Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Stephanie Gomes-Ng, Senior Lecturer of Psychology, Auckland University of Technology

Former New Zealand prime minister John Key has three white rabbits painted on his helicopter, a nod to his “massively superstitious” habit of repeating “white rabbits” three times at the start of every month.

Tennis champion Rafael Nadal performs the same sequence of actions (shirt-tug, hair-tuck, face-wipe) before every serve. Taylor Swift paints “13” on her hand for good luck before a show, while Rihanna won’t allow anything yellow in her dressing room.

Perhaps you, too, are superstitious. Maybe you have a lucky number, avoid black cats, or shudder at the thought of opening an umbrella indoors.

Even if you don’t consider yourself superstitious, little things like saying “bless you” after a sneeze, knocking on wood or crossing your fingers are all examples of behaviours with superstitious origins.

We humans are particularly susceptible to superstitions. But why are we so quick to develop superstitious behaviours, and do we really believe they can bring good or bad luck?

In our new research, we set out to answer this question. We tested whether people could tell the difference between outcomes they caused and outcomes they didn’t cause, and this told us something about the cognitive roots of human superstition.

Learning about cause and effect

From as early as four months, infants learn their actions produce outcomes – kicking their legs shakes the crib, shaking a rattle makes an interesting noise, dropping a toy on the floor means mum or dad picks it up.

As we grow older, we develop a more sophisticated understanding of cause-and-effect relationships, asking “why?” questions about the world around us.

This sensitivity to causes and effects sets the stage for important developmental milestones, like imaginative play, planning actions to achieve a goal, predicting others’ intentions, anticipating and regulating emotions, and cooperating with others.

The ability to learn about relationships between causes and effects is a defining feature of human cognition. But how does this square with our superstitious tendencies?

When cause and effect is an illusion

We learn about causes and effects from experience. When our behaviour is followed by an outcome, we learn about the relationship between our action and that outcome. The more often this action-outcome pairing occurs, the stronger the perceived link between them.

This is why we repeat behaviours that produce rewarding outcomes, and avoid repeating behaviours that produce punishing ones.

But what happens if an outcome follows our actions by coincidence? If I wear my lucky socks and my favourite sports team wins, this is probably just a coincidence (it’s unlikely my sock-wearing actually caused the win). But if this happens a few times, I may develop a superstition about my lucky socks.

This suggests superstitious behaviour arises because we aren’t particularly good at discerning when our actions cause an outcome, versus when our actions just coincide with (but do not cause) an outcome. This is a common explanation for superstition – but does it have any weight?

Testing our ability to detect causality

We can test what underpins superstitious behaviour by simply asking people “who caused that outcome?”. Getting it right would suggest we can discern action-outcome relationships (and therefore that there must be some other explanation for superstitious behaviour).

Our research did exactly that. We asked whether people could tell when their actions did or didn’t cause an outcome.

We recruited 371 undergraduate students from a large New Zealand university, who participated in one experimental session for a course credit. Participants played a game where a positive outcome (winning) or a negative outcome (losing) occurred either after their own action (clicking a button), or independently of their action.

Importantly, participants weren’t given any information beforehand about the type of outcome or whether it would depend on their behaviour. This meant they had to rely on what they actually experienced during the game, and we could test their ability to judge whether they had caused the outcome.

This also meant participants’ preexisting superstitions and other characteristics (such as age) didn’t affect our results. Their behaviour during the task was representative of human behaviour more generally.

Participants’ scores indicated they often got it right: in about 80% of trials, they knew when they’d caused the outcome, and when they hadn’t.

A built-in bias

The distinction between causing and not causing the outcomes was sometimes very subtle. This made it more difficult for participants to tell what had occurred.

When they weren’t sure, participants defaulted to saying “I caused it”, even if they actually hadn’t. They were biased to attribute outcomes to their own actions, particularly after winning outcomes.

This bias may be the key to explaining why we’re superstitious: something I did caused something to happen, even if I can’t be sure what it was. And it suggests knowing superstitions aren’t real may not actually stop us from behaving superstitiously.

On the surface, this may not make sense – why expend energy doing things we know don’t affect outcomes? But if we look deeper, this bias serves an important purpose, because it helps ensure we don’t miss any potential connections between our actions and their outcomes. In other words, it’s better to be safe than sorry.

Research shows that engaging in superstitious behaviour can also increase confidence in our abilities to achieve a goal, improve performance in different tasks, and alleviate anxiety by giving us a sense of control.

The tendency to attribute positive outcomes to our actions (as we found) can boost self-esteem and psychological wellbeing. So, perhaps we’d all benefit by indulging in a little superstitious behaviour. Touch wood.

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. Knowing superstitions aren’t real doesn’t stop us behaving superstitiously – why? – https://theconversation.com/knowing-superstitions-arent-real-doesnt-stop-us-behaving-superstitiously-why-240541

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

Richard Marles is an ambitious man who hasn’t given up the dream of one day reaching the top job. But, despite being deputy prime minister, his profile is much lower than that of Treasurer Jim Chalmers, the candidate considered most likely to succeed Anthony Albanese as Labor’s leader.

The treasurer was at his most hyperactive this week, with an economic statement to parliament, reforms to superannuation, and a new set of priorities (investment in housing, the energy transition, and infrastructure) for the Future Fund, the nation’s $230 billion sovereign wealth fund. The latter immediately opened the government to opposition claims it was trying to bend the independent fund to its will (Chalmers’ retort was to accuse the opposition of wanting less investment in these areas).

But it was Marles’ dead-bat performance in question time that was most useful to the government in this penultimate parliamentary week of the year.

The government appeared blindsided, and the opposition was delighted, by a US–UK agreement to accelerate the deployment of “cutting-edge” nuclear technology. The agreement was released during the COP29 climate conference in Baku, which Energy Minister Chris Bowen was attending.

Australia refused to be party to the agreement; the government’s awkward position was accentuated by the UK government’s statement on the agreement initially (mistakenly) saying Australia was expected to join.

On Tuesday and Wednesday Marles, acting prime minister while Albanese was overseas, kept his answers on script, sticking to the formula that Australia doesn’t – and under Labor wouldn’t – have a domestic nuclear industry and so wasn’t signing up. He couldn’t smother the issue, but he did limit the smoke.

The parliamentary week had started badly for the government, with the opposition refusing to support its plan for caps on universities’ foreign students.

This had been a surprise, and adds a layer of uncertainty to a university sector already in considerable chaos, with the finances of some institutions in deep trouble, leading to extensive job cuts.

The government continued to pile new legislation into a stretched parliament, notably bills for a ban on children under 16 accessing social media, and for a far-reaching shakeup of electoral donations and spending. The Coalition is supporting both.

The social media ban has been panned by some (though not all) experts, but will be very popular with parents. Platforms, rather than parents or children, will have the responsibility for compliance, facing hefty fines for systematic breaches.

The legislation is “about helping families”, Communications Minister Michelle Rowland told parliament in Thursday’s question time. Unusually, her opposition counterpart David Coleman jumped up immediately to support her, saying “this issue of the safety of Australian children online from social media is one of the defining issues of our era”.

Like the social media ban, the electoral changes are also on track to be passed next week, given a deal between the major parties. But they have sparked angst from the minor players including the teals.

There is general agreement “big money” should be taken out of politics. However, one person’s “big money” is another person’s positive support to “level the playing field” for new players.

Most would see Clive Palmer’s about $120 million spend for the last election as over the top. But many would take a different attitude to the $13 million spent by Simon Holmes à Court’s Climate 200, that helped a number of teals become MPs.

When it comes to electoral reform, it’s a matter of balance – curbing excess but enabling aspirants who do not have the backing of big parties or incumbency to have reasonable access. There’ll be continuing argument about whether the government’s package has that balance right.

The Liberals’ interest in signing up was not unexpected, in light of their vulnerability to teals and other independents. Although the changes don’t come in for this election, the Liberals want to contain what could be a longer-term trend.

So does Labor. It has not yet been hit like the Liberals have by the wave of community candidates (although it lost its previously safe NSW seat of Fowler to one). But with a primary vote around 30% and no sign the public disillusionment with the main parties is waning, it knows the risk that’s looming. It also has the challenge of Greens candidates in its inner-city seats.

The electoral legislation has given the teals an issue for next year’s poll. They can use it to boost the case for their own re-election (before the system changes) and it possibly opens the way for them to say that if there is a minority government they might press for changes to make the arrangements, in their view, “fairer”.

Meanwhile, voters’ attention remains firmly on matters closer to the kitchen table. They don’t see much good news. The prospect of interest rate falls appears to be receding even further into the depths of 2025, and the economy is likely to remain stagnant for the time being.

Chalmers, in his economic statement, was upbeat. We’re having a “soft landing”, he said. Inflation is falling. Treasury is expecting a “gradual recovery in the economy”. Real wages are growing (slowly).

People’s experiences and perceptions are, however, baked in hard. The Freshwater poll in the Australian Financial Review this week found the top issue of concern to people, the cost of living, had risen in the past month by 5 points to 77%. When people were asked about managing key issues, the Coalition had a 12-point lead on cost of living and a 17-point lead on economic management.

By Thursday, Albanese was back in parliament after his week away at APEC and the G20. He was just in time to hear his old rival Bill Shorten, the former Labor leader who came close to being prime minister, deliver his valedictory.

It had a salutary message in what, for Australia, is a time of division.

“I’m a proud moderate,” Shorten said. “Being in the centre is an acknowledgement that Australians hold broad, diverse views. The majority in the middle should never be hostage to the intolerant few on the zealous fringe.”

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: Marles plays a defensive bat on nuclear as the government rushes to get though late work – https://theconversation.com/grattan-on-friday-marles-plays-a-defensive-bat-on-nuclear-as-the-government-rushes-to-get-though-late-work-244287

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

Bill Shorten has declared himself “a proud moderate” in a valedictory speech declaring parliament has the responsibility to ensure the extremes of left and right do not set the terms of political debate.

Shorten, former Labor leader and current cabinet minister, told parliament: “I reject outright the argument that being moderate is a sign of conservatism or apathy.

“You can be in the centre and be a reformer, a humanitarian, or radical in terms of your ambition to get things done for the Australian people.

“Being in the centre is an acknowledgment that Australians hold broad, diverse views. The majority in the middle should never be hostage to the intolerant few on the zealous fringe.”

Shorten retires from parliament in February to take the position of vice-chancellor of the University of Canberra. He was a minister in the former Labor government, and opposition leader from 2013-19, narrowly losing two elections. He is Minister for the National Disability Insurance Scheme and Minister for Government Services and has been devoting his efforts to getting the NDIS back on track after a huge spending blow out.

In his speech, Shorten said parliament “must rise to the big issues and engage with them thoughtfully and respectfully.

“Let’s not be a stage for noisy actors talking at each other, over each other and past each other.

“Parliament has the responsibility to ensure the extremes of the left and right do not set the terms of debate. Otherwise, the ideological trenches become deeper – and the centre ground becomes a no-man’s land”.

Shorten outlined what he saw as some key priorities for the parliament in the future, including being ambitious on climate change and tax reform.

He said the tax system still taxed property lightly and income heavily.

This meant young Australians  carried a disproportionate share of the tax burden and paid  more tax than a generation ago.

It was harder than ever for young people to save for a home, and  increasing supply was an essential  part of solving this problem, Shorten said.

“We must not become a society where  realising the dream of home ownership is dependent on having rich parents.”

Shorten also there was also unfinished business on defence and foreign policy.

“We need to develop even further our own defence capabilities within the bonds of existing alliances.

“And prioritise, even more, Australian foreign  policy with an Australian accent.”

Shorten said parliament had “unfinished business” with First Nations people, including their being recognised in the constitution.

“I remain hopeful that – with good faith on all sides – we can achieve recognition of Indigenous Australians in our nation’s birth certificate.”

He said parliament and Australians generally also had “unfinished business on equal treatment of women.

“Because there is no more shocking measure of inequality between men and women than domestic and family violence.”

Shorten urged the parliament: “Be ambitious for this place. This great democratic institution and its power to forge a path to a more productive, moderate, inclusive, compassionate and equal Australia.

“I’ll be urging you on – and wishing you well.”

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. Shorten declares himself ‘a proud moderate’, saying Australians ‘in the middle’ shouldn’t be hostage to intolerant fringes – https://theconversation.com/shorten-declares-himself-a-proud-moderate-saying-australians-in-the-middle-shouldnt-be-hostage-to-intolerant-fringes-244275

Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Matt Garrow, Editorial Web Developer

We all know how important it is to save enough money for retirement – but what about spending it wisely when we get there?

Even for those who have built up a suitable nest egg, managing money well in retirement isn’t necessarily straightforward. Now, the federal government has said it wants to make it easier.

On Wednesday, Treasurer Jim Chalmers announced a broad package of reforms to the retirement phase of the superannuation system.

Key aims include expanding access to reliable information, supporting more innovation in super products, and introducing a new reporting framework focused on retirement outcomes.

There’ll also be a new set of voluntary “best practice principles” for the industry, to help it design “modern, high quality” retirement products.

Next year, the government will consult on a draft version of these principles. The Conversation asked five experts what they thought the most important focus should be.

Read more:
Chalmers targets reforms to superannuation products and transparency in the retirement phase

– ref. New ‘best practice’ principles for superannuation products are coming. We asked a panel of experts what should be included – https://theconversation.com/new-best-practice-principles-for-superannuation-products-are-coming-we-asked-a-panel-of-experts-what-should-be-included-244164

Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Daniel Angus, Professor of Digital Communication, Director of QUT Digital Media Research Centre, Queensland University of Technology

The federal government today introduced into parliament legislation for its social media ban for people under 16 years.

Communications Minister Michelle Rowland said:

This is about protecting young people, not punishing or isolating them, and letting parents know we’re in their corner when it comes to supporting their children’s health and wellbeing.

Up until now details of how the ban would actually work have been scarce. Today’s bill provides a more complete picture.

But many ambiguities – and problems – still remain.

What’s in the bill?

Today’s bill is an amendment of the Online Safety Act.

It introduces a new definition for an “age-restricted social media platform” whose sole or significant purpose is to enable users to post material online and interact socially with other users.

This includes platforms such as Facebook, Instagram, TikTok and Snapchat, but also many more minor platforms and services. It includes an exclusion framework that exempts messaging apps such as WhatsApp, online gaming platforms and services with the “primary purpose of supporting the health and education of end-users” (for example, Google Classroom).

The bill will attempt to force owners of newly defined age-restricted platforms to take “reasonable steps” to prevent people under 16 from having a user account. This will include young people who have an existing account. There are no grandfather provisions so it is unclear how platforms will be required to manage the many millions of existing users who are now set to be excluded and deplatformed.

The bill is also vague in specifying how social media platforms must comply with their obligation to prevent under 16s from having an account – only that it “will likely involve some form of age assurance”.

Oddly, the bill won’t stop people under 16 from watching videos on YouTube or seeing content on Facebook – it is primarily designed to stop them from making an account. This also means that the wider ecology of anonymous web-based forums, including problematic spaces like 4chan, are likely excluded.

Age-restricted platforms that fail to prevent children under 16 accessing their platforms will face fines of nearly A$50 million.

However, the government acknowledges that it cannot completely stop children under 16 from accessing platforms such as Instagram and Facebook.

Australia should be prepared for the reality that some people will break the rules, or slip through the cracks.

The legislation will take effect “at least” 12 months after it has passed parliament.

How did we get to this point?

The government’s move to ban under 16s from social media – an idea other countries such as the United Kingdom are now considering – has been heavily influenced by News Corp’s “Let Them Be Kids” campaign. This campaign included sensitive news reports about young people who have used social media and, tragically, died by suicide.

The government has also faced pressure from state governments and the federal opposition to introduce this bill.

The New South Wales and South Australian governments last month held a summit to explore the impact of social media on the mental health of young people. However, Crikey today revealed that the event was purposefully set up to create momentum for the ban. Colleagues who attended the event were shocked at the biased and unbalanced nature of the discussion.

The announcement and tabling of the bill today also preempts findings from a parliamentary inquiry into the impact of social media on Australian society. The inquiry only tabled its report and recommendations in parliament this week. Notably, it stopped short of recommending a ban on social media for youth.

There are evidence-based alternatives to a ban

The government claims “a minimum age of 16 allows access to social media after young people are outside the most vulnerable adolescent stage”.

However, multiple experts have already expressed concerns about banning young people from social media platforms. In October more than 140 experts, me included, wrote an open letter to Prime Minister Anthony Albanese in which we said “a ‘ban’ is too blunt an instrument to address risks effectively”.

The Australian Human Rights Commission has now added its voice to the opposition to the ban. In a statement released today it said:

Given the potential for these laws to significantly interfere with the rights of children and young people, the Commission has serious reservations about the proposed social media ban.

In its report, the parliamentary inquiry into the impact of social media on Australian society made a number of recommendations to reduce online harm. These included introducing a “duty of care” onto digital platforms – a measure the government is also moving ahead with, and one which is more in line with best evidence.

The inquiry also recommended the government introduce regulations which ensure users of social media platforms have greater control over what content they see. This would include, for example, users having the ability to change, reset, or turn off their personal algorithms.

Another recommendation is for the government to prioritise the creation of the Children’s Online Privacy Code. This code will better protect the personal information of children online.

Taken together, the three measures above manage the risks and benefits of children’s digital media. They build from an evidence base, one that critically includes the voices and perspectives of children and parents. The concern then is how a ban undermines these efforts and possibly gives platforms a hall pass to avoid obligations under these stronger media policies.

Daniel Angus receives funding from Australian Research Council through Discovery Projects DP200100519 ‘Using machine vision to explore Instagram’s everyday promotional cultures’, DP200101317 ‘Evaluating the Challenge of ‘Fake News’ and Other Malinformation’, and Linkage Project LP190101051 ‘Young Australians and the Promotion of Alcohol on Social Media’. He is a Chief Investigator with the ARC Centre of Excellence for Automated Decision Making & Society, CE200100005.

– ref. The government has introduced laws for its social media ban. But key details are still missing – https://theconversation.com/the-government-has-introduced-laws-for-its-social-media-ban-but-key-details-are-still-missing-244272

Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Steven Ratuva, Director, Macmillan Brown Centre for Pacific Studies, University of Canterbury

As this year’s UN climate summit reaches its final stage of negotiations, Pacific scholars are calling on world leaders to improve the dispersal system of climate finance to support people living in small island nations.

Last week, we presented the Conference of the Parties (COP29) with a report from the largest Pacific climate adaptation study. The Pacific Ocean Climate Crisis Assessment (POCCA) amplifies voices of people with lived experience. It collates data and case studies about climate impacts island nations are already facing and local adaptation strategies they are already practising.

The report shows that climate finance has been mainstreamed into global financial structures which follow the same patterns as development aid.

This means the main global financial institutions, including the World Bank and the International Monetary Fund, become the “accredited” institutions involved in dispersing funds, adding loan components and making direct access difficult for Pacific nations.

Loading recipient countries with more debt

As a result, some 72% of the money is in the form of loans by the time it reaches people on the ground. The real beneficiaries are private contractors in developed countries who are brought in to build climate-resilient infrastructure.

What may have started off as a humanitarian gesture has ended up loading recipient countries in the Global South, particularly in the Pacific, with more debt.

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

Climate finance is an essential point of negotiation at COP29, with the goal of increasing the contributions by wealthy countries.

Last year’s climate summit in Dubai agreed to establish a new fund to compensate developing countries for losses and damages from natural disasters caused by climate change. This diplomatic effort was spearheaded by a group of small island developing states and it is important this fund fills the gaps in current climate finance.

However, closing the gap between the funds currently available and the money needed is only one aspect. We must also transform the process of dispersal to make sure money directly benefits people who already face climate impacts on a daily basis.

Indigenous knowledge and local adaptation

Our report also highlights a range of climate adaptation strategies, including relocating households and villages, already employed by Pacific peoples across the region.

As descendants of great navigators and oceanic settlers who traversed the world’s largest ocean for millennia, Pacific peoples have long developed sophisticated adaptive capacities. Despite living in some of the planet’s smallest and most environmentally challenging places, they have been responding to change in locally relevant and innovative ways for centuries.

This includes traditional building techniques which produce more flexible houses that are easier to rebuild and coastal protections against sea-level rise and beach erosion.

Adaptation practices used in Pacific Islands are mostly based on community Indigenous knowledge and skills passed down over generations. For example, in French Polynesia, the traditional practice of building elevated houses with floors 1.5m above ground level is now subsidised by the government as part of risk prevention.

Pacific islands have also focused increasingly on ecosystem-based approaches that build on their Indigenous knowledge and benefit both communities and ecosystems. In Fiji, Indigenous knowledge has helped to identify native vegetation suitable for reducing coastal erosion and flooding.

Relocation is an adaptation option of last resort. The report includes two case studies of community relocation in Fiji, which highlight the importance of including all social groups in planning to foster positive outcomes.

Changing the narrative

Pacific peoples are intrinsically connected to the ocean and have developed systems of social and ecological resilience which allows them to bounce back quickly from disruption.

Many Pacific people are indeed affected by climate change. But the
constant narrative of vulnerability is problematic. It undermines the very idea of Indigenous and local Pacific agency and resilience.

The complexity of climate impacts requires us to look at what is happening on the ground, especially when applying science-based models and their inherent uncertainties to inform local adaptation decisions.

The report recommends enabling pathways that combine Indigenous knowledge, contemporary science methods and government decision tools to safeguard a balance between ground-up and top-down approaches to adaptation and resilience.

Pacific Island communities have always lived on islands affected by drought, tsunami and tropical cyclones. They had to survive on islands with limited resources.

Over millennia, Pacific peoples developed local knowledge, including cultural
principles and social structures, to thrive in these circumstances. Given existential threats and challenges, especially those facing atoll island communities, we need to draw on climate-related Indigenous knowledge and practices.

In contrast to narratives of vulnerability, legacies of resilience are key to successful climate adaptation.

Steven Ratuva 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. COP29: ‘climate finance’ for the Pacific is mostly loans, saddling small island nations with more debt – https://theconversation.com/cop29-climate-finance-for-the-pacific-is-mostly-loans-saddling-small-island-nations-with-more-debt-243675

Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Jordan Peter Anthony Pitt, Associate Dean of Indigenous Strategy and Services (Faculty of Science), University of Sydney

An enduring challenge facing science around the world is how to best include and engage Indigenous communities.

In Australia, for example, 0.5% of Indigenous peoples held a university STEM (science, technology, engineering and maths) qualification in 2021, compared to 4.9% of the Australian population. Studies have also shown that while researchers are increasingly engaging Indigenous communities, they often do so disrespectfully and with a lack of goodwill.

Addressing this challenge was the focus of a research summit I attended earlier this month.

The Tri-Academy Partnership on Indigenous Engagement: A Research Summit on Cultural Heritage in an Era of Reconciliation was the first of three annual events bringing together academics from Canada, Australia and Aotearoa New Zealand. It showed how the scientific community can be more inclusive – and how increased Indigenous engagement and participation will benefit everybody.

Leading minds from across the world

Leading Indigenous academics from all three nations attended the summit. They gave talks on topics such as the United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples, Indigenous leadership in academic institutions and the role of Indigenous engagement in expanding and improving research and education.

Many of the issues Indigenous academics raised at the summit were common to all three nations.

We heard of structural issues such as lack of recognition and protection of Indigenous Cultural Intellectual Protocols. We also heard about the problem of research being about us but without us and the barriers to increasing the number of Indigenous academics.

One of these barriers is the historical erasure and suppression of Indigenous cultures and their associated knowledges. Another is the education pipeline: only 68% of Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islanders aged 20–24 have completed Year 12 or equivalent. A third barrier is the cultural safety for both university students and staff.

These barriers were highlighted by deeply personal stories shared throughout the summit, including from residential school survivors and academics who had experienced racism in their workplace.

Fundamentally these issues are all rooted in the same thing: the significant power imbalance between Indigenous communities and the academic community seeking to engage them.

This has resulted in previous engagement being a purely extractive process. Researchers have taken knowledge from Indigenous communities, without giving anything back. This has eroded trust.

There is movement to improve engagement by moving from projects done “on us” to projects done “with us” and “by us”. But achieving this goal will require long-term, strategic engagement of Indigenous communities to move from merely nice-to-have representation to genuine partnership.

It will take time to rebuild that trust. And it may require non-Indigenous researchers to spend years simply sitting with and listening to Indigenous communities.

Mutual benefits

But even though it may take time, this is worthwhile work.

For communities with genuine partnership and benefit sharing, engagement with academia and the learned academies could meaningfully uplift communities.

For example, Indigenous-led organisation Trioda Wilingi employs Indigenous people at all levels and is working with scientists from the University of Queensland to produce medical gels from spinifex grass. These gels can treat painful conditions such as arthritis.

For academia, Indigenous communities hold a great depth and breadth of knowledge which is recognised in Australia’s Science and Research Priorities. It can improve our lives and better connect us with the places we live.

A mountain to climb

As the summit began, we heard of the passing of the First Nations Canadian politician and lawyer the Honourable Murray Sinclair. His presence looms large in matters of Indigenous engagement – he chaired the Indian Residential Schools Truth and Reconciliation Commission in Canada.

Thanks to his extensive work in this area, his presence and words echoed through every talk and panel. The most notable are two quotes from his time chairing the commission. One describes the commission’s work:

We have described for you a mountain. We have shown you the way to the top. We call upon you to do the climbing.

The second quote reflects on the role of education in reconciliation:

Education got us into this mess, and education will get us out of it.

These are statements that reverberate across the three nations that took part in the summit. They highlight the ongoing issues in the engagement of the learned academies and academia more broadly with Indigenous peoples.

Transformational education

There is still a mountain to climb – and education remains key.

But to overcome history, education must be developed in the communities’ interests with their voices at the table to create genuinely transformational education.

For the academic sector – and society more broadly – education is key to understanding why climbing the mountain is important.

Hampering the climb is easy, but it doesn’t make the mountain disappear.

The summit in Vancouver was supported by the Royal Society of Canada, the Australian Academy of Science, and the Royal Society Te Apārangi (Aotearoa New Zealand). There will be another summit next year in Aotearoa New Zealand. The final one will be in 2026 in Australia.

Jordan Peter Anthony Pitt is Associate Dean Indigenous Strategy and Services of the University of Sydney. The Australian Academy of Science funded Dr Pitt’s attendance at the Summit. Dr Pitt is the Chair of the Early and Mid-career Researcher Forum, which is affiliated with and supported by the Australian Academy of Science.

– ref. Science continues to exclude Indigenous communities. Fixing this benefits everyone – https://theconversation.com/science-continues-to-exclude-indigenous-communities-fixing-this-benefits-everyone-242701

Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Vaughan Cruickshank, Senior Lecturer in Health and Physical Education, University of Tasmania

Cricket originated in England, but has been spread worldwide by British soldiers and settlers in the past few hundred years.

It is now the second most popular sport in the world in terms of number of fans, after soccer.

This spread has been most successful in the Indian sub-continent, which is now considered the epicentre of world cricket.

This region includes countries such as Bangladesh, India, Pakistan and Sri Lanka.

According to the International Cricket Council (ICC), 90% of the world’s cricket fans are from the sub-continent.

History of cricket in the Indian sub-continent

Cricket was introduced to the Indian sub-continent by sailors and traders from the East India Company in the early 18th century.

The first recorded cricket match in this region was played between British sailors in western India in 1721.

Introducing English sports and traditions was intended to assert British dominance and cultural superiority. However, Indian elites embraced cricket as a way to gain favour with their rulers.

Over time, cricket became popular with the entire population.

Modern popularity

Cricket is now the most popular sport in countries such as India, Pakistan, Sri Lanka, Bangladesh, Nepal and Afghanistan.

Cricket matches between India and Pakistan are considered one of the biggest sporting events in the world, and are regularly watched by nearly half a billion fans.

While cricket is also very popular in other successful cricketing nations such as Australia, South Africa and the United Kingdom, it does not enjoy the same unrivalled status as it does in the Indian sub-continent.

Cricket as religion

Cricket is now a hugely important part of the region’s culture and identity.

It has the ability to cut across regional, ethnic, social class and religious divides, and unite countries in a way no other sport or cultural institution can.

Indeed, cricket has been described as a religion, particularly in India where it brings people of all faiths and backgrounds together.

While politicians and religious leaders in the region have used the popularity of cricket to their advantage, “cricket diplomacy” has also been used to cool tensions and diplomatic issues, particularly between India and Pakistan.

It even has the power to temporarily stop civil wars. In 2007, the Tamil Tigers militant group declared a ceasefire with the government of Sri Lanka for the duration of the Cricket World Cup.

Why is cricket so popular?

Cricket can be played anywhere. In large South Asian cities, it is often played in cramped spaces such as rooftops, markets and busy streets.

Variations such as “tape ball cricket” and “street cricket” mean players can simply use a rubbish bin, milk crate, or marks on a wall as the wickets.

The bat can be a stick, and a rubber or tennis ball can be taped to ensure it deviates in the air to make things more challenging for a batter.

This softer ball means equipment such as pads and helmets are not needed.

Many of South East Asia’s cricket legends such as Wasim Akram and Sachin Tendulkar first honed their skills in chaotic street games that required quick reflexes and improvisation.

Winning the Cricket World Cup in 1983 (India), 1992 (Pakistan), 1996 (Sri Lanka) and 2011 (India) made cricketers heroes and role models for new generations.

A lack of success in other sports – except India and Pakistan in hockey, particularly during the 20th century – means cricket has little competition for the hearts of sports fans in the region.

Media momentum

Huge media coverage and sponsorship across the sub-continent has ensured significant money and resources have been invested back into cricket.

For instance, the Board of Control for Cricket in India (BCCI) has previously earned billions of dollars over a five year period from lucrative television rights.

Much of this money is from the Indian Premier League – a Twenty20 competition that has quickly become the biggest cricket league in the world.

Similar successful (but not as profitable) T20 competitions have been set up in countries such as Bangladesh, Pakistan and Sri Lanka.

The majority of the ICC’s revenue now comes from India. Consequently, the BCCI has increasing control over the ICC and its decisions.

Additionally, India will be given 38.5% of the ICC’s profits in the 2024-2027 cycle – 105 nations will share the other 61.5%.

The BCCI have invested their profits in cricket stadium upgrades, centres of excellence and world class training staff .

While these investments help build future cricket pathways and facilities for the next generation of aspiring Indian cricketers, the ICC profit split has been criticised for making the richest countries richer and missing the chance to grow the game in other countries.

What about women’s cricket?

Cricket has the potential to be even more popular in the region if it embraces gender equality. One example of this would be Afghanistan, if the Taliban lifts its current ban on women playing cricket.

Countries such as Australia have refused to play men’s cricket matches against Afghanistan until conditions for women and girls improve.

Female cricketers in the Indian sub-continent often have to deal with barriers such as reduced funding and salaries, death threats, sexism and conservative gendered expectations.

However, the success of women’s teams has resulted in increased acceptance of women’s cricket in the Indian sub-continent in recent years.

Notable recent initiatives include the BCCI launching a successful women’s T20 competition in 2023. The recent ICC T20 World Cup was the first time women received the same prize money as their male counterparts.

These decisions align with the ICC prioritising the growth of the women’s game.

Continued popularity and growth

The deep passion for the game and continued success of teams from the Indian sub-continent is likely to ensure cricket’s continued popularity.

Cricket is also growing in popularity in countries like the United States, thanks to large Indian communities – in fact, the US co-hosted the 2024 T20 World Cup.

The addition of cricket to the Los Angeles Olympic program in 2028, should ensure that sub-continent cricket fans support the popularity of cricket in the years ahead.

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. Why is cricket so popular on the Indian sub-continent? – https://theconversation.com/why-is-cricket-so-popular-on-the-indian-sub-continent-240440

Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Renee Barnes, Associate professor of Journalism, University of the Sunshine Coast

As America takes stock after Donald Trump’s re-election to the presidency, it’s worth highlighting the AI-generated fake photos, videos and audio shared during the campaign.

A slew of fake videos and images shared by Trump and his supporters purported to show his opponent, Kamala Harris, saying or doing things that did not happen in real life.

Of particular concern are deepfake videos, which are edited or generated using artificial intelligence (AI) and depict events that didn’t happen. They may appear to depict real people, but the scenarios are entirely fictitious.

Microsoft warned in late October that:

Russian actors continue to create AI-enhanced deepfake videos about Vice President Harris. In one video, Harris is depicted as allegedly making derogatory comments about former President Donald Trump. In another […] Harris is accused of illegal poaching in Zambia. Finally, another video spreads disinformation about Democratic vice president nominee Tim Walz, gaining more than 5 million views on X in the first 24 hours.

AI has enabled the mass creation of deepfake videos, which poses a threat to democratic processes everywhere.

If left unchallenged, political deep fake videos could have profound impacts on Australian elections.

It’s getting harder to spot a deepfake

Images have stronger persuasive power than text. Unfortunately, Australians are not great at spotting fake videos and images.

The prevalence of deepfakes on social media is particularly concerning, given it is getting harder to identify which videos are real and which are not.

Studies suggest people can accurately identify deepfake facial images only 50% of the time (akin to guessing) and deepfake faces in videos just 24.5% of the time.

AI-based methods for detection are marginally better than humans. However, these methods become less effective when videos are compressed (which is necessary for social media).

As Australia faces its own election, this technology could profoundly impact perceptions of leaders, policies, and electoral processes.

Without action, Australia could become vulnerable to the same AI-driven political disinformation seen in the US.

Deepfakes and disinformation in Australia

When she was home affairs minister, Clare O’Neil warned technology is undermining the foundations of Australia’s democratic system.

Senator David Pocock demonstrated the risks by creating deepfake videos of both Prime Minister Anthony Albanese and Opposition Leader Peter Dutton.

The technology’s reach extends beyond federal politics. For example, scammers successfully impersonated Sunshine Coast Mayor Rosanna Natoli in a fake video call.

We’ve already seen deepfakes already in Australian political videos, albeit in a humorous context. Think, for example, of the deepfake purporting to show Queensland premier Steven Miles, which was released by his political opponents.

While such videos may seem harmless and are clearly fabricated, experts have raised concerns about the potential misuse of deepfake technology in future.

As deepfake technology advances, there is growing concern about its ability to distort the truth and manipulate public opinion. Research shows political deepfakes create uncertainty and reduce trust in the news.

The risk is amplified by microtargeting – where political actors tailor disinformation to people’s vulnerabilities and political views. This can end up amplifying extreme viewpoints and distort people’s political attitudes.

Not everyone can spot a fake

Deepfake content encourages us to make quick judgments, based on superficial cues.

Studies suggest some are less susceptible to deepfakes, but older Australians are especially at risk. Research shows a 0.6% decrease in deepfake detection accuracy with each year of age.

Younger Australians who spend more time on social media may be better equipped to spot fake imagery or videos.

But social media algorithms, which reinforce users’ existing beliefs, can create “echo chambers”.

Research shows people are more likely to share (and less likely to check) political deepfake misinformation when it shows their political enemies in a poor light.

With AI tools struggling to keep pace with video-based disinformation, public awareness may be the most reliable defence.

Deepfakes are more than just a technical issue — they represent a fundamental threat to the principles of free and fair elections.

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. Disinformation and deepfakes played a part in the US election. Australia should expect the same – https://theconversation.com/disinformation-and-deepfakes-played-a-part-in-the-us-election-australia-should-expect-the-same-243373

Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Kira Morgan Hughes, PhD Candidate in Allergy and Asthma, School of Life and Environmental Sciences, Deakin University

When spring arrives, so do warnings about thunderstorm asthma. But a decade ago, most of us hadn’t heard of it.

So where did thunderstorm asthma come from? Is it a new phenomenon?

In 2016, the world’s most catastrophic thunderstorm asthma event took Melbourne by surprise. An increase in warnings and monitoring is partly a response to this.

But there are also signs climate change may be exacerbating the likelihood of thunderstorm asthma, with more extreme weather, extended pollen seasons and a rise in Australians reporting hay fever.

A landmark catastrophe

The first time many Australians heard of thunderstorm asthma was in November 2016, when a major event rocked Melbourne.

During a late night storm, an estimated 10,000 people were rushed to hospitals with severe asthma attacks. With thousands of calls on emergency lines, ambulances and emergency departments were unprepared to handle the rapid increase in people needing urgent medical care. Tragically, ten of those people died.

This was the most catastrophic thunderstorm asthma event in recorded history and the first time deaths have ever occurred anywhere in the world.

In response, the Victorian Department of Health implemented initiatives, including public awareness campaigns and improvements to health and emergency services, to be ready for future thunderstorm asthma events.

A network of pollen monitoring stations was also set up across the state to gather data that helps to predict future events.

A problem for decades

While this event was unexpected, it wasn’t the first time we’d had thunderstorm asthma in Australia – we’ve actually known about it for decades.

Melbourne reported its first instance of thunderstorm asthma back in 1984, only a year after this phenomenon was first discovered in Birmingham in the United Kingdom.

Thunderstorm asthma has since been reported in other parts of Australia, including Canberra and New South Wales. But it is still most common in Melbourne. Compared to any other city (or country) the gap is significant: over a quarter of all known events worldwide have occurred in Melbourne.

Why Melbourne?

Melbourne’s location makes it a hotspot for these kinds of events. Winds coming from the north of Melbourne tend to be dry and hot as they come from deserts in the centre of Australia, while winds from the south are cooler as they come from the ocean.

When hot and cool air mix above Melbourne, it creates the perfect conditions for thunderstorms to form.

Northern winds also blow a lot of pollen from farmlands into the city, in particular grass pollen. This is not only the most common cause of seasonal hay fever in Melbourne but also a major trigger of thunderstorm asthma.

Why grass pollen?

There’s a particular reason grass pollen is the main culprit behind thunderstorm asthma in Australia. During storms there is a lot of moisture in the air. Grass pollen will absorb this moisture, making it swell up like a water balloon.

If pollen absorbs too much water whilst airborne, it can burst or “rupture,” releasing hundreds of microscopic particles into the air that can be swept by powerful winds.

Normally, when you breathe in pollen it gets stuck in your upper airway – for example, your nose and throat. This is what causes typical hay fever symptoms such as sneezing or runny nose.

But the microscopic particles released from ruptured grass pollen are much smaller and don’t get stuck as easily in the upper airway. Instead, they can travel deep into your airways until they reach your lungs. This may trigger more severe symptoms, such as wheezing or difficulty breathing, even in people with no prior history of asthma.

So who is at risk?

You might think asthma is the biggest risk factor for thunderstorm asthma. In fact, the biggest risk factor is hay fever.

Up to 99% of patients who went to the emergency department during the Melbourne 2016 event had hay fever, while a majority (60%) had no prior diagnosis of asthma.

Every single person hospitalised was allergic to at least one type of grass pollen. All had a sensitivity to ryegrass.

Is thunderstorm asthma becoming more common?

Thunderstorm asthma events are rare, with just 26 events officially recorded worldwide.

However there is evidence these events could become more frequent and severe in coming years, due to climate change. Higher temperatures and pollution could be making plants produce more pollen and pollen seasons last much longer.

Extreme weather events, including thunderstorms, are also expected to become more common and severe.

In addition, there are signs rates that hay fever may be increasing. The number of Australians reporting allergy symptoms have risen from 15% in 2008 to 24% in 2022. Similar trends in other countries has been linked to climate change.

Read more:
Why do I have hay fever? I didn’t have it as a child

How can I prepare?

Here are three ways you can reduce your risk of thunderstorm asthma:

• stock up on allergy medication and set up an asthma action plan with your GP

• check daily pollen forecasts for the estimated pollen level and risk of a thunderstorm asthma event in your local area

• on days with high pollen or a high risk of thunderstorm asthma, spend less time outside or wear a surgical face mask to reduce your symptoms.

Kira Morgan Hughes works as a Site Manager for Deakin AIRwatch & Melbourne Pollen.

– ref. Is thunderstorm asthma becoming more common? – https://theconversation.com/is-thunderstorm-asthma-becoming-more-common-243929

Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Yassie Samie, Postdoctoral Researcher in Fashion and Textiles, RMIT University

What happens to your clothes after you don’t want them any more? Chances are, you will donate them to op shops run by a charity organisation.

There are more and more clothes in circulation, and they are getting cheaper and lower quality. That means the clothes you give away are worth less and less. For charities, this means donated clothes are less gift, more rubbish.

Our new research explores what happens to clothes and other textiles after we don’t want them across nine cities in Europe, North America and Australia. The pattern was the same in most cities. The sheer volume is overwhelming many shops. In Geneva, donations to charity shops have surged 1,200% in three decades, from 250  tonnes in 1990 to 3,000  tonnes in 2021. Worldwide, we now dump 92 million tonnes of clothes and textiles a year, double the figure of 20 years earlier.

There’s less and less value in managing these clothes locally. As a result, charities are forced to send more clothes to landfill – or sell bale after bale of clothing to resellers, who ship them to nations in the Global South.

Local governments usually handle other waste streams. But on clothes and textiles, they often leave it to charitable organisations and commercial resellers. This system is inherited from a time when used clothing was a more valuable resource, but the rising quantity of clothing has pushed this system towards collapse.

From January, all EU states have to begin rolling out collection services for used textiles. But in Australia and the United States there are no moves to do the same – even though these two countries consume the most textiles per capita in the world. As we work towards creating circular economies, where products are continually reused, this will have to change.

Textile waste is a new problem

Historically, textiles were hard to make and hence valuable. They were used for as long as possible and reused as rags or other purposes before becoming waste. These natural fibres would biodegrade or be burned for energy.

But synthetic fibres and chemical finishings have made more and more clothes unable to biodegrade. Fast fashion – in which high fashion trends are copied and sold at low cost – is only possible because of synthetic fibers such as polyester.

These clothes are often worn for a brief period and then given or thrown away.

What happens to this waste? To find out, we looked at textile waste in Amsterdam, Austin, Berlin, Geneva, Luxembourg, Manchester, Melbourne, Oslo and Toronto. In eight of these cities, charities and commercial resellers dealt with the lion’s share of clothing waste. But in Amsterdam, local governments manage the problem.

Across the nine cities, most donated clothes go not to charity shops shelves but to export. In Oslo, 97% of clothes are exported.

The flood of clothes is producing strange outcomes in some places. In Melbourne, charities are now exporting higher quality secondhand clothes to Europe. But we found this forces independent secondhand clothing outlets to import similar clothes back from Europe or the US.

Charity organisations usually export the clothes across the Global South. But shipping container loads of secondhand clothes and textiles can do real damage environmentally. Clothing that can’t be sold becomes waste. In Ghana, there are now 20-metre-high hills made of clothing waste. Synthetic clothes clog up rivers, trap animals and spread plastics as they break apart. This practice has been dubbed “waste colonialism”.

Uganda has recently banned imports. The secondhand clothing export industry provides work, but its social and environmental impacts have been devastating.

What should we do?

At present, charities and resellers are struggling with managing the rising volume of donations, but they have little room to change. Exporting excess clothing is getting less profitable, but moving to local sorting and resale would be even less so due to higher costs and too many clothes collected relative to demand for secondhand items.

These clothes are disposed of by consumers who live in cities in wealthier countries. The actions city leaders take can reduce the problem globally, such as encouraging residents to buy fewer new clothes and boosting local reuse, repair and recycling efforts.

We are already seeing seeing grassroots initiatives emerging in all nine studied cities promoting local reuse and repair, with some receiving government support and others operating independently.

To make real change, municipal governments will have to take on a larger role. At present, municipal governments in most of the cities we studied have limited roles, ranging from sending clothing waste to landfill to sharing data on clothing recycling bins, letting charities and resellers set up collection points and supporting repair and swapping.

Here are three ways local governments could take the lead:

1. Curb overconsumption

Dealing with waste is a major role for municipal governments, and comes with major costs. To reduce clothing waste, cities could launch campaigns against overconsumption by focusing on the environmental damage done by fast fashion – or even banning ads for clothing retailers in city centres.

2. Boost reuse

Local governments could stop charging charities for the right to collect clothing and instead offer compensation for every kilo of collected textiles to help replace the money they get from sending clothing bales to resellers for export. Cities can also train and support circular economy practitioners, such as those involved in repair and upcycling.

3. Reduce exports of clothing waste

City leaders could reduce textile exports by recognising them as a waste stream and including textiles in their waste management planning.

One thing is certain – if we keep going as we are, flows of clothing waste will only grow, leading to more waste locally – and greatly increase the waste problem overseas.

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. Overwhelmed by ever more clothing donations, charities are exporting the problem. Local governments must step up – https://theconversation.com/overwhelmed-by-ever-more-clothing-donations-charities-are-exporting-the-problem-local-governments-must-step-up-243709

Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By John Quiggin, Professor, School of Economics, The University of Queensland

Prime Minister Anthony Albanese didn’t see this coming. At the global COP29 climate talks in Baku, the Australian government was indirectly criticised by two allies, the United States and the United Kingdom, over its refusal to sign onto the goal of tripling nuclear power globally by 2050.

The UK’s original press release said Australia was “expected” to sign on to the nuclear push, under the umbrella of a long-running nuclear research pact known as the Gen IV Forum. Australia signed up to this pact in 2016, under a previous government, and in 2021 signed onto the AUKUS security pact to procure nuclear submarines from the US. This is perhaps why UK leaders assumed Australia would back the broader push to promote nuclear power around the world.

Not so. While Australia has signed up for nuclear submarines, it has not made any effort to adopt nuclear power. But nuclear power is shaping up as a major election issue, with the Coalition pushing for Australia to go nuclear and Labor pointing out the improbable economics of nuclear in a sun and wind rich country.

“As Australia does not have a nuclear energy industry, and nuclear power [is] illegal domestically, we will not be signing up to this agreement,” a government spokesperson said.

What exactly is this nuclear initiative?

The US and UK initiative announced at Baku is intended to supersede the Generation IV Forum set up in 2001 to produce designs for fourth-generation nuclear reactors and eventually replace the Gen III designs currently running in many countries. More than 20 years later, there is only one prototype Gen IV reactor, which began operating in China this year. Plans for a larger successor appear to have been shelved for the moment.

The US and UK have had nuclear power since the late 1950s. But the goal of tripling nuclear capacity in 25 years is wildly unrealistic, certainly as far as the US and UK are concerned.

In 2023, about 9% of the world’s electricity came from the roughly 400 nuclear reactors producing power. In recent years, nuclear growth has been concentrated in Asia – especially China, which has 30 reactors under construction – followed by Russia and Eastern Europe. Tripling the world’s nuclear power output would be a herculean feat.

Since the US completed the Vogtle plant in 2023, years behind schedule and billions over budget, there have been no commercial nuclear plants under construction in the country. A handful of proposals approved during the much-touted “nuclear renaissance” of the early 2000s could in theory be commenced, but there is no sign of that happening. The idea of building any substantial number of plants by the mid 2030s, as is proposed in the US strategy, is a fantasy.

The UK has two nuclear reactors under construction at Hinkley Point, both massively overdue and over-budget. A number of other projects announced in the early 2000s have been abandoned, leaving only the Sizewell C plant, a 3.2-gigawatt power station proposed in England.

Sizewell C was officially approved in November 2022 but financing has proved problematic. The UK government has repeatedly deferred a final decision, currently planned for early next year. Assuming a positive outcome, Sizewell C might be in operation by 2035. After that, there are no large-scale plants in the pipeline.

With no large-scale nuclear on the horizon, attention has switched to the idea of “small modular reactors”, ranging from 70 to 300MW in size. This category includes truly modular designs, built in a factory and shipped to the construction site, as well as cut-down versions of existing large reactors. A notable example is the Westinghouse AP300, which is based on the AP1000 used at Vogtle.

Although no SMRs have yet been constructed (or perhaps precisely because there have been no real-world tests of ambitious claims), advocates suggest they can be constructed in five to seven years at a lower cost per megawatt than existing large models. But in Australia, CSIRO modelling suggests power from SMRs will actually be more expensive than large nuclear – which is much more expensive than renewables firmed with storage and transmission.

There has been a recent burst of enthusiasm for the idea of using SMRs to power data centres for cloud and AI systems.

But a closer look suggests caution. Big tech giants such as Amazon, Google and Microsoft have announced plans for delivery in the early 2030s, but in each case, the proposed capacity is 1GW or less.

As a result, it’s highly unlikely they will amount to more than 5GW of new capacity over five years.

By contrast, renewables are only gaining strength. In the second half of 2024 alone, the US is expected to install more than 40 GW of utility-scale capacity, including 10GW of battery storage. China is installing renewables at truly prodigious rates, with around 330 GW installed or under way.

Doesn’t the AUKUS deal pave the way to nuclear power?

Many commentators have this week drawn a line between this nuclear announcement and AUKUS. But this contradicts previous assurances that the submarine deal was not linked to the legalisation of nuclear energy

When the nuclear submarine pact was first announced, even strong nuclear advocates moved to distinguish between nuclear subs and nuclear plants. As Liberal-National MP Ted O’Brien said in 2021, the AUKUS deal was not related to nuclear power:

They are two entirely different offerings. The nuclear-propelled submarines do not require a change in Australian law. So legally they are completely different issues for the parliament to deal with. There is no moratorium that needs to be lifted

The US and UK proposal to triple nuclear power involves a large amount of wishful thinking and very little reality.

But that doesn’t help the Albanese government much. Opposition Leader Peter Dutton, whose party now has a platform of creating a domestic nuclear power industry in Australia, can fairly claim that his ideas are consistent with the announced positions of our AUKUS allies.

The government is also open to attack from the Greens and other critics of AUKUS. With a recently announced decision to store AUKUS-related nuclear waste at submarine shipyards, it’s becoming increasingly arguable that, contrary to earlier assurances, participation in AUKUS will lock Australia into the full nuclear fuel cycle, potentially including reprocessing and nuclear energy generation.

Then there’s the Trump factor. Donald Trump’s return as US President could render all these calculations irrelevant. Although Trump is strongly pro-nuclear in his rhetoric, he is likely to abandon the green industrial policy of Biden’s Inflation Reduction Act which provides US government support for nuclear power. And, if the AUKUS deal begins to look troublesome, he will have no hesitation in repudiating it or demanding a renegotiation on unfavourable terms.

John Quiggin 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. Friendly fire: a nuclear push by allies at COP29 poses a sticky problem for Albanese – https://theconversation.com/friendly-fire-a-nuclear-push-by-allies-at-cop29-poses-a-sticky-problem-for-albanese-244153

Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Phoebe Hart, Associate Professor, Film Screen & Animation, Queensland University of Technology

Stan’s new Christmas film Nugget is Dead is a colourful production that follows the rules of the seasonal genre film to a tee – with an Aussie twist and a dash of queer multiculturalism thrown in for good measure.

Most screenwriters refer to the Hallmark Channel as the generic yardstick of Christmas films. The US cable network pumps out dozens of tinsel-tinged offerings each year.

But what exactly are the rules of a Christmas movie? And how does Nugget is Dead fit in with the rest?

A cast stuffed with homegrown talent

Christmas movie screenwriting blogger and podcaster Caryn McCann has laid out the steps of the Christmas film formula, which can be applied to the case in point.

Step 1: choose a cute regional location situated a good distance from the big smoke. Christmas in Australia is, of course, in summer, so no snow-covered Midwest town for us. Instead, what better than an unnamed seaside location reminiscent of a less desirable version of Home and Away’s Summer Bay?

Step 2: find a key character who’s down on love. Enter struggling bisexual registrar Steph Stool (played by Vic Zerbst, who also cowrote the film). Steph’s swanky millennial boyfriend (Alec Snow) has it all, including a double-barrelled surname and an overbearing mum (Tara Morice) from Sydney’s North Shore. But their relationship is floundering at this crucial time of year.

Steph’s zany family, on the other hand, are on the more bogan end of the Australian social order. Notable mention goes to Steph’s OTT (over-the-top), recently separated parents, Jodie and John Stool (Gia Carides and Damien Garvey).

Meanwhile, cowriter Jenna Owen hurls herself into the fun role of ditzy eshay cousin Shayla, who probably gets the most laughs as a foil to Zerbst’s uptight Steph.

The film mostly plays out in the Stool brood’s hometown, but crosscuts to Steph’s boyfriend’s affluent family’s celebrations.

Comedy doubling as class commentary

When Steph is called back home to attend to her dying dog, the titular Nugget, she encounters Step 3: the love interest. In this case, the attractive distraction appears in the form of her poor pooch’s new vet, Ella Lander (Priscilla Doueihy), who quickly becomes enmeshed in the Stool way of life.

Steps 4 and 5 of the form involve the careful balancing of cheerful Christmas traditions alongside drama aplenty. True to form, Nugget is Dead has more than enough fruity pavlova, Christmas crackers and sizzling snags on the barbie.

These elements serve as a vital backdrops to several hectic – and silly – family barneys. I tip my festive headwear to emerging director Imogen McCluskey and director of photography Kate Cornish for capably managing dialogue-heavy scenes that include a large ensemble cast.

The humour in these sections comes from mix of comedic voices, as well as by contrasting ocker “realness” (and groan-worthy dad jokes) with urban upper-middle-class vapidity.

Out with the old

The final steps of the Christmas movie formula come down to the hero, heroine or non-binary protagonist embracing the true spirit of the holiday season – and restoring his, her or their reliance on romance and family values. On this front, Nugget is Dead does not deviate.

The film has an endearing core message about being accepting of poeple’s differences, which helps to extend it away from the genre’s norm.

In an Australian context, the film dabbles in the dreaded cultural cringe. I wasn’t sure if this was a deliberate wink to those in the know, or the result of trying to write for a wider audience and becoming a bit reductive in the process.

Nugget is Dead demonstrates the many ways in which our Christmas customs are becoming less white-bread and heteronormative.

Nugget is Dead is streaming on Stan from November 21.

Phoebe Hart 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. Nugget Is Dead brings queer love, multiculturalism and Aussie flair to the Christmas movie formula – https://theconversation.com/nugget-is-dead-brings-queer-love-multiculturalism-and-aussie-flair-to-the-christmas-movie-formula-243696

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

The Albanese government has rewritten the mandate of the Future Fund – the nation’s sovereign wealth fund – to urge it to direct investment into the “national priorities” of housing, the energy transition and infrastructure, where the risk and returns are acceptable.

Treasurer Jim Chalmers and Finance Minister Katy Gallagher said a new “investment mandate” and “statement of expectations” would modernise, refresh and renew the fund so it played “an enduring and prominent role” in the economy.

The ministers said the Australian economy faced big structural shifts coming from the global net zero transformation as well as technological and demographic changes and global fragmentation.

The $230 billion fund, which is independent in its investment decisions, is headed by former Labor minister Greg Combet.

The new investment mandate “will require the fund to consider Australia’s national priorities in its investment decisions, where possible, appropriate and consistent with strong returns”.

These priorities are:

• boosting the housing supply

• supporting Australia’s energy transition

• delivering improved infrastructure including economic resilience and security infrastructure

The government stresses the new mandate does not mean the fund would be making riskier or less profitable investments.

To provide certainty to the fund, the government says it would not start any draw-dwns until at least 2032-33. By then, the fund is expected to reach a worth of $380 billion, from its present $230 billion.

“The government remains committed to the Fund’s independence and commercial focus,” the ministers said.

“Its primary objective will continue to be to maximise returns, the benchmark return rate will remain at between 4% and 5% above CPI per annum over the long term, and there will be no change to the expected risk profile.

“The Fund will provide the same strong returns to the government’s balance sheet while supporting national priorities where it can.”

No legislation is needed for the changes.

The Future Fund said in a statement that the government’s announcement was an endorsement of its work over 18 years to deliver a “demanding investment mandate of CPI+ 4-5% a year over the long term”.

It said delivering this investment target remained the fund’s focus under the new investment mandate. The fund’s Board of Guardians “will continue to make investment decisions independent of the government with the priority of generating commercial returns”.

The fund said the priorities it had now been given aligned with its thinking.

It also noted various investments it presently has in infrastructure and the energy transition. It plans to appoint an executive director, energy transition, to help with efforts in this area.

Social media age ban: companies face fines up to $50 million

The government on Thursday will introduce its legislation to ban minors under 16 from accessing social media, with companies facing fines of up to $50 million for breaches.

Under the legislation, the onus will be on the plaforms, not the parents or children, who will not face penalties.

The penalties of up to $50 million will be for companies that systematically breach the law as well as for violations of enforceable industry codes and standards.

The bill also allows the minister to exclude specific classes of services that support the health and benefit of children.

It contains privacy provisions including that platforms ring-fence and destroy any information collected.

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. Australia’s $230 billion Future Fund encouraged to invest in housing, energy transition, infrastructure – https://theconversation.com/australias-230-billion-future-fund-encouraged-to-invest-in-housing-energy-transition-infrastructure-244169

Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Ian Musgrave, Senior lecturer in Pharmacology, University of Adelaide

Two Australian teenagers are severely ill in hospital in Thailand after experiencing suspected methanol poisoning while they were travelling in Laos.

The pair are reportedly among several foreign nationals to become ill after unknowingly consuming alcoholic drinks containing methanol in the south-east Asian country.

So what is methanol, and how does it make people sick?

Methanol versus ethanol

Methanol is an alcohol, like the familiar ethanol we consume in alcoholic beverages.

Like ethanol, methanol is a colourless, flammable liquid. It has a smell similar to ethanol as well.

But the two have different chemical structures. Methanol is composed of only one carbon atom, while ethanol has two.

That one carbon atom makes all the difference. It means methanol is processed differently in our bodies and is much more toxic than ethanol.

Methanol is used in a variety of industrial and household products, such as windshield cleaning fluids, antifreeze and fuel. It’s not safe for human consumption.

What makes methanol toxic?

The difference is in how methanol is metabolised, or broken down in our bodies.

Ethanol is metabolised into a chemical compound called acetaldehyde. Acetaldehyde is toxic, but is rapidly converted to acetate (also known as acetic acid, found in vinegar). Generating an acid may sound bad, but acetate actually produces energy and makes important molecules in the body.

By contrast, methanol is metabolised into formaldehyde (a chemical used in industrial glues and for embalming corpses, for example) and then to formic acid (the chemical in some ant bites that makes them hurt so much).

Unlike acetate, which the body uses, formic acid poisons the mitochondria, the powerhouses of the cells.

As a result, a person exposed to methanol can go into severe metabolic acidosis, which is when too much acid builds up in the body.

Methanol poisoning can cause nausea, vomiting, and abdominal pain. The acidosis then causes depression of the central nervous system which can cause people with methanol poisoning to fall unconscious and go into a coma, as well as retinal damage leading to vision loss. This is because the retinas are full of active mitochondria and sensitive to them being damaged.

Death is not inevitable if only a small amount of methanol has been consumed, and rapid treatment will greatly reduce damage.

However, permanent vision damage can occur even at non-lethal doses if treatment is not administered quickly.

What does treatment involve?

Treatment is mainly supportive care, such as intubation and mechanical ventilation to help the patient to breathe.

But it can also involve drugs such as fomepizole (which inhibits the generation of toxic formic acid) and dialysis to remove methanol and its metabolites from the body.

How does methanol get into alcoholic drinks?

Methanol can turn up in any alcoholic beverage, but it’s most likely in beverages with higher alcohol content, such as spirits, and traditionally brewed drinks, such as fruit wines.

Methanol can get into alcoholic beverages in a number of ways. Sometimes it’s added deliberately and illegally during or after manufacturing as a cheaper way to increase the alcohol content in a drink.

Traditional brewing methods can also inadvertently generate methanol as well as ethanol and produce toxic levels of methanol depending on the microbes and the types of plant materials used in the fermentation process.

We don’t yet know how the Australian teenagers came to be poisoned in this tragedy. But it is a good idea when travelling (particularly in areas with traditionally fremented drinks, such as south-east Asia, the Indian subcontinent and parts of Africa) to always be careful.

The Australian government’s Smartraveller website advises that to avoid methanol poisoning you should be careful drinking cocktails and drinks made with spirits, drink only at reputable licensed premises and avoid home-made alcoholic drinks.

Drinking only mass-produced commercial brews can be safer, though understandably people often want to try locally made drinks as part of their adventure.

Ian Musgrave has received funding from the National Health and Medical Research Council to study adverse reactions to herbal medicines and has previously been funded by the Australian Research Council to study potential natural product treatments for Alzheimer’s disease. He has collaborated with SA Water on studies of cyanobacterial toxins and their implication for drinking water quality.

– ref. What is methanol? How does it get into drinks and cause harm? – https://theconversation.com/what-is-methanol-how-does-it-get-into-drinks-and-cause-harm-244151

Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By John Hawkins, Senior Lecturer, Canberra School of Politics, Economics and Society, University of Canberra

The Northern Territory and Australian Capital Territory have won bragging rights for having the fastest growing economies within Australia.

Their growth was highlighted in annual data on gross state product, released by the Australian Bureau of Statistics on Wednesday.

The ABS defines GSP as the total market value of goods and services produced in a state or territory after the costs of goods and services used in production are deducted.

It is the state and territory equivalent of gross domestic product.

Unsurprisingly, New South Wales and Victoria, the most populous states, have the largest GSP. They account for 31% and 23% of our national economy.

But the Australian Capital Territory, with a population of 473,000, has a larger GSP than Tasmania despite the Apple Isle’s bigger population of 576,000.

Where the growth occurred

The fastest growing economy in 2023-2024 was the NT, which expanded by 4.6% followed by the ACT, whose GSP was up by 4.0%. These figures, given in real terms, exclude the impact of inflation. Unlike many recent years, the figures are not distorted by the impact of the COVID lockdowns.

The ABS attributes the NT’s strong growth in 2023-24 to

a bounce back in mining production which was hampered by maintenance work and plant shutdowns in 2022-23.

The ACT economy was boosted by “the expansion of government agencies”.

The bronze medal went to Queensland, but it was well behind the territories. Its economy grew by 2.1%, helped by increased coal production.

The laggard was Western Australia, whose economy grew by only 0.5%. Mining and oil and gas production fell due to weather disruptions.

Tasmania’s economy expanded by the national average of 1.4%. But given population growth has been much less there, Tasmania was the only state (along with the territories) whose economy expanded in per person terms.

The recession-proof economy?

Collection of the GSP data started in 1989-1990. Since then the fastest average growth has been recorded by Queensland and the ACT, an annual average of 3.6%.

Last year, the ACT could claim the unique status of being the only state or territory never to have economic activity contract in any of these years. The statisticians have now revised the 1995-96 number (the year the Howard government came in with plans to cut the public service) to a minuscule -0.1% contraction.

But it is still the case that being more services-based makes the ACT economy less volatile.

Growth is down but WA still the wealthiest

The state with the highest level of real GSP per person is Western Australia. It has led in every year the data have been compiled. Real GSP per person has been lowest every year in Tasmania.

WA’s GSP per person is more than double that in Tasmania. This means WA has GSP per person higher than global leaders such as Norway and Switzerland.

Tasmania’s is more like that in Poland. To put it another way, the real GSP per person in Tasmania is only now where the rest of Australia was in 1999.

What causes the differences?

One important cause of these differences is the different structure of industry in the various states.

WA (and the Northern Territory) benefits from its mineral resources. Mining accounts for almost half of WA’s income. Mining is no longer the labour intensive activity it was when men were swinging a pick “down the pit”. It now takes few people to generate a lot of mining revenue.

Tasmania has the smallest proportion of its population working (58% compared to a national average of 64%). One reason is that more than a fifth of Tasmanians are aged over 65. This is the highest proportion of any state.

Furthermore, only a quarter of Tasmanians hold a university degree compared to almost half of Canberrans.

These data on economic performance do not mean the quality of life or wellbeing is lower in Tasmania.

GSP does not reflect factors like the world’s cleanest air being found in Tasmania, for example.

John Hawkins is a former senior economist with the Australian Treasury. He lives in the ACT.

– ref. The NT and ACT might have small populations but their economies are growing faster than the bigger states – https://theconversation.com/the-nt-and-act-might-have-small-populations-but-their-economies-are-growing-faster-than-the-bigger-states-243897

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

Next month’s federal budget update is expected to revise down company tax receipts for the first time since 2020, amid continued low economic growth in the near term.

In his Wednesday ministerial statement on the economy, the forecasts remained subdued but Treasurer Jim Chalmers emphasised the upside.

Chalmers said any growth was welcome, given many countries’ economies have gone backwards. Treasury was expecting a gradual recovery “driven by rising real incomes thanks to our cost-of-living relief, jobs growth and progress bringing inflation down,” he said.

Consumer confidence was already showing a modest recovery and households were feeling more confident about the next year, Chalmers said.

“This is the soft landing we have been planning for and preparing for,” he said. “Inflation coming back to band, an economy still growing and unemployment with a 4 in front of it.”

Chalmers said while there was still data to come, including on the national accounts and tax collection, before the December budget update (titled the Mid-Year Economic and Fiscal Outlook), the Treasury’s current estimate was that any revenue upgrade would be a “sliver” of Labor’s earlier budget updates.

In each of Labor’s earlier budget updates, revenue upgrades averaged $80 billion.

But this trend is diminishing with the labour market softening, and problems in the Chinese economy hitting commodity prices. Iron ore prices are down more than 30% since the start of the year.

Treasury’s latest inflation forecasts are generally in line with the May budget.

“Treasury expected inflation to be back in the [Reserve Bank’s target band of 2–3%] by the end of this year, and that’s what happened,” Chalmers said.

He said government spending wasn’t the main driver of prices and the government’s budget surpluses were assisting the fight against inflation – “points Governor Bullock has repeatedly made”.

With wages growing and inflation falling, “real wages are growing again. They were going backwards by 3.4% when we came to office,” Chalmers said.

“Real wages grew by 0.7% in the year to September – the largest annual increase in over four years, and there’s now been four consecutive quarters of real wages growth.

“The average full-time worker is now earning $159 more per week since we came to office. For women it’s $173 per week more. Since we came to government, wages in industries dominated by women have risen by more than 8%,” Chalmers said.

In his reply, Shadow Treasurer Angus Taylor said there was “nothing soft” about the landing.

He said prices were still rising, and “there is nothing soft about the pain Australians are feeling”.

“On nearly every metric, Australians are not better off than they were almost three years ago,” Taylor said.

Labor had added $315 billion of spending, boosting inflation. “That is $30,000 per household of extra spending,” he said. “The RBA has said extra government spending is making their job harder.”

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. Budget update will revise down company tax receipts but treasurer Chalmers welcomes economy’s ‘soft landing’ – https://theconversation.com/budget-update-will-revise-down-company-tax-receipts-but-treasurer-chalmers-welcomes-economys-soft-landing-244160

Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Jessica Ison, Senior Lecturer and Deputy Director, Reducing Gender-Based Violence Research Group, La Trobe University, La Trobe University

Schoolies season is here – and with it, warnings about staying safe while partying. For girls and women, this often means being told to watch their drinks while out at a bar or club to avoid them being spiked.

We tend to imagine drink spiking as a male stranger adding drugs to a woman’s drink at a bar without her knowing, usually with the aim of sexually assaulting her.

This is certainly a risk. But the full picture of drink spiking is more complex and can involve intimate partners, at home, as the recent horrific case of Gisèle Pelicot in France has made clear.

Yet public messaging about drink spiking continues to focus on what women should “watch out for”. Our research shows this makes them entirely responsible for their own safety, reinforcing blame and shame if it happens. It also erases perpetrators – and why they do it – from the story.

What do we know about drink spiking?

We recently reviewed the global literature on sexual violence facilitated by alcohol and other drugs.

We looked at 53 studies – mostly involving US university students – and found there was inconsistent data about how common it was. Most studies focused on victim-survivors with limited attention paid to perpetration.

But we found in most cases, the perpetrator was male and knew the victim-survivor.

The most common substance used to “spike” drinks is alcohol. For example, the perpetrator might buy double shots instead of single ones, without the victim-survivor knowing.

Sexual violence facilitated by drugs and alcohol was most likely to happen in a private residence, not a public venue. That could be at a house party or after a date or party, when the victim-survivor may already be intoxicated and the perpetrator gets them alone.

In some cases the perpetrator has a premeditated plan. This is known as “proactive” drug and alcohol facilitated violence, and is what most people imagine when we talk about drink spiking.

But sexual violence facilitated by drugs and alcohol is often opportunistic. This means exploiting someone’s impairment and inability to consent, for example if they are already very drunk.

‘It’s not us who should feel shame’

In interviews we did with eight victim-survivors across Victoria, those who were sexually assaulted talked about the shame they experience and how this impacts them.

Some of those we spoke to were actually able to get to safety after becoming incapacitated. While they weren’t sexually assaulted, they told us the spiking itself had a significant impact on their lives, including difficulty leaving the house.

In Pelicot’s case, her husband is on trial along with dozens of men who he allegedly invited to rape while she was drugged without her knowing. (He has pleaded guilty but some of the men have denied the charges.) While this is an extreme example, her story shows how sexual violence facilitated by drugs can be used in intimate partner abuse.

Importantly, Pelicot’s bravery, in deciding for the trial to be public, has highlighted the need to foreground the perpetrator’s actions, rather than the victim-survivors. She has said, “It’s not us who should feel shame, it’s them”.

Women forced to do the work to stay safe

Yet perpetrators are rarely talked about with drink spiking. Instead, the focus is on what women should do to stay safe.

They are often forced to think about their actions when in public, constantly engaging in “safety work”. This may include being hyper-vigilant of their drinks and surroundings or sharing their location with friends.

As our research shows, this is partly in response to media reporting, which often blames victims – for example, highlighting whether they were drunk. This reinforces rape myths that suggest women are to blame for the violence done to them.

Even listing what women should do to keep themselves safe (or promoting drug-detecting gadgets) can perpetuate this.

As our research shows, we need to change misconceptions around drink spiking, and alcohol and other drug facilitated sexual violence more broadly.

This includes shifting the focus to a culture of men’s entitlement and power, as well as addressing harmful alcohol cultures.

What to do if you suspect someone’s drink has been spiked

We don’t adhere to narratives that simply tell women to “keep themselves safe”. But we know women are nevertheless doing this safety work, particularly at events such as schoolies.

It’s important to know how to support people who may have had their drink spiked. We’ve developed a resource for bar staff to help patrons to get home safely.

It encourages them to identify the risks, such as the most common perpetrator being a friend or date. And it involves believing and listening to the victim and responding to their needs. This could include helping arrange safe transport home or calling an ambulance if necessary.

This information may also be useful for friends and bystanders. But the real action needed is cultural change that challenges men’s sexual entitlement and encourages respect for women’s consent.

What else is needed?

Research has tended to focus on young heterosexual women who frequent bars and clubs. But we know this happens in other settings and to other groups, such as older people, in the LGBTQ+ community and between intimate partners.

We need nationwide data that listens to the experiences of victim-survivors and gives a broader understanding of who it affects.

The diversity of victim-survivors needs to be better researched. More difficult, but crucial, is to understand who perpetrates this violence and why.

Jessica Ison receives funding from the Crime Prevention Innovation Fund, Victorian Government.

This project was a collaboration between the La Trobe Rural Health School, the Judith Lumley Centre, The Centre for Alcohol and Policy Research, the Singapore Institute of Technology, the Centre Against Sexual Assault Central Victoria and the Bendigo Community Health Service.

Ingrid Wilson receives funding from the Crime Prevention Innovation Fund, Victorian Government. She also receives funding from the Singapore Institute of Technology Ignition Grant for research on transnational marriages and family violence in Singapore.

Leesa Hooker receives funding from the Crime Prevention Innovation Fund, Victorian Government.

– ref. Schoolies means more drink spiking warnings. Why is the burden still on women to stay safe? – https://theconversation.com/schoolies-means-more-drink-spiking-warnings-why-is-the-burden-still-on-women-to-stay-safe-243030

Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Ayesha Scott, Adjunct Senior Lecturer, AUT Business School, Auckland University of Technology and Senior Lecturer in Finance & Financial Planning, Griffith University

Economic harm – restricting access to, sabotaging or exploiting another person’s financial resources, and impeding their economic autonomy – is increasingly recognised as a form of family violence. And it can happen to anyone.

According to our ongoing research and previous studies, one in seven New Zealanders has experienced economic harm in their intimate relationships.

Like other forms of family violence, economic and financial harm affects victims’ physical and mental health, and increases housing instability and financial insecurity.

To understand how widespread economic harm is in New Zealand, we surveyed 993 people aged 18 and over. We asked if they had experienced a list of 19 harmful financial behaviours during the previous 12 months – and how often.

The prevalence of financial abuse

The vast majority of studies on wider intimate partner violence ask between three and five questions about money while measuring other types of violence. Instead, we focused only on capturing a wide range of financial behaviours and economic harm.

Examples of what we looked at included withholding financial information, using household money for other nonessential purchases, and intentionally paying bills late to hurt a partner’s credit rating.

Some behaviours were more prevalent than others. Across all 19 behaviours, an average of one in seven respondents (15.1%) reported experiencing a given behaviour at least half the time during their relationship in the preceding 12-months. One in seven said they had experienced at least ten of the behaviours.

While caution is needed when comparing different studies, our findings are similar to research in New Zealand and elsewhere, including from the United Kingdom.

Among the most prevalent behaviours experienced was action to “withhold or hide financial information or money from you” (17.6%). This was followed by “intentionally paying bills late or not paying bills that were in your name or in both your names” (17%).

Approximately one in five respondents reported their partner using their “money or household money for excessive gambling or alcohol/drug consumption”. A similar number said their partner used “online banking or banking apps (bank technology) to “pressure, coerce or threaten” them.

The use of online platforms such as banking apps and transactions as a tool to cause harm has led an increasing number of banks in New Zealand and Australia to explicitly name economic harm as inappropriate customer conduct in their terms and conditions.

The “historical” prevalence of economic harm (behaviours experienced in a previous relationship, more than 12 months ago) was much higher than that experienced by a current or former partner within the past 12 months.

We interpret this as evidence of money being a leading cause of relationship breakdown. This finding suggests individuals may be better able to identify their experience as abuse, or disclose harmful behaviours after the relationship has ended.

Invisible to outsiders

Economic harm rarely appears obvious to outsiders, and household income or individual earning power is not always indicative of access to financial resources. Unsafe and harmful behaviours hide behind cultural taboos around money.

Victims may also not immediately realise they are being harmed. They are unlikely to have the financial independence or agency to make decisions an outsider thinks they can or should.

Importantly, one in four survey respondents also reported knowing of someone they believed was being financially harmed. Given our general lack of understanding and awareness of economic harm, this finding offers hope.

Continual advocacy, backed by research and the many organisations and corporates working to improve knowledge and toolkits for survivors, will keep financial safety on the agenda.

As well as the often devastating personal experiences of financial harm, the cost to the broader economy is high. While figures are unclear for New Zealand, the economic impact on Australia in 2020 was estimated to be AUD$5.2 billion in lost productivity and mental health costs.

Changing the law

In the Asia-Pacific, the World Bank’s International Finance Corporation has launched the “Empower Finance” programme to help financial institutions identify and address financial harm across the region.

Family violence agencies, advocates, and financial organisations have called for New Zealand’s Family Violence Act to name economic harm as a standalone type of violence, rather than a subcategory of psychological abuse.

Such a move would bring New Zealand in line with the United Kingdom and Australia. In Queensland and New South Wales, non-physical patterns of abuse, such as economic harm, are criminalised under new coercive control laws.

While New Zealand waits for legislative change, everyone can work to understand the behaviours that cause economic harm. This can include breaking down the taboos around talking about money, particularly in relationships.

If you believe you or someone you care about is experiencing economic harm, you can find more information at Good Shepherd in NZ, and the Centre for Women’s Economic Safety in Australia.

For this project, Ayesha Scott received funding from Kantar NZ and collaborated with Good Shepherd NZ and BNZ.

– ref. Financial forms of family violence affect 1 in 7 New Zealanders – but the law is lagging – https://theconversation.com/financial-forms-of-family-violence-affect-1-in-7-new-zealanders-but-the-law-is-lagging-243466

Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Katharine Kemp, Associate Professor, Faculty of Law & Justice; Lead, UNSW Public Interest Law & Tech Initiative, UNSW Sydney

New research reveals serious privacy flaws in the data practices of new internet connected cars in Australia. It’s yet another reason why we need urgent reform of privacy laws.

Modern cars are increasingly equipped with internet-enabled features. Your “connected car” might automatically detect an accident and call emergency services, or send a notification if a child is left in the back seat.

But connected cars are also sophisticated surveillance devices. The data they collect can create a highly revealing picture of each driver. If this data is misused, it can result in privacy and security threats.

A report published today analysed the privacy terms from 15 of the most popular new car brands that sell connected cars in Australia.

This analysis uncovered concerning practices. There are enormous obstacles for consumers who want to find and understand the privacy terms. Some brands also make inaccurate claims that certain information is not “personal information”, implying the Privacy Act doesn’t apply to that data.

Some companies are also repurposing personal information for “marketing” or “research”, and sharing data with third parties.

What is a connected car? How does it transmit data?

Connected cars sold in Australia can transmit data about the car, its driver and passengers in real time via the internet. The data can go to the overseas vehicle manufacturer and other businesses.

Manufacturers often require the owner or driver to download and use an app to make use of various “connected services”.

Depending on the brand and model, these may include the ability to remotely:

• heat, cool, lock or unlock the car
• locate the parked car, including through remote use of headlights and horn
• check fuel level and tyre pressure, or
• use the car’s internal and external cameras to view its surroundings and interior.

The introduction of connected models in Australia has lagged behind the European Union and the United States. Some popular brands in Australia – for example, Subaru and Isuzu – still offer no connected models.

However, Austroads predicts that by 2031, 93% of new car sales in Australia will be connected cars.

Why do we need data privacy?

Personal information collected by your car can be misused in various ways. It could be disclosed to insurers or data brokers without your consent. It can facilitate crimes, including domestic violence, stalking and robbery.

Such data also presents the risk of unjustified police or government surveillance, and even national security risks.

In 2023, Mozilla Foundation researchers analysed connected car privacy terms in the United States, calling it a “privacy nightmare on wheels”. This was revealing, but not directly useful for Australian consumers.

This new report analyses the privacy terms of new connected cars sold by the 15 most popular car brands in Australia. The goal was to find out how car brands approach customer privacy and potential risks, and whether consumers can make decisions about their data privacy before buying the car.

To avoid comparing apples with oranges, this analysis only included brands that currently offer connected cars in Australia. “Unconnected” cars don’t offer consumers the same features via the internet (although they may still collect data to some extent, and can still present privacy risks).

Privacy terms aren’t easy to find

There are massive obstacles to consumers who want to read and understand the relevant privacy terms.

This includes brands referring consumers to multiple, lengthy documents. Consumers are directed to an average of three documents totalling around 14,000 words per brand to discover the applicable privacy terms.

There can also be further privacy notices in the vehicle, the user manual or the purchase contract.

Other hurdles for consumers included missing privacy terms, unhelpful interfaces, and significant errors in published privacy policies.

What counts as personal information?

Several major brands fail to recognise the full scope of personal information protected by the Privacy Act.

They claim, for example, that certain information “does not, on its own, personally identify” the consumer and they can use this for “any purpose”.

But this can, in fact, be personal information about a reasonably identifiable individual.

For example, on its own, a map of your precise location throughout the day may not identify you. But once matched with your home and work address, or location history on your mobile phone, it can be linked to you.

Using data for unrelated purposes

Given the intimate and often sensitive nature of the information, car companies should not use it for unrelated purposes without consent. Any consent to use it should be active, opt-in, express, unequivocal and fully informed.

However, most of the brands in our report say they will use the information collected from connected cars for undefined “marketing” or “research” purposes. In some cases they say they will use it for making predictions about the individual’s behaviour – all without requiring express consent.

Several of the brands also have broad data sharing arrangements with digital platforms, advertising technology companies, data brokers or artificial intelligence developers.

Most of the privacy terms also make vague references to providing personal information to insurance companies, without specifying limits on these disclosures to ensure insurance companies don’t repurpose this information against consumers’ interests.

Consumers in the US are suing General Motors for passing on driving data to insurers, which then increased their insurance premiums.

Privacy law reform is overdue

The Australian Privacy Act has been under review for several years.

To improve privacy protections in connected cars, we must update definitions of “personal information” and “consent”. We also need a “fair and reasonable” test for data practices. It’s not enough for consumers to technically consent to a practice, the practice itself should be fair when its consequences are fully understood.

The government’s current “first tranche” of proposed privacy law reform does not include these amendments.

In the meantime, the data practices surrounding connected cars need immediate attention and guidance from the privacy regulator.

Customers should be able to easily find and understand the privacy terms and choices of the cars they want to buy. Businesses should recognise the full extent of personal information collected by the car and adequately protect it.

Katharine Kemp is a member of the Expert Advisory Panel of the Consumer Policy Research Centre.

– ref. Modern cars are surveillance devices on wheels with major privacy risks – new report – https://theconversation.com/modern-cars-are-surveillance-devices-on-wheels-with-major-privacy-risks-new-report-241258

Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Leonora Risse, Associate Professor in Economics, University of Canberra

Australia’s gender pay gap has been shrinking year by year, but is still over 20% among Australia’s private companies, a new national report card shows.

But that gender gap is even bigger at 25% among chief executive officers, according to figures collected for the first time in 2023–24.

And the widest gap of all is among older workers, with women in their late 50s typically earning $53,000 less each year than men the same age.

The release of the scorecard coincides with the federal government announcing it will introduce legislation this week requiring employers to set gender targets for boards, for narrowing the pay gap and for providing flexible work hours.

These and other measures will apply to companies with 500 or more employees. They build on legislative changes that enables the Workplace Gender Equality Agency to publish the size of their gender pay gaps, which came into effect this year.

Tracking Australia’s gender pay gap

Each year, the gender equality agency measures the gender equality performance of all private sector employers with 100 or more employees. This adds up to more than 7,000 employers and 5 million employees nationally.

Drawing on data collected in the annual employer census, the agency looks at several key indicators including gender composition of the workforce, gender balance of boards and governing bodies and equal pay for equal work.

One important indicator is the gender gap in average total remuneration. This is calculated for all employees – full-time, part-time and casual – by converting employees’ pay into a full-time annualised equivalent.

The gap continued to shrink in the past year to 21.1%. This has been largely fuelled by growth in the pay of the lowest-earning women in the workforce.

This came about, in part, because in June 2023, the Fair Work Commission awarded a 15% minimum pay rise to several aged care awards, where women hold 80% of jobs. Raises were also given to the retail trade, accommodation and food services sectors, also large employers of women.

Another reason the gap narrowed was because the remuneration of women managers rose by 5.9% from 2022-2023, compared to men’s which increased by 4.4% over the same period.

A bigger gap among high earners

The increase was particularly significant for high earning women (up 6.3%) compared to high earning men (4.1%). However, men still outnumber women in management, holding 58% of positions.

For the first time in 2023-24, the agency collected CEO salaries. The gender gap in CEO total remuneration was 25%.

Just one in four CEOs are women, and the gender pay gap for these key roles is the largest of all management roles. Women CEOs are paid, on average, $158,632 less total remuneration than men.

When CEO salaries are added into the mix, the overall gender pay gap stretches to 21.8%.

Little change for women on boards

The gender agency knows that women’s representation on governing boards matters for steering organisational change towards gender equality, monitoring these changes on the scorecard.

However the overall percentage of women on boards has hardly budged in recent years, at around one-third.

And about one-quarter of companies have no women on their governing board at all. This share is even higher in male-dominated industries, such as construction where the boards of 55% of companies are all men.

Women in their late 50s face the biggest pay gap

In dollars, it means Australian women are earning, on average, $28,425 less each year than their male colleagues.

This gap widens further among older workers. At its widest point, women aged 55 to 59 years are earning $53,000 less each year than men – a gap of 32.6%.

One of the big drivers of this pay gap are gender patterns in different industries and occupations.

The gender agency’s scorecard shows that half of all private sector employees work in an industry that is either male-dominated or female-dominated, meaning its workforce least 60% of a single gender.

It’s been a longstanding feature of the workforce that male-dominated industries outstrip the average earnings are female-dominated industries of education and training, and health care and social assistance.

How supportive are employers?

The workplace gender agency also measures employers’ policies supporting work and family balance, such as flexible hours and extra paid parental leave on top of minimal government provisions.

The finding that more employers are offering paid parental leave, rising from 63% to 68% in the past year, is a tick on the scorecard.

Men’s involvement in caregiving has a direct impact, enabling women’s involvement in the workforce. The proportion of parental leave being taken by men is up from 14% to 17%.

These improvements are set to increase under the government’s new legislation.

Providing a safe workplace

The final indicator on the scorecard looks at employers’ actions to prevent and respond to sexual harassment and discrimination in their workplace, as required under new Respect@Work laws.

Almost all (99%) of employers report having a policy in place. But there is scope for improvement in other ways.

Almost half (40%) don’t monitor the outcomes of sexual harassment and discrimination complaints and half don’t review the policy and consult with employees. As well, about 25% don’t incorporate inclusive and respectful behaviour into regular performance evaluation.

How reporting can drive change

As with any report card, there are marks for effort.

In the last year, 75% of companies reported they had analysed their own organisation’s gender pay gap and had made changes. This was up from 60% the previous year.

The gender agency attributes this to the publication of individual organisation’s gender pay gaps for the first time earlier this year.

Almost half (45%) of employers are now setting goals to improve gender equality. This includes targets to boost the number of women in management, reduce the gender pay gap and to achieve a gender-balance in their governing body.

These higher aspirations are likely to also be a response to plans to make target-setting part of the requirements for bidding for government contracts.

These changes show how incentives can bring about improvements. They arose from the 2021 Review to the Workplace Gender Equality Act that used research-based insights, data and community consultation to develop practical steps to reduce the gap and improve conditions for women.

Leonora Risse receives research funding from the Trawalla Foundation and the Women’s Leadership Institute Australia. She has previously undertaken commissioned research for the Workplace Gender Equality Agency. She is a member of the Economic Society of Australia and the Women in Economics Network. She serves as an Expert Panel Member on gender pay equity for the Fair Work Commission.

– ref. Women are still being paid almost $30,000 a year less than men and the gap widens with age – https://theconversation.com/women-are-still-being-paid-almost-30-000-a-year-less-than-men-and-the-gap-widens-with-age-243941

Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Belinda Lunnay, Senior Research Fellow in Public Health, Torrens University Australia

Even before the COVID pandemic, which added significant pressure to the health-care workforce, Australian doctors experienced poor mental health at higher rates than the overall population.

The risk is particularly high for medical students, junior doctors and female doctors. A recent review of data from 20 countries found suicide was 76% more likely among female physicians compared to the general female population.

All this is a problem for the doctors themselves, and often for their loved ones. But it’s also a problem because we rely on doctors to provide high-quality health care for the population. If they’re burnt out, or experiencing anxiety, depression, or other mental health issues, this can affect their capacity to look after us.

Our new study published today in BMJ Open explores how doctors’ workplaces and working conditions affect their mental health.

What we did

We interviewed and then “work shadowed” 14 doctors while they were on shift in a public hospital in South Australia between June and October 2021. The doctors who took part were from varying cultural backgrounds, genders, sub-specialties, and at different stages of their careers (junior and senior).

We asked doctors about their roles, duties they perform, training requirements, and hospital regulations or standards that affect their experiences of their work.

We then watched the same doctors working at different times of the day, observing:

• features of their working environments (such as pace and demands)
• interpersonal relationships (team dynamics, mentoring, supervision, patient interactions)
• the types of pressures they contended with alongside delivering clinical care (patient loads, administrative tasks).

During the shadowing, we explored with doctors how their workplaces could better support their mental health.

Administrative burdens on top of patient care

Among several challenges participants reported in their day-to-day work, the burden of administrative processes (such as completing paperwork and gaining approvals required for referrals) was a particularly strong theme.

One doctor said “the hospital processes are more stressful than clinical scenarios”.

The administrative burden required on top of clinical care left doctors feeling disenfranchised and negatively affected their satisfaction with service delivery. One said:

If the [patient’s] outcome is poor because they’ve had a terrible accident or got a terrible illness, I can rationalise that. But if they’ve had a poor outcome because we’ve not been able to deliver them a good service that feels a lot worse.

Workforce and rostering shortages

Doctors also described under-staffing and fragmented teams, which often required them to absorb pressure to provide high-quality care. This, compounded by the effects of shift work, led to exhaustion and took a toll on their mental health.

Despite this, doctors described feeling unable to refuse shifts or take leave for fear of losing professional credibility among colleagues or with senior staff who might control future job opportunities. One participant said:

We just keep taking it, keep taking it, keep taking it […] until we can’t. And I think, particularly doctors who don’t want to be seen as causing trouble or rocking the boat […] or seen as weak. You don’t want to be the one to admit that actually, this is impossible for one person to do.

A combination of pressures

Doctors in our study were highly trained, motivated and proficient in providing clinical care relative to their career stage.

However, their medical practice occurred within work environments characterised by high patient loads, time constraints, geographical challenges (services dispersed across sites) and administrative burdens. As one participant explained:

I think that just bubbles over years and it just makes this horrible feeling of injustice. Which is why I think doctors just feel burnt out, tired, frustrated, because they’re trying to do the right thing, and they’re trying to be better, and the system just doesn’t allow it.

The combination of competing pressures often collided with ambitions of being “a good doctor”. As one junior doctor explained:

In addition to all that knowledge and actual competence that you need to have, it is so important to convey to others that you are this rational, measured human being who is there to get the job done in an efficient way, in the right way. You just have to step up to that role and fulfil all these different tasks, and different expectations within this one job.

What next?

Our study was conducted only in South Australia’s public hospital system, so our findings can’t be generalised to other hospitals or other health-care settings where doctors might work.

But to our knowledge, ours is the first study of doctors’ mental health where, alongside interviews, researchers entered participants’ workplaces to observe their working conditions. In this way, it provides unique insights on the organisation and system-level factors which influence doctors at all career stages.

Our findings indicate doctors’ working conditions can have a direct impact on their mental health.

Protecting doctors’ mental health often focuses on how individual doctors can build resilience and increase their capacity to manage stress, for example through employee assistance programs.

While these approaches are important, they place ultimate responsibility for mental health on the individual doctor. This will not be enough, because doctors’ working conditions are largely outside of their control.

Programs are also not always accessible, for example due to stigma, workplace and professional culture, concerns about confidentiality or perceived risks to registration.

Protecting doctors’ mental health will require system-level changes, including addressing workforce shortages and restructuring leave provisions so that staff feel able to take time off. These changes are a crucial starting point to better look after our doctors, so they can look after us.

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

Belinda Lunnay has previously received funding from the Women’s Health Research Translation Network via the MRFF, the Flinders Health and Medical Research Institute, College of Medicine and Public Health and the Flinders Foundation. She is affiliated with the Australian Health Promotion Association, Australia’s peak health promotion body as Board Director.

Kristen Foley has previously received a scholarship from the National Health and Medical Research Council, and research funding from the Flinders Medical Health Research Institute. She is a clinical council member for the Adelaide Primary Health Network.

Paul Ward 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. ‘Burnt out, tired, frustrated’: how hospital pressures harm doctors’ mental health – https://theconversation.com/burnt-out-tired-frustrated-how-hospital-pressures-harm-doctors-mental-health-243378

Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Amanda Keddie, Professor of Education, Deakin University

If parents have a choice, the decision about where to send a child to school and what will be best for them can be a really difficult one.

One question that comes up frequently in media reporting is whether single-sex or co-ed schools are better for students. There is ongoing debate about this for both private and public schools.

There has been community outcry over some schools’ plans to go co-ed. So it may surprise parents to know this isn’t a key question for many education researchers.

As someone who studies gender, social justice and schools, there are other questions I consider to be more important, such as: does a school give students equal opportunities for education and future life success? And how do we make sure all our schools do this?

What does the research say?

Single-sex vs co-ed debates have been going for decades. Which creates better outcomes? Is co-ed better for boys? Is single-sex more suitable for girls?

But decades of research into the topic is inconclusive.

What we can say is that the biggest predictors of a student’s academic success are socio-economic status, whether they live in a rural or remote area, and whether they are Indigenous.

There is also a widespread view it’s good for boys to be with girls, but better for girls to be on their own. But again, there is little comprehensive research evidence to support this premise.

These debates are also dominated by a belief that girls and boys learn differently. There is no strong basis for this in educational research.

Read more:
Why do we have single sex schools? What’s the history behind one of the biggest debates in education?

A different question

Looking only at gender differences between boys and girls at school can mean we ignore other important factors that impact on students’ educational success such as social class, race, school location and funding.

This is why, instead of getting stuck in old debates about single-sex vs co-ed schools, we should be asking more important questions:

• do schools support all students?

• do they create an environment that gives every student a fair chance to succeed?

US philosopher Nancy Fraser has a helpful framework for us to think about these questions. Her framework provides guidance about what schools and schooling systems should focus on to provide a fair and quality education.

This includes three elements: economic, cultural and political justice. These elements support not only students’ academic and social learning but also their physical, social and emotional wellbeing.

What about funding?

Economic justice is about fair access to resources. In Australia, reforms like the Gonski model aim to do this by focusing on student needs, such as location, Indigenous background, disability and language support. The idea is schools in needier areas should get more government funding and support.

However, there’s still a long way to go for funding equity. Public schools that serve the most disadvantaged students remain underfunded compared to private schools, which receive substantial government support.

This funding gap limits students’ access to the resources, safe spaces and support they need to thrive.

Respecting all backgrounds

But money alone isn’t enough. Schools need to respect and value the different backgrounds and experiences students have.

In Australia, with its rich multicultural makeup, it’s important schools focus on cultural justice by recognising and challenging discrimination based on gender, sexuality, race, ethnicity, religious background and ability.

They can do this by, for example, including Indigenous perspectives across the curriculum, teaching gender respect in relationships and setting up classrooms where cultural differences are valued. This helps create a welcoming and supportive school environment for everyone.

This is not about reducing identities to stereotypes. It is about supporting a deep understanding of different cultures that goes beyond labels and addresses the issues that keep certain groups marginalised.

Read more:
Australian schools need to address racism. Here are 4 ways they can do this

Are all voices heard?

Schools also need to foster political justice. Good schools provide opportunities for all voices — especially those from marginalised communities — to be heard and be part of decision-making.

This is something that can easily be obscured in debates about single sex or co-ed schools being better for one gender. For example, while single-sex schools may try to address gender-specific needs, they often reinforce stereotypes and can exclude non-binary and transgender students.

Schools can foster political justice by creating ways for all students, families, and communities to have a real say in policies and practices.

Inclusive decision-making helps students, families, and the school community feel connected and valued.

What can you look for in a school?

Parents interested in whether a school is working to give all its students opportunities to succeed, could ask questions such as:

• how does the school allocate resources to support disadvantaged students and ensure equal access to facilities and opportunities?

• does the curriculum include diverse perspectives, celebrate cultural differences, and address issues like racism, sexism, and ableism?

• are teachers trained to respond to diverse student needs?

• how does the school ensure students, families and communities have a voice in decision-making?

• finally, does the school’s staff reflect the diversity of its student body and if not, are there steps to rectify this?

Amanda Keddie receives funding from the Australian Research Council

– ref. When picking schools, don’t get stuck on single-sex vs. co-ed. Instead ask – are all students supported and included? – https://theconversation.com/when-picking-schools-dont-get-stuck-on-single-sex-vs-co-ed-instead-ask-are-all-students-supported-and-included-243932

Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Yves Rees, Senior Lecturer in History, La Trobe University

Drag Race Down Under is back for a fourth season, only this time something is different. The Australasian franchise is no longer helmed by the eponymous RuPaul. Instead, this season the main judge and host is RuPaul’s long-term “best Judy” Michelle Visage, a woman from New Jersey who came to fame in the late 1980s as a member of dance-pop group Seduction.

Visage has worked as a panellist and judge on all US variations of Drag Race since 2011, and on the UK and “Down Under” (Australia-New Zealand) spinoffs.

On Down Under, Visage has now become the authority who determines who sashays and who stays in the fierce contest between ten queens.

This promotion has significance far beyond Visage’s own career. Importantly, it has prompted debate in drag communities that brings to light tensions across queer gender politics, and also reveals shifts in drag culture – for which Drag Race’s huge global popularity is largely responsible.

The mother of queens

On one hand, Visage’s elevation to host can be seen as a milestone for cisgender women in the world of drag, a culture long dominated by cisgender gay men such as RuPaul himself.

Along with the rising mainstream profile of drag over recent years, a growing number of cis women have identified and performed as drag queens (a category sometimes called “bioqueens”).

In 2021, UK Drag Race contestant Victoria Scone made headlines as the first cis woman to compete on a Drag Race franchise.

More recently, runaway pop sensation Chappell Roan – famous for elaborate costumes and makeup – has claimed the mantle of drag queen. Cis women have also performed as drag kings for decades, though “kinging” remains comparatively marginal and under-resourced.

Visage taking the reins is something categorically different: a position of power and authority within the drag world conferred by no less than RuPaul, the world’s preeminent drag artist.

It’s one thing for a cis woman to self-identify as a drag artist; it is quite another to be anointed as a drag gatekeeper by the individual who almost single-handedly brought this queer artform to the mainstream.

Although notoriously reluctant to allow trans women to compete in Drag Race, RuPaul has no qualms about extending queendom to Visage. In the foreword to Visage’s 2015 memoir The Diva Rules, RuPaul wrote Visage “knows the world of drag (she’s a drag queen herself)”.

Not so long ago, cisgender heterosexual women in gay culture were often dismissed as “fag hags”, a sometimes misogynistic (and also homophobic) label that reduced them to mere hangers-on.

Now, Visage is in the spotlight. The season’s blocking, editing, wardrobe and dialogue all position Visage as direct successor and equal to RuPaul.

There can be no doubt: on Drag Race Down Under, this cis woman is now the mother of all queens.

More than an ally

Since Visage was announced as host, Drag Race fandom has been alight with debate, with many concluding Visage lacks necessary credentials.

Online disputes among Drag Race fans flared on Reddit, asking if “they couldn’t find an Aussie?” and questioning whether Visage could legitimately be considered a drag queen herself.

Most conspicuously, Willam – a US Drag Race celebrity alum – was indignant “a drag ally is the host of a drag show”.

On the podcast Race Chaser, Willam said:

Why would you have someone who is not a drag queen hosting a drag show? […] It’s like someone who is coeliac hosting a baking competition.

But Willam seems to have missed some new developments, as well as certain histories, in drag culture.

Visage and RuPaul first met in New York’s ballroom scene, a subculture established in the mid-20th century by Black and Latinx queers, especially trans women (or “femme queens”) in response to racism in white-dominated drag spaces.

In ballroom, individuals are adopted into Houses, who then compete in categories such as “Vogue” (a dance style inspired by fashion modelling) or “Face” (a beauty category that focuses on the contestant’s face) at regular balls. Ballroom and drag are not synonymous, but ballroom has been a strong influence on contemporary drag culture and Drag Race.

Visage entered the ballroom world in the late 1980s, adopted into the House of Magnifique, becoming a top vogue dancer. As she said in her memoir, she was a “wild drag child”.

As a white, cisgender heterosexual woman, Visage was an outlier in ballroom but, nonetheless, the community became her “surrogate family”. During these years Visage created her drag persona. Born and raised as Michelle Shupack, she changed her named to Visage (French for “face”) after winning the Face category at many balls.

Drag and ballroom were once necessarily peripheral. They were spaces marginalised queer people carved out for themselves where they could celebrate, empower and compete, setting their own rules.

Yet, in the past decade, the global Drag Race phenomenon and social expansions of gender categories have changed how people engage with these previously underground subcultures.

All drag is valid

In this new drag-world order, Visage can ascend to a rightful place as a bona fide drag queen – a status she claims with “drag queen” tattooed on her upper thigh.

For Visage, all genders have equal claim to the artform:

I think that trans women do drag just like biological women do drag, just like trans men do drag […] all drag is valid, and all drag is welcome.

As the drag artist Michelle Visage, her name has become synonymous with a distinctive aesthetic: leopard print, exaggerated make-up, big hair, long nails and (until recently) artificial DD breasts – a high-camp nod to her New Jersey roots.

“This is my shield, my superhero costume,” Visage explains. “When I put on my makeup, my drag, I feel like I can take on the world.”

She may not yet have conquered the world, but this queen has certainly conquered Drag Race, forging a new frontier for cis women in drag culture.

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. Michelle Visage is now hosting Drag Race Down Under. It’s a milestone for cis women in drag – https://theconversation.com/michelle-visage-is-now-hosting-drag-race-down-under-its-a-milestone-for-cis-women-in-drag-243704

Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Joo-Cheong Tham, Professor, Melbourne Law School, The University of Melbourne

Political funding in Australia has long been shrouded in secrecy. It is also dominated by large donations and unrestrained spending, courtesy of laissez-faire federal political finance laws.

The Albanese government has proposed the Electoral Legislation Amendment (Electoral Reform) Bill. According to the government, the bill “seek(s) to remove the influence of big money in politics”. The Teal MPs and Clive Palmer have, however, denounced it as “a major party stich-up”.

Where does the truth lie?

The bill will reduce the influence of big money in politics, but it does not go far enough in curbing large donations and excessive spending. Its scorecard on promoting fair elections is mixed: it will make elections fairer in key respects, but also unduly favour the major parties, political parties with wealthy candidates, and those with investment income.

A wholesale reform

The bill proposes significant changes to the two pillars of current federal laws (disclosure and public funding), while adding another two (caps on gifts and caps on electoral expenditure). This is the most ambitious reform of federal political finance laws attempted since the current regime was established four decades ago.

Substantial “hidden money” has resulted from the weaknesses of current laws. These include a high disclosure threshold, a lack of timeliness, and weak penalties.

The bill provides a comprehensive response to these weaknesses by:
• reducing the disclosure threshold to $1,000
• requiring expedited disclosure
• providing penalties based on the amounts not disclosed.

Risk of corruption is reduced, but there are significant loopholes

A small minority of large donors dominate the funding of federal political parties and candidates.

Leading the pack are cashed-up individuals such as Richard Pratt, Clive Palmer and Rob Keldoulis (the main funder of Climate 200).

Specific industries (including the mining and resource sector, the property sector, and the gambling sector), regularly make substantial donations and mainly to the major parties – money follows power.

All this illustrates what the High Court has described as “clientelism” corruption. This means corruption that

arises from an office-holder’s dependence on the financial support of a wealthy patron to a degree that is apt to compromise the expectation, fundamental to representative democracy, that public power will be exercised in the public interest.

The bill tackles such corruption through all four pillars. Robust disclosure will aid through “sunlight as disinfectant”. A ceiling on spending through expenditure caps will reduce the pressure to fundraise. An increase in public funding for campaigns has a similar effect.

Gift caps are the principal way in which the bill seeks to prevent large donations. The million-dollar donations made by Pratt, Keldoulis and mining companies would be illegal under these caps, which limit donations to each political party to $20,000 a year.

However, these caps also have major loopholes. Exclusions from the caps allow for disguised donations: membership and affiliation fees to associated entities are not caught by the caps. While there is a principled basis for exempting membership and affiliation fees to political parties (including trade union affiliation fees), the bill allows for inflation of these fees by leaving the exemptions uncapped (unlike NSW laws).

Most significantly, the caps do not apply to donations made by candidates to the party that endorsed them. They would not, for example, prevent Clive Palmer from continuing to donate millions to the United Australia Party. They would also not prohibit donations such as the $1.75 million Malcolm Turnbull gave to the Liberal Party in 2016–17.

The ‘arms race’ is contained but big spending will continue

The past two decades have seen a steady rise in federal election spending. This has been driven by major party spending and big spending contests such as Kooyong (where both Monique Ryan and Josh Frydenberg spent around $2 million each).

The problem here is twofold: high spending increases fundraising pressure and the risk of corruption associated with large donations; and high spending itself undermines fairness of elections. The High Court has referred to “war-chest” corruption where “the power of money may also pose a threat to the electoral process itself”.

The bill’s federal cap of $90 million will reduce levels of spending (the Coalition, United Australia and Labor each spent more than $100 million in the last election) and prevent further increases.

Nevertheless, the cap is set too high. Analysis by the Centre for Public Integrity shows the federal cap is disproportionately high compared to the state caps. For example, it will allow more than double a maximum spend per elector compared to the New South Wales cap on spending.

The $11.25 million cap on third-party spending shares the same weakness. While this high level was presumably adopted to lessen the prospect of a successful constitutional challenge to the cap (as occurred with the NSW cap), the scale has been tilted too far.

As it stands, the third-party cap will not prevent campaigns such as the $22 million advertising campaign by mining companies against the Rudd government’s resource super-profits tax, which contributed to the ousting of Kevin Rudd as prime minister.

Caps promote fairness but some still get a free pass

Gift caps promote fair elections by reducing the need for large donations in order for candidates to run a meaningful campaign. They also level the playing field by reducing the spending advantage of the better-resourced parties and candidates.

In both cases, candidates such as the Teals, who rely on large donations and high spending, will clearly be constrained. But it is the major parties that will be most affected (disadvantaged), as they are the main beneficiaries of the laissez-faire status quo (together with Palmer’s United Australia Party).

On the negative side, the loophole with candidate donations will favour parties with wealthy candidates. Parties will also be able to register their investment vehicles as “nominated entities” and receive income outside of the gift caps, a boon for the major parties and probably Palmer’s UAP.

Major parties further benefit from the narrow scope of Division and Senate caps which leave out considerable party spending directed at these contests. Broadening their scope along the lines of [Canadian] and UK spending limits will help address the Teals’ concern that spending caps allow the major parties to game the caps by shifting spending from safe and unwinnable seats to marginal ones.

Public funding can be fairer

The bill seeks to increase public funding based on first preference votes (election funding) and the number of seats (administrative assistance funding). This is a measure for fairness: together with gift caps, it means funding is increasingly determined by the level of popular support rather than the ability to attract large donations.

The major parties will receive substantial increases in public funding due to their share of votes and seats. But this is not a credible argument that such funding is “biased”.

However, as funding criteria are based on the outcomes of the past election, public funding does favour incumbents. This could can be offset by a start-up fund for new parties and candidates (such as the New South Wales’ New Parties Fund).

The government should be congratulated for grasping the nettle of reform in an area where disagreement and self interest run deep. It should now follow through with a proper parliamentary process – including a parliamentary inquiry with adequate time for scrutiny. Otherwise, it may miss the opportunity for enduring change.

Joo-Cheong Tham has received funding from the Australian Research Council, the Australian Council of Trade Unions, European Trade Union Institute, International IDEA, the New South Wales Electoral Commission, the New South Wales Independent Commission Against Corruption and the Victorian Electoral Commission. He is a Director of the Centre for Public Integrity; Expert Network Member of Climate Integrity; and the Victorian Division Assistant Secretary (Academic Staff) of the National Tertiary Education Union.

– ref. Political finance law reforms will reduce big money in politics, but will rich donors be the ultimate winners? – https://theconversation.com/political-finance-law-reforms-will-reduce-big-money-in-politics-but-will-rich-donors-be-the-ultimate-winners-243906