularly in relation to land rights and native title, demonstrate we are ready to address the historical fact of dispossession and its consequences, possibly through constitutional recognition.
French echoes these sentiments, explaining the importance of constitutional recognition as the next step Australians need to take in a journey towards “knowing who we are as a nation”. He writes:
Recognition in the Australian Constitution would reflect an existing national growth of respect for our First Peoples and thus for the whole of the full, rich and long history of the people of this continent.
Gleeson is not, however, in favour of any form of constitutional reform. He placed two conditions on his support. First, such reform must be consistent with the nature of the constitution. Second, it must confer “substantial benefit upon Indigenous people”.
‘Constitutionally entrenched, but legislatively controlled’
The Australian Constitution was not forged during revolution in which the people demanded greater controls on the power of the state. Rather, it was about creating a federation between the colonies, which wished to come together for largely pragmatic reasons. The document, Gleeson reminded us, “is essentially a structural plan for a federal system of government, not what would now be called a human rights instrument”.
It is for this reason, Gleeson said, that many people have rejected one proposal for constitutional recognition, recommended first in 2012 by the Expert Panel on Constitutional Recognition of Indigenous Australians, for a constitutional protection against racial discrimination.
In his words, once the nature of our constitutional document is remembered, that proposal appears “incongruous”, in that it would reduce the law-making powers of the parliament.
In contrast, the proposal for a First Nations Voice is entirely consistent with the Australian constitutional system. Gleeson provides three reasons why this is so.
The first is that it does not limit parliament’s law-making powers.
This is sometimes referred to it as being consistent with parliamentary sovereignty. This is because the Voice is to parliament, advising parliament. It is not in parliament, exercising or limiting legislative power. Certainly, it would be hoped that the Voice would have influence over how the legislative powers are exercised, but there would be no way of compelling that to occur.
The second is that, while it is proposed that the Voice will appear in the constitution, the structure, composition and functions of the Voice will still be determined and susceptible to change by legislation. It would be, in Gleeson’s words “constitutionally entrenched but legislatively controlled”. French, in his essay, provides the constitutional and legal detail as to how this might be achieved.
The third is that the Voice was intended to have as its core function monitoring the use of the federal parliament’s races power, which has been used to make special laws for Aboriginal people.
Gleeson believes it should remain parliament’s decision as to whether a particular law is beneficial to Aboriginal people and thus justifies the passage of a law under the races power. This is further evidence as to why he doesn’t endorse the racial non-discrimination clause, which would pass this power across to the courts.
Given our constitution confers a power on the parliament to make special laws for Aboriginal people, he says, establishing a body to advise on the exercise of that power “hardly seems revolutionary”.
‘Substantive, and not merely ornamental’ recognition
Gleeson’s second condition was that the reform must confer substantial benefit on Indigenous people. His view is that, the Voice represents “substantive, and not merely ornamental” reform.
Gleeson provided two compelling reasons why this reform was a substantive project.
The first came in response to objections that the proposal would be divisive. More specifically, that it would undermine the value of equality that informs our democracy.
Gleeson explained his view that, rather than cause damaging division, the Voice would provide Australia with an opportunity to provide an appropriate response to the history of division through dispossession that started in 1788. Further, it would provide a safeguard and response to the division that still forms part of our constitutional system today through the races power.
The second reason was based on the practical value he saw in the operation of the Voice to parliament. He explained:
[a] body that has the capacity to speak to the Parliament on behalf of Indigenous people should be of advantage to Parliament and, through it, the nation.
The parliament will benefit from advice that will help it come to more informed, just decisions with respect to First Nations peoples.
Where to from here?
Much consensus in the debate about constitutional recognition for First Nations has been forged in the two years since the Uluru Statement was delivered.
But there remains significant division as to whether the Voice should be constitutionally entrenched. Prime Minister Scott Morrison has indicated he would not support such a move. So the contributions of Gleeson and French about the desirability, as well as the practicality, of achieving this are significant.
There is also much work to be done before a First Nations Voice can be established, including detail around its precise composition, functions and powers.
In its April budget, the government committed $7 million to a co-design process for this to occur. French rallied us in the final words of his essay: while there is much to be done in the detailed design of the Voice, “the creation of a national consensus should not be beyond our wit”.
Current leader of the National Party, Simon Bridges.
Current leader of the National Party, Simon Bridges.
Analysis by Dr Bryce Edwards – Will New Zealand have its first Māori prime minister next year? That’s what Simon Bridges is suggesting, and despite scepticism from critics and commentators, there’s good reason to take him seriously. The National Party annual conference in the weekend went well for the party, and there are other signs to suggest the chances of “Prime Minister Simon Bridges” are looking stronger than ever.
In his keynote speech in the weekend, Bridges seemed to relish the fact that his ordinary background, along with that of other colleagues such as Paula Bennett, is picked on by opponents. Amongst other points, Bridges said: “It is the National Party that has shown that a young Ngāti Maniapoto boy from West Auckland, who talks like a boy from West Auckland, the son of a Baptist preacher and a teacher, can grow up to become the first Māori leader of a mainstream party in New Zealand, and the first Māori Prime Minister of our great country.”
Replying to this last point, political journalist Sam Sachdeva wrote: “To call the last clause premature would be an understatement to say the very least… the odds are firmly stacked against Bridges. Tougher battles await the National leader” – see his column, Bridges rebuilds confidence after trying year.
Sachdeva’s column is a very good examination of the place that Bridges and National are in at the moment, and it concludes that over the weekend the leader “has at least bought himself some more time” to fight the battles necessary to succeed. Even talk of leadership coups seems to be off the table, given Bridges stronger performance lately.
Sachdeva believes that leadership rival Judith Collins “will have to wait in the wings a little longer, after Bridges’ Sunday speech seemed to create a mixture of excitement and relief, winning over even those sceptical of his performance to date.”
Cheng reported a strong reception from the party: “The rapture in the auditorium after his speech was far more convincing than on Saturday [for his previous speech], and the consensus, even among the sceptics in the party faithful, was that it was easily his best speech. ‘By a long shot,’ said one MP. Another said that it had transformed some doubtful delegates into believers.”
Similarly, Richard Harman says the conference “ended up going far better than sceptics within the party feared it might” and that “for the meantime” the question of Bridges’ leadership seems to be off the table – see: Most of the Nats survive the weekend.
And Harman also wrote yesterday that “It looks as though the ongoing low-key leadership challenge to National Leader Simon Bridges has fizzled out”, pointing to the promotion yesterday of another alleged leadership rival, Todd Muller – see: Bridges gives Muller huge promotion.
Harman argues that Muller’s promotion – in which he gives up his Climate Change portfolio, taking up the more prestigious Agriculture from departing MP Nathan Guy – indicates that Bridges no longer regards the new agriculture spokesperson as a threat to his leadership: “That Bridges has felt confident enough to give him such a big lift up the caucus rankings suggests that he must believe that till the election at least, Muller poses no threat.”
Harman also says that Muller “was believed to have the backing of some senior members of the caucus. But many of those who supported him believe it is too early for him to take the leadership now; that he is not widely known enough among the public”.
However, for a very different theory on the promotion, see Thomas Coughlan’sTodd Muller promoted in National Party reshuffle, but climate change demoted. He argues the wider National Party has become dissatisfied with Muller’s role in the climate change portfolio: “At the party’s conference over the weekend, Muller was hit by allegations that the party was moving too fast on climate change. Many members still do not believe in climate change, and it appeared there was still a strong voice within the party that doesn’t want to move on the issue. This appeared to have fed back to the party leadership, which is solely responsible for reshuffle decisions.”
Successful conference and announcements
National’s announcement of a new cancer agency policy has been judged to be very successful. RNZ’s Jane Patterson thought it was clever politics: “No-one will argue against the merits of a plan to tackle cancer, so it was a smart move of National’s Simon Bridges to unveil a plan hitting the government where it hurts. It has also put the coalition on the back foot, getting out a solid policy weeks before the Health Minister David Clark makes public his own action plan” – see: National’s cancer agency promise a smart political move.
Even some of National’s biggest critics seemed to have praise for the announcement. For example, despite seeing the policy as inconsistent with National’s time in government, David Cormack welcomed the policy as a sign that National wasn’t going too rightwing under Bridges: “it’s a particularly good thing when you consider that New Zealand’s largest right-of-centre party is wanting to put more money into socialised healthcare. All around the world, democracies are battling with right wing reactionaries… While here in New Zealand we get a commitment to fund more social healthcare” – see: It’s National v National on cancer (paywalled).
And Cormack pointed out that this seemed to be a trend under Bridges, as the big policy announcement at his previous conference had been for smaller class sizes. Similarly, political journalist Henry Cooke, pointed out how interesting it was that these types of policies were so well received by the National Party membership: “This is not the kind of stuff to you would expect to get the National Party faithful standing and applauding. It’s not a law and order policy or tax cut or a primary sector subsidy – it’s new health spending. This is the kind of thing Labour does. In fact, Labour promised to set up a similar cancer centre in opposition and haven’t got around to doing it yet” – see: National ventures into vacated Labour territory with cancer announcement.
Cooke also suggests the cancer policy will be electorally successful: “The inequity in care across the country is a real issue and one that will rankle National’s rural base, as care is generally better in larger cities. Not many Kiwis think people in Australia should be able to get life-saving drugs cheap when we can’t. And with the spectre of the provincial growth fund in the background Bridges now gets to ride around the country comparing what he calls a slush fund to his own cancer drugs fund, making the implicit argument that both the Government and National want to spend more money, National would just spend it better.”
Strong polling and a “pathway to power”
The best news for National actually came after the conference, with Monday’s 1News Colmar Brunton poll putting National on 45 per support, which was up one point, and two points ahead of Labour.
According to Claire Trevett, this strong result, taken before the conference and cancer treatment announcement, will be seen by Bridges “as vindicating his decision to focus on cost of living attacks – and to pit his party’s policies against Ardern’s personality” – see: Relief for National’s Simon Bridges, none for Winston Peters in new poll (paywalled).
She also points out that “National’s campaign against the Government’s fuel tax increases and proposed ‘car tax’ to help fund subsidies for electric cars was also at full tilt as the polling was under way.”
For the National Party’s own pollster, David Farrar, the results are a “remarkably good result for National after 21 months of opposition” – see: Latest poll. He points out that the numbers appear to put National in striking range of winning the next election: “All National needs to do is take 2% off Labour or 1% off the Greens and they’re in Government.”
There is still a “pathway to power” being seen by National supporters, which is a crucial motivating factor. And Peter Dunne has written further in the weekend about what National might need in order to win: “current electoral mathematics offer National some hope. Assuming it holds all its current seats, regains Botany, and sees Act over the line again in Epsom, it would need to win just 4 of the 17 seats New Zealand First and the Greens hold currently to be able to form a government. If the Greens keep their seats, and New Zealand First falls out, National would need to win just 4 of the 9 New Zealand First seats to have a majority” – see: The next election is not over yet.
Dunne’s calculations, however, suggest that Winston Peters might still be the barrier to a National win: “if New Zealand First remains in the mix, Labour’s re-election prospects are boosted considerably – with National most likely left to ponder at least three more years of rebuilding.”
Here’s her main advice to the National leader: “he should see the wood for the trees, realise Winston’s never dealing with him in a million years and rule him out. I am of the ‘rule him out’ camp… So forget them. There is no deal. Let them fall below the 5 per cent. And in ruling them out, Simon Bridges gets to look like a decisive and principled leader who shows strength, and takes action.”
Mike Hosking provides similar advice to Bridges: “What he could do, and for the life of me I can’t work out why he hasn’t, is cut Winston Peters out of the equation. Rule New Zealand First out, and in doing that you take away his kingmaker status, and I would guess potentially suck up a point or two of support which would almost certainly put him below the five per cent threshold” – see: National leader Simon Bridges is not a rock star, but he’s hardly a shambles either.
John Key also turned up at the conference and gave his advice about New Zealand First: “It’s not for me to say, and ultimately every leader has to make their own call. But I think Winston Peters’ colours were pretty clearly identified a long time ago, certainly on display in 2017 when he made a smaller party the Government” – see Derek Cheng’s Sir John Key to Simon Bridges at National Party conference: Don’t get disheartened.
Bridges is reported in this article saying that he’s still optimistic about other minor parties emerging that might help National govern: “I’m not saying I have a clear sense that will happen. But with the right candidates and the right people, it might happen… And there’s still a Māori Party that has a couple of per cent on any kind of week. I think there will be options”.
National’s pathway to power has also been greatly enhanced by an improved performance recently by Bridges and his colleagues. This is well detailed by Audrey Young in her column, National heads into conference in a state of limbo over leader Simon Bridges (paywalled). Young says: “Bridges is performing better in the media. Bridges had an excellent week this past week. He was an even match for Jacinda Ardern in the House over the cost of living, which is not an unimportant arena”.
And in general, under Bridges National is making life difficult for the Government: “he and his team have been very good at picking issues and creating messages that resonate with voters and get under the Government’s skin. It began with the scores of reviews, commissions and working parties set up by Jacinda Ardern and continues over cost of living issues, roading, and taxation. As time progresses and official statistics show increases in state housing waiting lists, rents, numbers on job seeker support, hardship grants, hospital waiting lists, cancer treatment times, the scope for National is expanding daily. Bridges has been especially successful on taxation.”
In the end, however, it might all come down to fate and some good caucus and party membership discipline according to Liam Hehir – see: National’s path to victory in 2020. He says that whether Bridges becomes prime minister next year might simply be down to the performance of the Greens and New Zealand First.
However, despite some of these more positive evaluations of National at the moment, some commentators are still predicting doom, with National insider Matthew Hooton leading the pack with a devastating appraising on Friday – see: National stumbling to defeat (paywalled).
Hooton says that the leadership issue is still the main problem: “Bridges’ unfavourability ratings are at levels seldom seen by pollsters. Those conducting focus groups say it is difficult to even get a conversation going on the possibility of him being Prime Minister, so improbable do voters consider the idea. Sadly for him, voters simply won’t take seriously anything Bridges has to say, so National has no effective means of communicating policy to the public, even if it had any.”
He concludes: “Could things really get worse under new management, whether Collins, Muller or even Nikki Kaye?”
Casual observers of the financial services royal commission might be forgiven for thinking the days of sales-based commissions being paid to bank and insurance staff were over.
Apparently not.
The Australian Prudential Regulation Authority’s discussion paper on Strengthening Prudential Requirements for Remuneration, released last week, condones the ongoing use of “balanced scorecards” for determining bonuses.
While possibly not as bad as the old bonus systems based only on sales or profits, a “balanced scorecard” – which also includes less tangible outcomes such as “customer satisfaction” – is not a good solution.
In a study presented at the 2019 Financial Markets & Corporate Governance Conference, I and my colleagues Le Zhang from Macquarie University and Dominik Steffan from the Technical University of Munich find that balanced scorecards produce significantly worse outcomes than no bonuses at all, and create environments in which bad behaviour is more easily tolerated.
Take 318 bankers…
We asked 318 finance professionals to take part in 20-minute trading sessions in which they could transact up to 60 times, making decisions that in our simplified balanced scorecard approach were rewarded on the basis of both profit and following risk rules. In the other scenario, the reward was a flat payment, unrelated to performance.
We found that the proportion of people who chose to consistently apply the rules dropped 16% under the balanced scorecard approach.
For those who sometimes violated the rules, compliance dropped 24% when paid under the balanced scorecard approach.
One reason might be that financial criteria such as sales and profits are easy to measure, and are audited, whereas other criteria such as following rules and providing good service are difficult to measure, at least in the short-term.
‘Balanced’ is unbalanced
Customer outcomes are often measured with customer surveys such as the infamous net promoter score that asks whether they would keep using the service or recommend it to others.
It works well for services such as restaurant meals, where customers can quickly form valid judgements. But when it comes to financial services, the quality of what they have been offered might not become apparent for years. When customers are disengaged or have low levels of financial literacy, or when products are complex, the quality may never be apparent!
Complaints data bring other problems. One is that often customers don’t bother to complain. Another is that firms sometimes “pay off” disgruntled customers, leaving them satisfied but the underlying problems unresolved. The customers who never complain are left to suffer from poor practices and the complaints data give no meaningful information.
Another popular solution is to rely on manager ratings in the performance assessments that determine bonuses. Manager ratings are often not credible. Academic researchers find that they are as much influenced by the managers own incentives and preferences as they are by performance.
Nobel prizewinner Bengt Holmstrom predicted years ago that the balanced scorecard wouldn’t work, in his landmark paper on multitask principal-agent analysis.
He found that when some criteria are easy to measure and others aren’t, employees will put most of their energy into the criteria that are easy to measure, in this case sales and profits. Balanced scorecards are inherently unbalanced.
What’s the solution? One might be deferrals – bonuses based on financial performance that are held back for multiple years.
Over time, and with active regulation, it would become obvious whether profits have been generated by fair means or foul. If foul, the bankers would not be eligible to receive what they thought they had earned.
A better idea might be to revert to a system of fixed salaries with no bonuses. It works for most Australians, and it used to work for bankers.
Happy birthday to each and every Australian Thoroughbred racehorse, as today (August 1) is considered their official “horse birthday” in the southern hemisphere, no matter what date they were actually born. (The “horse birthday” date is January 1 for Thoroughbreds in the northern hemisphere.)
The annual Thoroughbred breeding season starts on September 1, and timing is crucial because foals born early in the season have an advantage when that official birth date rolls around the following year. The more mature they are at the start of the two-year-old racing season, the better they will cope with the demands of the sport.
But there is quite a process involved in producing a Thoroughbred foal, and it requires a range of departures from natural horse reproduction.
Last year it was estimated more than 14,000 foals were born in Australian stud farms. To match that this year, it’s about to get extremely busy at those farms around the country.
Preparing the mare
If the mare has recently raced, she will be “let down”. This involves her gaining weight and developing a normal oestrus (reproductive) cycle, which can be disrupted by the demands of racing.
The mare is housed during the winter months under artificial lighting that mimics the increasing day length of spring. This tricks her body into cycling much earlier in the year than would otherwise be the case.
Before mating (called covering), the mare’s oestrus cycle will be monitored by observing her behaviour and performing a rectal ultrasound examination. This allows the veterinarian to view her ovaries and determine how close she is to ovulation. Ovulation can be manipulated by the administration of hormones.
Mares generally have a 21-day cycle, during which seven days are spent in active oestrus, when the mare will accept a stallion, followed by a period of dioestrus during which she is unreceptive.
In the wild, the mare usually initiates mating by approaching the stallion and performing a range of courtship behaviours before allowing him to cover her multiple times a day during her receptive period.
In the wild, there is a courtship between a mare and a stallion before she allows him to cover her.Paul McGreevy/Wes Mountain/The Conversation
But at the stud, the aim is to achieve conception on the first covering. This saves time and money for mare owners and the stud.
Most Thoroughbred studs rely on a “teaser” stallion to perform courtship behaviour and elicit telltale signs of oestrus in mares. Teasers are usually ponies, who are too small to physically mate with the mares.
Mares who aren’t ready to breed may respond aggressively, so it’s the teaser’s job to take the heat instead of the stud’s valuable stallions, who may command service fees in the hundreds of thousands of dollars.
Restraints
When the mare is ready to be mated, she will be brought to the covering shed. Her perineal area (that includes the vulva) will be washed and her tail will be bandaged or shaved to protect the stallion’s penis from injury should it get caught in the hairs during mating.
To prevent injury to the stallion and to facilitate an efficient covering, the mare will be fitted with equipment designed to restrict her behaviour during mating.
To minimise kicking, she may be fitted with breeding hobbles or boots that limit the movement of her hind legs. A breeding cape protects her neck from bites during copulation.
A device known as a twitch may be used as an additional form of restraint. This is a loop of string or rope that is twisted tightly around the upper lip, causing a temporary reduction in heart rate and the release of endorphins that induce calmness in the mare.
Preparing the stallion
Popular Thoroughbred stallions may cover three mares per day, seven days a week during the season, which runs from September 1 to December 31 each year.
Unlike in the wild, most domestic stallions lead solitary lives in stables or small paddocks due to concern about injuries and aggressive behaviour. Recent evidence shows that stallions can safely live in groups when not breeding mares.
The stallion will be fitted with a bridle to enhance control. Experienced stallions may develop an erection when they see or smell the bridle due to forming an association between the appearance of the bridle and covering mares soon afterwards.
Let’s get mating
Left to themselves, the stallion takes time to investigate the mare with a range of pre-copulatory behaviours, such as licking or nipping her perineal region, face and flanks and inhaling the scent of her urine.
Stallions do vary in their libido and mating quirks. Some will be known as “slow breeders” who will mount a mare only after extended periods of pre-copulatory behaviour. Others will mount within minutes of entering the barn.
With hundreds of mares to cover on the big farms, extensive training is given to novice stallions to ensure the job is done as efficiently as possible.
Immediately before mating, an attendant may hold up one of the mare’s front legs to further immobilise her while the stallion mounts. Once the stallion is firmly inside the mare, the foreleg will be released to allow her to take the weight of the stallion.
The restraint of the mare ensures she is unable to reject the stallion’s advances. An attendant may guide the stallion’s penis into the mare and if the stallion has a particularly large penis, a breeding roll (a tube of foam) will be placed between the mare’s hindquarters and the stallion’s penis to reduce the depth of his thrusting.
A few weeks later
About a fortnight after covering, the mare will be undergo an ultrasound examination to determine whether she is pregnant, and to see if she is carrying twins. If the mare conceives twins she is highly likely to lose the pregnancy.
Very few twin pregnancies go to term, and those that do often result in foals that are poor racing prospects.
If twins are discovered, the veterinarian destroys one of them. This allows the surviving embryo to go to term, but unfortunately this also allows the genes for twinning through to the next generation.
A mare’s pregnancy lasts around 11 months, and as she enters the final days she will be brought into the foaling paddocks or, if the weather is inclement, specially designed foaling stables. There she will be observed for 24 hours a day until she foals.
This contrasts with what happens the wild, where mares separate themselves from their herd to foal alone.
Should a mare be unable to care for her foal, nurse mares may be used to rear her foal. Nurse mares can be hired from specialist providers or are maintained at the stud.
The nurse mare’s own foal will be removed and replaced with the Thoroughbred foal which she will raise as her own.
The use of hormones to induce lactation in nurse mares without the need for them to be pregnant or give birth to a foal shows promise as a means of reducing the production of surplus foals from nurse mares.
About a month after giving birth, the mare will be mated again to produce next year’s foal.
Some will experience career-ending injuries as youngsters (before they enter training), and many more will be deemed too slow or suffer injuries during pre-race training as young adult horses.
Some of the female horses who don’t race will end up as broodmares themselves, depending on the quality of their pedigree.
Most foals go on to race such as Exhilarates, ridden by Jockey Kerrin McEvoy (centre), who won race 8 of the Magic Millions 2YO Classic, on the Gold Coast this January.AAP Image/Dan Peled
Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Jacinta Carroll, Senior Research Fellow, Counter Terrorism and Social Cohesion, National Security College, Australian National University
It’s been two years since the government announced it would establish a Home Affairs portfolio, and just over 18 months since it came into being. Since then, the department, and its high-profile minister and secretary, have attracted much controversy, discussion and criticism.
The latest debate centres on concerns that Home Affairs Minister Peter Dutton is further consolidating power with legislation that would prevent foreign fighters from returning home for up to two years and the recent decision to move refugee services into his department.
There’s also been criticism that the portfolio is cloaked in secrecy, with some questioning why an internal strategic review of the ministry has not been made public.
Are we seeing an unprecedented consolidation of unregulated power? Or is there a reasonable story of good public policy behind the headlines?
Creating a single defence portfolio
These questions need to be placed in the context of both history and broader developments in home affairs policy.
We’re used to having a single Department of Defence in Australia. But it was only 40 years ago that the momentous decision was made to consolidate five departments — including one for each of the armed services — into a single agency.
There was push-back at the time from some agencies, and also a focus on the high-profile personalities involved in the process, including Defence Secretary Sir Arthur Tange, and his relationship with ministers and service chiefs.
Decades later, the Department of Defence remains a large but effective organisation with a joint strategic and operational command, supported by a capable department. But its strategically important role and the significant resources needed to do its job mean it continues to require close management, attention and review.
Last year’s decision to take the Australian Signals Directorate out of the department shows it remains a work in progress, but one that continues to head in the right direction.
The lesson is that significant change in important areas of government policy, operations and services takes time, accompanied by ongoing review and revision.
Competing agencies and priorities
Before the Home Affairs portfolio was created, there were numerous security issues that cut across government agencies and demonstrated the need for a more strategic approach and greater collaboration among agencies.
The crisis around the unauthorised boat arrivals in the late-2000s, for example, created significant tension between the Department of Immigration and Citizenship (DIAC) and the Australian Security Intelligence Organisation (ASIO).
The high number of arrivals saw demands to speed up immigration visa processing. But ASIO was seen as delaying the process as it had to ensure the largely undocumented arrivals presented no security threat.
Divisions emerged among various government agencies during the boat arrivals crisis.Josh Jerga/AAP
It was challenging for the two agencies, with such different responsibilities, to work through these issues. There was also pressure on the Australian Defence Force to provide the operational response at sea, and on law enforcement and customs officials investigating people-smuggling operations and other related crimes.
The agencies worked reasonably well together, but were often constrained due to their separate roles and protocols that did not support collaboration. They got through the crisis, with a lot of effort.
Counter-terrorism has been another major cross-agency issue. ASIO handled terror threat advisories and terror investigations (along with the police), while the attorney-general’s department oversaw countering violent extremism (CVE) policy.
The prime minister’s department was home to senior counter-terrorism and cyber-security coordinators, and the departments of defence and foreign affairs and trade ran their own counter-terrorism initiatives.
There was no single agency responsible for providing strategic policy direction on the issue until the establishment of Home Affairs.
One strategic policy home
The advent of Home Affairs means that complex and sometimes competing priorities have a strategic policy home and can be worked through at a portfolio level.
Immigration and ASIO are now in the same portfolio. Other agencies have also been added to the mix, including the Australian Border Force (ABF), the Australian Federal Police (AFP), the Australian Criminal Intelligence Commission (ACIC) and the Australian Transaction Reports and Analysis Centre (AUSTRAC).
Even in the short period since its creation, Home Affairs has made progress in providing more effective operations and services, supported by enhanced information sharing and technical capabilities.
For example, the department now has dedicated leads overseeing cross-agency efforts on counter-terrorism, cyber-security and organised crime and foreign interference.
Yet, the breadth of issues handled by the portfolio has also raised concerns about consolidation of power.
But most of the Home Affairs agencies are separate statutory authorities, retaining the independence and power established in their roles. The heads of ASIO and AFP, for instance, provide advice directly to the prime minister and cabinet when required and carry out their own operations.
In the aftermath of the AFP raids on media organisations, both Dutton and AFP Commissioner Andrew Colvin confirmed the minister had no involvement in the operations.
Ongoing communication and appropriate oversight
The most important issue facing Home Affairs is the need for clear communication to the public on what the department does, why it’s important, and how its work is carried out. That must also include assurances the department has appropriate oversight and accountability systems in place.
This is easier said than done in the highly charged political atmosphere that’s surrounded Home Affairs since its inception.
It’s good news, then, that Labor chose to establish a shadow home affairs minister after the federal election, thereby working with the new Home Affairs arrangements and letting the portfolio as a whole settle down.
The oversight and accountability mechanisms are also doing what they’re supposed to do. The proposed security laws, for example, were scrutinised by the Parliamentary Joint Committee on Intelligence and Security (PJCIS), which recommended changes to reduce the minister’s power.
Most suggestions were incorporated in the revised legislation, though Labor still has concerns about the minister’s power to grant a temporary exclusion order (TEO) for returning foreign fighters. The PJCIS will continue to examine the use of TEOs, as will the Independent National Security Legislation Monitor and other oversight organisations.
The PJCIS is also due to report to parliament in October on its inquiry into press freedom, which will shed light on issues related to the AFP raids. And we’ll likely see the key findings of Home Affairs’ internal review as its annual report and regular Senate Estimates appearances approach.
Anti-Dutton signs after a rally to protest the AFP raids on journalists in June.Joel Carrett/AAP
Why it should work
The creation of Home Affairs enables a more strategic and integrated approach to security, law enforcement, migration and border issues. It also means more efficient delivery of services.
But there are significant challenges to doing this and getting it right, particularly while managing such a vast portfolio of operations and responsibilities. Maintaining a balanced approach, and ensuring considered and appropriate oversight and review will be critical to its success.
More than 40 years after its creation, the Department of Defence is held up now for its strategic vision and stewardship of the country’s armed forces. The divisive politics surrounding its creation have long been forgotten.
And so it should be with Home Affairs. The creation of the portfolio is ultimately a good thing for Australia and for good public policy and services. But this is a long-term endeavour and the project is still in its early days.
With the rise of fad diets, “superfoods”, and a growing range of dietary supplement choices, it’s sometimes hard to know what to eat.
This can be particularly relevant as we grow older, and are trying to make the best choices to minimise the risk of health problems such as high blood pressure, obesity, type 2 diabetes, and heart (cardiovascular) problems.
We now have evidence these health problems also all affect brain function: they increase nerve degeneration in the brain, leading to a higher risk of Alzheimer’s disease and other brain conditions including vascular dementia and Parkinson’s disease.
We know a healthy diet can protect against conditions like type 2 diabetes, obesity and heart disease. Fortunately, evidence shows that what’s good for the body is generally also good for the brain.
As we age, our metabolism becomes less efficient, and is less able to get rid of compounds generated from what’s called “oxidative stress”.
The body’s normal chemical reactions can sometimes cause chemical damage, or generate side-products known as free radicals – which in turn cause damage to other chemicals in the body.
To neutralise these free radicals, our bodies draw on protective mechanisms, in the form of antioxidants or specific proteins. But as we get older, these systems become less efficient. When your body can no longer neutralise the free radical damage, it’s under oxidative stress.
The toxic compounds generated by oxidative stress steadily build up, slowly damaging the brain and eventually leading to symptoms of Alzheimer’s disease.
To reduce your risk, you need to reduce oxidative stress and the long-term inflammation it can cause.
Increasing physical activity is important. But here we are focusing on diet, which is our major source of ANTIoxidants.
Foods to add
There are plenty of foods you can include in your diet that will positively influence brain health. These include fresh fruits, seafood, green leafy vegetables, pulses (including beans, lentils and peas), as well as nuts and healthy oils.
Fish
Fish is a good source of complete protein. Importantly, oily fish in particular is rich in omega-3 fatty acids.
Laboratory studies have shown omega-3 fatty acids protect against oxidative stress, and they’ve been found to be lacking in the brains of people with Alzheimer’s disease.
Oily fish, like salmon, is high in omega-3 fatty acids, which research shows can benefit our brain health.From shutterstock.com
Low dietary intake of omega-3 fatty acids, meanwhile, is linked to faster cognitive decline, and the development of preclinical Alzheimer’s disease (changes in the brain that can be seen several years before for onset of symptoms such as memory loss).
Fish also provides vitamin D. This is important because a lack of vitamin D has been linked to Alzheimer’s disease, Parkinson’s disease, and vascular dementia (a common form of dementia caused by reduced blood supply to the brain as a result of a series of small strokes).
Berries
Berries are especially high in the antioxidants vitamin C (strawberries), anthocyanins (blueberries, raspberries and blackberries) and resveratrol (blueberries).
Longevity has been associated with a small number of traditional diets, and one of these is the diet of the Okinawan people of Japan. The starchy staple of their diet is the purple sweet potato – rich in anthocyanin antioxidants.
The traditional Mediterranean diet has also been studied for its links to longevity and lower risk of Alzheimer’s disease.
Green vegetables and herbs feature prominently in this diet. They are rich sources of antioxidants including vitamins A and C, folate, polyphenols such as apigenin, and the carotenoid xanthophylls (especially if raw). A carotenoid is an orange or red pigment commonly found in carrots.
Green vegetables and herbs provide us with several types of antioxidants.From shutterstock.com
The antioxidants and anti-inflammatory chemicals in the vegetables are believed to be responsible for slowing Alzheimer’s pathology development, the build up of specific proteins which are toxic to brain cells.
Beetroot is a rich source of folate and polyphenol antioxidants, as well as copper and manganese. In particular, beetroot is rich in betalain pigments, which reduce oxidative stress and have anti-inflammatory properties.
Due to its nitrate content, beetroot can also boost the body’s nitric oxide levels. Nitric oxide relaxes blood vessels resulting in lowered blood pressure, a benefit which has been associated with drinking beetroot juice.
A recent review of clinical studies in older adults also indicated clear benefits of nitrate-rich beetroot juice on the health of our hearts and blood vessels.
Foods to reduce
Equally as important as adding good sources of antioxidants to your diet is minimising foods that are unhealthy: some foods contain damaged fats and proteins, which are major sources of oxidative stress and inflammation.
A high intake of “junk foods” including sweets, soft drinks, refined carbohydrates, processed meats and deep fried foods has been linked to obesity, type 2 diabetes and cardiovascular disease.
Where these conditions are are all risk factors for cognitive decline and Alzheimer’s disease, they should be kept to a minimum to reduce health risks and improve longevity.
As the dramatic shutdown of major recycling company SKM this week has illustrated, recycling is not free.
Householders in Australia pay council rates for a recycling and garbage service. This fee is largely based on the costs of collecting, sorting and processing, and – importantly – what returns are likely from selling the end product.
However, since 2017 the price on the open market for mixed plastics has plummeted from about A$325 per tonne to A$100 per tonne. Mixed glass actually dropped to a negative value, which meant that generators were potentially paying for it to be taken away.
On the other hand, prices for high-quality recycling (not mixed materials or items contaminated with food, for example) largely remained the same or slightly increased.
This shows the market for low-quality, poorly sorted recycling, which Australia has previously offloaded to China and other Southeast Asian countries, is ending.
As consumers, we should be vocal about seemingly contradictory practices by businesses. For example, supermarkets congratulate themselves on reducing plastic bags, but then use small plastic toys as marketing tools – not even making them out of recycled plastic. These toys are destined for disposal, potentially contaminating recycling streams, and not all consumers are happy.
Coles and Woolworths have both congratulated themselves on ditching single-use plastic, but still use cheap plastic toys for marketing campaigns.AAP Image/Peter RAE
Throw out recycling properly
It’s tempting, if you don’t know whether something is recyclable, to simply put it in the yellow bin and assume someone on the other end will “sort it out”. But in reality, incorrectly recycled material can contaminate entire loads of otherwise valuable and useful recyclables, diverting it to landfill.
Councils blame the recyclers for this, who blame the councils. Everyone blames state governments, and they in turn blame the recyclers.
Fundamentally though, we as the generators of waste must assume a high degree of responsibility. We are the ones putting contaminants into the recycling system that everyone else in the management structure must deal with.
It’s our job to familiarise ourselves with what can and cannot be recycled – although, to be fair, this can vary widely from council to council, and should be made easier to check.
If we can clean up the recycling streams, markets should increase and prices for these commodities will similarly rise. This encourages those in the sector to improve their plant technology, and for others to enter in what would then be a more competitive market.
Develop the industry
Clean recycling still requires an established market to be profitable. Governments, as the single largest purchasers in Australia, can play an important role here.
The Victorian government has already committed to helping government agencies increase recycled content in their purchasing requirements. Other governments are doing likewise and this is a very positive step.
At a minimum, contracts and tenders should specify a certain level of recycled materials used in products sold to the government, or prefer those suppliers who do have recycled content.
One innovative approach where governments can use their purchasing power is with the use of plastic and glass recyclables in roads. Trials have been extremely positive.
In fact, the Australian Council of Recycling has suggested that using recycled material in construction for the Snowy 2.0 scheme would consume all the recyclables generated in Australia.
We need to chew and walk gum
The most important message is, just as there’s no single person or sector to blame for Australia’s dismal recycling situation, there’s no single solution. We all need to take more care with what we put in the bin. Governments around Australia should incentivise local manufacturers to use domestic recycling.
Recycling companies should certainly improve their technology so they can produce higher-quality material, which can be sold at a profit.
And, as the current SKM debacle illustrates, governments need a plan B when the market breaks down.
Even with all of this, a sustainable domestic recycling industry is some way off. We urgently need to start doing the things we already know will work, rather than playing endless rounds of a pointless blame game.
Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Rachel Wilson, Senior Lecturer – Research Methodology / Educational Assessment & Evaluation, University of Sydney
The numbers of secondary school students who take higher-level maths and science are low in Australia. In 2012, there were 30,000 more Year 12 students than in 1992. But the numbers of students studying physics, chemistry and biology decreased by 8,000, 4,000 and 12,000 respectively.
Enrolments in intermediate and advanced mathematics also fell over this period, by 11% and 7% respectively.
The Australian Curriculum mandates maths until Year 10. But we’re seeing more students dropping the subject as soon as they can.
In 2008, 31.2% of the NSW student population were studying maths for the High School Certificate, compared to 28.9% in 2017. This was a drop of around 5,300 students.
But studying maths brings many benefits. Here are three reasons to persevere.
1. You’ll be more likely to get a job
Many industry and economic experts predict future economies – specifically those using technology to rapidly create goods and services – will be built on maths and science knowledge and skills.
Research on the changing nature of employment predicts that, by 2030, we will spend 77% more time on average using science and mathematics skills. With youth (people aged 15-24) unemployment in Australia on the rise, maths skills may offer some protection.
There are more engineering jobs in Australia than skilled people to fill them. Between 2006 and 2016, the demand for engineers exceeded the number of local graduates. Employers often look overseas for suitable applicants, with some figures showing more vacancies are filled by overseas engineering graduates than locals.
The relationship between studying higher-level maths and earning more may be one of causation (that maths skills lead to higher earners), correlation (that people with good maths skills are more likely to have other skills that lead to higher earnings), or a bit of both. But, either way, it exists.
According to US analysis that compared university majors with median starting pay, median mid-career pay (at least ten years in), growth in salary and wealth of job opportunities, maths and engineering majors reigned supreme.
And a more recent analysis by the US data researcher PayScale found graduates in maths, science and engineering had the highest mid-career salary.
Girls aren’t worse than boys at maths, but they drop the subject earlier.from shutterstock.com
One of the biggest gender gaps in education is seen in maths. Girls in most countries complete less, or lower level, maths than boys.
The low numbers of girls participating in advanced maths courses is not because girls are worse at maths, as there is no clear gender gap when it comes to maths abilities. But girls do show less confidence in their maths skills and more maths anxiety than boys.
Research suggests learning maths is often associated with student anxiety. This anxiety is related to poor performance, negative attitudes and general avoidance of the subject. If girls were encouraged to persist with the challenges presented by advanced levels of maths, we could even see a start to a narrowing of the gender wage gap.
The g factor, or general ability, is the foundation of cognitive abilities and affects all learning, including in maths and science. Graduates in STEM (science, technology, engineering and mathematics) disciplines report their degrees led to them developing higher-order skills and qualities (such as logical thinking and creativity).
Another study showed an increase in population IQ alongside a rise in access to maths education in the US. Studies show higher levels of maths attainment for a population are strongly linked to national IQ and national shifts in economic development, such as higher GDP and faster economic growth.
A higher g factor is also associated with higher scores on international assessments of educational attainment, such as PISA and TIMSS, and IQ tests.
As the Australian system doesn’t require maths after Year 10, it seems it is up to individuals, families and their communities to recognise its importance and support students in persevering in maths for their own good.
Imagine a community of 200,000. Convivial, walkable, six times the density of Manhattan but with a smaller ecological footprint. It provides low-cost services and affordable housing mixed with productive uses such as recycling, farming and trading. It’s a city within a city.
But the streets aren’t wide enough to allow cars. The houses seem makeshift and the drains need work. The adaptations make it look like a place under perpetual construction.
In fact, the landlords and local leaders have incrementally built their houses and urban amenities over the last 40 years. They have self-organised to provide services such as gas, electricity and water. Non-government organisations (NGOs) have often provided extensive support to help with this process.
The only catch is this community has been built on unused public land. Now the residents face threats of resettlement to allow for “development” projects planned by the state. After spending six months in such a place, I can attest to their simultaneous desire to live their lives and the fear of uprooting that underlies their daily life.
Sahajul, a local elder, recollects the struggles he faced to kick-start Karail as a place.Mohammed Jilani/Open Studio, Author provided
The story of a billion people
The place is Karail, the largest informal settlement in Dhaka, but the story is not particular to there. A billion people live in such places around the world. That number is slated to reach 3 billion people in the next 30 years.
This means informal settlements are one of the major ways developing cities are being produced. Conventional planning approaches such as slum clearance, cookie-cutter high-rises, peripheral resettlement and back-to-village programs have often failed to manage them.
UN-Habitat, the body with global responsibility for issues of urban growth, advocates city-wide slum upgrading and integration with metropolitan plans. Such programs are explicitly “participatory” and inclusive. Specifically, UN-Habitat recommends member states “recognise the rights and contributions of slum dwellers and change the view that they are illegal”.
However, these recommendations are non-binding. It is up to the state and NGOs to implement policies on the ground. While funding agencies and local civic bodies have important roles too, they are ineffective in formulating the upgrading programs by themselves.
An overhead view of Karail.Google Earth, Author provided
In Karail’s case, the land belongs to the Ministry of Science and Information & Communication Technology (MoSICT). It plans to establish a software technology park to replace the settlement. In 2014, several NGOs providing pro bono legal aid filed petitions in court challenging the authority to carry out evictions on such a massive scale. The final verdict is still pending, but the word on the streets in Karail is that the wheels are in motion to make the project happen by any means.
The existing settlement and proposed development plan.Tanzil Shafique and BHTPA, Author provided
If the project proceeds, the demolitions will begin soon. The resettlement plan for the project proposes six options, none of which are slum upgrading.
Kurail is an established community that is home to at least 40,000 families.Tanzil Shafique, Author provided
In the best-case scenario, about 6,000 economy flats (roughly 25 square metres) will be built on site. Remember, at least 40,000 families live in Karail. The other options – including off-site resettlement or cash compensation – are far worse.
The draft plan shows no understanding of the site as an existing city, nor are there any attempts to integrate slum upgrading into the project, as UN-Habitat recommends. Note that the objective of the project is “to establish knowledge-based industries contributing to the national economy and helping achieve the goals of Vision 2021: Digital Bangladesh”. The project is predicted to create 30,000 jobs.
Such is the cruel irony of “development”. For an estimated investment of AU$300 million, the project will generate 30,000 future jobs, replacing the estimated 116,000 jobs that Karail supports. The project will displace 40,000 families from their current affordable housing and build high-rise apartments to house only 6,000.
In a city already on the verge of collapse with traffic congestion, the project is set to attract more traffic to the centre. Vehicle-based infrastructure will replace the non-motorised walkable neighbourhood of Karail. The cost of losing the accumulated social capital of the people of Karail only makes it worse.
‘Development’ that fails people
The housing in Bhashantek Rehabilitation Project exemplifies how not to resettle a community.Tanzil Shafique, Author provided
Such “development” in pursuit of a techno-ideological spectacle, without a sense of equitable well-being, is empty and is particularly threatening to informal settlements due to land value. Even when the state operates with the best of intentions and provides off-site resettlement, it has proven to be disastrous in Bangladesh, as exemplified by the Bhashantek Rehabilitation Project.
As Karail’s case shows, conventional “development” and policymaking do not know how to deal with such settlements. Planning is conducted with half a mind in the absence of empathy. “Inclusive cities” and “sustainable development” become empty motherhood slogans.
New practices can only emerge when we begin to learn how the other half lives and become allies in their struggle. Will Karail survive the onslaught of development? Well, it has survived decades of adversity so far and there is never any scarcity of hope.
Karail is a place of learning to hope.Tanzil Shafique, Author provided
The New Zealand government has proposed new fuel standards to cut greenhouse emissions, along with consumer rebates for cleaner cars – paid for by fees on high-polluting cars.
The long-awaited proposed changes would bring New Zealand in line with most other developed countries; apart from New Zealand, Russia and Australia are the last remaining OECD nations without fuel efficiency standards.
New Zealand’s long tradition of not regulating its car market, combined with substantial indirect subsidies for private cars, makes addressing emissions from the transport sector both challenging and highly significant.
Land transport emissions – the single largest source of fossil carbon dioxide in New Zealand – grew 93% between 1990 and 2017. There are multiple causes. The population grew 44% during this period, mostly through immigration. The car ownership rate also grew rapidly, partly due to economic growth and deficiencies in public transport in the main cities. Car ownership in New Zealand is now the highest in the OECD and there are more motor vehicles than adults.
Fuel efficiency improved only slowly over this period, before stalling in recent years: at 180g CO₂/km, the emissions of newly imported vehicles in New Zealand are 50% higher than in Europe. Because of the lack of a fuel efficiency standard, importers provide less efficient versions of their bestsellers to the New Zealand market. Of the ten bestselling new vehicles, five are utes (which also benefit from a fringe benefit tax exemption, four are SUVs and one is a regular car.
In addition, half of all vehicles are imported secondhand, mostly from Japan. They are cheap, but less efficient than newer models. Emissions, and congestion, are likely to continue rising as the national vehicle fleet is increasing by 110,000 vehicles a year.
One bright spot in the present situation is the emergence of an electric vehicle segment, mostly driven by the availability of cheap second-hand Nissan Leafs from Japan and the construction of a fast-charging network by a private company. Although sales have stalled in the past year at a market share of 2%, there are now 15,000 electric vehicles in New Zealand. (Australia has around 10,000 electric vehicles.)
New Zealand’s history of fuel taxes
New Zealand does not have a strong record of taxing “bads”. The only goods subject to excise taxes are tobacco, alcohol and fuel. The fuel tax is moderate by international standards. Over the past decade, the fuel tax has been fully allocated to road construction and maintenance.
New Zealand has an emissions trading scheme. The current carbon price of NZ$25/tonne of carbon dioxide adds five cents per litre to the price of fuel. Clearly, any likely increases in the carbon price are not going to be enough to change car buying decisions. Research shows that consumers tend to focus on upfront costs, while underestimating future fuel and maintenance costs.
Despite that, a special Auckland fuel tax of 10 cents per litre that co-funds public transport investment provoked a brief but intense backlash from the public. Plans to extend the scheme to other centres were canned.
A two-pronged plan
The proposed fuel efficiency standard would require car importers to either meet it or pay a fine. The suggested standard is 150gCO₂/km in 2021, falling to 105gCO₂/km in 2025, with further falls thereafter. There are more than 3000 car importers in New Zealand, so this could prompt a major shakeup, including possible price adjustments.
The standards are similar to those proposed by the Australian Coalition government in 2016, which have not yet been taken any further. Internationally, fuel efficiency standards cover 80% of the light vehicle market.
But the second component of the proposal, the clean car discount, has attracted more attention. Cars emitting less than the current threshold would received a discount, initially up to NZ$1800 for an efficient petrol car, up to NZ$4800 for a hybrid and up to NZ$8000 for a battery electric car. Cars costing more than NZ$80,000 would not receive a discount.
Known as a “feebate scheme”, those rebates would be paid for by increased fees for high-polluting cars, of up to NZ$3000. The amounts are designed so that the entire scheme would be revenue neutral to the government. Modelling suggests that the proposed standard and discount combined would save motorists NZ$12,000 over the life of a vehicle.
But overall, the New Zealand proposal has been received positively by car makers and across political parties.
One possible weakness is that it is entirely based on carbon dioxide. Other pollutants, including nitrous and sulphur oxides and particulate matter (soot), that are responsible for most of the immediate health impacts of vehicle pollution and are worse in diesel than in petrol vehicles, are not targeted. Nor are the underlying subsidies to the car-based transport system, which make a transition to active and public transport more difficult.
Any decisions made now will have impacts for decades to come. Switching the fleet to electric is different from just switching to more fuel-efficient cars. It involves new charging infrastructure and some behavioural changes from the public, and these challenges (rather than simply cost) are stumbling blocks worldwide to more rapid adoption.
These arguments have persuaded many countries to bring in electric vehicle incentives beyond simply targeting carbon dioxide. Norway is a famous example, where electric vehicles avoidpurchase taxes and market share is already 60%. The UK has recently exempted electric company cars from fringe benefit tax.
As the global market share of electric vehicles still stands at only 2%, eight years after they became widely available, and the number of fossil-fueled vehicles is increasing by 48 million a year, stronger action on vehicle emissions is clearly needed worldwide.
Why do we tell stories, and how are they crafted? In this series, we unpick the work of the writer on both page and screen. Warning: this story contains spoilers.
When this year’s Emmy nominations were announced, one thing was made very clear: Fleabag creator, writer and star Phoebe Waller-Bridge’s ascension to the upper echelons of Hollywood was complete.
The second (and, so she says, final) season of Fleabag received 11 nominations, including one for Outstanding Comedy Series, adding a gilt edge to the critical praise Waller-Bridge has already received for both seasons. How has Fleabag so confidently captured the attention of so many viewers and critics? The answer is in the screenwriting.
In both seasons, Waller-Bridge artfully repurposes two narrative devices that have long been gathering the dust of cliché: breaking the fourth wall (when a character appears to address the viewer directly), and flashback. From a screenwriting perspective, this repurposing of hoary narrative tools is part of Waller-Bridge’s sly feminist genius: she shows how good they can be, then walks away from them.
Waller-Bridge has been hard at work rewriting the newest Bond film, but the second season of Fleabag cements her reputation as one of the most exciting screenwriters around. In more conventional hands, Fleabag might have been another ho-hum dramedy about a woman having a tough few years, but by employing and then exploding those narrative devices, Waller-Bridge creates a series that is formally intriguing and emotionally complex.
In season 1 of Fleabag, we are introduced to the eponymous character (we never learn her real name), and the tragedy that might be at the root of her sexual proclivities. In season 2, a slightly more together Fleabag finds herself falling in love with the Catholic priest who will soon officiate her Dad’s second marriage to her dreaded godmother.
Andrew Scott as The Priest in Fleabag.Two Brothers Pictures
The conceit of breaking the fourth wall has long seemed to operate as an extension of the screenwriter’s macho authorial voice. Think of film and TV’s famous examples of to-camera asides: Ferris Bueller, Annie Hall’s Alvy Singer, American Psycho’s Patrick Bateman, House of Cards’ Frank Underwood. Though the first season of Sex and The City featured to-camera monologues from the protagonists, this was quickly dropped in favour of the far less emphatic voice-over (“I got to thinking …”) from Carrie Bradshaw. Like a female colleague emailing “Just wondering …”, there was something in the voice-over that felt less confrontational than Underwood or Bateman talking at the viewer.
In Fleabag, the eponymous character speaks directly to us as a way of inviting us into her chaotic emotional world: her quips, explanations and asides are delivered at breakneck speed, dipping out of conversations to quickly give us some context or to talk herself down (or up). She’s not talking at the viewer, but rather to them.
An awkward family dinner in series 2 of Fleabag, complete with some breaking of the fourth wall.
Sometimes, the camera operates as a trusted confidante. Other times, it’s more like a mirror, as Fleabag tries to convince herself, in a sort of de-motivational manner, not to spill her guts. She’s hysterically funny, but we also get the sense that her fourth-wall breaking is a distancing device, like a person telling their therapist “It’s all good material!” rather than weeping at the injustice of the world.
But the masterstroke of season 2 is when the fourth-wall breaking is itself broken by another character. The Priest (Andrew Scott) tells Fleabag that they won’t be having sex, but they can be friends. When she turns to us and asserts that the friendship “won’t last a week”, The Priest notices, asking her, “Where did you just go?”
The moment is shocking – for Fleabag as well as the viewer – and it has profound implications for the avowedly atheist character. Who has she really been talking to all this time, if the only person who knows about her talking “to camera” is a priest?
Memory flashes
The show is similarly deft in its use of flashback. When used prosaically, flashback can read as lazy storytelling (its use is commonly discouraged in many screenwriting texts). Increasingly, popular cinema seems to employ flashback — inevitably just before the narrative climax — in its most straightforward form, as though the screenwriters don’t trust the audience to understand the payoff of a key plot point without literally replaying the setup.
But where other series unload flashback as lumpen exposition (“As you know, Bob, 15 years ago …”), Waller-Bridge employs a more elegant use of the narrative convention, teasing the viewer with “memory flashes” – flashbacks that only last a few seconds — that gradually gain context and flesh out the story.
In season 1 of Fleabag, these memory flashes initially appear disparate: Fleabag in bed with someone, and her best friend Boo (Jenny Rainsford) looking desolately sad at the side of a busy road.
It is only as the series continues that we begin to realise the two are linked in a way that gnaws at the heart of Fleabag’s being: in her laissez-faire (perhaps addictive) approach to sex and love, she slept with Boo’s new boyfriend; Boo committed suicide by throwing herself into traffic. Fleabag cannot move past the idea that her actions directly led to her friend’s death.
Boo (Jenny Rainsford) in a flashback in Fleabag.Two Brothers Pictures
In her book The 21st Century Screenplay, Linda Aronson characterises this particular type of narrative device as the “life-changing incident flashback”. These flashbacks recur “incrementally, showing an extra bit each time, until we finally see it in its entirety, when its final moments explain the baffling motives and behaviour of the unfathomable character”.
Time slippage
In Fleabag’s second season, flashbacks shift from device to plot structure in episode 4, where Fleabag and The Priest attempt to shift their burgeoning attraction back into a friendly sphere. As Fleabag considers the relationship, painful memories flood back. These aren’t the fragmented, life-changing incident flashbacks of season 1, but rather fully-fledged slippages of the show’s temporality: finally, we step inside the funeral of Fleabag and her sister Claire’s late mother.
Fleabag (Phoebe Waller-Bridge) and her sister (Sian Clifford).Two Brothers Pictures
It’s a bold choice for a show that has previously used flashback in such an impressionistic manner. The funeral scenes give us richer insight into the characters, from Dad (Bill Paterson) to Godmother/Stepmother (played with gleeful unctuousness by Olivia Coleman) to the fractious love of Fleabag and Claire (Sian Clifford, brilliantly tightly-wound) – and, naturally, Boo is there.
Boo appears again, later in the episode: Fleabag, in the confession booth, once more sees her late friend’s face. The Priest prods her to continue, but Fleabag’s stammering — “And … and … I can’t …” — is suddenly interspersed with painterly memory flashes that recall the first season’s shattered flashbacks: Boo laughing, looking lovingly at Fleabag, and then once again those awful, imagined last moments, her face streaked with tears.
The contrast between the richer, extended funeral flashback — suggesting, perhaps, Fleabag’s tentative steps towards emotional maturity — and the return of those fragmented memories is striking. In a moment, Fleabag begins to undo all the good work she’s been so diligently striving towards. As Vulture TV critic Allie Pape wrote, “She’s not just ashamed of her role in Boo’s death anymore; she’s ashamed of her shame, her inability to move forward”.
Flashback has almost entirely disappeared from the narrative by the second series’ bittersweet concluding episode. Instead, Waller-Bridge uses visual and narrative echoes of previous moments: Claire and Fleabag greeting guests at the wedding, just as they greeted mourners; the return of Godmother’s sculpture, a recurring motif since the first episode of season 1.
Bill Paterson and Olivia Colman at their wedding Fleabag (2019).Two Brothers Pictures
Finally, Fleabag and The Priest are alone at a bus stop, where she confesses her love for him. When The Priest tells Fleabag “it’ll pass”, he may well be referring to her love, but when, moments later, Fleabag dismisses the confidante/mirror of the fourth wall and tells us not to follow her, the series ends on a hopeful note: maybe her shame and sorrow will pass, too.
In this way, it’s almost like Waller-Bridge is signing off from using these narrative devices – leaving us wondering what aspect of screenwriting practice she’ll revolutionise next.
The citizenship provision of the Constitution’s section 44 has raised its head again, with the eligibility of Treasurer Josh Frydenberg being challenged by an elector in his Kooyong seat.
Michaal Staindl has filed a petition with the High Court, which sits as the Court of Disputed Returns, alleging Frydenberg is ineligible “because he is a citizen of the Republic of Hungary”.
The petition says
The respondent’s mother arrived in Australia in 1950 in possession of a valid passport, inferred to be a valid Hungarian passport. This indicates that she continued to be a citizen of Hungary after 1948.
Pursuant to the law of Hungary, all children born to the respondent’s mother are a citizen of Hungary from the time of their birth and in the premise, the respondent is a citizen of Hungary
Staindl told Guardian Australia he was pursuing the action against Frydenberg, whom he knew, because “he’s consistently betrayed me, the electorate and the country on climate change”.
The Guardian reported that Staindl “said if Frydenberg shows evidence he is not Hungarian he could drop the case”; otherwise, he said, he would “see it through”.
Under Section 44, a person cannot sit in the federal parliament if he or she is “under any acknowledgement of allegiance, obedience, or adherence to a foreign power, or is a subject or a citizen or entitled to the rights or privileges of a subject or citizen of a foreign power”.
In his “statement of member’s qualifications relating to section 44 and 45 of the constitution”, posted on Wednesday, Frydenberg records that his mother – who arrived in Australia as a refugee – was a Hungarian citizen between 1943 and 1948.
Frydenberg said “I have clear legal advice that I do not hold citizenship of another country.”
Section 44, which has several prohibitions, cut a swathe through the last parliament, overwhelmingly on citizenship grounds, hitting Coalition, Labor, and crossbench parliamentarians and triggering multiple byelections.
Although Frydenberg’s situation was canvassed during the previous term Labor backed off, given his mother had escaped the Holocaust.
Frydenberg, in comments in the last term, said his mother had arrived stateless. “It is absolutely absurd to think that I could involuntarily acquire Hungarian citizenship by rule of a country that rendered my mother stateless,” he said then.
Separately, Frydenberg’s eligibility is being challenged under the Electoral Act over Liberal party Chinese-language signs. This challenge is being brought by Oliver Yates, who ran as an independent against Frydenberg. It is claimed the signs were likely to have misled voters into thinking that to cast a valid vote they had to put the figure 1 beside the Liberal candidate.
A similar challenge over Chinese-language signs has been brought by a Chisholm voter against the new Liberal MP for Chisholm, Gladys Liu.
The ALP is not involved in the challenges.
The ALP’s acting national secretary Paul Erickson said in a statement that Labor was “disappointed by the tactics employed by the Liberal Party at the election, which went well beyond the accepted bounds of a vigorously contested campaign – especially in the divisions of Chisholm and Kooyong.
“The Chinese-language signs used by the Liberal Party in those contests were clearly designed to look like official Australian Electoral Commission voting instructions using the AEC colours, for the clear purpose of misleading Mandarin and Cantonese-speaking voters into voting for the Liberal Party,” he said.
But while there was a strong case that the signs breached the Electoral Act Labor was not seeking to overturn the results in Chisholm and Kooyong, given the cost and time involved, Erickson said.
The department of human services (DHS) is under scrutiny this week after the Nine papers revealed the department sent letters to 50,000 patients who were previously prescribed lithium. DHS was seeking to recruit the recipients into a non-government study on bipolar disorder.
Psychiatrists raised concerns after receiving complaints from patients who had received the letters and accused their psychiatrists of breaching patient confidentiality.
The doctors didn’t breach confidentiality. Instead, DHS, which delivers social and health payments and services, including via Medicare, used data held by Medicare to contact patients who had previously been prescribed lithium on behalf of researchers from the QIMR Berghofer Medical Research Institute.
Patients were invited to complete an online survey, and potentially provide DNA samples, to identify genetic markers associated with bipolar disorder.
Research using big datasets is increasingly common. Big data, combined with genomics, is an extremely powerful research tool, offering tantalising opportunities to gain insight into major challenges to human health. It’s reliant on collection of data from many different individuals.
But in pursuing population-scale benefits, the risks to individual autonomy and privacy are easily overlooked – or worse, they’re disregarded.
Has the ethics framework been disregarded?
This week’s revelations highlight issues with the existing ethical and legal framework governing data access.
The National Health and Medical Research Council’s national statement governs the conduct of ethical research in Australia. It outlines the structure and approval process of human research ethics committees, and identifies issues that committees must consider when deciding whether to grant approval. That includes how researchers propose to recruit research participants.
Researchers often struggle to recruit sufficient participants to their research. Participants must agree to participate voluntarily, without coercion. For some research, recruitment may be particularly challenging. The requirements imposed on participants may be excessively onerous, inconvenient or just distasteful.
Why is DHS accessing this data?
Some people in the community are especially vulnerable to breaches of confidentiality and privacy due to social stigma. This might include people with a mental illness, sexually transmitted disease, criminal conviction or parenting order. Yet DHS may hold or access data on these vulnerable groups.
Datasets such as those overseen by DHS provide researchers with a goldmine of potential participants who can be approached more directly. In this case, they were approached by DHS itself on behalf of researchers. This decision to contact patients on behalf of the researchers is ethically and legally questionable.
While DHS does release statistical information from the various schemes it administers for research, DHS’s privacy policy states it will not release identifiable or identifying information for research unless the research has ethics committee approval, and the person consents. That restriction is fundamental to Australian privacy law and policy.
DHS hasn’t released identifiable patient data. Instead, it has used personal data collected through prescriptions to contact patients on behalf of a third party – in this case the researchers. Implicitly, its mail-out signals everyone on the list has a specific medical condition.
Problematically, DHS’s privacy policy does not indicate it will collect data for this purpose, or use collected data in this way.
Which committee granted ethics approval for the research? Did that committee have the necessary expertise in data access and privacy law to make that determination, as required under the national statement?
How did the researchers justify their choice of a recruitment strategy which necessarily compromises the reasonable expectations of patients about how, and for what purposes, their personal information will be used by DHS?
People should be able to expect details shared confidentially with medical providers not be used in this way.From shutterstock.com
Did DHS advise the relevant ethics committee that it was an agent for the researchers? How did DHS decide to use data in this way? Who made that determination? What process did they rely on to reach that decision? Are they accountable?
Who funded the mail-out? Did DHS fund the printing and distribution of the letters from its own budget? Did the researchers pay them to do so? What effect does any commercial relationship between the researchers and the department have on the independence of the research?
Can other researchers expect comparable support from DHS in future? If not, how will DHS decide between research it deems to be of merit, and research it deems to be unworthy of its assistance? And is that its role?
DHS shouldn’t just give out your data
If DHS continues acting for researchers in this way, Australians with data contained in DHS data holdings could be inundated with requests to participate in research, resulting in disengagement and research fatigue.
DHS’s reported response when questioned by journalists was that people could opt-out of further mail-outs by emailing the department. That shifts the burden of good data governance onto consumers, rather than beneficiaries of it, for the sake of bureaucratic convenience.
The fundamental issue here is one of trust, coercion and consent. People providing their personal information to the government, to access government services including prescribed medications, are doing so through necessity, not choice. Failure to provide the information results in denial of access to the service.
For DHS to use the information provided in a way that is outside both the reasonable expectation of those providing it, and its own privacy policy, is deeply disrespectful.
Auckland University of Technology has denied bowing to Chinese government pressure to stop one of its rooms being used for an event marking the 30th anniversary of the bloody crackdown on protests in Tiananmen Square in Beijing.
The New Zealand university has confirmed it canned a reservation for the event on Monday 3 June, a public holiday, after a meeting with China’s Vice-Consul General Xiao Yewen on the preceding Friday.
Vice-Chancellor Derek McCormack said AUT did not know the event was about the Tiananmen Square protests and it cancelled the booking only because the staff member who made it had not followed the right process, and the building would be closed for the holiday.
“If it had been an AUT event or if it had been booked through the proper channels through our hospitality services group, it would have gone ahead as the film In the Name of Confucius went ahead a little earlier, which was also something that the Chinese consulate drew to our attention and asked us to cancel which we did not,” he said.
“It needs to be done in the proper manner for all sorts of reasons including health and safety. There are also charges that are made for rooms because of cleaning and set-up and utilities. These things were bypassed by the person who made the booking. In fact they did not even make the booking in their own name so it was something that was completely out of order.”
McCormack told RNZ Xiao had not threatened repercussions if AUT failed to cancel the booking.
“The Vice-Consul General pointed out that we had a good relationship with China, that we had lots of Chinese students and because of that good relationship could we help them out and cancel something they objected to.”
McCormack said the university did not know at the time what the event was about. It had been booked as a student seminar and advertised in Chinese media, not in English.
Emails show Xiao described AUT’s decision as “right and wise” and would “definitely help promote further growth of exchanges and cooperation between AUT and the General Consulate and China in general”.
‘Dubious explanation’ Tertiary Education Union national secretary Sharn Riggs said universities sometimes ran into problems with room bookings, but she was dubious about AUT’s explanation.
“Hardly seems credible, does it? That is the public position that the university is putting out but I guess from our point of view that seems like a fairly lame reason to have cancelled the event,” she said.
Riggs said the incident highlighted universities’ reliance on tuition fees from Chinese students.
“When so many of our universities now are reliant on the fees that international students pay, and in AUT’s case it’s quite a significant chunk of their annual income, it’s inevitable that foreign governments are going to have the ability to put pressure on institutions should they want to and I think in this case that’s exactly what the Chinese government has done.”
Defending freedom of expression Education Minister Chris Hipkins would not comment on AUT’s decision, but defended freedom of expression at universities.
He said the relationship with China was important to the government and to many tertiary institutions, but it had to be based on mutual respect.
“In New Zealand, free speech, the right to democratic process, those are very important things to New Zealanders and we have always been very clear with the Chinese government that those are things that we will always defend here in New Zealand,” Hipkins said.
The Chinese consulate in Auckland did not respond to a request for comment.
This article is published under the Pacific Media Centre’s content partnership with Radio New Zealand.
In it, the Pacific Islands Development Forum called on governments of countries with high carbon emissions to stop hindering climate change efforts.
It also demanded all coal producers immediately stop any new coal mining and phase out all existing production over the next 10 years.
– Partner –
The declaration asked the development forum’s 14-member states to immediately end subsidies on fossil fuel production.
Echoing 2018’s Boe Declaration from the Pacific Islands Forum, Tuesday’s declaration affirmed “that climate change poses the single greatest threat to the human rights and security of present and future generations of Pacific Island peoples”.
The move was welcomed by environmental non-profit 350.org, with founder Bill McKibben calling it a “very powerful manifesto”.
“The election, in the Pacific, of the government of Australia that continues to want to expand coal mines is a slap in the face to everyone else in that region and in the world,” he said in a videoed statement.
Meanwhile, Fiji’s Prime Minister said Pacific leaders should accept nothing less than concrete commitments to cut emissions at next month’s Pacific Islands Forum Summit.
Frank Bainimarama will be attending his first summit since 2008.
Fiji was suspended in 2009 and Bainimarama said he would stay away until New Zealand and Australia were no longer full Forum members.
In a speech at the Pacific Islands Development Forum – which was set up by Fiji after its suspension – Bainimarama said the region cannot accept any watered-down commitments.
At last year’s forum, Australia was exposed as having attempted to water-down a resolution that declared climate change the region’s greatest security threat.
Bainimarama said the region needs greater commitments from the region’s bigger neighbours, hinting at Australia and New Zealand.
“Fiji and the Marshall Islands have already announced our intention to revise our own nationally determined contributions, and I urge this … membership to do the same and demand the same from the more developed economies, including and especially our large neighbours in the Pacific.
“We should accept anything less than concrete commitments to curb greenhouse gas emissions in line with the most ambitious aspirations of the Paris Agreement. We cannot allow climate commitments to be watered down at a meeting hosted in a nation whose very existence is threatened by the rising waters lapping at its shores.”
This article is published under the Pacific Media Centre’s content partnership with Radio New Zealand.
Still, the Reproductive Health Care Reform Bill 2019, to be introduced by independent MP Alex Greenwich, has widespread support in the Legislative Assembly and looks likely to pass. It also has the support of Health Minister Brad Hazzard, who is one of its 15 co-sponsors, as well as Premier Gladys Berejiklian.
The bill primarily seeks to remove three sections of the NSW Crimes Act that criminalise “unlawfully” attempting to procure an abortion by administering drugs or using instruments or other means. The woman seeking an abortion can be prosecuted under the law, as can anyone who unlawfully performs an abortion or supplies the drugs or instruments that could be used for an abortion.
These sections were incorporated in the NSW Crimes Act in 1900, using the wording of the UK Offences against the Person Act 1861. Similar provisions formed the basis of anti-abortion laws across Australia. Today, only NSW and South Australia still have these provisions on the books.
Key interpretation of the law
Despite these laws, abortions are routinely conducted in NSW on much the same terms as other Australian states. However, it is difficult to estimate how many are performed every year because only South Australia collects and publishes comprehensive data.
Given the frequency of the procedure, and generally broad access to abortions covered in part by Medicare, it is perhaps not surprising that more than 70% of people in NSW are unaware that these provisions remain in the criminal law.
The law seems restrictive on its face, but since 1971, prosecutions have been rare. This is due to a ruling by Judge Aaron Levine in NSW District Court who drew attention to the fact that abortion itself is not a crime in the NSW act, and that only unlawfully performed actions are punishable.
The inclusion of the word “unlawfully” means that actions to procure an abortion may be undertaken lawfully, and not every attempt to perform an abortion is criminal.
Levine phrased the lawfulness test in these terms:
It would be for the jury to decide whether there existed in the case of each woman any economic, social or medical ground or reason which in their view could constitute reasonable grounds upon which an accused could honestly and reasonably believe there would result a serious danger to her physical or mental health.
Levine’s ruling is an example of fine legal reasoning, but such distinctions have not found favour with doctors, who have long called for greater clarity in regard to the possible criminality of their actions.
our bill ensures that women will have access to safe and legal abortions and ensures that doctors have the legal clarity that they have long sought.
And in supporting the bill, the Australian Medical Association said it would remove the “stigma and legal uncertainty” around the performance of abortions.
It is noteworthy that although there have been very few prosecutions under the act since 1971, nearly all have involved the legality of the actions of doctors. In 2017, a Sydney woman was convicted of administering misoprostol to herself in an attempt to end her pregnancy at 28 weeks.
Greenwich’s bill follows the passage of roughly similar reform bills in the ACT (2002), Victoria (2008), Western Australia (2011), Tasmania (2013), the Northern Territory (2017) and Queensland (2018). A bill in the South Australia parliament to fully decriminalise abortion has also been referred for review to the SA Law Commission.
Abortion not a voter issue
For many, it is a puzzle why the NSW Crimes Act provisions have remained in place for so long. In 2016, Greens MP Mehreen Faruqi introduced a bill to change the NSW law, but it was voted down in the upper house.
One possible reason it has taken so long to reform the law was the spectre of a backlash among voters. Even feminist campaigners had concerns that attempts to reform the law might fail and backfire on reformers, perhaps resulting in more restricted access.
This view is mistaken in two main ways. First, no public opinion poll in Australia in 50 years has found a popular majority opposed to broad access to abortion. In fact, no opinion poll has found more than 5-10% of voters opposed to abortion in all or almost all circumstances.
A good summary of recent polls is provided in a 2017 briefing paper by the NSW Parliamentary Research Service.
Moreover, religious affiliation is not strongly correlated with opposition to abortion access, as it is in the US. Nor is there a large gulf in opinion along gender lines. For example, a 2005 research brief of the Australian Parliamentary Library showed a slightly higher proportion of men over women favouring wide access to abortion.
Second, my research has found scant evidence to show that attitudes to abortion in Australia play a significant role in the way people vote, as they do in the US. This has been the case for at least 40 years.
While Australians across party lines support wide access to abortion, sociologist Katharine Bettsargued in 2004 that LNP candidates were significantly more conservative than voters on the question. But by 2009, even this divide had narrowed.
The chief obstacle to reform has little to do with voters’ electoral behaviour, let alone their general attitudes on abortion. Rather, it’s been the lack of will among MPs that’s been the problem.
In NSW, this appears to finally be changing, with bipartisan support – and a new sense of urgency – to reform the law.
If you have a question you’d like an expert to answer, send it to curiouskids@theconversation.edu.au.
Can Earth be affected by a black hole in the future? – Rakovi, age 12, Dimapur, India.
That is a great question.
As you know, black holes are called that because the gravity in their centre is so strong, it sucks all nearby light in. None can escape. That’s how strong a black’s hole’s gravitational pull is.
Black holes create the strongest gravitational pull in the universe (that we know of). So you really don’t want to get very close to one.
If you get too close, the pull of gravity from the black hole is so strong that you would never be able to escape, even if you were travelling at the speed of light.
This point of no return is called “the event horizon”.
Another reason you don’t want to get too close to a black hole is because of something we call “spaghettification”.
Imagine an object in space, like a star. As the star gets closer to a black hole, one side of it is pulled harder than the other. That’s because one side of the star will be closer to the black hole than the other.
The pull from gravity will be stronger on the side closest to the black hole, and weaker on the side that’s further away.
This difference in the pull of gravity (which is called a “tidal force”) would cause the star to get pulled apart. It’s kind of like pulling a lump of pasta dough into spaghetti.
Sometimes astronomers can observe this happening in other galaxies. The technical name is a “tidal disruption event” but it just means that a star got too close to a black hole and got pulled apart.
Here’s an artist’s impression of what spaghettification might look like:
The closest black hole is too far away to hurt us
Thankfully, though, we don’t need to worry. There are no black holes close enough to Earth to affect us. The closest black hole to Earth that we know of is named V616 Monocerotis. It is also known as A0620-00.
This black hole is 6.6 times more massive than our Sun. (That means it has a lot of mass, which means it has a really strong gravitational pull – much stronger than even our Sun’s gravitational pull.)
If Earth gets within about 800,000 kilometres (3.7 light seconds) of this black hole it will get pulled apart. But that’s unlikely to happen and certainly not in your lifetime.
V616 Monocerotis is about 3,300 light years away. That’s very, very far away.
An influential warlord in PNG’s Hela province has handed himself in to security forces in the wake of mass killings last month, reports The National.
Libe Koi of Pujaro village in Tagali surrendered himself and apologised to the people who have been affected by the tribal fighting in the Highlands region.
Last month at least 20 people, including two pregnant woman, were killed in two seperate inter-tribal attacks.
Libe Koi … “I appeal to two other warlords in the recent massacre to surrender themselves and weapons.” Image: EMTV News
Koi also urged two other warlords still in hiding to come out before he exposed them.
“I appeal to two other warlords in the recent massacre to surrender themselves and weapons because I will disclose their hideouts (if they fail to surrender),” he said
– Partner –
“If I can surrender myself, why don’t you two also come out for us to find an amicable solution to restore peace and harmony in Hela?”
He described his part in the fighting as retaliatory between himself and another warlord known as Okiru over the past six years, and his actions were in defence of his family.
However, during a televised news conference, EMTV reported him saying that after two decades he was tired of the conflict and wanted an end to it.
While he didn’t claim responsibility for last month’s massacre, his translator, Hela Province deputy provincial administrator Eddie Yuwi said that he knew the two warlords involved and was handing himself in as an example.
He also threatened to reveal the location of the warlord’s arms and ammunition depots, reported the PNG Post-Courier.
Hela police commander chief inspector Teddy Agwi has called on the other fighters to surrender to police, saying that the prolonged fighting had shut down schools, hospitals and disrupted the normal way of life in the region.
