The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Ryna Ordynat, PhD Candidate in History, Monash University

Duelling has gone down in history as a rather quaint and misunderstood practice, a butt of the joke in historical comedies and references. However, duelling was once not only common but considered the pinnacle of honour and bravery, an event that could change one’s reputation – and indeed end one’s life – in a pull of a trigger.

It is extraordinary, and a little fantastical to our modern mind to think that some of the most famous and respected individuals in history, such as Alexander Hamilton, one of the Founding Fathers of the U.S. and the seventh President of the U.S. Andrew Jackson, both fought in many duels. Hamilton died in a duel in 1804. Jackson duelled over 100 times, was wounded in two and killed at least one man.

In our age of “trolling” and social media wars, the idea that one man may calmly, and according to proper social rules, kill another over an accusation of cheating at cards, or of being a corrupt or incompetent politician, seems utterly barbaric. This modern incomprehension frequently shows in popular media. Modern filmmakers and writers of TV series and musicals can’t help projecting their own feelings when interpreting duelling in their work.

Take, for example, the successful musical Hamilton based on Alexander Hamilton’s life. The Burr-Hamilton duel, which ended Hamilton’s life, is portrayed in several songs. In one song, founding father Aaron Burr sings, “Can we agree that duels are dumb and immature?” and declares that the whole affair is “absurd”. It must certainly have seemed so to Lin-Manuel Miranda, who wrote the lyrics, but Burr himself probably had very different feelings on the matter.

Recent TV shows set in the 18th and early 19th century, notably Poldark and the 2016 BBC mini-series adaptation of Tolstoy’s War and Peace, depict duels similarly.

In the duel between Pierre and Dolokhov in the miniseries of Tolstoy’s novel, the words “I know it’s stupid but I think I must go through with it” are put into Pierre’s mouth. They encompass what the creators probably understood about duels – that they are stupid, but must be fought, for some unknown reason.

And in season four of Poldark, the main character utters, “My only regret is that I apologised in the first place”, to drive home the point that his faulty pride regrettably caused the duel.

This is not to argue that duels were in any way positive affairs, and should be portrayed as such.

The duel was a highly ritualized activity practised mainly by the upper classes from about 1500 to 1900. It was held in private, usually at dawn, as duelling was illegal throughout Europe and America. It was seen as neither a recreational sport, nor an urge or uncontrollable male aggression – the duel was an affair of honour. In the words of Samuel Johnson:

In a state of highly polished society, an affront is held to be a serious injury. It must, therefore, be resented, or rather a duel must be fought upon it.

Honour was a most crucial concept for gentlemen, and ladies, tied up with one’s reputation. The importance placed on defending honour made refusing a duel challenge nearly impossible; the social consequences for doing so were severe. Indeed, gentlemen did not shoot each other over trivial matters, but rather over slander and accusations of falsehood or dishonesty.

Duels involving women were not fought to gain a woman’s love, as some modern adaptations try to show, but rather because men took responsibility for the protection of honour of certain women in their lives. The duel, therefore, was a way to honourably and privately resolve offences. Its causes varied from accusations of cheating to women’s infidelity.

Alexander Pushkin, considered by many to be Russia’s greatest poet, died in a duel in 1837, defending the accusations that his wife Natalya had been unfaithful. His death echoed in many ways the famous duel between Eugene Onegin and Vladimir Lensky in Pushkin’s Onegin.

Scrupulous regulation

A duel was scrupulously regulated by an elaborate and detailed set of rules, though the specifics of the duelling code varied between countries. Many codes of duelling and help manuals were published throughout the 18th and 19th century, the most popular being the Irish code duello, published in 1777.

The duelling gentlemen would always have “seconds” – friends whose role was to negotiate a resolution of the dispute to avoid a potentially lethal confrontation, usually to very little success.

The high probability of death was, of course, ever present in duels, especially when pistols became more fashionable than rapiers. Pistols could misfire and rarely shot straight, and could also be deadly in the hands of incompetent seconds, whose task it was to provide and load them.

Doctors were also indispensible in duels. The Art of Duelling, published by “A Traveller” in 1836, warns the duellist to remember to “secure the services of his medical attendant, who will provide himself with all the necessary apparatus for tying up wounds and arteries, and extracting balls”.

Public opinion (and ridicule) eventually led to the death of the duel. By the late 19th century, it was successfully banned by most countries, heavily criticised in the press, and frowned upon by the public.

This was, of course, a good thing, as we can all agree there are far better ways of resolving disputes. But next time you watch a duel on television or in a film, it might be worth recalling the history and meaning of this very serious rite of honour.

The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Rachel A. Ankeny, Professor of History and Associate Dean Research (Faculty of Arts), University of Adelaide

From cells that manufacture chemicals, to better crops, environmental monitoring and tailored medicine, synthetic biology presents many opportunities for Australia.

Released this week, the Synthetic Biology – An Outlook to 2030 report by the Australian Council of Learned Academies (ACOLA) describes this promise, and appeals to scientists to conduct public consultation and engagement about synthetic biology.

But we are concerned that without the right regulation and engagement, we risk letting the promise of synthetic biology slip through our fingers.

Read more: The synthetic biology revolution is now – here’s what that means

Synthetic biology involves the application of engineering principles to biology. It allows living systems to be designed and built at the level of DNA.

As the report details, there have been limited studies on public awareness of and attitudes to synthetic biology, and what social values people may associate with it (such as feeling positive about the economic and medical promise, or seeing it as “tinkering” with nature, and something to be feared).

Without addressing this issue, Australia might be at risk of putting substantial resources behind technologies that create products nobody wants – or that some people actively reject (such as has occurred for some types of genetic modification research). Conversely, without knowing more about the social values in this context, we may not prioritise areas where synthetic technologies are most needed, and most likely to be accepted.

We strongly agree with the synthetic biology report that mistakes associated with past efforts at public engagement about genetic modification should be actively avoided.

The public should be involved in true deliberation over our shared futures for 2030 and beyond, and what synthetic biology might contribute.

What people think of synthetic biology

Data from 2017 demonstrate the general public has low awareness of the term “synthetic biology”. But once it is defined, 62% of people have positive attitudes about its potential to improve our lives.

More recent research indicates that a majority of Australians (88%) view science as having made life easier. But many of us have clear concerns about the use of animals for research and genetic modification.

Based on these studies, we anticipate that people will hold diverse perspectives and values in relation to synthetic biology, particularly about different types of applications. This has implications across scientific disciplines.

If synthetic biological approaches in health are seen to be good, but those in agriculture worrisome, for example, how will Australia generate a consistent response to these types of technologies?

Read more: Perceptions of genetically modified food are informed by more than just science

Small sector can present benefits

Australia hosts considerable biological and technological expertise relevant to synthetic biology – but it’s a small sector. Some see this as a disadvantage for innovation, especially with uncertain funding.

However, from the perspective of regulation, small size can be an advantage. Australian research currently occurs mostly in the public sector (that is, within universities and the CSIRO) rather than in more commercialised settings – as happens in countries such as the United States.

This means that scientists, social scientists and the public can come together to collaboratively shape future research agendas in Australia. They can communicate in a relatively open fashion, without concerns about “commercial in confidence” strictures.

The public nature of research here in Australia allows (or even forces) us to focus on and transparently debate as a society what we want to explore and build using synthetic biology. Such debates can occur at the level of institutional ethical review committees, via grant processes and even through public involvement in policy reviews.

For example, consultation and participation of the general public plus the medical and scientific communities was influential in recommending reforms to Australian laws around the use of human embryos in research.

Is existing regulation fit for purpose?

Synthetic biology is a diverse field, covering the design of viruses, bacteria, human and plant cells, as well as the engineering of cells integrated with technology.

This diversity makes the field different to the more familiar, if heavily contested, terrain of genetic modification.

Nevertheless, existing Australian regulation within the Gene Technology Act does address many of the concerns likely to arise in synthetic biology.

Where there are gaps, regulations can be refined and detailed to address them, as shown by a consultation process over 2017-18 that recommended amendments to the original act of 2001.

Other agencies such as the Therapuetic Goods Administration (TGA) may need to review the regulatory framework governing medical devices, and how therapeutic products are defined, as the technologies associated with synthetic biology evolve.

Read more: Proposed new regulations for 3D printed medical devices must go further

It’s also important to acknowledge that capability to work at the level of DNA could create the potential for development of bioweapons such as more virulent viruses or modified bacteria. These present challenges not only for biosafety but also biosecurity.

Such risks must be proactively addressed as the field evolves by the Office of the Gene Technology Regulator (OGTR) and the TGA, together with international players under the auspices of the Biological and Toxin Weapons Convention.

The activities of bio-hackers and others who operate outside of usual research settings present additional challenges for regulation.

We’re in a good position

Australia is recognised as having efficient pathways and internationally standardised approaches to biotechnology regulation. This puts us in a strong position to devise innovative and effective policy solutions for synthetic biology.

Early regulatory consideration of the likely impacts of emerging approaches in synthetic biology will be critical, including where existing regulation can be redeployed.

As is typically the case with emerging technologies, there are likely to be high hopes and even hype, along with questions and fears about how these approaches can be used to promote shared social goods.

If we don’t do this well, we risk alienating members of the public. We risk closing doors for scientists pursuing promising research.

Our futures are shared, and so too should be our approaches to synthetic biology.

The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Priscilla Wehi, Conservation biologist, Manaaki Whenua – Landcare Research

Museums throughout Aotearoa New Zealand feature displays of enormous articulated skeletons and giant eggs. The eggs are bigger than two hands put together. This is all that remains of the moa.

Tracing extinctions that happened centuries ago is difficult, but our collaborative analysis of ancestral sayings, or whakataukī, found that early Māori paid attention to their local fauna and environment and recognised the extinction of these giant, flightless birds that were an important food resource.

After Europeans arrived, some whakataukī used moa as a metaphor for the feared extinction of the indigenous Māori people themselves, which emphasises the powerful cultural impact the extinction of moa had.

To go the way of the moa

Moa once walked the uplands and forests of Aotearoa New Zealand, before they were hunted to extinction some 500 years ago. Although moa belong to a time long gone, their story still packs a powerful punch. Especially as we attempt to save the many threatened species at risk of disappearing in our own time.

Read more: A sperm race to help save one of New Zealand’s threatened birds, the sugar-lapping hihi

Although we know when moa disappeared, and why, we know far less about how people alive then responded to the giant birds’ extinction. The loss of the world’s big animals – megafauna including mammoths, cave bears, giant kangaroos – is a repeating theme. These extinctions mostly happened so long ago that we can no longer flesh out the relationships humans had with these species, except in bare bones terms.

But New Zealand was one of the last places on earth that people settled (around AD 1280), and Māori oral traditions retain clues about the species these early settlers discovered, and the ecological relationships they forged.

E koekoe te tūī, e ketekete te kākā, e kūkū te kererū
The tui chatters, the parrot gabbles, the wood pigeon coos

It takes all kinds to study the past. Our team includes a conservation biologist, a linguist, a bioinformaticist and experts in Māori culture. Together, we delved into the wealth of ecological knowledge embedded in Māori oral traditions. We unpicked language cues, historical events and cultural contexts to understand habitats, animals, landscapes and the relationships between them.

Many whakataukī (pithy sayings like English proverbs) reveal intimate observations about nature. The link between flowering times and animal activity expose seasonal cycles. Whakataukī note the abundance of food resources.

Of those that refer to birds, a disproportionate number talk about moa. What they looked like. How they trampled through the forest with their heads in the air. How best to eat them.

He koromiko te wahie i taona ai te moa
The moa was cooked with the wood of the koromiko

Oral traditions can be highly practical. Māori whakataukī are no exception. Many refer to large birds that made excellent meals, from tītī (muttonbirds) to shags. This tallies with the abundance of bones from large bird species that are found in the rubbish dumps of New Zealand archaeological sites.

But whakataukī tell us more. Sometimes, what is missing from a body of knowledge reveals more than what is actually there. We searched the whakataukī for bird species that became extinct in the first few centuries after Māori arrived in New Zealand. There were none, apart from moa, and the giant eagle, or pouakai, that preyed on moa. Pouakai tracked moa on the highway to extinction.

We know that many large bird species existed at this time – giant adzebills, a large goose, the New Zealand raven. But their Māori names are lost. Extinction is reflected in the whakataukī, but sometimes in the gaps.

Kua ngaro i te ngaro o te moa
Lost as the moa was lost

Losing the names of birds that died out centuries ago illustrates one powerful connection between language, culture and biodiversity. When a species goes extinct, the words and knowledge associated with that species start to disappear from the world, too. This extinction pattern is particularly acute in oral cultures.

In contrast, we still recall the birds that went extinct after European arrival – huia, piopio, koreke (the New Zealand quail), whekau (the laughing owl). The changes wreaked on our environment over the last two centuries remain abundantly clear.

Many whakataukī highlight the disappearance of the moa, a sign that moa represented more than just another extinction. They were a poster species. A hashtag. Many sayings lament the loss of the moa, using different words and different phrasing, but with an echo that repeats over and over.

Huna i te huna a te moa
Hidden as the moa hid

Māori recalled the moa after Europeans arrived, too. Māori were suffering badly from diseases and deprivation in the late 1800s. It was as though the Māori world was being felled along with the forests. There was a very real fear among both Māori and Europeans that Māori people and culture would also disappear, just like the moa.

Ka ngaro ā-moa te iwi nei
The people will disappear like the moa

Thankfully, of course, the Māori world is growing. Its whakataukī speak of ecology and history, but more than this, they highlight timeless issues, as relevant today as when they were written, framed as observations of the natural world. A recurrent underlying reminder is that our own future is directly interconnected with our environment. Let’s listen to the lessons in whakataukī, so we can create an enduring legacy for the future.

Whaowhia te kete mātauranga
Fill the basket of knowledge

The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Andrew Dodd, Director of the Centre for Advancing Journalism, University of Melbourne

If you’ve seen the movie Spotlight, about the Boston Globe investigative reporters who uncovered the staggering extent of child sexual abuse in the Catholic Church in the US, you’re already familiar with the work of Walter V. Robinson. He’s the one played by Michael Keaton in the film.

In today’s episode of Media Files – a podcast about the media and how it works – Robinson shares some insights into where the Spotlight investigation began: from scratch.

“I mean, we made our living doing mostly stories about government corruption and malfeasance and we didn’t have a single file anywhere in all of our file cabinets that had the word ‘priest’ or ‘church’,” he says in today’s episode of Media Files.

“I said, look, let’s do this: let’s assemble a list of everybody we can think of who’s ever had anything to do with this sexual abuse of children in Massachusetts and let’s call them all and see what we can find out.”

The initial trickle of leads would soon turn into a flood.

“We had 300 victims just in Boston alone who contacted us in the first two or three weeks after we published,” he said, adding that, for many, “we were the first people they had ever told and they all thought that they were the only ones that this had ever happened to.”

Read more: Review: Spotlight’s revealing story of child abuse in my home town – and maybe yours

As Australia’s Royal Commission into Institutional Responses to Child Sexual Abuse has now made clear, the horrors the Spotlight team uncovered were not a uniquely US problem.

Australian journalist Chad Watson was editing the Newcastle Herald on the day investigative reporter Joanne McCarthy filed a column that contained a chillingly prescient line.

“Part of that column was the line, ‘There will be a royal commission into clergy abuse in Australia because there must be’. I remember reading that line before we went to print and I thought, ‘Yep, tomorrow I’ll talk to Joanne about that’,” Watson says on Media Files.

“And at that stage, Joanne had been writing about clergy abuse for 10 years; she had probably written 500 stories about it. And we thought, well, what are we going to do about it?”

McCarthy’s reporting, published while Watson was editor of the Newcastle Herald, lit the fuse that led to the Royal Commission into Institutional Responses to Child Sexual Abuse. Watson told Media Files there were endless challenges along the way.

“We had legal threats from the Catholic Church. We had priests from the pulpit mentioning the Newcastle Herald. I was actually in mass myself – and now I don’t go to church much anymore – when the priest mentioned that there was a statement at the back of the church to be collected about reports in the Newcastle Herald,” he said. “And I have had friendships fracture.”

In today’s episode of Media Files, we talk about the challenges in covering clergy abuse, how media outlets handle accusations against people who have since died and how journalists work with vulnerable survivors of abuse.

Read more: How investigative journalists are using social media to uncover the truth

Media Files is produced by a team of journalists and academics who have spent decades working in and reporting on the media industry. They’re passionate about sharing their understanding of the media landscape, especially how journalists operate, how media policy is changing, and how commercial manoeuvres and digital disruption are affecting the kinds of media and journalism we consume.

Media Files will be out every month, with occasional off-schedule episodes released when we’ve got fresh analysis we can’t wait to share with you. To make sure you don’t miss an episode, find us and subscribe on Apple Podcasts, in Pocket Casts or wherever you find your podcasts. And while you’re there, please rate and review us – it really helps others to find us.

You can find more podcast episodes from The Conversation here.

• Suicide Call Back Service: 1300 659 467
• Lifeline 24-hour counselling: 13 11 14
• Mental Health Crisis Helpline in each state and territory.

Recorded at the University of Melbourne’s Centre for Advancing Journalism. Producer: Andy Hazel and Gavin Nebauer.

Additional audio

Theme music by Susie Wilkins.

The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Alexander Holden, Lecturer in Dental Ethics, Law and Professionalism, University of Sydney

The effect of teeth whitening was discovered quite by accident. In the past, dentists tried to treat gum disease with mouth rinses containing hydrogen peroxide. They noticed teeth became whiter over time following use of these mouthwashes.

In modern-day Australia, teeth whitening is offered by dentists, other dental practitioners and by cosmetic businesses on the high street. Many teeth-whitening products are also available over the counter for home application, including gels and strips. So which option is best and safest?

Read more: Curious Kids: My tooth fell out. Why is it so spiky on the bottom?

How do they work?

Teeth whitening has also been commonly called teeth bleaching, mainly because the active ingredient in most products is hydrogen peroxide (or products that release hydrogen peroxide when mixed with water or air).

Teeth whitening is somewhat controversial; different countries have different rules regarding the permitted concentrations of hydrogen peroxide released by products and who may provide these.

In Australia, only a dental practitioner may provide products that release more than 6% hydrogen peroxide. In New Zealand, non-dentists may apply up to 12% hydrogen peroxide to whiten teeth. In the UK, it’s illegal for anyone other than dentists to use concentrations higher than 0.1%.

Despite lay practitioners in New Zealand using far higher concentrations of hydrogen peroxide, we don’t really have any evidence of harm to the public from this difference in policy.

Dentists in Australia are able to use high concentrations of hydrogen peroxide. Some in-chair whitening systems use 35% hydrogen peroxide. At this concentration, hydrogen peroxide can effectively permeate deep into the enamel structure. Weaker concentrations act only at the surface of the tooth enamel.

While hydrogen peroxide is the active ingredient in most whitening products, some teeth-whitening gels contain carbamide peroxide or sodium perborate. Both of these agents break down to release hydrogen peroxide.

What’s the difference?

So what’s the difference between teeth whitening by a dentist, in a cosmetic setting, and do-it-yourself home kits?

Recently, the lines between these categories have blurred somewhat. Many dentists now offer teeth-whitening treatments that are then taken home and used by consumers. Non-dentists are also offering “in-chair” whitening treatments, often with products that require light activation. Both of these methods work by releasing hydrogen peroxide, but in-chair systems tend to use products that release higher levels of hydrogen peroxide, especially those used by dentists.

Lab-based research suggests in-chair whitening by dentists increases the strength of enamel, making it more resistant to erosion from acid. In contrast, home whitening was shown to increase the loss of mineral content within enamel, which over time may lead to weakness.

The researchers suggest home systems should be used under the supervision of a dentist. Whitening products bought over the counter, when used excessively, could lead to damage to teeth over time.

Read more: Bad teeth? Here’s when you can and can’t blame your parents

The main difference is dentists will take a mould of your teeth and use that to make a whitening tray. This ensures the treatment touches your teeth only and not your gums. It’s important hydrogen peroxide isn’t left in contact with gums for a long time as this can cause burns.

Many outlets offering teeth whitening claim to use “peroxide-free” products. Consumers should ask what these actually contain. Products might be free of peroxide before use, but then release hydrogen peroxide when activated.

Products that genuinely don’t contain or release hydrogen peroxide are unlikely to be very effective in whitening teeth.

Enamel that is bleached by DIY whitening products may be vulnerable to damage from abrasive toothpastes. Prolonged use of home whitening products may weaken the surface of the enamel, making it more vulnerable to acid damage or wear.

Once teeth have been whitened, you don’t have to keep on whitening them, but the effects will gradually fade over time. These usually last 6-12 months, depending on brushing and diet.

It doesn’t take too much searching to find a huge range of home remedies for teeth whitening. From rubbing banana peel on your teeth, to brushing with a mixture of lemon juice and bicarbonate of soda, there are lots of quick-fix teeth-whitening solutions. While many of these home remedies simply don’t work, many contain acids, sugars and powerful abrasives, which may lead to tooth damage and poorer dental health if used routinely.

Toothpastes that contain charcoal have increased in popularity in recent times. Some promote these products as beneficial for oral health and teeth whitening. However, a recent review in the Journal of the American Dental Association found insufficient evidence to support these claims.

Read more: Explainer: what are wisdom teeth and should I get mine out?

Before you go

Before you undergo any course of teeth whitening, it would be a good idea to have a check-up to make sure your mouth is healthy. It’s quite common for teeth-whitening products to cause sensitivity. Usually this is temporary in effect. Identifying any dental health issues beforehand will reduce the risk of experiencing too many surprises.

One limitation of any type of whitening treatment is that dental restorations, such as tooth-coloured fillings, veneers and crowns (caps), won’t change colour, as the whitening only takes effect on natural teeth.

This can then result in a mismatch between the whitened natural teeth and any such restorations. It’s a factor to consider when having teeth whitened by someone without formal dental training as they might not be able to predictably identify which teeth will not whiten.

Treatment by dentists typically costs more, but comes with more assurances for patients. Dentists can use stronger products, are more likely to understand what is achievable with each type of whitening (office-based or home) and can also help more effectively if anything goes wrong.

The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Anna Skarbek, CEO at ClimateWorks Australia, Monash University

While Australia is coming to terms with yet another new prime minister, one thing that hasn’t changed is the emissions data: Australia’s greenhouse gas emissions are not projected to fall any further without new policies.

Australia, as a signatory to the Paris Agreement on climate change, has committed to reduce its total emissions to 26-28% below 2005 levels by 2030, and reach net zero emissions by 2050.

Read more: Why is climate change’s 2 degrees Celsius of warming limit so important?

New analysis by ClimateWorks Australia has found Australia has three times the potential needed to reach the federal government’s current 2030 target, but this will not be achieved under current policy settings.

Energy is not the only sector

Australia’s emissions were actually falling for more than half a decade, but have been steadily increasing again since 2013. If Australia sustained the rate of emissions reduction we achieved between 2005 and 2013, we could meet the government’s 2030 target. But progress has stalled in most sectors, and reversed overall.

Emissions are still above 2005 levels in the industry, buildings and transport sectors, and only 3% below in the electricity sector. It is mainly because of land sector emissions savings that overall Australia’s emissions are on track to meet its 2020 target, and are currently 11% below 2005 levels.

Despite the current focus on the energy market, electricity emissions comprise about one-third of Australia’s total greenhouse emissions. So no matter what policies are proposed for electricity, other policies will be needed for the other major sectors of industry, buildings, transport and land.

Fortunately, Australia is blessed with opportunities for more emissions reductions in all sectors.

Read more: Keeping global warming to 1.5 degrees: really hard, but not impossible

ClimateWorks’ analysis assessed Australia’s progress on reducing emissions at the halfway point from the 2005 base year to 2030, looking across the whole of the economy as well as at key sectors.

We found emissions reductions since 2005 have been led by reduced land clearing and increased forestation, as well as energy efficiency and a slight reduction in power emissions as more renewable energy has entered the market. But while total emissions reduced at an economy-wide level, and in some sectors at certain times, none of the sectors improved consistently at the rate needed to achieve the Paris climate targets.

Interestingly, some sub-sectors were on track for some of the time. Non-energy emissions from industry and the land sector were both improving at a rate consistent with a net zero emissions pathway for around five years. The buildings sector energy efficiency and electricity for some years improved at more than half the rate of a net zero emissions pathway. These rates have all declined since 2014 (electricity resumed its rate of improvement again in 2016).

Looking forward

Looking forward to 2030, we studied what would happen to emissions under current policies and those in development, including the government’s original version of the National Energy Guarantee with a 26% emission target for the National Electricity Market. Our analysis shows emissions reductions would be led by a further shift to cleaner electricity and energy efficiency improvements in buildings and transport, but that this would be offset by population and economic growth.

As a result, emissions reductions are projected to stagnate at just 11% below 2005 levels by 2030. Australia needs to double its emissions reduction progress to achieve the federal government’s 2030 target and triple its progress in order to reach net zero emissions by 2050.

So, while Australia is not currently on track to meet 2030 target, our analysis found it is still possible to get there.

Read more: What is a pre-industrial climate and why does it matter?

The gap to the 2030 target could be more than covered by further potential for emissions reductions in the land sector alone, or almost be covered by the further potential in the electricity sector alone, or by the potential in the industry, buildings and transport sectors combined. Harnessing all sectors’ potential would put us back on track for the longer-term Paris Agreement goal of net zero emissions.

Essentially this involves increasing renewables and phasing out coal in the electricity sector; increasing energy efficiency and switching to low carbon fuels in industry; increasing standards in buildings; introducing vehicle emissions standards and shifting to electricity and low carbon fuels in transport; and undertaking more revegetation or forestation in the land sector.

The opportunities identified in each sector are the lowest-cost combination using proven technologies that achieve the Paris Agreement goal, while the economy continues to grow.

Read more: Australia can get to zero carbon emissions, and grow the economy

In the next two years, countries around the world, including Australia, will be required to report on the progress of their Paris Agreement targets and present their plans for the goal of net zero emissions. With so much potential for reducing emissions across all sectors of the Australian economy, we can do more to support all sectors to get on track – there is more than enough opportunity, if we act on it in time.

The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Alan Morris, Research Professor, University of Technology Sydney

Public concern about housing affordability in Australia is well documented. It would be reasonable to assume our local governments are giving the supply of affordable housing the attention it deserves. However, our national survey reveals that while it’s a growing concern for many local governments across the country, especially in metropolitan areas, most councils do not view the provision of affordable housing as a priority for them.

The survey results strongly suggest that local governments do not feel they have the capacity to intervene in a meaningful way.

The survey included a range of questions about local governments’ engagement with housing-related activities in their area. We asked about the priority given to housing issues, how important housing is relative to other council issues, and what kinds of policies and initiatives they plan to implement to help resolve the problem.

All 546 local governments in Australia were invited to participate in the survey. We received 213 responses. The majority, 72%, came from non-metropolitan areas (there are a lot more non-metropolitan local governments).

Do councils think it’s a problem in their area?

Almost all the metropolitan councils saw housing affordability as an issue (Figure 1). Half saw it as a very substantial or substantial issue. Only 13.5% said it was not an issue.

In contrast, only 26.6% of non-metropolitan councils responded that housing affordability is a substantial or very substantial issue.

The responses to the question about what proportion of housing stock in the council area is affordable were remarkable (Figure 2).

Half of the metropolitan councils said only 5% of the housing in their local government area (LGA) was affordable. Three-quarters said 10% or less. Even in the non-metropolitan areas, 43% of councils said only 15% of housing was affordable.

What are councils doing about it?

Despite recognising the problem, very few councils appear to be making the provision of affordable housing a priority. Just 13.5% of respondents from metropolitan areas and 15.5% from non-metropolitan LGAs said their councillors gave housing affordability a substantial or very substantial amount of attention (Figure 3).

Linked to this lack of attention, few councils viewed “finding ways to provide adequate affordable housing” in their LGA as a priority (Figure 4). Not one metropolitan council answered to a “very substantial extent”. Only a quarter said to “a substantial extent”.

About four in ten metropolitan councils and over half of the non-metropolitan councils viewed finding ways to provide adequate affordable housing locally as a non-priority. These councils had put this on the far backburner.

Local governments were also asked what priority had been given to housing relative to other council issues (Figure 5). Just 1.8% of respondents in metropolitan areas and 5.2% in non-metropolitan areas said housing had been given “very high” priority.

More encouraging was that about four in ten councils in metropolitan areas did say they had given it high priority relative to other issues. Very few non-metropolitan councils, about one in five, said housing was a high priority or very high priority relative to other issues.

Do councils have policies, targets or strategies in place?

Fewer than half of those surveyed said they had a “housing policy, housing plan or housing strategy” in place (Figure 6).

Those that reported having a formal policy said it focused on such issues as housing affordability, residential land development, population change, urban design, social and public housing, and energy efficiency.

However, our survey reveals that those policies are not perceived as being particularly extensive. Figure 7 shows just one in four local governments in metropolitan areas and 10% from non-metropolitan areas believe their council’s housing policies are “comprehensive” to a very substantial or substantial extent.

The data suggest that having an explicit housing affordability target was viewed as unrealistic. Only 17.3% of metropolitan councils and 10.1% of non-metropolitan councils said they had an explicit target (Figure 8).

Whose responsibility is it to provide affordable housing?

It’s noteworthy that, out of 213 councils, only one felt local government should be primarily responsible for “addressing the problems associated with housing in Australia” (Figure 9). The overwhelming sentiment was that state government or a combination of all levels of government should be responsible.

The results suggest that improving housing affordability in a meaningful way is beyond the remit of local government. State and federal governments need to take the lead.

Although many councils are well aware that housing affordability is an issue in their area, they feel unable to respond in a meaningful way. An explanation for this is a unanimous view that Australia’s housing affordability problem is beyond the capacity of local governments to resolve. Almost all councils believe the provision of affordable housing is the responsibility of state and/or federal governments.

This is not surprising when we consider that local government accrues only 3.5% of all tax revenue. Local councils lack the fiscal capacity to develop affordable housing.

Further, state governments often override local governments’ efforts through the planning approvals to ensure all new developments have an affordable housing component.

The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Rafal Chomik, Senior Research Fellow, ARC Centre of Excellence in Population Ageing Research (CEPAR), UNSW

Prime Minister Scott Morrison has abandoned the Coalition’s long-held commitment to lift the pension age from 67 to 70.

The current age is 65½. Under legislation introduced by Labor in 2010 in return for a pension increase, the age of eligibility is set to climb to 67 by 2023. The incoming Abbott government went further in its first deeply unpopular budget, announcing a plan to lift it to 70 by 2035, a measure it was never able to get through the Senate and which never attracted Labor support.

“I don’t think we need that measure any longer when it comes to raising the pension age, and that’s one of the things I’ll be changing pretty quickly” Mr Morrison told the Nine Network on Wednesday.

Read more: Morrison does about-face on age pension eligibility rising to 70

“I’ve been talking to my colleagues about it, we’ll ratify it next week. The pension age going to 70 is gone.”

Why lift the age in the first place?

When the pension was first introduced in 1909 Australians could only expect to live until their mid 50s. Today a newborn Australian can expect to live into his or her 80s. And if we account for likely future improvements, Australians now aged 65 can probably expect another 30 years, taking them into their mid-90s.

Usefully from a workforce point of view, most of the increase has been in healthy years rather than years with disability at the end of life.

Lifting the age to 70 would have cut the population eligible for the pension by about 1 million, saving the budget a considerable amount and potentially boosting the economy.

Treasury modelling suggests that a five percentage point increase in the workforce participation rates of 50-69 year-olds would boost GDP by 2.4% by 2050.

Pension eligibility could have brought it about. Most older Australians say they retire because they reach the eligibility age, rather than for other reasons such as pursuing hobbies or spending time with family.

Why drop the idea?

The short term political cost of an unpopular policy outweighed the hypothetical, distant benefits, and there were always doubts about those benefits and how the burdens were to be shared.

For one thing, the immediate financial concerns about the pension had been largely addressed. Official projections show it remaining affordable. Changes to the pension asset test, introduced by Mr Morrison as Treasurer reinforced this.

Also, applying the higher eligibility age to everyone raised concerns about fairness. The oft-quoted life expectancies are averages. Low income Australians live about 6 years less than high income Australians and are often in worse health. Their jobs are also more likely to be physically demanding, necessitating earlier retirement.

Read more: The pension age is rising to 70: a case of one size fits some

And concerns that retirement was often involuntary remained unaddressed. More than one quarter of Australians aged over 50 say they experience discrimination in the workplace. With unemployment benefits lagging standards of living, how would they survive in the years between losing their jobs and getting the pension? While the official unemployment rates for older workers are low, they are unemployed for the longest.

And public opposition remained. While age increases are the most common type of pension reform in developed countries, they are also the most visible and controversial type of reform. In some countries such moves have caused riots and toppled governments. Australia’s dumped policy might have been before its time. The Australian pension was set to reach age 70 about 20 years earlier than elsewhere.

What next?

Reversals of pension age policies are not uncommon. Canada, Czech Republic, France, and Poland have back peddled on previously planned increases (mostly back to age 65!). But longevity and working lives are increasing. Australia’s mature age labour force participation rates have been edging up. And about 13% of workers over 45 say that they never intend to retire.

Perhaps the focus will now shift away from the stick of pension eligibility to the carrots of enabling and incentivising older people to work on their own terms, with policy levers that improve health, skills, and labour market opportunities.

While “the pension age going to 70 is gone”, the greater debate about responding to the challenges of population ageing is only getting going.

The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Anna Potter, Discovery Early Career Research Award (DECRA) Fellow, Senior Lecturer Screen and Media Studies, University of the Sunshine Coast

Two Australian children’s TV programs, First Day and What’s It Like To Experience a Disability?, won prestigious Prix Jeunesse awards in May. Both were commissoned by the ABC’s children’s channel ABC ME. Both remind us that Australian children’s television consistently punches above its weight on the international stage.

Yet, despite these recent successes, Australian children’s TV is in a policy limbo. Amid recent and ongoing government reviews into the future of local screen content, uncertainty reigns on issues such as the impact of Netflix and other streaming services, the fate of local content quotas and funding for original local children’s TV more generally.

What we do know is that Australia’s commercial free-to-air networks continue to lobby for the removal of quotas for locally made children’s content (which they usually only just meet). We know too that cuts to the ABC budget threaten local production.

The 2015 cuts led to reductions in spending on drama and children’s content. For example, ABC ME now commissions 13 episodes of children’s drama at a time, rather than 26.

The 2017 Australian and Children’s Screen Content Review, conducted by the regulator ACMA and Screen Australia, was due to complete its report at the end of 2017. It has not yet been made public.

In April, a spokesman for Arts Minister Mitch Fifield told The Guardian the government’s internal review into “the best ways to support the availability and production of high-quality Australian and children’s content in the modern media environment” was ongoing. So, too, is a Senate inquiry into the economic and cultural value of Australian content on broadcast, radio and streaming services.

The House of Representatives Standing Committee on Communication and The Arts released a report last December that recommended reforming the quota system for Seven, Nine and Ten from hours of specified local content to expenditure-based obligations.

It also recommended extending the quotas to streaming services such as Netflix, introducing local quotas on the ABC and SBS, and establishing a contestable production fund for children’s television to which broadcasters would have to contribute. None of this has happened.

Unregulated competitors

Multiple streaming television services now compete for children’s attention. Most of the new market entrants are not regulated in the way that linear broadcasters are. Recent revelations that videos showing Peppa Pig being tortured were easily accessible by children suggest YouTube’s self-regulation system is failing to protect young viewers.

Disney is also gearing up to launch its own streaming service late in 2019, in an attempt to fend off the Netflix threat.

Read more: As local networks retreat, Netflix is filling the gap in teen TV

In the UK, the BBC has announced an extra £34 million (A$61m) for children’s content to counter the growing influence of streaming services. And UK regulator Ofcom last month instructed commercial broadcasters to “revitalise” their children’s offerings, particularly for 12 to 15-year-olds. Ofcom’s powers to implement children’s content quotas were recently restored after their 2003 removal led local production levels to plummet.

And in May, New Zealand On Air and TVNZ launched HeiHei, a children’s streaming service for NZ-made content. An advertising-free service, it’s intended to provide 5–to-9-year-olds with culturally specific, locally made screen fare.

Without effective policymaking and funding mechanisms here, programs that situate Australian children in their own cultural context – reflecting their lives back to them with local accents, locations and storylines – won’t be made. They’re just too expensive, compared with imported shows.

Live action drama remains the genre most at risk, because of its higher production costs. One of the few live action dramas still being produced by the commercial networks in Australia is Ten’s The Bureau of Magical Things. The series is made by Jonathan Shiff, whose children’s dramas have sold in 170 countries.

Shiff’s series Mako Mermaids generated more profit in 2017 than any other television drama in which Screen Australia invested.

Still, the head of children’s content at Ten, Cherrie Bottger, who commissioned The Bureau of Magical Things, told me last week: “We need some policy answers to allow us to continue to make great content that entertains Australian kids.”

Without the right policy settings and funding mechanisms, investment in Australian children’s television will continue to drop, despite its obvious quality, popularity with local audiences, and international appeal.

The ABC is making some superb children’s television, although Screen Australia’s current funding cap of $2m for children’s series is making live action drama very difficult to finance. But responsibility for making children’s TV cannot be left to an underfunded public broadcaster, which operates without content quotas.

The longer we remain in a state of policy limbo, the greater the risk. If we believe children, like adults, deserve drama made especially for them, it’s time to start implementing some review recommendations.

The introduction of expenditure-based quotas across all television services, including US-based services like Netflix, would be a good start.

The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Andrew Norton, Higher Education Program Director, Grattan Institute

Yesterday the shadow education minister, Tanya Plibersek, announced Labor plans to invest an additional A$174 million in the higher education sector if there’s a change of government at the next election. This extra funding would be to give first in family students, students from outer suburbs and the country, Indigenous students, and students with a disability a better chance to study at university.

This is on top of a promise to uncap student places at university. Labor estimates this will see the number of Australians getting a university education rise by 200,000 over 12 years.

But university may not be the best option for everyone. Concern about a glut of students graduating from degrees such as law or journalism and not getting jobs have ignited discussion about whether we should control the number of students entering university or particular courses.

But if universities are to enrol fewer people, we should offer attractive alternatives to university education. To fix higher education, we also need to fix vocational education to help get students into courses with employment opportunities.

Balancing graduates and the labour market

From 2009 until last December, universities could enrol unlimited numbers of bachelor degree students and be paid for each one. This is a system called demand driven funding. It ended when the Commonwealth government announced it would only pay universities a fixed sum of money from 2018 onwards, capping this sum for two years at the amount paid out in 2017.

A major criticism of the demand driven system was that it flooded the labour market with graduates who couldn’t find jobs in their field. In 2014, short-term graduate employment outcomes were the worst on record. Nearly a third of graduates who were looking for full-time work couldn’t find it.

Read more: The problem isn’t unskilled graduates, it’s a lack of full-time job opportunities

The recent poor employment results for new graduates were partly due to bad timing. Most graduates aim for the professional jobs most likely to use their skills. But growth in the number of professional jobs nearly stalled in 2013 as the mining boom ended and graduations started increasing due to the introduction of the demand driven system. When the economy is weak, new job seekers suffer the most.

But over the longer run, ABS data shows the number of people in their early career securing professional jobs is increasing significantly. The end of the mining boom paused growth, but it didn’t reverse the long-term upward trend.

No higher education system can produce a perfect balance between graduates and the labour market. Education and the economy will always work on different timelines. But we need a tertiary education funding system that will help get students into courses with employment opportunities.

Fixed funding

Before demand driven funding, with universities getting fixed annual grants as they do again now, the system did not respond well to the labour market. In 2008, 40 professional occupations were in skills shortage, with health-related fields such as aged care particularly badly affected. If Australia hadn’t been able to import large numbers of health professionals from overseas, this would have been a public health disaster.

Capped funding for universities makes it hard for them to respond to workforce issues as they emerge. Universities aren’t funded to accommodate the number of students who want to study or the number of skilled graduates needed in key areas, such as health care.

The demand driven system mostly responded to labour market signals…

Under demand driven funding, the higher education system adjusted to demand for graduates in certain fields and oversupply in others without government intervention. Demand driven funding does not mean endless, rapid growth in the numbers of students studying at university.

We can see how labour market information flowed through to student behaviour. Media reports highlighting poor graduate outcomes likely played a role in communicating market signals to students.

Read more: Deregulating TAFE is a big risk to the labour market

As reports in NSW spread of teaching graduates not finding work, the number of students commencing teaching degrees in NSW fell by nearly 2,000. The number of people accepting an offer for an engineering course also fell as the mining boom ended. A shortage of skilled health workers was the biggest problem under the previous system, and health-related enrolments grew by the most under demand-driven funding.

By 2015 the enrolment boom that began in 2009 was over. Only five professional occupations remain in skills shortage, including surveyors and vets.

But not always

Students don’t always react to bad labour market news. Science added more than 12,000 commencing students between 2008 and 2016, as employment outcomes went from mediocre to terrible.

The Chief Scientist and politicians promoted science, which may have misled students. The science experience is a reminder to policymakers they need to be careful about the signals they send to students.

Offer attractive alternatives to university

Although well-motivated by concerns about who has access to a university education, Labor’s current talking up of higher education may not be good advice to students in every case. The demand driven system has often responded to labour market signals, but some further moderation in the numbers of students attending university would make it easier for graduates to find professional jobs.

But if universities are to enrol fewer people, we should offer attractive alternatives to university education, rather than simply restricting university student numbers. Vocational education is one of those potential alternatives. Technical and trade employment is also growing, as the chart above shows. Thirty technical and trade occupations were in skills shortage in 2017.

Read more: Vocational education and training sector is still missing out on government funding: report

Unfortunately, university demand driven funding coincided with chaos in vocational education, thanks to state governments cutting funding for vocational education and the VET FEE-HELP fiasco.

It’s hard for vocational education to compete with universities when students sometimes need to pay thousands of dollars out of pocket for their course, while higher education undergraduates can defer all their tuition costs via HELP. The student income support system is also biased against vocational education, with restricted eligibility and lower payments.

The policy status quo of capped higher education funding and a funding bias against vocational education will not serve us well. With restored demand driven funding and changes to vocational education, the tertiary education system would do a better job of matching students with the courses that maximise their long-term employment outcomes.

The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Keith Rathbone, Lecturer, Modern European History and Sports History, Macquarie University

The sports apparel giant Nike stirred up controversy on Monday when it unveiled its “Just Do It: 30th anniversary” advertising campaign. It featured a variety of superstar American athletes including the polarising quarterback Colin Kaepernick, who started the Bend the Knee protests in the NFL in September 2016.

The protests had initially targeted police violence against people of colour but broadened into a wider protest against US President Donald Trump after he said any player who knelt during the anthem was a “son of bitch”. Trump, who continues to suggest that the NFL should withhold the kneeling players’ salaries, said the new Nike ad was a “terrible message … that shouldn’t be sent”.

Nike’s ad featured a powerful black and white photo of Kaepernick telling consumers to “believe in something. Even if means sacrificing everything.” The hastag #JustDoIt struck a chord, trending for 24 hours on Twitter.

There was an immediate backlash from conservatives against the Nike advert. On social media, fans posted images and videos of burnt Nike jerseys and shoes using the hashtag #justburnit.

In a tweet that went viral, country musician John Rich showcased socks with the Nike swoosh cut out. Nike’s stock price tumbled, losing 3% percent in market value.

Not all the response to the Kaepernick ad has been negative. Many people support the NRL protests, and celebrities like the rapper Common, and Russell Crowe (along with Serena Williams, who is sponsored by Nike) joined in the #justdoit conversation online.

Read more: Why US sports stars are taking a knee against Trump

Corporate activism

Perhaps no company is more aware of the power of popular political activism than Nike. In the 1990s, a popular consumer boycott in response to Nike’s environmental and labor practices severely undermined the company’s profits.

In joining forces with the Bend the Knee movement, Nike joins a host of companies taking on progressive political causes including LGBT rights, tax reform, and free speech. Most recently, in the US, the sporting goods retailer Dick’s stopped selling assault weapons after a student killed classmates in Florida with a gun purchased from one of their stores.

Marketing experts are divided over the wisdom of companies engaging in political action. Activism can show consumers that companies care about more than profits, but as conservatives’ reaction to Nike shows, taking a stand can be risky.

Over the long term, Nike probably hopes to benefit from this stand: its key demographics in the US and worldwide are younger and blacker than the people protesting them. Younger Americans are said to strongly support Kaepernick’s protest, and they are the biggest consumers of Nike products. Nike also knows that consumers develop brand loyalty early in their lives and maintain it for a long time.

Nike probably also faced considerable pressure from athletes who are increasingly using their personal brands to engage in politics. Basketballer Lebron James, Nike’s biggest spokesman in the NBA, has feuded with the Donald Trump and condemned his policies as racist. Michael Jordan has sided with James against the embattled president.

Conservatives that want to avoid athletes and clothing retailers affiliated with Bend the Knee will find it increasingly hard to do so.

The NFL’s return this weekend will only reignite the debate over the anthem protests. With almost the whole sports world seemingly arrayed against their politics it is easy to understand why some Republicans, like Fox News Host Laura Ingram, just want athletes such as James to “shut up and dribble.”

Colin Kaepernick and other athletes (while no doubt being handsomely paid by Nike) are boldly speaking out. In the future, Kaepernick and Nike will be vindicated for their bravery.

The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Suelette Dreyfus, Media Specialist, Department of Computing and Information Systems, University of Melbourne

Chelsea Manning will appear via video link at events in Brisbane and Melbourne this month – as the Australian government refuses to provide her a visa.

Without a visa, Manning was in Los Angeles when she appeared electronically on a giant screen at a weekend event speaking with journalist Peter Greste at the Sydney Opera House, where she received a standing ovation.

International and Australian organisations have called on the Australian government to give a visa to Manning in support of freedom of speech. Nearly 20,000 people have signed a petition calling on Australia to allow Manning to visit.

Read more: Explainer: what role does ministerial discretion play in the Chelsea Manning visa case?

Whether you agree with Manning or not, public debate and discussion are essential for a healthy democracy. Any attempt to shut it down flies in the face of freedom of expression.

This is important as we enter an era of machines that make decisions for us, including autonomous weapons. Data ethics, transparency, accountability and avenues of recourse for injustice become even more important to explore in public forums. These are all relevant to Manning’s story.

Manning the whistleblower

Manning was a US army intelligence analyst in 2010 when she leaked more than 700,000 classified documents to WikiLeaks. Her disclosures were a major milestone in the emergence of the digital age whistleblower.

First there was the explosive Collateral Murder video, published by WikiLeaks. It showed the US military gunning down civilians in Iraq. US soldiers fired on children and killed two Reuters staff, Namir Noor-Eldeen and Saeed Chmagh along with ten other people. Former Reuters Iraq bureau chief Dean Yates, who sent his staff out that fateful day, wrote a personal piece on the impact of “moral injury” while being treated at Melbourne’s Austin Health for trauma recovery.

The US military lied about the incident and tried to cover it up. To this day, no one has been charged or convicted for the killings, nor the lying.

Manning is the only person to go to prison linked with the incident, yet she is the one who brought the truth to the public.

The astonishing video, filmed from the gunsight of an Apache helicopter, illustrates the power of bringing together visual digital media and whistleblowing. The video has had more than 16 million views on Youtube alone.

Manning also disclosed a collection of war logs. These were records about daily events happening in two wars, in Iraq and Afghanistan.

Politicians had promised the public these wars were progressing well. The data showed a different story.

The New York Times, publishing in partnership with WikiLeaks, described the Afghan war logs as “more grim than the official portrayal”.

In Iraq, a leading independent UK-based charity Iraq Body Count, estimated 15,000 civilians were killed from 2003 to 2010, deaths that had not been previously been revealed.

Less than half of the deaths reported in the Wikileaks War Logs had been previously reported by Iraq Body Count, according to one study.

Bringing the two datasets together showed how the body count of the Iraq War had been higher than either set had initially documented.

This sort of analysis illustrates how big data and whistleblowing are drawn together in actual cases, and have exposed the truth of what is really happening on the ground.

Big data leaks are getting bigger

In the digital age, data sets are increasingly driving news stories. Large data sets show patterns and connections – both of which can be important for accountability of decision-making by government.

At the time, Manning’s disclosures seemed like an enormous amount of data. Yet, the data size was small compared with what was to come.

Collateral Murder (646MB) and the Afghan War Logs (75MB) data sets, published in 2010, created a new model for whistleblower disclosures driving database journalism. The entire tranche of this data, plus the US diplomatic cables and the Iraq War Logs, was reported to total 1.73 gigabytes (GB) – small enough to fit on a single DVD.

What followed in their footsteps was much larger disclosures in terms of total data size. These included the 2013 Offshore Leaks (260GB), the 2014 Luxembourg Leaks (4GB), the 2016 Panama Papers (2.6TB), the 2017 Paradise Papers (1.4TB), and Edward Snowden’s 2013 disclosures, estimated to be at least 60GB (the total data size has not been publicly revealed).

Whistleblower protection

Strong public support in Australia and overseas for the protection of whistleblowers flowed from this torrent of revelations, and it has forced governments around the world to respond.

From Ireland to Lithuania to Nigeria, governments have been adopting whistleblower protection laws.

In April, the European Union announced its draft Directive on whistleblower protection which, when passed, will apply to all 28 member states.

Whistleblowers reveal unsafe or illegal practices in everything from food safety to hospital practice.

In 2017, US President Barack Obama released Manning by commuting her prison sentence. The world Chelsea Manning re-entered after seven years in prison was profoundly transformed.

Increased public recognition of both the importance of whistleblowing as a corrective mechanism to wrongdoing in society, and of datasets informing a new kind of journalism, are part of that changed landscape.

Manning has been a controversial yet central figure in that transformation. As such, she has interesting perspectives to contribute to the public debate.

Encourage debate

A country which prides itself on being a free, western democracy should encourage such public discussions. Australia’s close allies Canada and New Zealand have recognised this.

The New Zealand government has granted Manning a visa to visit its shores for events in Auckland and Wellington.

Canada, which had initially turned her back at the border, also allowed her entry, in order to speak publicly earlier this year.

It’s worth noting the Australian government allowed US General David Petraeus into Australia last year, despite the fact that he, like Manning, “leaked secrets”. Petraeus was spared prison time after pleading guilty to mishandling classified information, but he was sentenced to two years probation and fined US$100,000.

Read more: A nostalgic journey through the evolution of web design

Manning’s disclosure did not cause any real harm to US interests, according to media analysis of a US Department of Defense review, released in 2017 under a 2015 Freedom of Information lawsuit.

By contrast, material leaked by Petraeus was highly sensitive and, according to Reuters, contained the identities of covert officers, code word information, war strategy, intelligence capabilities and diplomatic talks.

Manning poses no danger to Australia, she is neither violent nor a terrorist. Yet, if people will still hear what she has to say via video links at the Australian events, why not let her appear in person?

Debating ideas is a core value of our democracy – and one the Australian government should embrace, not fear.