Artificial intelligence (AI) prophets and newsmongers are forecasting the end of the generative AI hype, with talk of an impending catastrophic “model collapse”.
But how realistic are these predictions? And what is model collapse anyway?
Discussed in 2023, but popularised more recently, “model collapse” refers to a hypothetical scenario where future AI systems get progressively dumber due to the increase of AI-generated data on the internet.
The need for data
Modern AI systems are built using machine learning. Programmers set up the underlying mathematical structure, but the actual “intelligence” comes from training the system to mimic patterns in data.
But not just any data. The current crop of generative AI systems needs high quality data, and lots of it.
To source this data, big tech companies such as OpenAI, Google, Meta and Nvidia continually scour the internet, scooping up terabytes of content to feed the machines. But since the advent of widely available and useful generative AI systems in 2022, people are increasingly uploading and sharing content that is made, in part or whole, by AI.
In 2023, researchers started wondering if they could get away with only relying on AI-created data for training, instead of human-generated data.
There are huge incentives to make this work. In addition to proliferating on the internet, AI-made content is much cheaper than human data to source. It also isn’t ethicallyandlegallyquestionable to collect en masse.
However, researchers found that without high-quality human data, AI systems trained on AI-made data get dumber and dumber as each model learns from the previous one. It’s like a digital version of the problem of inbreeding.
This “regurgitive training” seems to lead to a reduction in the quality and diversity of model behaviour. Quality here roughly means some combination of being helpful, harmless and honest. Diversity refers to the variation in responses, and which people’s cultural and social perspectives are represented in the AI outputs.
In short: by using AI systems so much, we could be polluting the very data source we need to make them useful in the first place.
Avoiding collapse
Can’t big tech just filter out AI-generated content? Not really. Tech companies already spend a lot of time and money cleaning and filtering the data they scrape, with one industry insider recently sharing they sometimes discard as much as 90% of the data they initially collect for training models.
These efforts might get more demanding as the need to specifically remove AI-generated content increases. But more importantly, in the long term it will actually get harder and harder to distinguish AI content. This will make the filtering and removal of synthetic data a game of diminishing (financial) returns.
Ultimately, the research so far shows we just can’t completely do away with human data. After all, it’s where the “I” in AI is coming from.
Are we headed for a catastrophe?
There are hints developers are already having to work harder to source high-quality data. For instance, the documentation accompanying the GPT-4 release credited an unprecedented number of staff involved in the data-related parts of the project.
We may also be running out of new human data. Some estimates say the pool of human-generated text data might be tapped out as soon as 2026.
However, the prospects of catastrophic model collapse might be overstated. Most research so far looks at cases where synthetic data replaces human data. In practice, human and AI data are likely to accumulate in parallel, which reduces the likelihood of collapse.
The most likely future scenario will also see an ecosystem of somewhat diverse generative AI platforms being used to create and publish content, rather than one monolithic model. This also increases robustness against collapse.
There are also more subtle risks from too much AI-made content.
A flood of synthetic content might not pose an existential threat to the progress of AI development, but it does threaten the digital public good of the (human) internet.
For instance, researchers found a 16% drop in activity on the coding website StackOverflow one year after the release of ChatGPT. This suggests AI assistance may already be reducing person-to-person interactions in some online communities.
It’s becoming impossible to reliably distinguish between human-generated and AI-generated content. One method to remedy this would be watermarking or labelling AI-generated content, as I and many others have recently highlighted, and as reflected in recent Australian government interim legislation.
Human interactions and human data are important, and we should protect them. For our own sakes, and maybe also for the sake of the possible risk of a future model collapse.
Aaron J. Snoswell receives grant funding from OpenAI in 2024.
Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Adrian Beaumont, Election Analyst (Psephologist) at The Conversation; and Honorary Associate, School of Mathematics and Statistics, The University of Melbourne
The US presidential election will be held on November 5. In analyst Nate Silver’s aggregate of national polls, Democrat Kamala Harris leads Republican Donald Trump by 47.1–44.6% with 4.2% for Robert F. Kennedy Jr. In my previous US politics article last Wednesday, Harris led Trump by 46.8–43.7%.
Joe Biden’s final position before his withdrawal as Democratic candidate on July 21 was a national poll deficit against Trump of 45.2–41.2%. By the election, Biden will be almost 82, Trump will be 78 and Harris will be 60.
The US president isn’t elected by the national popular vote, but by the Electoral College, in which each state receives electoral votes equal to its federal House seats (population based) and senators (always two). Almost all states award their electoral votes as winner takes all, and it takes 270 electoral votes to win (out of 538 total).
In the states narrowly won by Biden in 2020, Harris leads Trump by three points in Michigan, 3.4 points in Wisconsin, 1.5 points in Pennsylvania and 2.1 points in Arizona. Georgia and Nevada are the only Biden-won state that have Trump ahead, by 1.4 points in Georgia and 0.2 in Nevada. Harris is barely ahead by 0.1 points in North Carolina, a state Trump won in 2020.
Since last Wednesday, most movement in state polls has been slightly favourable to Trump, but not in North Carolina. If Nevada and North Carolina are undecided because of the near-ties in polls, Harris currently wins the Electoral College by 281–235 with 22 electoral votes undecided (Harris led by 287–251 last Wednesday).
Silver’s model gives Harris a 53.5% chance to win the Electoral College, a drop from 56% last Wednesday. It gives Harris a 65% chance to win the national popular vote. Harris needs about a two-point win in the popular vote to be the Electoral College favourite. It’s near a 50–50 chance for either Harris or Trump, but Harris is the slight favourite.
The Democratic National Convention will be held from Monday to Thursday this week. Normally major party presidential candidates are very well known to voters by the convention as they need to win primaries that are held early in an election year. Harris has only been the Democratic candidate since Biden’s withdrawal, so the convention is an opportunity for her to personally appeal to voters.
Conventions usually give a temporary bounce to their party’s candidate, which fades in the weeks following a convention. Silver said on Friday that his model will expect Harris to be leading by four to five points nationally after the convention.
If this occurs, Harris’ win probability will not change much. If Harris only leads by two points after the convention, it would be an underperformance and her win probability would decrease. If she leads by six, she would be overperforming and her win probability would increase.
In economic data, US headline inflation rose 0.2% in July after dropping 0.1% in June, for a 12-month rate of 2.9%, the lowest since March 2021. Core inflation rose 0.2% in July for a 12-month rate of 3.2%, the lowest since April 2021. The lower inflation is likely to encourage the US Federal Reserve Board to cut interest rates.
Real (inflation-adjusted) hourly earnings were up 0.1% in July, but real weekly earnings were down 0.2% owing to a drop in hours worked. In May and June, real earnings were up 0.8–0.9%.
Coalition gains large primary vote lead in NSW
A New South Wales state Resolve poll for The Sydney Morning Herald, conducted with the federal Resolve polls in July and August from a sample of more than 1,000, gave the Coalition 38% of the primary vote (up three since June), Labor 30% (down two), the Greens 12% (up one), independents 14% (down one) and others 6% (down one).
Resolve doesn’t usually give a two-party estimate, but Kevin Bonham estimated a Coalition lead by 51–49%, a three-point gain for the Coalition since June. Despite the poor voting intentions, Labor incumbent Chris Minns maintained an unchanged 38–13% lead over the Liberals’ Mark Speakman as preferred premier.
There has been much media attention on the NSW Liberals’ bungled council nominations. This poll was taken before the nominations fiasco, but in any case voters are unlikely to care much about local councils.
By 56–23%, voters in this poll supported the state government’s plans to introduce laws to prevent “no grounds evictions”, so that landlords need a “commonsense and reasonable cause” to evict a tenant.
Federal polls: Labor and Coalition tied
A national Essential poll, conducted August 7–11 from a sample of 1,132, had Labor and the Coalition tied at 47% each including undecided (47–46% to Labor in late July). Primary votes were 34% Coalition (steady), 28% Labor (down four), 14% Greens (up three), 7% One Nation (steady), 1% UAP (down one), 9% for all Others (steady) and 6% undecided (steady).
Voters were pessimistic when asked whether economic indicators would get better, get worse or stay about the same in the next 12 months. By 67–11%, they thought the cost of living would get worse. Global economic conditions were expected to get worse by 56–11%, employment by 39–13% and wages by 28–16%.
When asked why Indigenous Australians experience disadvantage, 58% said it was the result of personal decisions they make, while 42% said it was systemic: a product of colonial history and ongoing discrimination.
Big business was far ahead when respondents were asked whether government listens to groups when making decisions, with 60% saying government listens to big business well. Indigenous Australians were the next highest at 34% listens to well.
A national Morgan poll, conducted August 5–11 from a sample of 1,671, also had Labor and the Coalition tied at 50–50%, a 1.5-point gain for the Coalition since the July 29 to August 4 Morgan poll.
Primary votes were 38% Coalition (up one), 29.5% Labor (down one), 14% Greens (up two), 5% One Nation (down 0.5), 9.5% independents (down 0.5) and 4% others (down one).
The headline figure uses respondent allocated preferences. If preferences are allocated by 2022 election flows, Labor led by 51–49%, a 0.5-point gain for the Coalition.
Changes in South Australia
Since Labor won the March 2022 South Australian state election, there hasn’t been a SA state poll released. The Poll Bludger reported last Thursday that Vincent Tarzia had become the new Liberal leader on August 12, replacing David Speirs who resigned on August 8.
The Poll Bludger also reported on a SA state draft redistribution. Independent-held Frome switches from being nationally Labor to Liberal on a two-party basis. Two seats in Adelaide will be more favourable to Labor at the next election.
Adrian Beaumont does not work for, consult, own shares in or receive funding from any company or organisation that would benefit from this article, and has disclosed no relevant affiliations beyond their academic appointment.
Like many Pacific states that rely on tourism, Fiji had a hard time during the main pandemic years. But as tourism recovers, another crisis threatens the island nation’s stability – one fuelled by rising methamphetamine addiction.
Driven by foreign drug cartels using Fiji as a staging post for operations in New Zealand and Australia, the drug has also spread into local communities. In turn, it has fuelled a surge in HIV infections and put extra burdens on stretched health and justice sectors.
Known locally as “ice”, methamphetamine (meth) is highly addictive, widely available and increasingly linked to risky behaviour. Needle sharing, “chemsex” (using drugs to heighten sexual experiences) and a practice known as “bluetoothing” – withdrawing blood after a drug hit and injecting it into a second person – have all been implicated in declining health indicators.
With children as young as nine being treated for addiction, and with crime statistics and reported HIV and AIDS cases climbing dramatically, police have called for a state of emergency to tackle the interrelated problems. But the police themselves have been accused of corruption in relation to meth dealing.
Drugs, health and crime
HIV cases are expected to double this year, with young people and marginalised communities disproportionately affected.
The intersection of meth use and HIV is particularly troubling. Methamphetamine weakens the immune system, making users more susceptible to infections. Compounding the problem, the stigma and discrimination associated with both meth use and HIV mean many are reluctant to seek help or undergo testing.
These deficiencies have serious implications for patient care. And they limit the health system’s ability to respond to rising demand for a complex array of services.
Healthcare infrastructure is particularly lacking for drug rehabilitation, psychiatric care, and management of the non-communicable diseases that cause an estimated 80% of premature deaths in Fiji.
A national crisis
The interplay between methamphetamine use, HIV and ill-equipped health facilities creates a vicious cycle that perpetuates and exacerbates each individual issue.
Meth use increases crime, addiction and the risk of HIV transmission, particularly among young people. In turn, this places more strain on the already struggling healthcare system, as well as police and legal resources.
Overall, the situation is leading to a further decline in Fiji’s national development outcomes. Addressing these multiple threats will require a holistic and coordinated response.
With the involvement of the United Nations’ AIDS programme, UNAIDS, there are plans to develop such strategies with government, civil society, regional and international partners.
But while such partnerships are vital for combating the supply of meth and other drugs, they fall short of connecting transnational drug crime with the domestic problems it causes.
New Zealand has pledged ongoing funding support for health infrastructure improvements. The Fiji government’s budgetary priorities will also have to include upgrading medical facilities and equipment, and expanding training for healthcare professionals.
Developing and implementing comprehensive prevention and treatment programmes for meth addiction and HIV are equally crucial. These should include widespread education campaigns, harm reduction strategies (such as needle exchange programmes), and accessible testing and treatment services.
Empowering local communities to participate will lead to more sustainable and culturally appropriate solutions. Reducing the stigma and discrimination around meth use and HIV will be crucial.
Finally, collaboration with regional and global health organisations will provide much-needed technical and financial support. Other Pacific nations will be looking to Fiji to take a lead and prevent the crisis spreading.
Apisalome Movono 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.
Less than two years ago, the launch of ChatGPT started a generative AI frenzy. Some said the technology would trigger a fourth industrial revolution, completely reshaping the world as we know it.
In March 2023, Goldman Sachs predicted 300 million jobs would be lost or degraded due to AI. A huge shift seemed to be underway.
Like many new technologies, generative AI has been following a path known as the Gartner hype cycle, first described by American tech research firm Gartner.
This widely used model describes a recurring process in which the initial success of a technology leads to inflated public expectations that eventually fail to be realised. After the early “peak of inflated expectations” comes a “trough of disillusionment”, followed by a “slope of enlightenment” which eventually reaches a “plateau of productivity”.
A Gartner report published in June listed most generative AI technologies as either at the peak of inflated expectations or still going upward. The report argued most of these technologies are two to five years away from becoming fully productive.
Many compelling prototypes of generative AI products have been developed, but adopting them in practice has been less successful. A study published last week by American think tank RAND showed 80% of AI projects fail, more than double the rate for non-AI projects.
Shortcomings of current generative AI technology
The RAND report lists many difficulties with generative AI, ranging from high investment requirements in data and AI infrastructure to a lack of needed human talent. However, the unusual nature of GenAI’s limitations represents a critical challenge.
For example, generative AI systems can solve some highly complex university admission tests yet fail very simple tasks. This makes it very hard to judge the potential of these technologies, which leads to false confidence.
After all, if it can solve complex differential equations or write an essay, it should be able to take simple drive-through orders, right?
A recent study showed that the abilities of large language models such as GPT-4 do not always match what people expect of them. In particular, more capable models severely underperformed in high-stakes cases where incorrect responses could be catastrophic.
These results suggest these models can induce false confidence in their users. Because they fluently answer questions, humans can reach overoptimistic conclusions about their capabilities and deploy the models in situations they are not suited for.
Experience from successful projects shows it is tough to make a generative model follow instructions. For example, Khan Academy’s Khanmigo tutoring system often revealed the correct answers to questions despite being instructed not to.
So why isn’t the generative AI hype over yet?
There are a few reasons for this.
First, generative AI technology, despite its challenges, is rapidly improving, with scale and size being the primary drivers of the improvement.
Research shows that the size of language models (number of parameters), as well as the amount of data and computing power used for training all contribute to improved model performance. In contrast, the architecture of the neural network powering the model seems to have minimal impact.
Large language models also display so-called emergent abilities, which are unexpected abilities in tasks for which they haven’t been trained. Researchers have reported new capabilities “emerging” when models reach a specific critical “breakthrough” size.
Studies have found sufficiently complex large language models can develop the ability to reason by analogy and even reproduce optical illusions like those experienced by humans. The precise causes of these observations are contested, but there is no doubt large language models are becoming more sophisticated.
So AI companies are still at work on bigger and more expensive models, and tech companies such as Microsoft and Apple are betting on returns from their existing investments in generative AI. According to one recent estimate, generative AI will need to produce US$600 billion in annual revenue to justify current investments – and this figure is likely to grow to US$1 trillion in the coming years.
For the moment, the biggest winner from the generative AI boom is Nvidia, the largest producer of the chips powering the generative AI arms race. As the proverbial shovel-makers in a gold rush, Nvidia recently became the most valuable public company in history, tripling its share price in a single year to reach a valuation of US$3 trillion in June.
What comes next?
As the AI hype begins to deflate and we move through the period of disillusionment, we are also seeing more realistic AI adoption strategies.
First, AI is being used to support humans, rather than replace them. A recent survey of American companies found they are mainly using AI to improve efficiency (49%), reduce labour costs (47%) and enhance the quality of products (58%)
Second, we also see a rise in smaller (and cheaper) generative AI models, trained on specific data and deployed locally to reduce costs and optimise efficiency. Even OpenAI, which has led the race for ever-larger models, has released the GPT-4o Mini model to reduce costs and improve performance.
Third, we see a strong focus on providing AI literacy training and educating the workforce on how AI works, its potentials and limitations, and best practices for ethical AI use. We are likely to have to learn (and re-learn) how to use different AI technologies for years to come.
In the end, the AI revolution will look more like an evolution. Its use will gradually grow over time and, little by little, alter and transform human activities. Which is much better than replacing them.
Vitomir Kovanovic 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.
After becoming mainstream in 2023, generative artificial intelligence (AI) is now transforming the way we live.
This technology is a type of AI which can generate text, images and other content in response to prompts. In particular, it has transformed the way we consume and create information and media.
For example, millions of people now use the technology to summarise lengthy documents, draft emails and increase their productivity at work. Newsrooms have also started experimenting with generative AI, and film companies are using it to create actor digital doubles and even “digital clones” of actors who have died.
These transformations are bound to increase in the coming months and years. So too are the many concerns and controversies surrounding the use of generative AI.
In the face of these complex and rapid developments, we surveyed more than 4,000 Australians to better understand their experiences with and attitudes toward generative AI. Released today, our results paint a complicated picture – and underscore the vital importance of improved media literacy programs.
Who is using generative AI in Australia?
Between January and April this year we surveyed a representative sample of 4,442 adult Australians. We asked people a range of questions about their media use, attitudes and abilities including a series of questions about generative AI.
Usage of generative AI varies within the population. Supplied
Just under four in ten (39%) adults have experience using text-based generative AI services such as ChatGPT or Bard. Of this group, 13% are using these services regularly and 26% have tried them.
An additional three in ten (29%) adults know of these services but have not used them, while 26% are not at all familiar with these services.
Far fewer Australians are using image-focused generative AI services such as Midjourney or DALL-E. These kinds of services can be used to create illustrations or artworks, adjust or alter photographs or design posters.
Only 3% are using these services regularly and 13% have experimented or tried using them. Half (50%) of adults are not at all familiar with image-based AI services while 28% have heard of these services but have not used them.
Some groups are much more likely to be using generative AI.
Regular use is strongly correlated with age. For example, younger adults are much more likely to be regularly using generative AI than older adults. Adults with a high level of education are also much more likely to be using this technology, as are people with a high household income.
Australians are worried about generative AI
Many Australians believe generative AI could make their lives better.
But more Australians agree generative AI will harm Australian society (40%) than disagree with this (16%).
This is perhaps why almost three quarters (74%) of adult Australians believe laws and regulations are needed to manage risks associated with generative AI.
Just one in five (22%) adults are confident about using generative AI tools, although 46% say they want to learn more about it.
Significantly, many people said they don’t know how they feel about generative AI. This indicates many Australians don’t yet know enough about this technology to make informed decisions about its use.
The role for media literacy
Our survey shows the more confident people are about their media abilities, the more likely they are to be aware of generative AI and confident using it.
Adult media literacy programs and resources can be used to increase people’s media knowledge and ability. These programs can be created and delivered online and in person by public broadcasters and other media organisations, universities, community organisations, libraries and museums.
Media literacy is widely recognised as being essential for full participation in society. A media literate person is able to create, use and share a diverse range of media while critically analysing their media engagement.
Our research shows there is a need for new media literacy resources to ensure Australians are able to make informed decisions about generative AI. For example, this kind of education is crucial for adults to develop their digital know-how so they can determine if images are real and can be trusted.
In addition, media literacy can show people how to apply critical thinking to respond to generative AI. For example, if a person uses an AI tool to generate images, they should ask themselves:
why has the AI tool created the image in this way and does it create social stereotypes or biases?
could I use a different prompt to encourage the AI to create a more accurate or fairer representation?
what would happen if I experimented with different AI tools to create the image?
how can I use the advanced features within an AI tool to refine my image to produce a more satisfactory result?
what kind of data has the AI been “trained on” to produce this kind of image?
Without interventions, emerging technologies such as generative AI will widen existing gaps between those with a low and high level of confidence in their media ability.
It’s therefore urgent for Australian governments to provide appropriate funding for media literacy resources and programs. This will help ensure all citizens can respond to the ever-changing digital media landscape – and fully participate in contemporary society.
Tanya Notley is a founding member of the Australian Media Literacy Alliance. She has current grants from the Australian Research Council, Meta Australia and the Department of Infrastructure, Transport, Regional Development, Communication and the Arts.
Michael Dezuanni is a founding member of the Australian Media Literacy Alliance. He receives funding from the Australian Research Council.
Sora Park receives funding from the Australian Research Council and Creative Australia.
Simon Chambers 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.
Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Liam Byrne, Honorary Fellow, School of Historical and Philosophical Studies, The University of Melbourne
Democratic Party delegates from across the United States will gather in Chicago for the Democratic National Convention (DNC) this week.
While the usual purpose of a convention is for delegates from around the country to confirm the party’s nominee for a presidential election, this time around, Kamala Harris has already been confirmed by a virtual roll call.
Presidential nominees these days have usually been decided through the party’s primary voting process by the time the convention arrives. As a result, modern conventions are primarily a media opportunity. It’s often where a vice-presidential candidate is introduced to a national audience and the “ticket” publicly stands together for the first time.
Conventions also help to mobilise the party and its voting base, inspiring people to volunteer, encouraging party unity and, perhaps most importantly, boosting fundraising for the campaign.
These huge events, which usually go for nearly a week, are also a rare opportunity for a party to attract a broad, prime-time audience. The nominees’ speeches are subject to a great deal of scrutiny.
This means that, like presidential debates, conventions tend not to matter until they do. A good convention speech can make or break a politician’s career. At the 2004 DNC in Boston, for example, then-Senator Barack Obama’s keynote address launched his national political career. Four years later, he was the party’s presidential nominee.
Barack Obama’s 2004 DNC address.
This DNC is different from those past, largely due to incumbent President Joe Biden’s decision to step aside last month and endorse Harris. And Harris has already announced and started campaigning with her running mate, Tim Walz. Stability has been secured, in an unprecedented manner.
After the tensions and ruptures of recent weeks, the Democrats now need to demonstrate their unity. The fact that a national convention in Chicago is their best opportunity to do so, however, is filled with political resonance.
Chicago’s meaning for the Democratic Party.
Coincidentally, the last time a sitting Democratic president, Lyndon B. Johnson, decided not to run for a second term (in 1968), the DNC also met in Chicago to anoint his successor.
This was the last “brokered convention”, where the presidential nominee was decided by an open vote. That 1968 convention was a traumatic experience for the party, marked by turmoil inside the convention and clashes between protesters and police outside on the streets.
But Chicago has also been a site of hope and promise for the party. After all, this was where Obama, as a young Harvard graduate and community organiser, started his career in politics.
Obama became the 2008 presidential nominee following a bruising Democratic primary against Hillary Clinton. But the party coalesced around him in an ultimately successful campaign. The 2008 convention was pivotal for the party, demonstrating how it could restore unity after a period of discord.
Just a few short weeks ago, it seemed as though this Chicago convention would mirror that of 1968. But after much internal debate over Biden’s candidacy, the Democrats have coalesced behind a new chosen candidate.
So, there will be echoes of both 1968 and 2008 in Chicago this week. And knowing this history is vital to understanding the current state of the Democratic Party.
In January of that year, the Tet offensive undermined the assurances Johnson had been giving the nation that the US was in the ascendancy and the end of the conflict was in sight. Facing mounting pressure, Johnson was challenged by anti-war candidate Eugene McCarthy in the Democratic primaries.
The strength of McCarthy’s showing in the New Hampshire primary in March rocked the party. Four days later, Robert F. Kennedy announced he was entering the contest. By the end of the month, Johnson had decided to step aside.
There were also widespread protests outside the party’s ranks – most of it targeted at the Democratic administration. The anti-war movement overlapped with students demanding greater control over their lives and American society, Black Power activists determined to resist what they considered a system of racialised violence, and the burgeoning women’s liberation movement.
Together, these groups believed there was serious decay at the heart of American political life. And for many, the Democratic Party under Johnson came to represent everything they were against.
In a year of such dramatic social upheaval and polarisation, both Kennedy and
Martin Luther King Junior were targets of political violence. After King was assassinated in April, protests and riots broke out in many cities, shaking the nation.
Months later at the DNC, protesters were waiting for the delegates when they arrived. Chicago Mayor Richard Daly was a hardened and traditional Democratic Party boss with no sympathy for the anti-war generation. His police force was empowered to quell the protests with violence if it deemed it necessary.
And they did just that. Throughout the convention, the city’s streets were consumed by protests and violence. Republicans eagerly seized upon this, promising further discord if the Democrats were allowed to continue to govern.
Meanwhile, inside the arena, the party’s bruising battles over its identity and purpose were exposed to an eager media. This included physical altercations on the convention floor.
With the strong support of the party establishment, Vice President Hubert Humphrey won the nomination – to the anger of anti-war activists. Humphrey had been anointed by party bosses without contesting a single primary, prompting changes to how the party chose its presidential nominees.
Humphrey would go on to lose the presidential election that November to Richard Nixon.
Returning to Chicago over half a century later, Democrats will be hoping for a very different outcome.
This convention will offer its own tour through the party’s history. Among the early speakers will be Biden, Obama and Bill and Hillary Clinton. The rest of the convention will mark a changing of the guard: Walz, followed by Harris.
The proceedings will most likely treat the past with respect, while also looking to the future. In that way, while avoiding shallow comparisons, the convention may seek to echo the joyful hope of Obama’s 2008 campaign.
No doubt conscious of the party’s catastrophic failure to present a realistic and compelling vision of the future in 1968, Harris and Walz will seek to contrast their vision of hope, joy and freedom with the dark tones of their Republican rivals, Donald Trump and J.D. Vance.
Haunted by 1968, Harris and her predecessors will also emphasise a message of unity. As Democrats once more return to Chicago, it remains to be seen if the homecoming will be a sweet one.
Emma Shortis is Senior Researcher in International and Security Affairs at The Australia Institute, an independent think tank.
Liam Byrne 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.
Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Konstantine Panegyres, McKenzie Postdoctoral Fellow, researching Greco-Roman antiquity, The University of Melbourne
According to the World Health Organization, about 280 million people worldwide have depression and about one billion have a mental health problem of any kind.
People living in the ancient world also had mental health problems. So, how did they deal with them?
As we’ll see, some of their insights about mental health are still relevant today, even though we might question some of their methods.
1. Our mental state is important
Mental health problems such as depression were familiar to people in the ancient world. Homer, the poet famous for the Iliad and Odyssey who lived around the eighth century BC, apparently died after wasting away from depression.
Already in the late fifth century BC, ancient Greek doctors recognised that our health partly depends on the state of our thoughts.
In the Epidemics, a medical text written in around 400BC, an anonymous doctor wrote that our habits about our thinking (as well as our lifestyle, clothing and housing, physical activity and sex) are the main determinants of our health.
Also writing in the Epidemics, an anonymous doctor described one of his patients, Parmeniscus, whose mental state became so bad he grew delirious, and eventually could not speak. He stayed in bed for 14 days before he was cured. We’re not told how.
Later, the famous doctor Galen of Pergamum (129-216AD) observed that people often become sick because of a bad mental state:
It may be that under certain circumstances ‘thinking’ is one of the causes that bring about health or disease because people who get angry about everything and become confused, distressed and frightened for the slightest reason often fall ill for this reason and have a hard time getting over these illnesses.
Galen also described some of his patients who suffered with their mental health, including some who became seriously ill and died. One man had lost money:
He developed a fever that stayed with him for a long time. In his sleep he scolded himself for his loss, regretted it and was agitated until he woke up. While he was awake he continued to waste away from grief. He then became delirious and developed brain fever. He finally fell into a delirium that was obvious from what he said, and he remained in this state until he died.
3. Mental illness can be prevented and treated
In the ancient world, people had many different ways to prevent or treat mental illness.
The philosopher Aristippus, who lived in the fifth century BC, used to advise people to focus on the present to avoid mental disturbance:
concentrate one’s mind on the day, and indeed on that part of the day in which one is acting or thinking. Only the present belongs to us, not the past nor what is anticipated. The former has ceased to exist, and it is uncertain if the latter will exist.
The philosopher Clinias, who lived in the fourth century BC, said that whenever he realised he was becoming angry, he would go and play music on his lyre to calm himself.
Doctors had their own approaches to dealing with mental health problems. Many recommended patients change their lifestyles to adjust their mental states. They advised people to take up a new regime of exercise, adopt a different diet, go travelling by sea, listen to the lectures of philosophers, play games (such as draughts/checkers), and do mental exercises equivalent to the modern crossword or sudoku.
Galen, a famous doctor, believed mental problems were caused by some idea that had taken hold of the mind. Pierre Roche Vigneron/Wikimedia
For instance, the physician Caelius Aurelianus (fifth century AD) thought patients suffering from insanity could benefit from a varied diet including fruit and mild wine.
Doctors also advised people to take plant-based medications. For example, the herb hellebore was given to people suffering from paranoia. However, ancient doctors recognised that hellebore could be dangerous as it sometimes induced toxic spasms, killing patients.
Other doctors, such as Galen, had a slightly different view. He believed mental problems were caused by some idea that had taken hold of the mind. He believed mental problems could be cured if this idea was removed from the mind and wrote:
a person whose illness is caused by thinking is only cured by taking care of the false idea that has taken over his mind, not by foods, drinks, [clothing, housing], baths, walking and other such (measures).
Galen thought it was best to deflect his patients’ thoughts away from these false ideas by putting new ideas and emotions in their minds:
I put fear of losing money, political intrigue, drinking poison or other such things in the hearts of others to deflect their thoughts to these things […] In others one should arouse indignation about an injustice, love of rivalry, and the desire to beat others depending on each person’s interest.
4. Addressing mental health needs effort
Generally speaking, the ancients believed keeping our mental state healthy required effort. If we were anxious or angry or despondent, then we needed to do something that brought us the opposite of those emotions.
This can be achieved, they thought, by doing some activity that directly countered the emotions we are experiencing.
For example, Caelius Aurelianus said people suffering from depression should do activities that caused them to laugh and be happy, such as going to see a comedy at the theatre.
However, the ancients did not believe any single activity was enough to make our mental state become healthy. The important thing was to make a wholesale change to one’s way of living and thinking.
When it comes to experiencing mental health problems, we clearly have a lot in common with our ancient ancestors. Much of what they said seems as relevant now as it did 2,000 years ago, even if we use different methods and medicines today.
If this article has raised issues for you, or if you’re concerned about someone you know, call Lifeline on 13 11 14.
Konstantine Panegyres 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.
Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Ali Cheshmehzangi, Head of School, School of Architecture, Design and Planning, The University of Queensland
The Paris Olympics have put Brisbane back in the spotlight as host of the 2032 Olympic and Paralympic Games. The plans for 2032 make one thing clear: these games will be different.
Brisbane is the first city required by its contract with the International Olympic Committee (IOC) to host a climate-positive games. This means the “the carbon savings they create will exceed the potential negative impacts of their operations”, the IOC says. It’s a major shift in how sustainable the games are expected to be.
The Brisbane 2032 organisers’ strong focus on including the regions and legacy planning also distinguishes these games from past events. Brisbane isn’t looking for just a glossy four-week city show. The aim is to boost the broader region with future-focused, sustainable facilities and infrastructure. These will have lasting social, environmental and economic benefits.
The climate crisis is a challenge of unprecedented proportions. If these games serve as a much-needed push for Brisbane – and the rest of the world – to do more, then we can only be thankful.
But activities such as building the infrastructure for the event and transporting the athletes and their specialist equipment from around the world will create huge greenhouse gas emissions. Hosting a global sporting event that removes more carbon from the atmosphere than it emits will be no mean feat.
Such a challenging task calls for a multifaceted strategy. As QUT professor Marcus Foth has observed, it will require an entirely new approach to the economy and society, which prioritises the planet and life itself.
One simple strategy is to use existing buildings to house athletes and host events where possible. All new or significantly upgraded venues will target the highest six-star rating under Green Star building standards.
Public and active transport will be given priority. All new buses funded by Translink (the state’s public transport agency) in South-East Queensland are to be zero emissions from 2025.
As well as meeting the IOC’s climate-positive requirement, such initiatives will help to achieve Queensland’s climate ambitions. These include the goals of net-zero emissions by 2050 and powering the state with 70% renewable energy by 2032.
It’s not all about Brisbane
The Brisbane games can also be a catalyst for long-term, sustainable urban and regional improvement. Regional inclusivity is a vital part of plans for the games. Sharing Olympic events across the state will distribute outcomes and prosperity beyond the city.
A design-led, precinct-based approach, taking local conditions into account, helps unlock wider community benefits. It’s an opportunity to strengthen regional co-operation and local capacities.
Most events will be held across three locations: Brisbane, the Gold Coast and the Sunshine Coast. Some events are to be held in regional Queensland. Two interstate venues have been flagged for Sydney and Melbourne.
With venues distributed across Brisbane and regional areas, transport and infrastructure upgrades will also need to be dispersed. Road and rail capacity are to be increased on the transport corridors connecting the three games zones. Major tourism hubs on the Gold Coast, Sunshine Coast and Brisbane will be better connected as a result.
Brisbane 2032 is aiming for 90% of travel to events to be by public transport and active transport, such as cycling and walking. There will be seven “walkable” inner-city venues. Games preparations are accelerating long-term plans for public transport and other transport infrastructure to meet the needs of the state’s growing population.
A legacy that will last decades
Brisbane’s ability to embrace and act on place-based approaches will be central to the success of these Olympics and their legacy. Place-based approaches recognise that each place has unique local needs and conditions – including environmental and cultural contexts. Such approaches deliver a range of benefits, by building community resilience, fostering a sense of ownership and encouraging engagement.
Elevate 2042 is a 20-year strategy to leverage the benefits of the event before and after the games. Its themes align with the United Nations Sustainable Development Goals. Its stated vision is:
By 2042, we will live in an inclusive, sustainable and connected society, with more opportunities in life for everyone.
The legacy plan’s focus on long-term use of facilities and infrastructure is promising. It offers hope that hosting the Olympics will benefit future generations and avoid underuse of venues once attention has turned to the next host city.
Ingraining legacy planning in its preparations is a crucial move for Brisbane. The games are seen as not just a sporting event but as a vehicle to advance the economy, improve environmental outcomes and enhance connections between people and places. This will help shape progressive outcomes.
Architecture, design and planning are key professions when planning for this international event. These disciplines are working together to create thoughtful, resilient and vibrant interventions that will benefit communities for many years.
Brisbane has a once-in-a-lifetime opportunity to shape a city and regional communities so they continue to shine brightly long after the excitement and gloss of the games have faded. The target is not just 2032 but also 2050 net-zero targets and beyond.
Ali Cheshmehzangi works for The University of Queensland, where he leads the School of Architecture, Design and Planning.
The Albanese government’s environmental reforms are likely to feature prominently on federal parliament’s agenda this week. A Senate inquiry into the long-awaited reforms is due to deliver its findings on Monday. Meanwhile, the Coalition is reportedly preparing to oppose the changes, potentially forcing Labor into negotiations with the Greens.
Establishing the new agencies would deliver an election promise, but falls far short of the comprehensive and desperately needed package of reforms outlined in the Albanese government’s Nature Positive Plan, launched in 2022.
While it may be too late for the full Nature Positive Plan this term, it’s not too late to improve the current reform bills in Parliament and start achieving genuine improvements for nature. We propose three key amendments that could achieve that.
The background: biodiversity in crisis
Australia’s environmental laws need urgent overhaul. The 2021 State of the Environment report, like its predecessors, showed our catchments, waterways and native species are in serious and worsening decline.
This matters to all of us, as we depend on healthy ecosystems for the air we breathe, the water we drink, the food we eat and even our physical and mental health. Around half of our economy, such as the multibillion-dollar agricultural and tourism sectors, depends on the state of our environment.
Australia’s main biodiversity legislation, the Environment Protection and Biodiversity Conservation (EPBC) Act, hasn’t had a major overhaul since it was enacted 25 years ago. In his 2020 review, Graeme Samuel found the laws to be ineffective, outdated and in need of fundamental reform.
The government responded to the Samuel Review by releasing the Nature Positive Plan. At the time, Environment Minster Tanya Plibersek said: “Native species extinction, habitat loss and cultural heritage destruction are all accelerating, and reform is urgently needed.”
We couldn’t agree more. That’s why we propose these three changes to ensure the reforms actually start to benefit nature.
Despite being protected under the EPBC Act, research has found less than 1% of developments that potentially impact the endangered southern black-throated finch were knocked back over 20 years. Eric Vanderduys/Wikimedia Commons, CC BY
1: Bolster the new agencies
The new EPA and information agency could make a real difference for nature, if we get them right.
The government says the EPA should be a “tough cop on the beat”. But its proposed governance structure is problematic.
The draft laws vest all the agency’s power in a single person – a chief executive appointed by the minister. This leaves the chief executive vulnerable to pressures from all sides and to perceptions of ministerial influence.
Independence promotes trust. That’s why we have joined many others in arguing the EPA should have an independent board. This would align the federal EPA with counterparts in the states and New Zealand.
Environment Information Australia should also have an independent board. The Australian Institute of Health and Welfare has one. This helps the states trust the institute with their health data by creating a buffer from direct Commonwealth control.
An independent review in 2020 found the EPBC Act was ineffective at protecting Matters of National Environmental Significance and recommended the rapid introduction of National Environmental Standards. Nicolas Rakotopare/Biodiversity Council
2: Set national environmental standards
Establishing national environmental standards was the centrepiece of both the Samuel Review and Labor’s Nature Positive Plan.
These standards would set the bar for regulatory decisions, for example, by preventing development in areas of highest biodiversity value. They would also set goals and priorities for environmental plans and restoration programs.
In short, introducing standards could prevent decisions that degrade the environment, prioritise development in areas of lower conservation concern, and focus investment for recovery where it’s needed the most.
Unfortunately, the federal government indefinitely deferred the standards – along with most of its other environmental reforms – after pressure from the state Labor government in Western Australia and the mining and resources industries.
The draft laws should be changed to at least grant the relevant minister the power to set environmental standards. This would enable the government to release initial standards in the next few months – so improvements for nature can start to be delivered.
3: Set a proper baseline from which to measure progress
The reforms centre around the concept of “nature positive”. The internationally agreed definition of the term is reversing the decline of species and ecosystems by 2030, measured against a 2020 baseline, and achieving recovery by 2050.
The bills, however, are vague, defining nature-positive as an improvement from an undefined “baseline” set by the information agency. This would allow a “trajectory of decline” to be chosen as the baseline.
For example, imagine a region with a population of 500 bilbies, which is declining by 50 bilbies a year due to feral predators. If that trajectory of decline was used as the baseline then slowing bilby loss to 40 bilbies a year would qualify as nature-positive, even though, eventually, the region would have no bilbies.
We are calling for the baseline to be set at a recent year – such as 2020, the international standard. This is the type of baseline set under Australia’s climate change laws, which aim to reduce Australia’s greenhouse gas emissions to 43% below 2005 levels by 2030.
It might sound like technical detail, but it could be crucial. In the case of our bilbies example, it would mean that there should be at least 501 bilbies at a specified time in the future.
We also recommend the baseline year be enshrined in law to provide a permanent benchmark for measuring environmental change.
Professor Martine Maron explains why the definition of ‘Nature Positive’ needs a baseline year, speaking to a Senate Committee Inquiry to the Nature Positive Bills.
A way forward
A federal election is looming, and nature positive laws are the Albanese government’s headline environmental reform.
Four years after Samuel called for urgent reform, and two years after Plibersek promised it, laying weak foundations for reform is not good enough.
The changes we propose are important and feasible. The longer we delay, the harder it will be to achieve a “nature positive” future.
Peter Burnett is affiliated with the Biodiversity Council, an independent expert group founded by 11 Australian universities to promote evidence-based solutions to Australia’s biodiversity crisis.
Brendan Wintle has received funding from The Australian Research Council, the Victorian government, the New South Wales government, the Queensland government, Tasmanian government, the Australian government’s National Environmental Science Program, the Ian Potter Foundation, the Hermon Slade Foundation, and the Australian Conservation Foundation. Wintle is a Board Director of Zoos Victoria and a lead councillor of the Biodiversity Council.
Jaana Dielenberg is a Charles Darwin University Fellow. She works for the Biodiversity Council and The University of Melbourne, and previously worked for the National Environmental Science Program Threatened Species Recovery Hub.
Martine Maron has received funding from various sources including the Australian Research Council, the Queensland Department of Environment and Science, and the federal government’s National Environmental Science Program, and has advised both state and federal government on conservation policy. She is a member of the Wentworth Group of Concerned Scientists, a director of the Australian Wildlife Conservancy, a councillor with the Biodiversity Council, a governor of WWF-Australia, and leads the IUCN’s thematic group on Impact Mitigation and Ecological Compensation under the Commission on Ecosystem Management.
Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Genevieve McArthur, Professor at the Australian Centre for the Advancement of Literacy, Australian Catholic University
During Book Week, we will see countless photos on social media of happy kids dressed as characters from their favourite books, while schools hold daily events celebrating the joy of reading.
It’s a fun time for many children, who relish the chance to dress up as Hermione from Harry Potter or Dog Man and talk about books with their friends and teachers.
But what if your child doesn’t like reading?
It’s a growing challenge in many parts of the world. A 2023 survey found more than 50% of eight- to 18-year-olds in the United Kingdom do not enjoy reading in their spare time. In the United States, only 14% of 13-year-old students report reading for fun almost every day.
In Australia, it’s slightly better – but about 30% of Australian children aged five to 14 say they do not read for pleasure.
If you have a child who’s reluctant to read, what can you do? A good first step is to find out why.
Why is it important for kids to enjoy reading – or at least not hate it?
It might be tempting to give a kid a “pass” if they don’t like reading, but this will not help them in the long term. Most jobs rely on reading and writing – even those that are more practical. For examples, trades involve lots of forms, instructions and certification.
Once a child has been taught to read, they need to practice to get good at it – or at least good enough. This is why liking reading, or at least not hating it, is important. It gets children to practice.
There are several reasons a child may say they hate reading:
they might not be as good at reading as other kids in the class, so they form the impression – from their own observations or feedback from others – they are not good at reading
this may make them worry or even fear reading, particularly in front of other people
so they avoid reading to simply to stop feeling bad.
But even if a child has no problems with reading, they still may not like it.
Perhaps they have other interests (for example, computing, sport or music). Or they can’t see the point of reading (“what does it do for me?”).
A good place to start is think about what your child says about reading, or what they have said in the past.
Is there a chance they are struggling with reading at school? Do they think they are “bad” at it? Does reading make them feel worried or “switched off”? Do they try to actively avoid reading? Do they find it hard to find something to read that interests them?
If nothing comes into mind, you could try to talk to your child – in a gentle way – to see if any of these things are an issue for them. If you are worried this might end up in an argument, or with them saying “I don’t know, I just hate it”, ask their teacher.
Their teacher should know where your child sits within the class in terms of their reading ability and feelings about reading, and if they try to avoid reading for some reason.
Some children avoid reading because they feel like they are not good at it. JGA/ Shutterstock, CC BY
A second opinion?
If you need another opinion, you may wish to take your child to a reading specialist. Before you book a session, ask if they can assess your child’s confidence, engagement and emotions around reading as well as their skills. These all play a role in how well your child reads and how much they enjoy reading.
Also make sure the specialist can provide recommendations about next steps based on the results, rather than give you a result with no further action.
What can you do at home?
First, help your child find books or articles on topics that genuinely interest them. Perhaps take them to the local library or bookshop so they can choose their own book. Or search through your local street libraries together on a walk. Show an interest in their interests.
Second, help your child find a meaningful goal for their reading. Are they determined to read all the books in a series? Or do they have more practical goals (“I need to learn how to fix my bike”)? Show an interest in how they are tracking towards their goal.
Third, support your child’s reading self-efficacy, which is their perception they can meet their reading goals. Try to avoid showing disappointment if their progress is slow. Take an interest in what they are learning through their reading.
At some point, you might find your child is discouraged because they have chosen a text that is too easy (which is boring) or too hard (which is demoralising).
In the first case, you can say their reading is “far too good for this book, so let’s find something more interesting tomorrow”.
In the second case, you can offer to help them read every second page, or the bits they feel they cannot manage. That way you can get through the book together.
In time, you will both learn how to find texts that are not too easy and not too hard.
Genevieve McArthur receives funding from the Australian Research Council and National Health and Medical Research Council. She is affiliated with the not-for-profit Dyslexia SPELD Foundation (NFP) and not-for-profit Street Libraries Australia.
Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Joanna Mendelssohn, Honorary Senior Fellow, School of Culture and Communication. Editor in chief, Design and Art of Australia Online, The University of Melbourne
Anne Zahalka, The Artist (self portrait),1988, from the series Resemblance II. Silver dye bleach print 50.0 x 50.0 cm.Courtesy of the artist represented by ARC ONE Gallery (Melbourne) and Dominik Mersch Gallery (Sydney).
The first work I saw by the Australian photo-media artist Anne Zahalka was her regendered version of Tom Roberts’ A Break Away! (1891). In Zahalka’s 1985 rendering, the heroic rider has been given a plait.
It was part of her series The Landscape Re‑presented, where the young artist had used photomontage to change heroic images of Australian art into a gender-inclusive multicultural Australia.
This was the body of work that in 1986 persuaded the Australia Council to award Zahalka a year-long residency at Berlin’s Künstlerhaus Bethanien. The experience of Berlin, with its great art and embedded history, opened the eyes of this child of refugees to her European heritage.
Anne Zahalka, The breakaway, 1985, from the series The Landscape Re-presented. Chromogenic print, brown paper; plywood; balsa wood 100 x 122 cm. Courtesy of the artist, Arc One Gallery, Melbourne and Dominik Mersch Gallery, Sydney.
Most works evoke the sentiment rather than individual works.
The hero of these photographs is the light that sharply defines the objects that give the subjects their identity.
Anne Zahalka, The Cook (Michael Schmidt/architect, cook), 1987, from the series Resemblance. Silver dye bleach print 80 x 80 cm. Museum of Australian Photography, City of Monash Collection acquired with the assistance of The Robert Salzer Foundation 2019. Courtesy of the artist, Arc One Gallery, Melbourne and Dominik Mersch Gallery, Sydney.
The one work that directly quotes an actual painting is Marriage of Convenience (Graham Budgett and Jane Mulfinger), a modern retake of The Arnolfini Portrait, the 15th-century painting that revolutionised western art.
Zahalka even places a reflection of herself in the painting, a tribute to the way Jan Van Eyck inserted himself into the original.
On the beach
On her return to Australia, Zahalka began to experiment with digital photography. At first she manipulated elements of the works she had made in Berlin. Fragments of photographs are modified, duplicated and even turned into Rorschach images.
Living in Bondi, she started to consider the difference between images of the iconic beach as a bastion of bronzed Anglo-Australia and its multicultural reality.
Anne Zahalka, The Bathers, 1989, from the series Bondi: playground of the Pacific. Chromogenic print 95 x 112 cm. Museum of Australian Photography, City of Monash Collection donated through the Australian government’s Cultural Gifts Program by the Bowness Family 2010. Courtesy of the artist, Arc One Gallery, Melbourne and Dominik Mersch Gallery, Sydney.
Her series Bondi: Playground of the Pacific gave the beach a multicultural tweak that was closer to reality. It showed the variety and energy of visitors to Bondi, from tanned beach inspectors to Japanese surfers.
Some years later, in the series Welcome to Sydney, a commission from the international airport, she photographed an Orthodox Jewish rabbi and his family on the sand at Bondi Beach.
Exploring the transient
Zahalka says she really values the many residencies that have enabled her to make extended series of works.
Hotel Suite (2008) is the result of a residency at Melbourne’s Hotel Sofitel. The transient nature of hotel life prompted her to make a series of implied narratives.
Anne Zahalka, Room 3621, 2008 from the series Hotel Suite. Chromogenic print, 75 x 92.5 cm. Courtesy of the artist, Arc One Gallery, Melbourne and Dominik Mersch Gallery, Sydney.
A half-clad prepubescent girl sits on a bed, her clothes in a tangle on the floor.
A maid looks at a book in a room she has cleaned.
One photograph of a suited man holding his head in grief echoes the controlled desperation of John Brack’s Collins St, 5pm (1955), which hangs in the background. The man is the artist’s husband, who had been watching a football game where his team lost – a very Melbourne experience.
Anne Zahalka, Room 4117 (with artwork by John Brack), 2008, from the series Hotel Suite. Chromogenic print 75 x 92.5 cm. Courtesy of the artist, Arc One Gallery, Melbourne and Dominik Mersch Gallery, Sydney.
Photography and the anthropocene
When Zahalka first visited New York’s Museum of Natural History, she remembered how Holden Caulfield in J.D. Salinger’s The Catcher in the Rye had admired the static quality of the painted dioramas acting as a background to examples of the taxidermists’ art.
She has since visited many natural history museums photographing, then manipulating, those heroic images of nature painted over a century ago. The placing of stuffed animals and birds in a painted wilderness gave city dwellers a sense of places they could never see.
In some images she has inserted tourists – the modern hobby of exploring the wilderness is another factor in its degradation.
Anne Zahalka, Exotic birds, 2017, from the series Wild Life 2006–17. Chromogenic print 80 x 80 cm. Courtesy of the artist, Arc One Gallery, Melbourne and Dominik Mersch Gallery, Sydney.
Zahalka’s photographs both honour the unnamed artists of the past and comment on what is happening to the land in this age of the Anthropocene.
The water level on painted island scenes is changed to show the impact of rising tides from melting ice on a heating planet. Paintings of ancient rocks and clear streams have been modified to show the deep cracks and polluted streams from fracking.
They act as a warning: humanity continues to wreck what it claims to admire.
Some of the most powerful photographs in the series are of the Lord Howe Island diorama at the Australian Museum. In one version Zahalka has photographed it at full scale, in monochrome. This enables her to insert, in colour, the polluting plastics that attack the bird life. A real taxidermied bird, dissected to reveal the jewel-like plastics it had swallowed, is on a neighbouring stand.
Zahalka’s world
The full name of the current exhibition at the National Art School Gallery is ZAHALKAWORLD – an artist’s archive. It follows on from an earlier version of the exhibition at the Museum of Australian Photography in 2023.
In the centre of the top floor of this exhibition, Zahalka has created a room that is a three-dimensional photographic replica of her Kunstkammer: a complete archive of her work records.
Appropriately this also contains a small model of the room itself. Recording the past also entails recording the present, as that too will soon be a part of history.
ZAHALKAWORLD – an artist’s archive is at the National Art School Gallery, Sydney, until October 19.
Joanna Mendelssohn has in the past received funding from the Australian Research Council
Amid continued fractious debate about visas for Palestinians, the Albanese government will be trying in parliament this week to “land” two crucial pieces of legislation.
The bill to drive an administrator into the CFMEU and the legislation for reform of the NDIS may see further haggling. But Labor is looking to agreement with the Coalition as its preferred route to secure the passage of each bill and there is pressure on both sides to close the deals.
Labor wants reform of the CFMEU under way as soon as possible. Once the union’s constructiondivision is in the hands of an administrator, the issue moves – at least to a fair degree – away from the government.
The opposition has been seeking amendments to the bill. It wants political donations and money spent on campaigns banned while the union is in administration. And it wants the administrator to front Senate estimates hearings.
But if it stalls too long, that would look blatantly expedient, when it has loudly called for immediate action to curb the rogue union.
Finance Minister Katy Gallagher said on Sunday the government hoped to get the bill through the Senate on Monday so it could go to the lower house and pass parliament by end of the week. She said Workplace Relations M
The NDIS legislation involves issues of balancing the imperative for reform against the needs of vulnerable people.
Negotiations have been extensive, with the government having some amendments of its own and accepting some of the opposition’s.
Once again, the Coalition is near the point where it needs to come to an agreement to back the legislation or its own credibility will be shot on this issue. It has been repeatedly declaring the scheme is in urgent need of drastic change, and so can’t hold up change too long.
Apart from the federal legislation, the Minister for the NDIS, Bill Shorten, still has to secure agreement from the states about their stepping up to help reform the scheme by providing more services themselves.
Shorten has had some good news in the last few days for his efforts to curb the cost growth of the immensely expensive program.
The NDIS’s just-released quarterly report showed its expenses for the year to June 30 were $41.8 billion, on an accrual basis. This was $600 million below the May budget’s estimate. Shorten is charged with reining the scheme in to an annual growth rate of 8% by mid-2026.
Shorten said: “This report shows the green shoots emerging from the Albanese government’s responsible leadership on NDIS reforms. The scheme is delivering better outcomes for participants and these reforms are having a positive impact on scheme sustainability.”
Treasury says falling iron ore price could reduce tax recepits by $3 billion over forward estimates
In the swings and roundabouts of budgeting, as the NDIS savings are providing a boost, the fall in the iron ore price is raising questions.
The treasury estimates that a faster-than-assumed fall in the iron ore price could reduce tax receipts by about $3 billion over the forward estimates.
The significant price decline (7.5%) in the last week reflects concerns about the outlook for China, especially for the demand for steel.
The iron ore price is now below the glide path that the treasury assumed in the budget.
At the close of trading on Thursday the price was US$81.80/tonne. Treasury had assumed it would be about US$83/tonne at this time.
The treasury assumption was that it would reach a long run anchor price of US$60/tonne by the end of the March quarter next year.
Iron ore prices have fallen 38% since the beginning of 2024.
Treasurer Jim Chalmers said: “Softness in the Chinese economy and the recent fall in iron ore prices are another reminder that we are not immune from volatility and uncertainty in the global economy”.
Iron ore spot prices and 2024-25 budget glide path
If the iron ore price keeps falling in line with the assumption made in the 2024-25 budget, it will be the first time this decade the price has fallen as assumed, in part depriving the government of the traditional “upside surprise” when more company tax comes in than expected.
The labour market has been a key driver of revenue upgrades. In the May budget higher employment and the strength of the labour market accounted for $21.6 billion of the net $27 billion receipts upgrade.
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.
Top economists are unanimous in believing Australia’s housing market is in crisis.
Offered a choice of 14 measures identified by the Economic Society of Australia as likely to restrain prices for buyers and renters, none of the 49 leading economists polled picked: “do nothing, the market will determine appropriate prices”.
The economists chosen for the poll are from a panel of about 70 experts in fields including macroeconomics, economic modelling, housing and labour markets, maintained by the society since 2015.
Among them are former heads of government agencies, a former Reserve Bank board member, and former Treasury, International Monetary Fund and Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development officials.
Two-thirds back public housing, planning reform
About two-thirds of the experts polled picked “ease planning restrictions” as one of the most important fixes. Almost as many picked “provide more public housing”.
About one-third wanted to “tighten negative gearing and capital gains tax concessions”, which was a policy Labor took to the 2019 election. Another third wanted to “replace stamp duty with land tax applying to family homes”.
Also popular were removing barriers to building prefabricated homes (31%), fast-tracking the training of home builders (18%) and fast-tracking the immigration of home builders (14%).
Ten per cent of those surveyed wanted to include the family home in the age pension assets test, 8% wanted to remove first homeowner grants and concessions, and 6% wanted to apply capital gains tax to family homes, the same proportion that wanted to restrain immigration.
Only one of the panellists surveyed wanted to provide more direct assistance to first homebuyers, and only one wanted to allow first homebuyers to access their superannuation savings.
Australia’s median house-price-to-income ratio has soared in the past two decades, climbing from about five years of gross household income to eight.
At the same time, the median time taken to save for a deposit has climbed from about seven years to ten.
Asked whether it was more important to restrain rents or home prices, a majority of those surveyed (58%) backed action to restrain rents, although several said action to restrain prices would flow through to rents.
Tax empty homes to boost supply
Thirty-two of the 48 experts wanted planning restrictions relaxed in order to make it easier to build more new homes where people needed them, some mentioning the “excessive power” of NIMBYs – residents who say “not in my backyard” when confronted with plans to build in their neighbourhoods.
Several acknowledged this wouldn’t be enough without the ability to build homes quickly. The Australian National University’s Alison Booth said the building industry was old-fashioned and resistant to prefabricated construction.
Others wanted to boost supply by making more existing homes available. University of Canberra economist Uwe Dulleck suggested taxing empty homes.
He said several European cities more heavily taxed apartments and apartments that were not used as permanent residences. The tax could boost supply and affordability.
Former Productivity Commission economist Jenny Gordon said a tax on the unimproved value of land could have a similar effect, and would also encourage downsizers to sell and subdivide large blocks.
Former OECD official Adrian Blundell-Wignall proposed severe limits on the letting out of homes through Airbnb-style arrangements, although he doubted governments would have the courage.
More to it than supply?
Housing specialist Peter Abelson sounded a note of caution about the prevailing wisdom that houses haven’t been built quickly enough, noting that between 2003 and 2022 Australia’s housing stock climbed by 4% more than its population.
Julie Toth, chief economist at the online property settlement firm PEXA, said while 11 million homes for 27 million Australians sounded enough, there had been a long-term decline in average household size even as the homes themselves grew bigger.
One hundred years ago, the average Australian home housed 4.5 people; 30 years ago it housed 2.8, and in 2024 just 2.45.
Reserve Bank calculations suggested that if we reverted to 2.8 Australians per home we would require 1.2 million fewer homes.
No grants, no concessions for buyers
With the exception of measures to help low-income renters, the panel was overwhelmingly against subsidies for Australians trying to get into housing.
John Freebairn from The University of Melbourne said accommodation was “just one of life’s necessities, along with food and clothing”.
Sensibly, there were no or minimal subsidies for food and clothing, and that should be the case for housing. The best way to help Australians who needed help was by boosting their income.
Selective support for home buyers helped those who got it, but pushed up prices for everyone else.
Reboot public housing
Macquarie University economist Lisa Magnani says the proportion of households forced to rent rather than buy has climbed from 26% to 31% over the past 30 years, with many unable to easily afford the rent.
Whereas global cities – including Seattle, New York and Singapore – were attempting to aggressively lift the supply of low-income housing, Australia’s supply of affordable and public housing had been shrinking for decades.
Several panellists suggested the funds raised by restricting negative gearing and capital gains tax breaks be directed toward expanding public housing.
One, Ben Phillips of the Australian National University, cautioned that a massive public housing building program would come at the expense of private building, and said an alternative was to turn existing homes into public housing.
It was also important to boost payments such as JobSeeker and Youth Allowance to at least a basic level of adequacy. Government decisions over the past two budgets to boost rent assistance for welfare recipients by 25% were a good start.
Individual responses. Click to open:
Peter Martin is Economics Editor of The Conversation. He serves on the central council of the Economic Society of Australia.
Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander readers are advised this article contains mentions of someone who has died.
After two years and 16 hearings, the Senate Inquiry into Missing and Murdered First Nations women handed down its report yesterday. While important, it was not the moment of reckoning many of us had hoped for.
The Senate inquiry was introduced and spearheaded by Dorinda Cox, the West Australian Greens Senator, who today called the report’s recommendations “weak” and “toothless”.
The inquiry came after other nations, such as Canada and the United States, held their own inquiries into missing and murdered Indigenous women. Australia’s own report about the appalling rates of violence against Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander women was comparatively benign.
No one’s counting
The inquiry’s terms of reference focused on missing and murdered First Nations women and children. It sought to examine the extent of the problem, comparing investigation practices between First Nations and non-First Nations cases, examining systemic causes, the effectiveness of existing policies, and exploring actions to reduce violence and improve safety.
Additionally, they consider how to honour and commemorate the victims and survivors. By their own reports, the committee was deeply affected and disturbed by the stories they heard.
What the inquiry found is precisely what First Nations women have been saying for decades: that Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander women and children are disproportionately impacted by men’s use of violence.
That their stories and lives are ignored by mainstream media.
That police often fail to adequately investigate, search for, or respond to calls for help from First Nations women and children.
And that the data is shockingly incomplete and inadequate. No one is accurately keeping count.
As Janet Hunt from the Centre for Aboriginal Economic Policy Research submitted to the inquiry, there is a gender bias in public policy:
Despite the fact that a comparable number of First Nations women have died as a result of violence against them, as First Nations men have died in custody, it is the latter issue that attracted far more public policy attention, including through an early Royal Commission […] There is now data on deaths in custody. There is still no data on national deaths of First Nations women by violence.
Extreme rates of violence
Despite the flawed data, those that were captured show the extreme and disproportionate rate of violence against First Nations women.
National Homicide Monitoring Program data on murdered First Nations women and children from 1989–1990 to 2022–2023 show 476 women were recorded as victims of homicide (murder and manslaughter). 158 children were recorded as victims of homicide (murder, manslaughter and infanticide).
First Nations women represented 16% of all Australian women homicide victims, despite comprising between 2–3% of the adult female population.
First Nations children represented 13% of all child homicide victims.
Counting missing First Nations women and children was equally problematic, somewhat owing to some jurisdictions not recording Indigenous status in their figures.
Despite the flawed data, the Senate inquiry heard 20% of missing women in Australia are Aboriginal women. The report found First Nations children and youth are over-represented in the out-of-home care system (approximately one in 18) and are
markedly overrepresented in reports of missing children. These children make up 53% of missing children reports.
Not only are First Nations women and children more likely to go missing, they are less likely to be found.
The inquiry also heard the problematic nature of the language of “missing” as being passive, and somehow suggestive that people go deliberately missing. We agree with Amy McQuire’s argument that these First Nations women and children are not missing – but disappeared.
Consistent legal failings
The Senate committee also heard these missing and disappeared First Nations women and children, and their families and communities, were regularly and routinely failed by policing and legal systems.
These systems were often regarded as another harm or threat by First Nations women and children, who were at times over-policed, and at other times, under-policed.
First Nations women are also disproportionately misidentified as the perpetrator, instead of the victim, criminalising First Nations women and creating yet another barrier to getting help.
These issues are intertwined with the dehumanisation of First Nations women and children that manifests in them not being searched for adequately or mourned in the media. There is insufficient accountability for their murders.
What is truly missing in this report is exactly that: accountability. Missing from the narrative is the focus on the users of violence and the state systems that have caused harm and repeatedly failed to support First Nations women and children.
It is this lack of accountability that has prompted Cox to say the report is simply “not enough”.
Falling well short
The report makes ten recommendations. One is co-designing a culturally appropriate way to recognise murdered or disappeared First Nations women and children.
Another is the appointment of a First Nations person with the specific responsibility for advocating for, and addressing violence against, these women and children. This role would be within the Domestic, Family and Sexual Violence Commission.
It also recommends policing practices be harmonised across the country to help close data gaps and create guidelines for the review of past cases. These would then be monitored for progress.
A sustainable funding mechanism for work in this area was also recommended, alongside a request for the media to reflect on the findings of the report, namely the portrayal of these cases in the news.
The Senate inquiry was an important step. And these recommendations are welcome. But they do not go far enough.
Some of the authors of this piece gave evidence to this inquiry. And all of us have lost loved ones. Each one of us know First Nations women and children who have been murdered and disappeared. We think about them every single day.
We remember R. Rubuntja, our sister and friend, whose life was stolen and who we spoke about in loving memory to this Senate inquiry.
It is not enough.
If this article has raised issues for you, or if you’re concerned about someone you know, call the Aboriginal & Torres Strait Islander crisis support line 13YARN (13 92 76) or 1800 RESPECT (1800 737 732).
Chay Brown receives funding from ANROWS and The Australian National University. Chay Brown is affiliated with the Australian National University, Her Story Mparntwe and works closely with the Tangentyere Women’s Family Safety Group.
Connie Shaw is affiliated with Tangentyere Women’s Family Safety Group.
Co-Founder and Managing Director of Her Story, lead on U Right Sis? project and works closely with the Tangentyere Women’s Family Safety Group.
Shirleen Campbell is affiliated with Tangentyere Women’s Safety Group.
Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Michael Adams, Professor of Corporate Law & Academic Director of UNE Sydney campus, University of New England
The Australian Securities Exchange (ASX) is unusual in the world of finance.
It is the operator of Australia’s largest stock exchange, and as such is “required to ensure that each of its licensed markets is fair, orderly and transparent”.
At the same time, it is itself a public company listed on that very exchange. It’s as if we’ve enlisted a flock’s shepherd by picking out one of its sheep.
That doesn’t mean the ASX does – or has done – anything wrong. But this has been a known potential conflict of interest since the 1990s.
That was when the ASX listed itself as a public company on its own exchange, the first time this had ever happened in the world.
That saw a wide range of regulatory functions handed to Australia’s corporate watchdog, the Australian Securities and Investments Commission (ASIC).
So for ASIC to file a lawsuit on Wednesday, alleging the ASX misled markets, was significant.
But what exactly does ASIC allege happened? And why do a company’s announcements matter so much in the first place?
What are ASIC’s allegations?
The issue in question is the exchange’s stated progress replacing a key piece of software – “CHESS” – that is used to settle transactions. ASIC alleges the ASX told markets this project was on track and on schedule, despite knowing it wasn’t.
ASX’s statements go to the heart of trust in the integrity of our markets. We believe this was a collective failure by the ASX Board and senior executives at the time.
ASX chief executive Helen Lofthouse said the company acknowledges the “significance and serious nature of these proceedings”.
Lofthouse said the ASX is now “carefully reviewing and considering the allegations”, having “cooperated fully” with the investigation.
What is CHESS? And why does it need replacing?
One of the most important functions of the ASX is to provide a system for recording and settling share transactions. The current system is the Clearing House Electronic Subregister System, or CHESS for short, which we’ve had since 1994.
But for the past decade or so, it has been known that the technology underpinning CHESS is outdated and needs replacing.
According to ASIC’s filing in the Federal Court this week, the ASX determined it would replace CHESS in early 2016. By December 2017, it had engaged a company called Digital Asset to build the technology.
This new system was to be based on blockchain technology, an innovation that excited global markets and would have made Australia a world leader.
By March 2020, the ASX had announced that the CHESS replacement project’s initial go-live date in April 2021 would have to be delayed. By October, it had announced a new date: April 2023.
In mid-2021, it published an implementation timetable, and indicated it was still “on-track” to go live in April 2023. But ASIC alleges that in November 2021, the ASX opened an “industry test environment” despite a lack of “full functionality”.
The regulator alleges that about 100 defects in the application “were not addressed”.
According to the filing, the ASX’s own audit and risk committee was informed the CHESS replacement project had a “red” status on February 3 2022 – that is, there was a high risk it wouldn’t be completed on time.
ASIC alleges that despite this, when the ASX published its half-yearly results about a week later, it misleadingly indicated the project was “progressing well” – and still on track for its planned date to go live.
In September 2022, consulting firm Accenture was engaged to review the project. By November, ASX had paused it.
Pre-tax, it had already cost about A$250 million. The use of blockchain technology to replace CHESS has now been abandoned altogether.
Why does this all matter?
Both the ASX and the corporate regulator ASIC need a fully informed securities market to function. There are a number of laws that relate to this need.
Under the ASIC Act, the corporate regulator is explicitly required to “maintain, facilitate and improve the performance of the financial system”.
Under the Corporations Act – which is enforced by ASIC – companies must continuously disclose material information that could impact on their share price to the market.
More generally, this principle aims to prevent market manipulation and insider trading by companies listed on the stock exchange by preventing misleading or false statements.
With this lawsuit, ASIC has shone a spotlight on what is expected more broadly in terms of disclosures and accuracy, from all publicly listed companies.
The matter will now be decided under usual court processes and future hearings, unless it is settled earlier. Investors and regulators will be watching closely.
Michael Adams receives funding from the Australian Research Council and the European Union, but not connected with this article. I am a Director of the Governance Institute of Australia and chair their Academic Board, but not connected to this article.
Many of us are looking for ways to eat a healthier and more sustainable diet. And one way to do this is by reducing the amount of meat we eat.
That doesn’t mean you need to become a vegan or vegetarian. Our recent research shows even small changes to cut down on meat consumption could help improve health and wellbeing.
But not all plant-based options are created equal and some are ultra-processed. Navigating what’s available when eating out – including options like tofu and fake meats – can be a challenge.
So what are your best options at a cafe or restaurant? Here are some guiding principles to keep in mind when cutting down on meat.
Health benefits to cutting down
Small amounts of lean meat can be part of a healthy, balanced diet. But the majority of Australians still eat more meat than recommended.
Only a small percentage of Australians (10%) are vegetarian or vegan. But an increasing number opt for a flexitarian diet. Flexitarians eat a diet rich in fruits and vegetables, while still enjoying small amounts of meat, dairy, eggs and fish.
Our recent research looked at whether the average Australian diet would improve if we swapped meat and dairy for plant-based alternatives, and the results were promising.
The study found health benefits when people halved the amount of meat and dairy they ate and replaced them with healthy plant-based foods, like tofu or legumes. On average, their dietary fibre intake – which helps with feeling fuller for longer and digestive health – went up. Saturated fats – which increase our blood cholesterol levels, a risk factor for heart disease – went down.
Including more fibre and less saturated fat helps reduce the risk of heart disease.
Achieving these health benefits may be as simple as swapping ham for baked beans in a toastie for lunch, or substituting half of the mince in your bolognese for lentils at dinner.
For a long time we’ve known processed meats – such as ham, bacon and sausages – are bad for your health. Eating high amounts of these foods is associated with poor heart health and some forms of cancer.
But the same can be true of many processed meat alternatives.
Plant-based alternatives designed to mimic meat, such as sausages and burgers, have become readily available in supermarkets, cafes and restaurants. These products are ultra-processed and can be high in salt and saturated fat.
Our study found when people replaced meat and dairy with ultra-processed meat alternatives – such as plant-based burgers or sausages – they ate more salt and less calcium, compared to eating meat or healthy plant-based options.
So if you’re cutting down on meat for health reasons, it’s important to think about what you’re replacing it with. The Australian Dietary Guidelines recommend eggs, legumes/beans, tofu, nuts and seeds.
Tofu can be a great option. But we recommend flavouring plain tofu with herbs and spices yourself, as pre-marinated products are often ultra-processed and can be high in salt.
What about when dining out?
When you’re making your own food, it’s easier to adapt recipes or reduce the amount of meat. But when faced with a menu, it can be difficult to work out what is the best option.
Here are our four ways to make healthy choices when you eat out:
1. Fill half your plate with vegetables
When cutting down on meat, aim for half your plate to be vegetables. Try to also eat a variety of colours, such as leafy green spinach, red capsicum and pumpkin.
When you’re out, this might look like choosing a vegetable-based entree, a stir-fry or ordering a side salad to have with your meal.
2. Avoid the deep fryer
The Australian Dietary Guidelines recommend limiting deep fried foods to once a week or less. When dining out, choose plant-based options that are sautéed, grilled, baked, steamed, boiled or poached – instead of those that are crumbed or battered before deep frying.
This could mean choosing vegetarian dumplings that are steamed not fried, or poached eggs at brunch instead of fried. Ordering a side of roast vegetables instead of hot chips is also a great option.
3. Pick wholegrains
Scan the menu for wholegrain options such as brown rice, wholemeal pizza or pasta, barley, quinoa or wholemeal burger buns. Not only are they good sources of protein, but they also provide more dietary fibre than refined grains, which help keep you fuller for longer.
4. If you do pick meat – choose less processed kinds
You may not always want, or be able, to make a vegetarian choice when eating out and with other people. If you do opt for meat, it’s better to steer clear of processed options like bacon or sausages.
If sharing dishes with other people, you could try adding unprocessed plant-based options into the mix. For example, a curry with lentils or chickpeas, or a vegetable-based pizza instead of one with ham or salami. If that’s not an option, try choose meat that’s a lean cut, such as chicken breast, or options which are grilled rather than fried.
Laura Marchese receives funding froma Deakin University Postgraduate Research Scholarship and a CSIRO R+ top-up scholarship.
Katherine Livingstone receives funding from the National Health and Medical Research Council (APP117380) and the National Heart Foundation (ID106800).
Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Alistair Sisson, Macquarie University Research Fellow, School of Social Sciences, Macquarie University
Apartments in Waterloo SouthBen Guthrie, Author provided
The New South Wales government is forging ahead with renewal of the state’s largest public housing estate. Developer Stockland and three community housing providers are contracted to deliver the first stage nearly a decade after it was announced. Some 749 homes are to be demolished and replaced with more than 3,000 new apartments.
Following the Minns government’s changes in 2023, Waterloo South will comprise 30% social housing, 20% affordable housing and 50% market-rate housing. Plans for the 1,200-plus homes in Waterloo Central and North are yet to be confirmed.
The contentious15-year project is due to start in 2027. It has been pitched as replacing ageing homes that are no longer “fit for purpose”, while increasing housing supply.
The former Coalition government’s housing minister, Brad Hazzard, described the homes in Waterloo as “terrible”. Local Labor MP Ron Hoenig said they were “well past their renewal date”.
One might expect, then, that the estate housing is badly designed and dilapidated. However, no comprehensive condition assessment nor refurbishment feasibility study has been made public.
Our research examined the quality of the Waterloo housing, using the original architectural drawings and field-based observations. While this approach doesn’t account for maintenance issues, it shows the underlying quality of much of the estate is good by today’s standards. This finding complicates the rationale for redevelopment.
When we think of a housing “estate”, we often think of a swathe of homogenous homes – uniform apartment blocks or “cookie cutter” suburban housing. The Waterloo estate, in contrast, has diverse housing types built over almost 40 years.
The first homes were four small, three-storey apartment blocks built in 1948 at the start of the post-war public housing boom. By the early 1960s, the NSW Housing Commission had added several more low-rise complexes occupying whole street blocks.
It scaled up its ambition later that decade with larger complexes of 50-plus units and up to six storeys.
These buildings would soon be dwarfed in the 1970s by the Endeavour Project, including the famous (or infamous) four 17-storey slabs and two 30-storey towers. These buildings, more resonant with the popular image of public housing, make up Waterloo North and Central.
The backlash against this style of development inspired a broader shift within the NSW Housing Commission. In the late 1970s and early ’80s, it constructed complexes that were more modest in scale, yet architecturally striking. This includes the Drysdale and Dobell buildings designed by Tao Gofers and Penny Rosier – later siblings to the Sirius building.
So the estate comprises a diverse cross-section of 20th-century public housing. Is it all obsolete? This is the question we sought to answer.
Evaluating Waterloo
Since 2015, the Apartment Design Guide has set out the benchmarks for apartment housing in NSW. These guidelines reflect academic and industry research evidence on the environmental and spatial qualities that enhance physical and psychological wellbeing. These qualities include natural light, fresh air, visual privacy, accessibility, liveability, thermal comfort and access to nature and community.
We compared the architectural plans for Waterloo’s four main housing types – three-storey walk-ups, six-storey courtyard blocks, 17-storey slabs and 30-storey towers – with the controls outlined in the guide.
All four types compare well against the recommendations on access to light and air, thermal comfort and visual and acoustic privacy. All dwellings have large windows to provide excellent daylight and fresh air. Rooms are never too deep. There is generous open space between and around the buildings, with abundant greenery.
There are, however, some compromises. Unit sizes are 10–30% smaller that the guide recommends. Ceiling heights are 20cm lower than the recommended 2.7m, as was common before the guide came out. Overall sizes of balconies, where provided, are often inadequate.
The three-storey walk-ups have less access to sunshine. Less than half receive the minimum two hours in mid-winter. However, their access to ample outdoor green space may mitigate this problem.
Early three-storey walk-up apartments in Waterloo South, with retrofitted balconies. Ben Guthrie, Author provided
A more significant shortcoming is that none of the four types meet the silver level of the Liveable Housing Design Guidelines – a higher standard of accessibility than the Apartment Design Guide. They fall short on aspects such as being free of steps, door and corridor widths and bathroom configuration. These higher standards are desirable for social housing, as many residents are elderly or have a disability.
Yet renovation could offer remedies. Providing lifts on the courtyard buildings would improve access and reduce the number of units accessed through a single entrance. Small units could be combined into larger living spaces – some units already have been in the 30-storey Matavai and Turanga buildings.
Balconies could also be retrofitted. This, too, has been done already on some of the earliest walk-ups.
Reimagining redevelopment
While the Waterloo buildings have some deficiencies, it’s simply untrue that they are definitively not fit for purpose. Relatively modest renovations or additions could extend the lives of most buildings in a way that supports residents.
There are several examples we can look to for inspiration. Among them are the celebrated work of French architects Anne Lacaton and Jean-Philippe Vassal and the Retain, Repair, Reinvest strategy developed by Melbourne architectural practice OFFICE.
The benefits of redevelopment must be weighed against the impacts of forced relocation on tenants’ health and wellbeing. Older tenants in particular are generally more vulnerable and less likely to benefit.
The decision must also take into account the embodied carbon from the buildings’ construction and the reduction in social housing supply through demolitions – a more significant problem than many realise. If redevelopment is to occur, it must be carefully planned and staged. And it should not preclude upgrades to existing homes in the meantime.
Governments around the country are starting to reinvest in social housing after decades of neglect. It’s more important than ever to recognise the value and potential of what we already have.
Alistair Sisson has received funding from the Tenants’ Union of NSW, Australian Council of Social Service, Shelter NSW, QShelter, National Shelter, Mission Australia and Australian Housing and Urban Research Institute. He is a member of Shelter NSW.
Michael Zanardo undertook the referenced research while in the role of Rothwell Resident in Architecture at the University of Sydney. He has undertaken work for Homes NSW (formerly LAHC) as an independent architectural and urban design consultant. Michael is a member of Shelter NSW, the City of Sydney Housing for All Working Group, and the Australian Institute of Architects.
Cameron Logan and Rebecca McLaughlan 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.
Healthy soil is teeming with life. An astonishing 59% of Earth’s species live in soil. They play crucial roles in maintaining soil health and, by extension, the health of our planet.
But this vital resource is under threat. Currently, 75% of the world’s soils are damaged. This figure could rise to 90% by 2050 due to deforestation, overgrazing, urbanisation and other destructive practices.
Such degradation poses significant risks, not only to biodiversity but also to the ecosystem services humans rely on, such as food production. But traditional methods of detecting and measuring soil life are often costly, time-consuming and intrusive. Enter “ecoacoustics”, an innovative and non-destructive approach that could transform soil health monitoring.
Our research team has developed a simple way to use sound to monitor life in the soil, which could help improve soil health worldwide. We discovered that healthy soils, rich in different animals, exhibit distinct acoustic profiles or “soundscapes”. A mixture of lively and intricate sounds, such as delicate crackles, clicks and pops, can be found underground.
Flinders University researchers are listening to the sounds of the underground – healthy soil is where the party’s at.
What is ecoacoustics?
Ecoacoustics is the study of sounds produced by communities of animals, plants and their environment. This relatively new science, enabled by technology, has been widely used to monitor ecosystems on land and water.
You can now hang an audio recorder the size of credit card on a tree to record sounds made by animals. Several days or weeks later, the device can be collected and the recordings analysed.
So far, scientists have captured acoustic signals from animals such as bats, birds, frogs and insects. These sounds provide valuable insights into biodiversity and ecosystem dynamics.
The same principles and tools are now being applied to soil. Researchers are beginning to explore the sounds of soil, using recorders and specialised microphones attached to probes in the ground. These devices record the acoustic vibrations produced by soil-dwelling organisms as they move through the underground world.
There are audible crackles, clicks and pops. Healthy soils tend to have a greater diversity of these sounds than damaged soils, which are generally quieter due to less animal activity. You can think of poor soil like a lifeless party. But thriving soil? That’s where you’ll find the good vibes and chatter.
The recorded sounds are analysed to glean insights into the abundance, diversity and potentially the behaviour of soil animal communities. And when we say “communities”, we’re talking about earthworms, beetles, spiders, ants and other animals that each have important ecological roles.
All living organisms produce sounds. This may be deliberate, such as birds singing to attract mates and bats echolocating to skilfully hunt their prey. Or it might be incidental, such as earthworms moving through the soil.
These incidental sounds can reveal much about the health of the soil ecosystem.
Our initial trials involved placing microphones in soil-filled buckets to capture the sounds of soil life. We then processed these recordings to derive sound patterns.
We’re interested in quantifying soundscapes by measuring frequency, loudness and patterns over time, which enable us to assess soil health. In healthy soils, the animals are active and produce a rich array of sounds.
Our new research in Australian forests, published today in the Journal of Applied Ecology, shows soil ecoacoustics effectively reflects the abundance and activity of soil animals and predicts whether soil is damaged or restored.
We found a greater diversity of crackles, clicks and pops in the restored soils. We linked this to a higher a number of invertebrates moving around. If the soil sounds quiet, it’s a sign it’s not healthy.
We’re also developing an innovative sound detection device to identify invertebrates moving on the surface. Preliminary results suggest different types of animals (worms, snails, ants, millipedes, and so on) exhibit different sound profiles based on their activity, shape, appendages and size.
It makes sense: a millipede with its many tiny legs gently tapping on the floor makes a different sound to a snail with its slow and slimy glide.
We used a metal probe connected to a microphone to capture and record the sounds made by tiny animals in the soil, while using headphones to listen in. Flinders University
Practical applications
Soil ecoacoustics offers numerous practical applications. It can be used to monitor the effectiveness of soil restoration efforts, helping land managers and farmers assess the health of their soils without too much disturbance. For instance, it could identify areas with deficient earthworm populations, crucial for soil aeration and nutrient cycling.
This method is ecologically akin to a doctor using a stethoscope and listening to a patient’s heartbeat to assess their health. By listening to the “heartbeat” of the soil (the soundscape), we can gain insights into its condition and the success of restoration interventions.
While still in its early stages, soil ecoacoustics holds great promise for improving our understanding and monitoring of soil biodiversity. A recent paper on global biodiversity conservation issues identified soil ecoacoustics as an emerging priority, highlighting its potential to transform soil health assessments.
As we continue to develop and refine these techniques, we hope to democratise the process, allowing people around the world to use their own “stethoscopes” to improve the health of the precious ecosystem beneath their feet.
Jake M. Robinson is affiliated with the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC) Resilience Frontiers think tank. He receives funding from the National Environmental Science Program Resilient Landscapes Hub for restoration research.
Martin Breed receives funding from the Australian Research Council, National Environmental Science Program Resilient Landscapes Hub, Cooperative Research Centre for Transformations in Mining Economies (CRC TiME), Australian Academy of Science, and the New Zealand Ministry of Business, Innovation & Employment.
It proudly markets its ongoing commitment to sport through partnerships including with the Melbourne Football Club’s men’s and women’s AFL teams, with the Zurich logo featured prominently on player jerseys.
When it comes to the business of providing insurance cover for future professional athletes for concussion-related injuries, the announcement last week of Zurich’s decision to no longer include concussion injury claims under its active policy in high-contact professional sports tells a different story.
What did the Zurich policy cover?
Like everything with insurance policies, the detail is often found in the fine print.
Without access to the exact policy wording or product disclosure statement in the AFL case, we can only go by what has been publicly reported.
Zurich Active is a life insurance policy described as a “uniquely severity-based policy with an extensive list of covered health events”.
Put simply, this hybrid policy combines trauma and life insurance to provide cover for injuries falling within the parameters of the listed “active health events”, subject to meeting eligibility requirements.
Payouts vary according to severity and include one-off single payments (lump sum) and multiple claims.
Until recently, concussion-related injuries appeared to have been included as part of a “defined health event”.
The newly announced concussion exclusion is far-reaching, extending to withdrawal of cover so “no benefit will be payable for any claim where the condition or event giving rise to the claim is directly or indirectly related to concussion or traumatic injury, including compensation”.
Contact sports and athletes are starting to realise the dangers of concussions and head knocks.
The impact on athletes and the entire sports community
A closer look at reporting on Zurich’s announcement shows this is not just an AFL issue but appears to impact other “high-contact professional sports” such as rugby and boxing.
At this stage, it appears the concussion injury exclusion affects only the Zurich Active policy covering professional players.
According to reports, Zurich has advised that other policies – such as the AFL Players Association (AFLPA) group policy covering total and permanent disablement insurance cover arranged through its superannuation fund for AFL players – are not impacted by the decision.
But even if other policies remain unaffected for now, what message does this decision send to the wider sporting community?
Concerns from players’ agents, football commentators and others suggests this decision could have far-reaching impacts, sounding alarm bells that professional players are now left with even fewer options for compensation and support if they are impacted by concussion.
Unlike most workers, the vast majority of professional athletes are excluded from workers’ compensation schemes (in some cases, boxers and jockeys are covered).
At the 2023 Senate Inquiry on concussion and repeated head trauma in contact sports, the AFLPA provided details about the range of support mechanisms it makes available to players.
The AFLPA is making inroads in providing support to past and present players, but the organisation has limited resources and depends on financial support from the AFL.
Although these are positive measures, the AFLPA alone is unlikely to be in a position to cover the volume of claims and long-term costs.
Insurance is pivotal for sports
Perhaps the most concerning voice of all comes from the insurance industry itself.
The Insurance Council of Australia (ICA) submitted to the 2023 Senate Inquiry that:
the availability of insurance, particularly public liability insurance, is critical to ongoing sports participation at all levels.
The ICA cautioned that for the vast majority of sporting clubs and organisations the “absence of the financial protection provided through insurance would mean they could no longer continue to operate”.
In sum, this means no insurance, no sport.
Why now?
According to media reports, Zurich reviewed its Active Policy “in line with medical developments”.
Excluding concussion-related injuries from its policy was driven by “the uncertain health impacts and risks associated with concussion events and the subsequent development of chronic traumatic encephalopathy (CTE)”.
But other events may have also influenced this decision.
The high cost of these injuries is now well and truly out of the shadows.
In 2022 former North Melbourne and Melbourne player Shaun Smith received a A$1.4m payout after insurer MLC assessed his claim under his personal policy, organised decades earlier through his superannuation.
Smith’s medical report showed he had suffered total and permanent disablement due to “brain injuries resulting from head knocks”.
Over the past year, reports suggest at least three other players have received million dollar lump sum payouts.
The actuaries have crunched the numbers and likely saw an upward trajectory in evaluating risk and payouts.
What’s next?
The takeaway message from the Zurich decision is clear – concussion is no longer in the shadows. The costs and impacts are now on display for all to see.
Professional athletes are putting their bodies and brains on the line but only have limited support mechanisms available.
Putting the ICA concern in the wider context that no insurance means no sport, there is no time to waste.
The 2023 Senate Inquiry recommended professional sports work on addressing insurance coverage for their athletes and that state and territory governments engage with professional sporting organisations to review the workers’ compensation schemes.
The federal government’s response to the Senate Inquiry report will help provide much-needed clarity and a plan for the future including how to fill the gaps if other insurers decide to follow Zurich’s lead.
Annette Greenhow received funding as part of a Partnership Development Grant administered by the Canadian Social Sciences and Humanities Research Committee. She is affiliated with the Australian and New Zealand Sports Law Association. Views are her own.
Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Konstantine Panegyres, McKenzie Postdoctoral Fellow, researching Greco-Roman antiquity, The University of Melbourne
Octopus detail from a Roman mosaic in the ‘House of the Dancing Faun’, Pompeii (circa 1st century BC).Wikimedia
If we want to research a subject, how do we do it? We could read about it in books or do experiments in a lab. Or another way is to find people who know something about it and ask them.
Collecting information from members of the public has long been a method of scientific research. We call it citizen science. According to National Geographic, this is “the practice of public participation and collaboration in scientific research to increase scientific knowledge”.
Today, citizen science is a popular practice, with dozens of programs designed by academics to engage the public and leverage power by numbers. Its origins, however, go much farther back than you might think – all the way to ancient times.
Aristotle and animals
Most of us know of Aristotle (384–322 BCE) for his philosophical works, but he was also a great scientist.
Aristotle consulted the general public when undertaking his scientific research projects. He wrote a number of books about animals, the greatest of which was his History of Animals. He also wrote smaller works including Parts of Animals and Generation of Animals. Collectively, these are usually referred to as Aristotle’s biological writings.
The European conger eel (Conger conger) is one of hundreds of species of birds, mammals and fish identified in Aristotle’s writings. Wikimedia
The Roman scholar Pliny the Elder (approximately 24–79 CE) has told us about some of Aristotle’s research methods when writing these texts.
According to Pliny, Alexander the Great (356–323 BCE) – who was Aristotle’s student – supported Aristotle’s research on animals by ordering the public to collaborate:
orders were given to some thousands of persons throughout the whole of Asia and Greece, all those who made their living by hunting, fowling, and fishing and those who were in charge of warrens, herds, apiaries, fishponds and aviaries, to obey [Aristotle’s] instructions, so that he might not fail to be informed about any creature born anywhere.
Modern scholars aren’t certain Alexander actually gave this order. Nonetheless, Aristotle’s writings about animals often refer to information he received from others who worked directly with animals, such as hunters, beekeepers, fishermen and herdsmen.
For example, Aristotle thought worker wasps die off during the winter while mother wasps live through it. He must have relied on the reports of farmers for this information. In the History of Animals, he wrote:
The worker wasps do not live through the year but all die when winter has come on, whereas the leaders which are called mother wasps are seen throughout the winter and hide underground. For while ploughing and digging in the winter many people have seen mother wasps but none have seen workers.
Aristotle was at times also critical of the eyewitness information he received. For instance, in Generation of Animals, he says some people told him fish don’t copulate, because they had not seen fish copulating. But he goes on to say these people are wrong – and that he himself knows fish do indeed copulate:
The fish copulate in the same way as dolphins do, by placing themselves alongside of each other […] The fishermen do not notice this […] and so they join the chorus and repeat the same old stupid tale that fish conceive by swallowing the semen.
Aristotle was right. While most fish don’t have sexual intercourse, some do. Clearly, Aristotle had either asked enough people and/or investigated the issue himself to find the truth.
Theophrastus and trees
Aristotle wasn’t the only ancient researcher who got information from members of the public. Another was the philosopher Theophrastus (372–287 BCE), whose main area of research was plants. Like Aristotle, Theophrastus weighed up and tested the credibility of the different reports provided to him.
In his Enquiry into Plants, he rejects the opinion of some of his informants, saying:
These informants were guilty of an important piece of ignorance. For they believed that the frankincense and the myrrh were produced by the same tree.
Fresco depiction of a garden, Pompeii, 1st century AD. Wikimedia
Instead, he preferred the report of some sailors. These sailors, who had made a voyage and examined the trees in person, reported that frankincense and myrrh come from different trees.
Theophrastus believed them – and once again he was right. Frankincense comes from Boswellia trees, whereas myrrh comes from Commiphora trees.
Strange tales
Collecting information from the public isn’t straightforward. People might fabricate information, or report strange and bizarre sights that are difficult to verify.
The Roman historian Claudius Aelian (2nd-3rd century CE) collected all kinds of (sometimes strange) stories about animals for his work On Animals.
In one passage Aelian describes a number of animals with rather odd features:
In the time of Atothis, son of Menis, there appeared a crane with two heads […] and in the reign of another king there appeared a bird with four heads […] Nicocreon of Cyprus possessed a deer with four horns […] I myself have seen a sacred ox with five feet which was an offering to Zeus in the great city of Alexandria.
Elsewhere, Aelian reports on strange creatures we are more familiar with. Take, for example, his story of a giant octopus:
I learn of an octopus at Dicaearchia in Italy which attained to a monstrous bulk and scorned and despised food from the sea and such pasturage as it provided. And so this creature actually came out on to the land and seized things there. Now it swam up through a subterranean sewer that discharged the refuse of the aforesaid city into the sea and emerged in a house on the shore where some Iberian merchants had their cargo, that is, pickled fish from that country in immense jars: it threw its tentacles round the earthenware vessels and with its grip broke them and feasted on the pickled fish.
Aelian says one of the merchants wanted to fight the octopus to prevent it stealing their food, but was too afraid as the creature “was too big for one man” to fight.
We don’t know whether Aelian’s stranger stories are true or not. Nonetheless, it’s clear at least some of these tales were collected from other people during his research.
By getting help from the public, ancient researchers were able to make a great deal of progress in studies of subjects such as animals and plants. They had to be careful, though. Much like today, discernment was necessary in the case of strange tales.
Konstantine Panegyres 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.
Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Amelia Johns, Associate Professor, Digital and Social Media, School of Communication, University of Technology Sydney
For more than a decade, researchers and journalists have relied on a digital tool called CrowdTangle to track and fight the spread of viral falsehoods online.
But earlier this week, the owner of CrowdTangle, Meta, shut the tool down. The tech giant has replaced it with its new Content Library, which it says will serve the same purpose and be “more user friendly”.
As long-time users of CrowdTangle to track and analyse online misinformation campaigns, we are sceptical of this claim. We are also very concerned by the fact CrowdTangle’s closure comes at a time when misinformation on social media is rife – and is bound to worsen in the lead up to the November presidential election in the United States.
So, why did Meta decide to close CrowdTangle now? And how will this affect the fight against the spread of misinformation and disinformation online?
CrowdTangle: a tried and trusted tool
Founded in 2011, CrowdTangle quickly gained popularity among media outlets which used it to track and analyse trending topics and articles on social media platforms for commercial purposes. Facebook (as Meta was then called) purchased the company five years later.
There were several reasons why CrowdTangle was a powerful tool for researchers like us who study the spread of misinformation and disinformation online. Firstly, we could download large datasets to use for computational modelling and other forms of analysis. The data was also easily searchable using keywords.
We could also use CrowdTangle to automatically analyse trends in large collections of data from multiple sources.
Given researchers and journalists used CrowdTangle to expose some of Meta’s failings to the world, it’s somewhat unsurprising the company would question why it was funding this largely free service. Keeping it operational, logic would dictate, would be bad for business.
But the reasons behind the closure of CrowdTangle are also more complicated.
This withdrawal started in 2016 when the Cambridge Analytica scandal revealed news was bad for Meta’s core business: selling ads.
While news might generate strong engagement on Meta’s platforms, it is the wrong kind of engagement for advertisers. X (formerly Twitter) also recently discovered this, when technology giant IBM pulled its advertising from the platform after its ads were placed next to posts by Nazis.
Meta’s policies aimed at reducing exposure to news content across its platforms make explicit its withdrawal from the news business.
In February, the company announced it would stop “proactively recommending political content from accounts you don’t follow” on Instagram. It also started de-ranking political content on Facebook.
These announcements followed Meta’s decision to pull out of Australia’s News Media Bargaining Code and stop paying for news content.
However, while this redirection away from news may be commercially motivated, it is also about the particular news and information that spreads on Meta’s products (for example, far-right influencers outperforming legacy news).
Meta has replaced CrowdTangle with its Content Library, which it claims will “provide researchers access to more publicly-available content across Facebook and Instagram”. The new tool will allow access to comments and short-form video, which CrowdTangle did not.
Earlier this month the Coalition for Independent Technology Research published results of a survey with 400 independent researchers and 50 research organisations. They indicated Meta’s Content Library has reduced functionality, including an inability to export data and use external tools to analyse it. It also has reduced access to posts from public figures without a large number of followers.
Combined, these factors will greatly hinder research.
But the biggest issue with Meta’s new Content Library is that it won’t be freely available to journalists and newsrooms.
The exact reasons for this are unclear. What is clear, however, are the implications of this reduced access.
Mozilla, a not-for-profit organisation dedicated to making the internet free and open for all, said in an open letter to Meta:
Meta’s decision will effectively prohibit the outside world, including election integrity experts, from seeing what’s happening on Facebook and Instagram — during the biggest election year on record. This means almost all outside efforts to identify and prevent political disinformation, incitements to violence, and online harassment of women and minorities will be silenced.
There have been countless research reports, news articles, inquiries and lawsuits regarding misuse of Meta’s platforms.
Yet it seems the only lesson the company has learned is to be selective about which data it makes transparent – and to whom.
Amelia Johns receives funding from the Australia Research Council and the Defence Innovation Network. She has previously received funding from Meta’s content policy award.
Francesco Bailo receives funds from the Defence Innovation Network and has previously received a research grant from Facebook (now Meta).
Marian-Andrei Rizoiu receives funding from the Australian Department of Home Affairs, the Defence Science and Technology Group, the Defence Innovation Network and the Australian Academy of Science.
A supermoon may sound exciting, but it’s a modest coincidence.
As the Moon orbits Earth, its distance from us varies from 357,000 to 407,000 kilometres. When the Moon and the Sun are in almost opposite directions from Earth, we get a full moon. A “supermoon” is a full moon where its position along its orbit is within 10% of its closest approach to Earth. That’s it.
This means a supermoon has an apparent diameter that’s 14% larger than the smallest possible full moon. That’s not a lot. You can’t really notice the difference by eye.
As an astronomer, I have a problem with supermoons. There are genuine wonders to see in the night sky, so don’t be disappointed by a dull, overhyped supermoon.
When is the best time to view the Moon?
Articles hyping supermoons are easy. ChatGPT can do it. Say it’s the first supermoon since whenever, add some superlatives, and throw in a telephoto lens photo of a full moon with a landmark. Perhaps the supermoon coincides with another otherwise normal full moon, so it can be a “blue supermoon” or a “worm supermoon” or whatever.
It’s still just a full moon.
If you do want to look at the Moon and it happens to be a supermoon, go for it. But there are better times to admire our only natural satellite, particularly with binoculars or a telescope.
The best time to look at the Moon is when its shadows, as seen from Earth, are longest. These long shadows help the craters and mountains stand out from the surrounding plains, so you can appreciate the dramatic landscape of our neighbouring world.
The shadows are longest when the Moon appears as a half moon in the night sky. During a full moon or a supermoon the shadows are at their shortest – not nearly as impressive.
The best time to view the Moon is when long shadows help define craters. Michael Brown
Supermoons are a distraction
Have you seen the craters of the Moon, the rings of Saturn, the clouds of Jupiter or the Orion nebula with a telescope? They truly are awe-inspiring. Even the most dedicated astronomers return to view them time and time again.
In fact, astronomers prefer to avoid nights with supermoons and catch up on lost sleep. Full moons flood the night sky with light and make it harder to view more subtle and interesting sights.
Want to look at the grand expanse of the Milky Way with the unaided eye? Want to see a meteor shower, comet or aurora? Best done without a damn supermoon.
Boring supermoons may discourage people from viewing amazing astronomical sights. Michael Brown
It can be fun to see something truly rare or unusual in the sky. But supermoons don’t qualify for that either. Using the definition I mentioned earlier, there are typically three or four supermoons each year. More restrictive definitions give us one or two supermoons per year. Not only is that not rare, it still just looks like a full moon.
There are rarer celestial events that really can inspire. Millions of people across the globe saw bright auroras in May 2024, including places where truly spectacular auroras are few and far between.
Comets can also be wonderful. Every decade or so, a comet swings into the inner Solar System and produces a bright tail, millions of kilometres long and visible from Earth. Back when I was a student, I saw Comet Hyakutake’s bright blue tail stretch across a huge expanse of sky. Sometimes comets fizzle, but when they’re great they are amazing.
Auroras and comets can be fickle, but eclipses are predictable and put on a reliable show.
Take total solar eclipses, when the Moon covers the Sun and day turns briefly into night. Thousands travel across the globe to see them. I will be travelling to New South Wales for the 2028 eclipse.
A lunar eclipse viewed with a small telescope. Michael Brown
Lunar eclipses, when the Moon falls within Earth’s shadow, can be a more accessible eclipse experience, which is visible from your own home every few years.
During the best lunar eclipses, the Moon turns a dark red as the only light that reaches it comes through Earth’s atmosphere.
As an astronomer, I encourage people to look at celestial sights. Go out and see the Moon when it can really impress – during an eclipse or viewed through a telescope. Or enjoy the planets, auroras, comets and meteor showers when there is no Moon at all. But please don’t waste time on supermoons.
Michael J. I. Brown has received research funding from the Australian Research Council and Monash University.
According to the infamous myth, groups of lemmings sometimes run off cliffs to their collective doom. Imagine you are one of these rodents: on a sunny day you join your companions in a joyous climb up a mountain beneath clear skies, traipsing across grass and dirt and rock, glad to be among friends, until suddenly you plunge through the brisk air and all goes black.
The edge of the cliff is what scientists call a “critical point”: the spot where the behaviour of a system (such as a group of lemmings) suddenly goes from one type of state (happily running) to a very different type of state (plummeting), often with catastrophic results.
Critical points aren’t always literal points in space or time. They can be values of some system parameter – such as investor confidence, environmental temperature, or power demand – that marks the transition to instability.
Can we tell when a system is close to a cliff, and perhaps act to stop it going off the edge? What can we measure about a share market or ecosystem that could help us predict how far it is from such a critical point?
We have developed a new method for doing exactly this in real-world systems. Our work is published this week in Physical Review X.
How do you know when you’re close to a cliff?
Previous work has shown that systems tend to “slow down” and become more variable near critical points. For a share market, for example, this would mean stock prices changing less rapidly and exhibiting a larger difference between weekly highs and lows.
But these indicators don’t work when systems are “noisy”, meaning we can’t measure what they are doing very accurately. Many real systems are very noisy.
Are there indicators that do work for real-world systems? To find out, we searched through more than 7,000 different methods in hope of finding one powerful enough to work well, even when there is lots of noise in our system.
We found a few needles in our haystack: a handful of methods that performed surprisingly well at this very difficult problem. Based on these methods, we formulated a simple new recipe for predicting critical points.
We gave it an appropriately awesome name: RAD. (This gnarly acronym has a very nerdy origin: an abbreviation of “Rescaled AutoDensity”.)
Do brains use critical points for good?
We verified our new method on incredibly intricate recordings of brain activity from mice. To be more specific, we looked at activity in areas of the mouse brain responsible for interpreting what the mouse sees.
When a neuron fires, neighbouring neurons might pick up its signal and pass it on, or they might let it die away. When a signal is amplified by neighbours it has more impact, but too much amplification and it can cross the critical point into runaway feedback – which may cause a seizure.
Our RAD method revealed that brain activity in some regions has stronger signs of being close to a critical point than others. Specifically, areas with the simplest functions (such as size and orientation of objects in an image) work further from a critical point than areas with more complex functions.
This suggests the brain may have evolved to use critical points to support its remarkable computational abilities.
It makes sense that being very far from a critical point (think of safe lemmings, far from the cliff face) would make neural activity very stable. Stability would support efficient, reliable processing of basic visual features.
But our results also suggest there’s an advantage to sitting right up close to the cliff face – on the precipice of a critical point. Brain regions in this state may have a longer “memory” to support more complex computations, like those required to understand the overall meaning of an image.
A better guide to cliffs
This idea of systems sitting near to, or far from, a critical point, turns up in many important applications, from finance to medicine. Our work introduces a better way of understanding such systems, and detecting when they might exhibit sudden (and often catastrophic) changes.
This could be used to unlock all sorts of future breakthroughs – from warning individuals with epilepsy of upcoming seizures, to helping predict an impending financial crash.
Ben Fulcher receives funding from the Australian Research Council and National Health and Medical Research Council.
Brendan Harris 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.
Families have been receiving individual student results since the beginning of Term 3. Here are a few things to help your digest the results.
What is NAPLAN for?
The National Assessment Program – Literacy and Numeracy (NAPLAN) is an annual test for students in Years 3, 5, 7 and 9. It was established in 2008 and the results have been used for a range of purposes, including comparing the performance of schools and making decisions about school funding.
Over time, NAPLAN has provided us with some very clear messages about inequalities in outcomes based on students’ social, economic and cultural backgrounds. Unfortunately this hasn’t changed this year.
Indeed, as education researcher Sally Larsen has noted, this year’s national results didn’t tell us very much that is different from last year.
While NAPLAN has provided population-level insights, traditionally, it has not been particularly useful for teachers and families because results were provided late in the school year, without much time to respond.
A number of changes were made last year, including moving the test from May to March, so teachers and parents can respond within the same school year.
Results are now be reported against four new proficiency standards: “exceeding”, “strong”, “developing” and “needs additional support”, rather than the ten numbered bands used previously.
These changes were designed to make it clearer for schools and parents to understand and use the results.
What does it mean for families and schools?
NAPLAN is just one test among many that schools use to assess student learning. Teachers regularly use other standardised assessments to measure progression in reading, maths and other areas.
Research has shown teachers’ assessments of student performance are similar to NAPLAN results, which suggests NAPLAN data doesn’t offer much of an advance on the information already provided in school report cards. Some researchers argue NAPLAN is not a good tool for comparing individual performance over time.
There is also evidence students do not try as hard as they might in NAPLAN testing.
We know NAPLAN only provides a snapshot of student performance on a given day in March each year. It is just one element in broader and more in-depth assessments teachers and schools provide throughout the year.
So, teachers can use the results to inform their decisions about which students need additional support and which students might benefit from additional challenges (but that may not come as much of a surprise).
Parents can use the individual results to talk to teachers about their child’s progress and what support they might need – knowing this is simply one test among many.
Sam Sellar has received funding from the Australian Research Council to study large-scale assessments such as NAPLAN.
After a series of natural disasters – from the Canterbury earthquakes to Cyclone Gabrielle – real doubt hangs over the insurance options available to some New Zealand homeowners.
Increasingly, homes in certain areas are becoming uninsurable – or difficult to insure, at least. Insurers have decided the risk is too high to make covering it financially viable, leaving affected homeowners vulnerable.
The question of how insurers can continue to offer policies – all the while managing the growing risk from natural disasters – is becoming hard to ignore.
Insurers will have to explore alternative models and innovate if New Zealand is to adapt to future change.
Cautious insurers
There’s no general requirement in New Zealand that insurers cover anyone’s home, or that anyone’s home actually be insured.
Body-corporate groups are one exception. They must insure the units they manage. Mortgage lenders can also require borrowers to take out home insurance as part of their lending conditions.
When homeowners do get insurance, the risk of certain losses from natural disasters is automatically covered by the Natural Hazards Commission (previously known as the Earthquake Commission).
Even if a home insurance policy were to contain wording that, on the face of it, excluded this public natural-disaster cover, the law would treat the cover as included. At the same time, payouts are only managed by insurers, not financed by them.
The Canterbury earthquakes cost insurers NZ$21 billion and the Natural Hazards Commission $10 billion. And the risk of natural disasters more generally may be making insurers too cautious. They’re increasingly pulling out of areas they consider “high risk”.
That said, there are changes on the horizon. From mid-2025, insurers will have a general duty to “treat consumers fairly”. The Financial Markets Authority – the body responsible for enforcing financial-markets law – may potentially regard refusing home insurance to any consumer as a breach of the duty.
In other words, the Financial Markets Authority may end up forcing insurers to cover most of the country’s homes.
Billion-dollar payouts: liquefaction in the Christchurch suburb of Bexley after the 2011 earthquake. Getty Images
New insurance options
Future-proofing home insurance options will depend on the public and private sectors working together.
Many of the potential solutions are specific to how insurers take risk on. An insurer may decrease your premiums as an incentive for you to “disaster-proof” your home. If you don’t, the insurer may increase your premiums and limit its payouts to you, with individualised excesses or caps.
The insurer may even offer “parametric” insurance, which pays out less than traditional insurance, but faster.
For example, imagine a home insurance policy that covers any earthquake having its epicentre within 500 kilometres of your home, and measuring magnitude six or higher.
A traditional policy would pay out based on how much loss was caused (according to a loss adjuster). A parametric policy would simply pay out a small, pre‑agreed sum, based on the fact the earthquake occurred at all.
A parametric policy wouldn’t require you to prove any actual “loss” – beyond the inconvenience of having your home in the disaster zone.
While parametric insurance is relatively new worldwide, it’s an efficient solution for managing the risk of natural-disaster damage.
Reinsurance, co-insurance and ‘cat bonds’
An insurer may also transfer risk to one or more other insurance businesses – such as a “reinsurer”. If the insurer has to make a payout to you for a claim, the reinsurer then has to make a payout to the insurer for a portion of it.
The insurer may even “co‑insure” the risk. Co‑insurance is where two or more insurers cover different portions of the same risk. So, if you have your home co‑insured, you will have two or more insurers, each responsible for a portion of any claim.
Then there is the potential to transfer insured risk to entities that aren’t even insurance businesses. In some countries (such as Bermuda, the Cayman Islands and Ireland), the insurer can turn the risk into a “catastrophe bond” (also known as a “cat bond”).
Under a cat bond, the insurer arranges for expert investors to lend it capital in return for interest on the loans. The insurer eventually repays the capital, unless there is a specific natural disaster. In that case, the insurer keeps the capital, enabling it to pay out to the affected customers.
The insurer may even use the cat bond to create a “virtuous cycle”. More specifically, the insurer may reinvest the capital in “a project that reduces or prevents loss from the insured climate-related risk” (such as flooding).
Disaster-proofing the insurance industry
Key to improving the situation will be the public and private sectors working together to make climate-related disasters less frequent – and less serious when they occur.
The United Nations’ Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change has advised on how the sectors could minimise climate-related risk. But they also have similar progress to make to minimise the risk of natural-disaster damage more generally, particularly from earthquakes.
It is important to build homes that are better disaster-proofed. And it is also important to address a major problem that many people don’t necessarily view as related to insurance – the cost of housing.
If New Zealanders wishing to own their homes didn’t have to invest as much of their money in housing as they do, the risk of damage to housing might be of less concern. Natural disaster wouldn’t have to mean financial disaster as much as it does today.
In the meantime, innovative insurance options will become more and more necessary.
Christopher Whitehead spoke at the New Zealand Insurance Law Association Conference in 2022. From 2005 to 2015 he practised as legal counsel in the insurance industry, first to a French-headquartered banking group and then to a United States-headquartered insurance group.
Regional leaders will gather later this month in Tonga for the 53rd Pacific Islands Forum leaders meeting in Tonga and high on the agenda will be Japan’s dumping of treated nuclear wastewater in the Pacific Ocean.
A week ago on the 6 August 2024, the 79th anniversary of the atomic bombing of Hiroshima in 1945 and the 39th anniversary of the Treaty of Rarotonga opening for signatures in 1985 were marked.
As the world and region remembered the horrors of nuclear weapons and stand in solidarity, there is still work to be done.
READ MORE: Other nuclear wastewater in Pacific reports
Cook Islands Prime Minister Mark Brown has stated that Japan’s discharge of treated nuclear wastewater into the Pacific Ocean does not breach the Rarotonga Treaty which established a Nuclear-Free Zone in the South Pacific.
Civil society groups have been calling for Japan to stop the dumping in the Pacific Ocean, but Brown, who is also the chair of the Pacific Islands Forum and represents a country associated by name with the Rarotonga Treaty, has backtracked on both the efforts of PIFS and his own previous calls against it.
Brown stated during the recent 10th Pacific Alliance Leaders Meeting (PALM10) meeting in Tokyo that Pacific Island Leaders stressed the importance of transparency and scientific evidence to ensure that Japan’s actions did not harm the environment or public health.
But he also defended Japan, saying that the wastewater, treated using the Advanced Liquid Processing System (ALPS) to remove most radioactive materials except tritium, met the standard set by the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA).
Harmful isotopes removed “No, the water has been treated to remove harmful isotopes, so it’s well within the standard guidelines as outlined by the global authority on nuclear matters, the IAEA,” Brown said in an Islands Business article.
“Japan is complying with these guidelines in its discharge of wastewater into the ocean.”
The Cook Islands has consistently benefited from Japanese development grants. In 2021, Japan funded through the Asian Development Bank $2 million grant from the Japan Fund for Poverty Reduction, financed by the Government of Japan.
Together with $500,000 of in-kind contribution from the government of the Cook Islands, the grant funded the Supporting Safe Recovery of Travel and Tourism Project.
Just this year Japan provided grants for the Puaikura Volunteer Fire Brigade Association totaling US$132,680 and a further US$53,925 for Aitutaki’s Vaitau School.
Long-term consequences In 2023, Prime Minister Brown said it placed a special obligation on Pacific Island States because of ’the long-term consequences for Pacific peoples’ health, environment and human rights.
Pacific states, he said, had a legal obligation “to prevent the dumping of radioactive wastes and other radioactive matter by anyone” and “to not . . . assist or encourage the dumping by anyone of radioactive wastes and other radioactive matter at sea anywhere within the South Pacific Nuclear Free Zone.
“Our people do not have anything to gain from Japan’s plan but have much at risk for generations to come.”
The Pacific Islands Forum went on further to state then that the issue was an “issue of significant transboundary and intergenerational harm”.
The Rarotonga Treaty, a Cold War-era agreement, prohibits nuclear weapons testing and deployment in the region, but it does not specifically address the discharge of the treated nuclear wastewater.
Pacific civil society organisations continue to condemn Japan’s dumping of nuclear-treated wastewater. Of its planned 1.3 million tonnes of nuclear-treated wastewater, the Tokyo Electric Power Company (TEPCO) has conducted seven sets of dumping into the Pacific Ocean and was due to commence the eighth between August 7-25.
Regardless of the recommendations provided by the Pacific Island Forum’s special panel of experts and civil society calls to stop Japan and for PIF Leaders to suspend Japan’s dialogue partner status, the PIF Chair Mark Brown has ignored concerns by stating his support for Japan’s nuclear wastewater dumping plans.
Contradiction of treaty This decision is being viewed by the international community as a contradiction of the Treaty of Rarotonga that symbolises a genuine collaborative endeavour from the Pacific region, born out of 10 years of dedication from Fiji, New Zealand, Australia, the Cook Islands, and various other nations, all working together to establish a nuclear-free zone in the South Pacific. Treaty Ratification
Bedi Racule, a nuclear justice advocate said the Treaty of Rarotonga preamble had one of the most powerful statements in any treaty ever. It is the member states’ promise for a nuclear free Pacific.
“The spirit of the Treaty is to protect the abundance and the beauty of the islands for future generations,” Racule said.
She continued to state that it was vital to ensure that the technical aspects of the Treaty and the text from the preamble is visualised.
“We need to consistently look at this Treaty because of the ongoing nuclear threats that are happening”.
Racule said the Treaty did not address the modern issues being faced like nuclear waste dumping, and stressed that there was a dire need to increase the solidarity and the universalisation of the Treaty.
“There is quite a large portion of the Pacific that is not signed onto the Treaty. There’s still work within the Treaty that needs to be ratified.
“It’s almost like a check mark that’s there but it’s not being attended to.”
The Pacific islands Forum meets on August 26-30.
Brittany Nawaqatabuis assistant media and communications officer of the Suva-based Pacific Network on Globalisation (PANG).
By Matilda Yates, Queensland University of Technology
“From a white perspective it is journalism but for us, it is actually storytelling,” says Fiji student journalist Viliame Tawanakoro.
“In the Pacific, we call it talanoa, it hasn’t changed the gist of journalism, but it has actually helped journalism as a whole because we have a way of disseminating information.”
Fijians use storytelling or talanoa to communicate “information or a message from one village to another”, explains Tawanakoro, and that storytelling practices guides how he writes journalistic stories.
“Storytelling is about having a conversation, so you can have an understanding of what you are trying to pursue,” Tawanakoro says.
David Robie’s research, conducted while he was Auckland University of Technology’s Pacific Media Centre director and published in his book Don’t Spoil My Beautiful Face: Media, Mayhem and Human Rights in the Pacific, highlights the power of talanoa as a tool for effective reporting of the Pacific region with “context and nuance”.
However, Dr Robie notes the “dilemmas of cross-cultural reporting” in Fiji.
Fijian journalists face a cultural and potentially even a moral conflict, according to Fiji journalist Seona Smiles in the foreward to The Pacific Journalist: A Practical Guide.
‘Deep-rooted beliefs’ “Deep-rooted beliefs in South Pacific societies about respect for authority could translate into a lack of accountability and transparency on behalf of the powerful,” Smiles notes.
Fiji student journalist Brittany Nawaqatabu echoes this internal conflict as a young journalist who was “brought up not to ask too many questions” — especially to elder iTaukei.
“It’s always that battle between culture and having to get your job done and having to manoeuvre the situation and knowing when to put yourself out there and when to know where culture comes in,” Nawaqatabu says.
Managers and leaders in Fiji news media need deep awareness of cultural norms and protocols.
Editor of Islands Business Samantha Magick expresses the importance of hiring a diverse staff so that the correct journalist can be sent to cover what may be a culturally sensitive story.
“I unwittingly assigned someone to cover a traditional ceremony and I didn’t realise that their status within that community actually made it very difficult for them to do that,” she says.
In exploring journalism in the Pacific, Dick Rooney and his Divine Word University colleagues found that a Western understanding of journalism cannot be transplanted “into a society which has very different societal needs”.
‘More complexity’ Practising journalism in Fiji is like practising journalism in a small town “but with a lot more complexity”, Magick says.
She finds “the degree of separation isn’t six it’s like two”, meaning that it is a vital consideration of editors to ensure no conflict exists with the journalists and the community they are being sent to.
It is “incumbent on an editor to understand” the cultural norms and expectations that may be imposed on a journalist on an assignment and to ensure they have a “diverse newsroom of all ethnicities, not just the iTaukei but also the Indo-Fijian,” Magick says.
Nawaqatabu expands on one Fijian cultural norm in which “women are expected to not speak”.
As the Fijian news media and society modernise, and more diverse information becomes available, Fijian women in particular have found a voice through journalism.
“Pursuing journalism gives us that voice to cover stories that mean a lot to us, and the country as a whole, to communicate that voice that we didn’t initially have in the previous generation,” Nawaqatabu says.
Tawanakoro concurs with this sentiment. “Women have found a voice and are more vocal about what they want,” he says.
The intersection of tradition, culture and journalism in Fiji will continue, but Tawanakoro says journalists can operate effectively if they understand culture and protocols.
“As a journalist, you have to acknowledge there is a tradition, there is a culture if you respect the culture, the tradition, the vanua (earth, region, spot, place-to-be or come from) they will respect you.”
Matilda Yates is a student journalist from the Queensland University of Technology who travelled to Fiji with the support of the Australian Government’s New Colombo Plan Mobility Programme. This article is republished by Asia Pacific Report in collaboration with the Asia Pacific Media Network (APMN), QUT and The University of the South Pacific.
Keith Rankin, trained as an economic historian, is a retired lecturer in Economics and Statistics. He lives in Auckland, New Zealand.
Analysis by Keith Rankin
Wednesday I wrote Department of Mum and Dad (Scoop 14 Aug 2024, or here on Evening Report). I finished by saying that, today, “I will propose a simple affordable solution which better fits centre-right than centre-left philosophies”. Here goes.
Keith Rankin, trained as an economic historian, is a retired lecturer in Economics and Statistics. He lives in Auckland, New Zealand.
My proposal is to pay a personal tax credit of $150 per week to every New Zealand resident aged over 18. The principal mechanism to pay for this would be to remove the 10.5% and 17.5% income tax brackets. The result would be that every New Zealander earning $53,500 or more (per year, before tax) would have an unchanged after-tax income, while some people earning less would get more. The $150 per week is a simple measure of the maximum benefit implicit in those two lower tax brackets.
The second mechanism to fund the PTC is to account for upto the first $150 per week of income support benefits as a personal tax credit. Thus, present beneficiaries would have unchanged weekly disposable incomes.
There would be some minor complexities relating to people who would not be considered to be fulltime beneficiaries. So, for the purposes of this policy proposal:
Working for Families, the Independent Earner Tax Credit, and New Zealand Superannuation would be classed as benefit income.
People today earning less than $53,500 before tax would get more than they do now only if they are receiving nil or trivial benefit income.
For an example, a person working 30 hours each week at the minimum wage would have a weekly pre-tax income of at least $694.50; $36,114 per year. Persons grossing this amount with no benefit income would become $42.19 better off with a PTC. If they receive benefits (as defined in the first bullet point above) in excess of $42.19, then the first $42.19 of benefit income would be accounted for as ‘PTC’ rather than as ‘Benefit’. (Such minimum wage workers receiving weekly benefit income above zero but below $42.19 would no longer be receiving benefit income because the PTC would more than compensate for lost benefit.)
Another class of ‘static beneficiary’ of the PTC would be non-employed working-age ‘spouses’ living with their partners, and contributing to society in ways other than labour force participation. They may be caregivers, volunteers, underemployed free-lancers, or start-up entrepreneurs.
Or they may be people recently made redundant. Here we are starting to appreciate the possibilities for the dynamic benefits of the PTC. Today’s recently redundant spouses may be tomorrow’s social or capitalistic entrepreneurs.
Dynamic benefits, which fit near-right philosophies of self-reliance and basic democratic rights
The general idea is that of a hand-up rather than a handout. Though basic democratic rights go beyond that concept of charity; the unconditional $150 (which should be subject to CPI indexation) would be conceived as a democratic right in the same sense as the ‘right to vote’.
The dynamic benefits of this proposal are the ‘behavioural changes’; in particular the substantial reductions of the ‘moral hazards’ inherent in any regime of targeted income-support.
Because the $150 weekly PTC would be received an unconditional right, there would be only minimal bureaucracy required to administer it; that would be a substantial cost saving.
The Department of Mum and Dad could be sure that they would receive at least $150 per week in ‘board’ money for each adult child supported in part or in full by Mum and/or Dad. This would take pressure off Mums and Dads with bougie (ie ‘entitled’) adult children.
Many people hate being clients of MSD. They would prefer to be reliant on their own efforts, and on their private and civil society networks. Under the PTC policy regime, new applicants for income support would decline substantially, with remaining applicants for benefit support being the most needy persons and families.
Personal tax credits could be paid – especially for the cases of adult children living ‘at home’ – directly to accommodation providers (eg Mum or Dad) as contributions to the recipients’ board or rent.
The key point is that newly unemployed persons would retain their weekly entitlements of $150 per week, enough to tide many of them over without having to become beneficiaries. And people who are present beneficiaries would be able to ‘dip their toes’ into the part-time labour force without losing all their present support; targeted support that today incentivises them to continue as beneficiaries. The PTC is an ‘enabling’ rather than a ‘disabling’ form of benefit.
Another way of putting it is that the PTC proposal creates a better balance between ‘carrot’ and ‘stick’. The PTC is the carrot.
Note
We may note that there were ‘personal tax credits’ in New Zealand from the 1973 to 1978 Budgets. They were not the same as my proposed PTC, in that those payments would be ‘upto’ a certain amount rather than the full amount for all. The 1970s’ version failed mainly because they were not adequately indexed to the inflation of that time; and also because they were not enshrined as a democratic right.
Conclusion
If the present government does not pursue this policy, it would be ‘cutting off its nose to spite its face’. The new regime of benefit sanctions is the ‘cutting of the nose’ part. The non-realisation of dynamic benefits by not implementing the policy would be the ‘spiting of the face’.
————-
Keith Rankin (keith at rankin dot nz), trained as an economic historian, is a retired lecturer in Economics and Statistics. He lives in Auckland, New Zealand.
Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Jenny Doust, Clinical Professorial Research Fellow, Australian Women and Girls’ Health Research Centre, The University of Queensland
Ovarian cancers are often found when they are already advanced and hard to treat.
Researchers have long believed this was because women first experienced symptoms when ovarian cancer was already well-established. Symptoms can also be hard to identify as they’re vague and similar to other conditions.
But a new study shows promising signs ovarian cancer can be detected in its early stages. The study targeted women with four specific symptoms – bloating, abdominal pain, needing to pee frequently, and feeling full quickly – and put them on a fast track to see a specialist.
As a result, even the most aggressive forms of ovarian cancer could be detected in their early stages.
So what did the study find? And what could it mean for detecting – and treating – ovarian cancer more quickly?
Why is ovarian cancer hard to detect early?
Ovarian cancer cannot be detected via cervical cancer screening (which used to be called a pap smear) and pelvic exams aren’t useful as a screening test.
Current Australian guidelines recommend women get tested for ovarian cancer if they have symptoms for more than a month. But many of the symptoms – such as tiredness, constipation and changes in menstruation – are vague and overlap with other common illnesses.
This makes early detection a challenge. But it is crucial – a woman’s chances of surviving ovarian cancer are associated with how advanced the cancer is when she is diagnosed.
If the cancer is still confined to the original site with no spread, the five-year survival rate is 92%. But over half of women diagnosed with ovarian cancer first present when the cancer has already metastatised, meaning it has spread to other parts of the body.
If the cancer has spread to nearby lymph nodes, the survival rate is reduced to 72%. If the cancer has already metastasised and spread to distant sites at the time of diagnosis, the rate is only 31%.
There are mixed findings on whether detecting ovarian cancer earlier leads to better survival rates. For example, a trial in the UK that screened more than 200,000 women failed to reduce deaths.
That study screened the general public, rather than relying on self-reported symptoms. The new study suggests asking women to look for specific symptoms can lead to earlier diagnosis, meaning treatment can start more quickly.
What did the new study look at?
Between June 2015 and July 2022, the researchers recruited 2,596 women aged between 16 and 90 from 24 hospitals across the UK.
They were asked to monitor for these four symptoms:
persistent abdominal distension (women often refer to this as bloating)
feeling full shortly after starting to eat and/or loss of appetite
pelvic or abdominal pain (which can feel like indigestion)
needing to urinate urgently or more often.
Women who reported at least one of four symptoms persistently or frequently were put on a fast-track pathway. That means they were sent to see a gynaecologist within two weeks. The fast track pathway has been used in the UK since 2011, but is not specifically part of Australia’s guidelines.
Some 1,741 participants were put on this fast track. First, they did a blood test that measured the cancer antigen 125 (CA125). If a woman’s CA125 level was abnormal, she was sent to do a internal vaginal ultrasound.
What did they find?
The study indicates this process is better at detecting ovarian cancer than general screening of people who don’t have symptoms. Some 12% of women on the fast-track pathway were diagnosed with some kind of ovarian cancer.
A total of 6.8% of fast-tracked patients were diagnosed with high-grade serous ovarian cancer. It is the most aggressive form of cancer and responsible for 90% of ovarian cancer deaths.
Out of those women with the most aggressive form, one in four were diagnosed when the cancer was still in its early stages. That is important because it allowed treatment of the most lethal cancer before it had spread significantly through the body.
There were some promising signs in treating those with this aggressive form. The majority (95%) had surgery and three quarters (77%) had chemotherapy. Complete cytoreduction – meaning all of the cancer appears to have been removed – was achieved in six women out of ten (61%).
It’s a promising sign that there may be ways to “catch” and target ovarian cancer before it is well-established in the body.
What does this mean for detection?
The study’s findings suggest this method of early testing and referral for the symptoms leads to earlier detection of ovarian cancer. This may also improve outcomes, although the study did not track survival rates.
It also points to the importance of public awareness about symptoms.
Clinicians should be able to recognise all of the ways ovarian cancer can present, including vague symptoms like general fatigue.
But empowering members of the general public to recognise a narrower set of four symptoms can help trigger testing, detection and treatment of ovarian cancer earlier than we thought.
This could also save GPs advising every woman who has general tiredness or constipation to undergo an ovarian cancer test, making testing and treatment more targeted and efficient.
Many women remain unaware of the symptoms of ovarian cancer. This study shows recognising them may help early detection and treatment.
Jenny Doust 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.
Melbourne City Council voted to break its contracts with operators of shared e‑scooter schemes this week, citing safety concerns. It seems these concerns have usurped the long-term transport and environmental gains from moving towards sustainable transport. A year ago, the city reported emissions had been cut by 400 tonnes since trials of these e‑scooters began.
Shared e‑scooters only became available to Melburnians in early 2022. But electric scooters have existed for more than a century. They were very popular on public streets in the United States after motorised scooters first appeared in 1915.
However, their use for criminal getaways soon marred their reputation. The opportunity for a lower-emission, more equitable form of transport was lost, until now. It could be lost again because of knee-jerk reactions to concerns about their safety.
In fact, shared e‑scooters have safety features that individually owned ones often lack. Shared e‑escooters cause fewer serious injuries than bicycles or motorcycles, according to New Zealand accident compensation data. In Australia, while there has been a rise in numbers treated in hospitals for e‑scooter injuries, no distinction is made between shared and private e‑scooters.
Private e-scooters greatly outnumber shared ones
Today, an estimated 15,000 shared e‑scooters are in use across Australia and New Zealand. No official figures are available for private e‑scooters, but there are likely to be many more of them.
Segway, a globally dominant maker of e‑scooters, reported it had sold 8.5 million private versus 1.5 million shared e‑scooters by 2022. In the United Kingdom, an estimated 360,000 private e‑scooters were bought in 2020. New Zealand Statistics reports roughly 400,000 e‑scooters were imported from 2018 to 2023.
One can assume, then, that private e‑scooters similarly outnumber shared e‑scooters in Australia. And the distinction between rental and private e‑scooters is an important one in the debate about safety.
Media reports on shared e‑scooters in Melbourne have concentrated on two key subjects: launching trials and safety. Recent coverage refers to significant incidents and injuries. This creates a perception that e‑scooters are much less safe than other transport modes.
Regulated shared e-scooters are safer
The first thing to note is these reports don’t distinguish between shared and private e‑scooters. This matters because the shared e‑scooter market is highly regulated in Australia.
Their operators are required to:
provide helmets for riders
apply speed limiters so they don’t exceed safe speeds
geo-fence e‑scooters to limit where they can travel
use pedestrian-detection technology.
In contrast, private e‑scooters are not registered. They have different quality specifications and can have larger motors, often exceeding regulated engine outputs that vary from state to state. Importantly, private e‑scooters lack the advanced technologies used on shared e‑scooters to monitor rider use.
There is little to no regulation or quality control over the private e‑scooters Australians can buy. Some models seen on the streets can exceed the legal speed limit. All that’s stopping them speeding is rider responsibility and police oversight.
Hospitals records of e‑scooter injuries do not distinguish between private or shared e‑scooter riders. That’s also true of injury reporting and statistics, due to the way authorities collect crash statistics.
Yet reported injury statistics for New Zealand indicate that the rate of serious injury while using a shared e‑scooter points is lower than for other modes of transport. Far more people suffered soft tissue injuries from rollerskating and skateboarding (5,344) than from riding e‑scooters (1,119), for instance. Nine times as many bike riders incurred a head injury or concussion (681) compared to e‑scooter riders (76).
Better infrastructure is also vital for e‑scooter safety. A 2020 International Transport Federation (ITF) report found 80% of e‑scooter crashes occurred at intersections, and 70% during the day.
The findings are not surprising when scant attention has been paid to delivering safe e‑scooter infrastructure. In Melbourne, for example, some lanes available for e‑scooter riding end abruptly.
E-scooters cut emissions and congestion
The most important issue arising from the City of Melbourne’s ban is the role e‑scooters (and e‑bikes) can play in shrinking cities’ huge carbon footprints. In addition, e‑scooters can:
reduce traffic congestion
improve access to public transport
provide more efficient transport for shorter trips
remove the need for car parking
improve air quality.
The City of Melbourne pointed solely at the safety concern to justify its ban. The city instead needs more proactive policies to integrate shared e‑scooters into the its mobility mix. This would have delivered all the public good of this transport mode.
Governance is a neglected issue
Much of the research on e‑scooters in cities focuses on sustainability and safety. Governance (policies, rules and regulations) is largely overlooked.
Operating governance structures are established following a traditional operator licensing pathway. This approach is now being questioned.
What has been lacking is broad engagement with all stakeholders, including the public. The focus should be on balancing the benefits and burdens of shared e‑scooters.
E‑scooters are a particularly valuable form of transport for young people and those on low incomes or with a disability. The social justice they provide has been neglected. Predictably, then, the focus has been on the burdens, including safety.
Another problem is the widely varied approaches around Australia to regulating e‑scooters. There isn’t even a consistent definition of e‑scooters.
It appears governance decisions, which include ending operator licences, aren’t using reliable evidence to avoid knee-jerk reactions.
For widespread sustainable and safe e‑scooter use, there needs to be:
better governance and rider safety education
more consistent and specific recording of e‑scooter incident and injury data
an appreciation that riders are vulnerable road users who deserve safe infrastructure.
A comprehensive, inclusive assessment of benefits and burdens is needed. We may then establish more clearly the sustainability and equity benefits, manage the safety concerns and arrive at more consistent policies and definitions across Australia.
Mark Stevenson receives funding from the National Health and Medical Research Council and the Australian Research Council.
Ferdinand Balfoort receives funding from Charles Darwin University, Australia.
He is a Senior Researcher at the Mobility Research Partnership Pty Ltd, a not for profit
How can schools better help young people at this time? In a new four-year study we looked at the role of teaching support. We were especially interested to know if teachers’ influence on students’ motivation and engagement grows or fades across the adolescent years.
Our study involved 7,769 Year 6 New South Wales government school students who were tracked annually into Year 9. The students were part of the NSW Department of Education’s annual “Tell Them From Me” student survey.
Students were asked questions about the teaching support they received, as well as questions about their motivation and engagement. They were given a 0–4 point rating scale (strongly disagree to strongly agree).
There were three categories of teaching support:
emotional support: did teachers support and care for students?
instrumental support: did teachers have clear expectations for students and did they make learning content seem relevant?
management support: were there clear rules and routines for the class?
Motivation was measured through students’ academic aspirations about the future and how much they valued school (or saw it as important). Engagement was assessed via students’ perseverance, efforts with homework, making school friends and whether they had any behaviour issues.
In our analysis we also accounted for students’ backgrounds, such as gender, socioeconomic status and prior academic achievement.
Our findings confirm there is a decline in students’ motivation and engagement from Year 6 to Year 9 (around 18% in total). This is consistent with the known dip in early- to mid-adolescence.
But we also found in each of these four years, teaching support overall (and each of the three teaching support categories) was significantly associated with students’ motivation and engagement.
That is, more teaching support was linked to greater student aspirations, valuing school, perseverance, homework effort, connections with school friends and less misconduct at school.
Of particular note, we found the link between teaching support and students’ motivation and engagement strengthened each year. For example, teaching support was more strongly linked to students’ motivation and engagement in Year 9 than it was in Year 8. Taken together, between Year 6 and Year 9, there was a 40% increase in the role of teaching support in students’ motivation and engagement.
Our research found a positive link between teaching support and students’ aspirations and efforts at school. Rawpixel.com/Shutterstock, CC BY
What this means
This is an empowering finding for teachers because adolescence is typically seen as a time when the influence of adults declines. Our results show students remain within their teacher’s orbit as they move further into adolescence.
ensuring content and tasks are interesting and meaningful to students
explaining how schoolwork is useful for other schoolwork, or things outside school (for example, world events or paid work)
having clear, consistent, and logical expectations about classroom behaviour
encouraging student input as classroom rules are developed.
There are also further practical ideas in a NSW Department of Education guide that accompanies our study.
With thanks to Mary Stephan, Anaïd Flesken, Fiona Halcrow and Brianna McCourt from the Centre for Education Statistics and Evaluation, NSW Department of Education. The “Tell Them From Me” survey mentioned in this article is the intellectual property of education resources company, The Learning Bar.
Andrew J. Martin sits on the Advisory Board of Centre for Education Statistics and Evaluation in the New South Wales Department of Education. Funding for the research mentioned in this article was provided by the NSW Department of Education.
Rebecca J. Collie receives funding from the New South Wales Department of Education.
What will our climate look like in the future? It is hard to overstate not only the importance of answering this question, but also the challenges involved in doing so.
We know the climate is changing rapidly. But without information about where we are headed, planning – at personal, organisational and societal levels – becomes tricky, to put it mildly.
Because climate risks are also understood as financial risks, many countries around the world – including Australia – are moving to make climate risk reporting mandatory. Accordingly, this need for a plan can no longer be ignored.
But the way we currently communicate climate risk has some serious limitations.
Recent research led by Tanya Fiedler explores these limitations, and proposes that a new approach – incorporating the power of narratives – would be more useful and practical for organisations.
We all struggle with uncertainty
Why is painting a picture of our future climate to help us make decisions so difficult? Part of the answer lies in the way individuals make decisions under uncertainty.
People tend to find it difficult to cope with uncertainty and ambiguity, often struggling when presented with probabilities. This can impact our decisions, leading to undesirable outcomes.
Research has also shown we find it difficult to respond to warnings that fall outside our lived experience.
The other part of the answer lies in the inherent complexity – and uncertainties – involved in developing a useful picture of the future.
The most common way to explore our future climate is to use global or regional climate models – complex mathematical simulations of our climate system. These have proven extraordinarily valuable to simulate how our climate will change due to increases in greenhouse gases.
They can project how temperature, rainfall, winds, fire risk and even hail risk are likely to change in future.
But projections are by definition uncertain, and using different models can provide different visions of the future.
Companies are increasingly required to assess and disclose their climate-related financial risks. Chay_Tee/Shutterstock
The problem with zooming in
This uncertainty tends to increase both as you zoom in to particular locations and become interested in extremes.
For example, how average winter rainfall is expected to change over southwest Western Australia could be relatively clear, but how extreme rainfall (capable of causing major floods) will change is far less clear.
When looking at the level of a postcode or single address we might not even know whether extreme rainfall will increase or decrease.
That’s a problem for organisations trying to work out how to manage and prepare for such risks, often at the scale of an individual building. Modelling is precise, but not necessarily accurate enough for that sort of localised information.
This doesn’t mean climate models aren’t useful or don’t provide valuable information. It just means organisations may need to enhance the value of that information by combining it with other evidence.
Introducing ‘storylines’
Fortunately, there is a way to address both the behavioural and modelling issues that capitalises on how we most intuitively make sense of the world. This is through “storylines”.
Storylines were developed in the climate sciences to describe uncertain physical climate futures. They do this by employing expert judgement to prioritise an understanding of the “causal networks” that drive changes and extremes.
The valuable information held in climate model projections is combined with other types of evidence relevant to a location, to develop a plausible (and useful) story about what the future might entail.
Flood risk, for example, depends on a wide range of factors. These can include:
the amount and intensity of rain
whether heavy rain fell in the recent past
changes to the catchment such as vegetation, soils and the nature of any upstream developments, including new roads or buildings.
A business only using changes in rainfall drawn from a climate or national-scale flood model for its risk assessment might “hard-wire” a future scenario that turns out to be unreliable at the scale they need.
Under an alternative “storylines” approach, their best course of action to understand flood risk would be to work with experts to develop a narrative that describes changes in rainfall in addition to all other locally relevant factors.
This narrative can then be tested using traditional flood modelling methods to provide more robust and useful insights into how the local catchment will be impacted under conditions of changing rainfall.
The quantitative disciplines like finance, economics and accounting may struggle with the idea that a narrative might provide more decision-useful information than a number. Yet, research has shown that narratives can make an uncertain future more tangible than numbers, and thereby better aid with planning and decision-making.
We need a new toolkit
Answering the question “what will our future climate look like?” challenges us to think differently and to look for solutions outside the toolbox of established financial tools and techniques.
It challenges us to work – through interdisciplinary dialogue – with experts, disciplines and knowledge we might feel uncomfortable with.
Storylines could transform the way organisations understand and report their exposure to climate risk. This is unlikely to be easy, and we recognise taking quantitative information from a commercial provider may seem simpler. But it is a more honest and rigorous way of planning for the future climate.
Andy Pitman receives funding from the Australian Research Council. He is also a commissioner on the NSW Net Zero Commission.
Ben Newell receives funding from the Australian Research Council.
Michael Grose receives funding from the National Environmental Science Program and the Australian Climate Service.
Tanya Fiedler 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.
Peter Dutton is 100% signed up to the position of Israel in the Middle East conflict. Immigration minister Tony Burke has an electorate with the second largest Muslim community of any seat in the country.
Dutton and Burke this week have faced off in the fractious debate about Palestinians fleeing to Australia – an issue that risks putting another tear in our social cohesion fabric.
In keeping with our current politics, hyper-partisanship and an approaching election mean this argument is piling dangerous fuel onto an already incendiary local divisions the Middle East conflict has generated.
At the core is the balance this country should strike between national security and national compassion.
But there are complex questions involved, given the passions in sections of the community about the war. There are no absolute (let alone easy) answers to precisely where policy should land.
Dutton sees national security as his natural territory for political combat. His default is to cast issues in the starkest terms. He seldom does nuance, which leaves the impression everyone in Gaza is a potential terror risk.
Burke, just installed as immigration minister, has a brief to close down debates where possible. But he’s also acutely tuned into the voices of his seat, amplified by this week’s announcement a Muslim candidate will run against him as an independent.
ASIO chief Mike Burgess, appearing on the ABC at the weekend, said that from a security point of view, if someone from Gaza just gave “rhetorical support [to Hamas], and they don’t have an ideology or support for a violent extremism ideology, then that’s not a problem”. But if they had given material aid, “that can be a problem”. “Obviously we take each case on its merits in the context of the information we have before us.”
The position he spelled out might have surprised some people, but sources with knowledge of ASIO’s checking say this accords with the organisation’s guidelines.
But this is a security definition, rather than a policy about the entry of Gazans. Dutton didn’t want to get into an argument with Burgess, but he doesn’t accept that as the point where policy should land.
Opposition home affairs spokesman James Paterson sought to find a path between rejecting the Burgess position without rejecting Burgess. “In my view, supporting a terrorist organisation is a very clear breach of the Migration Act, and in particular, the character provisions of the Migration Act and you should not come to Australia if you do so,” Paterson said. “Now that’s not a criticism of Mike Burgess, he was simply describing the status quo under this government. We’ll have a different approach; we think that the acceptable number of Hamas supporters to bring into this country is zero.”
On Wednesday Dutton said: “I don’t think people should be coming in from that war zone at all at the moment. It is not prudent to do so, and I think it puts our national security at risk.” The words “at the moment” are relevant. Is Dutton advocating a short-term pause, or a long-term ban? It’s a fair bet that if there were a Liberal government, few Gazans would be welcome.
So far, on Burke’s figures, from October 7 (when the Hamas attack on Israel occurred) to August 12, 2922 visas from Gaza have been granted and 7111 rejected (though we don’t have a breakdown of grounds). About half those approved have come to Australia; the rest are still in Gaza or in third countries. Currently people are not able to leave Gaza.
Those who have arrived are on visitor visas; the government soon will have to announce its longer term plan for them.
Burke told parliament on Wednesday that everyone who had received a visa had been checked against ASIO’s watch list. This, however, can be a tick-and-flick unless it triggers a warning.
People coming from a war zone normally go through much more rigorous checks, with information obtained from other countries (such as the United States and Israel), biometric testing, and where possible in-person interviews. It can be a long process.
So what should Australia’s policy be towards the Gazan applicants? Where should that security/compassion interface be struck?
Most obviously, close relatives of Australian citizens or permanent residents should have a strong claim to come or, if they are here now, to stay permanently, subject (if considered necessary) to a recheck on security.
Beyond that, a compassionate Australia would set an intake, as it has in previous conflicts, such as from Syria and Afghanistan, with the proviso that comprehensive security checks might take some time.
This would be the right position on principle, although not necessarily a politically smooth policy. The Jewish and Palestinian communities would both likely have some objections from their opposing viewpoints.
For Burke entry of the Gazans is an early test in his new portfolio. While the issue has the government on the back foot, it knows it would be struggling more if Andrew Giles were still the minister.
This week a Lakemba doctor Ziad Basyouny, who was born in Egypt and came here in 2004, announced he will run against Burke in Watson. He said he would campaign around the issues of the cost-of-living crisis, housing, education, health and Palestine.
“The last year has shown us that Labor won’t listen to its constituents on things like Palestine, housing or the cost of living, and if you stand against the wind you’ll be punished,” he said in an interview with The Guardian.
Basyouny told The Conversation that in his decision to stand, Gaza was “the nail in the coffin”. He said Burke should “push the government as hard as possible [on Gaza], but it doesn’t seem like he’s doing so.” In fact, the differences between Labor and the Liberals on Gaza were “pretty marginal”.
Burke is unlikely to be dislodged from his seat: for one thing it is on a 15% margin and for another the Muslim community won’t be united. But the minister will have to spend more campaign time there than usual, and his immigration portfolio increases the local pressure on him.
In his weekend interview, days after the terrorism level was raised, Burgess appealed for the temperature of debate to be lowered. Instead, inside and outside parliament it just went up, yet again.
Michelle Grattan does not work for, consult, own shares in or receive funding from any company or organisation that would benefit from this article, and has disclosed no relevant affiliations beyond their academic appointment.
Cost of living remains at the top of people’s minds as inflation stays sticky. With an election in less than a year, the government has been doing what it can to address some of the pressures. But the Reserve Bank doesn’t envisage an interest rate cut this year, and has suggested spending by governments is keeping inflation higher for longer.
On Thursday, new figures showed employment has surged, but the unemployment rate ticked up to 4.2%, from 4.1%
Treasurer Jim Chalmers joined the podcast to discuss a range of issues.
Chalmers is optimistic he is close to a deal with the opposition over his long-awaited reforms to the Reserve Bank. The plan is to have two boards rather than one: There would be a new board of experts to take over responsibility for monetary policy.
We’ve had discussions, including relatively recently, about how we come to a bipartisan view about these reforms. I’ve done my best throughout to be as bipartisan as I can because I think the structure of our central bank should be above partisan politics. And I believe [shadow treasurer] Angus Taylor has that view as well.
There are a couple of issues that we’re still working through. […] Hopefully we can progress things quite soon and get it finished so that the changes can come in at the start of next year.
Bank Governor Michele Bullock’s recent comments about strong government spending, and the observation by the bank’s chief economist Sarah Hunter that the economy was running a “bit hotter” than the bank previously expected sparked headlines about the government and the bank being at odds. Chalmers is anxious to stress what they agree on but firmly rejects the suggestion of the economy being hot:
The Reserve Bank governor and I both say in our own way that we’ve got the same objective here, which is to fight inflation, but we’ve got different responsibilities. Governor Bullock acknowledged that in her speech in Armidale. We both want to see inflation moderate, further and faster. I’m an enthusiastic part of that.
I’m not sure that there’s the data or the feedback to sustain an argument that says that the economy’s too hot. There was barely any growth in the most recent national accounts. Household savings came off substantially. Retail has been weak. You know, there are a whole bunch of indications that our economy is quite soft.
On the lacklustre reception of the budget, Chalmers says he keeps his expectations realistic, and he remains confident he’s made the right economic decisions:
I’ve been around long enough to have realistic expectations about all of that.
I think it’s important to acknowledge people are under pressure and when they’re under pressure, they express themselves and the political system.
That’s expected and unsurprising. I genuinely think that if you make the right economic decisions for the right economic reasons, the politics will take care of themselves. If not in the near term, then certainly over the longer term.
On the latest employment figures:
Well, employment’s gone up by more than unemployment. The unemployment rate has ticked up because of participation rates at a record high. The labour market is soft around the edges.
The participation rate is up. The amount of new jobs just in one month, just in July, was almost 60,000 new jobs that are all full time. That’s a really good thing in the context of an economy which is soft and weakening more broadly.
Although real wage growth is sluggish, Chalmers highlights the government’s record on wages especially on the gender pay gap:
We’ve had a particular focus on people on low and middle incomes and a particular focus on women, and one of the most heartening aspects of the labour market data this week has been that the gender pay gap is the narrowest it’s ever been in the history of our country. […] That’s not accidental. That’s deliberate.
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.
Of the international intelligence information that comes to Australian agencies from the Five Eyes, 90 percent comes from the CIA and related US intelligence agencies. So in effect we have the colonisation of our intelligence agencies These agencies dominate the advice to ministers, writes John Menadue.
Michael Lester:Hello again listeners to Community Radio Northern Beaches Community Voices and also the Pearls and Irritations podcast. I’m Michael Lester.
Our guest today is the publisher and founder of the Pearls and Irritations Public Policy online journal, the celebrated John Menadue, with whom we’ll be so pleased to have a discussion today. John has a long and high profile experience in both the public service, for which he’s been awarded the Order of Australia and also in business.
As a public servant, he was secretary of a number of departments over the years, prime minister and cabinet under a couple of different prime ministers, immigration and ethnic affairs, special minister of state and the Department of Trade and also Ambassador to Japan.
And in his private sector career, he was a general manager at News Corp and the chief executive of Qantas. These are just among many of his considerable activities.
These days, as I say, he’s a publisher, public commentator, writer, and we’re absolutely delighted to welcome you here to Radio Northern Beaches and the P&I podcast, John.
John Menadue: Thank you, Michael. Thanks for the welcome and for what you’ve had to say about Pearls and Irritations. My wife says that she’s the Pearl and I’m the Irritation.
ML:You launched, I think, P&I, what, 2013 or 2011; anyway, you’ve been going a long while. And I noticed the other day you observed that you’d published some 20,000 items on Pearls and Irritations to do with public policy. That’s an amazing achievement itself as an independent media outlet in Australia, isn’t it?
JM: I’m quite pleased with it and so is Susie, my wife. We started 13 years ago and we did everything. I used to write all the stories and Susie handled the technical, admin, financial matters, but it’s grown dramatically since then. We now contract some of the work to people that can help us in editorial, in production and IT. It’s achieving quite a lot of influence among ministers, politicians, journalists and other opinion leaders in the community.
We’re looking now at what the future holds. I’m 89 and Susie, my wife, is not in good health. So we’re looking at new governance arrangements, a public company with outside directors so that we can continue Pearls and Irritations well into the future.
Pearls and Irritations publisher John Menadue . . . “I’m afraid some of [the mainstream media] are just incorrigible. They in fact act as stenographers to powerful interests.” Image: Independent Australian
ML: So you made a real contribution through this and you’ve given the opportunity for so many expert, experienced, independent voices to commentate on public policy issues of great importance, not least vis-a-vis, might I say, mainstream media treatment of a lot of these issues.This is one of your themes and motivations with Pearls and Irritations as a public policy journal, isn’t it? That our mainstream media perhaps don’t do the job they might do in covering significant issues of public policy?
JM: That’s our hope and intention, but I’m afraid some of them are just incorrigible. They in fact act as stenographers to powerful interests.
It’s quite a shame what mainstream media is serving up today, propaganda for the United States, so focused on America.Occasionally we get nonsense about the British royal family or some irrelevant feature like that.
But we’re very badly served. Our media shows very little interest in our own region. It is ignorant and prejudiced against China. It is not concerned about our relations with Indonesia, with the Philippines, Malaysia, Vietnam.
It’s all focused on the United States.We’re seeing it on an enormous scale now with the US elections. Even the ABC has a Planet America programme.
It’s so much focused on America as if we’re an island parked off New York. We are being Americanised in so many areas and particularly in our media.
ML: What has led to this state of affairs in the way that mainstream media treats major public policy issues these days? It hasn’t always been like that or has it?
JM: We’ve been a country that’s been frightened of our region, the countries where we have to make our future. And we’ve turned first to the United Kingdom as a protector. That ended in tears in Singapore.
And now we turn to the United States to look after us in this dangerous world, rather than making our own way as an independent country in our own region. That fear of our region, racism, white Australia, yellow peril all feature in Australia and in our media.
But when we had good, strong leaders, for example, Malcolm Fraser on refugees, he gave leadership and our role in the region.
Gough Whitlam did it also. If we have strong leadership, we can break from our focus on the United States at the expense of our own region. In the end, we’ve got to decide that as we live in this region, we’ve got to prosper in this region.
Security in our region, not from our region. We can do it, but I’m afraid that we’ve been retreating from Asia dreadfully over the last two or three decades. I thought when we had a Labor government, things would be different, but they’re not.
We are still frightened of our own region and embracing at every opportunity, the United States.
ML: Another theme of the many years of publishing Pearls and Irritations is that you are concerned to rebuild some degree of public confidence and trust that has been lost in the political system and that you seek to provide a platform for good policy discussion with the emphasis being on public policy. How has the public policy process been undermined or become so narrow minded if that’s one way of describing it?
JM: Contracting out work to private contractors, the big four accounting firms, getting advice, and not trusting the public service has meant that the quality of our public service has declined considerably. That has to be rebuilt so we get better policy development.
Ministers have been responsible, particularly Scott Morrison, for downgrading the public service and believing somehow or other that better advice can be obtained in the private sector.
Another factor has been the enormous growth in the power of lobbyists for corporate Australia and for foreign companies as well. Ministers have become beholden to pressure from powerful lobby groups.
One particular example, with which I’m quite familiar is in the health field. We are never likely to have real improvements in Medicare, for example, unless the government is prepared to take on the power of lobbyists — the providers, the doctors, the pharmaceutical companies and pharmacies in Australia.
But it’s not just in health where lobbyists are causing so much damage. The power of lobbyists has discredited the role of governments that are seduced by powerful interests rather than serving the community.
The media have just entrenched this problem. Governments are criticised at every opportunity. Australia can be served by the media taking a more positive view about the importance of good policy development and not getting sidetracked all the time about some trivial personal political issue.
The media publish the handouts of the lobbyists, whether it’s the health industry or whether it’s in the fossil fuel industries. These are the main factors that have contributed to the lack of confidence and the lack of trust in good government in Australia.
ML: A particular editorial focus that’s evident in Pearls and Irritations is promoting, I think in your words, a peaceful dialogue and engagement with China. Why is this required and why do you put it forward as a particularly important part of what you see as the mission of your Pearls and Irritations public policy journal?
JM; China, is our largest market and will continue to be so. There is a very jaundiced view, particularly from the United States, which we then copy, that China is a great threat. It’s not a threat to Australia and it’s not a threat to the United States homeland.
But it is to a degree a threat, a competitive threat to the United States in economy and trade. America didn’t worry about China when it was poor, but now that it’s strong militarily, economically and in technology, America is very concerned and feels that its future, its own leadership, its hegemony in the world is being contested.
Unfortunately, Australia has allowed itself to be drawn into the American contest with China. It’s one provocation after another. If it’s not within China itself, it’s on Taiwan, human rights in Hong Kong. Every opportunity is found by the United States to provoke China, if possible, and lead it into war.
I think, frankly, China will be more careful than that.
China’s problem is that it’s successful. And that’s what America cannot accept. By comparison, China does not make the military threat to other countries that the United States presents.
America is the most violent, aggressive country in the world. The greatest threat to peace in the world is the United States and we’re seeing that particularly now expressed in Israel and in Gaza.
But there’s a history. America’s almost always at war and has been since its independence in 1776. By contrast, China doesn’t have that sort of record and history. It is certainly concerned about security on its borders, and it has borders with 14 countries.
But it doesn’t project its power like the US. It doesn’t bomb other countries like the United States. It doesn’t have military bases surrounding the United States.
The United States has about 800 bases around the world. It’s not surprising that China feels threatened by what the United States is doing. And until the United States comes to a sensible, realistic view about China and deals with it politically, I think they’re going to make continual problems for us.
We have this dichotomy that China is our major trading partner but it’s seen by many as a strategic threat. I think that is a mistake.
ML: But what about your views about the public policy process underlying Australia’s policy in reaching the positions that we’re taking vis-a-vis China?
JM: There are several reasons for it, but I think the major one is that Australian governments, the previous government and now this one, takes the advice of intelligence agencies rather than the Department of Foreign Affairs.
Our intelligence agencies are part of Five Eyes. Of the international intelligence which comes to Australian agencies, 90 percent comes from the CIA and related US intelligence agencies. So in effect we’ve had the colonisation of our intelligence agencies and they’re the ones that the Australian government listens to.
Very senior people in those agencies have direct access to the Prime Minister. He listens to them rather than to Penny Wong or the Department of Foreign Affairs and Trade. On most public issues involving China, the Department of Foreign Affairs has become a wallflower.
It’s a great tragedy because so much of our future in the region depends on good diplomacy with China, with the ASEAN, with the countries of our region.
Those intelligence agencies in Australia, together with American funded, military funded organisations such as the Australian Strategic Policy Institute have the ear of governments. They’ve also got the ear of the media.
Stories are leaked to the media all the time from those agencies in order to heighten our fear of the region. The Americanisation of Australia is widespread. But our intelligence agencies have been Americanised as well, and they’re leading us down a very dangerous path.
ML: I’m speaking with our guest today on Reno Northern Beaches Community Voices and on the Pearls and Irritations podcast with the publisher of Pearls and Irritations Public Policy Journal, John Menadue, distinguished Australian public servant and businessman.
John, again, it’s one thing to talk about that, but governments, when they change, and we’ve had a change of government recently, very often, as I’m sure you know from personal experience, have the opportunity and do indeed change their advisors and adopt different policies, and one might have expected this to happen.
Why didn’t we see a change of the guard like we saw a change of government?
JM: I think this government is timid on almost everything. It was timid from day one on administrative arrangements, departmental arrangements, heads of departments.
For example, there was no change made to dismantle the Department of Home Affairs with Michael Pezzullo. That should have happened on day one, but it didn’t happen.
Concerns we’ve had in migration, the role of foreign affairs and intelligence with all those intelligence agencies gathered together in one department has been very bad for Australia.
Very few changes were made in the leadership of our intelligence agencies, the Office of National Assessments, in ASIO. The same advice has been continued. In almost every area you can look at, the government has been timid, unprepared to take on vested interests, lobbyists, and change departments to make them more attuned to what the government wants to do.
But the government doesn’t want to upset anyone. And as a result, we’re having a continuation of badly informed ministers and departments that have really not been effectively changed to meet the requirements and needs of, what I thought was a reforming government.
ML: In that context, AUKUS and the nuclear submarine deal might be perhaps a case in point of the broader issues and points you’re making. How would you characterise the nature of the public policy process and decision behind AUKUS? How were the decisions made and in what manner?
JM: By political appointees and confidants of Morrison. There’s been no public discussion. There’s been no public statement by Morrison or by Albanese about AUKUS — its history, why we’re doing it.
It’s been left to briefings of journalists and others. I think it’s disgraceful what’s happened in that area. It’s time the Australian government spelled out to us what it all means, but it’s not going to do it. Because I believe the case is so threadbare that it’s not game to put it to the public test.
And so we’re continuing in this ludicrous arrangement, this fiscal calamity, which Morrison inflicted on the Albanese government which it hasn’t been game to contest.
My own view is that frankly, AUKUS will never happen. It is so absurd — the delay, the cost, the failure of submarine construction or the delays in the United States, the problems of the submarine construction and maintenance in the United Kingdom.
For all those sorts of reasons, I don’t think it’ll really happen. Unfortunately, we’re going to waste a lot of money and a lot of time. I don’t think the Department of Defence could run any major project, certainly not a project like this.
Defence has been unsuccessful in the frigate and numerous other programmes. Our Department of Defence really is not up to the job and that among other reasons gives me reason to believe, and hope frankly, that AUKUS will collapse under its own stupidity.
But what I think is of more concern is the real estate, which we are freely leasing to the Americans. We had it first with the Marines in Darwin. We have it also coming now with US B-52 aircraft based out of Tindal in the Northern Territory and the submarine base in Perth, Western Australia.
These bases are being made available to the United States with very little control by Australia. The government carries on with nonsense about how our sovereignty will be protected.
In fact, it won’t be protected. If there’s any difficulties, for example, over a war with China over Taiwan, and the Americans are involved, there is no way Americans will consult with us about whether they can use nuclear armed vessels out of Tindal, for example.
The Americans will insist that Pine Gap continues to operate. So we are locked in through ceding so much of our real estate and the sovereignty that goes with it.
Penny Wong has been asked about American aircraft out of Tindal, carrying nuclear weapons and she says to us, sorry but the Americans won’t confirm or deny what they do.
Good heavens, this is our territory. This is our sovereignty. And we won’t even ask the Americans operating out of Tindal, whether they’re carrying nuclear weapons.
Back in the days of Malcolm Fraser, he made a statement to the Parliament insisting that no vessels or aircraft carrying nuclear weapons or ships carrying nuclear weapons could access Australian ports or operate over Australia without the permission of the Australian government.
And now Penny Wong says, we won’t ask. You can do what you like. We know the US won’t confirm or deny.
When it came to the Solomon Islands, a treaty that the Solomons negotiated with China on strategic and defence matters, Penny Wong was very upset about this secret agreement. There should be transparency, she warned.
But that’s small fry, compared with the fact that the Australian government will allow United States aircraft to operate out of Tindal without the Australian government knowing whether they are carrying nuclear weapons. I think that’s outrageous.
ML: Notwithstanding many of the very technical and economic and other discussions around the nuclear submarine’s acquisition, it does seem that politically, at least, and not least from the media presentation of our policy position that we’re very clearly signing up with our US allies against contingency attacks on Taiwan that we would be committed to take a part in and we’re also moving very closely, to well the phrase is interoperability, with the US forces and equipment but also personnel too.
You mentioned earlier, intelligence personnel and I believe there’s a lot of US personnel in the Department of Defence too?
JM: That’s right. It’s just another example of Americanisation which is reflected in our intelligence agencies, Department of Defence, interchangeability of our military forces, the fusion of our military or particularly our Navy with the United States. It’s all becoming one fused enterprise with the United States.
And in any difficulties, we would not be able, as far as I can see, to disengage from what the United States is doing. And we would be particularly vulnerable because of the AUKUS submarines. That’s if they ever come to anything. Because the AUKUS submarines, we are told, would operate off the Chinese coast to attack Chinese submarines or somehow provide intelligence for the Americans and for us.
These submarines will not be nuclear armed, which means that in the event of a conflict, we would have no bargaining or no counter to China. We’d be the weak link in the alliance with the United States.
China will not be prepared to strike the mainland United States for fear of massive retaliation. We are the weak link with Pine Gap and other real estate that I mentioned. We would be making ourselves much more vulnerable by this association with the United States.
Those AUKUS submarines will provide no deterrence for us, but make us more vulnerable if a conflict arises in which we are effectively part of the US military operation.
ML: How would you characterise the mainstream media’s presentation and treatment of these issues?
JM: The mainstream media is very largely a mouthpiece for Washington propaganda. And that American propaganda is pushed out through the legacy media, The Washington Post, The New York Times, the news agencies, Fox News which in turn are influenced by the military/ business complex which Eisenhower warned us about years ago.
The power of those groups with the CIA and the influence that they have, means that they overwhelm our media. That’s reflected particularly in The Australian and News Corporation publications.
I don’t know how some of those journalists can hold their heads. They’ve been on the drip feed of America for so long. They cannot see a world that is not dominated and led by the United States.
I’m hoping that over time, Pearls and Irritations and other independent media will grow and provide a more balanced view about Australia’s role in our region and in our own development.
We need to keep good relations with the United States. They’re an important player, but I think that we are unnecessarily risking our future by throwing our lot almost entirely in with the United States.
Minister for Defence, Richard Marles is leading the Americanisation of our military. I think Penny Wong is to some extent trying to pull him back. But unfortunately so much of the leadership of Australia in defence, in the media, is part and parcel of the mistaken United States view of the world.
ML: What sort of voices are we not hearing in the media or in Australia on this question?
JM: It’s not going to change, Michael. I can’t see it changing with Lachlan Murdoch in charge. I think it’s getting worse, if possible, within News Corporation. It’s a very, very difficult and desperate situation where we’re being served so poorly.
ML: Is there a strong independent media and potential for voices through independent media in Australia?
JM: No, we haven’t got one. The best hope at the side, of course, is the ABC and SBS public broadcasters, but they’ve been seduced as well by all things American.
We’ve seen that particularly in recent months over the conflict in Gaza. The ABC and SBS heavily favour Israel. It is shameful.
They’re still the best hope of the side, but they need more money. They’re getting a little bit more from the government, but I think they are sadly lacking in leadership and proper understanding of what the role of a public broadcaster should be.
I don’t think there’s a quick answer to any of this. And I hope that we can extricate ourselves without too much damage in the future. Our media has a great responsibility and must be held responsible for the damage that it is causing in Australia.
ML: Well, look, thank you very much, John Menadue, for joining us on Radio Northern Beaches and on the Pearls and Irritations podcast. John Menadue, publisher, founder, editor-in-chief of, for the last 13 years, the public policy journal Pearls and Irritations. We’ve been discussing the role of the mainstream media, independent media, in the public policy processes too in Australia, and particularly in the context of international relations and in this case our relationships with the US and China.
Thank you so much John for taking the time and for sharing your thoughts with us here today. Thanks for joining us John.
JM: Thank you. Let’s hope for better days.
John Menadue, founder and publisher of Pearls and Irritations public policy journal has had a senior professional career in the media, public service and airlines. In 1985, he was made an Officer of the Order of Australia (AO) for public service. In 2009, he received the Distinguished Alumni Award from the University of Adelaide in recognition of his significant and lifelong contribution to Australian society. This transcript of the Pearls and Irritations podcast on 10 August 2024 is republished with permission.
Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Matthew Sussex, Associate Professor (Adj), Griffith Asia Institute; and Fellow, Strategic and Defence Studies Centre, Australian National University
Ukrainians have long become used to grim news reports from their besieged lands. But that’s suddenly changed. Following its remarkably successful incursion of Russia’s Kursk region, cheerful Ukrainian journalists are now covering the war from captured Russian territory.
Ukraine’s surprise counterpunch, taking the fight into Russia for the first time, shows no signs yet of having reached a high-water mark. Unlike previous pinprick raids by the anti-Putin Freedom of Russia Legion militia group, Ukraine’s armed forces are using some of their most seasoned units.
Having punched through a thinly defended portion of its border near the Russian city of Kursk – itself famous as a scene of one of the Soviet Union’s greatest victories against Germany in the second world war – Ukraine’s forces reportedly have captured up to 70 settlements.
In the process they’ve taken control of a piece of land encompassing some 1,000 square kilometres, up to 30 kilometres deep inside Russia.
What’s Kyiv’s endgame?
There are numerous theories about what Ukraine wants to achieve. One is that it seeks a sizeable foothold in Russia as currency to trade for captured Ukrainian territory in future peace talks. Recent signs that its forces are digging in might support that claim.
Another is that Kyiv’s goals are more modest, including holding onto key towns and road/rail hubs. That complicates Moscow’s logistics efforts and would still give Ukraine territorial chips for the negotiating table.
A third is that its forces will withdraw, having forced Moscow to secure its border by diverting significant military resources away from Ukraine.
On balance, the second two explanations are probably closer to the mark. Holding large swathes of Russian territory will be difficult for Ukraine once the Kremlin’s armed forces eventually overcome their characteristic initial inertia. Attempting to do so would permanently tie up some of Kyiv’s best soldiers, and put them at risk of death or capture.
Of course, Kyiv has other motives, too. Apart from a big morale boost for a war-weary population, Ukraine might seek to recover some of its captured soldiers. Recently, Ukraine President Volodymyr Zelensky observed that Ukraine’s forces were “replenishing the exchange fund”.
Further, he noted, Kyiv’s decision was motivated by the desire to show Russians that the war had consequences for them – not just for Ukrainians.
The incursion is also sending a message to the United States and its NATO allies.
The White House, in particular, has dithered about allowing Ukraine to use long-range American weapons to strike Russian territory, worrying that doing so is a dangerous escalation that also plays into Russian narratives about NATO being a de facto combatant in the war.
By striking into Russian territory, Kyiv is sending a powerful reminder to Washington – deeply distracted by its upcoming presidential election – that its forces can achieve surprising results with the right capabilities.
Will the Kremlin escalate things?
Moscow’s response to the incursion, so far, lends weight to the Ukrainian argument that American escalation fears are overblown.
Regime cronies like former Russian President Dmitry Medvedev have made vague threats about vigorous punishments, and Kremlin-friendly propagandists on social media have alleged NATO troops are operating alongside Ukrainian soldiers. But that’s nothing new: Russian officials and commentators have falsely claimed for years that NATO is fighting with Ukrainian forces, and that Ukraine faces annihilation if it does not submit.
Viewed in that light, Kyiv’s move into Russia is a calculated gamble. Ukraine assesses the international, morale and material gains to sufficiently outweigh any anticipated reprisals.
Of course, that’s based on the assumption that any reprisals will be on a similar scale to those previously meted out to Ukraine. The Putin regime has routinely demonstrated it regards the laws and norms of war as inconvenient distractions, preferring instead to use fear and wanton destruction to cow its adversaries into capitulation.
But that’s also nothing Ukrainians haven’t seen before – in the slaughter of civilians at Bucha, the flattening of cities like Mariupol, the indiscriminate attacks against civilian hospitals and the veiled Russian threats about “accidents” at the occupied nuclear power plant in Zaporizhzhia.
Russia’s rudderless response
Tellingly, Ukraine’s incursion has again revealed the manifest failings of Russia’s armed forces. In particular, it highlights the hubris afflicting its leaders, who mistakenly believed Kyiv could fall in a mere three days. That’s now more than 900 days ago.
Many have justifiably lauded Ukraine’s preparations for its incursion as a masterpiece of operational security. It was certainly no mean feat to garner the resources necessary for a sizeable assault without tipping off either Moscow or Washington, both of which reacted initially with surprise.
However, there have been several reports that Russia’s military leadership dismissed warnings about Ukrainian troops concentrating near the border.
Since the operation began, there have been conflicting reports about who is in charge of Russia’s military response. Notionally, Valery Gerasimov – Russia’s beleaguered chief of the general staff – should be in command. Yet, Putin called the response to Ukraine’s attack a “counter-terrorism operation”, which seemed to put it within the purview of Alexander Bortnikov, the head of Russia’s Federal Security Service (FSB). Still others claim Aleksey Dyumin, a Putin favourite sometimes touted as his eventual successor, has been given the responsibility.
The confusion over command has also revealed how weak the forces remaining inside Russia are. A cobbled-together combination of conscripts, Russian naval infantry, FSB troops and Rosgvardia (Putin’s personal national guard) has been unable to dislodge the highly mobile Ukrainian forces.
After securing the town of Sudzha, the Ukrainian troops have also been able to bring in supplies and reinforcements, further complicating the job of repelling them. With the majority of Russia’s regular army tied up in Ukraine, there has even been speculation Moscow will need to relocate troops from its Kaliningrad enclave in northern Europe to help.
Putting the pressure back on Moscow
Politically, Ukraine’s move is deeply embarrassing for Putin, who has already proven himself slow to react when facing similar challenges. Just over a year ago, Moscow’s dithering allowed Yevgeny Prigozhin’s rebel Wagner Group convoy to get within 200 kilometres of Moscow before an amnesty deal was brokered.
This time, Putin was forced to interrupt acting governor Alexey Smirnov during a televised meeting of defence officials, as he was delivering bad news about the depth of the Ukrainian incursion. After being curtly instructed to stick to discussing aid and relief efforts, Smirnoff promptly responded that around 180,000 Russians had been internally displaced.
Are these signs of fragility? Certainly, Russian refugees have directed significant anger at regional leaders and security forces in Kursk, some of whom seem to have been the first to flee. There are also reports of looting by Russian soldiers in the conflict zone. And there has also been criticism of Putin himself from Russians in the Kursk area.
In terms of regime stability, there are three potential outcomes.
One is that Ukraine’s incursion into Russian territory – which makes a lie of the Kremlin’s consistent leitmotif about keeping Russians safe – leads to a torrent of public anger that directly endangers Putin’s rule.
Second, Putin could turn the insult of Ukrainians capturing Russian soil into a rallying cry, uniting the population behind him.
The third option, however, might be most likely – the majority of Russians remain apathetic. There is still no real incentive for Kremlin elites to move against Putin, and popular outrage is likely to be confined to Kursk rather than the power centres of Moscow and St Petersburg.
Ultimately, Ukraine’s incursion into Russia goes beyond damaging Putin. It has boosted morale, shown up the Kremlin’s bluster and reminded the West that Ukraine matters. On all three measures, Kyiv has once again proven itself remarkably resourceful.
Matthew Sussex has received funding from the Australian Research Council, the Atlantic Council, the Fulbright Foundation, the Carnegie Foundation, the Lowy Institute and various Australian government departments and agencies.
The federal government has been under significant pressure all week as it works to finalise proposed regulation to restrict gambling advertising. Currently, a partial ban is on the table.
This has led to severe criticism from gambling harm researchers, community organisations and some MPs and senators. A partial ban is inconsistent with the recommendations of a recent parliamentary inquiry, which unanimously recommended the need for a total ban.
Gambling is a demonstrably big problem. Australians are the world’s biggest per capita gamblers, losing about $25 billion a year. Nearly half of gamblers are at risk of, or already experience, harms from it. These include financial hardship, relationship breakdown, domestic violence, poor work productivity, criminality, insomnia, depression and suicide.
Why, then, is the government so reluctant to ban gambling advertising entirely? Part of the answer is in the industry’s strategic stakeholder marketing strategies, both publicly and behind closed doors. And they’re strategies we’ve seen before.
In our research, gamblers’ stories of harm are extremely troubling:
The feeling of losing […] I hate even talking about it […] it makes me so upset […] It drives you crazy […] I’ve dropped my phone, smashed the screen […] because I was so upset […] I was out of my mind, it’s horrible.“
The social costs associated with these gambling harms in Australia are estimated to cost more than $10.7 billion each year. The problem is so significant that even banks are taking actions to address gambling harm to their customers.
But the gambling industry is putting up a good fight. The peak body, Responsible Wagering Australia, has denied advertising normalises gambling to children, and warned any bans would send people to illegal offshore operators. There’s evidence contradicting both these points.
It’s part of a broader strategy to prevent further regulation. The tactics at play are very similar to those used by two other industries linked to health and social harms: alcohol and tobacco.
Strategic deja vu
These industries have used the full power of strategic marketing, not just to develop, promote, advertise and endorse their products, but also to influence government.
They do this through tactics such as extensive lobbying, media and public relations and stakeholder marketing. Tobacco companies have been known to funding favourable research or to challenge the findings of studies that have linked their marketing to consumption behaviours and harms.
Spruiking fears of job losses in hospitality, corporate social responsibility efforts such as funding community projects and setting up foundations are other strategic marketing examples used by these industries.
In the case of tobacco, this helped delay legislation banning advertising, introducing plain packaging and prohibiting smoking in public places for many years.
Australia’s are the biggest per capita gamblers in the world. Shutterstock
What is ‘big gambling’ doing?
The gambling industry has learned from and adapted this playbook. Alongside the more visible media advertising, celebrity endorsements, sponsorship activities and a range of other tactics are used.
Similar to big alcohol and tobacco, the gambling industry also funds research. It distorts and contests the findings of studies that link their marketing to health and social harms.
And as we see currently with the debate about what impact a ban on gambling advertising will have on free-to-air media, the alcohol and tobacco industries and media companies aligned their interests to protect revenue.
As with the tobacco and alcohol industries before them, this strategic marketing playbook gives the gambling industry in Australia power, access and influence over policymakers. This may help explain why the current federal government seems resistant to a total ban on gambling advertising.
In the case of tobacco, strong regulations were required through the World Health Organization’s (WHO) Framework Convention on Tobacco Control to restrict marketing and limit the use of these sorts of tactics. Crucially, these tobacco control efforts have been successful in reducing smoking prevalence, improving health outcomes and reducing harm. A similar framework has also been proposed for alcohol.
These rules are best practice recommendations to improve public health, including bans on advertising, reducing availability and use of price controls.
If we wish to effectively reduce gambling harm in Australia, similar robust regulations may be necessary. Such rules could include limits and declarations on political donations, banning gifts to politicians, tighter rules on lobbying and transparency about meetings with government, whether by the gambling industry or others. These efforts could then work alongside advertising bans currently being discussed, limits on sponsorship and controls on product development and availability.
We need an holistic approach to regulation that addresses the gambling industry’s clever use of strategic marketing. This would more effectively protect the Australian public and prevent gambling harm.
Ross Gordon has received funding from the Australian Research Council, the Victorian Responsible Gambling Foundation, and Suncorp Bank to conduct research on gambling marketing, consumption and harm. He has also received funding from the UK Medical Research Council, the European Commission, Joseph Rowntree Foundation, Alcohol Education and Research Council, and Foundation for Alcohol Research and Education to research alcohol marketing, consumption and harm. Ross has served on the World Health Organization Technical Advisory Group on Behavioural Insights and Sciences for Health since 2020.
This morning, the Melbourne Symphony Orchestra (MSO) announced it was an error to cancel a scheduled concerto performance by British-Australian pianist Jayson Gillham.
Its decision, and the issues leading up to it, raises the issue of what the relationship of classical music to politics is – or, rather, what it should be. For many, the two realms simply should not mix. But it is naive to think classical music – or indeed any art – happens entirely separate from politics.
A musical controversy
The furore started Sunday, when Gillham performed a solo piano recital for the MSO that included the world-premiere of a short piece by composer Conor D’Netto, Witness.
Netto’s website states Witness is “dedicated to the journalists of Gaza”. When he came to perform it, Gillham elaborated on the dedication by drawing the audience’s attention to the more than 100 Palestinian journalists who have been killed in the current conflict.
Gillham’s introduction, however, appears to have elicited complaints to the orchestra’s management. The MSO responded by informing subscribers that Gillham’s appearance tonight, August 15, was to be cancelled.
The email said Gillham’s remarks had been made “without seeking the MSO’s approval or sanction” and were “an intrusion of personal political views on what should have been a morning focused on a program of works for solo piano”.
But if the MSO sought to distance itself from the perception of a partisan position on the Israel-Gaza conflict, or to affirm classical music’s right to be considered to be above politics more generally, it comprehensively failed to do so.
For some it appeared not only to have taken a particular side in this conflict, it had also sought to silence the voice of a musician it employed.
At one level, one can understand how the MSO might have got itself into this difficult position. The repertoire it performs and promotes is not usually connected explicitly to contemporary external events. Music, in any event, cannot present political ideas to us in the more direct ways that art forms like sculpture, painting or poetry can.
Classical music, in particular, seems to invite us to put politics to one side when we engage with it. Rather, we are drawn to contemplate more elusive or elevated qualities or ideas, such as formal beauty, objectivity, nobility or gravitas.
That, however, is also precisely why classical music can still serve political ends – even (or maybe especially) when we think it doesn’t.
The politics of the apolitical
Ludwig van Beethoven’s Symphony No. 9, first performed in 1824, may well have been composed in part as a response to the repressive political climate of post-Napoleonic Vienna.
It quickly came to be received as a hymn to our common humanity. But this did not stop it from being subsequently appropriated by violent political regimes such as Hitler’s Germany and Mao’s China – as well as by political movements opposed to them.
The sheer range of the causes this music has been associated with does not mean the work itself must have no political meaning. Rather, that meaning lies precisely in this capacity to convey a notion of universal human value onto the particular cause it is being associated with.
It remains a political work, it’s just we have been conditioned not to hear it as such.
Not just a risk, but also an opportunity
This helps us understand the contradiction behind the MSO’s statement asserting “a concert platform is not an appropriate stage for political comment”. The orchestra has done precisely that on many previous occasion (such as in a fundraising concert for Ukraine it mounted in 2022, or in its expressions of support for the Voice to Parliament last year).
But it also helps us understand why, when a composer or performer (or in the case of Witness, both) seeks actively to reveal the political content in their work, it can still jar, or even upset us.
This power of classical music to elevate but also to obscure our attention and sympathy represents both an ever-present opportunity, and risk, for orchestras and their listeners alike.
It is one I think the West-Eastern Divan Orchestra (named after Goethe’s collection of poems of 1819, themselves inspired by the 14th century Persian lyric poet Hafez), sets out explicitly to exploit.
Founded by scholar Edward Said and conductor/pianist Daniel Barenboim in 1999 to help celebrate the 250th anniversary of Goethe’s birth, the orchestra (now based in Spain) is substantially made up of young Arab and Israeli musicians. Through performing orchestra works together, these musicians are enabled to confront presumptions about the “other”.
The Israeli kids, for instance, couldn’t imagine that there are actually people in Damascus and Amman and Cairo who can actually play violin and viola.
Here, the medium of Western classical music serves as a platform from which they can begin to imagine new, better, social formations.
While it is understandable the MSO might normally seek to refrain from similarly committing to a particular political cause in the same way, it should also not be adverse to recognising its work will always exist in, and engage with, a broader social and political context.
Like all art forms, classical music can also serve to draw our thoughts to, or circumscribe, who we consider to be worthy of our political attention, and why.
If anything, Gillham and D’Netto have served to affirm the continuing importance and value of the art form the MSO is there, ultimately, to champion.
Peter Tregear has appeared variously as a performer, presenter, or author, for the Melbourne Symphony Orchestra.
New Zealand’s space sector has been developing rapidly since the first rocket lifted off in 2017. It now contributes about NZ$1.7 billion in revenue, with plans to grow to $10 billion by 2030.
Last year, New Zealand hosted seven rocket launches, all by the US-listed but local company Rocket Lab. It was in response to Rocket Lab’s initial proposal for a launch site that New Zealand developed a regulatory system from scratch in less than two years to meet obligations under international law.
All launch nations have to register every object they send into space, and continue to supervise those objects to ensure no damage or loss occurs to another country’s objects or activities. They also have a responsibility to compensate for any harm.
As well, countries must prevent contamination of outer space and Earth’s environment, and ensure space activity does not interfere with other countries’ rights to free access and participation.
A 2020 review of New Zealand’s space legislation found the regulatory regime was by and large fit for purpose. But it raised substantive concerns about the regulation of new technologies, including satellite constellations and miniature satellites.
The recommendations prompted broader consultation on New Zealand’s space policy and aerospace strategy. This saw a backlash against the absence of Māori voices on the particular concern of light pollution from space.
The commercialisation of space
A 2019 report found New Zealand’s space industry is driven almost entirely by commercial activity, characterised by a mix of startups and entrepreneur-run, privately-funded companies.
The country’s space legislation is well suited to developing a space industry quickly, in particular the commercial and entrepreneurial sector.
While urbanisation and indiscriminate use of artificial light are among the culprits, activities in space are another significant source of light pollution.
With every satellite placed into orbit, its reflective surface increases the ambient glow of the night sky. By 2021, human activity in outer space had resulted in a 10% increase in the brightness of the night sky compared to the illumination by natural sources.
While the space law review was more narrowly focused on satellite constellations and the associated light pollution, all satellites are part of what is a cumulative problem: individual countries, acting independently, collectively contribute to worsening light pollution.
New Zealand has seven internationally recognised dark sky sites. Getty Images
New Zealand’s dark skies
The big concern is that light pollution interferes with the interests of other countries trying to study outer space. Increased pollution is obscuring observational astronomy and littering data with artificial shimmers and streaks of light.
Rising glow in the night sky is of particular concern for Māori and other Indigenous communities whose knowledge systems rely on unaided visual access to the stars.
With 14 astronomical observatories and seven “dark sky sites” recognised by Dark-Sky International, New Zealand has a national interest in addressing regulation and mitigation of light pollution.
The country’s bicultural foundation is protected under Treaty of Waitangi obligations. It recognises the unique relationship Māori have with the night sky and the mātauranga (knoweldge) contained within it.
The rising of Matariki, the cluster of stars also known as Pleiades, has been celebrated as a public holiday since 2022 in recognition of the event’s importance to Māori and the nation.
Regulation must address light pollution
As a launch state, New Zealand must have due regard to the interests of other states to participate in the exploration of outer space, regardless of economic or scientific advancement.
While New Zealand is a relatively new launch nation, it is a desirable destination. How New Zealand approaches the licensing of satellites may help guide binding behaviours developing in international law.
There is a tension between the national interest in maintaining dark skies and the economic value of the space industry. Being over-prescriptive with licensing requirements will inevitably deter potential companies from launching from New Zealand.
The flip side is that without some requirement for companies to address how their satellites are contributing to light pollution, there is no market force driving innovation in this area.
Efforts by private companies to mitigate the impact of their satellite constellations have so far been ineffective. Getty Images
There have been some attempts by private commercial actors to mitigate the impact of their satellites. But these attempts have remained largely underdeveloped. Efforts by SpaceX to reduce the impacts of its mega constellations have proven ineffective.
The nature of the new space age, launched by a 2004 competition to help jump-start private spaceflight, ensures private companies are more motivated to develop technology to reduce costs in the long run. Without a strong shift in the regulatory environment, there is no real drive for investment in technologies to mitigate light pollution.
As New Zealand continues to develop a regulatory framework, the issue of light pollution has to be taken seriously. And Indigenous voices are important, because traditional astronomical knowledge is fundamental to the reclamation and continuation of Indigenous knowledge.
William Grant 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.
Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Danielle Mazza, Director, SPHERE NHMRC Centre of Research Excellence in Women’s Sexual and Reproductive Health in Primary Care and Professor and Head of the Department of General Practice, Monash University
Donald Trump suggested he was open to revoking access to the abortion pill if he won the presidential race, after being asked by a reporter last Thursday if he would “revoke access” to the drug. The following day, Trump’s campaign office said he didn’t hear the question properly.
Trump’s running mate, JD Vance, has since said abortion policy should be made by the states and the pair want to “make sure that any medicine is safe, that it is prescribed in the right way”. But it’s unclear exactly what this means for American women’s future access to abortion.
The abortion drug they’re talking about is mifepristone, otherwise known as RU486.
Mifepristone is one of the medications used in a medical abortion. It acts by blocking the effect of progesterone, one of the hormones important to the development of a pregnancy.
The second medication involved is misoprostol, which contracts and empties the uterus.
In Australia these two medicines are prescribed in a combination pack called MS-2 Step which is registered for use in women up to nine weeks of pregnancy.
What happens during a medical abortion?
When a woman undergoes a medical abortion, she first swallows the mifepristone tablet. This blocks a hormone called progesterone, which is needed for the pregnancy to continue. This might result in some spotting or bleeding.
Between 36 and 48 hours later, she places the misoprostol in her cheek and lets it dissolve.
Strong cramps and bleeding will start and it will feel like a very heavy period with blood clots and tissue being passed. This is the lining of the uterus and the pregnancy being shed.
Doctors often prescribe anti-nausea pills and pain relief medications to deal with these symptoms.
The whole process is like having a miscarriage and usually lasts between two and six hours.
Once the pregnancy has passed, symptoms start to settle. Women will continue to bleed like a normal period for about five days, and some lighter bleeding may continue for between ten days to a month.
If a woman has very heavy bleeding (passing clots bigger than a small lemon or filling or soaking through two or menstrual pads per hour for more than two hours in a row), she should go to the emergency department because of the small but serious risk of haemorrhage.
If she develops a fever over 38 degrees, she may have developed an infection and should contact her health-care provider.
Women should also do a follow up blood test seven days after taking the MS-2 Step to make sure the abortion was successful.
What are the other options?
While medical abortion is rapidly becoming the most common way to have an abortion early in the pregnancy, it is not the method of choice for all women.
And it’s not suitable for everyone, especially those without support, such as homeless women or those experiencing domestic violence.
For some women, surgical abortion might be their method of choice or a better option. It can be helpful to use a decision aid, which sets out the pros and cons of each method.
When did Australians get access?
Like everywhere else in the world, having medical abortion available in Australia has enabled women to access an abortion when they previously wouldn’t have been able to.
Prior to its introduction in Australia in 2012, abortions were carried out surgically, requiring a one-day stay in a hospital or surgical facility, and an anaesthetic.
Surgical abortions were then – and still are – difficult to access. Unlike surgical procedures such as knee replacements or having your appendix removed, surgical abortions are not always provided in public hospital settings, especially hospitals run by faith-based organisations.
For women living in rural areas, this has been a big problem. Many surgical providers of abortion are located in metropolitan settings and many women have felt judged and stigmatised or had barriers put in their way by doctors who did not believe in a woman’s right to choose.
Now a woman can receive a prescription for MS-2 Step through her local doctor and undergo a medical abortion in the comfort of her own home.
If her local doctor doesn’t provide this service, she can consult a doctor who does via telehealth. Medicare provides rebates for consultations related to sexual and reproductive health issues carried out either over the phone or via online video. Unlike most other telehealth consultations, for sexual and reproductive health issues, you don’t need to have seen the GP face-to-face in the last 12 months to get a rebate.
This means a woman who is living in Western Australia, for example, can have a consultation with a doctor in Queensland and receive a prescription for MS-2 Step via text message or email.
She can then go to her local pharmacy to have the medication dispensed, undergo the medical abortion at home and then have her follow up consultation again via telehealth a couple of weeks later.
What’s the situation in America?
In America, when the Supreme Court overturned Roe Vs Wade in 2022, it removed women’s constitutional right to abortion, allowing many states to introduce bans on abortions. This meant many clinics providing surgical abortions closed down.
The availability of mifepristone has, however, meant that women have been able to bypass these state-based laws and obtain medical abortion pills via telehealth or online through services like Plan C or Women on Web.
If Donald Trump wins the election and restricts access to mifepristone, American women’s options will become even more limited and they may resort to unsafe abortion methods. Restricting access to abortion never stops it, it just drives it underground and makes it less safe.
Danielle Mazza receives funding from the NHMRC and MRFF for research focused on improving access to abortion.
