Silas Papare Air Force base in Sentani, Jayapura, has reported that an Mi-17 helicopter belonging to the Indonesian Army lost contact after departing from Oksibil airport in Pegunungan Bintang regency, Papua, yesterday afternoon.
The helicopter took off from Oksibil, where it had stopped to refuel, at 11:44 a.m. local time and was scheduled to arrive at Sentani airport, Jayapura, at 1:11 p.m.
The Silas Papare tower officer reported that at 11:49 a.m., five minutes after it took off from Oksibil, the helicopter lost contact.
It had 12 members on board, with seven crew members and five members of the Infantry Battalion 725/Waroagi task force who were being transferred to another post.
Cendrawasih Military Command spokesperson Colonel Muhammad Aidi said a joint search and rescue team comprising military personnel and members of the National Search and Rescue Agency (Basarnas) was deployed on Friday afternoon to search for the missing helicopter.
“At 9:00 p.m. we decided to stop the search because it was raining really hard in the area. We will continue the search tomorrow morning,” Aida said.
-Partners-
Aidi said the helicopter was in good condition when it departed from Oksibil. The weather that day was forecast as foggy but with clear visibility at around 6 to 7 km.
However, Aidi said, the Meteorology, Climatology and Geophysics Agency (BMKG) later informed that the weather at several points along the flight route was changing drastically.
“We still cannot say what really happened but, when it comes to mountains in Papua, we often see extreme and drastic weather changes,” he said.
The Mi-17 helicopter started its trip on Friday morning, bringing food and supplies from Sentani to the border security post at Okibab district in Pegunungan Bintang.
Aidi said the trip happened monthly because the post could only be reached by air.
Gemma Holliani Cahyais a reporter with the Jakarta Post.
Sign up to the Beating Around the Bush newsletter here, and suggest a plant we should cover at batb@theconversation.edu.au.
White cedar (Melia azedarach) grows naturally across Queensland and northern New South Wales, but is widely planted as an ornamental tree all over Australia. It also grows across much of Asia, and belongs to the mahogany family.
This wide dispersal sees the species given a very wide and diverse range of common names, including: umbrella cedar, pride of India, Indian lilac, Persian lilac, and Chinaberry. It Australia it is known as white cedar due to its soft general-purpose timber.
The name Melia was the Greek name given to the ash tree, which has similar foliage, and azedarach means “poisonous tree” – parts of it are toxic.
White cedar is something of a rarity among Australian native trees, as it loses its leaves in winter or early autumn. Winter deciduous trees are highly valued in landscape design as they provide all the benefits of summer shade, but allow winter light.
The Conversation
While Australia has an abundance of evergreen tree species and a variety of summer deciduous trees that lose their leaves in summer when water is scarce, we have few winter deciduous native trees. White cedar fits the bill beautifully, and despite a few shortcomings has some very attractive traits.
White cedar is usually a small spreading tree with a rounded canopy up to about 6m in height, but under the right conditions trees can be more than 20m tall, with a canopy spread of 10m or more. They have quite dense foliage composed of dark compound leaves up to 500mm long, which transition from dark green to a pale yellow in autumn.
As a winter deciduous tree they are a very popular native tree that has been widely planted as street trees and in domestic gardens, where specimens of 10-12m are common. The trees are often considered to be short-lived (around 20 years), but in gardens and where irrigation is available some may live for 40 years or longer.
Good specimens of white cedar have many small flowers (20mm) that are white with purple/blue stripes and a wonderful, almost citrus-like scent. The fruits are about 15mm in diameter and bright orange in colour. They are usually retained over winter and so the trees provide a seasonal smorgasbord – shade in summer, autumn foliage colour, orange fruits in winter, and attractive scented flowers in spring.
Many specimens are prolific in their production of fruits and seeds, which readily germinate, underscoring the weed potential of the species under the right circumstances. They can be an invasive species in some parts of Asia and Africa.
Unfortunately as the fruits mature and dry they become as hard as ball bearings. If you mow over them they can fire from under a mower like bullets, and if they land on a hard paved surface they can be a tripping hazard for people who unexpectedly find themselves skating. The fruits and foliage can also be quite toxic if eaten. So this would appear to put a bit a dampener on the use of the tree. However, in recent years non-fruiting varieties of white cedar have become available and these have proven popular as street and garden trees.
A toxic treat
Many parts of the tree are toxic – interestingly, though, not the fleshy part of the fruit. It has evolved to be attractive to the birds that disperse seed. However the seeds are very poisonous, and as few as 6 or 8 seeds can be fatal for children. Fortunately, the seeds are very hard and do not taste very pleasant, so the risk of humans eating them is quite low.
Despite this, white cedar has been widely used as a medicinal plant by indigenous cultures, especially for intestinal parasites. The seeds have been widely used to make beads by indigenous peoples in Asia and Australia, and in some places the tree is called the bead tree.
An easy grower
One of the good things about white cedar is they are easily grown, and cope quite well with the low rainfall in many parts of Australia. They also tolerate a variety of soil types, which is why they have been so widely and successfully spread.
The trees are quite resistant to termite damage and their poison does protect them from grazing mammals and some insects. They can be prone to root problems and it is not uncommon for their trunks to break off at ground level, especially if they have been poorly propagated or planted, which can be a big problem when they are planted as a street tree.
Although they are related to mahogany, their wood can be quite brittle and easily broken, which means care should be taken when pruning or working on them. When the wood dries it shatters easily and can send shards in all directions when you try to snap it. In Australia the wood can range from light cream to dark brown in colour, and while it is quite a useful wood for carving and furniture, it is not widely used.
As a winter deciduous native tree of smallish stature, with many attractive characteristics, the white cedar really is an Australian rarity, despite how widely it occurs or is planted.
Yesterday the Prime Minister sent a clear message to voters: the Government has not given up on fixing the housing crisis. It was communicated via the sacking of the Housing Minister, and a serious re-organisation of the housing portfolio so that a team of five ministers now share responsibility for fixing what is becoming an albatross around Jacinda Ardern’s neck.
Audrey Young emphasises the ruthlessness of Ardern’s Cabinet reshuffle in the Herald today, saying: “for all her kindness, the Prime Minister can be ruthless. What happened to Phil Twyford was nothing short of a political humiliation” – see: Jacinda Ardern shows ruthless streak in Cabinet reshuffle.
Young says Twyford was removed from more housing portfolios than was necessary: “Ardern said housing was too big for just one minister, which is nonsense. She could easily have left Twyford in charge of state housing. But even that has been taken from him for reasons that Ardern could not properly articulate but it effectively means that his reputation is so trashed, she does not want him associated with something so precious to Labour.”
Regardless of any progress he had been making, Young suggests the tide of opinion had turned so strongly against Twyford that he had to go,: “he had become so wounded that Ardern would not trust him with the “reset” of housing policy. She wanted not only a new set of housing priorities but a new face. He was sacrificed for the greater good of the Government and importantly the Labour Party.”
Perhaps there should be some sympathy for Twyford. Young seems to suggest this is the case: “her decision is about the optics, not the substance. Twyford has been removed from the job just as he has finally got the shop in order, and just as he is getting to grips with the reality of the public-private housing partnerships there are essential to large-scale housing production. Megan Woods won’t be coming in to crack the whip and suddenly double the output of Kiwibuild houses. Anything that is produced under Woods’ watch in the next 18 months in whatever rebranding Kiwibuild undergoes will be from the commitments and planning previously undertaken by Twyford.”
The notion that Twyford has been the sacrificial lamb to the unfixed housing crisis is also emphasised by Henry Cooke, who says “Twyford himself had started to be associated with that policy failing in the eyes of the public – so Jacinda Ardern decided to sacrifice her minister rather than the entire policy” – see: KiwiBuild: Can Megan Woods do what Phil Twyford could not?. He says that, despite Ardern’s spin, this is “undoubtedly a demotion” for Twyford, and a real blow for his career given how much he had staked on housing and KiwiBuild.
Cooke says the housing crisis is still in full effect under Labour, and now the new Minister Megan Woods “has the luxury of designing a new version of KiwiBuild that is actually doable with the help of many officials and a relatively clean slate”. Not only is the name of “KiwiBuild” facing abolition – all the Government’s existing housing promises are up for axing. Expect to see more U-turns – but the long-awaited “reset” is now even further off.
Similar arguments are put forward by Stacey Kirk, who says “Ardern has scrubbed the minister to keep the policy. Phil Twyford had become so tainted by the KiwiBuild disaster, the only way the prime minister could salvage the policy brand – which still polls extremely well – was with a new minister with a fresh mandate to pull it apart” – see: Phil Twyford in Jacinda Ardern’s sights as first reshuffle squarely lands on Kiwibuild failure. She adds that it was clear Ardern “no longer had confidence in his ability to deliver a solution to the housing crisis.”
Twyford is therefore paying the price, Kirk says, for remaining dogmatic and not listening about the need to fix KiwiBuild: “The policy was quite obviously a dead horse that Twyford refused to stop flogging. Twyford’s failure is not born of incompetence, so much as it is a blinkered obsession to some of the more problematic – and probably ideological – aspects of the KiwiBuild policy. Ardern alluded to as much in announcing her decision. As much as Twyford may have been placed in an invidious position with a tough policy to create, he was the minister and ultimately accountable. If it wasn’t working, he had many opportunities to make the required changes. His officials expressed reservations throughout, but he persevered when he should have cut and run.”
For Jane Patterson the reorganisation of the Housing portfolio “shows the commitment of the government to make progress”, and she spells out the changes like this: “the fact Prime Minister Jacinda Ardern now effectively has five ministers with some role in housing shows the breadth of the challenge – not just the affordable house building programme but in homelessness, state housing and the limitations on development under the Resource Management Act” – see: New housing team eases Phil Twyford’s indignity.
But some are questioning the logic of the housing portfolio reorganisation. For a start, it is all very reminiscent of John Key’s failed reorganisation in 2014 when his government was also under pressure for failing to deal adequately with the housing crisis.
This is best conveyed by Toby Manhire, who recounts how in 2014 Key announced “there would be a new ‘ministerial team’, with the portfolio split between three senior ministers. Paula Bennett got social housing. Bill English got Housing New Zealand. Nick Smith had been under mounting pressure over a housing crisis which the government obstinately refused to call a housing crisis. He got building and construction, in what seemed like a face-saving consolation prize” – see: Housing crisis history repeats as Ardern breaks up the housing job.
Manhire then fast forwards five years and points to National’s Housing spokeswoman Judith Collins arguing that splitting the portfolio “looks like panic”, noting that “She could have been describing either the 2014 or 2019 carve-up.”
Collins also made a critique of the split up this morning on the AM Show, saying: “We’ve got all these ministers now, it’s split into three, but at the same time the Government has a Bill going into Parliament called the Kāinga Ora Bill – what that does is it brings Housing NZ, KiwiBuild and the Ministry for Housing and Urban Development all together – so you’ve got all the agencies together, but all the ministers split. It’s bizarre” – see Housing job split despite Bill to combine them.
The same article explains the merger of the housing agencies: “Currently at the select committee process, the Kāinga Ora – Homes and Communities Bill would disestablish Housing NZ, bringing state homes under a new umbrella organisation called Kāinga Ora – Homes and Communities, which would also have responsibility for urban development.”
Act leader David Seymour has also challenged the lines of responsibility and accountability that will result from the new arrangement: “It’s now not obvious whose fault it is, when for instance, the cost of rent that New Zealanders pay goes up or the number of houses built goes down. Because you’ve got three different ministers with overlapping responsibilities who can all say the other one’s responsible” – see Jo Moir’s Judith Collins says demotion shows KiwiBuild a failure, offers olive branch.
In the above article, Moir also raises important and unanswered questions about this: “So how will the separate portfolios and responsibilities work? Any detail or explanation was less than forthcoming with both Mr Twyford and Dr Woods refusing media interviews, instead sending out short written statements. And with a three-week recess now underway little light will shine on the unanswered questions anytime soon.”
A number of journalists have also questioned the PM and Government’s cynical move of announcing the reshuffle at the last possible moment and then avoiding answering questions about it.
Here’s what Jane Patterson says: “Once again though, the government appears cynical in its timing. Ms Ardern waited until the last hours of the last day before the longest recess during the sitting programme. She fronted a news conference and the two newly promoted ministers talked to reporters shortly after. But the timing presented others the opportunity to avoid the media as the House rose and MPs were free to depart Parliament within hours of the announcement. Ms Woods and Mr Twyford have both declined requests for interviews – issuing statements instead and making the most of the opportunity to avoid any tricky questions.”
Finally, although the Prime Minister’s main Cabinet reshuffle message is that her government is still very serious about dealing with the housing crisis, should the public have any confidence that a reshuffling of the deck is going to bring about real change? I’ve tried to answer this question in a column today for RNZ – see: Is the government now more serious about the housing crisis? I suggest that this although this government hasn’t cared much about fixing the housing crisis, maybe this might be about to change with the appointment of the first genuine leftwing housing minister in ages.
After a NSW Supreme court judge ruled this week that Australian publishers are liable for defamatory comments on their Facebook sites, it’s clear that page owners need to get serious about social media management.
The ruling suggests that operators of commercial Facebook pages may need to hide all comments by default so that they can be checked for defamation before they are seen by the public.
The problem is that Facebook was not designed for users to pre-moderate comments. It was built to deliver us “frictionless”, immediate communication.
Judge Stephen Rothman’s contentious ruling relied on expert evidence that Facebook publishers can use a software hack to block comments from appearing. By adding common words like pronouns or “the” and “a” to their page moderation filter, owners can ostensibly hide then un-hide comments once they’ve been checked for illegal content.
This is obviously impractical. Hiding comments will stop many people from posting, because they won’t see their contributions appear as they do elsewhere on Facebook. It will also stymie conversations, unless companies hire 24/7 moderation services. The cost would be prohibitive for most businesses.
An appeal against the decision is likely. In the meantime, companies with a Facebook presence should be doing two things:
hiring expert community managers
lobbying platforms for better moderation tools.
Better moderation tools might include introducing moderation dashboards and audit trails, giving users the chance to pre-moderate all comments, the ability to edit and move comments, and easier means of managing suspended and banned users.
Community managers are a new and highly educated sector of the digital workforce. They build and facilitate online groups, as well as oversee moderation.
The results of the Australian Community Manager’s (ACM) network annual survey released this week show that this is a smart and highly feminised workforce. 82% have graduate qualifications and 72% are women.
Oddly, while most companies now use Facebook for customer engagement and promotion, many don’t yet employ senior professionals to oversee their community building.
Many employers and recruiters still see social media and online community manager roles as “junior and low skilled”. This is despite the fact that these professionals are often on the front line of client relations. They manage complex social infrastructure and handle tricky publishing decisions – such as what comments are legal, and which ones could lead to toxic conversations.
Venessa Paech, an expert in community management, addresses SWARM, the Australian Community Managers conference.Author provided
Only 22% of community professionals surveyed by the ACM said their role is understood and valued by the organisations they work with.
In light of the Rothman ruling, ACM founder and convenor Venessa Paech says:
…now more than ever companies need to recognise the value of having professionals manage their communities and social media sites, and planning ways to discourage the posting of harmful content.
The ACM survey looked closely at the types of platforms managers businesses are using to host online groups. It found Facebook hosted the most used non-specialist applications for building community:
Instagram
Groups
Workplace.
Facebook Groups, the platform’s initial venture into community software has increased in popularity from 20% to 23% since last year’s survey. Facebook Workplace, its move into enterprise online community, grew 10% in the same period.
The ACM revealed that the issues community managers most wanted to discuss with their platform hosts were better management and moderation tools.
Top issues community managers most want to discuss with their platform provider
ACM Career Survey 2019
As one respondent said:
I run a project that is often impacted by hate speech and online harassment. I would love to have a closer relationship with the platform provider’s staff to ensure they support us and share insight into how content and comment moderation is evolving on their end.
That brings us to the second step Australian publishers need to take to tackle illegal speech online – lobbying Facebook and other platforms for effective community management and moderation tools.
The Rothman ruling, unworkable as it is, is just the latest indication of how the judiciary and governments worldwide are bent on regulating platforms to control illegal speech.
As digital law scholar Nic Suzor has noted, there is an increasing sense that technology companies do not have our consent to govern the social world in the way they have been for the past decade.
The question then is whether it’s more effective for regulators to work with platforms to devise better moderation approaches, than to unilaterally punish them, or their users (such as media outlets), for breaches of speech laws.
While Rothman’s ruling does the former, Scott Morrison’s recent Sharing of Abhorrent Violent Materials Act does the latter. And yet there is no guarantee that either is a solution to preventing harmful content from being posted and spread.
Instead, as UN Secretary-General António Guterres said on Wednesday, in order to tackle the “tsunami of hatred” that is gathering speed across the world online it’s necessary to work with the platforms towards solutions.
So if you’re a Facebook publisher the time is ripe to reach out, to tell the platform what you need to keep your community safe and successful. And if you don’t know where to start, hire an online community manager to help.
Menstrual symptoms including pain, heavy bleeding and low mood may be linked to nearly nine days of lost productivity per woman every year, according to a new study published in the British Medical Journal this week.
The researchers evaluated lost productivity associated with menstrual symptoms, as measured by time off from work or school (absenteeism) and working or studying while feeling ill (presenteeism), in 32,748 Dutch women between the ages of 15 and 45.
While just under 14% of respondents said they had taken time off from work or school during their periods, more than 80% said they had continued to work or study while feeling unwell, and were less productive as a result.
These findings tell us we need to better recognise the impact menstrual symptoms are having on women.
Period pain is common
We recently reviewed the literature and found that globally, almost three-quarters (71%) of adolescents and women under 25 reported having period pain.
Period pain (dysmenorrhoea) is perhaps the most common symptom associated with menstruation. It’s characterised by pain in the lower abdomen that usually occurs just before or during the first few days of a woman’s period. Period pain can be mild for some women, but more severe, and even debilitating, for others.
Primary dysmenorrhoea is the most common type of period pain and is mostly caused by changes in hormone-like compounds called prostaglandins, which are responsible for the cramping feeling many women report during their period.
Secondary dysmenorrhoea occurs when pain is caused by an underlying problem in the pelvis, such as endometriosis or adenomyosis.
In our research, one in five young women (20%) reported missing school or university due to period pain. Two in five (41%) said pain affected their concentration or performance in class.
More than 70% of adolescents and young women up to 25 experience period pain.From shutterstock.com
Women in our research also missed social activities, other school activities and sporting activities because of their menstrual symptoms. This is concerning as social interaction and participation in physical activity are important for good health, particularly during adolescence.
Just part of being a woman?
Many women think of period pain and other menstrual symptoms as “normal”. They don’t always recognise that their pain may be a health problem, and often believe it’s just something they need to “put up with”.
So most young women use self care to manage the pain themselves rather than seeking medical care. This is likely due to a variety of factors, including not discussing menstruation because of social or cultural taboos, a lack of quality education on menstruation, feeling dismissed by medical professionals, or the pain occurring for so long it just becomes “normal”.
While mild pain or discomfort could be seen as part of a “normal” menstrual cycle, if pain or any other menstrual symptoms are enough to prevent normal activities such as going to school or work, it’s important to go and speak to your doctor.
Moderate to severe period pain alone doesn’t necessarily mean you have a condition like endometriosis, but it’s likely that something can be done to help reduce the impact of your pain.
There is a range of effective treatments for period pain, although there’s no “one-size-fits-all” approach that works for every woman. Some women may require multiple strategies to get their pain and symptoms to a level that doesn’t impact their daily lives.
Non-steroidal anti-inflammatories such as ibuprofen, and to a lesser extent the oral contraceptive pill, can be effective in treating primary dysmenorrhoea. Both treatments carry the risk of side effects, so should be discussed with a doctor.
Paracetamol, despite being commonly used for period pain, doesn’t appear to be particularly effective.
There’s some evidence that heat and regular physical activity can help. Heat seems to work best if used when pain is present, whereas exercise, such as yoga, is better if it’s done regularly throughout the month.
‘Period’ isn’t a dirty word
While symptom management is important, increasing young women’s health literacy around menstruation is equally vital. Improving education on menstruation may help women make better self-care choices like choosing more effective pain-relieving medications and taking the correct dose.
Several programs in Australia and New Zealand have been designed to help young people better understand the menstrual cycle. These include programs aimed at early adolescents, either at home or school.
The content of school-based programs varies but includes topics such as what a “normal” menstrual cycle looks like and how to identify symptoms that might indicate more serious conditions. Importantly, these programs generally target boys too, which should help reduce the stigma around discussing periods.
Whether at school, university or in the workplace, menstrual symptoms cause absenteeism and presenteeism among a significant proportion of women. We need to break down barriers that prevent open discussion of periods, so women of all ages feel they can discuss any period-related problems with their boss, teachers, family or doctor.
Secrecy and shame around periods can prevent access to effective health care. Ensuring menstruating women of all ages have the information they need to choose the best way to manage their pain and symptoms is vital.
Studies of vintage Australian architecture and home publications suggest a hillside house at Church Point, built in 1948 by long-forgotten architect John Lander Browne, was Sydney’s first notable postwar interpretation of Frank Lloyd Wright’s organic (“natural”) principles for designing houses.
Wright’s Prairie houses (1906-09) ignited one side of modernism’s “great dialogue” about designing buildings either to harmonise with their natural surroundings or to appear superior – like abstract sculptures glistening above manicured lawns. At first he avoided painting his exteriors — in contrast to 1920s European modernists (led by Bauhaus School professors Le Corbusier, Walter Gropius, Marcel Breuer and Ludwig Mies van der Rohe).
They pioneered the “international style” of whitewashed masonry and steel-framed glass houses.
Sydney School residences were labelled “nuts and berries” because they exposed rustic materials like brick, timber and stone. This differentiated them from modern Sydney houses that were painted.
Architect Peter Muller talks about his design of the Audette house.
Muller became the most internationally successful architect from the Sydney School. He transferred Wright’s principles and his own Asia-Buddhist experiences to produce supra-romantic village resorts in Indonesia.
And Seidler became Australia’s stellar modernist across all building types, especially the symbols of American capitalism: skyscrapers.
Most Sydney architects didn’t take sides in the style war as starkly as Muller and Seidler.
They copied new ideas from America, Britain, Scandinavia and Europe and combined these with traditional Mediterranean, South American, colonial and Oriental concepts that were introduced to Sydney before the war.
In a 1948 article for Britain’s Architectural Review (AR), visiting English architect Ryan Westwood “looked in vain for something that might be called an ‘Australian’ architecture”.
He noted:
inspiration has evidently sprung from Europe with latterly a crop of plagiarisms from California.
In AR’s September 1951 edition, Melbourne architect-critic Robin Boyd satirised the visual similarities of houses by Australian architects who were thought to be ideologically opposed. Boyd applauded signs of “a new eclecticism”.
Robin Boyd featured Harry Seidler’s Rose Seidler House at Wahroonga in his article on ‘opposing schools’.A New Eclecticism, Architecture Review, September 1951
Magazines show that in the late 1940s and early 1950s (pre-television) many Sydney architects were planning houses around prominent fireplaces and chimneys that were hand-built with rough-hewn sandstone blocks. And most avoided the modern concept of flat roofs, which often leaked and were usually opposed by local councils and neighbours.
Sketch by Sydney architect John D. Moore for a practical suburban house that could be built for young families.Home Again! (1944)
Mid-career practitioner Sydney Ancher won the Royal Australian Institute of Architects’ 1945 Sulman Medal (best building in New South Wales) for a slate-gabled house. It was painted pale pink to suit the gum trees on his Killara site.
John Lander Browne’s organic house included one of Sydney’s first postwar flat roofs. Set high on a steep site, it was accessed via a garden path and sandstone steps leading up to large terrace. Both storeys were clad in dark-stained weatherboards, offset by white window frames. (This was a Swedish strategy that might have helped to refract Northern Europe’s faint sunlight indoors.)
The house featured in George Beiers’ 1948 book, Houses of Australia, and in Westwood’s AR article.
Wright’s organic approach also inspired England-born architect Douglas Snelling, who switched from commercial graphics and interior design after his second working visit to Los Angeles in 1948. He was overlooked in key articles about Sydney modernism — by Milo Dunphy (1962), Jennifer Taylor (1970s-1990s), Stanislaus Fung (1985) and other postmodernist historiographers who aim to retrospectively define Sydney modernism.
But Snelling’s brick, cedar and sandstone residences were strongly promoted in 1950s magazines. They deserve recognition now as pioneering contributions to the Sydney School.
The Hay (Richmond) House at St Ives, by Douglas Snelling (1950-53).Max Dupain, Author providedDerek Wrigley’s first owner-built house at Dee Why (c1949).Author provided
Another English architect, Derek Wrigley, built two modest homes for himself on steep sites at Dee Why in the late 1940s and early 1950s.
Today, he claims these reflected the Bauhaus teachings of his main design professor in Manchester. But old Sydney magazines show a Wright-style stone fireplace in Wrigley’s butterfly-roofed first house (OB1) and a California conical metal fireplace resting on a large rock projecting into the living room of his second residence (OB2).
Wrigley and Snelling both seem to have appreciated innovation, but they shared Wright’s basic alignment with nature.
East Sydney Tech lecturer Phyllis Shillito’s 1954 book, 60 Beach and Holiday Homes, included a varnished weatherboard house in Hunters Hill by J. Lindsay Sever, another forgotten Sydney modern architect. This was influenced by Wright’s Taliesin West compound in the Arizona desert and deserves inclusion in future histories of the Sydney School.
House by J. Lindsay Sever at Hunters Hill (1954).Ted Wood, in 60 Beach and Holiday Homes, Phyllis Shillito, Author provided
Shillito’s book also includes classic white residences by Sydney Ancher and Arthur Baldwinson, and key European emigrés — Hugo Stossel, Aaron Bolot, Hans Peter Oser and Harry Divola — whose houses are excellent interpretations of the international style, built on remarkable coastal and bush sites in Sydney. But their works seem inconsistent with the basically Wrightian organic agenda that underpinned the Sydney School.
The heyday of the Sydney School was the mid-1950s to the early 1970s. During this time, younger Sydney architects were interpreting Wright’s followers in southern California and Scandinavia.
Wright died in 1959, causing the CIAM group leading the international style to disband. Then Wright’s greatest opponents, Le Corbusier, Gropius and Mies, died in the mid-to-late 1960s. And modernism moved on.
Many favoured face brick and stained timber and replaced flat roofs with canopies raked at unusual angles. Some also introduced a cross-sectional strategy of central staircases and staggered floor levels. Their houses were intended not merely to harmonise with their sites but to dramatise Sydney’s extraordinary topography and vegetation.
Where does Brutalism fit in?
There is one major conundrum involved in classifying modern Sydney houses built after the second world war. Does Brutalism belong to the Sydney School?
Brutalism was a deliberately crude and visually aggressive style of building with rough-cast, unpainted cement. It was pioneered by Le Corbusier and artist Jean Dubuffet after their 1945 visit to Switzerland, gathering artworks by patients in mental asylums.
Dubuffet’s 1947 Art Brut manifesto celebrated primitive and psychotic creativity. Le Corbusier’s later housing complex, Unité d’habitation in Marseille (1947-52), physically expressed Dubuffet’s words with béton brut (raw concrete).
Because concrete is made with natural substances (cement and water), it could be interpreted as another strand of the Sydney School’s emphasis on earthy materials.
But Brutalist architecture, as interpreted in late 1940s-1950s Scandinavia and Britain — and by Australians John Andrews and Colin Madigan in the 1960s and 1970s — was mostly limited to government buildings for education, administration, health care and public housing (notably the Tao Gofers-designed Sirius building at Circular Quay).
Sydney School historian Jennifer Taylor identified only one residence, by Tony Moore at North Sydney (1959), as being brutalist in style. Heritage architects from Docomomo now contradict her because Moore’s house was a romantic composition of bricks, timber and tiles. (Although concrete also could appear romantic, as demonstrated in the 1920s by Wright’s protegés, Walter and Marion Griffin, with their Knitlock houses at Castlecrag.)
Today’s specialist on Sydney Brutalism, Glenn Harper, has listed the Harry and Penelope Seidler house in Killara (1966-67), the Hugh and Eva Buhrich House 2 in Castlecrag (1968–72), the Peter Johnson House in Chatswood (1963) and the Bill and Ruth Lucas House in Castlecrag (1957) as examples of Brutalism (although the steel and glass Lucas house and the brick, timber and tile Johnson house did not emphasise concrete, while several all-concrete “60s spaceship” houses by Stan Symonds are often ignored).
Intriguingly, most of the few Sydney houses that have been labelled Brutalist were designed by architects for their own occupation.
It was difficult to persuade aspirational clients to pay for architecture that British theorist Reyner Banham, in a 1955 AR article, recognised for “precisely its brutality – je-m’en foutisme, its bloody-mindedness”.
As China solidifies its new status as superpower and cementing its influence in the Pacific, The Conversation is launching a series looking at what this means for the world – how China maintains its power, how it wields its power and how its power might be threatened.
Chinese leader Xi Jinping took power as head of the Chinese Communist Party – the most important position in China – in late 2012. Today, nearly seven years on, he is one of the most recognisable figures on the world stage.
In a short period of time, Xi has concentrated power to himself and established a remarkably influential role, nearly unprecedented among Chinese leaders since 1949.
Yet, while he is certainly powerful, he is also vulnerable. He faces massive challenges on the grandest of scales: a simmering trade war with the US, slowing economic growth, increasing concern among China’s neighbours about his more assertive use of the country’s economic and military might.
Given these enormous internal and external challenges, the biggest question for Xi is how he will maintain his absolute grip on power and legitimacy in the eyes of the Chinese people.
-Partners-
He has promised them a better life in a stronger and more prosperous China. And he has gone a long way to deliver on those promises. But many challenges loom ahead.
From princeling to party leader This year, the People’s Republic of China turns 70. And Xi, its paramount leader, turned 66 last month. No other Chinese leader’s life so closely parallels the life of the PRC – and that explains a lot about Xi’s mindset and his ambitions for China.
As the son of a vice premier and revolutionary hero, Xi was born into great privilege in June 1953. He was considered a “princeling”, the term for the children of the country’s most powerful elites.
In his youth, he attended the August 1st School for the children of high-ranking cadres in Beijing and spent time inside the walls of Zhongnanhai, the seat of Communist Party power. He was destined for leadership.
Xi Jinping’s father meeting the Panchen Lama in 1951. Image: Wikimedia Commons
All of this came crashing down in 1962 when Mao Zedong purged Xi’s father from the party, accusing him of harbouring dangerous “rightist” views.
When the Cultural Revolution descended on China in the late 1960s, the younger Xi was sent to the countryside. He spent seven formative years – from age 15 to 22 – in rural Shaanxi province, working with the local peasantry.
By 1979, when Deng Xiaoping launched China on its historic reform drive, Xi embarked on his own fast track to the top. Over the next 30 years, he ascended through party and government ranks, serving in increasingly senior postings, mostly in the rapidly growing eastern provinces of China.
In early 2007, he became the party chief of Shanghai, but was only in that post for seven months before he was elevated to the Politburo Standing Committee, making him one of the nine most powerful men in China. Five years later, he was installed as general secretary of the Chinese Communist Party and, the following year, became China’s president.
In those 60 years, Xi experienced China’s own coming of age, from its early struggles with nation-building, to the depths of Maoist excess, to its spectacular rise to great power status.
This life experience has made him what he is today: a confident risk-taker who remains insistent on the communist party’s indispensable role in the country’s success and tenaciously focused on achieving China’s expansive national ambitions.
Surveillance, crackdowns and absolute power Once in power, Xi moved to solidify his position. He saw weakness at the heart of the party, owing to lax ideological discipline and pervasive corruption. And so he launched attacks on both.
Much of his early popularity among the Chinese public came from his high-profile anti-corruption drive targeting the country’s elites. This campaign not only sent fear across ranks of the party and the People’s Liberation Army (PLA), it also helped Xi remove rivals and roadblocks to his grand plans for national revival.
Xi’s supporters also made powerful use of the party’s propaganda machinery to create an aura of wisdom and benevolence around Xi – one not seen since the days of the “Great Helmsman”, Chairman Mao.
By 2015, he was able to launch a massive reorganisation of the PLA to transform it from a bloated, corrupt, untested and inward-looking military to one far more capable of projecting China’s power abroad and far more loyal to Xi and the party.
The new-look People’s Liberation Army. Image: Wu Hong/EPA
At the same time, he has also overseen the most sweeping crackdown on dissent since the Tiananmen protests in 1989, introducing all manner of surveillance, censorship, and other intrusions into people’s lives to ensure order and obedience to the party’s authority.
He also centralised decision-making authority ever closer to himself, eclipsing the authority of Premier Li Keqiang. Xi is now in charge of nearly all the key bodies overseeing economic reform, foreign affairs, internal security, innovation and technology, and more.
And, just to be sure everyone understands who is boss, Xi orchestrated the inclusion of “Xi Jinping Thought” into the party’s constitution to guide the country into a “new era” of national rejuvenation. He also saw to the removal of term limits on his presidency, in effect allowing him to stay in power for life.
Xi has been equally bold as a leader on the international stage, setting out an extremely ambitious foreign policy agenda.
Under Xi’s watch, China has greatly expanded surveillance over its citizens. Image: Roman Pilipey/EPA
Xi who must be obeyed? It would seem Xi has had a remarkable run. But, strangely, his actions make it appear otherwise. A quick checklist of Xi’s moves in the past seven years suggests an increasingly nervous leader:
increasingly consolidating power to himself
imposing obedience within the party and public
reasserting party control over the PLA
blanketing the country with intrusive surveillance systems
He surely has much to worry about. His reforms and crackdowns have created many enemies and much disgruntlement, especially among elites. Income disparity has grown as wealth has become concentrated in fewer hands. The pace of China’s economic growth is slowing. Localised unrest is common.
Analysts say much bolder economic reform is needed to avoid the stagnation of the “middle income trap.” China is also facing a perilous demographic future as the population ages and people have fewer children. And Xi’s ambitions at home and abroad are increasingly being met with push-back – not least from the United States – leading some in China to question whether he has over-reached.
Xi Jinping has sought to reclaim China’s status on the global stage, raising fears about its long-term objectives. Image: Alexei Druzhinin/Sputnik pool/EPA
But the biggest challenge is how to continue maintaining economic growth and social stability without losing the party’s absolute political control. It’s the same challenge every Chinese leader since Deng has faced.
Embarking on political and economic reforms would help ensure a more prosperous, stable and just future for the country. But doing so would surely undercut the one-party rule of the communist party.
On the other hand, foregoing these changes in favour of tighter control risks future stagnation and possibly instability.
Xi has chosen to double-down on the latter course. He clearly sees the party’s extensive system of ideology, propaganda, surveillance and control as absolutely necessary to achieving the Chinese Dream – the country’s re-emergence as a powerful, wealthy and respected great power.
From this perspective, we will likely see a continued tightening of the party’s grip on power for as long as Xi is in charge, which could well last into the late-2020s or beyond.
Whether or not the outside world ultimately respects Xi’s autocratic approach to power and leadership, he is convinced it is best for China and, by extension, benefits the world.
A Pacific Media Centre collaborator has won the inaugural Sean Dorney Grant for Pacific Journalism at the 2019 Walkley Mid-Year Celebration.
Vanuatu-based Australian photojournalist Ben Bohane was awarded the $10,000 grant out of 22 applicants for his ongoing work in the Autonomous Region of Bougainville in Papua New Guinea.
According to academic and principal of TNC Pacific Consulting, Dr Tess Newton Cain, who helped establish the grant, the money will allow Bohane to spend a period of about four weeks in Bougainville as the people of that province prepare to cast their votes in an independence referendum on October 17.
“His was one of several proposals that focused on Bougainville,” she said.
Bohane has covered the Pacific for 30 years. His work has been both acclaimed and arresting and has featured photos and interviews from all South Pacific conflicts, including West Papua and East Timor.
-Partners-
He has the largest personal photo archive of the South Pacific in the world and two of his portfolios have featured in Pacific Journalism Review.
While travelling and living with tribal groups in the Solomon Islands in the early 1990s, he was able to secure the first pictures of Bougainville Revolutionary Army leader Francis Ona and the only interview and pictures of Guadalcanal warlord Harold Keke.
Civil War coverage “Ben has been covering Bougainville for many years, including during the civil war period,” Newton Cain said.
“It was in Bougainville that he and Sean Dorney first met.”
Grant namesake Sean Dorney is an Australian journalist and foreign correspondent who covered Papua New Guinea and the Pacific for 40 years.
The grant was sponsored in recognition of his huge contribution and the importance of getting the real stories of the Pacific and of Pacific people in front of Australian audiences, Newton Cain said.
“I hope this grant will go some way to stimulating an interest in the Australian media to tell their audiences more and better stories about the countries in their immediate region.”
“Next to seeing this grant awarded, the best news I could hear is that an editor has said to one of the unsuccessful applicants “that Pacific story you pitched is an important one, we are going to do it anyway.””
Astronomers have spent the past dozen years hunting for fast radio bursts (FRBs) – flashes of radio waves that come from outer space and last just milliseconds. And after a dozen years of work we still don’t know exactly what causes them, only that it must be something very powerful, as they’ve clearly travelled a long way (billions of light-years).
FRBs are difficult to study because they’re unpredictable, hard to detect, and when you find one you need a special kind of telescope to get the right resolution to work out which galaxy it came from.
Most FRBs appear only once, although a couple of per cent of them are “repeaters” that reappear at the same spot in the sky (although not in any regular pattern).
In research published today online in Science, we’ve managed to locate the home galaxy of a one-off FRB – the first time anyone has done this. In 2017, another team determined the home galaxy of a repeater, but that’s (relatively) easy job: it repeats, so you get a chance to point other telescopes at that spot on the sky. Our challenge was much harder.
Our FRB is called 180924. We determined it originated in a galaxy with the catchy name of DES J214425.25–405400.81, which is about 4 billion light years away in the constellation of Grus (the crane).
The discovery of the precise location of a powerful one-off burst of cosmic radio waves was made with CSIRO’s new Australian Square Kilometre Array Pathfinder (ASKAP) radio telescope in Western Australia. Credit: CSIRO/Sam Moorfield
For some years we’ve been using CSIRO’s newest telescope, the Australian Square Kilometre Array Pathfinder (ASKAP), to find quite a few fast radio bursts.
But in the past few months we’ve been setting up our new killer app, a “live action replay” that would let us localise an FRB for the first time.
One of us (Shivani) was working late one night, studying a previously discovered FRB and also monitoring the ongoing ASKAP observations. Around 1am she noticed that ASKAP’s software had stopped working, and ASKAP wasn’t recording any data. She restarted the software and headed to bed.
The next morning Shivani woke up, checked her inbox, and saw ASKAP had sent her a lovely message: it had found an FRB!
Top panel: FRB180924 was only 1.3 milliseconds long. Bottom panel: This image shows the brightness of FRB180924 at different radio frequencies and times. The curved shape from top-left to bottom-right is due to an effect called dispersion. The gas the FRB travels through slows down the FRB at lower frequencies, causing it to arrive later. This effect allows astronomers to measure how much gas the FRB has gone through on its journey to the Earth.CSIRO/Shivani Bhandari
But it meant more than that: we knew that our new live action replay had worked, and we would finally be able to find out this FRB’s home.
Keith saw ASKAP’s message too, and ran cheering through his house, waking up his children (who were as pleased as he was, having lived through their dad’s quest for FRBs from day one).
Then followed a ten-day frenzy of data processing, coding, checking and double-checking. We would stop at nothing less than the name, address and phone number of this burst.
We split our team into two groups that worked independently. When it came time for the final check, we put two images on top of each other and they agreed. The two groups had localised this FRB to exactly the same part of the sky. We had determined its position to within the size of a galaxy. If there was a galaxy there, we would know the FRB’s home.
We searched an archive of optical images and quickly found a galaxy at the right spot. Then we notified our collaborators around the world, who had been waiting to trigger telescopes when we gave them a galaxy to look at.
They used three of the largest optical telescopes in the world – Keck, Gemini South, and the European Southern Observatory’s Very Large Telescope – to make a detailed image of the galaxy and take spectra (which give us its distance).
False color image of DES J514425.25-405400.81, the host galaxy of FRB 180924. This image was taken with the Very Large Telescope (VLT). FRB180924 came from somewhere inside the black circle, roughly 13,000 light years from the center of the galaxy.Curtin-ICRAR/Jean-Pierre Macquart
When the data came in, everything was a surprise. The only other “home” galaxy we had to compare it with was the repeater’s. Our FRB’s galaxy was 1,000 times bigger, and contained much older stars.
What’s more, our FRB came not from the centre of the galaxy, as some astronomers had expected, but from its outskirts (or at least its suburbs). At the very least, this means our FRB wasn’t produced by a gigantic black hole at the galaxy’s centre (one of the many ideas that’s been on offer).
Even with just a sample of two, we can say that FRBs have diverse home galaxies.
The Milky Way galaxy stretches above the core group of CSIRO’s Australian Square Kilometre Array Pathfinder (ASKAP) radio telescope.CSIRO/Alex Cherney
What’s more, now we can pinpoint where the bursts come from we can use them as tools.
FRBs interact with matter as they travel through space and are altered by all these encounters. We can “read” these alterations, combine them with how far the FRBs have come from, and work out how much matter they’ve met.
We hope that this will uncover the so-called “missing matter” that astronomers have been fretting over for years. This is not the notorious “dark matter” (whose nature we don’t know), but just run-of-the-mill baryonic matter that we think should be in space yet haven’t been able to detect very well. At long last we’ll be able to tidy up our cosmic accounting.
What’s in store?
The next task is to localise many FRBs so as to obtain enough to understand their cosmic evolution, the type of galaxies they come from and ultimately solve the mystery of their origins. The fun has just begun!
When Malcom Turnbull was challenged by Peter Dutton in August 2018 for the leadership of the Liberal Party, and ultimately the prime ministership, Turnbull apparently asserted that the governor-general would not appoint a person whose eligibility to hold the office was in doubt.
His attorney-general, Christian Porter, reportedly replied that Turnbull was “wrong in law” and that the governor-general could only have regard to issues of confidence.
Who was right, and what might have happened if Dutton had been chosen as leader of the Liberal Party?
Not a choice between Dutton and Turnbull
The governor-general can only act to fill a vacancy in the prime ministership if there is one. If Dutton had defeated Turnbull in a leadership challenge, this would not itself have vacated the office of prime minister. Turnbull would have continued as prime minister until he resigned (or in extreme circumstances, was dismissed). So the governor-general would not have faced the question of whether or not to appoint Dutton as prime minister until Turnbull had indicated he was going to resign.
The choice would then have been between Dutton and whoever else the governor-general considered was most likely to hold the confidence of the house. It would be unlikely that the governor-general would seek to reappoint the prime minister who had just resigned, unless he was the only person who could hold the confidence of the lower house.
This would seem most unlikely in the circumstances.
What if Turnbull had advised the governor-general to appoint someone else?
The more plausible scenario would have been that Turnbull resigned as prime minister but advised the governor-general to appoint someone other than Dutton, such as Julie Bishop, due to concerns about Dutton’s possible disqualification under section 44 of the Constitution. This raises the question of whether the advice of an outgoing prime minister about who should be his or her successor is conventionally binding on the governor-general.
Ordinarily, the principle of responsible government requires the governor-general to act on the advice of ministers who are responsible for that advice to parliament, and through parliament to the people.
But that principle only works when the minister continues to be responsible for that advice. An outgoing prime minister necessarily ceases to be responsible to parliament for advice about his or her successor. The governor-general is instead obliged, by convention, to appoint as prime minister the person who is most likely to command the confidence of the lower house, regardless of what the outgoing prime minister advises.
While this is the orthodox constitutional position, there is still some controversy about it. When Kevin Rudd defeated Julia Gillard for the leadership of the Labor Party in 2013, it was not clear whether the crossbenchers who supported the minority Gillard government would support Rudd.
The then governor-general, Quentin Bryce, sought advice from the acting solicitor-general as to whether to appoint Rudd as prime minister on the basis of Gillard’s advice. The acting solicitor-general advised that the governor-general should do so, and appeared to take the view that the outgoing prime minister’s advice was conventionally binding.
He did not advise the governor-general that her sole consideration should be who held the confidence of the house.
Who advises the governor-general on legal issues?
If, in 2018, the governor-general had sought legal advice about his powers and the conventions that govern them, two questions would have arisen. First, who should provide the advice? Should it be the solicitor-general, the attorney-general, or the even the prime minister?
In 1975, when the governor-general asked for legal advice, the prime minister, Gough Whitlam, said it could only come through him. The attorney-general and the solicitor-general prepared a joint draft advice, but it was not provided promptly.
When a frustrated governor-general, Sir John Kerr, called in the attorney-general to get the advice, he was presented with a draft that the attorney-general apparently said he had not carefully read and did not necessarily reflect his views. Kerr later, controversially, sought the advice of the chief justice, Sir Garfield Barwick.
In more recent times, the solicitor-general has provided advice to the governor-general, as occurred in 2013. Even then, that advice was controversial, as it addressed how the governor-general “should” act, rather than simply advising on the powers and conventions that applied and leaving the governor-general to decide how to apply them.
There is currently no clear position in Australia on who should provide legal advice to the governor-general and the constraints upon the type of advice that should be given. This needs to be addressed in the future.
What happens when advice conflicts?
The second question is how the governor-general should deal with conflicting advice, which in 2018 was a real possibility.
For example, the solicitor-general could have taken the same view as the previous acting solicitor-general – that the advice of the outgoing prime minister is binding. The attorney-general, Christian Porter, apparently took the view that it was not binding, and that the governor-general should only consider who held the confidence of the house.
The prime minister is likely to have taken the view that the governor-general was bound to act on his advice not to appoint Dutton as prime minister, or that if the governor-general had a discretion, he should take into account the doubts about legal eligibility and refuse to appoint a person who might be disqualified from parliament.
There is no rule book that tells the governor-general how to deal with conflicting legal and ministerial advice. Ultimately, in this case, it was a reserve power that was in question and the discretion was a matter for the governor-general to exercise.
Confidence and eligibility when appointing a prime minister
Assuming the governor-general accepted the orthodox view that the appointment of a prime minister is a reserve power governed by the convention that the prime minister should hold the confidence of the lower house, what should he have done in this scenario?
The first issue is one of confidence. It is not certain that even if Dutton had been appointed leader of the Liberal Party, he would have held the confidence of the house. There may well have been defections that altered the balance of power.
Hence the governor-general, as occurred in 2013, could have required an assurance to be given by the prospective prime minister that he would immediately face the house to allow it to determine confidence.
The second issue concerns eligibility. The governor-general is obliged to obey the Constitution. If the Constitution plainly prohibits action, such as appointing a prime minister in certain circumstances, the governor-general is obliged to obey it.
But where the legal question is contestable, it is not up to the governor-general to determine it. In this case, the Constitution and the law confer the power on the relevant house, or the High Court acting as the Court of Disputed Returns, to determine disqualification from parliament.
Further, the Constitution allows a person to be a minister, without holding a seat in parliament, for up to three months. So the governor-general could legally have appointed Dutton as prime minister, but might first have required his assurance that he would ensure his eligibility was resolved by a reference to the High Court.
In this way, the governor-general would have protected the Constitution and the rule of law while still complying with the principle of responsible government. Of course, he may have had some difficulty persuading Dutton to give those assurances. But this is precisely why we appoint as governor-general people with the authority and gravitas to ensure that the Constitution is respected and upheld.
As China solidifies its new status as superpower, we’re launching a series looking at what this means for the world – how China maintains its power, how it wields its power and how its power might be threatened.
Chinese leader Xi Jinping took power as head of the Chinese Communist Party – the most important position in China – in late 2012. Today, nearly seven years on, he is one of the most recognisable figures on the world stage.
Yet, while he already commands the destiny of some 1.4 billion Chinese people, and seeks to shape, in his words, “a common future for mankind”, he remains an enigmatic leader.
In a short period of time, Xi has concentrated power to himself and established a remarkably influential role, nearly unprecedented among Chinese leaders since 1949.
Yet, while he is certainly powerful, he is also vulnerable. He faces massive challenges on the grandest of scales: a simmering trade war with the US, slowing economic growth, increasing concern among China’s neighbours about his more assertive use of the country’s economic and military might.
Given these enormous internal and external challenges, the biggest question for Xi is how he will maintain his absolute grip on power and legitimacy in the eyes of the Chinese people.
He has promised them a better life in a stronger and more prosperous China. And he has gone a long way to deliver on those promises. But many challenges loom ahead.
From princeling to party leader
This year, the People’s Republic of China turns 70. And Xi, its paramount leader, turned 66 last month. No other Chinese leader’s life so closely parallels the life of the PRC – and that explains a lot about Xi’s mindset and his ambitions for China.
As the son of a vice premier and revolutionary hero, Xi was born into great privilege in June 1953. He was considered a “princeling”, the term for the children of the country’s most powerful elites. In his youth, he attended the August 1st School for the children of high-ranking cadres in Beijing and spent time inside the walls of Zhongnanhai, the seat of Communist Party power. He was destined for leadership.
Xi Jinping’s father meeting the Panchen Lama in 1951.Wikimedia Commons
All of this came crashing down in 1962 when Mao Zedong purged Xi’s father from the party, accusing him of harbouring dangerous “rightist” views.
Xi Jinping (left) with his brother, Xi Yuanping, and father, Xi Zhongxun, in 1958.Wikimedia Commons
When the Cultural Revolution descended on China in the late 1960s, the younger Xi was sent to the countryside. He spent seven formative years – from age 15 to 22 – in rural Shaanxi province, working with the local peasantry.
By 1979, when Deng Xiaoping launched China on its historic reform drive, Xi embarked on his own fast track to the top. Over the next 30 years, he ascended through party and government ranks, serving in increasingly senior postings, mostly in the rapidly growing eastern provinces of China.
In early 2007, he became the party chief of Shanghai, but was only in that post for seven months before he was elevated to the Politburo Standing Committee, making him one of the nine most powerful men in China. Five years later, he was installed as general secretary of the Chinese Communist Party and, the following year, became China’s president.
In those 60 years, Xi experienced China’s own coming of age, from its early struggles with nation-building, to the depths of Maoist excess, to its spectacular rise to great power status.
This life experience has made him what he is today: a confident risk-taker who remains insistent on the communist party’s indispensable role in the country’s success and tenaciously focused on achieving China’s expansive national ambitions.
Surveillance, crackdowns and absolute power
Once in power, Xi moved to solidify his position. He saw weakness at the heart of the party, owing to lax ideological discipline and pervasive corruption. And so he launched attacks on both.
Much of his early popularity among the Chinese public came from his high-profile anti-corruption drive targeting the country’s elites. This campaign not only sent fear across ranks of the party and the People’s Liberation Army (PLA), it also helped Xi remove rivals and roadblocks to his grand plans for national revival.
Xi’s supporters also made powerful use of the party’s propaganda machinery to create an aura of wisdom and benevolence around Xi – one not seen since the days of the “Great Helmsman”, Chairman Mao.
By 2015, he was able to launch a massive reorganisation of the PLA to transform it from a bloated, corrupt, untested and inward-looking military to one far more capable of projecting China’s power abroad and far more loyal to Xi and the party.
The new-look People’s Liberation Army.Wu Hong/EPA
At the same time, he has also overseen the most sweeping crackdown on dissent since the Tiananmen protests in 1989, introducing all manner of surveillance, censorship, and other intrusions into people’s lives to ensure order and obedience to the party’s authority.
He also centralised decision-making authority ever closer to himself, eclipsing the authority of Premier Li Keqiang. Xi is now in charge of nearly all the key bodies overseeing economic reform, foreign affairs, internal security, innovation and technology, and more.
And, just to be sure everyone understands who is boss, Xi orchestrated the inclusion of “Xi Jinping Thought” into the party’s constitution to guide the country into a “new era” of national rejuvenation. He also saw to the removal of term limits on his presidency, in effect allowing him to stay in power for life.
Xi has been equally bold as a leader on the international stage, setting out an extremely ambitious foreign policy agenda.
Under Xi’s watch, China has greatly expanded surveillance over its citizens.Roman Pilipey/EPA
Xi who must be obeyed?
It would seem Xi has had a remarkable run. But, strangely, his actions make it appear otherwise. A quick checklist of Xi’s moves in the past seven years suggests an increasingly nervous leader:
increasingly consolidating power to himself
imposing obedience within the party and public
reasserting party control over the PLA
blanketing the country with intrusive surveillance systems
He surely has much to worry about. His reforms and crackdowns have created many enemies and much disgruntlement, especially among elites. Income disparity has grown as wealth has become concentrated in fewer hands. The pace of China’s economic growth is slowing. Localised unrest is common.
Analysts say much bolder economic reform is needed to avoid the stagnation of the “middle income trap.” China is also facing a perilous demographic future as the population ages and people have fewer children. And Xi’s ambitions at home and abroad are increasingly being met with push-back – not least from the United States – leading some in China to question whether he has over-reached.
Xi Jinping has sought to reclaim China’s status on the global stage, raising fears about its long-term objectives.Alexei Druzhinin/Sputnik pool/EPA
But the biggest challenge is how to continue maintaining economic growth and social stability without losing the party’s absolute political control. It’s the same challenge every Chinese leader since Deng has faced.
Embarking on political and economic reforms would help ensure a more prosperous, stable and just future for the country. But doing so would surely undercut the one-party rule of the communist party.
On the other hand, foregoing these changes in favour of tighter control risks future stagnation and possibly instability.
Xi has chosen to double-down on the latter course. He clearly sees the party’s extensive system of ideology, propaganda, surveillance and control as absolutely necessary to achieving the Chinese Dream – the country’s re-emergence as a powerful, wealthy and respected great power.
From this perspective, we will likely see a continued tightening of the party’s grip on power for as long as Xi is in charge, which could well last into the late-2020s or beyond.
Whether or not the outside world ultimately respects Xi’s autocratic approach to power and leadership, he is convinced it is best for China and, by extension, benefits the world.
Australia is in the bottom third of OECD countries when it comes to working long hours, with 13% of us clocking up 50 hours or more a week in paid work.
These long hours are bad for our health. A new study from France has found that regularly working long days of ten hours or more increases our risk of having a stroke.
Other research has found that employees who work long work hours are likely to have poorer mental health and lower-quality sleep.
Long working hours have also been shown to increase likelihood of smoking, excessive drinking, and weight gain.
The effects of regular long work hours on our health are wide-ranging.
The new French study of more than 143 ,000 participants found those who worked ten or more hours a day for at least 50 days per year had a 29% greater risk of stroke.
The association showed no difference between men and women, but was stronger in white-collar workers under 50 years of age.
Another meta-analysis of more than 600,000 people, published in the British medical journal The Lancet, found similar effects. Employees working long hours (40-55 hours per week) have a higher risk of stroke compared with those working standard working hours (35-40 hours per week).
The association between long working hours and stroke was stronger among white-collar workers.Bonneval Sebastien
Irregular work hours, or shift work, has also been associated with a range of negative health and well-being outcomes, including the disruption of our circadian rhythm, sleep, accident rates, mental health, and the risk of having a heart attack.
And it’s not just the physical effects. Regularly working long hours results in poor work-life balance, leading to lower job satisfaction and performance, as well as lower satisfaction with life and relationships.
Why are we working more?
Although many countries have imposed statutory limits on the work week, worldwide around 22% of workers are working more than 48 hours a week. In Japan, long work hours are such a significant issue that karoshi – translated as “death by overwork” – is a legally recognised cause of death.
Concerns around automation, slow wage growth, and increasing underemployment are some of the reasons Australians are working longer. A 2018 study showed Australians worked around 3.2 billion hours in unpaid overtime.
And work doesn’t end for many people when they leave the office. If they aren’t doing extra work at home, taking calls, or attending after-hours meetings online, working second jobs is increasingly becoming the norm. Many Australians now work additional jobs through the gig economy.
The influence of job control
Autonomy and “decision latitude” at work – that is, the level of control over how and when you perform your duties – is a contributing factor to the increased risk of health problems.
Low levels of decision latitude, as well as shift work, are associated with a greater risk of heart attacks and strokes. Individual control plays a significant role in human behaviour; the extent to which we believe we can control our environment considerably impacts our perceptions of and reactions to that environment.
Early psychology research, for example, showed that reactions to the administration of an electric shock were very much influenced by the perception of control the person had over the stimulus (even if they did not actually have control).
Workers who have little autonomy or control are more likely to experience health problems than those who have a high level of control.NeONBRAND
These findings were echoed in data from the Australian Institute of Health and Welfare. It found that a lack of alignment between an individual’s preferences and their actual working hours resulted in lower reported levels of satisfaction and mental health. The results applied both to workers who worked long hours and to those who wanted more hours.
What can employers do?
Effective communication with employees is important. Employees may be unable to complete their work in standard hours, for example, as a result of having to spend excessive amounts of time in meetings.
Employers can take steps to implement policies to ensure that long work isn’t occurring regularly. The Australia Institute holds an annual Go Home on Time Day to encourage employees to achieve work-life balance. While this initiative raises awareness of work hours, going home on time should be the norm rather than the exception.
Increasing employees’ input into their work schedule and hours can have positive effects on performance and well-being.
The design of the workplace to promote well-being is an important factor. Research on shift work has shown that enhancing the workplace by providing food, child care, health care, accessible transport, and recreational facilities can reduce the effects of shift work.
By improving conditions and benefits, employers can help ameliorate the negative health impact of shift work.Asael Peña
Finally, implementing flexible work practices, where employees have some control over their schedule, to encourage work-life balance has been shown to have positive effects on well-being.
Such initiatives require ongoing support. Japan instituted Premium Friday, encouraging employees to go home at 3pm once a month. Initial results, however, showed that only 3.7% of employees took up the initiative. The low take-up can be attributed to a cultural norm of lengthy work days, and a collectivist mindset where employees worry about inconveniencing peers when they take time off.
Given the rise in concerns about future work, and workplace cultures where long hours are the norm, change may be slow in coming about, despite the negative health effects of long work hours.
Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Euan Ritchie, Associate Professor in Wildlife Ecology and Conservation, Centre for Integrative Ecology, School of Life & Environmental Sciences, Deakin University
Bears, wolves, lions and other top predators have a long history of conflict with people – they can threaten our safety and kill livestock.
In our recent study, published in Conservation Biology, we outline how conventional conservation approaches are unlikely to lead to effective coexistence between humans and large carnivores in human-dominated landscapes.
This wicked problem encompasses public safety, agriculture, conservation, animal welfare, and more. Each facet is commonly managed by a different institution working in isolation – often failing to reflect the reality of our highly connected world.
Academia can help foster better institutional arrangements, especially in places like Romania, India and Brazil, where there are substantial populations of people and large carnivores in shared spaces.
In Romania, for instance, bears and wolves live in the same places used by shepherds and their livestock. Guardian dogs typically help protect livestock from being attacked.
Similarly, Australia’s own dingo occurs across agricultural and pastoral regions, with sentiments ranging from protected native species to disliked pest.
Brasov city garbage disposal officers work with wildlife management to help remove attractants that draw bears into the Romanian city.Photo credit: John Linnell, Author provided (No reuse)
From bears in Romania to dingoes in Australia, large carnivores are found in an array of places. This means they regularly affect the interests of a range of institutions, from agriculture to forestry.
But the current arrangements are poorly suited to facilitate a peaceful coexistence between humans and large carnivores.
Typically, institutions focus on a small subset of concerns. Forestry and agricultural sectors, for instance, may not feel responsible for large carnivore conservation because they are primarily interested in timber and agricultural production.
On the other hand, institutions for transport, energy and border security might be indifferent towards large carnivores. But they can negatively affect these animals if they put up barriers restricting predator movement and inappropriately handle roadkill.
Most environment-related professionals, like foresters, wildlife managers and conservation biologists, are trained in a range of academic institutions. Unfortunately, they are often taught narrowly within their sector or discipline.
However, all these future professionals passing through the same institutions provides a great opportunity for a broad change in how we approach difficult conservation challenges and conflict with wildlife.
A leopard being rescued from a well in rural India, where the animals interact with locals regularly.Photo credit: John Linnell
There are at least three ways in which academia could help address the challenges of human and large carnivore coexistence:
1. Break down the silos
Academic institutions need to create special centres to better support teaching and research across different disciplines.
Conservation – and, on a broader level, how humans should relate to the natural world – cannot be siloed away in wildlife management courses.
2. Broaden the view
We need to actively foster a broader perspective that does not see large carnivores as an “enemy”, while still safeguarding human life. This is a complex and multifaceted challenge.
By working across disciplines, universities have the chance to actively foster this broader perspective. This may seem like a nebulous point, but the collapse of species around the world has highlighted how ineffective our current approach to conservation is. We need to move beyond tinkering around the edges of our extinction crisis.
Conservation policy is already equipped to address individual targets such as regulating carnivore populations and legally protecting species. It is the larger aim of changing norms, challenging values and ensuring all these various institutions are pulling in the same direction that we need to tackle – a tactic called the “leverage points approach”.
3. Work outside the academy
Academia could support existing collaborations. When people with shared interests come together to pool knowledge and address a particular issue, we call it a community of practice. Academia can contribute to these communities by offering the skills and expertise of its graduates, but also broader social and industry connections (where required), knowledge sharing, collaborative research, education and technological innovation.
The survival of jaguars in central Brazil is in the hands of stakeholders as diverse as farmers, foresters, road planners, hydro-power and mining engineers, landless peasants, Indigenous people, conservation NGOs and global financial institutions.Photo credit: John Linnell, Author provided (No reuse)
The ongoing controversy regarding the management of the dingo, Australia’s largest land-based predator (aside from humans), provides a perfect test case for this new approach to managing human-wildlife conflict.
If we can achieve more harmonious relations with the world’s top predators, many of the myriad other species that coexist with them are also likely to benefit from both better habitat management and conservation and the important ecological effects large carnivores can have, such as keeping herbivore and smaller predator numbers in check. This can be a positive step towards addressing Earth’s mass extinction crisis.
The authors would like to thank John Linnell, Senior Research Scientist at the Norwegian Institute for Nature Research, for his contribution to this article.
Accessibility – the ease of reaching valued opportunities such as jobs, workers and shops – is the whole reason cities exist. There is no reason to locate anywhere but to be near things, far from things, or to possess things. Access measures this.
Locations with better accessibility to urban opportunities generally have higher development density and more expensive real estate. This is because places with higher accessibility are more productive, so their workers earn higher wages. And modes of transport that reach more opportunities – that is, provide access to places where people work, live, shop, and more – tend to have higher market share.
Our new report, Access Across Australia, for the first time generates a set of consistent maps and graphs of 30-minute access to jobs and workers by each transport mode for each of the eight capital cities. This covers around 70% of the nation’s resident workers and employment opportunities.
The full report compares 10-minute to 60-minute accessibility to both employment locations and to workers’ homes by four modes of transport – car, public transport, walking, and cycling – for each city. It also reports the overall job-worker balance, comparing how many workplaces can be reached to how many competing workers want to reach those same workplaces.
The accessibility measures take into account the effects on travel times of traffic congestion and the walking and transfer elements of the public transport mode.
Accessibility captures the combined effect of land use and transport infrastructure. The faster and more direct the network, the higher the access. The more opportunities (people and places) that can be reached, the higher the accessibility.
This value varies across and between regions. For this article, we show this in maps for Sydney – the full report has maps for all four transport modes, for both jobs and labour (resident workers), for all eight cities. In the table, city-level accessibility numbers are reported as a metropolitan average, weighted by the number of people who experience that accessibility (population-weighted accessibility), to best represent the experience of the working population.
Population-weighted 30-minute accessibility to jobs; cities ranked by the size of employment opportunities.Hao Wu and David Levinson
The rankings in the table are discussed below for each mode.
Cars have higher accessibility than public transport, walking, or cycling. Perth has the greatest number of jobs and workers reachable by car within 30 minutes.
At time thresholds of 40 minutes and longer, residents of Sydney and Melbourne have higher accessibility than other cities. During the morning peak period, Melbourne has moderately better car accessibility than Sydney, despite Sydney being larger and having more opportunities overall. This indicates that roads in Melbourne are faster than those in Sydney.
30-minute job accessibility by car in Sydney.Hao Wu and David Levinson
Public transport accessibility incorporates time to reach transit stops and station on foot, and equals the minimum of walking and transit times between an origin and destination. It remains at a significant disadvantage compared to car travel, reaching between 12% and 18% of the urban opportunities accessible by car under a 30-minute threshold.
Public transport accessibility tends to be high in city centres and low in other places. The disparity with cars peaks at 20-30 minutes’ travel time.
Sydney and Melbourne have the best public transport accessibility among Australian cities, followed by Perth and Brisbane. It could be higher still with better-located station entrances and exits.
30-minute job accessibility by public transport in Sydney.Hao Wu and David Levinson
This report identifies cycling as a viable option for improving accessibility. Assuming cyclists are willing to ride on the street, people cycling can reach about twice as many jobs as people on public transport within 30 minutes in all eight Australian cities, and around one-third of job opportunities reachable by car (except for Perth, which is 16%). Sydney and Melbourne have the highest cycling accessibility.
Of course, it should be recognised that many potential bicyclists are extremely uncomfortable riding in traffic. Their accessibility on a more limited network of residential streets and protected bike lanes would be much reduced.
30-minute job accessibility by cycling in Sydney.Hao Wu and David Levinson
People walking cannot travel as fast as those on other modes, particularly over longer distances, where public transport and cars can travel at much higher speeds. Not surprisingly, walking has the lowest accessibility of all four modes. The presence and timing of traffic signals that give priority to cars significantly reduces walking accessibility.
Walking accessibility is closely related to urban density. City centres, especially those in larger and denser cities, tend to have better walking accessibility.
Among the eight major Australian cities, Sydney and Melbourne have the best walking accessibility. Hobart and Darwin have the lowest.
30-minute job accessibility by walking in Sydney.Hao Wu and David Levinson
The job-worker balance of a place is measured dynamically as the ratio of jobs and resident workers reachable within 30 minutes. City centres have superior accessibility to both jobs and workers, and less pronounced advantage in car accessibility compared to other modes. Higher jobs-to-workers accessibility ratios in city centres show that, in general, jobs are distributed closer to and better connected with city centres than residential locations.
The job-worker balance is a potent indicator for identifying urban centres and for measuring the strength of centres.
Ratio of 30-minute job accessibility to worker accessibility by car in Sydney.Hao Wu and David Levinson
This research gives us a baseline accessibility measurement using the best available data for 2018. Repeating this analysis over time will enable long-run tracking of accessibility as a performance measure.
This will enable us to answer questions such as: is accessibility by a particular transport mode rising or falling? Is that due to congestion, network contraction, new infrastructure, or changes in residential or employment density? Are policies working to expand accessibility for the population as a whole, and for areas within cities? Which investments give the most accessibility “bang for the buck”?
Some of the results are surprising – in particular, the observation that the speed of Perth’s freeway and street network more than compensates for more limited scale in producing 30-minute car accessibility.
But this result is just an indicator of broader accessibility, which includes additional relevant opportunities, more times of day and more information than is presently at hand. This is likely to become more widely available in an era of big data if governments choose to actually implement the open data claims they advertise.
The latest data from the Australian Bureau of Statistics confirms household wealth has fallen, on the back of falling house prices, in the past year.
But it’s not all bad news. There are signs of hope in the portents for the next six months.
During the first quarter of this year, the net worth of all Australian households rose 0.2% to A$10.2 trillion. Total household net worth in March 2019 was 0.7% lower than in March 2018, largely because of steep falls over the final six months of 2018.
The per capita annual decline was larger, falling by about 2.4%, because of population growth. This means the average wealth of Australians dropped by about A$9,500, from A$414,400 to A$404,900.
ABS
This household “balance sheet event” – defined as an annual decline in household sector net wealth – is the third in the past 30 years. The other two were through the Global Financial Crisis of 2008 and immediately after.
Housing (land and dwellings) comprises 52% of household-sector assets. Superannuation comprises 24%. Property values fluctuate with real estate prices, while superannuation is highly exposed to volatility within the financial markets.
Consumer spending
The next chart highlights the relationship between changes in household net worth and spending on discretionary items and durable goods.
ABS
But what is interesting is that consumer sentiment has not been significantly affected.
The following chart shows household net worth vs Westpac’s consumer sentiment data. This is the first major downturn in household net wealth in 30 years that has not coincided with weaker consumer sentiment.
ABS & Westpac
It’s hard to know for certain why consumer confidence has remained relatively steady, but two things stand out.
First, the consumer financial adjustment has been orderly and deliberate as opposed to rapid and forced. It appears people have consciously adjusted spending and savings patterns to achieve long-term savings goals.
Second, there has been ongoing strength in the labour market. Despite falling wealth, people still have jobs and this reinforces confidence.
Shares and housing stocks
It is safe to say consumers will start spending more once they feel their asset position has stabilised.
Strong equity markets have played a big role in shoring up household wealth since the start of this year. As the next chart demonstrates, they could continue to do so over the period ahead.
ABS & Bllomberg
But the big swing factor is house prices – specifically land values. The Reserve Bank’s interest rate cuts should help stabilise house prices over the second half of 2019.
Our last chart suggests this appears to have started, with auction clearance rates improving in recent months.
ABS, CoreLogic & Bloomberg
This all suggests household wealth could start growing again in the second half of the year. That should go a long way to stabilising the economy.
Ahead of this weekend’s G20 meeting in Osaka, Australia’s Prime Minister Scott Morrison gave a speech that was pretty accurate in framing the problem facing his nation as trade tensions between the United States and China rise.
The world’s most important bilateral relationship – the US-China relationship – is strained. Trade tensions have escalated. The collateral damage is spreading. The global trading system is under real pressure.
One might be tempted to characterise his speech, to use the Australian vernacular, as having a bob each way.
At one point, he seemed to be channelling former White House press secretary Sarah Sanders when he said:
It is now evident that the US believes that the rules-based trading system, in its current form, is not capable of dealing with China’s economic structure and policy practices. Many of these concerns are legitimate. Forced technology transfer is unfair. Intellectual property theft cannot be justified. Industrial subsidies are promoting overproduction.
At another point, he noted China’s importance for Australia:
We share a comprehensive strategic partnership and free-trade agreement with the People’s Republic of China, with a broad and deep relationship underpinned by people-to-people ties; evidenced by the fact we are home to 1.2 million ethnic Chinese and are host to 1.4 million Chinese visitors and 205,000 Chinese students each year.
What Morrison’s speech shows is that Australia is in a bind.
Both China and the US are indispensable economic partners for Australia.
The quarter of our exports going to China make it a crucial trading partner. Without China our best universities would be bankrupt.
But as I documented in a 2017 report for the United States Studies Centre, two-way investment between Australia and the US dwarfs that between Australia and China.
US investment constitutes more than a quarter of all foreign investment in Australia, and has done for decades. Its cumulative worth – now A$860 billion – is nearly double that of Britain and about ten times more than Chinese investment.
So Australia can’t afford to pick sides economically, or strategically.
International institutions
Morrison pointed out that China’s rise has not been a “zero sum” game. Its economic gains have not all come at the expense of other nations, particularly the US.
What he seems to favour – and it makes sense – is to emphasise the importance of international institutions like the World Trade Organisation.
The challenge, of course, is that US President Donald Trump doesn’t like being constrained by international institutions any more than China. His presidency thus far has been characterised by moves away from mulitilateralism, to bilateral negotiations, where the US can better leverage its power to its own advantage.
Trump fancies himself a “deal guy”, not an “institutions and rules” person.
This isn’t just a challenge for Australia but for the whole G20.
As the noted economist Nouriel Roubini has pointed out, there are multiple scenarios where relations between the US and China end up in a very bad place, and not too many where they turn out well.
But so long as both countries remain engaged with international bodies like the G20, there is the possibility such forums can act as a kind of pressure-release valve on simmering tensions. Mutual friends like Australia have a chance to help keep the peace. Morrison’s admonition about China’s rise not being “zero sum”, for example, is no doubt a message for the American president.
Vulnerability is our strength.
In this sense Australia’s economic vulnerability might also be our strength.
We cannot afford for the US and China to end up in a “hot” economic war, and the current situation isn’t great either. As long as Australia has to essentially pick sides issue by issue, we will end up annoying both China and the US. Witness the Chinese reaction to Australia’s Huawei 5G ban.
So we have a vital interest in seeing them get along better, working with other nations within the G20 to nudge things toward a more acceptable outcome.
As Morrison himself said after his speech: “What choice do we have?”
In the 19th century, a range of thinkers attempted to pinpoint exactly what it was that made a woman beautiful. Newly popular women’s magazines began to promote ideas about the right behaviours, attitudes, and daily routines required to produce and maintain beauty.
The scientific classification of plants and animals – influenced by Charles Darwin – also shaped thinking about beauty. It was seen to be definable, like a plant type or animal species. Increasingly, sophisticated knowledge of medicine and anatomy and the association of beauty with health also saw physicians weigh into the debate.
A look at three significant books that focused on beauty shows several influential ideas. These include the classification of distinct beauty types, the perception of “natural” beauty as superior to the “artificial”, and the eventual acceptance of beauty as something that each woman should try to cultivate through a daily regimen of self-care.
Classifying beauty types
‘The three species of beauty as affecting the head and face’ in Alexander Walker’s Beauty; Illustrated Chiefly by an Analysis and Classification of Beauty in Woman (New York: William H. Colyer).
Alexander Walker, a Scottish physiologist, wrote three books on the subject of “woman”. The first was Beauty; Illustrated Chiefly by an Analysis and Classification of Beauty in Women. Here, Walker focuses on women’s beauty because he suggests it is “best calculated to ensure attention from men”. He assumes that men have the power to choose sexual partners in a way that women do not, therefore men have a crucial responsibility “to ameliorate the species”.
Given that one of its key functions is to signal fertility, a woman’s appearance is therefore not a frivolous topic. It is linked to the development of humanity.
Walker defines three types or “species” of female beauty: locomotive, nutritive, and thinking. These types derive from a knowledge of anatomy and each is related to one of the bodily “systems”.
‘Front view illustrating mental beauty’ in Alexander Walker’s Beauty; Illustrated Chiefly by an Analysis and Classification of Beauty in Woman (New York: William H. Colyer).
The locomotive or mechanical system is highly developed in women with “precise, striking, and brilliant” bodies. The nutritive or vital system is evident in the “soft and voluptuous”. The thinking or mental system is conducive to a figure “characterised by intellectuality and grace”.
Walker’s ideal is the mental or thinking beauty. She has less pronounced breasts and curves and admirable inner qualities that are evident in her “intensely expressive eye”.
Not coincidentally, he understands intelligence to predominate in men. Walker’s ideal thinking beauty is effectively most like his idea of a man in contrast to the locomotive beauty (connected with the lower classes) and the nutritive beauty (primed to have children).
The book proposes ideal measurements for areas such as the forehead and the most distinctive features of the female body. Breasts are viewed as essential to beauty and the ideal they describe is youthful, with “firm and elastic” tissue that forms “true hemispheres in shape”.
Very specific distances between nipples, the collar bone, and between the breasts themselves are specified, setting out perfect proportions.
Very specific distances between breasts were specified in this beauty manual.Wikimedia Commons
Brinton and Napheys claim that few European and American women meet these requirements, owing to the “artificial life” adopted in both locations. Controversially, they remark that such breasts do not exist in America, apart from in “some vigorous young country girl, who has grown up in ignorance of the arts which thwart nature”. The idea that beauty was more often destroyed by “artificial” beauty methods than improved by it was predominant.
Personal Beauty promotes a device for improving the shape of the breast through suction because it meets the criteria for “natural” improvement. It is described similarly to breast enlargement pumps that are sold today as an alternative to breast augmentation.
Brinton and Napheys’ reference to the potential of such a device to “restore the organs in great measure to their proper shape, size, and function” suggests they are referring to breasts that may have lost their fullness and symmetry after breastfeeding.
It is unclear how such a device would not only improve the shapeliness of breasts, but also render them “better adapted to fulfil their functions”. However, the notion that function, which is reliant on health, is essential to beauty helps to support a medicalised understanding of the topic.
Beauty destroyed
This emphasis on health contributes to a tendency to focus on the ways that women destroy their own beauty through clothing, cosmetics, or certain types of exercise. A specific target in this book is the wearing of garters below the knee, which the authors claim is the reason why a “handsome leg is a rarity, we had almost said an impossibility, among American women”.
Tightly-laced corsets, sucked-upon lips, and white face powders are frowned upon for potential harms to health. Yet, as doctors, Brinton and Napheys embrace early manifestations of cosmetic surgery, such as the removal of skin that might hang over the eyes.
A significant point in guiding the acceptability of cosmetic usage is whether such a practice appears natural and undetectable. Imitation itself is not described as distasteful, if it can be achieved convincingly, but “the failure in the attempt at imitation” does inspire revulsion.
As such, a wig that meshes with a women’s age and appearance can be acceptable. In contrast, it is “contrary to all good taste” to “give to the top of the head an air of juvenility which is flatly contradicted by all other parts of the person”.
Personal Beauty focuses on preventative measures for retaining beauty and delaying the visible onset of ageing, rather than remedying flaws once they have taken hold. The book ultimately concludes that if all the measures recommended are undertaken, “there will be little need for the purely venal cosmetic arts, such as paint, powder, patches, or rouge”.
Embracing beauty culture
This understanding of cosmetics as pure reflections of vanity and as separate from beauty practices related to health was gradually challenged by women writers towards the end of the 19th century.
Frontispiece, Mrs H.R. Haweis, [1878] 1883. The Art of Beauty. London: Chatto & Windus.
Eliza Haweis wrote about the decoration and stylistic adornment of the home and body in British magazines and a series of books, the first of which was The Art of Beauty (1878). Its premise is that personal beauty and adornment of the body is of “the first interest and importance” for women.
Many beauty manuals warned against any significant attempts to alter the face or body beyond basic health and hygiene. Such practices, as academic Sarah Lennox suggests, were seen as “objectionable — as a hiding of inner truth”. Haweis, however, encourages young women to enhance their beauty and older women to continue to use methods that “conceal its fading away”.
The methods that Haweis advocates reproduce prevalent ideas found in women’s magazines and beauty manuals that discouraged any visible sign of artifice and which championed the “natural”.
Hygienic and cosmetic intervention are framed as exposing or fostering physical qualities as they ought to be seen, or providing a delicate “veil” for flaws, rather than attempting to entirely transform them.
However, Haweis goes further than many beauty advisors at the time. Unlike many male writers, she is not opposed to cosmetics. She likens their use in “hiding defects of complexion, or touching the face with pink or white” to adding padding to a dress, piercing ears, or undergoing cosmetic dentistry.
Eliza Haweis.Author provided
Part of the reason Haweis supports cosmetics and other methods of improving the appearance is because she observes that ugly people are treated differently.
Walker sees beauty as a sign of higher intelligence. Many publications at the time presented a similar line of reasoning in suggesting that mean-spirited and nasty individuals would age horribly.
Haweis, however, is unique in her entertainment of the possibility of ugliness negatively influencing character. She proposes that “an immense number of ill-tempered ugly women are ill-tempered because they are ugly”. She acknowledges that ugliness is in fact an “impediment” and a “burden”, which thereby supports her call to all women to work to improve their appearance.
Beauty today
Our understanding of what makes a woman beautiful is influenced by dominant cultural beliefs and hierarchies. Though Walker’s physiological beauty types were replaced by acceptance of the idea that women can retain beauty into older age or remedy unappealing features, many historic precepts about beauty continue to influence modern beauty culture.
Ideas about “natural” beauty as superior to “artificial” beauty are reflected in cosmetic advertisements and plastic surgery procedures, with a “natural” or “undetectable” look to any product, facelift, or implant being the desired outcome for many women.
Most of all, the idea that beauty is of prime importance to girls and women remains predominant, even as the cultural conditions surrounding marriage, employment, and family have substantially transformed since the 19th century.
Haweis’ ideas about the significance of self-care resonate with contemporary feminists who point to women’s pleasure and empowered use of cosmetics.
We have recently seen the emergence of male beauty bloggers and YouTubers. However, the continued sense that beauty is largely women’s preserve and a unique form of power that requires a continual fight to keep shows how an emphasis on women’s physical appearance is still entwined with gender inequality.
Scott Morrison is riding high after his “miracle” win, but that will be just a memory come the next election due in early 2022. It’s what he does from now on that will determine whether the Coalition can secure a fourth term.
Morrison got himself elected with tax, written in capital letters, on an otherwise largely blank page. Moreover, given he was in campaign mode from the day he replaced Malcolm Turnbull, it was hard to get a feel for how he would operate as a prime minister off the (immediate) election trail.
More than a month into the new term, we are seeing the first outlines of Morrison’s approach and priorities. Central to it are outcomes and what some dub “achievables”.
Christopher Pyne once famously described himself as “a fixer” (in his case, something of a misnomer). At the centre of how Morrison sees running government is fixing things, oiling the tracks, if you like – whether this is in service delivery (such as improving the way the National Disability Insurance Scheme works), the approval processes for getting big projects underway (regulatory “congestion busting”), or smoothing the operation of the industrial relations system.
He’s lectured public service chiefs about the importance of delivery, and appointed Stuart Robert to a new services portfolio, based on Services NSW (which aims to “simplify the way customers do business with government” and has generated a high level of satisfaction from those using it).
In general, the signs are that Morrison is focused on government in terms of managing, as well as on responding to what he judges the public want, especially his “quiet Australians” in that public.
Ears pricked this week when he put more industrial relations reform on the table, beyond the fresh attempt that will be made to secure passage of the Ensuring Integrity legislation.
The new industrial relations minister, Christian Porter, is to conduct a review running until the end of the year or beyond, and businesses are being encouraged to bring forward their suggestions.
But, at least from what’s being said now (things can always change), this is not a frolic towards a new “WorkChoices” destination. The attention is especially on administration, for example dealing with the blow out in the time taken to approve enterprise agreements, and on seeking information.
The focus on management reflects and fits with Morrison’s relatively non-ideological belief system. But amid this pragmatic, even low key, approach to governing, Morrison is committed to dealing with one highly charged values issue – protecting religious freedom.
Turnbull bequeathed this hornets nest to his successor. The then prime minister set up an inquiry, led by a former Howard government minister Philip Ruddock, to appease the right, those on the losing side in the same-sex marriage fight. The subsequent report recommended a religious discrimination act.
The case of Israel Folau, turfed by Rugby Australia following his homophobic Instagram post based on the bible, has injected a huge amount of heat into an issue already fraught. That intensified this week when GoFundMe removed from its site Folau’s appeal to finance legal action against Rugby Australia. If intensity can be measured in dollars, the Folau campaign has so far raised more than $2 million.
When Turnbull set up the inquiry, he was seeking to throw a blanket over a matter dividing his party. Inevitably there would be a day of reckoning and, as bad luck would have it, the Folau imbroglio has widened the debate, which formerly had centred primarily on religious institutions, particularly schools.
The issue falls into the category of what political scientists label “wicked problems”. There is no easy or satisfactory path through a maze of conflicting rights.
Some in the government try to push aside the Folau case, saying it is just a matter of his contract. But if the aim of legislation is to prevent a person being discriminated against on the basis of their religion, wouldn’t this logically mean bans on contracts stipulating employees can’t spruik certain religious beliefs? And if not, where does that leave the Folau backers?
It’s notable that a couple of netball corporate sponsors bought into the affair, after Folau’s netball-playing wife shared his post asking for funds. They immediately came under attack, including from the former head of the Human Rights Commission, Gillian Triggs, who condemned such “bullying”.
Modern companies are increasingly sensitive to the cultural changes in society over recent years, as we saw in the interventions by some businesses in the same-sex marriage debate.
The merging of the commercial and the moral (which has outraged for example Home Affairs minister Peter Dutton) can be viewed in “market” terms. While in certain cases a company’s positioning may be driven by the personal values of its leadership, more generally many companies, and organisations like Rugby Australia, will want their “brands” in line with what they see as their customers’ likely values.
Religious freedom, in a pure form, can run up against companies’ rights to embrace values, just as their actions – in terms of restrictions they may seek to impose on their employees – can circumscribe free speech.
Morrison, who is deeply committed to his Pentecostal faith and thinks there should be more protection for religious freedom, may be starting to realise just what he could be getting into. Asked this week whether he supported the GoFundMe decision, he said “I think that issue has had enough oxygen”.
Some in government are viewing this in partisan terms, believing they can wedge Labor. After the election Chris Bowen, who is from western Sydney with its high ethnic populations, highlighted that it had been raised with him that “people of faith no longer feel that progressive politics cares about them”. In government eyes, the ALP could be wedged every which way on religious freedom legislation, caught between conservative (often ethnic) supporters and progressives.
That may be. But it is also possible a rift could open in Liberal ranks too, between conservatives and moderates, each tapping into sections of the community.
The risk for Morrison is that the debate becomes a distraction, a noisy and divisive intrusion into what he wants to be a steady-as- she-goes style of government.
Malcolm Turnbull has accused Attorney-General Christian Porter of providing advice to him that was constitutional “nonsense”, as the divisive events around the former prime minister’s removal are revisited.
Turnbull launched his acerbic Twitter attack following reports that the day before he was deposed last August, he clashed with Porter over trying to involve Governor-General Peter Cosgrove in the leadership crisis. Turnbull was seeking to ensure Peter Dutton did not become prime minister if he won the leadership.
Meantime, Dutton has revealed that before the May election he removed himself from involvement in a family trust – an involvement that last term had raised doubts about his eligibility to sit in parliament. The trust received money from his wife’s child care business, and child care receives government subsidy.
Dutton always maintained he was on safe constitutional ground and his spokeswoman on Thursday reaffirmed that he had had legal opinions saying he was not in breach of section 44. During the leadership crisis the Solicitor-General provided advice, taking the view Dutton was eligible, though he left some doubt.
“Nonetheless, to silence those who are politically motivated and continue to raise this; prior to the minister’s nomination at the May election, he formally renounced any interest in the trust in question,” she said.
Accounts of the contretemps between Turnbull and Porter were published in Thursday’s Australian and by Nine newspapers.
Turnbull argued Cosgrove should refuse to commission Dutton, if he won the leadership, on the grounds he might be constitutionally ineligible to sit in parliament.
Porter insisted Turnbull’s suggested course would be “wrong in law” – that the eligibility issue was not a matter for the governor-general – and threatened to repudiate Turnbull’s position if he advanced it publicly at an imminent news conference.
The Attorney-General had a letter of resignation with him, in case he needed to provide it.
The events of last year will be extensively raked over coming weeks in books by journalists Niki Savva and David Crowe. They featured in a Sky documentary this week.
Turnbull refought his battle with Porter on Thursday, tweeting: “The discretion to swear in a person as PM is vested in the Governor General. The proposition advanced by Mr Porter that it is none of the GG’s business whether the would be PM is constitutionally eligible is nonsense. The GG is not a constitutional cypher.
“During the week of 24 August 2018 there was advice from leading constitutional lawyers Bret Walker that Dutton was ineligible to sit in the Parliament and thus ineligible to be a Minister, let alone Prime Minister. I ensured we sought the advice of the Solicitor General.
“I took the responsible course of action, obtained the necessary advice, published it and the Party Room was informed when it made its decision to elect Mr Morrison, rather than Mr Dutton, as leader.”
Porter, speaking on radio on Thursday, confirmed the accuracy of the media reports, including the tense nature of the meeting. “Sometimes meetings in government aren’t all potpourri and roses,” he said.
Porter said an attorney-general’s role was to provide advice they considered accurate and legally correct.
“Sometimes that advice is not always what people want to hear. But I’ve always taken very seriously the role and the fact that the role requires to give advice to the best of your legal knowledge and ability you think is accurate and correct.
“And that’s what I’ve always tried to do, that’s what I did during the course of that very difficult week.”
Cryptocurrencies have become a global phenomenon in the past few years. Now Facebook is launching it’s own cryptocurrency, in association with Visa, MasterCard, Uber and others. The stated aim of Libra is to “enable a simple global currency and financial infrastructure that empowers billions of people”.
But let’s go back to the basics and look at what Libra is, how it compares to other cryptocurrencies and whether you should be concerned about using it when it eventually arrives.
Currency is a system of money that is commonly used in exchange for goods and services and, as a result, holds value. Cryptocurrencies are digital currencies that are secured using cryptography.
The more popular recent cryptocurrencies are based on blockchain technology which uses a cryptographic structure that is difficult to change. One of the key properties of this structure is a distributed ledger that keeps account of financial transactions, which anyone can access.
What is Libra?
Libra is a new currency that is being proposed by Facebook. It’s considered a cryptocurrency because cryptography will be used to help protect the value of the currency from tampering – such as double spending – and to protect the payment process.
Libra has the potential to become successful because of the backing from the Libra Association, which is made up of large international corporations such as Facebook, Uber and Vodafone. MasterCard and Visa have also thrown their hats in the ring, but no traditional banks are on the list.
What’s different about Libra compared with other cryptocurrencies like Bitcoin?
Cryptocurrencies like Bitcoin and Ethereum are quite egalitarian in nature. That’s because there is no single authority that verifies transactions between parties, so anyone could potentially do it.
To authorise a Bitcoin transaction you would have to prove that you have done the work, known as a “proof of work”. For Bitcoin, the proof of work is to solve a mathematical puzzle. People who successfully solve the puzzle (proving they have done some work), can add transactions to the blockchain distributed ledger and are rewarded with Bitcoins. The process is known as mining.
The good thing about this is that it reduces fraud. Since anyone can potentially mine Bitcoins, it’s harder to collude as you wouldn’t know who the next person to mine a coin would be. And it’s simple to verify that the person is authorised because anyone can check that the puzzle has been solved correctly.
Based on the initial descriptions of the currency, it sounds like the difference with Libra is that it will verify transactions using a consensus system known as “proof of stake”, or a variation of this method. Under this system, transactions would be authorised by a group of people who have a stake or ownership in the currency.
This makes it easier to predict who the next person to authorise a transaction might be (since there are a relatively small number of authorising group members), and then collude to launder funds without other group members knowing.
It appears the criteria to become a founding member of the Libra Association is to contribute a minimum of US$10 million entrance fee, have a large amount of money in the bank and be able to influence a large number of people.
Cryptocurrencies affect governments and tax systems since they have little to no transaction costs when money is transferred across borders. So while the low transaction costs would be good for everyday users, the advent of a new cryptocurrency with a potentially very large user base has governments and traditional banks very concerned.
While Libra is open source – meaning the source code is available for all to view, use and modify – it’s the members of the association who will be overseeing the currency. Libra could herald a shift away from traditional government taxes and banking fees to a new international monetary system controlled by corporate entities like Facebook and Uber. That’s a concern because of the lack of oversight from regulatory bodies.
What should everyday people expect from Libra?
The backing of software giants means it’s likely that the user interface for Libra coins would be smooth and simple to use.
Low transaction costs would benefit users and the Libra Association promises to control the value of the currency so that it does not fluctuate as much as other cryptocurrencies. It’s unclear how they plan to do this. But value stability would be a great advantage in times of uncertainty.
What are the risks?
The everyday consumer probably wouldn’t know the difference between the “proof of work” and the “proof of stake” mechanisms. But since Facebook has a large database of users that are known to use Libra, it may be able to link Libra transactions to individuals. This could be a privacy concern. (Bitcoin transactions are anonymous because account numbers used in Bitcoin transactions are not linked to an individual’s identity.)
Recent cybersecurity breaches have contributed to a growing awareness of the vulnerabilities of IT systems. As with all software, the Libra implementation and management could be vulnerable to attack, which in turn could mean users could lose their money. But that is a risk that all cryptocurrency users face, whether they are aware of it or not.
What steps could consumers take to protect themselves?
No matter what cryptocurrency you choose to use, your funds are still accessible through the same interfaces: a web page or a mobile app. And the way you control access to your personal funds is by authenticating with a password.
Make sure you keep your password safe by making sure it is complicated and hard to guess. Look for applications that allow you to use two-factor authentication and make sure it’s turned on.
Libra is yet to prove its claims of making financial transactions safe and convenient. Only time will tell if its uptake will become widespread following its expected launch next year.
Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Michael Selgelid, Director, Centre for Human Bioethics; Director, World Health Organization Collaborating Centre for Bioethics, Monash University
Medical experiments involving intentionally infecting people with bacteria, viruses, and parasites are surprisingly common. And they are becoming more common worldwide, particularly in developing countries.
The ultimate aim of these “human challenge studies” is usually to test potential new vaccines.
However, because of the risks involved, this kind of research raises difficult ethical questions. For example, who should be infected? And which pathogens would be too dangerous to use?
In many challenge studies, people are first vaccinated with an experimental vaccine, then deliberately exposed to a pathogen and monitored to see if the vaccine protected them against infection.
These studies can be especially valuable from a scientific perspective. They can be significantly faster and less expensive than other kinds of vaccine research. They are also usually much smaller, because fewer people need to be given experimental vaccines (that might not turn out to be safe or effective).
These studies sometimes involve infecting people with deadly diseases such as malaria. In such cases, however, researchers are especially careful to minimise risks by ensuring study participants are provided with treatment.
How can this be ethical?
The very idea of intentionally infecting humans with diseases will likely strike many people as unethical.
The history of human challenge studies is tarnished. Some of the most blatantly unethical medical research ever conducted involved intentional infection. During world war two, for example, German and Japanese researchers infected prisoners with diseases such as tuberculosis and plague, killing them in the process.
According to most bioethicists who have discussed this topic, however, intentionally infecting people in a clinical trials isn’t necessarily unethical, at least under certain conditions.
Rather than intentional infection, the problem with the infamous historical cases is they involved cruel and brutal treatment of people against their will.
Among other things, this should involve proper informed consent and minimising risks. There should also be legitimate scientific reasons for performing the study.
Modern human challenge studies are regularly approved by research ethics committees. They have been safely conducted with no deaths or severe lasting harms.
Other types of research with healthy volunteers are sometimes more dangerous. One UK trial of an experimental drug had life-threatening consequences for six volunteers. One reportedly remained in hospital for four months, and all his toes had to be amputated. By comparison, infections in challenge studies are usually much more predictable and easier to treat.
Should this occur in developing countries?
Most recent human challenges studies have taken place in wealthy, developed nations. This might partly reflect the aim of scientists to avoid conducting experiments on especially vulnerable people in developing countries.
But a recent development is the expansion of human challenge studies into low- and middle-income countries – such as Thailand, Colombia, Kenya (and other African countries) – where diseases of interest are more common.
One motivation for this shift is to obtain results more relevant to the populations in these countries. For instance, the diseases and/or vaccines might affect these populations differently to people in developed nations due to variation in immunity, genetics or nutrition.
The fact that participants from endemic countries are more likely to be partially immune to diseases being studied means that conducting local challenge studies might involve less risk to them.
Studies can also sometimes directly benefit trial participants. That’s because infection during a study can lead to immunity against a disease to which they otherwise would have been at risk, or because they receive a vaccine that protects them.
Such benefits do not usually result when challenge studies are conducted in rich countries where the disease does not normally occur.
What ethical issues remain?
Though human challenge studies can be ethical – even in low- and middle-income countries – there are numerous unresolved issues about the conditions under which this kind of research should be conducted.
Who should take part in these studies?
Some studies have aimed to recruit university students because, being more educated, they may be better able to provide adequate informed consent. But students might not provide a good representative sample of the general population, or they might feel pressure to participate in research being conducted at their institutions or by their academic superiors.
How much should participants be paid?
It is generally agreed that subjects should be paid for the costs they incur while taking part in a study. This might include the costs of travel or loss of usual income.
Whether, or the extent to which, they should receive further payments reflecting the risks or other burdens endured, is more controversial.
Some say higher levels of payment reflecting burdens or risks endured would be appropriate, just as some workers receive higher pay for doing dangerous jobs.
Others worry that high levels of payment might be an irresistible lure, especially for poor people. It appears that payment has been a major motivation for people to participate in challenge studies in both high-income and low-income countries.
Should children be involved?
Would it ever be acceptable to involve children in challenge studies?
Because diseases and/or vaccines might affect children differently, conducting research with adults might not always provide reliable enough information about the safety and efficacy of vaccines for children.
But children are widely considered especially vulnerable because, among other reasons, they cannot provide informed consent.
Are there some pathogens that should never be tested?
In general, challenge studies involving high risks that cannot be easily controlled should presumably not be permitted. The use of pathogens like HIV, for example, should be off limits.
In a nutshell
Human challenge studies are sometimes ethically acceptable. And it may be important to conduct them, especially in low- and middle-income countries where neglected diseases are most common.
Yet we still need bioethicists, policymakers and the general public to discuss unresolved ethical questions about where, when and how they should be conducted.
The New Zealand Herald’s new premium paywall could turn readers to digital competitor Stuff, according to Auckland University of Technology communications lecturer Dr Merja Myllylahti.
The Herald started charging for some of its content at the end of April; a move many in the industry viewed as risky.
In fact, the first full month of digital news websites’ audience numbers since the paywall was introduced showed the Herald dipping and Stuff gaining in both unique viewers and page views.
However, the paywall has since yielded positive results with 10,000 people subscribing to the premium content within the first six weeks.
A Pacific Media Centre contributor and co-director of the Journalism Media and Democracy (JMAD) research centre at AUT, Myllylahti said the early sign-ups bode well for the paywall, but the Herald will need to keep a close eye on the numbers over the next couple of months.
-Partners-
“It’s encouraging early signs, but we have to be careful because when that two month offer runs out, a lot of people might have taken that offer for two months, and then they might drop out,” she says.
10,000 is also the paper’s first-year goal.
“We’re obviously thrilled,” said Herald editor Murray Kirkness.
“I think people now understand that if you want something you now have to pay. For a long time in the digital world that perhaps wasn’t the case.
“In the news sense, no matter where you look around the world – certainly in the western world – it’s now almost the norm to have some paywalled content rather than it all being free,” he says.
Annual subscriptions to the paywall cost $199, or readers can pay $5 per week to access the premium content. For the first couple of months the Herald is offering a discounted rate; half price access, as a sweetener to get people on board.
Just over a third of the current 10,000 subscribers signed up for a whole year, leaving two thirds paying per-week.
“We’re obviously aware of churn, and that’s something that any subscription model has to deal with every day,” said Kirkness.
“Of course, we’ve had subscribers for a very long time in terms of print… so we’re well used to managing that business arrangement.”
The Herald has opted for a soft paywall, so most of its stories remain free to readers.
However, in New Zealand and around the world newsrooms are trialling other models too.
Newsroom.co.nz has both paywalled content in its Newsroom Pro section, and asks for donations to continue its journalism. The National Business Review requires readers to subscribe to read its content.
Internationally, the New York Times and Washington Post let readers view a set number of articles a month before bringing up the paywall. Like Newsroom, The Guardian newspaper – which is run by a charitable trust – asks readers to support its journalism by making donations.
This article is published under the Pacific Media Centre’s content partnership with Radio New Zealand.
If we think of the bluestone in Melbourne, we may first think of the famous cobbled laneways intersecting the urban grid.
Initially, these laneways were used for the collection of night soil – human excrement collected at night from buckets or privies – and they are still useful routes for collecting rubbish and recycling bins. But laneways are increasingly being reclaimed as lively strips for cafes, bars, restaurants and galleries in the city, or re-made as gardens in the suburbs.
Laneways are an important part of Melbourne’s heritage infrastructure, protected by legislation and design guides. And they are often defended by enthusiasts whenever a local council threatens to remove the bluestones or pave them over with asphalt.
The other thing we might think of when it comes to bluestone in Melbourne are landmark buildings such as Pentridge Prison (still known affectionately as the “bluestone college”) and the Old Melbourne Gaol in Russell St.
Then there is the more elegant gothic style of St Patrick’s Cathedral, or the brutal modernism of the National Gallery of Victoria. Several blocks further down St Kilda Road are the grand Victoria Barracks, festooned with gorgeous crimson Boston Ivy in autumn.
The Boston ivy covering the bluestone of the Victoria Barracks can stop you in your tracks.Adam Selwood/Flickr, CC BY
Deep bluestone foundations also underpin some of the city’s most famous sandstone buildings: the Victorian Parliament, the Treasury, the Town Hall and the Supreme Court.
These dark grey stones that line and frame its streets and buildings are an important feature of Melbourne’s urban identity. Here’s how it began.
From furious beginnings
Cobbled bluestone in a Melbourne laneway.Author provided (No reuse)
The formations of bluestone are paradoxically both fast and slow, and begin with explosions of fire and rock.
In successive periods of volcanic activity to the north and south-west of Melbourne (some from 4.5 million years ago, some as recent as 10,000 years ago), rocks and boulders were thrown up as flaming projectiles or poured out of volcanoes as molten lava.
From these furious beginnings, basalt settles into the heavy dark stones we now associate with stability and endurance.
But the consistency of bluestone varies widely, depending on how it was formed. When it cools slowly, it’s hard and smooth, with barely a flaw, or at most a delicate thread of tiny bubbles. This is the highest grade stone, used for smooth surfaces such as hearthstones and front-facing walls.
But if a flying boulder lands in water, it cools more rapidly, so pockets of gas produce bubbles, even sometimes a honey-comb effect.
The quality, colour and consistency of bluestone used in Melbourne also varies according to the quarries from which it’s sourced; or whether it comes from Australia or overseas.
Uses in Indigenous culture
Geological time is almost beyond our reckoning, though Indigenous culture and history helps us read these formations on a human scale. A stone axe-head, found deep beneath layers of volcanic ash at Tower Hill, suggests Indigenous people would have witnessed some of the volcanic activity on this site.
A sketch from 1837 showing The Falls, a stretch of bluestone crossing the Yarra that acted as a natural bridge.State Library of Victoria
Important traces of Indigenous knowledge and use of bluestone have also been discovered throughout Melbourne and elsewhere in Victoria.
For instance, bluestone was used for an eel trap system carbon-dated to 6,600 years old, developed near Lake Condah in the sacred Budj Bim landscape.
There’s also the natural basalt-bluestone ledge across the Yarra river — known as “The Falls” — which separated fresh and salt water. It was used as a meeting place for different tribal groups, but was removed in the 1880s.
And there are basalt stones arranged as astronomical markers at Wurdi Youang, near Lara.
Settler buildings
Bluestone was the obvious choice for construction when Melbourne was a booming gold-rush city in the 1850s. It was cheap and plentiful, and there was convict labor to cut and haul its heavy weight.
But as early as the 1880s, bluestone had become unfashionable, perceived as too dark, somber and forbidding.
Bluestone has a somber, dark appearance – an appropriate material for the Old Melbourne Gaol.Shutterstock
Bluestone buildings were increasingly lightened with sandstone or white stucco edges and borders, while granite and sandstone became the stones of choice for grand public buildings.
Now, bluestone is prized again for its heritage value. But “heritage” is always a movable category, susceptible to changes in both fashion and feeling about the past.
There is something compelling about the way stone helps us think about time, history and change. As Jeffrey Jerome Cohen observes:
to lay hand upon stone is to press against time in material form.
Bluestone is prized today for its markers of history
In my own work researching bluestone, I’m collecting more recent personal narratives about this stone.
Many Melburnians have powerful stories about the way its characteristic square “pitchers” and long rectangular building blocks are bought and sold, collected and dispersed, recycled or moved from one site to another, from public buildings to suburban gardens and makeshift walls. It’s as if the citizens were playing a mysterious, long-range collective game of Lego.
Some of the most prized stones are those that seem to bear the ancient marks of wheels, or of convict labor, whether in the form of initials and arrows chiselled into the stone, or the more mundane markers of manual work.
Gardeners, builders and diggers of cellars struggle with the large “floaters” under old houses and in the gardens in the north and western suburbs, straining to lever them from the black sticky clay of the Merri Creek soil, famously used as the basis of the MCG cricket pitch.
Melbourne’s bluestone history is not just geological and cultural: it is also an emotional one, as we constantly redefine our relationship with this distinctive stone.
Indonesia’s National Police are facing increased pressure as investigations by human rights organisations have found alleged use of torture by Mobile Brigade (Brimob) officers during the recent postelection protests that escalated into riots in Central and West Jakarta.
According to rights group Amnesty International, at least 12 people suffered torture and illtreatment by Brimob personnel during crackdowns on suspected rioters on May 21-23.
In its report released on Tuesday, Amnesty said the alleged use of violence occurred in areas near the Elections Supervisory Agency (Bawaslu) building, the center of the protests, including in Kampung Bali, where reports of police brutality had previously emerged.
The group declined to reveal the alleged victims’ identities out of concern of their safety as well as of their families.
“The public has the right to know about what happened on May 21-23”, said Amnesty International Indonesia executive director Usman Hamid.
-Partners-
In its findings, which are the result of a month-long verification process and interviews with witnesses, victims and their families, Amnesty claimed some Brimob personnel had tortured at least five people at an empty parking lot in Kampung Bali.
The incident reportedly took place at around 5:30 a.m. on May 23 after a sweep of the area.
Beaten, dragged Amnesty said that one victim – who was unarmed – was beaten and dragged by around 10 Brimob officers, video footage of which was captured by a witness in a nearby building and uploaded onto social media.
Meanwhile, among the four other victims who were beaten in the same parking lot, one was so badly injured, he had to be taken to the Kramat Jati Police Hospital’s emergency unit in East Jakarta and was placed under “strict monitoring by the police”, the rights group said.
“This was clearly a crime because the officers used excessive force,” Usman said.
Thousands of supporters of losing presidential candidate Prabowo Subianto took to the streets to protest incumbent President Joko “Jokowi” Widodo’s reelection victory late last month.
What started as a peaceful rally turned into full-fledged riots that triggered clashes between rioters and security forces, leaving nine dead and injuring hundreds.
After the video of an unarmed man being beaten by Brimob personnel went viral, the police admitted that the footage was real and the incident had taken place.
They confirmed that the man in the video was Andri Bibir, a rioter who had been arrested.
Marguerite Afra Sapiieis a reporter with The Jakarta Post.
Amid the news last week that the perpetrators responsible for shooting down Malaysia Airlines Flight 17 (MH17) will be put to trial next March, a report was released identifying further suspects responsible for escorting the missile to and from the launch site.
Who were the investigators behind the report? The CIA? MI6? No. It was Bellingcat, a large group of mostly volunteers working from laptops using only information available to anyone with an internet connection.
In February, Bellingcat also identified a third suspect alleged to have been involved in the poisoning of MI6 double agent Sergei Skripal and his daughter Yulia in the United Kingdom last year.
Bellingcat describes itself as citizen journalists, but its activities illustrate a growing phenomenon my colleagues and I call “citizen intelligence.” This is work that would count as intelligence gathering or analysis within an intelligence organisation, but it’s undertaken by citizens operating outside the traditional intelligence ecosystem.
Bellingcat’s Eliot Higgins and Christo Grozev Christo holding a press conference outside parliament in central London in October 2018 after the organisation identified the second suspect responsible for poisoning of the Skripals.Andy Rain/AAP
Citizen intelligence has been made possible by the internet in various ways.
Since its advent, we’ve seen an explosion of “open source” information. That is, data that’s accessible without any special organisational privileges. For example, just by opening Google Earth you can view satellite data of the kind only available to analysts in government agencies not many years ago.
There are now free new tools for gathering and analysing these vast troves of information, such as the analysis platform Maltego. Aspiring citizen analysts can now train themselves using resources available online or in workshops offered by various organisations.
Expertise in intelligence work is no longer the preserve of those hired and trained by traditional organisations. Powerful collaboration platforms, such as Google Docs, allow interested individuals to work effectively together, even when scattered around the world.
It could get even bigger
We’ve all seen how global, cloud-based marketplaces such as Amazon, Airbnb and Uber have transformed their respective domains. Citizen intelligence could grow even faster if a suitable marketplace is developed. At the SWARM Project, we’ve begun exploring the potential design of a platform where those seeking intelligence can transact with those willing to provide it.
What might that look like? A marketplace for citizen intelligence could be built on a “sponsored challenge” crowdsourcing model.
Imagine an organisation with an intelligence question. Say, for example, the organisation wants to identify potential threats to a proposed infrastructure development in an unstable region. The organisation pays to have the question posed as a challenge on the platform, with a prize for the best answer. Groups of citizen analysts self-organize and submit reports. When the deadline is up, the best report garners the prize – and bragging rights.
Why crowdsourced citizen intelligence could be effective
There are reasons to think that crowdsourced citizen intelligence could match, or outperform, traditional intelligence organisations on some kinds of tasks. Traditional organisations have advantages, such as access to classified information and highly trained analysts, but crowdsourcing has compensating strengths.
Scale
Many intelligence organisations are small and under-resourced for the number and complexity of issues they are supposed to handle. Crowdsourced intelligence can potentially draw from much larger pools of citizens. For example, the analytics crowdsourcing platform Kaggle has over a million people signed up, and it gets literally thousands of teams competing on big challenges.
Diversity
With scale comes diversity. Large groups inherently possess more diverse knowledge, expertise and perspectives. A question like the one in the example above might require fluency in an obscure dialect, or specific technical know-how. No intelligence agency can maintain in-house everything it might need for any problem.
Agility
Crowds can be more agile than agencies, which are risk-averse bureaucracies. For example, individuals can more quickly access and use many of the latest analytical methods and tools.
Passion
Perhaps most importantly, intelligence work by unpaid volunteers is driven primarily by passion. Passion certainly exists within agencies, but is often stifled in various ways.
The SWARM Project ran a tournament-style experiment in 2018 that illustrated how everyday citizens can sometimes beat the professionals. Teams tackled four tough, fictional intelligence problems over four weeks. Some teams were made up of analysts provided by organisations with intelligence functions, some of analysts recruited via Facebook, and some of citizens (non-analysts) recruited via Facebook.
On average, the citizen teams outperformed the professional analysts – and some of the citizen reports were astonishingly good.
How this could affect the intelligence industry
Citizen intelligence will likely create some headaches for intelligence agencies. For example decision makers might increasingly look to citizen sources over formal intelligence agencies – particularly where citizen intelligence delivers reports more quickly, or with more “convenient” findings.
On the other hand, citizen intelligence could have a lot to offer intelligence organisations. A suitably designed marketplace might enable the traditional agencies to take advantage of the power inherent in the crowd. Such a platform could be a “force multiplier”, at least for certain aspects of intelligence.
In view of these potential threats and opportunities, the Australian intelligence community should get on the front foot, shaping the future of citizen intelligence rather than just reacting to it.
This is a condensed version of a presentation given at the Technology Surprise Forum, Safeguarding Australia Summit, Canberra May 2019
The word “consequential” is a popular fallback for commentators seeking to invest a particular event with the significance it might warrant. On occasions, the word is misused to inflate a moment that does not rise to the level of “consequential”.
However, it would be difficult to argue against the proposition that leaders of the world’s largest economies are meeting late this week in Osaka at what is potentially a consequential moment in the reordering of a global power balance.
China’s rise and America’s ragged – sometimes bellicose – response under a Donald Trump administration is proving to be the most disruptive event in world economic and geopolitical history arguably since the allies prevailed in the second world war.
Whether Osaka proves to be a constructive occasion in an evolving and messy rivalry or simply a wasted opportunity remains to be seen. But stakes are very high indeed.
The proposed meeting between US President Donald Trump and his Chinese counterpart Xi Jinping to cauterise a simmering trade war is shaping as one of the more significant encounters between leaders of competing superpowers since the end of the Cold War.
Trump and Xi have spoken on the telephone in the lead-up to Osaka. Both sides indicated a desire to achieve a compromise on a long list of American complaints about what are perceived to be China’s mercantilist trading practices.
These include manipulation of its currency to make its exports more competitive; intellectual property theft that seeks to short-circuit its acquisition of advanced technology; a discriminatory regulatory environment that tilts the playing field against American companies seeking to do business in China; and use of companies like technology giant Huawei to spy on the west.
A looming “technology war” in which the US and China are at each other’s throats in the technology space is one of many disruptive elements of a trade conflict.
The Trump administration’s stated aim is to overcome a sizeable trade gap between the two countries. As a provocative down payment it imposed 25% tariffs on $250 billion worth of Chinese imports, with threats to expand those tariff penalties to another $300 billion.
China has retaliated by imposing its own tariffs on US imports.
If Trump and Xi cannot agree on steps that would enable their trade officials to return to the negotiating table, a highly disruptive trade war may well ensue, with unpredictable consequences for the global economy.
The World Bank, International Monetary Fund and G20 leaders, including Australia’s Prime Minister Scott Morrison, have been calling for a common sense approach to avoid a further deterioration in a global trading environment.
In a keynote foreign policy speech on the eve of the Osaka summit, Morrison called on Washington and Beijing to arrive at a compromise on their differences.
This will require the exercise of their special responsibilities by these great powers to resist a narrow view of their interests
It is therefore important that US-China trade tensions are resolved in the broader context of their special power responsibilities, in a way that is WTO consistent and does not undermine the interests of other parties, including Australia.
Given the sensitivities around Australia’s alliance relationship with the US, Morrison skated around America’s significant responsibility for a deteriorating global trading environment. Washington’s undermining of the World Trade Organisation, reduced to an empty shell, is part of this story.
As a trading nation heavily dependent on open markets, Australia risks being wedged between its security guarantor and its main economic partner. China receives one third of Australian exports.
Trade tensions between an established power and a rising one are disruptive enough on their own. But world leaders are meeting in Osaka against a background of a slew of other challenges that are threatening global stability.
These include a slowing global economy, due partly to uncertainties surrounding the US-China trading relationship. There is also the threatened war in the Middle East that would interfere – and possibly sever – an oil lifeline. Then there are localised conflicts such as those in Venezuela, which risk further destabilisation of regions in which they reside. And perhaps most serious issue of all is the erosion of America’s global leadership role.
Washington’s retreat into an “America First” mindset is depriving the world of what has been taken for granted since the end of the second world war. This is US leadership in guiding and nurturing institutions that constitute a post-war architecture.
Bodies like the United Nations, the International Monetary Fund, the World Bank, the General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade (GATT) as a forerunner to the WTO, the North Atlantic Treaty Organisation (NATO) and a host of other institutions would not have been possible without American inspiration and leadership.
Now, a Trump administration seems intent on diminishing these global overseers of a rules-based international order. Indeed, it is not clear whether Washington even believes in a rules-based order, as opposed to one in which it is everyone for themselves.
This is the toxic environment confronting leaders of 19 individual countries plus the European Union, who represent 90% of gross world product, 80% of world trade and two-thirds of the world’s population.
As is normal at these events, global leaders will face an agenda that includes, as the most important topic, “bolstering global growth, trade, and investment”.
This comes against a background of slowing global growth to 3.3% this year from an earlier forecast of 3.5%. The International Monetary Fund is predicting a slight pick-up in 2020, but this will depend on a resolution of US-China trade tensions.
Overlaying concerns among world leaders about a slowing global economy will be the threat of “de-globalisation”, in which supply chains are disrupted more generally.
What this portends is global economic fragmentation in which there is a breakdown in a WTO-supervised system, however imperfect.
This risks decades of relatively orderly global economic expansion that has lifted hundreds of millions out of poverty. In China’s case, it has enabled one of the more remarkable transformations in world economic history.
What might help us to appreciate the significance of this gathering is to go back a decade to the first G20 in 2008, when the world found itself in the maw of a global financial crisis that threatened to bring an international financial system crashing down.
Australian Prime Minister Kevin Rudd meets with Us President George W Bush at the first G20 summit in Washington in 2008.AAP/EPA/Ron Sachs/pool
On that occasion, world leaders came together in Washington to put in place confidence-building measures that helped stabilise a global economy under enormous stress.
At that inaugural meeting, the G20 proved its worth under American leadership. The US Treasury Secretary at the time, Henry Paulson played an important role in measures adopted to strengthen global economic governance.
A critical element of deliberations in 2008 was a resolve to reject protectionism and refrain from imposing new barriers to investment or to trade in goods and services inconsistent with WTO principles.
Today, there is a lack of consensus between America and its allies on a host of issues. These range from how to deal with the Iran crisis to the need to bolster a rules-based international order.
Ten years on from the 2008 G20, the world should hope that a similar crisis does not arise that would require American leadership of the order was demonstrated a decade ago. It is not clear such leadership would be forthcoming.
Staff shortages and a lack of training have once again emerged as key issues underpinning the nation’s aged care crisis, as the aged care royal commission hears testimony in Perth.
Registered nurse Noleen Hausler shared the experience of her 98-year-old father, Clarence, who was force-fed, assaulted and had a serviette held over his nose by a carer who was later convicted of aggravated assault.
Aside from this criminal behaviour, Ms Hausler said the standards at her father’s aged care facility declined after a new operator reduced staffing levels and employed carers with little training. Call bells went unanswered, she said, and incontinence pads were rationed.
Ms Hausler has called for increased ratios of registered nurses in aged care facilities, and better training and registration for carers.
Under-staffing and inadequate training have long been problems in Australia’s aged care facilities, with aged care facilities employing fewer registered and enrolled nurses and more carers who have lower levels of training.
A registered nurse (RN) provides nursing leadership and clinical supervision in aged care facilities. They are skilled clinicians who can respond to medical emergencies and are qualified to carry out assessments.
Registered nurses undergo three years of undergraduate study at university and are registered with the Australian Health Practitioner Regulation Agency (AHPRA) in order to practise in health care setting across Australia.
An enrolled nurse (EN) conducts observations and assessments, and collaborates with and seeks assistance from the registered nurse in charge. Enrolled nurses are registered with AHPRA and undergo an 18-month diploma of nursing at TAFE.
Finally, care workers form the bulk of the aged care workforce and perform tasks such as showering, dressing and feeding residents. Titles for carers vary and include assistant in nursing, personal care worker, personal care attendant, and aged care worker, to name a few.
Care workers are required to complete a certificate III-level course, which can take up to six or seven months, but don’t require registration.
Carers cost less than nurses
There is no clear legislation requiring a certain number of registered nurses, enrolled nurses and carers to be on duty at certain point in time. The Aged Care Act 1997 is open to interpretation, so aged care providers are largely free to set their own staffing levels.
As a result, in recent years aged care operators have recruited proportionally fewer registered and enrolled nurses and increasing numbers of unregulated carers.
Residents in aged care have complex needs, and those looking after them need to be equipped.From shutterstock.com
The changing make up of the aged care workforce is mainly influenced by economic advantage: hiring carers is cheaper than hiring registered or enrolled nurses.
It can also be difficult to find enough nurses. Nurse retention in aged care has been a major challenge for the industry because aged care providers often pay lower wages than hospitals.
But nursing care is worth the investment
Research shows having a greater number of registered nurses increases patients’ well-being and safety. Better staffing levels allow nurses to spend more time caring for residents and reduces the likelihood that vital information is overlooked.
Employing skilled registered nurses in aged care facilities can also save the health system money by reducing the number of costly hospital admissions that arise because residents can’t be adequately cared for in their aged care facility.
Aged care residents often have mental health issues, face cognitive decline or dementia, take multiple medications each day, are physically frail, and often have multiple chronic conditions such as heart disease, diabetes, cancer, arthritis or asthma.
But it’s difficult to meet the needs of these patients with the current aged care staffing and skill levels.
More than 50% of the residents in a residential aged care facilities have some form of dementia, for example, yet more than 50% of aged care workers have no dementia training.
Substituting registered nurses with lesser skilled carers has meant tasks such as medication management have been assigned to carers in some aged care facilities, despite this being a high-risk task that requires a high level of skill and experience.
What are the solutions?
Carers currently make up around 70% of the aged care workforce. We need to reset aged care staffing levels and ensure we have the right skill sets, which industry bodies suggest is: 30% registered nurses, 20% enrolled nurses and 50% care workers.
Registration would clarify carers’ roles and allow only the delegation of tasks which are deemed safe for carers to carry out within their scope of practice. It would also ensure minimum training standards are met and that quality and safety is maintained.
The aim is not to vilify carers, who are the backbone of our aged care system, but rather to highlight the need for the right level of training, education and support to strengthen the aged care workforce and complement the care provided by registered and enrolled nurses.
Finally, we also need to increase the number of registered and enrolled nurses in the aged care workforce with guided pathways to attract and retain nurses. Well-structured graduate nurse programs, for instance, can provide support and guidance to the graduates who are considering a career in aged care.
In case you missed it, 2018 was designated the Year of the Kerb by Sabrina Sussman, Zipcar’s public partnerships manager. This is because competition for limited kerb space has been increasing over the past few years, particularly in cities.
The kerb is the place that provides “access” between the street and the footpath. The definition tends to include the lane beyond the kerb that is used for car parking, bus stops, taxi pickups and dropoffs, and loading and unloading goods.
But kerb competition is increasing from a range of new users including: car sharing, ride sharing, e-scooter share, bike share and e-bike share, food delivery, online order deliveries and, in coming years, autonomous vehicles.
Share bikes are just the start of the many competing claims on kerb space.Joe Castro/AAP
With this range of new users, cities need to rethink how they manage this contested real estate. Without better kerb management, cities will face increased congestion on local streets from vehicles circulating to access the kerb and on footpaths from a range of shared mobility devices.
E-scooter share schemes also need kerb space for parking.EPA/AAP
One change cities will need to make to accommodate these new users is to repurpose kerb space, which has traditionally been used for parking, to other uses. This change will most likely have a significant financial impact.
One survey of the 25 largest US cities found parking-related revenues totalled US$5 billion in 2016, or about US$129 per person. While repurposing kerb space will not affect all of this revenue, it will have an impact on city budgets. To minimise this impact, cities will need to think about if, and how, to charge new users of kerb space.
The City of Seattle is one of the leaders in kerb management. The city categorised kerb use into six key functions:
mobility for travel lanes, bike lanes and bus lanes
access for people using bus stops, bike parking and loading zones
access for commerce to deliver goods
activation for small parks, food trucks and public art
greening for plantings, rain gardens and bio-swales
storage for parking, bus layovers and construction.
One of the first in-depth analyses of the kerb was in San Francisco. As part of this 2018 study, commissioned in 2018 by Uber Technologies, the consultants (Fehr and Peers) developed a Curb Productivity Index (CPI). The index considered three things to compare productivity of kerb use.
number of passengers using kerb space by mode
time period the activity was observed
total space dedicated to that use.
How to calculate kerb productivity
The CPI is a useful way of quantifying the various competing uses for the kerb.
It’s calculated by dividing the amount of activity by the amount of space used, multiplied by the unit of time. For example, the CPI for a bus stop that uses 45 metres of kerb for 250 arriving and departing passengers over four hours would be: 250 passengers/(45 metres x 4 hours), or 1.39 passengers/metre-hours.
Alternatively, the CPI for a car space that uses five metres of kerb that services two passengers over four hours would be: 2 passengers/(5 metres x 4 hours), or 0.1 passengers/metre-hours.
The CPI shows a bus stop is 13.9 times (1.39/0.1) more productive than a car park.
This analysis of usage data provides some rigour in developing a kerb management plan.
conversion, which involves eliminating some current uses and replacing them with new uses
flexibility, so kerb uses change depending on the time of day.
Trials of flexible kerb management are under way in Washington DC, San Francisco and Fort Lauderdale.
In changing how the kerb is managed, the 2018 report from North America’s National Association of City Transportation Officials recommends a “measurement over myth” strategy when converting parking to other uses.
Surveys on arrival mode consistently show public transport and active travel modes deliver more customers to adjacent businesses than private motor vehicles. Before-and-after studies confirm that replacing parking with public transport or bike lanes increases sales for area businesses.
To manage the conflicting needs of car and bike users for roadside space, San Jose has created kerbside bike lanes separated from the road by car parking.Will Buckner/Flickr, CC BY
While new mobility startups are part of the reason cities need to develop kerb management plans, other startups are developing new ways to manage this increasingly contested space. Some of these new companies include:
Open Curbs from Coord, a spin-off of Sidewalk, that provides wheelchair cuts, fire hydrants, bus stops and other physical kerb assets
Populus, a San Francisco transport company that has developed a mobility manager that provides data on e-scooter and e-bike share parking data
Remix, which has developed the New Mobility tool to analyse and visualise data-streaming feeds.
These startups have raised millions of dollars, due in part to the recognised value of the kerb.
Cities need to make the transition from parking cities to pickup/dropoff cities and to flexible cities. For this to happen, cities will need to think strategically about how to manage their kerbs with the emergence of new users and new mobility management options.
One of the first steps in this transition is for cities to ensure data standards and data-sharing arrangements are established as part of the basis for giving new users permission to access the kerb.
Review: See What You Made Me Do: Power, Control and Domestic Abuse by Jess Hill. (Black Inc).
You will not sleep if you read Jess Hill’s new book. Nobody should.
Anybody familiar with Hill’s work as an investigative journalist will have seen her Walkley Award-winning reports on family and domestic violence, including blistering interviews with women and child survivors.
Four years of intensive journalistic investigation have produced See What You Made Me Do, a book that vividly conjures the scale of the problem with fresh terror. It brings together stories of domestic violence and survival from all walks of life – from the affluent neighbourhoods of Sydney’s Bible Belt where “the streets are immaculate, and the houses are huge”, to struggling remote and regional communities.
Hill scrutinises the social and psychological causes of domestic abuse, its terrifying consequences, and – most hauntingly – the failure of our legal and social institutions to adequately respond.
At the centre of her book is an idea that shines bright in its clarity. Instead of asking “Why didn’t she leave?” – or embarking on yet another public awareness campaign to change attitudes to gender, which might have an impact in 20 years time – we need to invest more in justice programs that focus squarely on the perpetrators, holding them to account.
Hill argues this requires that we turn our habitual understanding of domestic violence on its head. Instead of allowing a public discourse to flourish that verges on the edge of victim-blaming we need to “think about his actions as much as we think about hers”. If we can do this, she writes, “we can stop perpetrators – not in decades to come, but right now”.
In Australia, Hill reports, a country of almost 25 million, one woman is killed every week by somebody she has been intimate with. She estimates that Australian police are called to a domestic abuse incident every two minutes.
“There are criminal offences committed within domestic abuse, but the worst of it cannot be captured on a charge sheet,” she writes. “A victim’s most frightening experiences may never be recorded by police or understood by a judge.”
It’s not a crime to tell your wife what to wear, writes Hill, or how to clean the house, or what groceries she’s allowed to buy. “It’s not a crime to convince her that’s she’s worthless, or to make her feel that she shouldn’t leave the children alone with you.” It’s not a crime to gaslight or “break her sense of what’s real”. These are the “red flags” for domestic homicide. But “by the time that crime occurs, it’s too late”.
The stories that Hill tells about children, and her interviews with child survivors, form the most chilling part of this book.
Child survivors, she writes,
know all the best places to hide, and how to make themselves disappear when the yelling starts. They hold their mother while she cries and they help wash off the blood …
And yet, there is little reliable data on how many children are affected by domestic violence. “It’s simply not officially measured,” writes Hill. An oft-cited Australian Institute of Criminology survey based on a small sample places the figure at 23%. Hill cites other studies that put it potentially higher.
But in media reports of domestic violence, children are barely mentioned. Journalists are not equipped to interview children, rightly fearing they may inflict further trauma. The unintended result is that children often feature as objects, possessions or extensions of their parents. This treatment is repeated in institutions such as the Family Court of Australia where, Hill writes, children’s voices are not heard in any direct way.
In one chapter, Hill returns to interview the child survivors she first spoke to in her landmark 2015 article in The Monthly. She tells the story of “Carly” and her brother “Zac” who were placed in the care of their father and denied contact with their mother “Erin” by court order after “Erin” had fled with the children interstate, fearing violence.
Hill quotes Carly’s 2016 letter to a victim’s rights advocate, Robyn Cotterell-Jones. “I am extremely unhappy living with my father and I fear for my safety … I’m so frightened that I never fail to lock my door whenever I enter my room …”
Hill argues that the silencing of children like Carly is “patently dangerous”. She writes:
The family law system too often treats kids as little more than parental property, and domestic abuse as an adults-only affair that is resolved once parents separate.“
The adversarial system of the Family Court does not serve domestic violence victims well. Hill writes of those who appear “disorientated and anxious” and “terrified their children will be ordered to see or live with someone they regard as dangerous”. In court, perpetrators more often appear “calm and rational” – thus their version of the story can appear more believable and they are seen as the “better parent”.
Hill’s book draws attention to the suffering of children subject to what she calls the court’s “whims”. She interviews a barrister who stayed in a violent relationship for ten years because she knew “just how unsafe the Family Court could be for victims” and their children.
A recent report of the Australian Law Reform Commission has recommended that the federal system of family courts be abolished and the powers be returned to the states and territories who are better equipped to deal with issues of child protection.
Perpetrators don’t assault women and children because society says it’s okay. Hill argues they more often assault women because they experience a sense of “shame” that conflicts with socially sanctioned models of masculinity that tell them they are entitled to be in control. The media label these attitudes “toxic” – as in the popular phrase “toxic masculinity”, which refers to the dense network of attitudes and beliefs that give rise to gender violence.
But words such as “toxic” carry the unfortunate connotation that such attitudes can be isolated and purged from the system; that another awareness campaign will fix them. Hill argues that while public awareness campaigns play a useful role, continuing to “blame the patriarchy” is an inadequate response.
The problem in public and media discourse is that the perpetrator remains an obscure figure. In media reports the actions of the perpetrator are linguistically and symbolically silenced.
Violence is often claimed to be “bizarre” or “unexplained” or “out of the blue”. Shadowy linguistic forms hide a murderous reality. “Axe slashes a family apart,” reads one headline. Similarly, the myth of the “good bloke” who is “driven” to murder his daughter and grandchildren elicits the headline, “He was in a bad place”.
Sometimes, victims – mostly women – are focused on and their lives and hopes or dreams discussed. Still, the question most articles ask are: “why didn’t she leave”? The behaviour of the perpetrator is rarely questioned.
Hill describes a revealing conversation with a counsellor from the Safe Steps 24-hour family response line.
“You must get so frustrated when you think a woman’s ready to leave and then she decides to go back,” I say.
“No,” replies the counsellor pointedly. “I’m frustrated that even though he promised to stop, he chose to abuse her again.”
Instead of “penning yet another ‘call to action’ – one more on the teetering pile” Hill asks that justice and law enforcement programs place the perpetrator at the centre of their crime fighting efforts.
Hill nominates as an example the interventionist approach of civic authorities in High Point, North Carolina, which successfully halved a domestic homicide rate that had been running at twice the US national average. In Australia, she draws attention to a “justice reinvestment” program in Bourke, NSW, which has seen domestic violence related assaults drop by 39%.
This book traverses terror and ends with a plea. Recording her own struggle as a writer and journalist, Hill describes “grasping for the perfect combination of words that will make you, the reader, feel it so acutely, with such fresh horror, that you will demand – and keep demanding – drastic action.”
Inaction is easy, she writes. All the perpetrator asks is that you say nothing.
In a rare show of unity, the heads of Australia’s biggest news organisations – the ABC, Nine and News Corp – have called for stronger legal protections for press freedom in the wake of this month’s police raids on journalists.
Sharing a panel at the National Press Club in Canberra, the media chiefs outlined several key demands:
search warrants to be contestable before the arrival of police
better protection for whistleblowers
a limitation on the number of documents being marked secret by various government bodies
a review of freedom of information laws
an exemption for journalists from being prosecuted under national security laws
First to address the lunchtime crowd was the ABC’s managing director, David Anderson, who called the fact that he was seated alongside News Corp Australasia executive chairman Michael Miller and Nine chief executive Hugh Marks “an unlikely coalition of the willing.”
But he underlined that unity was imperative because “the stakes are so high.”
Anderson made a passionate speech that stressed the ABC’s record of “speaking the truth to the community”. He listed the many investigative reports by ABC journalists that led to royal commissions, from Chris Masters’ 1987 “Moonlight State” report on corruption in Queensland’s police force to more recent ones in banking and aged care.
He also referred to the work of ABC journalists Dan Oakes and Sam Clark on a series of stories called the Afghan Files, the reporting that led to the AFP raid on the ABC’s Ultimo headquarters in Sydney.
Anderson argued that it was difficult for the media to do its job with the “patchwork of laws” in place and whistleblowers running the risk of “being cowed out of existence”. Most importantly, he stressed that
decriminalising journalism is a mandatory first step.
‘Balance too weighted towards secrecy’
Marks claimed that press freedom had been eroded in Australia due to a mix of technological change, bad legislation and over-zealous officials. He said it was now
more risky and it’s more expensive to do journalism that makes a real difference in this country than ever before.
Like Anderson, Marks also emphasised the important investigative public interest journalism carried out by Fairfax and Nine journalists in recent years, including work by Laurie Oakes, Adele Ferguson, Joanne McCarthy and Chris O’Keefe.
He argued that media freedom was under threat because “governments and institutions are becoming more secretive” and that national security was sometimes invoked to shut down debate on spurious grounds. He believed
the balance is too weighted towards secrecy.
Marks took issue with various current laws, arguing that defamation laws didn’t achieve what they were meant to and the huge rise in suppression orders and complexity of Freedom of Information laws led to an “obstacle course of legal hazards”. Bearing this in mind he said:
This would be the stuff of pantomine were it not so serious.
Miller drew attention to Australia’s slide down the 2019 World Press Freedom Index to number 21 – below Suriname and just ahead of Samoa – and commented that Australia should instead be “leading by example”. He believed that two AFP raids in two days, plus “strong information that other raids were planned” equalled “intimidation not investigation”.
Miller said News Corp had called on Attorney-General Christian Porter to make sure that its journalist, Annika Smethurst, doesn’t face criminal charges after the raid on her home.
He said many of the faults in our laws could be “easily corrected to reset the balance between security and the right to know”.
But there is a deeper problem – the culture of secrecy. Too many people who frame policy, write laws, control information, and conduct court hearings, have stopped believing that the public’s right to know comes first.
More action, fewer promises
The most interesting part of the discussion came when ABC’s Matthew Doran asked the panellists if they thought the public would get behind changing laws to suit a group of privileged journalists. Marks said it was a start.
Freedom of speech feels very personal to me. We have to make it feel personal for the public.
But there were some in the room who appeared less reassured by the rhetoric on display. The Guardian’s Katherine Murphy pointed out that when these laws were passed “tranche by tranche” in recent years, there was not much media focus on these changes.
Sky’s David Speers also seemed unimpressed that the media chiefs weren’t calling for a parliamentary inquiry, asking to whom they were speaking in regard to change. Miller’s reply was that they were releasing a document outlining their key demands and that the three of them being there together indicated the importance of the issue.
At the end of the day, perhaps the presence of all three media chiefs united together was singular. Immediately following the event, press freedom campaigner and University of Queensland Professor Peter Greste said “that rare show of unity is hard to understate” and that the AFP raids had
created a rare moment of opportunity that we need to seize.
Nonetheless, he thought it
deeply concerning that none of them seemed to have had any meaningful commitments to action from the government.
News Corp is taking its battle to the high court as it believes that the search warrant on Smethurst’s house was vague and incomplete.
The ABC, likewise, is challenging the police raid on its premises in federal court. Anderson would like the ABC’s downloaded data returned and wants there to be a “threshold test” regarding the justification for when the police can enter media premises.
The publicity from this unified initiative is no doubt positive, but it is entirely possible that a newly elected government could sit back and wait for these legal cases from News Corp and the ABC to pass through the courts before taking any action.
There is little pressure on governments to make concessions to an unpopular press in an era of suspicion of the media, whipped up by populist movements around the world.
The New York Times reported earlier this month that the United States was increasing its cyber attacks on Russia’s power grid. The attacks are seen as a warning against Russian intrusions into US systems, but one that carries a risk of escalation.
The public reporting of previously covert cyber attacks earned a retort from US President Donald Trump, who accused the New York Times journalists of a “virtual act of treason”.
But the story has been useful in generating discussion about the reasons for – and potential consequences of – such actions. It also raises the question of how vulnerable Australia’s power grid is.
So let’s take a look at who is capable of carrying out these kinds of attacks, how they work, and whether Australia is doing enough to protect itself.
Recent events may be newly reported, but the events themselves aren’t that new. Russian cyber attacks on US infrastructure may have been going on for years. According to the New York Times report, the US may have been undertaking similar intrusions in Russia since 2012.
While the story is limited to discussing cyber conflict between the US and Russia, there are many nation states with the ability to carry out such attacks.
To make things more complex, non-government actors can also launch cyber attacks. That includes individuals, organised crime groups, and proxies for nation states.
Why are we learning about this now?
When we talk about cyber security, and how to defend against threats from nation states, we’re usually talking about protecting confidential information. But when it comes to power grids, confidentiality isn’t particularly important. What is important is continuity of service, also called “availability”.
An adversary’s power availability would be a high-priority target during a conflict. Outside of conflict, the only logical rationale for a nation state to intrude on such systems would be to undertake reconnaissance and deploy malware that can remain dormant until needed.
In this regard, it doesn’t make sense that the US would intentionally leak its efforts, as appears to have been the case. It would prompt Russia to find the malware and, by disclosing intrusion techniques, it would “burn capabilities”.
Additionally, evidence of attacks could lead to an escalation of cyberwar between the US and Russia. Escalation is unlikely as long as responses to counter cyber attacks are undertaken in line with the principles of necessity and proportionality. But the uncertainty of attribution and consequences creates a potential for miscalculation in conducting cyber attacks.
The New York Times article was notable because it suggested the US president gave his commanders authorisation to undertake cyber attacks without his oversight. To avoid miscalculation, a balance is needed between a speedy response in cyber “active defence” and the kind of proper deliberation that will ensure the response is appropriate.
To date, there is no evidence that nation-state delivered attacks have resulted in power outages in the US or Russia. The apparent leak to the New York Times may not relate to a specific counterattack against the Russian power grid. Instead, it may be a form of diplomacy intended to signal US willingness and capability to counterattack.
Critical infrastructure is a term that refers to chemical production plants, power stations, oil platforms, and water pump stations. The technology that operates such infrastructure is called “operational technology” (OT). OT is a cyber-physical system that controls electricity generators and valves that mix chemicals in vats or transfer gas through pipelines.
To understand the threat, it helps to contrast OT with information technology (IT).
Confidentiality is a primary consideration for IT staff, who are focused on securing data from threats. They are well practised in patching vulnerable systems under their control. In an OT environment, availability is the primary driver, so keeping the plant working is considered more important than protecting against cyber threats.
Another difference between the IT and OT worlds is the lifetime of assets. OT system devices are built to last a long time before replacement. Using legacy OT technology that still works in itself is not a problem, as long as that technology is separated from other systems.
But the IT and OT worlds are converging to enable remote control and access to real-time plant operating data. Aside from the tension between priorities of confidentiality and availability, this convergence opens up OT vulnerabilities to attack.
When OT systems were developed decades ago, there was little thought of security, since most systems were only accessible on-site or through dedicated networks. With IT-OT convergence, keeping systems secure becomes a priority, but not at the expense of availability. Stopping a system, either for an update or due to a cyber attack, results in lost revenue and impact upon customers who could, for instance, lose power to their homes.
Have we seen successful attacks in the past?
Cyber attacks on Ukrainian power stations in 2015 and 2016 affected more than 200,000 customers, and provided lessons for the rest of us.
These events showed that an attack was more than just theoretical in the domain of energy systems. Engineers needed to physically visit each substation to return systems to operation.
As similar technology is used worldwide, the power grids of other nations are potentially vulnerable. Additionally, the malware used to command and control attacks is increasingly available for hire as cyber crime moves to a service-based model. And more sophisticated tools mean attackers require less skill to locate and attack internet connected devices.
In 2016, Australia’s Chief Scientist Alan Finkel released a review into the future security of the national electricity market. Following advice that the cyber threat to the national energy market was increasing, Finkel recommended stronger security measures be put in place.
By 2017, some action had been initiated to mitigate threats in the energy sector. Subsequently the Security of Critical Infrastructure Act 2018 was passed. The Act contains elements to help the government better appreciate the risk and to make certain directions to service providers to increase security.
The government is reportedly considering a proposal to enable the Australian Signals Directorate (ASD) to access the networks of companies operating critical infrastructure to defend them against cyber attacks.
In 2018, the Australian Energy Market Operator (AEMO) released the first annual report into the cyber preparedness of the market, identifying that current provisions are inadequate. AEMO has established a framework for operators to assess their security maturity, and strengthen measures.
Notwithstanding these efforts, recent reports suggest the number of attacks on critical infrastructure is growing. Meanwhile, the ability to prevent, detect or respond to these attacks remains low.
For many critical infrastructure systems, OT is a sunk investment that would be expensive to replace. Implementing substantial security improvements to upgrade the legacy energy environment will also be expensive, and it’s likely that costs will be passed onto customers. But there are cost-effective ways of improving security, including threat/vulnerability system monitoring. Some companies in Australia are doing this.
Cyber warfare is a reality. We should expect that cyber criminals and nation states adversaries could have some impact our lives in future by attacking critical infrastructure, such as the electricity grid.
Securing our infrastructure is a priority for the government and increasingly recognised as such by the market participants. The cost and need for security mitigations may seem unpalatable to many, but steps need to be taken to prevent a return to the dark ages.
Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Chris Turney, Professor of Earth Science and Climate Change, ARC Centre of Excellence for Australian Biodiversity and Heritage, UNSW
Late on Monday night, the City of Sydney became the first state capital in Australia to officially declare a climate emergency. With climate change considered a threat to human life, Sydney councillors unanimously supported a motion put forward by Lord Mayor Clover Moore to mobilise city resources to reduce carbon emissions and minimise the impact of future change.
The decision sees Sydney join a variety of local and national governments around the world, in a movement that is increasingly gaining momentum. In total, some 658 local governments around the world have made the same declaration, with the UK and Canada committing their national governments to the global movement in just the past two months.
An official declaration of climate emergency puts a government on a “wartime mobilisation” that places climate change at the centre of policy and planning decisions.
While interpretations differ on what a “climate emergency” means in practice, governments have established a range of measures to help meet the targets set by the Paris climate agreement. Under this agreement, 197 countries have pledged to limit global temperature rise to less than 2℃ above pre-industrial levels, and ideally no more than 1.5℃.
With the global cost of inaction on climate change projected to reach a staggering US$23 trillion a year by the end of the century (equivalent to around five 2008 global financial crises every year), several nations are already ramping up their Paris Agreement commitments ahead of schedule. The UK recently announced its intention to be carbon-neutral by 2050.
Australia is particularly vulnerable to the future financial costs of climate change, with economic models suggesting losses of A$159 billion a year through the impact of sea level rise and drought-driven collapses in agricultural productivity. The cost for each household has been put at about A$14,000.
After Sydney’s declaration, 150 faith leaders on Tuesday signed an open letter endorsing the decision, and describing the climate issue as a moral challenge that transcends religious belief. They have called for an urgent mobilisation to reach 100% renewable energy by the year 2030, and for an end to the approval of any new coal and gas projects, including Adani’s controversial Carmichael coal mine in Queensland.
The recent court ruling against the proposed Rocky Hill coal mine in the New South Wales Hunter Valley – a decision made partly on climate grounds – could mark a crucial turning point in the fortunes of future mining projects.
As part of its emergency declaration, Sydney has also called on the federal government to establish a “just transition authority” to support Australians currently employed in fossil fuel industries. This is an urgent issue and a crucial part of the transition to a low-emissions economy.
With the scale of change required to decarbonise the global economy and hopefully avoid a 2℃ warmer world, the need to support communities across Australia and overseas will likely become an increasing challenge for governments around the world. Putting ourselves on an emergency footing could help provide precisely the impetus we need.
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.
Early in Tom Lee’s debut novel, Coach Fitz, the narrator declares his intention to pay for an intensive program of training as a runner by saving money. He proposes to take on several menial jobs – window washing, school playground supervision, cocktail bartending – but also to adopt personal austerity, which includes “fulfilling the long-held dream of living in my car, an early model maroon Honda Odyssey”.
This is just one example of the book’s humour, a technique that is a vital aspect of its intriguing, multilayered appeal. This humour is much more than a device: it is an intrinsic part of a narrative that seeks to disrupt conventions of the novel by inverting reader expectations of the form.
At the same time, however, its anti-hero narrator, Tom, is cast in the mould of time-honoured tradition: Tom is an awkward everyman, a naïve Don Quixote, a digressive Tristam Shandy.
Giramondo
The story is a simple one: Tom has returned to Sydney after some time away – which has involved a failed relationship – and decides to focus solely on improving his physical fitness.
This is matched with a desire to strip down his life, as well as open it up: at the same time that Tom is living in his car and using outdoor beach showers, he is traversing and exploring the Sydney terrain, and absorbing lessons from his new coach on architecture, philosophy, the environment, and psychology, particularly tht of young males.
There is perhaps no immediate comic effect of the line about Tom living in his Honda, but the fact is the more I re-read it the funnier it seems. It is typical of the humour that ripples through every page: measured, grave, almost sober.
This humour relies entirely on the personality and thus voice of the narrator, and yet this narrator at first glance is far from comical: indeed, his voice is fussy, pedantic, and endlessly self-regarding.
It is not surprising to learn that two authors for whom voice is paramount have influenced this novel: W. G. Sebald, in particular his 1995 novel The Rings of Saturn, and closer to home the fictions or “reports” of Gerald Murnane, such as Barley Patch.
Comedy is possibly not the first quality that springs to a reader’s mind when considering these two authors either, however in both Sebald and Murnane we also hear voices of pedantic precision and obsessive reflection that at times strike comic notes.
Like Tom, the narrators of these texts seem entirely unaware of the humour of their utterances. For instance, in Murnane’s 1982 novel, The Plains, the narrator at one point confides in great detail to the reader his plans for seducing his patron and host’s wife, but without any apparent understanding of how preposterous these plans are.
Coach Fitz author Tom Lee has been influenced by authors Gerald Murnane and WG Sebald, for whom voice is paramount.Aaron Seymour
To claim that comedy is not content-driven, but relies entirely on voice, is of course hardly new: voice is also essential for any stand-up comedian, however this is expected – it’s the object of a comic routine. The narrative of Coach Fitz is not a routine, and the comedy is part of the journey, not the destination.
Although there is this innocence, or lack of self-consciousness, paradoxically, the narrator is also consciously considering every aspect of his existence. Nothing is left unexamined in his pared-back running and training life: sourdough bread, outdoor exercise gyms, internet cafes, muscle tone, horse racing, domestic architecture, urban native vegetation, the Six Foot Track in NSW, and the eccentric eponymous coach herself, an endless source of scrutiny who eludes ultimate comprehension.
Context is also vital in this comic effect. It is possible to open the novel almost at random and extract a sentence that chimes harmoniously and delivers this measured, sober comedy, but I suspect if I were to select another line as I have above, it would not sound funny out of context.
The narrator is profoundly contradictory. He is pompous but his earnestness makes that forgivable. He is well-informed, indeed over-informed, passing on to the reader his knowledge of everything from topography and birdwatching, to the best breakfast to be found in the eastern suburbs’ cafes, and yet knowledge does not necessarily deliver understanding. For example, Tom is unable to anticipate or deal with the main crisis thrust upon him when Coach Fitz makes a drunken lecherous move on him.
Indeed, for all this knowledge, Tom remains an innocent. Having cast off Coach Fitz he decides to become a trainer himself, and selects as his first pupil the brother of the woman he hopes to get back together with: the reader can see how that will go down a mile off, but he cannot.
Lee’s narrator strikes the reader as someone with whom you would happily spend a day with, exploring an urban track before sharing a picnic of bread, cheese, figs and olives, but whose singular charm would wear thin soon enough. Despite that I yearn to hear this voice again.
But in the latest twist in this saga, the Australian Charities and Not-for-profit Commission (ACNC) has confirmed that it has
received multiple requests to comment on the Australian Christian Lobby’s decision to support Israel Folau’s fundraising for legal costs.
The Australian Christian Lobby (ACL) is a registered charity with the ACNC and is subject to its reporting and governance rules. If raising funds to support Folau’s legal action falls outside the ACL’s charitable purpose, it could risk losing its status as a registered charity – and all the benefits that come with that.
The managing director of the ACL, Martyn Iles, strenuously denies the Folau fundraising campaign is in breach of its charitable purpose, saying this includes
the advancement of the Christian religion and advocating for changes in law and public policy. It’s clear that [Folau’s] case is a matter of both religious freedom and legal advocacy.
What is the ACNC?
The Australian Charities and Not-for-profit Commission was established in December 2012. It has three objectives:
maintain, protect and enhance public trust and confidence in the sector through increased accountability and transparency
support and sustain a robust, vibrant, independent and innovative not-for-profit sector
promote the reduction of unnecessary regulatory obligations on the sector.
As part of its mission, the ACNC maintains a publicly searchable register of Australian charities. There are currently around 56,000 charities in its database.
While registration is not mandatory, there are powerful incentives for charities to do so. For example, income tax exemptions are only available for charities registered with the ACNC. Registration also confers a certain element of legitimacy on a charity and increases public confidence in its work.
In order to register with the ACNC, an entity must be not-for-profit and have a charitable purpose in the public benefit. The Charities Act 2013 currently list 12 different charitable purposes, such as advancing health, education, religion or culture.
Once registered with the ACNC, charities must report annually on their activities and provide information about their finances.
The ACNC also oversees the activities and work of charities. If a member of the public is concerned about a charity, they can lodge a complaint and the ACNC will investigate. One of the essential roles of the ACNC is to ensure charities do not use the mantle and privileges of their charitable status to engage in conduct that is not charitable in nature.
As part of this function, the ACNC will investigate accusations that a charity has used funds or assets
for the private benefit of its members, or these have been stolen.
However, the ACNC cannot investigate complaints related to fundraising itself.
Prior to the creation of the ACNC, there was no publicly searchable register of charities in the country. Nor were charities required to make information about their activities and finances publicly available.
As a result, it was sometimes difficult to be confident that charities were, in fact, engaging in charitable work. Registration and reporting have brought much-needed transparency to the sector.
The ACL is registered as a charity for the advancement of religion. According to its 2018 annual information statement, its main activities are focused on religion, education, research and advocacy, and civic work. It aims to
advance Christianity by seeing Christian principles and ethics influencing the way Australia is governed, does business and relates as a community.
The ACL’s decision to raise funds for Folau’s fight against Rugby Australia raises concerns about the role of charities in assisting individuals to take legal action to protect their rights and freedoms.
There are a lot of unknowns in the Folau saga. We are at the beginning of what may be a protracted social and legal debate over issues such as freedom of speech, freedom of religion, LGBTI+ rights and the ability of employers to control the behaviour of their employees, to name just a few.
Despite these unanswered questions, it is important to have clarity around the role charities can play in litigation by individuals. It matters not just for the ACL, but the myriad other charities that may wish to support people in taking legal action to defend their rights.
If the ACL really is confident that Folau’s case is a matter of “both religious freedom and legal advocacy”, it should welcome the investigation. A finding in its favour would clear the way for the charity to financially support further legal actions in freedom of religion cases in Australia.
Victorian education minister James Merlino’s announcement mobile phones will be banned for all students at state primary and secondary schools is certainly a bold move.
The policy has been justified as a direct response to mounting levels of cyberbullying, concerns over distractions and schools struggling with discipline relating to students’ misuse of phones.
Students will have to switch off their phones and store them in lockers from the start of the school day until the final bell. In case of an emergency, parents or guardians can reach their child by calling the school.
The only exceptions to the ban will be where students use phones to monitor health conditions, or where teachers instruct students to bring their phone for a particular classroom activity.
Whether to allow student use of mobile phones is school is certainly a hot topic in education. The Victorian announcement follows a French government ban on mobiles in school in 2018. Debates on the issue are also taking place in Denmark, Sweden and the United Kingdom.
There is considerable public support for banning mobiles. In our recently conducted survey of more than 2,000 Australian adults, nearly 80% supported a ban on mobile phones in classrooms. Just under one-third supported an outright ban from schools altogether.
Support for a classroom ban was remarkably consistent across different demographics, including political affiliation and age group.
But while banning phones from classrooms, and from school altogether, might seem sensible, there are number of reasons to be cautious. It’s clear we need to carefully consider how we want to make use of digital devices being brought into schools. But previous experience, such as in New York, suggests a blanket ban might introduce even more problems.
And the little research evidence that addresses the issue is mixed.
What’s the evidence?
Reports of cyberbullying have clearly gone up among school-aged children and young people over the past ten years, but the nature and precedents of cyberbullying are complex.
Research suggests there is a large overlap between cyberbullying and traditional forms of bullying, which wouldn’t then follow that digital devices are somehow causing these behaviours.
Cyberbullying also often takes place outside school hours and premises. There is a danger banning phones from classrooms might distract education staff from having to continue with efforts to address the more immediate causes of cyberbullying.
There is also a growing literature exploring the links between digital devices and classroom distractions. The presence of phones in the classroom is certainly found to be a source of multi-tasking among students of all ages – some of which can be educationally relevant and much of which might not.
But the impact of these off-task behaviours on student learning outcomes is difficult to determine. A review of 132 academic studies concluded, it is
difficult to determine directions and mechanisms of the causal relations between mobile phone multitasking and academic performance.
There is also a strong sense from classroom research that issues of distraction apply equally to laptops, iPads and other digital devices.
All told, the sense from academic literature is that the realities of smartphone use in classrooms are complex and decidedly messy. Our own research into how smartphones are being used in Victorian classrooms highlighted the difficulties teachers face in policing student use (what some teachers described as requiring “five minutes of firefighting” at the beginning of every lesson).
Despite this, we also found instances of students using smartphones for a range of beneficial purposes – from impromptu information seeking to live-streaming lessons for sick classmates.
These benefits are also reflected in classroom studies elsewhere in the world. Research from Stanford University has demonstrated, for instance, that with proper support and preparation, teachers in even the most challenges of schools can “build on the ways students already use technology outside of school to help them learn in the classroom”.
There is now a whole academic field known as “m-Learning” where researchers have explored the pedagogical and learning advantages of using mobile devices (including phones) in lessons.
But what about a blanket ban from school altogether? Experience from elsewhere suggests enforcing a mobile ban in schools may not be as easy as it sounds.
What we can learn from others
The New South Wales government announced a review into the benefits and risks of mobile phone use in schools in June 2018, led by child psychologist Michael Carr-Gregg. At the review’s completion, the government said it would only ban mobile phones from the state’s primary schools, leaving secondary schools free to make their own choice.
We recognise that technology plays an important and increasing role as students progress through their education […] We want to give secondary schools the flexibility to balance the benefits and risks of technology in the way that best supports their students.
Perhaps the most pertinent example is the ban enforced in New York City from 2006, that was eventually lifted in 2015.
The reasons given for this reversal highlighted several of the concerns the new ban in Victoria will likely face. They include practical difficulties of enforcing a ban in the classroom being exacerbated by banning of phone use during break times and lunchtimes.
First, it was clear the New York ban was being inconsistently enforced by schools – with better resourced schools in more affluent areas more likely to bend the rules and permit student use. In contrast, schools in lower-income areas with metal detectors were more likely to be rigidly enforcing the ban.
Other motivations for lifting the ban were concerns over student safety such as the need for students to contact family members during break times and lunchtimes. Families were also incurring costs to store phones securely outside of the school. There was also a recognition teachers should be trusted to exercise their professional judgement as to how they could be making good educational use of devices in their lessons.
At the same time, it was reckoned government resources were better directed toward supporting students to learn how to use technology responsibly through cyber-safety lessons.
All these reasons are as relevant now to Victorian schools as they were to New York City schools in 2015. The use (and non-use) of mobile phones in schools is certainly an issue we need to have a proper conversations about. But it might not be as clear-cut as the recent policy announcements suggest.
Will KiwiBuild minister Phil Twyford lose his portfolio in tomorrow’s Cabinet reshuffle? That’s the big question, given that the Government’s flagship housing programme has been so heavily discredited, and the accompanying debate about Twyford’s role in the debacle and whether he’s to blame.
It seems unlikely that Twyford will get the sack. Although Prime Minister Jacinda Ardern has been unwilling to express her complete confidence in Twyford’s KiwiBuild work, she has also recently claimed that he’s done an “incredible job”. She has also backed him by saying “I’m loath to see one individual carry any blame for what has been a policy that’s been difficult”.
Newstalk ZB’s Heather du Plessis-Allan also argues today that it’s unfair to blame Twyford for a policy that he inherited from Annette King and David Shearer, and which has been strongly pushed by all Labour MPs including Ardern – see: Why all of Labour must take blame for ridiculous KiwiBuild.
Here’s du Plessis-Allan’s main point: “This was a major Labour party policy at two elections. It was a huge promise that they keep on repeating. He was the guy asked to do the best he could with that. He was effectively given a helicopter and told to fly to the moon. How could he make that work? It was always impossible. So he doesn’t deserve demotion actually.”
But there are many commentators – from across the political spectrum – who believe Twyford should go. Writing for the Herald yesterday, David Cormack says: “So the big thing that should happen and which seems to have been signalled is Twyford should lose at least one portfolio. Probably housing. Because truth be told KiwiBuild has been a cluster fuss. And Phil has not been great at fixing the housing crisis” – see: Why Twyford will probably lose housing portfolio (paywalled).
In terms of his replacement, Cormack says: “The Minister best placed to probably pick up the housing portfolio would be a big ol’ nerdy swot. Someone like David Parker.”
For Matthew Hooton, the most obvious candidate to be the new Minister responsible for KiwiBuild is Kris Faafoi, but he says the Government seem to want to keep Twyford in place: “the current Beehive line is that perhaps Twyford should remain Minister of Housing now that he has learned about the industry and from his complete failure so far” – see: Why Housing Minister Phil Twyford must go (paywalled).
Hooton believes this would be a mistake: “there is precious little evidence that Twyford, now 56, is a person who can listen and learn. KiwiBuild, after all, is not a new policy. It was announced by Labour back in 2012 with Twyford responsible for building and construction all the way through.”
Furthermore, there’s a question of accountability: “surely the Prime Minister must hold him accountable for the tens of millions he has wasted on his initial folly”. And Hooton says Ardern owes to Aucklanders, to “not leave them under the control of someone whose credibility among everyone from first-home hunters to the country’s most senior business leaders is so low.”
Twyford is actually failing to be accountable for the KiwiBuild fiasco according to Duncan Garner, who points out that the minister simply is no longer doing media interviews on the housing programme: “Twyford is so embattled he’s now living in his own panic room. We have asked, in the public interest, to interview Twyford 11 times in recent months – he’s turned us down every time. Phil, if you can’t be accountable to the people, stop taking up space in Cabinet” – see: Twyford’s no-show at KiwiBuild conference a ‘middle finger’ to the industry.
In fact, Garner points out that Twyford has failed to be accountable to the construction industry that is working on KiwiBuild, saying that the minister pulled out of a Kiwibuild summit this week, thereby insulting those who were expecting to hear him speak. Apparently, Twyford “astonishingly, pulled the middle finger to the entire industry and pulled out at the last minute. The industry wants to know, deserves to know, what, how and when his shambles of a policy will be euthanized or scaled back.”
See also, Garner’s earlier column: Flagship KiwiBuild policy in tatters as PM refuses to speak its name. In this, Garner asks what exactly Twyford was doing for nine years in opposition? And he says: “Truth is Twyford has let himself down and continues to let the country down every day by not being totally upfront and realistic.”
The pros and cons of getting rid of Twyford are discussed by Claire Trevett in her article last week: Housing Minister Phil Twyford’s Waterloo: Will KiwiBuild cost him? (paywalled). She points out the irony in the fact that, when he was in opposition, Twyford used to go hard against the then Housing minister, Nick Smith, for his lack of progress, and he’d frequently call for his resignation. But “the tables have turned somewhat” and now Twyford is on the receiving end of the same sort of scrutiny over the housing crisis.
Here’s Trevett’s main points about whether to sack or retain Twyford: “Handing the portfolio to another minister would buy some breathing space and break that association. However, there are problems with moving the portfolio to another minister. The first is the shortage of ministers able to take on the Mr or Ms Fixit role required, and turn things round before 2020. The other problem is whether anybody would want the job. Many would prefer Twyford to carry the can if things turn totally to custard. Ardern will also be assessing how much of the KiwiBuild mess is Twyford’s own fault and whether Kiwibuild is as bad as it seems”.
At the KiwiBuild summit this week there was obviously plenty of discussion about the ongoing viability of the housing programme. According to an RNZ report from the summit, “A poll of people at the KiwiBuild summit found a majority had little to no confidence in KiwiBuild ever achieving its original aims. And the frustration from industry is clear. They want the Government to move in other areas too – in regulatory reform, freeing up land and building. Infrastructure” – see: Construction industry urges Government to get on with KiwiBuild changes.
This article also reports that other Government figures attended the Kiwibuild summit but were reluctant to be accountable for KiwiBuild or even discuss the details of the programme. Standing in for the absent Twyford, Jenny Salesa, the Building and Construction Minister, apparently “didn’t even mention KiwiBuild once in her speech” and told journalists: “In terms of housing and KiwiBuild is part of housing, I’m not the responsible minister”. Similarly, “the head of the KiwiBuild Delivery Agency, Helen O’Sullivan, also refused to answer media questions on progress.”
Some of the reluctance by the Government to talk about KiwiBuild might relate to the fact that the long-promised “reset” or “recalibration” might be about to take place. It was supposed to happen about six months ago, but is continually being delayed. The most recent statement on the timing from Twyford is that: “It’s taking a little bit longer but it won’t be much longer. I’d be I would think, a few weeks at most.”
It now seems that KiwiBuild might even be entirely killed off. Henry Cooke reports that Jacinda Ardern has signalled the housing programme could be axed before the next election, which would leave all of Labour’s main election promises broken – see: KiwiBuild policy not guaranteed in 2020.
Cooke explains how the flagship housing programme was a great example of policy made on the hoof – or in this case, made up by Annette King during a short car ride with the head of the Salvation Army. It seems the policy was also more designed for ideological and electorate purposes than to actually be implemented. And Cooke details how the scheme took on a piecemeal approach, with all of the original promises of the scheme slowly but surely dropping away.
Another version of what went wrong can be found in former Property Institute of New Zealand CEO, Ashley Church’s article, Why did KiwiBuild go so badly wrong? This boils down to the idea “that ‘Government planning’ is an oxymoron and that the best thing the Minister could do, to achieve his targets, is to get out of the way and leave the private sector to it”.
Alternatively, David Cormack has an explanation that says the Labour politicians were just too naïve and too ready to see the housing problem as a National Party one: “It seems that Labour genuinely believed that National wanted a housing crisis and it was merely a lack of willpower and smugness that stopped them from fixing it. So along came Phil, and with all the willpower and smugness in the world he was unable to fix it. Maybe there are more systemic issues at play, like RMA reform, the cost of new-build components and other boring bureaucratic issues that require attention.”
In Hooton’s column, above, he also criticises Labour for taking such a limited and piecemeal approach to solving the housing crisis: “it would have to be done at scale, utilising the Crown’s procurement power, rather than as a collection of much smaller projects”. He says that should have been done on a mass scale, and would have been more successful if it had instead involved building 100,000 state houses (which could still be privatised in a “rent to buy” scheme).
Duncan Garner also has another opinion piece in which he is scathing about Twyford’s failure to properly develop the KiwiBuild concept, explaining that the problems have come about because it was never a serious proposal: “Kiwibuild was more marketing than anything made of solid concrete; it was only ever just a slogan, but slogans do not turn into affordable houses. You can’t sleep in a slogan, or stay warm in a catchphrase, or house your family in a branding exercise. I am sorry to say this New Zealand, but we were taken for fools and we were misled; joke, flop, pathetic, disappointing, lost opportunity. Nine years of neglect? That is Labour had nine years in opposition planning Kiwibuild, but not doing a day’s work on it” – see: Has there been a bigger flop that Phil Twyford’s Kiwibuild?
In the first week of June, the AFP raided the home of News Corp journalist Annika Smethurst and the ABC’s Sydney headquarters.
The raids concerned stories published over a year earlier, based on documents leaked from the Department of Defence. This week, the ABC and News Corp launched separate legal challenges to those raids. As David Anderson explained, the ABC is challenging the warrant “on several technical grounds that underline the fundamental importance of investigative journalism and protection of confidential sources”.
The ABC commenced proceedings in the federal court, whereas News Corp took its challenge directly to the High Court. Nonetheless, both cases will raise similar legal issues, with press freedom at the heart of each challenge.
Both the ABC and News Corp are arguing that the AFP warrants infringe the “implied freedom of political communication” protected by the Australian Constitution. This challenge sets national security and press freedom against one another and could lead to groundbreaking developments in constitutional law.
But a closer look reveals the thinness of the implied freedom as a true protection for press freedom and the need for clearer protections.
The Australian First Amendment? The implied freedom of political communication
The Australian Constitution contains very few rights. None resemble the US Constitution’s First Amendment which protects, among other things, free speech and a free press.
In 1992, the High Court read between the lines of our Constitution to hold that it protects the free flow of political communication. This implication was justified as necessary to protect our system of representative and responsible government and, specifically, to enable voters to make an informed choice at elections.
The implied freedom is not a right to free speech. First, it only protects political communication, not speech generally. Secondly, it is not a personal right that may be wielded against the government. Instead, the implied freedom is a limit on legislative power, and not an absolute one at that. This means the Constitution only prohibits Commonwealth, state and territory governments from passing legislation that unjustifiably limits political communication.
In recent High Court decisions, safe access zones around abortion clinics were upheld as justified restrictions on political communication, and in NSW, caps on third party political donations were struck down as unjustified restrictions.
The courts will consider three questions when they determine whether the law that supported the AFP raids violates the implied freedom. It is far from clear whether the media organisations’ challenges will pass this three-stage test.
Step 1: A burden on political communication?
The first question is whether the law burdens (restricts) political communication. In this case, the burden is unclear. The warrants were issued to further investigations into government leaks and the handling of classified information, but the leaks had happened and the stories published over a year earlier. In this sense, the political communication had run its course unhindered. If no burden on political communication is established then the challenge will fail.
On the other hand, the execution of the warrants is almost certain to stifle public interest reporting. The raids may deter journalists from investigating and publishing stories based on classified materials, even where they reveal corruption or misconduct.
Even more seriously, the raids will deter potential whistleblowers from speaking out. This impact may be too vague for the High Court to engage with – after all, how could a lawyer present evidence of a general chilling effect? Nonetheless, it is a serious and severe consequence of police crackdowns on media, with a direct impact on each voters’ capacity to make a true and informed choice at the ballot box.
Step 2: A legitimate purpose?
If there is a burden on political communication, the second stage of the test will ask whether the burden is for legitimate purpose – that is, a purpose compatible with our system of government.
While some may criticise the AFP raids as reflecting an illegitimate purpose of targeting journalism critical of the government, the warrants also undoubtedly had a legitimate aim: the maintenance of national security by ensuring the integrity of government secrets.
Step 3: A proportionate measure?
This third stage of the test is the trickiest. It asks whether the restriction on political communication is justified and proportionate in light of its legitimate purpose. Is it tailored to that purpose? Were there alternative, less-restrictive measures that could have been adopted? In this kind of balancing exercise, reasonable minds can, and will, differ.
National security is a serious concern that goes to the very existence of the nation. It is universally accepted that some rights and freedoms must bend to the security of the nation.
Press freedom, on the other hand, including source confidentiality and the capacity to report on government misconduct, is critical to the rule of law and our democratic system. The courts will be faced with the question of when national security justifies the erosion of press freedom, and when it does not. This is no easy or predictable task.
In the context of the AFP raids, the present threat to national security posed by the published articles appears to be weak. On one view, the burden on political communication was severe and arguably unjustified, provided the court accepts the chilling effect that the raids will have on journalists and whistleblowers.
Alternatively, the limit on communication may be nonexistent, as the raids didn’t prevent the stories from being published. There are likely to be further interests and facts that weigh into this balance.
On available information, it is only clear the ABC and News Corp will face a number of complex and unpredictable hurdles in convincing a court that the warrant powers violate the Constitution.
The protection of press freedom
The implied freedom of political communication serves an important purpose in protecting political speech from unjustified infringement. Its capacity to protect press freedom remains untested before the High Court, and this challenge presents a golden opportunity for the court to recognise the place of the fourth estate within our constitutional framework.
But the implied freedom is not a right to free speech or a free press. It hinges on the concept of “justification”, and when national security is placed on the scales it is difficult to find a counterweight to meet it. Hence national security is regularly invoked to justify infringements of our basic rights and freedoms, and it is difficult to know how and when these infringements are unnecessary.
Robust protection of press freedom in Australia is unlikely to be achieved through the interpretation of a Constitution that makes no reference to the fourth estate, freedom of speech, the rule of law, or other basic rights or freedoms. Clearer protections are needed. This could take the form of legislative recognition of press freedom.
Charters of Rights such as those in Victoria, the ACT and Queensland also operate to ensure basic freedoms are taken into account, not just in court but in parliament and across all public sector decision-making. This approach has clear advantages over the technical and unpredictable application of implied constitutional freedoms months after the event.
In the absence of these kinds of reforms at a national level, we wait to see if the High Court will once again read between the lines of our Constitution and recognise a central place for the free press in Australia.
Long-time Australian climate campaigner David Spratt and former fossil fuel company executive Ian Dunlop have issued a bold call for unlikely partners to work together to avoid climate catastrophe.
The 10-page paper put out by the climate-focused think tank Breakthrough is a succinct warning of the dire consequences of not acting on the climate science now and spells out possible scenarios of doing little to nothing.
It points out that the Paris Agreement was a “political fix” and is not enough to stop runaway climate change.
It also says that the International Panel on Climate Change has been too cautious — even conservative — in its projections regarding the prospects of climate catastrophe.
-Partners-
The paper affirms that more than 1.5°C warming will lead to “catastrophic” outcomes for the Earth. Some scientists are saying 1.5°C warming is imminent in 10 years.
In another decade we may well see an Arctic free of summer sea ice — a circumstance that two decades ago was not expected to happen for another 100 years.
Global mobilisation While Spratt and Dunlop’s call for some kind of global emergency mobilisation is welcome, its (admittedly) vague proposal for an alliance with the national security sector is odd.
They say that “a massive global mobilisation of resources is needed in the coming decade to build a zero-emissions industrial system and set in train the restoration of a safe climate”.
The paper also backs calls for “a drastic, economy-wide makeover … within the next decade”.
They then say: “The national security sector has unrivalled experience and capacity in such mobilisation, and can play a unique role in its development and implementation, as well as educating policy makers of the existential security risks in failing to do so”.
Their short list of recommendations urges policy makers to examine how the national security sector can play a role “in providing leadership and capacity for a near-term, society-wide, emergency mobilisation of labour and resources, of a scale unprecedented in peacetime, to build a zero-emissions industrial system and draw down carbon to protect human civilisation.”
While vague, this proposal contains a lot of assumptions about the national security sector and comes across as eco-authoritarian.
It also reveals the problematic nature of thinking up “solutions” to the climate emergency while ignoring the existing balance of forces.
Real change Do Spratt and Dunlop really believe that the security sector would be willing to go after the 100 fossil fuel producers (including privately held and state-owned companies) responsible for 71 percent of the greenhouse gas emissions released since 1988?
Let’s not forget where the power for real change resides. As Jeff Sparrow wrote in Overland, “we might all be in this together but, politically, we are not”.
Winning a safe climate future has to include holding those most responsible for the current crisis to account.
There is no doubt about the need to chart a new direction for a safe climate. But to pull that off, society would have to mobilise on a scale capable of forcing governments to do so. To achieve this, the climate movement has to significantly expand and deepen.
The climate movement has to be looking out for all possible allies, but it has to prioritise natural allies such as the global student-led climate strike movement.
The climate movement has to devote time to winning people over to take action — and the student strikers are leading the way.
They have called for another global strike on September 20 and are asking for help. They want everyone on board. The challenge is now on us to expand the organising.
Democratic movement If the climate movement is going to be able to grow to the point where governments find it is politically impossible to continue with business-as-usual, the movement has to be democratic, inclusive and capable of building united fronts, including with unlikely partners.
As the big struggles against wars, racism and sexism show, there are no top-down short-cuts to creating the kind of system change we need.
Those who think the urgency to act may necessitate some sort of eco-authoritarian measures — a kind of 21st century Malthusianism — will find they will lose their best and most powerful ally: the global student strike movement.
Supporting the students must be our key policy recommendation.