Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By David Smerdon, Assistant Professor, School of Economics, The University of Queensland

Eighteen-year-old Indian prodigy Gukesh Dommaraju has become the new world chess champion, winning the final game of the title match after a dramatic blunder from the reigning champ, China’s Ding Liren.

Gukesh is now the youngest world champion in chess history, and the first Indian to hold the title since Vishwanathan Anand lost it to Magnus Carlsen in 2013.

Ding was gracious in defeat, saying

Considering [my play], it’s a fair result to lose in the end. I have no regrets. I will continue to play, and I hope I can show the strength like this time.

For Gukesh, the victory fulfilled a childhood dream. At the age of 11, in a video clip that later went viral, he told an interviewer “I want to be the youngest world chess champion.”

In a post-match press conference, Gukesh said spotting Ding’s blunder “was probably the best moment of my life”.

The road to the title

Ding became world champion in 2023 after an unlikely journey. He almost missed qualifying due to COVID lockdowns in China, and even then only made it into the championship match when Russian grandmaster Sergey Karjakin was disqualified over his support for Russia’s invasion of Ukraine.

Ding is renowned for his kind demeanour and defensive skills, having once achieved a record-breaking 100-game unbeaten streak. However, after defeating Ian Nepomniachtchi to claim the champion’s title in 2023, he struggled both on and off the board. Plagued by fatigue and depression, he dropped to 23rd in the world rankings.

In stark contrast, Gukesh has been a force of nature in 2024. He led the Indian team to an historic gold medal at the biennial Chess Olympiad, personally achieving a performance rating of 3,056 – the highest at the event, winning the gold medal on the top board.

Drama on the board

The championship match – a series of 14 games held in Singapore and sponsored by Google – was marked by twists and turns. Ding was regarded as the clear underdog before play began, but he set the tone for tense battle when he pulled off a shock victory in game 1, playing black. In chess, the player with the white pieces has an advantage, so when games at the top level are not drawn it is usually the white player who comes out ahead.

Before game 14, Ding and Gukesh were tied with two wins each. It was widely expected the game would be a draw, setting the scene for a round of high-speed games to break the tie.

When the game began, Ding – playing white – achieved a small advantage out of the opening, but was unable to capitalise on it and instead settled for a technically equal endgame.

However, after four hours of play, just as the game seemed destined for a draw, Ding made a catastrophic blunder, handing Gukesh a decisive advantage.

On his 55th move, Ding offered a trade of rooks, attempting to simplify the position and steer the game towards a draw. However, this offered an opening for the young challenger to also trade off the remaining bishops and reach a winning king-and-pawn endgame. In the process, he secured his place as the 18th world chess champion.

Elite commentators such as former world champions Magnus Carlsen and Vladimir Kramnik and grandmasters Fabiano Caruana and Hikaru Nakamura criticised the quality of play throughout the match, with both players missing several key opportunities.

Following the final game, Carlsen labelled Ding’s fatal mistake “one of the worst blunders we’ve seen in a world championship.” Because the final position is a textbook chess endgame studied by all grandmasters in their youths, many expressed shock at the abrupt and anticlimactic conclusion to the sport’s most elite contest.

Yet the sheer drama of the three-week match, with its high stakes and emotional rollercoasters, kept millions of fans riveted across the globe.

The Carlsen question

Hanging over the world chess championship is the presence of 34-year-old Norwegian Magnus Carlsen, widely regarded as the greatest chess player of all time. (Disclosure: I once played a drawn game with Carlsen, at the 2016 Chess Olympiad.) In 2022, citing a lack of motivation, Carlsen relinquished the title of world champion.

However, Carlsen continues to play chess, and he is still number one in the International Chess Federation (FIDE) rankings. His presence casts doubt on the idea that the winner of the championship is “the best player in the world”.

Gukesh’s victory, while historic, doesn’t resolve this debate. With a chess rating of 2,777 after this match, he will remain outside the world’s top three by rating. (Chess ratings are based on the Elo system, a complicated method for calculating the relative skill levels of players based on their previous wins and losses.)

Remarkably, he is not even the highest-rated Indian. His 21-year-old compatriot, Arjun Erigaisi, is rated 2,801.

Yet Gukesh’s win may signal something larger: a generational shift, and the emergence of a new star in the chess universe.

In his post-match press conference, Gukesh acknowledged that “becoming the World Champion doesn’t mean that I’m the best player in the world – there’s obviously Magnus”.

Carlsen himself remarked that Gukesh had shown the potential to “establish himself as the number-two player in the world”, before adding “and who knows, maybe in the not-too-distant future, the number one”.

What’s next for chess?

The triumph of the 18-year-old Gukesh represents the dawn of a new era. His victory also underscores the growing influence of India – the gold medallists for both the Open and Women’s competitions at the recent chess Olympiad – in global chess.

For Ding, the defeat is a heartbreaking end to a short, challenging reign. Yet his resilience in reaching this stage, despite his personal struggles, has not gone unnoticed by fans around the world.

The championship itself, as a showdown between players from China and India – two nations with over a billion people each – has captured global attention and highlighted the game’s surging popularity. Chess has experienced a renaissance in recent years, fuelled by the pandemic-induced shift to online play and pop-culture events such as the Netflix drama The Queen’s Gambit.

Platforms such as Chess.com and Lichess have turned the game into a spectator sport, with live commentary from grandmasters such as Carlsen and Nakamura drawing huge audiences. For India, Gukesh’s victory could ignite a new wave of chess enthusiasm, cementing the country’s status as a rising superpower in the game.

As chess fans celebrate the rise of a prodigy, the future of the sport looks brighter than ever.

David Smerdon is a chess grandmaster who has represented Australia at eight Chess Olympiads.

– ref. Teenage prodigy Gukesh D defeats Ding Liren to become youngest world chess champion – https://theconversation.com/teenage-prodigy-gukesh-d-defeats-ding-liren-to-become-youngest-world-chess-champion-245847

Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Sarah Austin, Senior Lecturer in Theatre, The University of Melbourne

There are many great traditions of Christmas performances, mostly European and American in origin, where the occurrence of Christmas in deep winter means it is more likely that people will want to be inside watching a show.

Christmas pantomimes emerging from the 16th century Commedia dell’ Arte in Italy have been reimagined across British stages each year and are designed for enthusiastic audience participation.

Christmas special cabaret-style events, often streamed on television, usually feature a blend of comedy sketches and Christmas songs hosted by a celebrity (see Sabrina Carpenter’s A Nonsense Christmas on Netflix right now for a good example).

In Australia, we have the annual tradition of Christmas carol concerts, from local outdoor community events to the nationally televised Carols by Candlelight.

This year, Malthouse Theatre brings audiences a new kind of Christmas variety show created by the exceptional artistic team of Fat Fruit (Sarah Ward and Bec Matthews) and Susie Dee.

F Christmas is a camp Christmas pageant, taking a playful but uncomfortable aim at the corporate architecture that underpins Christmas and bringing a queer, feminist and highly subversive perspective to advent cheer.

The show questions the great myth of yuletide togetherness and exposes the tensions underpinning many of our Christmas traditions, and the harm these traditions can perpetuate for people who sit outside the status quo.

Naughty, often naked, deeply wild

The show begins in the foyer, with a ridiculous Santa photo set up overseen by a rowdy punk elf wearing a sleigh costume (Nicci Wilks). A PVC-clad version of the Elf on the Shelf (Seth Sladen) congratulates me when I collect my ticket from the box office saying I am, indeed, on the naughty list.

Inside the theatre, the striking set by Romanie Harper is a rich glittering spectacle of red and green with a thoughtful but punchy approach to sustainability.

An archway stretches across the space, adorned with dead Christmas trees (presumably from last year – they are VERY dead), discarded wrapping paper and tinsel and broken bits of Christmas wreaths and baubles.

A red and green skip to the side of the stage is full of more Christmas debris, and used from time to time throughout the show for the performers to discard props and emerge from the bin itself. The band, led by Matthews, is also on stage.

Our punk elf from the foyer kicks things off, descending from a rope and letting us know we are not here for a traditional Christmas celebration and that the clue to the naughty, often naked, deeply wild show was in the name – so we really shouldn’t be surprised.

What follows is an eclectic mix of sketches. We have solo circus tricks with hoops and rings by Circus Oz alumni Jess Love. The fabulous Dale Woodbridge-Brown is outrageously funny in a routine as a small boy too naughty to get any presents this year. A range of ensemble routines are fabulously choreographed by Gabi Barton.

Throughout, the show is anchored by two hosts, Andrew (John Marc Desengano) and Geraldine (Ward) who take the familiar and make it strange. They appear in suits and frocks visibly held together by hair clips, taking aim at the Carols by Candlelight tradition and its alarmingly white and gendered context.

Raucous solidarity

Throughout the beautifully choreographed chaos, tricks, dancing, nudity and laughter, the message of the show resounds. Christmas is a tricky time, and right now the requirement to celebrate is harder on some than on others.

The show mentions the cost of living crisis and how that can come into painful acuteness for people during Christmas. It references the ongoing climate catastrophe (in one memorable moment, a despondent polar bear is wheeled across the stage as Ward sings a stunning dirge). It reminds us not all family togetherness is happy, or even safe.

In a stunningly moving tribute to the children who have died from genocide and war, and later, the appearance of cardboard cut-outs of Trump, Elon Musk and Peter Dutton on stage as part of a transgressive nativity scene, the show also reminds us we are in a time of deep political and global unrest.

Toward the end of the show, Ward dedicates the performance to her brother, who, she explains, won’t be at Christmas this year. She sends love to all those for whom someone will be missing at their Christmas table.

You probably know someone who needs to see this show. It may even be you. I was grateful for the opportunity to experience the raucous solidarity of F Christmas with my fellow audience members, and to laugh and reflect as the silly season descends and the hectic pace of this time of the year takes over.

F Christmas is a joyous gift at the time of year when we need it most. I hope it becomes an annual Christmas tradition to provide a contrast to some of our more conservative traditions.

F Christmas is at Malthouse Theatre, Melbourne, until December 15.

Sarah Austin 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. Naughty, often naked, deeply wild: F Christmas is a joyous gift at the time we need it most – https://theconversation.com/naughty-often-naked-deeply-wild-f-christmas-is-a-joyous-gift-at-the-time-we-need-it-most-245928

Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Jessica C Lai, Professor of Commercial Law, Te Herenga Waka — Victoria University of Wellington

From patents relating to mānuka, fake Māori souvenirs being sold in Aotearoa New Zealand, or the use of Māori designs on bedspreads sold online, the misappropriation and commercialisation of indigenous knowledge and culture has long been a problem.

But two new treaties, adopted in 2024 by member states of the World Intellectual Property Organization (WIPO), include provisions to address some interests of Indigenous peoples.

The Treaty on Intellectual Property, Genetic Resources and Associated Traditional Knowledge (GRT) relates to patents and received widespread coverage in the media when it was adopted in May.

The Riyadh Design Law Treaty (DLT), which relates to design rights, was adopted in November.

Patents versus design rights

Compared to the fanfare that followed the adoption of the GRT, the DLT has flown largely under the radar.

This is possibly because patents generally get more attention than design rights. Patents protect things like pharmaceuticals and vaccines, and directly affect people’s access to them.

Design rights usually only protect the way something looks, but not the thing itself.

Furthermore, the purpose of the DLT is to create consistency in processes and procedures around applying for design rights in different jurisdictions. This is not “sexy”.

In fact, the GRT is also purely procedural. Both treaties are about disclosures that applicants must make, which will then be used to determine if an invention is novel or inventive, or a design is new or original.

What do the treaties do?

Hailed as “protecting” Indigenous peoples’ rights, the GRT introduces a “disclosure of origin” requirement to patent law.

Contracting parties are to require patent applicants to disclose the country of origin or source of genetic resources and related traditional knowledge that their invention is based on.

This is supposed to deal with “biopiracy” – when researchers or research organisations take and use biological resources from less wealthy countries or marginalised peoples, without the free and prior informed consent of the source community. Biopiracy has become an issue both globally and in Aotearoa New Zealand.

Despite how it has been framed, the GRT does not actively protect Indigenous peoples’ rights.

Instead, it defensively prevents others from patenting Indigenous peoples’ genetic resources and associated knowledge – but this shouldn’t be happening anyway.

The GRT represents a watered-down agreement that was “palatable” to developed nations with strong patent interests. Member states such as the United States, United Kingdom and Switzerland, opposed stronger disclosure of origin requirements on the basis it would hinder innovation.

Similarly, compromise was also made to achieve a comparable provision in the DLT.

The DLT states that contracting parties may require that applicants for design rights disclose “information on traditional cultural expressions and traditional knowledge, of which the applicant is aware, that is relevant to the eligibility for registration of the industrial design”.

If implemented, this could potentially prevent the registration of designs that are not new or original in relation to mātauranga Māori (Māori knowledge), or of designs considered to be contrary to morality due to te ao Māori (Māori worldview).

The two disclosure requirements are similar, though the GRT mandates a disclosure requirement, whereas the DLT permits it.

But while the official record shows there were six New Zealand delegates registered for the final negotiations of the GRT, New Zealand did not register anyone for the final negotiations of the DLT.

Missed opportunities?

A further likely explanation for the tense negotiations of the GRT (compared to the adoption of the DLT) is that patents are considered to be the most powerful and valuable form of intellectual property.

Patents are seen as being about invention, innovation and industry. Patents contribute to GDP and economies, and are seen as “must haves”.

Designs are seen differently, as evidenced by WIPO’s announcement of the adoption of the DLT. WIPO Director General Daren Tang described the treaty as being about

designs and designers and the gift they have in using color, form, shape, beauty and aesthetics to delight our senses, enrich our lives, promote our heritage and transform our culture.

Designs are considered to be only about appearance. Designs are associated with luxury. They are viewed as being about the “nice to haves”.

Perhaps this differentiation sounds convincing. But the vast majority of patents are never commercialised. At the same time, it is not difficult to think of commercially valuable designs, from Eames chairs to Crocs.

In some jurisdictions, design rights can protect digital designs, including graphical user interfaces.

So, while the GRT was widely lauded as a way forward, a disclosure requirement in design law could also prevent aspects of cultural misappropriation. As design rights are increasing in importance, they should not be ignored.

Many thanks to Sarah Barclay for her thoughts on an earlier version of this piece.

Jessica C Lai receives funding from Te Apārangi The Royal Society of New Zealand as a Rutherford Discover Fellow.

– ref. A new treaty could prevent some misappropriation of Māori and Indigenous design – and shouldn’t be ignored – https://theconversation.com/a-new-treaty-could-prevent-some-misappropriation-of-maori-and-indigenous-design-and-shouldnt-be-ignored-245025

Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Natalie Sheard, Researcher and Lawyer, La Trobe University

Can artificial intelligence (AI) tell whether you’re happy, sad, angry or frustrated?

According to technology companies that offer AI-enabled emotion recognition software, the answer to this question is yes.

But this claim does not stack up against mounting scientific evidence.

What’s more, emotion recognition technology poses a range of legal and societal risks – especially when deployed in the workplace.

For these reasons, the European Union’s AI Act, which came into force in August, bans AI systems used to infer emotions of a person in the workplace – except for “medical” or “safety” reasons.

In Australia, however, there is not yet specific regulation of these systems. As I argued in my submission to the Australian government in its most recent round of consultations about high-risk AI systems, this urgently needs to change.

A new and growing wave

The global market for AI-based emotion recognition systems is growing. It was valued at US$34 billion in 2022 and is expected to reach US$62 billion by 2027.

These technologies work by making predictions about a person’s emotional state from biometric data, such as their heart rate, skin moisture, voice tone, gestures or facial expressions.

Next year, Australian tech startup inTruth Technologies plans to launch a wrist-worn device that it claims can track a wearer’s emotions in real time via their heart rate and other physiological metrics.

inTruth Technologies founder Nicole Gibson has said this technology can be used by employers to monitor a team’s “performance and energy” or their mental health to predict issues such as post-traumatic stress disorder.

She has also said inTruth can be an “AI emotion coach that knows everything about you, including what you’re feeling and why you’re feeling it”.

Emotion recognition technologies in Australian workplaces

There is little data about the deployment of emotion recognition technologies in Australian workplaces.

However, we do know some Australian companies used a video interviewing system offered by a US-based company called HireVue that incorporated face-based emotion analysis.

This system used facial movements and expressions to assess the suitability of job applicants. For example, applicants were assessed on whether they expressed excitement or how they responded to an angry customer.

HireVue removed emotion analysis from its systems in 2021 following a formal complaint in the United States.

Emotion recognition may be on the rise again as Australian employers embrace artificial intelligence-driven workplace surveillance technologies.

Lack of scientific validity

Companies such as inTruth claim emotion recognition systems are objective and rooted in scientific methods.

However, scholars have raised concerns that these systems involve a return to the discredited fields of phrenology and physiognomy. That is, the use of a person’s physical or behavioural characteristics to determine their abilities and character.

Emotion recognition technologies are heavily reliant on theories which claim inner emotions are measurable and universally expressed.

However, recent evidence shows that how people communicate emotions varies widely across cultures, contexts and individuals.

In 2019, for example, a group of experts concluded there are “no objective measures, either singly or as a pattern, that reliably, uniquely, and replicably” identify emotional categories. For example, someone’s skin moisture might go up, down or stay the same when they are angry.

In a statement to The Conversation, inTruth Technologies founder Nicole Gibson said “it is true that emotion recognition technologies faced significant challenges in the past”, but that “the landscape has changed significantly in recent years”.

Infringement of fundamental rights

Emotion recognition technologies also endanger fundamental rights without proper justification.

They have been found to discriminate on the basis of race, gender and disability.

In one case, an emotion recognition system read black faces as angrier than white faces, even when both were smiling to the same degree. These technologies may also be less accurate for people from demographic groups not represented in the training data.

Gibson acknowledged concerns about bias in emotion recognition technologies. But she added that “bias is not inherent to the technology itself but rather to the data sets used to train these systems”. She said inTruth is “committed to addressing these biases” by using “diverse, inclusive data sets”.

As a surveillance tool, emotion recognition systems in the workplace pose serious threats to privacy rights. Such rights may be violated if sensitive information is collected without an employee’s knowledge.

There will also be a failure to respect privacy rights if the collection of such data is not “reasonably necessary” or by “fair means”.

Workers’ views

A survey published earlier this year found that only 12.9% of Australian adults support face-based emotion recognition technologies in the workplace. The researchers concluded that respondents viewed facial analysis as invasive. Respondents also viewed the technology as unethical and highly prone to error and bias.

In a US study also published this year, workers expressed concern that emotion recognition systems would harm their wellbeing and impact work performance.

They were fearful that inaccuracies could create false impressions about them. In turn, these false impressions might prevent promotions and pay rises or even lead to dismissal.

As one participant stated:

I just cannot see how this could actually be anything but destructive to minorities in the workplace.

Natalie Sheard has previously received funding from La Trobe University (PhD scholarship). She is currently working at LexisNexis.

– ref. Tech companies claim AI can recognise human emotions. But the science doesn’t stack up – https://theconversation.com/tech-companies-claim-ai-can-recognise-human-emotions-but-the-science-doesnt-stack-up-243591

Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Tim Harcourt, Industry Professor and Chief Economist, University of Technology Sydney

The 14th season of Australia’s major domestic men’s Twenty20 (T20) cricket competition, the Big Bash League (BBL), starts on Sunday.

Its rise is probably the biggest change in Australian cricket since Kerry Packer’s World Series Cricket revolution in 1977–79.

But unlike Packer’s breakaway competition, this latest revolution began overseas, with the emergence of T20 cricket in England and the Indian Premier League (IPL) – competitions that shook up world cricket both in terms of the sport itself and the economics.

The BBL’s early years

The BBL began in 2011–12, partly in response to developments beyond our shores.

But it was also a response to local conditions in Australian cricket.

Before the BBL, fans’ focus was the Australian team and the Sheffield Shield – high quality cricket that often didn’t draw huge crowds. They didn’t have the legions of fans following them like in the mega domestic Australian winter sports, the Australian Football League (AFL) and the National Rugby League (NRL).

The BBL started with states, like the Sheffield Shield and 50-over competitions. But domestic cricket needed professional clubs and rivalries, so the Melbourne Stars, Melbourne Renegades, Sydney Sixers, Sydney Thunder, Adelaide 36ers, Perth Scorchers, Hobart Hurricanes and Brisbane Heat were born.

The BBL started with a bang.

It was fresh, it was exciting and attracted huge stars like the late great Shane Warne and imports like West Indian big hitter Chris Gayle and South African-born Englishman Kevin Pietersen.

The early matches steered away from the genteel nature of longer-format cricket, featuring match-day entertainment, music, eye-catching uniforms and other gimmicks. Importantly, the cricket was attacking, entertaining and high quality – the formula applied successfully by Packer a generation before.

There were initial fears that its popularity could wipe out Test cricket, but these concerns were exaggerated.

TV broadcasters, unsure at first, jumped on board. In 2013, Network 10 paid $A100 million for BBL rights over five years, marking the channel’s first foray in elite cricket coverage.

Network 10’s BBL coverage became a regular feature of Australian summers, attracting an average audience of more than 943,000 people nationally in 2014–15, including a peak of 1.9 million viewers for the final between the Perth Scorchers and Sydney Sixers.

Ten was pretty happy the following season when the BBL attracted an average audience of 1.13 million for each match in Australia, an 18% increase. The final peaked at 2.24 million viewers – the first time ratings for a BBL match crossed the two million mark.

In 2018, BBL coverage was taken over by the Seven Network on free to air in conjunction with Fox Cricket.

The six-year deal was extended in 2024, with Foxtel and Seven West Media paying $1.5 billion, as part of a package that included Test cricket, women’s international matches as well as BBL and Women’s BBL (WBBL).

Crowd-wise, the average attendance started at 17,749 spectators per game in 2011–12, peaked at 30,122 in the amazing season of 2016–17, slumped to a COVID-affected 7,371 in 2021–22 before bouncing back to a healthy 21,505 in 2023–24.

The biggest crowd for a BBL game was 80,883 at the MCG on January 2, 2016 for the Melbourne derby between the Stars and Renegades.

A mid-inning slump

After a strong first decade, the BBL hit a slump.

It was partly COVID-related, which affected all professional sports, but there were signs even before then.

There were complaints about too many games saturating the summer as the number of regular season matches grew from 28 in the first BBL to 61 in 2019-20.

The timing of the schedule meant star players were not available for finals, often due to international duties. There was a lack of marquee international stars (partly due to travel-related COVID restrictions) and also a view that players were just transactional rather than loyal to a club or state.

This was partly due to cricketers’ ability to play in T20 tournaments globally – in India, England, the Caribbean, South Africa and the UAE.

But it was also a domestic matter, as players switched teams regularly. For instance, Dan Christian played for four BBL teams: the Sydney Sixers, Brisbane Heat, Hobart Hurricanes and Melbourne Renegades, as well as playing overseas.

Accordingly, Cricket Australia looked to revive and recharge the BBL, by reducing the number of games which allowed more flexibility for Australian Test players to be available for finals.

Ahead of BBL 13, the season was shortened from 61 games to 43 at the time Foxtel and Seven extended the TV rights deal to 2031 (worth around $1.5 billion).

They also started playing WBBL matches before men’s games to maximise exposure for the women’s game. And they took the game to regional venues like Geelong and Coffs Harbour.

What might the future hold?

What’s next? As with the AFL and NRL, expansion may be on the horizon.

There’s talk of possible expansion to Canberra, the Gold Coast and even New Zealand to make the BBL a Trans-Tasman competition.

There’s also likely to be further tweaks with new rules to keep the game fresh and exciting and continued efforts to attract star overseas players while still nurturing local talent.

The changes to the BBL are likely to be more evolutionary than revolutionary though.

Its biggest challenge may be trying to preserve its place in an increasingly hectic international cricket calendar.

Tim Harcourt 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 is the Big Bash League faring after 14 years of ups and downs – and what’s next? – https://theconversation.com/how-is-the-big-bash-league-faring-after-14-years-of-ups-and-downs-and-whats-next-241255

Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Alexander Gillespie, Professor of Law, University of Waikato

Canada and New Zealand share an important approach to gun control: both countries view firearms as a privilege, not a right.

The similarities don’t end there, either. Both have strong and legitimate firearms-owning communities, and both have problems with self-harm and rapidly changing technologies.

They also face similar threats, including young people and violent extremism, and rising firearm violence in general. Both have a tragic history of mass shootings.

But both can learn from each other. Canada’s recent Mass Casualty Commission, which followed an armed rampage in Nova Scotia in 2020 that left 22 people dead, highlighted the dangers of ignoring warning signs of gender-based violence and the need for better community policing.

Similarly, New Zealand’s royal commission inquiry into the 2019 Christchurch terror attacks has lessons for Canada around the challenges of identity-based extremism.

With amendments to New Zealand’s firearms control laws before parliament now, here are five broad aspects of the Canadian experience New Zealand policymakers should consider.

A robust gun registry

One thing made clear to me from visits to multiple Canadian police agencies was the need for New Zealand’s gun registration system to rise above politics.

Registration of restricted firearms has been a long-standing practice in Canada. But following the horrific École Polytechnique massacre in 1989, when 14 women were killed, the registry was extended to include “long guns” (rifles and other non-pistol types).

But budget problems and debates about its merits saw the long-gun registry canned in 2012 – despite police agencies accessing records over 17,000 times a day.

The loss now makes it harder for police to assess risks when responding to calls, distinguish between legal and illegal firearms, trace the source of registered firearms found at crime scenes, and identify and return stolen and lost firearms to their owners.

The lesson for New Zealand, which is currently rebuilding a comprehensive firearms registry, is that a transparent and efficient registry is essential for the safety of the public and frontline police officers.

Mandatory reporting

The province of Quebec is unique not only for its language and culture, but for its approach to firearms regulation. It is also bucking wider trends, with a violent gun crime rate below other provinces.

Quebec has invested the equivalent of more than NZ$100 million in Operation Centaur, a dedicated initiative between law enforcement, community agencies and researchers, focused on reducing gun violence.

The province maintains its own comprehensive firearms register. But it also introduced legislation known as “Anastasia’s Law” after the death of 18-year-old Anastasia De Sousa in a shooting incident.

The law created gun-free zones, prohibiting them from all educational institutions and public transport.

Medical and other professionals concerned about the behaviour of someone with access to a firearm can report them to authorities without fear of repercussion. And, unlike in New Zealand, it became mandatory for health providers to report all firearms injuries to the authorities.

Finally, the law says anyone responsible for a shooting club or range “must immediately report to the police any behaviour of a member or user with a firearm that may compromise the safety of that person or another person”.

As New Zealand writes new laws around its gun ranges and clubs, Anastasia’s Law has particular relevance. The gunman responsible for De Sousa’s death was an active member of a gun club prior to the attack, as was the Christchurch terrorist before his attack.

Gang pathologies

Gang members are responsible for 23% of all firearms-related crime in New Zealand. Canada, too, has seen more firearms violence in public spaces linked to gangs, more projectiles being shot, and younger ages of gang members involved.

But the two countries are approaching the problem differently. New Zealand is pursuing a “big stick” policy, banning gang patches, dispersing gatherings of gang members in public places, and prohibiting firearms from being licenced to gang members.

Canada, however, has committed significant and dedicated funding to understanding and potentially breaking the links between gangs and guns.

A 2022 Canadian parliamentary report shows a focus on strong laws and stiff penalties for gun violence. But it also aims to establish evidential and systemic explanations for the problem and its cultural context, and to encourage greater cooperation between public safety agencies.

Within this, there is a strong emphasis on focused deterrence programmes to divert or exit young adults from gang life and violence before it’s too late.

‘Ghost gun’ regulation

So-called “ghost guns” are a looming crisis: privately and anonymously manufactured firearms, untraceable and often undetectable by security systems, including 3D-printed guns.

New Zealand has really only just begun to address the problem with new but somewhat generic laws governing “offences relating to illegal manufacturing of certain arms items”.

The Canadians have gone further, with recent changes to firearms law making it a crime to access or download manufacturing plans or graphics. Knowingly sharing or selling such data online for manufacturing or trafficking is also a crime, with penalties of up to ten years in prison.

The new rules also require licences to import or acquire parts and accessories that could be used to illegally manufacture firearms.

Limits on pistols

Canada has just introduced a national freeze on the sale, purchase and transfer of handguns. Also, as a general rule, the maximum magazine capacity for most handguns is ten cartridges.

The same applies in Australia, but New Zealand has neither a freeze on handguns nor maximum magazine capacity rules.

As the government rewrites firearms law, it can learn from its Commonwealth cousin’s experiences – both good and bad – to help craft robust rules that make everyone safer.

The author thanks Clementine Annabell for assisting with the research for this article.

Alexander Gillespie is a recipient of a Borrin Foundation Justice Fellowship to research comparative best practice in the regulation of firearms. He is also a member of the Ministerial Arms Advisory Group. The views expressed here are his own and not to be attributed to either of these organisations. He has submitted on this subject to the select committee examining reform of part 6 of the Arms Act.

– ref. From ‘ghost guns’ to gangs, 5 lessons from Canada for NZ firearms reform – https://theconversation.com/from-ghost-guns-to-gangs-5-lessons-from-canada-for-nz-firearms-reform-245553

Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By James Wood, Professor, epidemiological modelling of infectious diseases, UNSW Sydney

As the holiday season approaches, COVID cases are rising again in Australia, particularly in Victoria and Tasmania.

This is now the fourth year running with a summer rise of COVID, and the second year with a roughly six-month gap between waves.

Will we see a wave every six months from now on?

And what can we expect from COVID this Christmas?

Cases are rising

Nationally, we’re seeing more indicators of increasing COVID infection, such as rises in the number of reported cases and the percentage of PCR tests that come back positive. We’re also seeing more outbreaks in aged care.

But the extent to which this is a wave varies markedly around the nation.

For instance, in Victoria notified cases are almost as high now as during the winter peak.

It’s a similar story in Tasmania, where notified cases in late November were as high as its winter peak.

However in Western Australia, notified cases, hospitalisations and detection of SARS-CoV-2 (the virus that causes COVID) in wastewater only show small rises so far.

New South Wales and Queensland have seen a slow rise in COVID indicators since the beginning of October, with similar behaviour in South Australia and the Australian Capital Territory. We don’t have clear figures for the Northern Territory.

So in summary, all jurisdictions for which we have data have seen a rise in COVID activity but only Tasmania and Victoria have seen a clear surge or wave.

Which variants are circulating?

Spread of the COVID variant XEC seems to be causing the recent rise in cases. Estimates suggest XEC has risen from 10% to 60% of circulating SARS-CoV-2 in the past two months.

XEC is a recombinant variant, meaning it’s a hybrid of two existing variants. In this case it’s derived from two distinct descendants (KP.3.3 and KS.1.1) of the JN.1 variant that spread worldwide last Christmas.

Recent preliminary laboratory evidence suggests XEC is better at evading our antibody responses than the KP.3 variants that predominated until recently.

XEC is better at spreading than other current variants, but it’s not so fast spreading as JN.1 last summer.

So can XEC cause a wave? Yes, but that depends on a number of factors other than just out-competing other variants. This includes the scale of previous COVID waves and resulting short-term increases in population immunity.

For example, the United Kingdom saw a significant COVID wave this northern hemisphere autumn. Despite the growing proportion of XEC infections, cases have continued to decline.

Will we get waves every 6 months from now on?

This leads us to back to how often we should expect COVID waves in the future.

Australia entered its Omicron period from 2022, and Omicron variants of SARS-CoV-2 continue to circulate to this day. In 2022 we had four waves (except for WA, which avoided the first one), in 2023 we had two waves and in 2024 at least in jurisdictions such as Victoria, there have been two clear waves.

Epidemic theory predicts that the spacing of waves depends on the inherent transmissibility of SARS-CoV-2, how quickly immunity is lost, as well as seasonal changes in transmission.

Respiratory viruses usually spread more easily in winter in temperate climates, perhaps because we spend more time indoors. This seasonality in transmission usually leads to a single winter peak for viruses like influenza and respiratory syncytial virus (or RSV).

However, we haven’t seen that yet for COVID. Instead, we see influential viral mutations crop up every few months. These can lead to sudden increases in transmission, enough to start new waves in summer and winter.

This suggests the potential for two waves a year continues. However, as seasonal factors tend to increase transmission of respiratory viruses in winter, we can generally expect winter waves to be larger than summer ones.

How about Christmas 2024?

Australia-wide we can expect a moderate level of COVID circulation over the holiday period. Activity is currently highest in Victoria and Tasmania but recent Victorian surveillance data indicates the wave may have peaked.

In other jurisdictions, activity is lower but appears to be slowly increasing. For instance Queensland has seen a slow steady rise since the beginning of October.

Overall, though, there probably won’t be as much COVID around at Christmas as either of the past two years.

How do I protect myself and others?

Although cases are expected to be lower this Christmas than in recent years, you can still protect yourself and others.

For instance, if you’re catching up with elderly relatives or people with weak immune systems, be cautious if you have respiratory symptoms. Good quality masks and using RAT tests are still an option. And regardless of your symptoms, gathering in a well ventilated room (or outside) will reduce your chance of infection and infecting others.

Updated COVID boosters matched to the JN.1 variant should now be available, and you can check if you’re eligible. Boosters protect against severe disease for about six months but provide more limited protection against infection and onward transmission.

James Wood receives funding from the NHMRC for research on modelling and surveillance relating to respiratory pathogens. He previously received funding from the WHO and state and federal health departments between 2020 and 2023. He is a voting member of ATAGI.

Alexandra Hogan receives funding from the Australian National Health and Medical Research Council. She has previously received funding from the World Health Organization for research relating to COVID-19. Alexandra Hogan is currently a member of the WHO Immunization and vaccines related implementation research advisory committee (IVIR-AC).

– ref. Will we have a COVID wave, spike or blip this Christmas? It depends where you live – https://theconversation.com/will-we-have-a-covid-wave-spike-or-blip-this-christmas-it-depends-where-you-live-245281

Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Caitlyn Forster, Associate Lecturer, School of Life and Environmental Sciences, University of Sydney

While we’re busy preparing for Christmas, many Australian native plants and animals are also busy – growing, flowering and raising their young. What better time to celebrate this explosion of life?

Let’s set aside the holly, snowmen and reindeer this Christmas and decorate our homes with some of Australia’s most remarkable species instead.

Drawing on themes from our research on wildlife, ecology and astronomy, we’ve prepared this handy guide to an Aussie festive season.

It’s not too late to get crafty and deck the halls with Christmas beetle baubles and paper parrots for a Christmas with a difference.

Christmas beetle baubles

As their name suggests, Christmas beetles would have to be our most notable Christmassy insect. These little beauties give our eucalyptus trees their own little baubles. The trees provide food for the beetles, which become most abundant at this time of year.

Use our Christmas beetle stencils and some spray paint to give your baubles a fresh new look.

Have you heard about the Christmas Beetle Count? This project is tracking Christmas beetle populations across Australia through the power of citizen science. People have recorded nearly 15,000 observations of beetles, including some not seen in decades.

By gaining more knowledge of which species of beetles are around, we can learn how they are doing in the face of a changing climate and urbanisation. It can also help us understand what needs to be preserved in order for Christmas beetles to thrive in future ecosystems.

Put some spines among pines (or gum leaves)

The echidna is one of only two egg-laying mammals in Australia. The other is the egg-laying and venomous playtpus.

Fun fact: relative to body size, the short-beaked echidna is the mammal with the world’s largest prefrontal cortex. This area of the brain is crucial for decision-making. Perhaps these humble, bumbling balls of spikes make better choices than we humans do?

Clay models of this marvellous monotreme make wonderful additions to any table or tree. Make your own with some clay for the body, some sticks for the spines and a couple of small gumnuts for eyes.

Swap the reindeer for tree kangaroos

For a local substitution for flying reindeer, why not consider kangaroos in the treetops?

In the far north, two species of tree kangaroos bound and crash through the treetops of our tropical rainforests.

The powerful Lumholtz and Bennett’s tree kangaroos are built for climbing. They can also jump up to 15 metres from the treetops to the ground, unharmed.

Create your own by cutting little kangaroo-shaped silhouettes out of cardboard, and draw on a face and put it on your Christmas tree.

A female tree kangaroo is best, because then you can tuck special treats like chocolates into their pouch. It’s the ultimate wildlife advent calendar.

Just don’t despair if these guys leap off the tree, as this is quite normal behaviour.

Elegant Yuletide Eclectus parrots

Better than matching knitted jumpers, Eclectus parrots make the ultimate Christmas couples. These parrots from Cape York come in vivid green (male) and stunning two-tone blue and red (female).

Males seek to impress females with their plumage and vocal repertoire. If successful, they’ll engage in acrobatic aerial displays by showing off their colourful feathers, prior to mating. Several males will bring food to a single female while she incubates eggs in a deep tree hollow.

Make your own origami bird decorations using coloured paper. Once the bird is folded, add some ribbon so they can be placed on your tree. Consider creating a whole family of adults and chicks, just as they would in the wild.

You can even use recycled paper and colour it to suit other Christmas-coloured birds such as king parrots, rosellas or lorikeets.

If you’re into backyard or street cricket, you could even take advantage of time spent waiting around when you’re fielding to do a bird count using the citizen science app eBird. Download the app, count the birds you see and contribute to citizen science.

Look up to the sky for inspiration

The “Great Celestial Emu” is a beautiful feature of the night sky in the southern hemisphere.

Indigenous Australian stories about the Emu in the Sky come from all over the country.

Compared to constellations named by Babylonian and Ancient Greek astronomers, the emu is unique. In this case the name is not given to a group of stars forming a recognisable pattern. Instead, the emu shape is a silhouette made up of dark patches of gas and dust blocking light from the Milky Way. This is the Dark Emu in the title of Bruce Pascoe’s bestselling book.

The head is the dark Coalsack Nebula next to the Southern Cross and the neck extends through the middle of the “pointer stars” (Alpha and Beta Centauri). In December, the head of the emu is visible in the early morning before dawn.

We added the Great Celestial Emu to our Christmas tree by sprucing up a silver bauble with glitter.

Finish with some gardening and foraging

We can bring the outside in, or we can head out to enjoy nature in all its glory.

Being in nature has many benefits for health and wellbeing.

Many Australian plants will be flowering over summer, and they can be collected, dried, and placed in clear baubles to create simple, beautiful decorations for your tree.

Or you can get planting and grow your own Christmas tree, such as a cypress pine local to your area or even a Christmas bush.

Caitlyn Forster received funding from the Australian Research Council. She volunteers in the communication space for Invertebrates Australia

Euan Ritchie is a councillor within the Biodiversity Council, a member of the Ecological Society of Australia and the Australian Mammal Society, and President of the Australian Mammal Society

Laura Nicole Driessen is an ambassador for the Orbit Centre of Imagination at the Rise and Shine Kindergarten, in Sydney’s Inner West

– ref. Decorating your Christmas tree? Try these crafts inspired by Aussie plants and animals – https://theconversation.com/decorating-your-christmas-tree-try-these-crafts-inspired-by-aussie-plants-and-animals-244959

Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Antonia Settle, Lecturer, Monash University

This article is part of The Conversation’s “Retirement” series where experts examine issues including how much money we need to retire, retiring with debt, the psychological impact of retiring and the benefits of getting financial advice. Read the rest of the series here.

Many Australians, particularly those on lower incomes, are often characterised as lacking knowledge or interest in superannuation.

Research by the Association of Superannuation Funds of Australia (ASFA) confirms this.

It found only 51% have sought any sort of financial advice before retiring.

Financial advice plays a critical role in helping people maximise their super. But most of us don’t seek professional guidance.

To make matters worse, superannuation experts say those with small amounts of super are the least likely to seek it.

Financial literacy

The failure of households to approach super like experienced asset managers is often attributed to poor financial literacy.

Better knowledge, it is often reasoned, would help lower income households make financially savvy decisions. This would help give them a better chance of achieving a comfortable retirement.

Getting professional advice about managing retirement savings is a first step towards knowing what you don’t know. Learning to trust independent advice can optimise risk and returns, even if those decisions conflict with our instincts.

ASFA research found while trust in super funds was relatively high, only 12% sought information or advice from the funds.

Career interruptions

Some households might have little superannuation because their hourly wages are low and they have long breaks from the workforce. This might be due to raising children, personal illness or caring for others.

Instead of being able to rely on public healthcare or pay others to provide this support, they are required to reduce or abandon paid work to do it themselves. This group consists overwhelmingly of women

They are also unlikely to have benefited from high employer contribution rates, such as those of federal public servants or university employees, who have long earned a standard 17%.

Tax and other benefits

Low balance households are also unlikely to have paid large sums into super to avoid income tax. One in every four dollars contributed to super is deposited as voluntary contributions, which attract a low tax rate.

But most of these low tax contributions are made by the 20% with the highest incomes.

In fact, with 70% of superannuation assets owned by the wealthiest 20% of households, low balance households have relatively little to gain.

Research shows those with the lowest balances believe superannuation is a largely a tool for high income earners to avoid tax.

And while financial advice will always be more useful to those who are able to use super as a tax minimisation strategy, even for low-balance households – getting financial advice is worthwhile.

Financial advice can help households choose investments that optimise the risk/return profile of superannuation at each stage of the life cycle.

It can help avoid unnecessary fees and taxes and help people make the best decisions about spending in retirement so they can get the most out of their super.

Potential sticking points

The 2017 royal commission into banking and finance misconduct revealed major conflicts of interest in the advice sector. This only made some people more wary about trusting a stranger with their life savings.

At between $4,000 and $12,000 for a personal financial plan, independent financial advice is not cheap. There is free counselling to manage debts but there is no free, independent advice for longer-term financial planning.

Recent regulatory efforts to better position superannuation funds to provide free financial advice to households will improve access for many.

But these efforts won’t resolve the conflict of interest issue, given there is little incentive for funds to suggest investment strategies using other providers. This is particularly important during the draw down phase.

This is where people start using their super which they receive as either a lump sum or income stream. The products offered by any single super fund to set this up are limited.

Superannuation balances can be seriously eroded by unnecessary fees, inappropriate investments and poorly planned draw down strategies. This is particularly damaging when low balances are involved.

Facing poverty in retirement

As a result, failure to seek financial advice can increase the risk of elderly poverty, especially if people retire without having bought or paid off a home.

Any savings that can be preserved can make a meaningful difference to the capacity of such households to have a dignified retirement.

For these reasons, access to free and independent advice is critically important for the superannuation system to better serve low-balance households. But free, independent advice is still not available in the superannuation system.

It is not surprising low-balance households are reticent to engage in super given the lack of accessible advice. But the peripheral role of low-balance households in a system dominated by Australia’s wealthiest households may play a role in that reticence as well.

Antonia Settle 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. Many people don’t get financial advice even though it can help ensure a comfortable retirement – https://theconversation.com/many-people-dont-get-financial-advice-even-though-it-can-help-ensure-a-comfortable-retirement-240207

Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Ranjodh B. Singh, Senior Lecturer, Curtin University

It’s no secret that many different drugs, whether illicit or regulated and legal, are often consumed together or share a similar group of users.

But the way people consume drugs together can vary, both with changes in their price and across different age groups.

Our recent research, published in the Journal of Population Economics, examined these dynamics between two of the most commonly used drugs in Australia – cannabis and tobacco.

We found younger people appear to use cannabis and tobacco together, meaning a rise in tobacco prices leads to a decrease in consumption of both tobacco and cannabis.

For those aged over 50, on the other hand, we see the opposite effect. Increasing the price of tobacco causes cannabis use to increase significantly.

These economic relationships are important to understand. Policies aimed at one drug can have unintended effects on the consumption of the other.

Read more:
How can we measure the size of Australia’s illegal cannabis market – and the billions in taxes that might flow from legalising it?

Complements or substitutes?

Drugs are often consumed in what’s called a “consumption bundle”, a combination of drugs a consumer chooses to purchase and consume. Tobacco and cannabis are one such bundle.

In 2023, 41% of Australians aged 14 and older reported having used cannabis at least once in their lifetime. About 2.5 million people reported consuming it in the past year.

Tobacco use has seen a significant decline in Australia in recent decades, but vape and e-cigarette use has risen sharply, particularly among young people.

Like any two products, two different drugs in a consumption bundle can be described as complements (meaning they’re used together) or substitutes (they’re used in place of each other).

If the price of the first drug goes up and the demand for it falls, and demand for the second drug falls as well, the two drugs are complements.

If, however, a price increase for the first causes an increase in demand for the second drug, then the two drugs are substitutes.

Mixed messages

Much of the existing research on the economic relationship between tobacco and cannabis has suggested they are complements.

But other studies have suggested these drugs may have no such economic relationship, or could even be substitutes. Given these mixed results, our research aimed to investigate this phenomenon.

Our research hypothesis was that consumption patterns for cannabis and tobacco are likely to change with age, which could possibly explain these disparate findings.

Our research

Using data from the National Drug Strategy Household Survey (NDSHS) on just under 100,000 individuals, we modelled the relationship between cannabis consumption and tobacco price (along with numerous other factors).

Our model shows that when tobacco prices increase, cannabis consumption decreases for Australians under 40 years of age. For this age group, both drugs are complements.

For the age group 40 to 50, there is no evidence of any economic relationship between the two drugs.

However, for Australians aged 50 and over, increasing tobacco prices led to increased cannabis consumption. As such, both drugs are substitutes for this age group.

What might explain the difference?

Several factors may be contributing to the varying relationships between drugs across the age spectrum.

Younger users are less likely to be risk-averse, consuming drugs in bundles. They often roll cannabis and tobacco together in a joint “spliff” or “mulled cigarette”, using the two drugs as complements.

Older individuals, on the other hand, tend to be more risk-averse and consume a smaller drug bundle.

They may also self-impose some limits on the total amounts they consume, meaning an increase in the price of tobacco could increase cannabis consumption as a substitute.

Lessons for policymakers

Our findings can be used by policymakers and public health experts to estimate how cannabis consumption may change in response to changes in tobacco prices – and the possible unintended effects.

The government’s main lever for changing tobacco prices is the excise tax rate on tobacco. Australia’s excise rates are higher than in the US and UK, but lower than those of France, Finland and New Zealand.

Using our model, we conducted a simulation to assess the impact on cannabis comsumption if the price of tobacco was increased. The results suggest that across the entire population, a 10% increase in the price of tobacco would lead to about 240,000 fewer people consuming cannabis.

But this net decrease is a result of a substantial decrease of 340,000 for the under-40 age group and a modest increase of 68,000 for the over-50 age group. The remainder represents those aged 40 to 50.

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. Are tobacco and cannabis economic substitutes or complements? New research suggests it changes with age – https://theconversation.com/are-tobacco-and-cannabis-economic-substitutes-or-complements-new-research-suggests-it-changes-with-age-245155

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

A Dutton government would keep coal working hard for much longer under its nuclear policy, while renewables would provide only a little over half the electricity generated in 2050.

The opposition has finally put in place the last piece of its controversial nuclear policy, with modelling claiming its alternative would come in substantially cheaper than Labor’s transition path to net zero.

The Coalition policy ensures the issues of coal and climate change will be strongly contested at next year’s election.

The key breakdown in the opposition policy is that by 2050, renewables would provide 54% of electricity generation and nuclear 38%, with 8% a combination of storage and gas.

This compares with Labor’s transition plan for renewables to provide nearly all the generation by then (and 82% by 2030).

The modelling, done at no charge by Frontier Economics, costs the Coalition plan for the transition of the National Electricity Market (which covers the east coast and South Australia but excludes Western Australia) at $263 billion (about 44%) cheaper than its estimate for Labor’s transition. It includes nuclear construction costs.

The modelling, including a range of assumptions (the same assumptions as Australian Energy Market Operator except for inclusion of nuclear), puts the cost of Labor’s transition in the National Electricity Market at $594 billion and that of the Coalition’s at $331 billion.

A central feature of the plan is to keep existing coal-fired power stations going for longer. Then the first of them would be replaced by nuclear generation, in the mid-2030s. The Coalition policy is for seven publicly-owned nuclear plants spread around the country although the modelling is on the basis of units in Queensland, New South Wales and Victoria.

The Coalition argues coal-fired power stations do not need to be, and should not be, phased out as soon as is now planned by AEMO. Prolonging their lives as compared to AEMO assumptions would save money, it says.

Another important saving, the Coalition says, is that its plan to have its nuclear plants located at or near existing power plant sites does away with the need for a huge new transmission grid.

Peter Dutton says: “Nuclear energy is at the heart of our plan, providing the ‘always-on’ power needed to back up renewables, stabilise the grid, and keep energy affordable”.

“The Coalition’s approach integrates zero-emissions nuclear energy alongside renewables and gas, delivering a total system cost significantly lower than Labor’s. This means reduced power bills for households, lower operating costs for small businesses, and a stronger, more resilient economy,” Dutton says.

The release of the costings unleashes a tsunami of claims and counterclaims about numbers. That debate will be eye-glazing for many voters.

Not to worry. We are talking the span of a generation. Numbers that stretch out to 2050 don’t mean a great deal. Hundreds of things – in technology and politics, for starters – can and will change as the years pass.

Moreover, numbers from modelling have an extra layer of complexity and uncertainty. They depend heavily on their assumptions that are, in many cases, necessarily arbitrary.

Anyone inclined to take modelling at face value should reflect on the Labor experience. Before the 2022 election it released modelling that gave it the basis to promise a $275 reduction in household power bills by next year. We all know what happened to that.

Regardless of the problems in attempting to be precise, the broad debate about nuclear’s cost will be intense.

The opposition’s plan is up against, for example, the recently released GenCost report, prepared by the CSIRO. This gave a thumbs down to the nuclear option in cost terms. The opposition attempted to cast doubt on the CSIRO’s expertise, but that is unlikely to fly.

The Coalition policy will go down differently according to which constituency is judging it.

Most obviously, given its reliance on extending the life of coal, it will be unpopular with those for whom climate change is a top-line issue. Teal MPs and candidates will hope to get mileage out of that. Under the Coalition plan emissions would remain higher for longer than under Labor’s transition.

On the other hand, in some regional communities where there has been a bad reaction to the planned new power grid and to wind farms, the policy is likely to be well received.

The question is how it will play in the outer suburban electorates that Dutton hopes will help him cut deeply into Labor’s majority.

For these voters, stressed by the cost of living, climate change is probably less of a priority than it once might have been. And nuclear is less scary than in bygone years.

But whether they will see the Coalition policy as more practical than Labor’s, or as a pie-in-the-sky nuclear dream – that’s too early to say.

Climate Change and Energy Minister Chris Bowen was dismissive when the Coalition first promoted nuclear. But Labor would be unwise to be complacent, especially in what’s shaping as a difficult election for the Albanese government.

Labor’s strongest arguments will be on climate change – the evils of the extension of the use of coal – and cost (relying on GenCost findings and the like).

But it is vulnerable in its rejection of calls to lift the ban on nuclear. Bowen argues to do this would be a “distraction”, potentially harming investment in renewables.

That’s a weak argument. To suggest those looking to invest very large sums are likely to be distracted if there wasn’t a ban on the nuclear option is simplistic.

Firstly, this underestimates the financial nous of such investors.
On Labor’s own argument, they wouldn’t want to invest in nuclear because it wouldn’t be profitable to do so. Secondly, investors currently
know if there were a change of government, the Coalition would lift the ban (notwithstanding  the present opposition of various states).

The strongest reason Labor won’t contemplate lifting the ban is politics. Any such move would outrage the left of the party, and also risk driving voters to the Greens. It would also require a change in the Labor’s party platform, which says Labor will “prohibit the establishment of nuclear power plants and all other stages of the nuclear fuel cycle in Australia”.

With households highly focused on their immediate power bills, the government has been tipped to extend more relief as it burnishes its cost-of-living credentials for the election. The Coalition would have to decide whether to match this. It would be hard not to do so.

The Coalition’s plan for nuclear power is a big idea, of which we don’t see that many in our current politics. It will test Dutton’s ability to cope with detail under the pressure of a campaign. There will be another test. If the Coalition remains in opposition, will it throw its grand plan into the policy dust bin, so the nuclear debate will be gone for another decade or two?

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. Grattan on Friday: Dutton’s nuclear policy would have coal-fired power stations operating for a lot longer – https://theconversation.com/grattan-on-friday-duttons-nuclear-policy-would-have-coal-fired-power-stations-operating-for-a-lot-longer-245839

Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Diana Bossio, Associate Professor of Digital Communication, RMIT University

The federal government has revealed a new bargaining chip in the gamble to bring big tech back to the table with news publishers.

The “news media bargaining incentive” is essentially a new levy issued by the Australian Tax Office to digital platforms. Platforms that renew or initiate deals with news publishers to pay for news content will be able to offset the levy.

Platforms that refuse to come to the bargaining table will still have to pay – regardless of whether they host news content on their sites.

Assistant Treasurer Stephen Jones and Communications Minister Michelle Rowland suggested at a media conference on Thursday that this will leave organisations such as Meta and Google with a bill far larger than if they had simply entered into agreements.

‘Four-dimensional chess’

The incentive aims to bolster the Morrison government’s 2021 news media bargaining code. That scheme gave the federal treasurer the power to “designate” an eligible digital platform to enter into a commercial agreement with news publishers to pay for news content appearing online.

A review of the code in 2022 suggested the legislation was a success without ever having been enacted. The threat of designation prompted Meta and Google to make 34 deals amounting to more than A$200 million across the media sector.

Google has extended the deals it struck. But earlier this year, Meta announced it would not renew any of the 13 deals it made three years ago with Australian news media companies. Those deals were worth millions of dollars.

The federal government was left with a conundrum. Should it designate platforms and risk what has happened in Canada, where Meta responded to government pressure to pay for journalism by simply removing all Canadian news content from its platforms? Or should Australia take a different approach?

Jones has admitted to playing the equivalent of “four-dimensional chess” to figure out the government’s next move.

No doubt he and Rowland were playing with one eye on Canada, where the government played hardball – and lost.

What happened in Canada?

Canada’s Online News Act, Bill C-18, was billed as the legislation that “learned the lessons” of Australia’s news bargaining code.

The Australian code was criticised for not immediately designating digital platforms, which essentially allowed platforms to pick and choose which publishers they negotiated with – meaning small or niche publishers largely lost out of funding.

Instead, the Canadian government insisted its Online News act would be the first legislation to compel Meta and Google to pay for third-party news content on their sites.

But the strongarm tactics didn’t work.

The legislation was only hours old before Meta announced it would simply block Canadians from accessing and sharing news on all of its platforms.

While the Canadian government was able to bring Google back to negotiations, Meta has used Bill C-18 as a global example to other governments considering similar legislation. It has made good on its threat to pull news content from its sites.

The effects on the Canadian news industry have been widely felt.

Most Canadian news publishers have reported disastrous declines in online traffic, audience engagement and overall revenue, traced back to bans on news content on Facebook.

The Canadian Media Ecosystem Observatory reported that one year after Meta blocked news access on Facebook and Instagram for Canadian users, about one third of small, local news providers are now inactive online.

But the big loss for public interest journalism in Canada is that news consumption overall has fallen. Many Canadians are not replacing the news they’d previously consumed via Facebook by seeking out news elsewhere.

In the face of such dire consequences for public interest journalism, the Australian federal government chose a business incentive approach.

Will the incentive work?

Crucially, the incentive charge announced on Thursday applies to digital platforms regardless of whether they host news content.

That means digital platforms would pay more if they did not enter into agreements with news publishers – or they would have to consider the economic value of pulling their entire operations from Australia to avoid paying the levy.

The federal government is rolling the dice on a “designation-like” scheme, with the sweetener of ensuring big tech can offset their deals with Australian news publishers.

There are caveats. Jones said big tech companies would not be able to fulfil their obligations simply by doing one big deal. However, existing deals would be recognised under the new scheme.

While the incentive looks promising, questions remain.

Responding to a reporter’s question on Thursday, Jones appeared to suggest the number and value of any deals could be made public. However, this is unlikely.

Under the news media bargaining code, commercial-in-confidence provisions have meant publishers and platforms aren’t required to report the number or value of deals.

News publishers were not keen to announce how they invested the money they received or whether that investment aligned with the news media bargaining code’s policy aim of supporting public interest journalism.

This means previous research showing the news media bargaining code created “winners and losers” among news publishers will not change with the new incentive-based scheme. Smaller publishers will continue to lose out.

Platforms will continue to pick and choose who they negotiate with, how much money they contribute, and in some cases, even what content they want to see produced.

The elephant in the room

The federal government is yet to address the Meta-sized elephant in the room: what if digital platforms continue to withdraw from negotiations with news publishers?

While the federal government has yet to finalise the scheme, the announcement comes off the back of consultation with digital platforms, and a briefing for the incoming US government.

A public consultation paper detailing the structure of the incentive will be released in early 2025.

This will undoubtedly give Meta time to consider its next move.

Diana Bossio 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.

The Conversation received funding from Google under the previous news media bargaining code. The Conversation and SBS were two significant publishers that did not receive funding from Meta under the code.

– ref. News bargaining incentive: the latest move in the government’s ‘four-dimensional chess’ battle with Meta – https://theconversation.com/news-bargaining-incentive-the-latest-move-in-the-governments-four-dimensional-chess-battle-with-meta-245838

Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Rick Sarre, Emeritus Professor of Law and Criminal Justice, University of South Australia

It has been a busy year for defamation lawyers. There has been a mixed bag of outcomes, too.

The two highest profile cases delivered different results: a win for independent MP Alex Greenwich in his suit against fellow parliamentarian Mark Latham, but a loss for Bruce Lehrmann in his defamation action against Network Ten and journalist Lisa Wilkinson.

The latest case (which began in the Federal Court in September this year) has seen a win for Moira Deeming, a former Liberal Legislative Council MP, who sued a fellow Liberal, Victoria’s Opposition Leader John Pesutto. She was seeking damages for comments he made in reference to her appearance at an anti-trans rights rally in March 2023.

The rally, under the banner “Let Women Speak”, featured international anti-trans activist Kellie-Jay Keen.

As it happened, the rally was gate-crashed by neo-Nazis. Pesutto made remarks that the court today found conveyed the imputation that Deeming associates with Nazis.

He said shortly after the rally that he would move a motion to expel her as a member of the parliamentary Liberal Party.

Why did it end up in court?

Deeming denied any connection with Nazism. Pesutto’s words, she said, were damaging to her reputation and satisfied the legal requirements of defamation law in that right-minded Australians would now think less of her.

The hateful, private messages sent to Deeming that followed the comments of her leader were evidence of that, she argued.

Many of the spiteful ripostes that were posted on social media in the days and weeks following Pesutto’s critique of his colleague are found in Justice David O’Callaghan’s judgment. They make for appalling reading.

Ultimately, she was expelled from the parliamentary Liberal Party in May 2024 after she threatened legal action against Pesutto. She now sits in parliament on the crossbench.

Pesutto’s legal team rejected the claims, saying he had not called Deeming a neo-Nazi, nor a white supremacist or anything similar.

Read more:
Victorian Liberals’ bitter infighting seems more and more likely to end up in court. Can Dutton stop it?

What did the judge find?

In matters such as this, Justice O’Callaghan (who had also presided over the Greenwich vs Latham case) had the task of determining whether the comments had caused, or were likely to cause, serious harm to her reputation.

In the end, he was satisfied Deeming had proved that defamatory imputations had been conveyed to the ordinary reasonable reader, listener or viewer.

He concluded:

The imputations that I have found to have been carried are very serious ones. In my view […] they were inherently likely, using mass media to communicate a message to the general public in Victoria, to cause serious harm to Mrs Deeming’s reputation. That is especially so in circumstances where the leader of her own Parliamentary party was moving for her expulsion from it.

Because he decided the comments did cause serious harm, Justice O’Callaghan then had to decide whether Pesutto could rely upon one of the defences found in the Victorian Defamation Act. In this case, the relevant defences were public interest and honest opinion. He determined that they had failed:

In the case of the media release, the 3AW and ABC interviews and the press conference, when bandying around words like “Nazi” and “Nazi sympathisers” and people who “associate” with them or “help” them and the like, it was incumbent on Mr Pesutto to be careful not to convey a meaning that he did not intend.

The judge said “the use of loose language provides greater opportunity for the ordinary reasonable reader to infer adverse meaning from the published matter than the use of precise and unambiguous language. And Mr Pesutto knew as much”.

He awarded Deeming A$300,000 in damages for non-economic loss and as “reparations for the harm done to Mrs Deeming’s reputation and the need for vindication of it”.

What is the lesson from this case?

There is always the potential for a defamatory imputation when imprecise language is used.

Free speech is an important part of our political and social landscape, evidenced by the defences in defamation law of honest opinion, public interest, qualified privilege and contextual truth.

But its dominance can easily be lost when that speech slips into maligning people who justifiably enjoy the confidence of their peers.

It is incumbent on all speakers in the public sphere to be very clear in their language about what they are and are not saying. If not, the law will provide a remedy.

Saying anything at all that conveys the imputation a person associates with Nazism is a dangerous game. Indeed, Victoria was the first Australian jurisdiction to criminalise the salute that is now a federal crime.

As this case has shown, one cannot play fast and loose with politically-loaded slurs.

Read more:
With more lawsuits potentially looming, should politicians be allowed to sue for defamation?

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. Moira Deeming’s defamation win shows nobody can play fast and loose with language – not even politicians – https://theconversation.com/moira-deemings-defamation-win-shows-nobody-can-play-fast-and-loose-with-language-not-even-politicians-245837

Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Rob Nicholls, Senior Research Associate in Media and Communications, University of Sydney

Big tech companies would have to either do deals with news organisations to help fund journalism or pay a charge to the Australian government, under a new plan announced by the Albanese government on Thursday.

The new plan follows the Morrison government-era system introduced in 2021 known as the news media bargaining code, which saw companies such as Google and Meta (which owns Facebook, Instagram and Whatsapp) pay news organisations to help fund journalism.

A press release issued on Thursday by Assistant Treasurer Stephen Jones and Communications Minister Michelle Rowland said the federal government is:

establishing a News Bargaining Incentive to encourage digital platforms to enter into or renew commercial deals with news publishers. Australia does not intend to raise revenue from this policy.

Platforms that choose not to enter or renew commercial agreements with news publishers will pay the charge. Platforms with these agreements will, however, be able to offset their liability.

The incentive will apply to large digital platforms operating significant social media or search services irrespective of whether or not they carry news.

The design of the scheme is yet to be finalised, and the government says a public consultation paper is expected to be released in early 2025.

So, how did we get here – and what might happen if Meta failed to comply?

How did we get here?

The news media bargaining code worked well for its first three years, but Meta has now taken the view it should not be paying for news. It announced earlier this year it would not renew the news media contracts it had in place.

In contrast, Google has contracts that have been renewed for at least a year. It has decided it is still worth paying for news; if you did a Google search and news didn’t come up at all, it would be a pretty poor search engine.

So we have Meta saying no, and this is consistent with Meta’s approach in Canada; Canadian news has been blocked from Meta platforms since August last year.

Only companies that are “designated” under the bargaining code have to comply with the provisions in the code. The Albanese government has taken the view that if it designates Meta under the news media bargaining code, it is likely Meta would cease offering news services in Australia in the same way it did for a few weeks in 2021, and the same way it has done in Canada.

So the federal government is thinking of a different approach.

A different approach: an ‘incentive charge’

The new approach is to say to big tech firms, basically, “If you have contracts with news media businesses, then just carry on. If you don’t, then you need to pay a charge.”

It’s a bit like the system with private health insurance in Australia; if you don’t have private health insurance, you pay a slightly higher Medicare levy. And if you do have it, you don’t have to pay the higher Medicare levy.

So today’s announcement would mean very large online platforms that don’t have deals in place for news would pay this new charge. The revenue would then be used for public interest journalism or in a way that pays the news media businesses that otherwise would have been paid if they did have deals with big platforms.

Either way, news media organisations will get some money out of the big platforms.

This new plan is taking the view that the news bargaining code from 2021 worked OK for a while and it worked OK for some businesses, but it didn’t work for Meta, so we need another approach.

This new approach is similar to an idea colleagues and I proposed in our submission to a parliamentary committee examining this and other online issues.

Regulating big platforms

Another part of the plan would be to create a new system that requires the big platforms to be subject to the new regime.

The government says that it will consult on this, and has set a threshold that means only platforms with Australian revenue above $250 million per year will be affected.

One option that may flow from the consultation is licensing, in the same way we license telcos.

There was no mention of licensing in today’s press release. But, in theory, the government could just say to Meta and Google, and other firms like it, that in order to operate the type of business you have in Australia you need to comply with the obligations.

It could say that one of the conditions of your licence in Australia is that you follow the rules about either paying news media organisations, or paying the charge.

Would Meta comply?

Under this new system Meta would have to ask itself: do we still want to do business in Australia or not?

The vast amount of advertising revenue they get in Australia suggests that failing to comply would be cutting off their nose to spite their face. Rather than pay the charge, they would exit and forgo all that ad revenue.

So my expectation is they would rather just pay the charge.

It was interesting to note that the new “incentive charge” announced today will apply to large digital platforms operating significant social media or search services “irrespective of whether or not they carry news”.

In other words, even if it refused to have news media content on Facebook or Instagram or Whatsapp, Meta would still have to pay the charge (unless they did deals with news media organisations).

The government appears to be very keen to take on this fight. In the lead up to the election there are no votes to be lost in kicking supermarket bosses and Meta bosses.

Rob Nicholls also works for the Association for Data-driven Marketing. He receives funding from the Australian Research Council. The Conversation has received funding from Google negotiated under the Australian government’s News Media Bargaining Code. It has also previously received grant funding from Google.

– ref. Big tech firms like Meta forced to pay for news, under Albanese government’s ‘news bargaining incentive’ charge – https://theconversation.com/big-tech-firms-like-meta-forced-to-pay-for-news-under-albanese-governments-news-bargaining-incentive-charge-245835

Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Peta Stapleton, Professor in Psychology, Bond University

Thanks to films and cartoons, you probably have a lot of vague ideas about what hypnosis involves.

What do you picture? Maybe a fob watch swinging back-and-forth, a therapist saying “you are getting verrrry sleepy”.

But clinical hypnotherapy isn’t a creepy magic trick – it’s an evidence-based therapeutic technique psychologists can use to induce deep focus and relaxation. In this state, people may be more open to changing how they think, feel and behave.

While it won’t work for everyone, research shows it can be highly effective for overcoming certain issues, including pain, addiction and phobias. And no – you won’t start walking around, clucking like a chicken.

What is hypnotherapy?

You’ve probably had the experience where you let your mind wander and you drift off. For example, when you’re driving and don’t notice going past a usual landmark, you may be in a state of “self-hypnosis”.

Hypnotherapy deliberately induces a similar state of heightened relaxation and focused attention, sometimes called a trance.

Its history dates back to the late 18th century when Franz Mesmer, a German physician, developed mesmerism. A Scottish surgeon, James Braid, gave us the term hypnosis.

The hypnotic state shares similarities with other deeply relaxed states, such as meditation, deep focus during creative activities and the “flow” state experienced by athletes.

In all these states, the mind becomes highly focused and less distracted by external stimuli. You’re not unconscious. But you’re more open to new suggestions and able to access your subconscious mind.

This means tapping into the memories, emotions and instincts that influence your thoughts and behaviours, often revealing patterns you weren’t consciously aware of.

How does it work?

The therapist guides you into this relaxed state and offers suggestions to help you think and feel differently about issues you’ve identified beforehand, such as overcoming a fear of public speaking or managing stress.

Hypnotherapy typically involves several stages.

1. Induction: the therapist guides the person into a relaxed state. This may include visualising a calming image, similar to some meditation techniques.

2. Deepening: This means enhancing the relaxed state, for example by progressively relaxing different muscle groups, or using repetitive techniques like counting or gentle, rhythmic sounds.

3. Suggestion: The therapist introduces positive ideas (affirmations) or visualisations. These help reframe negative thought processes and promote healthier responses to stress, triggers or cravings.

4. Awakening: The therapist helps the person back to full awareness. For example, suggesting they pay attention to sensations in the body such as their hands resting in their lap.

It is important to note therapists guiding the process are only providing the suggestions. They don’t “control” what the person does while hypnotised – their client chooses whether to act on their suggestions.

What’s it used for?

Research suggests 10–20% of people cannot be easily hypnotised. About the same number are highly receptive. Everyone else falls in the middle – they can still benefit but may need more practice to relax and deepen relaxation.

Hypnotherapy is mainly used for conditions involving emotional or behavioural patterns that can be influenced by the subconscious mind, such as:

• stress and anxiety reduction
• pain management
• overcoming phobias
• quitting smoking
• weight loss
• improving sleep.

Psychological factors such as stress, fear and anxiety can amplify physical sensations including pain, while positive mental states can enhance healing and recovery.

How well does it work?

Studies show hypnotherapy can be highly effective for various conditions.

An analysis of more than 20 years of hypnotherapy research related to health conditions found nearly all studies (99.2%) reported positive outcomes, with the most significant effects observed in children and patients undergoing medical procedures.

For example, a number of studies have examined the impact of hypnosis on irritable bowel syndrome and found it helps reduce symptoms such as pain, diarrhoea and constipation – and benefits can still be seen five years later.

A review of 17 hypnotherapy trials found hypnosis is also highly effective for reducing anxiety.

This can be particularly beneficial for patients undergoing medical procedures. Studies show hypnosis may reduce their pre-operation distress and anxiety, as well as pain after the operation, including for dental procedures.

Hypnosis can also work as an alternative to medication for pain relief. For example, guidelines for managing chronic pain after cancer in the United States now recommend adults use both medical and non-medical techniques, including mind-body therapies such as hypnosis.

Some studies indicate hypnotherapy can help to improve sleep (and unlike medications, has no side effects).

Hypnotherapy has also been shown to help people quit smoking. In one study of smokers, 86% of participants reported not smoking six months after hypnosis. However it’s unclear whether benefits come from the therapy reducing physical cravings or from improving willpower and the way participants thought about smoking.

Are there any risks?

When performed by a trained professional, hypnotherapy is generally considered safe.

During clinical hypnotherapy, you remain aware and in control throughout the process. Most people remember the experience clearly, and you cannot be made to do anything against your will or values.

However, there can be risks if done improperly. In rare cases, suggestions might lead to the creation of false memories, and if not properly guided out of the hypnotic state a person may feel anxious.

It’s important to seek hypnotherapy from a qualified and licensed professional. Professional organisations (such as the Australian Hypnotherapists’ Association or the Australian Society of Clinical Hypnotherapists) list registered hypnotherapists.

As research continues to grow, hypnotherapy is gaining recognition as a valuable complementary approach in health care.

Peta Stapleton 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. Hypnosis won’t put you under a spell. But it can open your mind to change – and help treat pain – https://theconversation.com/hypnosis-wont-put-you-under-a-spell-but-it-can-open-your-mind-to-change-and-help-treat-pain-243793

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

The attack on the Adass Israel synagogue in Melbourne and another car torching in Sydney have dramatically heightened political tensions over antisemitism.

Amid criticism the government has been too slow to act in the past year, Prime Minister Anthony Albanese this week announced an Australian Federal Police taskforce to combat antisemitism, visited the Melbourne synagogue (though his critics said this was belated), and on Wednesday was at Sydney’s Jewish Museum.

For Attorney-General Mark Dreyfus, a member of Melbourne’s Jewish community, antisemitism is personal. Dreyfus joins the podcast to talk about his family’s story of fleeing Nazi Germany, his own and his community’s experience with antisemitism, and his reaction to criticism of the government’s performance.

My grandmother, like many. Holocaust survivors, didn’t like to talk about what had happened. She didn’t like to talk about the loss of her parents, who were murdered in Auschwitz and Theresienstadt. But I have talked to my father, who we are blessed is still with us at the age of 96 and living alone, still in good form. He was sent by his parents, my grandparents, with his older brother, alone to Australia, while my grandparents remained in Germany until four months after the Second World War had started, to try to persuade their parents, my great grandparents, to leave.

Asked his father’s reactions to recent events, Dreyfus says,

It reminded him of Kristallnacht [the 1938 attack on Jews]. He said Kristallnacht was the prompt for his assimilated German parents […] to make preparations to leave and try to persuade their parents to leave and make preparations to send their children away.

Of the antisemitism recently directed at him personally,

Directed at me, I’ve seen directly antisemitic abuse in a form and with a frequency that I have certainly not experienced since I was elected to the Federal Parliament in 2007.

Asked if further federal laws are required to combat antisemitism Dreyfus sugggests the states could do more,

Street conduct, street behaviour is very much a state matter. I’ve seen that some state governments, particularly in New South Wales and in Victoria, have started to talk about the possibility of creating some regulation of demonstration-type behaviour [outside places of worship] similar to what’s been done to protect reproductive health clinics, where there’s a distance that’s been created by law within which people wishing to demonstrate against abortion are not permitted to do so.

I’d be encouraging state governments if they think that it’s appropriate to put that sort of control on demonstrations […] to do so.

On the accusations by Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu and others that the government’s stance on Israel in the United Nations has led indirectly to the local attacks, Dreyfus says,

With the greatest of respect to Mr Netanyahu, he is wrong on two counts there. He’s wrong to say that our government is anything other than a close friend of Israel. And he’s wrong just to connect votes on resolutions at the United Nations with the occurrence of violent antisemitic attacks here in Australia.

Dreyfus criticises the politicisation of the antisemitism issue,

I am very sad to have seen the way in which Peter Dutton and senior Liberals have chosen to politicise and seek party political advantage from the atrocious event of the burning of a synagogue. But sadly, that is what they have done.

We heard [Liberal] senator Jane Hume offering up just this morning on radio that, somehow, our government had enabled terrorist acts. Now, that’s not acceptable. It’s not acceptable that Peter Dutton should seek to politicise the appalling event of the burning of the synagogue. And it’s not acceptable that any of his colleagues should seek to do the same thing.

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. Politics with Michelle Grattan: For Mark Dreyfus, antisemitism is very personal – https://theconversation.com/politics-with-michelle-grattan-for-mark-dreyfus-antisemitism-is-very-personal-245749

Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Deane-Peter Baker, Associate Professor of Ethics, Director of UNSW Military Ethics Research Lab and Innovation Network (MERLIN), UNSW Sydney

Recently, the government responded to the Royal Commission into Veteran Suicide. It adopted most of the recommendations designed to better support defence personnel.

It comes four years after other defence news hit the headlines. The Afghanistan Inquiry Report (most commonly known as the Brereton report) detailed credible evidence of 39 murders of Afghan civilians and prisoners by (or at the instigation of) Australian Special Forces members.

The inquiry’s findings rightly sent shockwaves through Australia’s military and Australian society as a whole. Such actions are clearly at odds with the expectations of the Australian Defence Force and the vast majority of Australians.

Understandably, most of the public focus since then has been on the question of accountability.

The report, however, also looked at how soldiers can be supported to make better decisions. One way the report proposed was to strengthen military ethics training and education.

This could not only lead to sound actions, but has the knock-on effect of contributing to protecting soldier’s mental health, the focus of the royal commission. This training has been improved in recent years, but we can do better.

Read more:
The government’s response to the royal commission into veteran suicide gets a lot right – but makes a couple of missteps

What did training look like?

Military ethics should be regarded as a core skill that requires regular updates and reinforcement to remain effective.

The Brereton report noted examining the training and education Australian Defence Force personnel receive was key to understanding how soldiers operate.

In the case of Special Forces units, they operate with a very flat structure. Life-and-death decisions in extreme and ambiguous situations are often made by the most junior people in the unit.

Despite this, ethics education aimed at dealing with complexity and ambiguity was focused almost exclusively on leaders with rank, known as officers. They were largely absent from the events focused on in the report.

For everyone else, including soldiers, training was largely limited to very specific legal guidance.

This training was roundly criticised by those on the receiving end in the Brereton report. They said it was confusing and didn’t reflect real operational experience.

The report recommended military ethics training should draw on the experiences of military personnel “from the same services and country as themselves” so they understand how and why the “good guys” can also do bad things.

But to make this effective, it needs to be taken outside of the traditional classroom environment to make it both realistic and relevant. Genuine educational opportunities must be available to everyone so they can explore situations that are not black and white or do not easily lend themselves to straightforward answers.

What improvements have been made?

As detailed in the recent report of the Afghanistan Inquiry Implementation Oversight Panel, the Australian Defence Force has made important changes in response to the recommendations of the Brereton report.

It published an ethics doctrine for all members of the ADF.

There’s also been extensive development and implementation of a coherent and consistent ADF-wide ethics education and training curriculum, which reflects the content of the ethics doctrine.

Some of this learning takes place in small groups dealing with different scenarios. Other content is taught in modules, explaining ethics theory with case studies.

This replaces the earlier ad hoc measures that were in place.

In many respects, the ADF now reflects international best practice in this regard.

But this training can be made more practical. It can also be better incorporated so considering ethical implications becomes second nature. It can be, and should be, embedded into the very bloodstream of the ADF.

Ethics through simulation

The ADF is one of the largest users of simulation-based training in Australia.

This can be relatively simple, like simulators for infantry shooting training. It can also be highly sophisticated, including simulating operating advanced weapons systems, like the F35 Joint Strike Fighter.

There is potential to leverage this for ethics education and training in a way that avoids it becoming another form of “add-on” mandatory training.

For example, virtual reality (VR) and augmented reality (AR) can simulate high-stakes scenarios, allowing personnel to practice applying ethical principles in realistic, pressure-filled situations.

Research has shown the effectiveness of immersive simulation training in saving lives and reducing injury in the mining sector by a remarkable 65%. These techniques are now being employed for firefighter training.

It’s also been trialled in medicine with promising results.

Interactive decision-making tools can generate adaptive scenarios that change and evolve based on a trainee’s choices. This enhances personalised learning.

Gamified ethics training, through serious games, engages learners while providing real-time feedback and analytics to track decision-making patterns.

These technologies can simulate diverse locations and cultures. The cost of procuring them has also steadily declined in recent years, making them more accessible.

Of course it will be necessary to proceed in a responsible way and build a comprehensive evidence base. Considerations in the use of these tools, such as avoiding psychological harm, must be properly managed and be backed by careful and thorough research.

But this is an investment well worth making. The Brereton report made it uncomfortably clear just how painful military ethical failure can be.

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. Disaster happens when soldiers don’t act ethically. We can provide better training to support them – https://theconversation.com/disaster-happens-when-soldiers-dont-act-ethically-we-can-provide-better-training-to-support-them-245163

Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Bernardo Figueiredo, Associate Professor of Marketing, RMIT University

The Australian government’s recent decision to ban under 16s from social media has focused attention on the harms it can cause – especially for young people.

But young people are just one segment of the population who use social media. According to the Digital 2024 report, 78.3% of Australians regularly use platforms such as Facebook and Instagram – mainly for keeping in touch with friends and family.

Perhaps surprisingly, a large proportion of these users are older people. For example, the Digital 2024 report also shows that 21.3% of Meta’s ad audience in Australia (on Messenger, Facebook and Instagram) are 55 years or older. This makes it the second largest age group after 25–34 year olds (25.4%).

So what does research say about how social media affects older people’s social lives and wellbeing?

The growing presence of older adults on social media

The digital divide is shrinking as older generations embrace social media. According to data from earlier this year, more than 70% of Australians aged 65 and older use social media to some degree.

Facebook remains the most popular among this demographic, serving as a gateway to reconnect with family and long-lost friends. Beyond reconnecting, our research indicates older adults often use these platforms to share memories, participate in community groups and access news.

This growing trend is driven by both internal and external factors. Research shows many older users are motivated by the desire to stay connected with their families, particularly grandchildren, who often share their lives through social media.

For others, the COVID pandemic accelerated the adoption of digital tools, making social media a lifeline during periods of isolation.

Enhanced connection

A recent study found positive associations between internet use and mental health among older adults in 23 countries.

Social media, in particular, works by:

1. Maintaining family ties. Social media provides older adults with a virtual seat at the family table. By viewing photos, videos and updates, they can remain engaged with their loved ones’ lives, no matter the physical distance. Platforms such as WhatsApp and Facebook Messenger are particularly popular for private family group chats, enabling older adults to exchange messages and share moments in real time.

2. Rekindling old friendships. Platforms such as Facebook have proven effective in reconnecting older adults with long-lost friends. For many, revisiting old relationships provides a sense of nostalgia and belonging. Studies have shown such interactions can bolster feelings of inclusion and reduce loneliness, a significant concern for ageing populations.

3. Building new communities. Social media groups dedicated to specific interests such as gardening, photography or travel offer older adults opportunities to form new connections. These virtual communities are inclusive spaces where members exchange advice, share experiences and foster friendships based on shared hobbies.

Improved well-being

Social media’s ability to foster connection among older adults directly impacts their wellbeing.

Regular online interactions can reduce feelings of loneliness and depression, providing a sense of purpose and belonging.

Research shows active participation, such as posting photos, is associated with a feeling of competence in older users, which is related to well-being. For some, becoming “grandfluencers” on platforms like Instagram or TikTok introduces an unexpected avenue for creative expression and social influence.

Online forums are also gaining traction as a tool for health information and advocacy. Older adults participate in support groups for chronic conditions, share wellness tips and even engage in civic discussions. This demonstrates social media platforms’ broader potential beyond social interaction.

Online challenges

Despite its benefits, social media is not without challenges for older adults.

For some, navigating the complex interface of platforms can be intimidating. Our research shows half of older adults feel anxious about using communication technologies, with older women experiencing more anxiety than older men.

Issues such as privacy concerns, misinformation and online scams can also create barriers to engagement. Additionally, while social media facilitates connection, it cannot replace the depth of face-to-face interactions.

Our research shows those with higher digital literacy are more likely to experience the positive effects of social media because of ongoing “self-socialisation” without having to interact with others, which might undermine learning and confidence. For others, initiatives aimed at improving digital skills among older adults – such as digital mentoring programs – can significantly enhance their confidence and ability to engage safely online.

A bridge and a barrier

Social media can keep older adults connected. But its impact depends on how it is used.

For many, it serves as a vital link to family, friends and new communities, enriching their social lives and reducing isolation. However, to unlock its full potential, addressing barriers such as digital literacy and online safety are crucial.

As the world becomes increasingly digital, empowering older adults to engage meaningfully with social media will ensure they remain not only connected but also active participants in a rapidly evolving social landscape.

Bernardo Figueiredo receives funding from Australian Communications Consumer Action Network

Torgeir Aleti receives funding from the Australian Communications Consumer Action Network (ACCAN).

– ref. ‘A virtual seat at the family table’: why older people are among the biggest users of social media – https://theconversation.com/a-virtual-seat-at-the-family-table-why-older-people-are-among-the-biggest-users-of-social-media-245156