Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Michelle Grattan, Professorial Fellow, University of Canberra

Treasurer Jim Chalmers will announce a fund of up to $900 million for states and territories to improve productivity and competition, in a Wednesday speech urging an all-out effort to tackle one of Australia’s biggest structural economic issues.

States will be able to choose from a “menu of options”, with Chalmers pointing to streamlining commercial planning and zoning, and removing barriers that inhibit the take-up of modern construction methods.

Speaking to business economists, Chalmers will also outline findings from the Productivity Commission’s modelling, which he commissioned, on the impacts of revitalising national competition policy.

“The benefits on offer are substantial, if not staggering,” he says in his speech released in part ahead of delivery.

The commission’s modelling indicated a reinvigorated national competition policy could increase Australia’s GDP by up to $45 billion annually and cut prices by 1.45 percentage points.

“That GDP boost represents about $5,000 per household, per year,” Chalmers says.

He says “there is no more important structural problem in our economy than productivity – no higher priority for reform”.

In 2022 treasury downgraded its assumption for long-run annual productivity growth from 1.5% to 1.2%.

Chalmers says new treasury analysis attributes half of this downgrade to Australia’s changing mix of industries. These days more people are working in services, where productivity grows more slowly.

Flat labour productivity in 2023-24 “partly reflects the enormous gains we’ve made and preserved in the jobs market”.

Progress on improving productivity will need commitment from federal and state and territory governments, Chalmers says.

He will meet state and territory counterparts on November 29.

While not all the Productivity Commission’s reforms will be adopted “we want to make meaningful progress where we can”.

“I expect we’ll start by fast-tracking the adoption of trusted international product safety standards and developing a general right to repair – both Commonwealth-led reforms.” The “right to repair” involves access for households and businesses to repairs at competitive prices and repair information.

“Both involve small implementation costs but provide significant benefits in the order of $5 billion over the next ten years for product safety, and over $400 million per annum for right to repair.”

The head of the Productivity Commission, Danielle Wood, interviewed on The Conversation’s politics podcast recently, said if the government could revitalise national competition policy effectively, “if they can actually get the states to come to the table and agree on areas where we can reduce regulatory and other barriers to competition across the country, that’s a really important lever for getting economic dynamism moving again”.

Michelle Grattan does not work for, consult, own shares in or receive funding from any company or organisation that would benefit from this article, and has disclosed no relevant affiliations beyond their academic appointment.

– ref. Jim Chalmers to announce $900 million fund for states to boost competition and productivity – https://theconversation.com/jim-chalmers-to-announce-900-million-fund-for-states-to-boost-competition-and-productivity-243455

Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Michelle Grattan, Professorial Fellow, University of Canberra

Anthony Albanese prides himself on his eye for a good candidate.

In 2020, when he was opposition leader, he drafted Kristy McBain to run for a byelection in the marginal NSW seat of Eden-Monaro. If Labor had lost the seat, Albanese’s leadership could have been in trouble. McBain, now a junior minister in his government, won narrowly.

In the 2022 election, he made a captain’s pick in the Western Australian seat of Pearce with candidate Tracey Roberts, who wrested the seat from the Liberals.

Now Albanese is playing godfather again, hoping that in Tasmania a clever choice of candidate might snatch a Liberal seat where the opposition has had a lot of trouble, and that another well-known face could shore up a marginal Labor seat where the ALP member is retiring.

Anne Urquhart, 67, is currently chief government whip in the Senate; she has been in parliament since 2010. Albanese prevailed on her to run, despite her tilt at the seat of Braddon being a long shot. The Liberals hold it by an 8% margin.

Despite the margin, Labor reckons in reality Braddon, while tough, is more winnable than it appears.

Last election, Labor’s candidate had all sorts of problems; as well, Jacqui Lambie had a runner in the field (which she is not expected to have at next year’s election). There was an anti-Labor swing on primary votes in Braddon of nearly 10%.

Since the election, the Liberals have had their own pain. The present Liberal member, Gavin Pearce, who has held the seat since 2019, is retiring at the election. Some time ago he reportedly said he would not run again if the Liberals re-selected Bridget Archer.

Archer, in the neighboring seat of Bass, is an outspoken moderate. Pearce is on the conservative end of the Liberals’ broad but not always harmonious church.

Archer was re-selected and Pearce did indeed decide against another run, citing the toll of the job and family reasons. The Liberals’ problems weren’t over, with a messy preselection following.

The other Labor candidate announced on Tuesday is Rebecca White, 41, who will run in Lyons. She is a former state leader of the party and her state seat is also Lyons. She says she will stay in the state parliament until the election is called.

The current federal member for Lyons, Brian Mitchell, is retiring and, on a margin of under 1%, Lyons would be vulnerable if there was a swing against Albanese. Labor reckons the White name is the best insurance it can take out.

Albanese on Tuesday appeared at two news conferences, one in each electorate, to unveil his candidates. “I don’t mind saying I’ve encouraged both of them to run,” he said.

Michelle Grattan does not work for, consult, own shares in or receive funding from any company or organisation that would benefit from this article, and has disclosed no relevant affiliations beyond their academic appointment.

– ref. View from The Hill: Albanese plays ‘captain’s pick’ to maximise Labor’s election prospects in Tasmania – https://theconversation.com/view-from-the-hill-albanese-plays-captains-pick-to-maximise-labors-election-prospects-in-tasmania-243479

Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Kyle McMullan, PhD Candidate in Aerospace Engineering, Curtin University

Last week, three tiny Australian satellites from Curtin University’s Binar Space Program burned up in Earth’s atmosphere. That was always going to happen. In fact, Binar means “fireball” in the Noongar language of the First Nations people of Perth.

When a satellite is in low Earth orbit (2,000km or less), it experiences orbital decay as it drags closer and closer to the surface, eventually burning up.

But these cube satellites (CubeSats), known as Binar-2, 3 and 4, entered the atmosphere much sooner than originally planned. They only lasted for two months – a third of what was expected. This significantly reduced valuable time for science and testing new systems.

The reason for their untimely demise? Our Sun has kicked into high gear, and the Binar satellites are far from the only casualty. Recent high solar activity has been causing an unexpected headache for satellite operators in the last few years, and it’s only increasing.

Why is the Sun so active?

Solar activity includes phenomena such as sunspots, solar flares and solar wind – the stream of charged particles that flows toward Earth.

This activity is a product of the Sun’s ever-changing magnetic field, and approximately every 11 years, it completely flips. At the midpoint of this cycle, solar activity is at its highest.

While this cycle is known, specific solar activity is challenging to predict – the dynamics are complex and solar forecasting is in its infancy.

In the last few months, indicators of solar activity were more than one and a half times higher than predictions for this point in the current cycle, labelled solar cycle 25.

The impact of space weather

Space weather refers to the environmental effects that originate from outside our atmosphere (mostly the Sun). It affects us on Earth in a variety of noticeable and unnoticeable ways.

The most obvious is the presence of auroras. In the past few months, auroras have been visible far more intensely and closer to the equator than in the last two decades. This is a direct result of the increased solar activity.

Space weather, and solar activity in particular, also creates additional challenges for satellites and satellite operators.

Higher solar activity means more solar flares and stronger solar wind – resulting in a higher flux of charged particles that can damage or disrupt electrical components on satellites.

It also means an increase in ionising radiation, resulting in a higher dose for astronauts and pilots, and potential disruptions to long-distance radio communications.

But for satellites in low Earth orbit, the most consistent effect of solar activity is that the extra energy gets absorbed into the outer atmosphere, causing it to balloon outward.

As a result, all satellites less than 1,000km from Earth experience a significant increase in atmospheric drag. This is a force that disrupts their orbit and causes them to fall towards the planet’s surface.

Notable satellites in this region include the International Space Station and the Starlink constellation. These satellites have thrusters to counteract this effect, but these corrections can be expensive.

Low Earth orbit also contains many university satellites, such as the Binar CubeSats. Cube satellites are rarely equipped with tools that can adjust their altitude, so they’re entirely at the mercy of space weather.

What happened to Binar?

The Binar Space Program is a satellite research program operating out of Curtin University. It aims to advance our understanding of the Solar System and lower the barrier for operating in space.

The program began operations with its first satellite, Binar-1, in September 2021. This was less than a year into solar cycle 25 when solar activity was relatively low.

In these conditions, the ten-centimetre cube satellite started at an altitude of 420km and survived a full 364 days in orbit.

The program’s follow-up mission – Binar-2, 3, and 4 – were three equally sized CubeSats. However, they were expected to last approximately six months owing to the extra surface area from new deployable solar arrays and a forecast increase in solar activity.

Instead, they only made it to two months before burning up. While cube satellite missions are relatively cheap, the premature ending of a mission will always be costly. This is even more true for commercial satellites, highlighting the need for more accurate space weather forecasting.

The good news is the Sun will calm down again. Despite the current unexpectedly high solar activity, it will likely slow down by 2026, and is expected to return to a solar minimum in 2030.

While this was not an explicit goal of the mission, the Binar Space Program has now poignantly demonstrated the dramatic effects of solar activity on space operations.

While the untimely loss of Binar-2, 3 and 4 was unfortunate, work has already begun on future missions. They are expected to launch into far more forgiving space weather.

Kyle McMullan receives funding from the Australian government’s Research Training Program.

– ref. Right now, the Sun is far more active than predicted – and small satellites are paying the price – https://theconversation.com/right-now-the-sun-is-far-more-active-than-predicted-and-small-satellites-are-paying-the-price-242899

Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Jennifer Montgomery, Faculty of Health Research Associate, Te Herenga Waka — Victoria University of Wellington

Today marks a long-awaited milestone for survivors of the state care system, with the formal apology by Prime Minister Christopher Luxon acknowledging the catastrophic abuse endured by at least 250,000 people at the hands of state and faith-based institutions between 1950 and 1999.

Luxon acknowledged the “horrific” and “heartbreaking” abuse experienced by survivors and their whānau, and emphasised their stories have been heard and believed.

The apology comes in response to the final report of the Royal Commission of Inquiry into Abuse in State Care – “Whanaketia – Through pain and trauma, from darkness to light” – which was tabled in Parliament in July.

The culmination of a six-year process, the report revealed the staggering individual and social toll of abuse in care, with the average lifetime cost for an individual estimated at NZ$857,000, accounting for health care, homelessness, loss of income and education.

The report also highlighted longstanding systemic racism, with Māori and Pasifika children more likely to be removed from their families and abused in care.

Many survivors continue to live with the intergenerational impacts of institutional trauma, some ending up in the prison system, homeless, or with chronic illnesses or addiction problems. Others have died by suicide without receiving justice.

The report received international attention, with the Royal Commission describing its findings as a “national disgrace” and a “stain on our national character”. But, importantly, it also emphasised that most of the factors which led to abuse in state care persist to this day.

Not just historical

Research has identified a long-standing societal indifference to and tolerance of the abuse of children in state care in New Zealand. Acknowledging widespread institutional violence perhaps sits uncomfortably with the national self-image of a safe, fair and progressive country that upholds human rights.

Studies have also shown how state agencies have become adept at avoiding taking responsibility for their failure to protect children, and framing state abuse as a shameful chapter rooted firmly in the past.

However, new research demonstrates the state care system continues to traumatise young people. This is especially true for young Māori, who continue to be removed from whānau at a higher rate than non-Māori, and are consistently overrepresented in state care.

This research (partnered with independent youth advocacy service Voyce Whakarongo Mai) centres the underrepresented voices of rangatahi Māori who have recently left state care, and the voices of staff who support them.

Key findings include that child welfare agency Oranga Tamariki does not consistently implement a culturally safe, trauma-informed model of care, and there is a serious mismatch between the skills of the care workforce and the needs of young people.

Young people interviewed for this research described being contained in locked residences and isolated from their whānau and community, rather than receiving love, care and a safe place to heal.

They described experiencing a profound disconnection from their cultural identity, whānau/family and whakapapa/genealogy. The care system, they said, did not actively address this cultural disconnection.

Participants reported being treated like prisoners, labelled “monsters”, “bad” and “horrible”, and being exposed to further trauma through punitive seclusion and restraint practices.

Crucially, the research also identifies how young people can heal and grow if and when they are supported to feel safe, loved and heard. But as reports from the Independent Children’s Monitor, Mana Mokopuna and the Ombudsman, have shown, young people are still leaving care worse off than when they entered.

Regressive and punitive

Aotearoa New Zealand is not unique in its struggle to fix a failing colonial child welfare system that has disproportionately targeted Indigenous children.

However, it has fallen behind other countries – including Australia, Canada, Ireland and Scotland – that established earlier national inquiries and commissions to investigate abuse of young people in state institutions.

Success in implementing recommendations for systemic change in those countries has been varied. But New Zealand has a rare opportunity to learn from these examples as it grapples with righting past wrongs.

However, as part of its “tough on youth crime” agenda, the coalition government has begun introducing policies that risk maintaining a regressive and punitive approach to young people and families in state care. These include repealing section 7AA of the Oranga Tamariki Act, which places obligations on the agency to uphold Te Tiriti o Waitangi.

The introduction of military-style bootcamps, a proposed “youth serious offender” category within the justice system, attempts to bring in a Ram Raid Bill, and cuts to social service providers all suggest the way forward will not be without obstacles.

Disruption and transformation

The Royal Commission’s report makes 138 recommendations about addressing historical injustices and guiding systemic reform. It has also advised that the government should complete an independent review of progress by 2033.

While the government’s formal apology is a crucial step, survivors have emphasised that without full accountability and meaningful change, these words are hollow.

Significant disruption and transformation within existing structures and systems will be required, with greater investment in supporting whānau and family in the community, and devolving power and resources to iwi organisations.

More investment will also be needed to develop therapeutic, culturally safe and trauma-informed models for out-of-home care settings. These environments will need to be staffed by a professional workforce that is qualified, trained and supported to provide safe care for all young people.

Notably absent from the prime minister’s apology was an acknowledgement of the ongoing abuse and trauma experienced by children in state care.

He did, however, promise several tangible next steps, including new legislation aimed at preventing future abuses. There will also be a NZ$32 million fund established to create capacity for financial redress until a new single redress system is set up next year.

But meaningful change will require government agencies to work collaboratively to ensure the safety and wellbeing of children. There is a need for cross-party agreement on the depoliticisation of children in care, and a shared goal to design a system that will outlive political terms and different governments’ agendas.

Only then can we forge a new path toward a future where every child in New Zealand feels loved, safe and cared for.

Jennifer Montgomery received Career Development Award funding through the Health Research Council of New Zealand to complete this research.

– ref. Despite the national apology, abuse in state care is still happening – only systemic change will work – https://theconversation.com/despite-the-national-apology-abuse-in-state-care-is-still-happening-only-systemic-change-will-work-241565

Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Justin Ellis, Lecturer in Criminology at the University of Newcastle, University of Newcastle

Donald Trump’s victory in last week’s US election has sent shockwaves through the LGBTQ+ community, given the president-elect’s divisive rhetoric and demonisation of the trans community in particular.

There are fears a second Trump administration will have devastating effects for millions of LGBTQ+ people in the United States and beyond.

What could Trump do while in office? The Project 2025 policy manifesto provides some clues.

A blueprint for discrimination

Written by the Heritage Foundation, a conservative think tank, Project 2025 is a playbook for the next conservative president.

It contains input from more than 110 groups on key policy and personnel recommendations. The intention is to act quickly. It features a 180-day action plan that “includes a comprehensive, concrete transition plan for each federal agency”.

Trump sought to distance himself from the manifesto during the campaign. However, many of the contributors played roles in Trump’s first term in office. This includes Stephen Miller, who is expected to be named deputy chief of staff for policy in his second term. Miller’s group, America First Legal, has backed Project 2025.

In 2022, Trump also said of the Heritage Foundation plans:

This is a great group, and they’re going to lay the groundwork and detail plans for exactly what our movement will do and what your movement will do when the American people give us a colossal mandate to save America.

The Project 2025 manifesto advocates the removal of anti-discrimination policies that protect the LGBTQ+ community. According to the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU), this means removing all federal regulations and rules prohibiting discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation and gender identity.

Specifically, Project 2025 aims to limit the application of a Supreme Court ruling protecting people from workplace discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation and transgender status.

The plan also calls for the reversal of policies allowing transgender people to serve in the military. And it advocates blocking gender-affirming medical care for transgender people in federal health care programs, such as Medicare.

Its authors also aim to wind back the Biden administration’s executive order promoting gender equity and sexual and reproductive health and rights.

The manifesto’s foreword says that in America today,

children suffer the toxic normalisation of transgenderism with drag queens and pornography invading their school libraries.

Particularly troubling is the suggestion transgender identity and drag queens are synonymous with an unclear definition of “pornography”. The document further recommends educators and public librarians who “purvey pornography” be classed as registered sex offenders.

The plan does not specifically target marriage equality. However, there are mentions of the “biblically based” definition of marriage and family. Some believe this treats same-sex unions as “second-class marriages”.

Trump’s record on LGBTQ+ issues

Looking beyond Project 2025, there are other worrying signs Trump will not be a president acting in the best interests of LGBTQ+ Americans.

His appointment of anti-LGBTQ+ judges during his first presidency has already created a judicial climate hostile to LGBTQ+ people and people living with HIV.

While president, Trump also opposed a proposed Equality Act. It would have provided consistent and explicit anti-discrimination protections for LGBTQ+ people across key areas of life, including employment, housing and education. The act was reintroduced by Democrats last year and has failed to pass the Senate.

During his first term in office, Trump also:

• supported employment discrimination against LGBTQ+ people
• banned transgender people from serving in the military, and
• rolled back Obama-era non-discrimination protections.

In addition, his anti-LGBTQ+ slurs feed antagonism and divisiveness that lead to increases in hate speech.

In 2017, for instance, Trump reportedly joked his vice president, Mike Pence, wanted to “hang” gay people. (The White House denied the remark.)

Attack on LGBTQ+ rights at state level

The ideology driving some of the anti-LGBTQ+ proposals in Project 2025 is already highly visible at the state level in the US.

In 2024 alone, the ACLU has tracked 532 anti-LGBTQ+ bills across the US. These include:

• 208 bills restricting student and educator rights
• 70 bills on religious exemptions
• 112 on healthcare restrictions, and
• 34 free speech and expression bans (including 27 drag bans).

Protests against drag queen story-time childhood literacy events have led to increased scrutiny of public libraries, as well as false claims such events are being funded by taxpayers.

After pressure from conservative activists, corporations have also withdrawn from commitments to LGBTQ+ inclusion. For some, this includes not participating in the Human Rights Campaign’s Corporate Equality Index.

Constitutional challenges

In addition, the ACLU warns the Trump administration could weaponise federal law against transgender people. For instance, the group says, it could override critical state-level protections, arguing state laws that protect transgender students violate the federal statutory rights of non-transgender students.

The ACLU has also voiced concerns the Trump administration could take the “extreme position” the US Constitution entitles employers to discriminate against LGBTQ+ people based on employer religious beliefs, notwithstanding state nondiscrimination laws.

Many of the anti-LGBTQ+ polices outlined in Project 2025 would likely violate the Constitution and federal law. Organisations like the ACLU could then use the courts to challenge any Trump executive orders or other policy changes.

And Congress can still use its oversight and investigatory roles to constrain the Trump administration’s agenda. However, Republicans now hold a majority in the Senate and may have a majority in the House of Representatives.

This means activists hoping to challenge anti-LGBTQ+ policies will need a well-coordinated pro-equality action coalition at the federal, state and local levels in order to drive change and block any discriminatory policies that may arise during Trump’s second term.

Justin Ellis does not work for, consult, own shares in or receive funding from any company or organisation that would benefit from this article, and has disclosed no relevant affiliations beyond their academic appointment.

– ref. How could Donald Trump target the LGBTQ+ community? Project 2025 is a ready blueprint for discrimination – https://theconversation.com/how-could-donald-trump-target-the-lgbtq-community-project-2025-is-a-ready-blueprint-for-discrimination-243254

Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Joanna Mendelssohn, Honorary Senior Fellow, School of Culture and Communication. Editor in chief, Design and Art of Australia Online, The University of Melbourne

In 1975 when Gough Whitlam opened the Manet to Matisse exhibition at the Art Gallery of New South Wales, which had come to Australia from the United States, he proudly proclaimed it was only possible as the Australian government had

indemnified the owners of the works comprising the exhibition against loss or damage to a total amount of US$70 million. Without this support the exhibition would very likely have not been possible because of the prohibitive cost of normal insurance cover.

In 1975, US$70 million was the equivalent of A$100 million. A Sydney tabloid newspaper ran a double page spread showing some of the great art to show their readers “What $100 million looks like”.

European art of this quality had never previously been seen in Australia. The queue to see the exhibition stretched all the way down Art Gallery Road to St Mary’s Cathedral.

Four years later the Art Indemnity Scheme was formalised. It is the policy that makes exhibitions like Magritte and Pharaoh possible.

Leon Francis Parossien, who negotiated with Whitlam, Lionel Murphy and the American lenders to the exhibition to create a new way of protecting art in transit, died on November 5 after a long illness.

Parossien was one of the great enablers of our creative landscape. He imagined a better future, then made it happen.

A vision, and a plan

As with many of his generation, Parossien’s pathway to education was through a teaching scholarship. After initial studies at RMIT, he taught in Victorian secondary schools before completing a bachelor of arts at the University of Melbourne.

He was subsequently appointed to teach art history at the Melbourne Teachers College, followed by an appointment as a senior lecturer at the Tasmanian School of Art.

The breadth of his understanding of what art could be, combined with his administrative abilities, made him a logical choice to be the first director of the Visual Arts Board of the fledgling Australia Council.

Parossien’s great talent was that he was able to both have a vision for the Big Picture – the way he wanted the world to be – and to understand the ways and means to get there. He knew supporting the arts was more complex than giving grants to individual artists.

At the Australia Council he was responsible for advocating funding for exhibitions, and organisations that could administer them. He negotiated seed funding to establish a professional association of art historians. The Art Association of Australia and New Zealand celebrates its 50th anniversary next month.

When the Sydney Opera House opened in 1973 with a very small international exhibition, ambitiously named “The Biennale of Sydney”, Leon thought of the exciting exhibition of sculpture held at Mildura earlier that year. He ensured that Mildura’s director, Tom McCullough, was fully supported in creating the memorable 1976 Biennale.

Some years after he left the Australia Council, Parossien directed the 1984 Biennale of Sydney. Josef Beuys’ installation, 7000 oaks (7000 iechen), is still growing today, between the two Art Gallery of NSW buildings.

A contemporary collection

In 1984, Paroissien and his partner Bernice Murphy were appointed to share the single position of curator of the Power Collection at the University of Sydney.

Murphy had previously been the curator of contemporary art at the Art Gallery of NSW. Both the collection and the department of fine arts had been funded by the bequest of John Wardell Power “to make available to the people of Australia the latest ideas and theories in the plastic arts”.

A distinguished collection had been assembled, but as the Power funds had been depleted, most of the collection remained in storage. Negotiations with the then premier, Neville Wran, led to the university being offered use of the old Maritime Services Building at Circular Quay.

In 1989, it was announced that, while it would continue its links with the Power Bequest, the new building would be called the Museum of Contemporary Art. Paroissien was named its first director, while Murphy was chief curator.

When the Power collection was first established there was an assumption that “contemporary art” could not include work from “provincial” Australia. The previous curator, Elwyn Lynn (who had accepted gifts of works from Arthur Boyd and Sidney Nolan), believed it was against the terms of the bequest to spend money on Australian art.

Paroissien and Murphy saw Australian art, and indeed art from all countries, as being a part of a neverending visual conversation. Shortly after their appointment they held an exhibition of Aboriginal art from Ramingining in the Northern Territory, which was later bought in its entirety.

By purchasing the Ramingining Collection they indicated both that art sees no boundaries, and that Australia should celebrate its own culture.

European and American art was not abandoned. Paroissien’s time at the MCA saw exhibitions by Robert Mapplethorpe and Marina Abramović.

After leaving the MCA 1998, Paroissien was appointed director to develop a new Museum of Contemporary Art, Taipei.

As well as full time positions, Parossien was active in many advisory positions, including chairing the public art committee of the Sydney Olympic Advisory Committee. He was also an editor, of Art and Australia and many other publications. He will be fondly remembered as a mentor to later generations of curators and arts administrators.

In a statement describing the impact of Parossien’s life, Susan Templeman, the Australian government’s Special Envoy for the Arts said, “Leon planted seeds from which towering trees have grown”.

It is an appropriate metaphor.

Joanna Mendelssohn has in the past received funding from the ARC

– ref. Vale Leon Paroissien: the first director of the Museum of Contemporary Art who shaped how Australians experience art – https://theconversation.com/vale-leon-paroissien-the-first-director-of-the-museum-of-contemporary-art-who-shaped-how-australians-experience-art-243255

Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Andrew Kennedy, Casual Academic Performance Psychology and Sports Coaching, The University of Queensland

With less than 30 seconds remaining in the Australia-Belgium women’s basketball bronze medal game at the Paris Olympics, Belgium was trailing by three points
and on the attack, advancing the ball to a player for what seemed an uncontested three-point shot to tie the game.

Then the Opals’ Steph Talbot made a spectacular individual play to block the shot and disrupt Belgium’s late surge for the bronze medal.

Later, when asked about the play, Talbot said:

From the moment the ball was passed, in my mind, I knew I could get to her. And I knew I could block the shot. It was just something in my mind, I knew I could get it […] and I did.

Given this first-hand account, one might ask: how does the brain operate to enable athletes like Talbot to anticipate plays?

Anticipation in sports

In sports, anticipation is commonly viewed as an important but somewhat elusive skill.

Some believe you either have it or you don’t – and all the great athletes have it.

Consequently, the athletes who do have it are often revered as “having great instincts,” “a knack for being in the right place at the right time,” and “an ability to read the game”.

In support of this perspective, research has revealed skilled athletes typically pay attention to contextual cues, recognise patterns, distinguish between important and unimportant sensory information, and forecast future outcomes quicker and more accurately than less skilled athletes.

However, these factors only tell part of the anticipation story.

New evidence increasingly reveals the important role of the brain’s predictive processes in anticipating outcomes in sports.

In fact, as prominent neuroscientist and psychologist Lisa Feldman Barrett points out in the clip below, in dynamic and fast-paced sporting contexts, the action happens so quickly that if athletes did not predict, they would not be able to hit a fastball in baseball, or return a booming first-serve in tennis, or save a goal in a soccer penalty shootout.

Recent evidence suggests anticipation in sports does not happen in an infrequent or ad-hoc manner.

Instead, athletes continuously make and refine predictions about what is likely to occur. They do this by integrating what they see, hear, and feel with their knowledge about the sporting environment and how they operate within it.

In situations where the prediction aligns with what is actually happening, athletes can confidently continue their anticipated course of action with minimal extra effort required.

If, however, a mismatch between the prediction and actual events is detected, athletes are forced to update their prediction and change their course of action, which can feel like it takes more effort.

Read more:
Science is just starting to understand the benefits of athletes putting their brains in ‘auto pilot’

Looking at Talbot’s block shot through this predictive lens, it’s likely, given the context of the game (Belgium being three points down) and the positioning of the players on the court (a Belgian player unguarded at the three-point line), that Talbot predicted the pass would go to the unguarded player.

Given her past experiences, it is likely Talbot also predicted she would be able to get to the player and contest the shot.

In each subsequent moment of play, the incoming sensory information (such as the speed and direction of the pass and the opponent preparing to shoot) aligned with Talbot’s predictions.

This made the process of anticipating and executing the play feel comparatively easy – like it was something she knew she could do.

Developing anticipation skills

For those who wish to help develop athletic anticipation skills, a few aspects of the brain’s predictive processes are particularly important to know.

First, the brain has the capacity to dial-in or tune-out specific sensory information. For example, how to pay attention to the ball while blocking out possible distractors (such as an opponent’s actions or comments).

Therefore, it is beneficial for athletes to learn (through practice, direct instruction, or questioning) what is important and unimportant information to pay attention to in different situations.

Doing so allows athletes to quickly dial into important contextual cues in the environment when they occur.

Second, the brain has the ability to recognise and understand the possible cause-and-effect relationships that exist in sporting environments. An example might be the direction an opponent moves when they press their foot into the ground in a certain way.

Accordingly, it is advantageous for athletes to develop an understanding (via practice and reflecting on performance) of what is likely to happen when specific events occur.

Doing so helps them better recognise the patterns of play that commonly happen in their sports.

Third, the brain uses prediction errors to learn how the sporting environment operates. An example of this is acquiring a better understanding of how the wind affects performance based on prior misjudgements.

So experiencing mismatches between predictions and actual events should not be viewed negatively, as a problem to be punished. Rather, it is an opportunity to refine one’s understanding.

By encouraging athletes to try (and sometimes fail) to predict performance outcomes, they become better positioned to make quicker and more accurate anticipatory judgements in the future.

A skill that can be improved

While anticipation in sports is often seen as an attribute only some athletes possess, research suggests almost all athletes have the skill and use it every day.

So attaining a greater grasp of the predictive processes of the brain provides unique opportunities to support athletes in becoming skilled anticipators.

In particular, to help athletes stay one step ahead of their opponent, it is beneficial to allow athletes to learn what is likely to occur through trial-and-error play, supported by conversations about what they notice and what that information means in the context of their sport.

The authors do not work for, consult, own shares in or receive funding from any company or organisation that would benefit from this article, and have disclosed no relevant affiliations beyond their academic appointment.

– ref. Anticipation in sports: why do some athletes seem to be one step ahead of their opponents? – https://theconversation.com/anticipation-in-sports-why-do-some-athletes-seem-to-be-one-step-ahead-of-their-opponents-243256

Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Kate Levett, Research Fellow University of Notre Dame Australia; Adjunct Fellow (National Institute of Complementary Medicine), Western Sydney University, University of Notre Dame Australia

So, you’re about to have a baby. You’ve been to the birth classes – you learned how being upright and moving around can help you be as comfortable as possible. Perhaps you’ve even learned some acupressure or hypnotherapy to help with pain management.

You’re feeling ready for birth – but then things start to get real. The hospital is discussing induction of labour, or maybe you went into spontaneous labour – but they tell you they need to monitor the baby. Health workers attach electrodes, straps and wires. “It’s for the wellbeing of the baby” they say – but nobody has talked about monitoring in any of the classes or visits.

Does everybody have monitoring, you wonder? Are there different ways to check the baby’s heart rate? And do you have a choice?

The answer is yes. Women do have choices about fetal monitoring during childbirth, but few realise it.

What is fetal monitoring?

Fetal monitoring is used during labour to listen to the baby’s heart sounds and measure the contractions of the uterus.

Despite debates and major concerns about the proven ability for fetal monitoring to detect issues, most women will be monitored in some way during labour as part of routine care.

But, different types of fetal monitoring, can impact comfort and pain management, and can drive medical interventions. These can include increased use of pharmacological pain management due to restricted movement. A series of interventions can affect labour progress and increase the likelihood of caesarean section. So, understanding your options is important.

For women considered at low risk of complications and where labour is progressing normally, monitoring is recommended on an intermittent basis. This is usually via a handheld device every 15–30 minutes throughout labour.

However, if there are complexities or greater risks, or labour has been artificially induced, continuous monitoring is recommended.

When labour is induced, contractions are brought about by a synthetic form of the hormone Oxytocin. This can accelerate the labour and produce contractions that increase in intensity more quickly. Close monitoring of fetal wellbeing in relation to the contractions is recommended – usually via electronic fetal cardiotocography, where devices have transducers attached to the woman’s abdomen.

Transducers are attached in a variety of ways – and the different methods impact the birth experience.

Wired or wireless

Wired monitoring is where the transducers are strapped to the women’s abdomen, attached with elastic belts and 1.5-metre-long wires to a machine. These effectively tether women to a monitor, restricting their ability to move.

There are also wireless transducers (telemetry), with straps around the woman’s abdomen, but no wires, giving more freedom of movement. These can often be used in the shower and bath too. Despite being available for about 20 years in Australia, uptake is still limited, despite the comparable accuracy and reliability.

Then there are the relatively new stick-on monitors, which use non-invasive fetal electrocardiograph technology. These monitor the mother’s and baby’s heart rates, and uterine muscle contractions through the mother’s skin.

Sometimes, if there is difficulty getting an external trace, a fetal scalp electrode can be used. This means a wire is inserted into the baby’s scalp (using a wire and electrode inserted via the vagina and through the cervix) using ECG technology to monitor the fetal heart rate.

What we studied

We don’t know much about how women experience these different monitoring types – the information they receive, or choices they have. An Australia-wide survey – the Women’s experiences Of Monitoring Baby (WOMB) study set out to answer these questions.

Our 2023 survey of more than 800 women, found despite less invasive wireless telemetry being available, women mostly received wired monitoring. This was particularly true for first-time mothers, and those giving birth in private metropolitan or public regional hospitals.

Women reported receiving inadequate information, from childbirth education or routine antenatal visits, to make an informed decision. For example, many were not informed that if they had a medical induction of labour, continuous monitoring would be recommended, even if they were considered to have a low-risk pregnancy.

Importantly, women who had an induced labour were also more likely to receive continuous wired monitoring. These women were also more likely to have an epidural, and a caesarean section. With induction of labour becoming more routine, the likelihood of further intervention increases. This is called the “cascade of interventions”, where one intervention trips the wire for each subsequent intervention. We know from our previous research women do not feel adequately prepared for the realities of an induced labour.

What the survey found

Women who experience handheld or wireless devices report greater comfort, ability to move around and use of non-pharmacological strategies.

Freedom of movement is a key strategy for managing pain in labour, and reducing medical interventions. Women report feeling restricted with wired monitoring, saying it was uncomfortable and impacted their labour negatively. In our study over 70% said they wouldn’t choose it again.

Qualitative analysis highlights women’s feelings clinicians were “tending to the machine”. This sense that staff were often preoccupied with the monitoring technology, suggested they were giving less attention to the personalised care and support women needed during labour.

Women expressed a strong preference for handheld and intermittent monitoring. Where continuous monitoring was recommended, telemetry monitoring was reported to be far more comfortable. It allowed greater mobility, access to water and non-pharmacological pain-relief methods. However, in some hospitals many women are not offered telemetry.

Read more:
More than 6,000 women told us what they wanted for their next pregnancy and birth. Here’s what they said

Where to from here?

Monitoring is important, and women’s experiences vary significantly depending on the type of monitoring they receive. However, few women receive sufficient information about the choices available to them.

Health professionals have a responsibility to provide personalised information around fetal monitoring. That way every woman can make an informed choice and experience person-centred care.

Deborah Fox has received consultancy fees from Philips Healthcare for presentations to clinicians on mobility in labour, and research funding for two unrelated projects evaluating the Philips Avalon Beltless Solution (non-invasive fetal ECG).

Vanessa Scarf is member of the Australian College of Midwives.

Kate Levett does not work for, consult, own shares in or receive funding from any company or organisation that would benefit from this article, and has disclosed no relevant affiliations beyond their academic appointment.

– ref. Fetal monitoring can be essential during labour – but many women don’t realise they have choices – https://theconversation.com/fetal-monitoring-can-be-essential-during-labour-but-many-women-dont-realise-they-have-choices-237131

Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Siobhan McHugh, Honorary Associate Professor, Journalism, Consulting Producer, The Greatest Menace, Walkley-winning podcast, University of Wollongong

So-called “comedy” podcasts have huge followings, but who gets to say they’re actually funny? Stellar “comedy” hosts such as Joe Rogan have never made me laugh, while other prominent comedians package abrasive political commentary rather than rib-tickling humour.

The Ambies, a glitzy event that aspires to be the “Oscars of podcasting”, describes the comedy category as “a podcast that is intentionally humorous”.

But hey, results can fall far short of intentions.

Yes, humour is subjective and often cultural. With those caveats, here’s a selection of podcasts old and new that made this female, Irish-born boomer laugh and/or lean in.

1. Diversity Work

This squirmingly listenable Diversity Work “invites you into a television writers’ room embroiled in a social media storm”, making you a fly on the wall at the most mordant workshop ever.

Turns out these writers have been hired by a TV executive, the “accurately named Steve White”, who impulsively “rebutted any accusations of -isms” by inventing a coming show that “ticked all the diversity boxes”.

A clutch of creatives are hastily conscripted to cover a range of minorities, from First Nations to disability to queer to people of colour.

The podcast charts their efforts to devise a pitch that will both advance diversity and get funding from the entitled straight white folk upstairs.

This somewhat earnest premise yields the most delicious skewering of tokenistic attempts by mainstream media to be more inclusive.

Management posts a pic of their prized cohort – but a filter darkens the skin tones of light-skinned Indigenous participants.

On it goes, lurching from cringe-inducing to savage satire, the startlingly real-sounding discussions overlaid with a reflective narrator:

It’s not often we get to speak at this level of nuance and complexity, as we’re often having to censor ourselves to be diplomatic, or spend our time educating others in the room.

It’s a tribute to all that I could not tell for several episodes if I was listening to fact or fiction.

Turns out it’s a hybrid, created, directed and edited by Asian Australian artist Pearl Tan, and co-created using long-form improvisation with nine screen practitioners “with lived experience of the challenges of being from a diverse background in the screen industry”.

Awkwardly hilarious.

2. Normal Gossip

Normal Gossip shares “juicy, utterly banal gossip about people you’ll never know”, sent in by listeners.

Take this episode, in which host Kelsey McKinney and comedian Josh Gondelman (a perfect foil) discuss the unfolding relationship of a young couple, complicated by the boyfriend’s bro flatmate.

They unpick the reality behind a padlocked fridge and zip-tied cupboards, delving into real time text messages as a party reaches crisis point.

Playing down her smarts (she’s written for Vogue, Vanity Fair and more), McKinney goes for an enthusiastic/empathetic tone that allows us to vicariously enjoy the show’s vast array of predicaments, from the vagaries of upscale dog grooming to a girls’ trip gone horribly wrong.

3. Heavyweight

Heavyweight is also preoccupied with the foibles of life, but via a very different format.

Host Jonathan Goldstein is a superb audio storyteller, whose deceptively simple premise is to dig into the life-changing moments that have preoccupied listeners.

It could be an artist obsessed with painting his ex-wife, a jury member haunted by sentencing a man to death, a man meeting the driver who ran him over to thank him.

Always avoiding cheesiness (being Canadian helps), Goldstein teases out the story till it reveals some bigger truth or catharsis, making you laugh or cry along the way – sometimes both.

Every episode is a masterclass in writing and editing for audio, done so well it feels effortless.

4. The Blindboy Podcast

“Blindboy”, the host of The Blindboy Podcast, is a polymath Irishman with a degree in activist art who wears a plastic bag over his head to avoid being identified at his increasingly popular public performances.

His almost 400 episodes to date ramble across a category-defying range, from a rumination on a wasp buzzing round a plane to the origins of offices to a philosophical discourse on the history of pigeons, or the unsuspected nexus between food poisoning and anti-Irish discrimination.

The show includes interviews, readings of his short stories and open discussion of his own anxiety and mental health issues (he was recently diagnosed with autism).

But it’s Blindboy’s brilliant capacity to extemporise on a bewildering range of topics in a classic Irish nonlinear storytelling mode, lavishly garlanded with expletives that sound as natural as poetry, that captivates.

5. Tim Key and Gogol’s Overcoat

Whimsical and delightful, the short Tim Key and Gogol’s Overcoat from the BBC is a beautifully wrought mash-up of fiction and documentary.

Host Key, a real life comedian and scholar of Russian literature, sets out to understand the mysteries of the 19th-century writer’s anarchic short story, The Overcoat. The narrator’s deadpan humour mimics the absurdist author’s takedown of the Tsarist bureaucracy he detested.

A gem that shows how innovative audio can be, outside the ubiquitous podcast chat format. For other one-off podcasts, try the three-minute storytelling from Audio Flux, a creative mini-fest of quirky personal moments.

Siobhan McHugh does not work for, consult, own shares in or receive funding from any company or organisation that would benefit from this article, and has disclosed no relevant affiliations beyond their academic appointment.

– ref. 5 fun podcasts for when you need a break from the news – https://theconversation.com/5-fun-podcasts-for-when-you-need-a-break-from-the-news-243154

Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Zena Assaad, Senior Lecturer, School of Engineering, Australian National University

Meta will make its generative artificial intelligence (AI) models available to the United States’ government, the tech giant has announced, in a controversial move that raises a moral dilemma for everyone who uses the software.

Meta last week revealed it would make the models, known as Llama, available to government agencies, “including those that are working on defence and national security applications, and private sector partners supporting their work”.

The decision appears to contravene Meta’s own policy which lists a range of prohibited uses for Llama, including “[m]ilitary, warfare, nuclear industries or applications” as well as espionage, terrorism, human trafficking and exploitation or harm to children.

Meta’s exception also reportedly applies to similar national security agencies in the United Kingdom, Canada, Australia and New Zealand. It came just three days after Reuters revealed China has reworked Llama for its own military purposes.

The situation highlights the increasing fragility of open source AI software. It also means users of Facebook, Instagram, WhatsApp and Messenger – some versions of which use Llama – may inadvertently be contributing to military programs around the world.

What is Llama?

Llama is a collation of large language models – similar to ChatGPT – and large multimodal models that deal with data other than text, such as audio and images.

Meta, the parent company of Facebook, released Llama in response to OpenAI’s ChatGPT. The key difference between the two is that all Llama models are marketed as open source and free to use. This means anyone can download the source code of a Llama model, and run and modify it themselves (if they have the right hardware). On the other hand, ChatGPT can only be accessed via OpenAI.

The Open Source Initiative, an authority that defines open source software, recently released a standard setting out what open source AI should entail. The standard outlines “four freedoms” an AI model must grant in order to be classified as open source:

• use the system for any purpose and without having to ask for permission
• study how the system works and inspect its components
• modify the system for any purpose, including to change its output
• share the system for others to use with or without modifications, for any purpose.

Meta’s Llama fails to meet these requirements. This is because of limitations on commercial use, the prohibited activities that may be deemed harmful or illegal and a lack of transparency about Llama’s training data.

Despite this, Meta still describes Llama as open source.

The intersection of the tech industry and the military

Meta is not the only commercial technology company branching out to military applications of AI. In the past week, Anthropic also announced it is teaming up with Palantir – a data analytics firm – and Amazon Web Services to provide US intelligence and defence agencies access to its AI models.

Meta has defended its decision to allow US national security agencies and defence contractors to use Llama. The company claims these uses are “responsible and ethical” and “support the prosperity and security of the United States”.

Meta has not been transparent about the data it uses to train Llama. But companies that develop generative AI models often utilise user input data to further train their models, and people share plenty of personal information when using these tools.

ChatGPT and Dall-E provide options for opting out of your data being collected. However, it is unclear if Llama offers the same.

The option to opt out is not made explicitly clear when signing up to use these services. This places the onus on users to inform themselves – and most users may not be aware of where or how Llama is being used.

For example, the latest version of Llama powers AI tools in Facebook, Instagram, WhatsApp and Messenger. When using the AI functions on these platforms – such as creating reels or suggesting captions – users are using Llama.

The fragility of open source

The benefits of open source include open participation and collaboration on software. However, this can also lead to fragile systems that are easily manipulated. For example, following Russia’s invasion of Ukraine in 2022, members of the public made changes to open source software to express their support for Ukraine.

These changes included anti-war messages and deletion of systems files on Russian and Belarusian computers. This movement came to be known as “protestware”.

The intersection of open source AI and military applications will likely exacerbate this fragility because the robustness of open source software is dependent on the public community. In the case of large language models such as Llama, they require public use and engagement because the models are designed to improve over time through a feedback loop between users and the AI system.

The mutual use of open source AI tools marries two parties – the public and the military – who have historically held separate needs and goals. This shift will expose unique challenges for both parties.

For the military, open access means the finer details of how an AI tool operates can easily be sourced, potentially leading to security and vulnerability issues. For the general public, the lack of transparency in how user data is being utilised by the military can lead to a serious moral and ethical dilemma.

Zena Assaad does not work for, consult, own shares in or receive funding from any company or organisation that would benefit from this article, and has disclosed no relevant affiliations beyond their academic appointment.

– ref. Meta now allows military agencies to access its AI software. It poses a moral dilemma for everybody who uses it – https://theconversation.com/meta-now-allows-military-agencies-to-access-its-ai-software-it-poses-a-moral-dilemma-for-everybody-who-uses-it-243250

Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Larissa Christensen, Senior Lecturer in Criminology & Justice, Co-leader of the Sexual Violence Research and Prevention Unit (SVRPU), University of the Sunshine Coast

Sexual offending perpetrated by females is probably much more common than people think.

In Australia, we have seen an almost 208% increase in the number of women in the criminal justice system for sexual offences from 2008 to 2023.

Research in the United States has found that on average, almost 8% of verified cases of sexual abuse across the nation had a female perpetrator. This figure ranges from 1% to more than 36% across the different states.

While women make up a small minority of people who sexually offend, there are minimal offence-specific rehabilitative programs for these women in Australia. To prevent harm to children, this needs to change.

Why is this happening?

There is no one “type” of female who perpetrates sexual offences.

Rather, this population is varied in their backgrounds and motivations, though they tend to have psychological problems and have experienced trauma in the past.

Co-offending with a male partner – such as a boyfriend or spouse – is also quite common (almost 33% of female-perpetrated sexual offence cases).

But not all females who co-offend do so because of coercion by their partner. Some will offend on their own and may do it out of sexual interest and pleasure.

What does this abuse look like?

When we hear about female-perpetrated sexual offending in the media, it typically involves young teachers offending against their students.

For example, a recent Australian case involved a 28-year-old former student teacher found guilty of sexual offences against a 15-year-old boy she met while on a teaching placement.

We also heard about the 28-year-old female teacher in the United Kingdom who was jailed after she was convicted of sexual activity with two schoolboys.

It may therefore come as a surprise that more often than not, most cases involve a mother offending against her own child.

For example, earlier this year a Queensland woman was sentenced for sexually abusing her child and transmitting child sexual abuse material.

The woman was charged with 21 child abuse-related offences, including rape.

Authorities found the abuse was planned with a man in the United States who was also convicted for child sexual abuse material offences.

Rehabilitation lacking

While punishment is important to discourage offending, therapeutic strategies can help to prevent re-offending.

Unfortunately, though, rehabilitation opportunities for women convicted of sexual offences are lacking.

We recently interviewed women sentenced for child sexual abuse in Australia. Our study found women have reportedly “begged for help” in prison, yet their requests for more support have largely gone unanswered.

Others said they were turned away from treatment in the community because they were women and not men.

Sexual offending treatment programs are available to men in Australia and other western countries. Many studies, including our own research, have found this helps reduce re-offending.

It seems reasonable, then, that such programs would be available to women who commit these offences. Some women in our interviews even expressed fear that without a rehabilitation program, they might re-offend.

But it is not just the women sentenced for sexual offences who believed rehabilitation programs would help to reduce their reoffending. The professionals we interviewed also expressed great support for such programs.

So, can’t we just use the same programs that are currently offered to men? The short answer is no.

Our research has found these programs must be tailored to women. This is because their motivations, offending pathways and offence characteristics are different.

With sexual offending rehabilitation programs now available for women in some other countries, hopefully we can see progress in this area in Australia soon. This is important for the protection of our most vulnerable community members: children.

Preventing abuse

In the meantime though, we need to focus on stopping this crime before it happens and being thorough in our approach to prevention.

This includes considering the range of contexts in which adult women come in contact with children, such as childcare, schools, sporting clubs, and in the home.

There are several steps organisations must take to create safer environments for children. This includes putting the National Principles for Child Safe Organisations into action.

Organisations should also consider the physical design of settings to improve supervision and surveillance, as well as education for staff as onlookers to identify, intervene, and/or report their concerns.

But this isn’t enough. We also need to think about how to minimise risks within family homes.

Educating parents, open communication, and family rules have all been suggested to improve safety for children in the family home.

While these strategies are important to use, they often rely on women as mothers and protectors of their children. This makes prevention of female-perpetrated sexual abuse particularly difficult within the family home.

This means responsibility for detecting this type of offending seems to fall to those outside the home (like schools or doctors) to identify and respond to early warning signs. Prevention could also involve women reaching out for anonymous support if they are concerned about their own thoughts or behaviour.

To assist prevention efforts, we need to continue to debunk misconceptions about female sexual offending. We also need to challenge those who minimise the abuse of female perpetrators.

These misconceptions and the minimisation of abuse creates barriers to victims accessing help, but also to the women themselves.

Larissa Christensen has previously received funding from Queensland Corrective Services (unrelated to the current topic on females). She is affiliated with the Daniel Morcombe Foundation.

Nadine McKillop has previously received funding from Queensland Corrective Services (unrelated to the current topic on females).

Susan Rayment-McHugh has previously received funding from Queensland Corrective Services (unrelated to the current topic on females). She is affiliated with Laurel Place Inc.

Bricklyn Priebe does not work for, consult, own shares in or receive funding from any company or organisation that would benefit from this article, and has disclosed no relevant affiliations beyond their academic appointment.

– ref. Child sexual abuse by women is on the rise. We don’t have the support services to cope – https://theconversation.com/child-sexual-abuse-by-women-is-on-the-rise-we-dont-have-the-support-services-to-cope-241125

Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Philippa Specker, Postdoctoral Research Fellow at the Refugee Trauma and Recovery Program, School of Psychology, UNSW Sydney

For more than a decade, mandatory offshore detention has been a cornerstone of Australia’s strategy to deter people who arrive by boat to seek asylum. Then there’s onshore detention where people without a valid visa are held in centres and transit accommodation on mainland Australia.

Today, we show the human cost of these policies on the mental health of people seeking asylum who were once detained.

Our new study, the largest of its kind, shows high rates of post-traumatic stress disorder (PTSD), depression and suicidal thoughts among people who previously experienced detention – particularly offshore detention.

Our findings come as several other countries are exploring their own versions of offshore detention.

What we did

We surveyed 990 adult refugees and people seeking asylum living in the Australian community between 2011 and 2018. This included 775 people who had never been held in a detention facility and 215 who had been detained then released.

This is the largest known dataset available globally that measures the mental health of previously detained people seeking asylum.

Of those who had been in detention, some had only been detained onshore and some had been detained offshore before being relocated to onshore detention.

Using participants’ responses to questionnaires, we determined the likely presence of psychological disorders, including PTSD, depression or suicidal ideation (intense and frequent thoughts about ending one’s life).

What we found

We found detention greatly increased someone’s risk of serious mental illness. People who had been held in detention were more likely to subsequently report symptoms of PTSD, depression and suicidal ideation compared to those who had not.

But not all detention experiences carried the same degree of mental health risk.

People who had been detained offshore were 16.5-20.2 times more likely to report PTSD, five times more likely to report depression, and 4.6-5.2 times more likely to report suicidal ideation, compared to people who had been detained onshore for less than six months.

A link between offshore detention and mental illness is not surprising. However, we were surprised by the magnitude of this effect.

Prolonged onshore detention also carried serious mental health consequences. People who had been detained onshore for six months or longer were 16.9 times more likely to report PTSD and 5.5 times more likely to report suicidal ideation compared to people who had been detained onshore for less than six months.

Our findings align with a large body of research documenting the detrimental psychological effects of onshore detention (particularly for prolonged periods). However, this is the first time we have had the empirical data to demonstrate the even-greater detrimental effect of offshore detention.

How did we get here?

Since 2012, 4,296 people have been detained offshore on Nauru or Manus Island under the Australian government’s offshore processing policy.

This has run alongside a policy of mandatory onshore detention in detention centres and transit accommodation on mainland Australia.

Domestic and international courts have ruled Australia’s practice of mandatory detention, particularly indefinite immigration detention and offshore detention, to be illegal in some circumstances. The United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees has repeatedly called for an end to Australia’s offshore detention policy.

Despite this, offshore detention has persisted. Although all people who remained in Nauru in June 2023 were transferred to the Australian mainland, more people have arrived since. In September 2023, the Australian government recommenced transferring people who had arrived by boat to Nauru. Recent estimates suggest about 100 people have been transferred there.

But research over the past decade has found offshore detention to be both costly and ineffective. Analysis of migration patterns to Australia and elsewhere has revealed such policies have not worked in deterring people from seeking asylum.

Offshore detention is also expensive. It costs almost A$22 million a year for Australia to detain and process a single person offshore; the yearly cost of managing that same person in the community would be $3,962.

Other countries need to take note

Our findings have implications for other nations currently pursuing similar offshore detention models – often called “third country processing”.

In February 2024, an offshore processing deal between Italy and Albania was ratified and in October 2024 these detention centres opened.

In April 2024, the United Kingdom passed legislation to relocate people seeking asylum to Rwanda, a move that has been repeatedly condemned by the United Nations. Despite the newly-elected UK Labour government promising in July to repeal this bill, this has not yet occurred. Instead, the UK looks to be watching the Italy-Albania asylum seeker deal with interest.

Denmark has also revived talks with Rwanda to outsource the processing of people who come to Denmark to seek asylum. The Danish immigration minister also recently visited Nauru.

The actions of governments seeking to maintain or establish policies of offshore detention and processing are notably at odds with unequivocal evidence on the humanitarian and economic costs, and now clear evidence of the psychological burden of such practices.

There are evidence-based alternatives to offshore detention. These include timely and humane onshore processing and supporting regional neighbours to provide welcoming resettlement environments for people seeking a safe haven from war and persecution.

Our findings strongly caution against the continuation, or establishment, of immigration detention policies that result in people being detained, particularly being detained offshore or for prolonged periods.

If this article has raised issues for you, or if you’re concerned about someone you know, call Lifeline on 13 11 14.

Philippa Specker receives funding from an MQ: Transforming Mental Health Postdoctoral Scholarship (MPSIP15).

Angela Nickerson receives funding from the Australian Research Council and the National Health and Medical Research Council.

Belinda Liddell receives funding from the Australian Research Council and National Health and Medical Research Council.

– ref. We knew offshore detention was bad for the mental health of people seeking asylum. Our new research shows exactly how bad – https://theconversation.com/we-knew-offshore-detention-was-bad-for-the-mental-health-of-people-seeking-asylum-our-new-research-shows-exactly-how-bad-237860

Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Kate Scott, PhD Candidate in Social and Political Sciences, University of Sydney

Generation Z was supposed to be a vanguard of progressive politics – more queer, ethnically diverse and environmentally conscious than previous generations. Spurred on by climate protests, racial equality campaigns and feminist movements, we were sold the vision that Gen Z could usher in a more progressive and equitable future.

So, how is it that Donald Trump was elected to a second term despite this cohort now having reached voting age? And how did he secure a larger share of voters under 30 than any Republican presidential candidate since 2008?

The answer may lie in Gen Z’s “Lost Boys”, as they’ve been dubbed by some in the media. Not unlike Peter Pan’s disciples, these young men are failing to mature and find purpose in today’s rapidly changing social and economic landscape. They feel overlooked and shortchanged by left-wing politics and current economic outcomes.

In Trump, they see an outlet for their grievances – a figure who promises to restore the old order and give them the recognition they believe they deserve.

Many young people see no future

Despite the narrative that Gen Z is more progressive than previous cohorts, recent voting data tell a different story when it comes to young men. While the political leanings of Gen Z women have stayed steadily left of centre, Trump’s popularity among young men surged by 15 percentage points from 2020.

To understand why so many young men are drawn to Trump’s brand of populism, it’s crucial to look at the broader social context in which they are coming of age. The “Lost Boys” in the United States are disproportionately working-class and struggling with unemployment, underemployment, addiction and mental health crises.

The statistics are alarming. With one in five men under 25 unemployed (and many not actively seeking work), they seem hesitant to adapt to a new economy that no longer offers them the opportunities it once did.

Against this backdrop, young men seek out explanations for their struggles in ways that affirm their sense of injustice. These explanations are often found in the “manosphere” – a loose confederacy of social media platforms and influencers flooded with discussions about how “woke” politics, feminism and the rise of progressive values are undermining traditional masculinity.

In these corners of the internet, young men are told their personal setbacks are not the result of a weakening worldwide economy or personal failings, but rather the consequence of a society that has become too “soft”. They hear that the push for gender equality has made traditional masculinity a thing of the past – that men are being ignored, emasculated and left behind.

The “manosphere” is a space where their grievances are validated and where they are encouraged to embrace hypermasculine ideals as a way to regain control.

Searching for validation

Enter Trump.

Flitting between manosphere influencers such as Joe Rogan and Adin Ross, Trump spent hours on podcasts and streams in the lead-up to November 5. The result was so effective that podcasters were specifically shouted out in the victory declaration speech following the election. Since Trump entered politics, he has 107 podcast credits to his name, compared with Kamala Harris’ 76.

Notably, Harris’ own interview with Rogan fell through after the podcaster refused to accept her conditions, which included travelling to meet her.

In these online spaces, Trump was humorous and humanised. And for Gen Z men who consume more news through social media than traditional outlets, he was highly accessible. Suddenly, he wasn’t just a presidential candidate, but a certified “bro” willing to openly discuss cocaine on a podcast.

Trump successfully tapped into the frustrations of these “Lost Boys”. His policies – from mass deportations to curbing diversity initiatives – are framed as solutions to the challenges these men believe they face: competition for jobs and opportunities, the erosion of masculine ideals, and the loss of a once-dominant social order.

Yet as Trump waltzes to the Republican National Convention stage with James Brown’s It’s a Man’s Man’s Man’s World playing in the background, it becomes apparent his appeal was never just about policies; it’s about validation. His slogan of “Make America Great Again” resonates with young men who long for an idealised past in which men’s roles were more clearly defined and opportunities more plentiful.

Trump tells these men their frustrations are valid – and they deserve to take back what they believe has been unfairly taken from them.

Where to from here?

If the future belongs to Gen Z, it’s clear this particular subset of young men is not ready to follow the same path as their progressive peers. For many “Lost Boys”, Trump is more than just a political figure – he is a symbol of empowerment in a world that increasingly leaves them behind.

As the political and cultural landscape continues to evolve, understanding this phenomenon isn’t just a matter of curiosity, but a key to addressing the needs of a generation still trying to find its place in a confusing world.

Until figures on the political left learn to be present in these spaces and address the grievances of “Lost Boys”, we may continue to see them rallying around figures like Trump in their search for meaning.

Kate Scott does not work for, consult, own shares in or receive funding from any company or organisation that would benefit from this article, and has disclosed no relevant affiliations beyond their academic appointment.

– ref. The ‘Lost Boys’ of Gen Z: how Trump won the hearts of alienated young men – https://theconversation.com/the-lost-boys-of-gen-z-how-trump-won-the-hearts-of-alienated-young-men-243358

Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Ellie Martus, Senior Lecturer in Public Policy, School of Government and International Relations, Griffith University

For the third year in a row, the United Nations Climate Change Conference will be hosted by an authoritarian state that sells fossil fuels. This week the 29th “conference of the parties”, COP29, is being held in Baku, Azerbaijan. It follows COP28 in Dubai, the United Arab Emirates last year and COP27 in Sharm El-Sheikh, Egypt the year before that.

It’s concerning that a succession of authoritarian and fossil fuel-rich states have been selected to host international climate negotiations. It means we must pay extra attention to political influences on the talks and beware of greenwashing by the hosts.

The domestic politics of these states also shapes global supply chains of fossil fuels and critical minerals. This in turn directly affects Australia’s trade, economy and foreign policies.

There are now more authoritarian and hybrid regimes globally than there are democracies. So some basic understanding of how authoritarian states respond to climate change matters, for Australia and the rest of the world.

What is an authoritarian state and why should we care?

Power in authoritarian states is concentrated in the hands of a single ruler or group of elites. People under authoritarian rule lack many basic human rights, and risk punishment for speaking out against the political regime. Rule of law and political institutions are weak, so abuse of power can go unchecked.

Not all authoritarian states are fossil fuel producers, although many are. Some also supply critical minerals for electric vehicles and renewable energy.

China dominates global critical minerals supply chains and electric vehicle manufacturing.

Russia remains one of the largest fossil fuels producers and exporters, despite sanctions since 2022. It is also using revenues from these exports to continue its war in Ukraine.

Most of the major oil, coal and gas producers in the Middle East and Central and Southeast Asia are non-democracies or hybrid autocracies. UAE lifted oil production after hosting COP28.

Indonesia, considered “partly free”, is the world’s largest coal exporter. Despite having signed the Paris Agreement, the Indonesian government recently approved close to one billion tonnes of coal mining. Domestic coal consumption and export is expected to rise.

What is at stake at COP29?

At COP29, countries are expected to announce stronger national climate commitments. This is essential for limiting global temperature rise to 1.5°C and achieving net-zero emissions by mid-century.

It is hoped more concrete steps will also be taken towards providing financial support to developing countries struggling with the energy transition.

In previous years, authoritarian states have been able to block or undermine progress at international climate negotiations. Expect to see more of this at COP29.

China’s cautious approach to phasing out coal has affected COP negotiations in the past. Even after COP28, where a roadmap to transition away from fossil fuel was agreed, coal remains crucial to China’s economy.

At COP27 in Egypt, Russian energy lobbyists were permitted to attend even after the invasion of Ukraine. They met with heads of states and energy ministers from Africa, Asia and the rest of the world.

Russia will likely use COP29 to promote its own agenda, including its nuclear export industry. Since the war began, Russia has sought to frame Western-led cooperation on climate as a form of neo-colonialism designed to undermine its economy and others like it.

The mere fact COP29 is being held in Azerbaijan may be a consequence of Russian intervention. Russia reportedly opposed COP29 being held in Bulgaria after the European Union condemned the invasion of Ukraine and imposed sanctions.

Climate politics in autocracies

Finally, evidence suggests as climate change intensifies, authoritarianism could gain legitimacy over liberal democratic norms, for several reasons.

First, authoritarian states can provide effective short-term disaster response and relief. The central authorities in these states can mobilise considerable human and material resources without many institutional checks and balances.

Second, authoritarian states can introduce large-scale green energy technologies, such as solar, wind, hydro and nuclear, using substantial government funding. This has happened in China and many other states, including Laos, Vietnam, and Morocco. In doing so, authoritarian states can portray themselves as more capable than democracies.

Finally, following the demise of fossil fuel-related industries, functioning authoritarian states can manage massive job losses and suppress social resentment in ways democratic governments do not.

Challenges lie ahead

Long-standing democracies such as the United States and Australia have been bogged down in the complex politics around climate and energy transition. This has led to scientific evidence being questioned, crackdowns on environmental activism, and restrictions on media freedom. We need to make sure addressing climate change doesn’t undermine democratic principles.

What’s more, authoritarian and fossil fuel rich states have actively funded climate denial in democratic societies. For example, Russia was found to be promoting anti-climate misinformation on social media.

As far as China goes, the global superpower is extending its geopolitical influence by helping developing countries access cheap renewable energy technologies from non-Western sources. This challenges the leading role of the US and the West in the field of international cooperation on climate change.

As COP29 gets underway, the potential for authoritarian states to shape the outcomes remains strong. Understanding how these regimes work, and what they want, is vital as they affect global cooperation on climate change.

The authors do not work for, consult, own shares in or receive funding from any company or organisation that would benefit from this article, and have disclosed no relevant affiliations beyond their academic appointment.

– ref. Authoritarian fossil fuel states keep hosting climate conferences – how do these regimes operate and what do they want? – https://theconversation.com/authoritarian-fossil-fuel-states-keep-hosting-climate-conferences-how-do-these-regimes-operate-and-what-do-they-want-240564

Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Nina Ives, PhD Candidate in Climate Change, Auckland University of Technology

This year’s United Nations climate summit, the Conference of the Parties (COP29) which starts in Azerbaijan this week, has been dubbed the “finance COP”.

Its key focus is on establishing a new collective goal for climate finance to help developing countries to reduce emissions and adapt to climate impacts.

Within the 2009 Copenhagen Accord, 43 developed countries, including the United States, pledged to jointly mobilise US$100 billion a year by 2020 to “address the needs of developing countries”. But this didn’t specify how much money each country should contribute, nor which proportion should be used to cut emissions or adapt to impacts.

It took until 2022 for countries to meet this goal, according to recent OECD assessments.

Most European countries have contributed significantly, but the US, Canada and Australia have been criticised for not paying enough, given their large economies. The reelection of President Donald Trump now makes future contributions from the US uncertain.

Recent research shows extreme weather is already costing vulnerable island nations US$141 billion each year. Estimates suggest this will rise to $1 trillion annually by 2030.

Sharing the burden of climate action

Channelling money towards climate actions is one way countries can contribute to tackling climate change in two broad categories:

1. Mitigation (preventing future greenhouse gas emissions to reduce further climate change)

2. Adaption (adjusting and preparing for the impacts of climate change).

But what might a fair distribution of climate finance between countries look like today? How much climate finance could countries be expected to contribute towards a shared goal? And do we have adequate means and information for answering such questions?

There are three burden-sharing principles commonly drawn on to answer these questions:

• polluter pays means those who have caused the problem ought to clean it up

• beneficiary pays means those who have benefited from actions which caused the problem ought to address it

• ability to pay means those with the greatest financial means ought to contribute a bigger share.

Each principle reflects a different understanding of fairness.

All three of the above principles are linked to another principle which describes how countries bear different levels of responsibility for climate change in the past, and have variable capabilities for dealing with it in the present.

This principle has underpinned several international climate treaties, including the 2015 Paris Agreement and 1992 UN Framework Convention on Climate Change.

The beneficiary-pays principle is increasingly being referred to in discussions of how costs could fall for climate adaptation measures. For instance, coastal communities could be expected to pick up a significant proportion of the tab for a sea wall because they will derive the benefit from such infrastructure.

Principles of fair contribution

To apply these principles, information about countries’ circumstances is used to calculate fair climate finance distributions.

For instance, the ability-to-pay principle is often applied using metrics such as gross domestic product per capita and gross national income per capita, as well as the Human Development Index. All of these metrics provide indications of a country’s financial capacity for addressing climate change.

The polluter-pays principle is commonly applied using information about countries’ historical greenhouse gas emissions and land-use practices.

The results of applying these principles can vary significantly. A polluter-pays principle would place substantial financial burdens on large historical emitters, such as the US and China.

Conversely, wealthy countries with low populations and high gross national income per capita (such as Liechtenstein, Singapore or Qatar) could be expected to bear the highest climate finance burdens under an ability-to-pay principle.

For Australia, climate finance burdens would not vary substantially across different principles. But for Aotearoa, these would be significantly higher under the ability-to-pay than the polluter-pays approach.

These different distributions reflect perspectives on what constitutes a country’s fair climate finance burden.

Moral adequacy of countries’ pledges

Results of applying these principles cannot be expected to provide “right” answers to the questions stated above. They offer a means for better informing debate in the international community about possible fair distributions of climate finance.

This is helpful within the Paris Agreement, which requires each country to put forward a self-defined contribution to the global effort. But the agreement has no way of assessing these contributions from an ethical standpoint, despite considerations of fairness lying at the heart of burden-sharing conversations about climate finance.

It is worth reiterating this approach of applying ethical principles cannot deliver a single, determinate answer because climate finance distributions depend on different interpretations of fairness.

Nor should it be considered a way of settling debates about countries’ finance burdens, since fair climate finance distributions will continue shifting with time as countries’ circumstances change.

Ahead of discussions at COP29, exploring possible fair distributions of international climate finance could be helpful for scrutinising the moral adequacy of countries’ future pledges and their actual mobilising of efforts.

This, in turn, could support more nuanced and informed debate in the international community as nations grapple with ways to fairly address an increasingly urgent, ever-evolving global issue.

The authors do not work for, consult, own shares in or receive funding from any company or organisation that would benefit from this article, and have disclosed no relevant affiliations beyond their academic appointment.

– ref. COP29: who pays for climate action in developing nations – and how much – becomes more urgent – https://theconversation.com/cop29-who-pays-for-climate-action-in-developing-nations-and-how-much-becomes-more-urgent-242678

Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Michelle Grattan, Professorial Fellow, University of Canberra

Western Australian Labor premier Roger Cook has  asked for advice about  the implications of a possible March federal election clashing with the state poll.  

The WA election is on March 8.  The state has fixed terms.

The Albanese government could hold its election in March, April or (at the latest) May. Federal terms are not fixed.

Federally, WA is a vital state for both sides of politics. Labor won several seats there in 2022 and Albanese has visited the state constantly since then. The opposition is counting on getting back some ground there.

Cook said on Monday: “We have to be ready for any contingency.

“We have limited ability to switch our election if the federal election comes in over the top of that.

“So  […] we’re doing a lot of work at the moment and the [state] electoral commission is doing a lot of work, just understanding what some of those complexities might be in the event that the federal government decides to have an election close to ours.”

The WA electoral act prohibits a state election on the same day as a federal election.

In “exceptional circumstances” the state election date can be postponed briefly, if the premier and state opposition leader agree.

The issue would not just be the actual polling day but how staff could cope if the two elections were within a week or two of each other.

On the present timetable, federal parliament resumes in February, and March 25 has been set for an early budget.

Albanese has referred to the planned budget several times. Last week he referred to legislation being debated by parliament in February.

Meanwhile the Australian Electoral Commission has again ruled out two people being able to nominate as dual candidates.

The AEC said in a Monday statement that it would be required  by the Commonwealth Electoral Act to reject any nomination made by multiple  individuals for one  candidacy.

Two professional women, Bronwen Bock and Lucy  Bradlow, say they want to job share a Victorian Senate position. They first aimed to run in Higgins to show politics could be “done differently”. But the seat was abolished in the redistribution; they  then turned their attention to the Senate.

The AEC has said multiple times only one person can nominate for a single seat.

In Monday’s statement it said the legislated timeframes in a federal election were “incredibly tight”, and resolving legal interpretations and disputes in this period  was “incredibly challenging”.

“Also, if the election was to be held in late May 2025, delays in the election process may impact on the AEC returning the writs before 30 June 2025. This may result in delays for incoming Senators being able to take their seats.” 

Michelle Grattan does not work for, consult, own shares in or receive funding from any company or organisation that would benefit from this article, and has disclosed no relevant affiliations beyond their academic appointment.

– ref. WA premier seeks advice about a possible early federal poll clashing with state election – https://theconversation.com/wa-premier-seeks-advice-about-a-possible-early-federal-poll-clashing-with-state-election-243375

Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Adriana Vargas Saenz, Lead Researcher at Atlassian & Honorary Fellow, Melbourne School of Psychological Sciences, The University of Melbourne

Intimate partner violence is a global scourge. One in four Australian women have experienced physical or sexual violence at the hands of an intimate partner. The perpetrators are overwhelmingly heterosexual men.

Many factors contribute to this form of violence. Persistent gender inequality is a fundamental systemic cause, but researchers have identified additional risk factors. These include alcohol and drug use, past experience of family violence, financial stress and sexist attitudes.

One psychological factor that may be implicated in intimate partner violence is objectification. Feminist thinkers such as Cambridge scholar Rae Langton and American philosopher Martha Nussbaum have proposed men who treat their partners as “object-like” are disposed to harm them because they fail to see them as fully human.

Objectification can involve men judging their partner’s value in her physical appearance, seeing her as a possession, or denying her agency and autonomy. The common thread is a subtle or not-so-subtle form of dehumanisation.

Recent psychological research has tried to test these ideas, with intriguing results.

Our new research

Past research found young men who sexually objectify women are especially likely to perpetrate sexual violence. It also showed that men who unconsciously associate women with objects have a relatively high propensity for sexual harassment.

In our recently published work, we moved from considering violence towards women in general to violence towards men’s intimate partners. You might expect men would be less likely to objectify those they claim to love. The appalling statistics on intimate partner violence suggest otherwise.

Our new article presents findings from three studies on the role of objectification in intimate partner violence. Each study sampled American men aged 18 to 35 who were in a committed romantic relationship of at least one year’s duration.

In our first study, men completed a computer-based task – the Implicit Association Test – commonly used to measure unconscious bias. We adapted the task to assess how much they automatically associated women with inanimate objects or animals.

The group also responded to questionnaires measuring how often they engaged in a range of abusive and sexually coercive behaviours towards their current partners. Although based on self-reporting, and therefore open to distortion, these measures are valid predictors of violent behaviour.

As expected, men with relatively strong tendencies to associate women with objects reported higher rates of violent and coercive behaviour. This effect did not occur because these men held more hostile sexist attitudes toward women.

Objectification and sexism were distinct predictors of intimate partner violence, suggesting that objectification independently contributes to this form of violence.

Read more:
Stalking rates in Australia are still shockingly high – one simple strategy might help

Voodoo dolls

Our second study extended the first in two ways. First, we adapted the association test to examine how much men automatically associated their partner with objects, rather than women in general.

Second, we added a more behavioural test of violence. The Voodoo Doll Task allows participants to use “pins” to stab a doll, presented on a computer screen, that shares their partner’s name.

Each participant has an opportunity to use as many pins as he wishes after vividly imagining a provocative scenario. He is at a bar with his partner when she starts flirting with another man and expressing discontent with her current relationship.

Stabbing a virtual doll with digital pins is not the same as inflicting actual violence, of course. However, people who use more pins are more prone to real-world violence. Their inhibitions against acting violently are likely weaker.

In our study, men who tended to associate their partners with inanimate objects reported higher rates of violence, as in the first study. They also stabbed the voodoo doll with more pins if they were highly upset by the provocative scenario.

The objectifying mindset

Our first two studies examined objectification as the tendency to associate a person with objects. Our third considered it as the tendency to focus on the person’s physical appearance.

In our experiment, men were randomly assigned to write several sentences about their partner’s appearance or about her personality. They then completed the Voodoo Doll Task and several short questionnaires.

As we predicted, young men induced to focus on their partner’s appearance stabbed the doll with more pins. They also rated their partner as having fewer personality traits associated with being emotional and capable of action (which contrasts the inertness of inanimate objects).

What this means in the real world

Our three studies indicate objectification plays a role in men’s intimate partner violence against women. Men who implicitly see their female partners as object-like are at greater risk of acting violently towards them.

Inducing an appearance mindset may also promote intimate partner violence, suggesting objectification may be implicated in violence even among men who are otherwise not prone to it.

These findings offer a new perspective on intimate partner violence and how to prevent it. Fundamentally, they imply this violence is partially rooted in a failure of empathy. Some men are unwilling or unable to appreciate their partners as complete humans.

Cultural changes that boost or encourage men’s appreciation of women’s experiences, and reduce their focus on their physical appearance, may help reduce the terrible toll of violence in heterosexual intimate relationships.

For information and advice about family and intimate partner violence contact 1800 RESPECT (1800 737 732). If you or someone you know is in immediate danger, contact 000. Men’s Referral Service (call 1300 766 491) offers advice and counselling to men looking to change their behaviour.

Nick Haslam receives funding from the Australian Research Council.

Adriana Vargas Saenz does not work for, consult, own shares in or receive funding from any company or organisation that would benefit from this article, and has disclosed no relevant affiliations beyond their academic appointment.

– ref. Young men who see women as objects are more likely to be violent towards their partners: new research – https://theconversation.com/young-men-who-see-women-as-objects-are-more-likely-to-be-violent-towards-their-partners-new-research-242578

Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Adrian Beaumont, Election Analyst (Psephologist) at The Conversation; and Honorary Associate, School of Mathematics and Statistics, The University of Melbourne

A national Newspoll, conducted November 4–8 from a sample of 1,261, gave the Coalition a 51–49 lead, unchanged since the previous Newspoll in early October. Primary votes were 40% Coalition (up two), 33% Labor (up two), 11% Greens (down one), 5% One Nation (down two) and 11% for all Others (down one).

Anthony Albanese’s net approval slid one point to -15, with 55% dissatisfied and 40% satisfied. Peter Dutton’s net approval rose three points to -11. Albanese’s better PM lead dropped to 45–41 (45–37 previously).

It’s the first time this term that Dutton has had a better net approval than Albanese and Albanese’s smallest better PM lead.

Here is the graph showing Albanese’s net approval in Newspoll. The plus signs are data points and a smoothed line has been fitted.

While economic data has been better for Labor recently, with Morgan’s consumer confidence rising above 85 in mid-October for the first time since January 2023, this is not yet flowing through to improved ratings for Labor and Albanese. The Qantas upgrades scandal could be a factor.

For the first time this term, the Coalition has taken the lead in analyst Kevin Bonham’s two-party aggregate, and now leads by 50.1–49.9. If One Nation preference flows are assigned using their flows at the Queensland election, the Coalition leads by 50.6–49.4.

Resolve poll: Dutton’s ratings surge

A national Resolve poll for Nine newspapers, conducted November 6–10 from a sample of 1,621, gave the Coalition 39% of the primary vote (up one since early October), Labor 30% (steady), the Greens 11% (down one), One Nation 5% (steady), independents 11% (down one) and others 4% (up one).

Resolve doesn’t usually give a two-party estimate, but this poll would be a 50–50 tie by 2022 election preference flows, a one-point gain for the Coalition.

Albanese’s net approval improved three points to -14, with 51% giving him a poor rating and 38% a good rating. Dutton’s net approval surged six points to +5. There was a 37–37 tie on preferred PM (37–35 to Albanese previously).

By 40–29, voters thought Donald Trump’s election as US president would be bad for Australia. Trump’s net likeability was -29, with 55% having a negative opinion and 26% a positive one.

The Liberals had a 41–27 lead over Labor on economic management (38–26 previously). The Liberals led by 35–28 on keeping the cost of living low (31–24 previously).

Australian economic data

In the September quarter, the Australian Bureau of Statistics said headline inflation fell to just 0.2% from 1.0% in the June quarter. In the 12 months to September, headline inflation increased 2.8%, down from 3.8% in June.

However, core inflation increased 0.8% in the September quarter for a 3.5% 12-month rate. The Reserve Bank’s interest rate decisions will be based on core inflation.

In September the ABS said the unemployment rate dropped 0.1% to 4.1%, with 64,100 jobs created. The employment population ratio (the percentage of eligible Australians that are employed) rose 0.1% to 64.4%, an equal record high, tied with May and November 2023.

Morgan’s consumer confidence in mid-October surged 4.1 points to 87.5 since the previous week, its first reading above 85 since January 2023. In early November, consumer confidence was down one point to 86.5. Higher consumer confidence should help Labor.

Morgan poll: respondent preferences give Coalition lead

A national Morgan poll, conducted October 28 to November 3 from a sample of 1,651, gave the Coalition a 51–49 lead, a 1.5-point gain for the Coalition since the October 21–27 Morgan poll.

Primary votes were 38% Coalition (up 0.5), 30.5% Labor (up 0.5), 14% Greens (steady), 6% One Nation (up 0.5), 7.5% independents (down 1.5) and 4% others (steady).

The headline figure is based on respondent preferences. By 2022 election preference flows, Labor led by 51–49, a 0.5-point gain for the Coalition.

In a separate Morgan poll that was conducted by SMS from October 22–23 with a sample of 1,312, 57% (down three since September 2022) thought Australia should remain a monarchy while 43% (up three) thought we should become a republic with an elected president.

US election: Harris erred in not emphasising health care

After Kamala Harris’ loss, there’s been much commentary on what her campaign did wrong. I think she erred in not emphasising Trump’s record on health care, in which he attempted and nearly succeeded in repealing the Affordable Care Act (Obamacare) during his first term.

Analyst Nate Silver said on October 26 that health care had very low issue salience. The Harris campaign should have reminded voters of Trump’s nearly successful attempt to repeal Obamacare.

I’ve been following late counting in the United States congressional elections for The Poll Bludger. Democrats still have a slight chance to win control of the House of Representatives. I also covered the upcoming Irish and German elections.

Queensland election final results

At the October 26 Queensland state election, the Liberal National Party (LNP) won 52 of the 93 seats (up 18 since the 2020 election), Labor 36 (down 16), Katter’s Australian Party (KAP) three (steady), the Greens one (down one), independents one (steady) and One Nation zero (down one).

Queensland won’t give us an official two-party statewide count, but the ABC estimated the two-party vote was 53.8–46.2 to the LNP, a 7.0% swing to the LNP. Primary votes were 41.5% LNP (up 5.6%), 32.6% Labor (down 7.0%), 9.9% Greens (up 0.4%), 8.0% One Nation (up 0.9%), 2.4% KAP (down 0.1%) and 5.6% for all Others (up 0.2%).

YouGov and Resolve polls were closest to the two-party estimated result, with YouGov giving the LNP a 54.5–45.5 lead and Resolve giving them a 53–47 lead. Newspoll gave the LNP a 52.5–47.5 lead and uComms was poor, giving the LNP just a 51–49 lead.

KAP contested only 11 seats, while One Nation and the Greens contested all 93. Concentration of KAP’s vote explains why it won three seats on 2.4% of statewide votes.

The Poll Bludger said Labor won the closest seat of Aspley by 31 votes (under 0.1%). In South Brisbane, if the LNP had been ahead of Labor after One Nation preferences, the Greens would have won on Labor preferences instead of Labor beating the Greens on LNP preferences. Labor was ahead at this point by 105 votes or 0.3%.

ABC election analyst Antony Green said the two-party swing against Labor was 4.9% with election day votes but 8.6% with pre-poll votes. The large numbers of pre-poll votes now are making it impossible to call elections until pre-poll booths report late on election night.

Green also said One Nation preference flows shifted to the LNP since the 2020 state election. This has implications for the next federal election if One Nation preferences go to the Coalition more than at the 2022 federal election.

SA Black byelection next Saturday

A byelection will occur in the Liberal-held South Australian state seat of Black on Saturday, following the resignation of former Liberal leader David Speirs. Speirs won Black by a 52.7–47.3 margin over Labor at the 2022 state election, which Labor won easily. Labor and the Liberals will contest the byelection.

Adrian Beaumont does not work for, consult, own shares in or receive funding from any company or organisation that would benefit from this article, and has disclosed no relevant affiliations beyond their academic appointment.

– ref. Coalition retains narrow Newspoll lead as Dutton gains; where Democrats may have erred in US election – https://theconversation.com/coalition-retains-narrow-newspoll-lead-as-dutton-gains-where-democrats-may-have-erred-in-us-election-241921

Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Rose (Shiqi) Luo, Postdoctoral Research Fellow, School of Health and Biomedical Sciences, RMIT University

Nearly five years into the pandemic, COVID is feeling less central to our daily lives.

But the virus, SARS-CoV-2, is still around, and for many people the effects of an infection can be long-lasting. When symptoms persist for more than three months after the initial COVID infection, this is generally referred to as long COVID.

In September, Grammy-winning Brazilian musician Sérgio Mendes died aged 83 after reportedly having long COVID.

Australian data show 196 deaths were due to the long-term effects of COVID from the beginning of the pandemic up to the end of July 2023.

In the United States, the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention reported 3,544 long-COVID-related deaths from the start of the pandemic up to the end of June 2022.

The symptoms of long COVID – such as fatigue, shortness of breath and “brain fog” – can be debilitating. But can you die from long COVID? The answer is not so simple.

How could long COVID lead to death?

There’s still a lot we don’t understand about what causes long COVID. A popular theory is that “zombie” virus fragments may linger in the body and cause inflammation even after the virus has gone, resulting in long-term health problems. Recent research suggests a reservoir of SARS-CoV-2 proteins in the blood might explain why some people experience ongoing symptoms.

We know a serious COVID infection can damage multiple organs. For example, severe COVID can lead to permanent lung dysfunction, persistent heart inflammation, neurological damage and long-term kidney disease.

These issues can in some cases lead to death, either immediately or months or years down the track. But is death beyond the acute phase of infection from one of these causes the direct result of COVID, long COVID, or something else? Whether long COVID can directly cause death continues to be a topic of debate.

Of the 3,544 deaths related to long COVID in the US up to June 2022, the most commonly recorded underlying cause was COVID itself (67.5%). This could mean they died as a result of one of the long-term effects of a COVID infection, such as those mentioned above.

COVID infection was followed by heart disease (8.6%), cancer (2.9%), Alzheimer’s disease (2.7%), lung disease (2.5%), diabetes (2%) and stroke (1.8%). Adults aged 75–84 had the highest rate of death related to long COVID (28.8%).

These findings suggest many of these people died “with” long COVID, rather than from the condition. In other words, long COVID may not be a direct driver of death, but rather a contributor, likely exacerbating existing conditions.

‘Cause of death’ is difficult to define

Long COVID is a relatively recent phenomenon, so mortality data for people with this condition are limited.

However, we can draw some insights from the experiences of people with post-viral conditions that have been studied for longer, such as myalgic encephalomyelitis or chronic fatigue syndrome (ME/CFS).

Like long COVID, ME/CFS is a complex condition which can have significant and varied effects on a person’s physical fitness, nutritional status, social engagement, mental health and quality of life.

Some research indicates people with ME/CFS are at increased risk of dying from causes including heart conditions, infections and suicide, that may be triggered or compounded by the debilitating nature of the syndrome.

So what is the emerging data on long COVID telling us about the potential increased risk of death?

Research from 2023 has suggested adults in the US with long COVID were at greater risk of developing heart disease, stroke, lung disease and asthma.

Research has also found long COVID is associated with a higher risk of suicidal ideation (thinking about or planning suicide). This may reflect common symptoms and consequences of long COVID such as sleep problems, fatigue, chronic pain and emotional distress.

But long COVID is more likely to occur in people who have existing health conditions. This makes it challenging to accurately determine how much long COVID contributes to a person’s death.

Research has long revealed reliability issues in cause-of-death reporting, particularly for people with chronic illness.

So what can we conclude?

Ultimately, long COVID is a chronic condition that can significantly affect quality of life, mental wellbeing and overall health.

While long COVID is not usually immediately or directly life-threatening, it’s possible it could exacerbate existing conditions, and play a role in a person’s death in this way.

Importantly, many people with long COVID around the world lack access to appropriate support. We need to develop models of care for the optimal management of people with long COVID with a focus on multidisciplinary care.

Dr Natalie Jovanovski, Vice Chancellor’s Senior Research Fellow in the School of Health and Biomedical Sciences at RMIT University, contributed to this article.

Rose (Shiqi) Luo receives funding from the Medical Research Future Fund (MRFF) studying the impact of long COVID.

Catherine Itsiopoulos receives funding from the National Health and Medical Research Council through the MRFF program. She is affiliated with the Australasian Society of Lifestyle Medicine as a Board member, a committee member of Fronditha Care and is employed by RMIT University.

Kate Anderson receives funding from the Medical Research Future Fund to study the impacts of long COVID and the way COVID-19 information is shared in the disability community. She is affiliated with the Australian POTS Foundation, a consumer-led organisation that supports many people with Long-COVID to manage the autonomic impacts of their condition.

Magdalena Plebanski receives funding from MRFF studying immune responses to COVID-19, and MRFF studying long COVID-19 management.

Zhen Zheng receives funding from MRFF as part of the RMIT University long-COVID research team.
Zhen Zheng consults and treats people with long-COVID in her private clinical practice.

– ref. Can you die from long COVID? The answer is not so simple – https://theconversation.com/can-you-die-from-long-covid-the-answer-is-not-so-simple-239184

Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Matt McDonald, Professor of International Relations, The University of Queensland

The next major United Nations meeting on climate change, known as COP29, is about to get underway in Baku, Azerbaijan. These annual meetings are the key international summits as the world attempts to address the unfolding climate crisis.

The talks this year are crucial as climate change worsens. In recent years, a series of climate-fuelled disasters and extreme events, from Australia’s bushfires to Spain’s floods, have wrought havoc around the world.

What’s more, the continuing upward trajectory of greenhouse gas emissions suggests the window to limit warming 1.5°C is almost closed. And the re-election of United States President Donald Trump casts a pall over global climate action.

So, let’s take a look at the agenda for this vital COP meeting – and how we can gauge its success or failure.

The big issue: climate finance

COP stands for Conference of the Parties, and refers to the nearly 200 nations that have signed up to the UN Framework Convention on Climate Change.

Like last year’s conference in Dubai, the choice to hold this year’s meeting in Baku is controversial. Critics say Azerbaijan’s status as a “petro-state” with a questionable human rights record means it is not a suitable host.

Nevertheless, the meeting is crucial. COP29 has been dubbed the “finance COP”. The central focus is likely to be a much bigger target for climate finance – a mechanism by which wealthy countries provide funding to help poorer countries with their clean energy transition and to strengthen their climate resilience.

At the Copenhagen COP talks in 2009, developed countries committed to collectively providing US$100 billion a year for climate finance. This was seen as the big outcome of otherwise unsuccessful talks – but these targets are not being met.

The meeting also represents an opportunity to engage the private sector to play a bigger role in driving investment in the renewable energy transition.

But controversial questions remain. Who should be giving money and receiving it? And how do we ensure wealthy countries actually make good on their commitments?

The big outcome from last year’s COP was the establishment of a fund for unavoidable loss and damage experienced by vulnerable states as a result of climate effects. We’ve since seen some progress in clarifying how it will work.

But the US$700 million committed to the fund is far short of what is already required – and finance required is certain to increase over time. One estimate suggested US$580 billion will be needed by 2030 to cover climate-induced loss and damage.

Alongside these issues, the Baku talks will hopefully see some movement on adaptation finance, enabling further funds for building climate resilience in developing countries. To date, contributions and commitments have been well short of the goal set in 2021.

A final issue will be how to clarify rules around carbon markets, especially on the controversial topic of whether nations can use carbon trading to meet their Paris Agreement emission cut targets.

Talks on the latter have been stalled for years. Some analysts see movement on carbon markets as crucial for building momentum for the transition from fossil fuels.

Storm clouds over Baku

By far the biggest shadow over the Baku talks is the election of Republican Donald Trump as United States president.

Trump famously withdrew the US from the climate agreement in 2016, and has declared climate change as “one of the greatest scams of all time”.

Trump’s re-election will significantly affect US cooperation on climate change at a time when the stakes for the planet could barely be higher.

More broadly, geopolitical tensions and conflicts – from Gaza to Ukraine – also risk crowding out the international agenda and undermining the chance of cooperation between key players.

This especially applies to Russia and China, both of which are crucial to international climate efforts.

At past COPs, difficult geopolitics elsewhere haven’t been fatal for cooperation on climate policy – but it does make things harder. For this reason, Azerbaijan has called for a “truce” in global conflicts to coincide with the conference.

National commitments loom large at Baku

This COP represents the last big climate talks before national governments have to publicly state their new emission cut goals – known as “nationally determined contributions” – which are due in February 2025.

A few big players – such as Brazil, the United Kingdom, and the United Arab Emirates – have already indicated they’ll be announcing their new targets at Baku.

There will also be plenty of pressure on other nations to ramp up their targets. That’s because existing commitments put the world far off track to meeting the globally agreed target of limiting planetary warming to 1.5°C – a threshold beyond which devastating climate harms are expected.

The host nation Azerbaijan is also keen to increase transparency around reporting obligations for countries, to make it easier to track progress against emissions targets.

What about Australia?

Australia will almost certainly not be outlining a new emissions target in Baku. It has already signalled it may announce its updated targets after the February 2025 deadline.

For Australia, the main issue at Baku may be whether we – alongside at least one Pacific country – will be announced as the hosts of COP31 in 2026. Australia is tipped to win, but Turkey is a significant competitor.

Read more:
It’s a big deal if Australia and the Pacific are chosen to host UN climate talks. Here’s why

What does success look like?

Azerbaijan sees agreement on a new collective quantified goal for climate finance as the most important outcome of the conference.

This and other finance outcomes will be important in ensuring a fair distribution of costs from the impact of climate change and the necessary energy transition.

Action on long stalled carbon trading cooperation would also be a win, and could turbocharge the global energy transition.

But real success would come in the form of significant new emissions targets and explicit endorsement of the need to move away from fossil fuels. Sadly, the latter is not prominent on the Baku agenda.

Humanity has run out of time to prevent climate change, and we are already seeing real damage. But an opportunity remains to minimise the future harm. We must pursue urgent and sustained international action, regardless of who is in the White House.

Matt McDonald has received funding from the Australian Research Council and the UK’s Economic and Social Research Council.

– ref. The COP29 climate talks are about to kick off in Baku, Azerbaijan. Here’s what to expect – https://theconversation.com/the-cop29-climate-talks-are-about-to-kick-off-in-baku-azerbaijan-heres-what-to-expect-242706

Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Harry Moore, Adjunct Research Fellow, School of Agriculture and Environment, The University of Western Australia

Perth is no stranger to hot and dry summers, but the period from October 2023 to April 2024 was exceptional. The city’s rainfall for these seven months was only 23 millimetres, the lowest since records began in the 1870s. It was also one of the warmest summers on record, with temperatures 1.7°C higher than the long-term average.

The “canary in the coalmine” is a metaphor for an early warning that something is wrong. In this case, though, it wasn’t the birds that first alerted us. Rather, we saw the drought’s impacts on our iconic and unique vegetation.

Jarrah, marri, karri and banksia trees, some as old as 100 years, began to die. The die-offs created a mosaic of brown patches across 1,000 kilometres of south-west Australia’s otherwise green forest.

The region’s ecosystems are diverse and complex. As the drought took hold, there were more subtle changes beyond the visible tree deaths. Perth has a community of avid birdwatchers who began noticing bird species rarely seen in the city, or known to be infrequent visitors.

We analysed bird observation data from the global citizen science platform, eBird, to determine which species had increased in the Perth metropolitan area at this time. We found a dramatic spike in reporting rates for four species – the black-shouldered kite, black-tailed nativehen, tawny-crowned honeyeater and western spinebill. Some species were reported up to nine times more than usual.

Birds sought refuge in the city

These shifts hint at how extreme weather can push wildlife into new and unexpected spaces.

The black-shouldered kite, a nomadic bird of prey, is often found in heath and woodlands in south-western Australia, as well as in rural landscapes. The black-tailed nativehen is more commonly associated with inland wetlands but is known to appear suddenly in large numbers in new habitats and then disappear just as quickly. Honeyeaters, such as the tawny-crowned honeyeater and the western spinebill, tend to favour coastal heathlands and forests. So why were they turning up in Perth city?

We suggest it’s likely because the drought stripped their usual habitats of vital resources, particularly food and water.

The city, on the other hand, although also hot and dry at this time, had water in remnant wetlands, the Swan River, artificial lakes and ponds, and people’s gardens. These areas may also have nectar-rich plants for the honeyeaters, insect populations perhaps eaten by the black-tailed nativehen, and rodents or rabbits for the black-shouldered-kite. We think these urban environments became temporary refuges, providing a different water and food source for these birds.

A long history of bird immigration

This isn’t the first time birds have flocked to Perth during challenging environmental conditions.

Galahs, for example, were confined historically to inland areas. Early explorers such as John Gould and John Forrest noted their absence around the Swan River colony. They weren’t common in this area until after the second world war, following a series of dry years.

In many cities in Australia, cockatoos are known to take advantage of watered lawns, sports fields, parks and artificial lakes in cities. These resources have created a novel urban habitat for these birds.

This also happens in rural towns. Parrots, birds of prey and our beloved “bin chickens” (white ibis) have increased in these towns as inland rainfall declines.

The short-term movement of species such as the black-shouldered kite, western spinebill and tawny-crowned honeyeater into cities represents a new chapter in this urban immigration story. Perhaps we should expect more drought migrants as the climate crisis continues to impact their natural habitats.

On the front-line of climate change

South-west Western Australia is a global biodiversity hotspot. It is also considered one of the most climate-vulnerable regions in the world.

In Perth, annual rainfall has decreased by around 130mm (15%). That’s a drop from about 860mm to 730mm over the past 30 years (1993–2023) compared to the previous 30 years (1959–1988).

This long-term drying trend, combined with rising temperatures, puts immense pressure on the ecosystems local wildlife depends on. The drought event of 2023–24 may be a precursor of what’s to come. More research is needed to understand the movements of birds and other wildlife in response to these events.

To the relief of those watching the landscape turn brown, it started raining in May 2024. We bought ourselves a rain gauge to celebrate, and waited to see what the next months of eBird data would reveal. The data showed all four drought immigrants retreated from the city almost as quickly as they had arrived.

This movement supported the theory that these birds were using the city only as a temporary refuge during the harshest drought months.

Observations of unusual bird behaviour highlight the complex relationship between wildlife and urban environments under climate stress. While cities may offer some refuge, they are not a long-term solution for wildlife facing habitat loss. Indeed, the spread of urban areas poses its own major threats to bird communities.

As the climate crisis intensifies, integrating urban areas into conservation plans could be crucial for supporting species during extreme events. Individuals, councils and urban planners may be able to increase the quality of the refuges in cities in relatively simple ways. Planting more native vegetation and providing safe water sources for visiting wildlife would be a good start.

Harry Moore receives funding from the Western Australian Department of Biodiversity, Conservation and Attractions.

Anna Cresswell does not work for, consult, own shares in or receive funding from any company or organisation that would benefit from this article, and has disclosed no relevant affiliations beyond their academic appointment.

– ref. In a record-breaking drought, bush birds from around Perth flocked to the city – https://theconversation.com/in-a-record-breaking-drought-bush-birds-from-around-perth-flocked-to-the-city-241795