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

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

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

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

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

What is fetal monitoring?

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Wired or wireless

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

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

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

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

What we studied

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

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

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

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

What the survey found

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

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

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

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

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

Where to from here?

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

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

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

Vanessa Scarf is member of the Australian College of Midwives.

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

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

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

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

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

But hey, results can fall far short of intentions.

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

1. Diversity Work

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Awkwardly hilarious.

2. Normal Gossip

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

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

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

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

3. Heavyweight

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

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

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

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

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

4. The Blindboy Podcast

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

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

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

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

5. Tim Key and Gogol’s Overcoat

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

What is Llama?

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

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

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

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

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

Despite this, Meta still describes Llama as open source.

The intersection of the tech industry and the military

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

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

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

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

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

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

The fragility of open source

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Why is this happening?

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

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

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

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

What does this abuse look like?

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Rehabilitation lacking

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Preventing abuse

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

What we did

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

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

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

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

What we found

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

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

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

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

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

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

How did we get here?

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

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

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

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

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

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

Other countries need to take note

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Many young people see no future

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

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

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

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

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

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

Searching for validation

Enter Trump.

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

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

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

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

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

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

Where to from here?

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

What is an authoritarian state and why should we care?

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

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

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

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

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

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

What is at stake at COP29?

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Climate politics in autocracies

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

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

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

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

Challenges lie ahead

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Sharing the burden of climate action

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Each principle reflects a different understanding of fairness.

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

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

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

Principles of fair contribution

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Moral adequacy of countries’ pledges

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Our new research

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Voodoo dolls

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

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

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

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

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

The objectifying mindset

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

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

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

What this means in the real world

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

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

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

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

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

Nick Haslam receives funding from the Australian Research Council.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Resolve poll: Dutton’s ratings surge

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

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

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

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

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

Australian economic data

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

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

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

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

Morgan poll: respondent preferences give Coalition lead

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

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

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

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

US election: Harris erred in not emphasising health care

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

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

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

Queensland election final results

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

SA Black byelection next Saturday

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

How could long COVID lead to death?

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

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

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

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

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

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

‘Cause of death’ is difficult to define

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

So what can we conclude?

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

The big issue: climate finance

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Storm clouds over Baku

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

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

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

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

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

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

National commitments loom large at Baku

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

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

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

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

What about Australia?

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

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

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

What does success look like?

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Birds sought refuge in the city

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

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

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

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

A long history of bird immigration

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

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

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

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

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

On the front-line of climate change

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Kathleen McGuire, Senior Lecturer in Education (Music), National School of Education, Faculty of Education and Arts, Australian Catholic University

The iconic sound of an orchestra tuning is highly recognisable, even for those who’ve never set foot in a concert hall. Many of us first heard it while watching a Looney Tunes cartoon.

Have you ever wondered why the oboe begins the tuning? How is the starting note decided? With access to electronic tuning devices, along with advancements in materials and manufacturing enabling instruments to better sustain their pitch, is the tuning ritual still needed? What is the purpose, beyond building excitement or signalling the conductor’s entrance?

Whether or not professional orchestras’ tuning rituals are required, there is something inherently comforting about it for audiences.

Enter the oboe

The earliest orchestras, in the Baroque era, comprised a non-standard set of instruments. One combination could have been a harpsichord, a few string players (violin, viola, viola da gamba), one or more wind instruments, and perhaps even timpani.

As the number of string players grew in the orchestra, the flute replaced the quiet recorder.

The oboe brought complex, contrasting overtones, plus a limited yet stable tuning range controlled mostly by a pair of “fixed” reeds.

These factors made the oboe the practical choice as the tuning instrument in the Baroque era.

By the 1800s, the size and instrumentation were much like the modern orchestra. An order was added to the tuning ritual, with each “family” of instruments taking its turn to tune with the oboe.

When a fixed-pitch instrument, such as an organ, was included with the orchestra, the oboe would be tuned to it before the ritual began.

These tuning traditions continue today.

Constantly retuning

The tuning ritual heard by the audience is just the tip of the iceberg. Many instruments need micro-tuning adjustments throughout a performance.

Tuning can also slip, which may be caused when string or brass instruments need to use a mute. The mute lowers the volume and adds a different tonal quality, but it can also slightly alter the pitch of the instrument.

Tuning is also affected by changes in temperature or humidity as the instrument warms while being played or cools due to external changes.

Consider the weather during the opening ceremony of the 2024 Paris Olympics – it would have been challenging to keep the instruments in tune in the rain and extreme humidity.

Depending on the instrument, sometimes when the pitch slips it cannot be adjusted mid-performance.

In a recent concert I conducted at St Patrick’s Cathedral, Melbourne, the yidaki was slightly out of tune after being perfectly in tune two hours earlier in rehearsal. The difference? The yidaki’s wood was affected by a sudden drop in temperature when a thunderstorm came through mid-concert.

Pipe organs suffer the same fate at the mercy of the weather with their large, metal components.

What makes an ‘A’?

The traditional tuning note is A. This stems from the open A string being common to all orchestral string instruments.

The oboist plays a long A when instructed by the concert master – usually the lead violinist – who stands and indicates to the oboist and then to each section of the orchestra when it’s time to tune.

The string players tune their A strings, from which they can tune their other strings. In turn, other sections of the orchestra also tune to A. When the tuning ends and the instruments are silent, the orchestra is ready to perform.

This all seems straightforward, but there are variations on what an A should sound like. An audio frequency of A=440 hertz (Hz) is considered standard or “concert” pitch, although this is a fairly modern concept.

Tuning forks were invented in Europe in the early 1700s, around the same time as the emergence of orchestras. Based on tuning forks and organs remaining from the 18th and 19th centuries, such as Beethoven’s tuning fork, historians have identified concert pitches ranging from 395 to 465Hz.

Efforts to standardise concert pitch at A=440Hz arose in the 19th century, further reinforced in the 20th century.

Today, the pitch used may be decided by historically informed performance, adopting the likely tuning from when the music was composed. Giuseppe Verdi, for instance, campaigned for Italy to adopt concert pitch A=432Hz. Using the slightly lower tuning for Verdi’s Messa da Requiem is justifiable, allowing for the choir to execute extended high passages more comfortably.

In the 1960s, conductor Herbert von Karajan decided the Berlin Philharmonic sounded “brighter” when tuned to A=443–444Hz. This trend continues today for several prominent orchestras: The New York Philharmonic tunes to A=442Hz, and the Vienna Philharmonic to A=443Hz.

Changing rituals

Is the tuning ritual essential? It depends.

Earlier this year I saw Wicked. The orchestra tuned very quickly. Practicalities can trump ritual – especially on days with matinee and evening shows, each running almost three hours.

Symphony orchestras comprise mostly acoustic instruments. In contrast, modern musical theatre orchestras often include electronic instruments and a rhythm section, with synthesizers that don’t need tuning.

Compared with a large auditorium, a pit may have fewer temperature fluctuations. When needed, pit players use electronic tuning devices. Some play multiple instruments in each performance, which are tuned in advance and during the performance.

Despite contemporary advancements, the tradition of an orchestra tuning in the presence of an audience is a special, transcendent moment, unique to the live concert experience.

Kathleen McGuire has worked for organisations that have received funding from Creative Victoria (State Government of Victoria), the City of Boroondara and the City of Melbourne. She has received grants from Australian Catholic University, the University of Melbourne, and other entities in the United States.

– ref. Why is the oboe used to tune an orchestra? And other questions about tuning, answered – https://theconversation.com/why-is-the-oboe-used-to-tune-an-orchestra-and-other-questions-about-tuning-answered-238203

Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Henry Maher, Lecturer in Politics, Department of Government and International Relations, University of Sydney

US President-elect Donald Trump has repeatedly threatened to fire the chair of the US Federal Reserve, Jerome Powell.

Up until this week, that may have seemed like a distant and outlandish prospect. Now, we again have to take it seriously.

Powell himself certainly is – and has already begun pushing back on the front foot. Responding to the threat on Thursday, he insisted he will not resign. Further, he said any attempt by Trump to remove him was “not permitted under the law”.

Whether Trump actually attempts to follow through on his threat will provide an early litmus test of any potential authoritarian tendencies.

Powell’s dismissal would breach long-standing norms of central bank independence. If successful, such a move could have a serious impact on democracy and the separation of powers, with consequences around the world.

Read more:
Trump has vowed to be a ‘dictator’ on day one. With this day now coming, what exactly will he do?

An old quarrel

The feud between Trump and Powell is nothing new. Trump himself actually appointed Powell to the Federal Reserve governorship back in 2018. However, like many of his other appointees, Trump soon turned against Powell.

Criticising the Federal Reserve for not cutting interest rates quickly enough in 2019, Trump called Fed officials “boneheads”, accusing Powell of having “No ‘guts’, no sense, no vision!”

Beyond Trump, many economists have praised Powell’s management of monetary policy, which has successfully reduced spiralling inflation rates. President Joe Biden was sufficiently convinced to appoint Powell to a second four-year term as chair which began in 2022.

Trump, though, only stepped up his criticisms, many of which became inconsistent with his earlier position. In February this year, he was suddenly blasting Powell for even contemplating interest rate cuts.

Trump claimed baselessly that it was a political move by Powell – a lifelong Republican – to help Democrats win the presidential election.

Could Trump actually fire Powell?

Trump has repeatedly claimed he has the power to fire Powell, and that as president he should have influence over the setting of interest rates.

The relevant legislation holds that a member of the Federal Reserve board may be “removed for cause by the president”. But in this context, courts have interpreted “for cause” to refer to misconduct or impropriety. The president cannot remove the members of the board purely for policy or political reasons.

However, Trump could attempt to demote Powell from chair to an ordinary member of the Federal Reserve, and put another candidate in charge. Here, there is less of a legal precedent. Previous presidents have always assumed they did not have the power to do this.

The closest historical precedent lies in an attempt by President Franklin Delano Roosevelt to fire the commissioner of the Federal Trade Commission in 1933. Here, the courts ultimately found in favour of the commissioner’s independence.

But the legal landscape has changed. It is possible that a Supreme Court sympathetic to Trump – which has previously found in favour of expanded executive presidential power – might reach different conclusions.

Inflation, inflation, inflation

If Trump does attempt to remove Powell, it will radically affect the independence of the Federal Reserve. That could seriously impact its ability to set interest rates free from direct political interference.

This would likely increase inflation in the long run. If markets believe politicians are likely to interfere in the setting of interest rates to favour their own short-term political interests, investors will expect lower interest rates in the future.

This expectation alone is sufficient to cause inflation, and a major reason why most developed countries now insulate their central banks from direct political control.

Ironically, promising to reduce inflation was a central plank of Trump’s successful election campaign. How Trump approaches Powell’s future will therefore be closely watched by markets.

Checks and balances

Trump’s view that the president should have power over both independent government agencies and interest rates reflects his widely noted “populist” approach to politics.

Populist politicians claim to embody the popular democratic will. Accordingly, they often oppose institutional checks and balances on their powers, viewing them as impediments to the democratic mandate they claim to represent.

The US political system has historically had a lot of checks and balances. The idea is to limit the amount of power any one politician or party can accrue.

The “separation of powers” – a cherished principle in the United States and beyond – seeks to spread power out across different institutions such as the judiciary, the legislature, the presidency and other independent institutions.

If Trump fires Powell, it will provide a strong indicator of how a second Trump presidency will approach the separation of powers, and suggest concerns about Trump’s future authoritarian intentions are justified.

Read more:
With Trump returning to the White House, what will happen to his court cases?

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

– ref. Trump has threatened to fire the chair of the US Federal Reserve. That could be bad news for inflation – https://theconversation.com/trump-has-threatened-to-fire-the-chair-of-the-us-federal-reserve-that-could-be-bad-news-for-inflation-243260

Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Gerhard Hambusch, Associate Professor, University of Technology Sydney

The $7 billion Australian mining giant Mineral Resources (MinRes) is facing a governance crisis.

Chris Ellison, the company’s founder and managing director, faces allegations of tax evasion and using company resources for his personal benefit.

Ellison is now set to stand down as managing director in the next 12 to 18 months. He’ll also pay the company almost $9 million in penalties.

But serious questions remain about how the company got into this situation in the first place. Concerns about the way the MinRes board handled the situation have hurt the company’s standing.

So, can MinRes regain its credibility and avoid future crises? And what are the broader corporate governance issues for Australia’s business community?

A number of allegations

Recent media reporting has raised a number of allegations of unethical conduct and lack of transparency against Chris Ellison.

Ellison and some other (yet to be named) senior executives have been accused of using offshore entities to bypass Australian tax reporting. This allegedly enabled personal spending and inflated equipment sales at the expense of shareholders.

There are also allegations he and unnamed others charged the company above-market rent on properties owned by executives.

On Monday, the board updated shareholders on findings from its own investigation.

It concluded Ellison had “on occassion” used company resources for his own personal projects. A new independent committee will continue to review related party transactions involving Ellison.

The board concluded Ellison’s use of company resources hadn’t caused MinRes any material financial harm. But its findings still raise serious questions about governance oversight at the firm – and in Australia more generally.

A slew of problems

Key concerns include perceptions that:

• the board failed to act promptly
• conflicts of interest were inadequately managed
• the decision to keep Ellison on for another 12 to 18 months – despite the board describing his actions as “profoundly disappointing” – could harm the firm’s public image.

MinRes has also relied heavily on Ellison’s leadership since its founding, raising questions about succession planning.

Both the Australian Institute of Company Directors and G20/OECD Principles of Corporate Governance emphasise the importance of regularly refreshing leadership.

Long-term reliance on any single leader should be avoided.

Some may also argue the board wasn’t transparent enough when it first learned about many of the allegations back in 2022.

To regain the trust of shareholders and the public, the MinRes board will have to address all these issues and strengthen its commitment to ethical oversight.

A governance wake-up call

The crisis at MinRes offers some essential lessons for boards across Australia.

The long-term financial consequences will depend heavily on how well the board can take decisive action and stabilise investor confidence. A mishandled scandal could permanently impair the company’s valuation, especially if any further issues come to light.

However, governance failures can have ripple effects that extend beyond the companies directly involved. They can erode public trust in corporate Australia as a whole.

We’ve recently seen a range of high-profile examples, including PwC Australia’s misuse of confidential government information and the unlawful termination of 1,700 Qantas workers.

This only underscores the urgent need to repair trust in the business sector, with strong, ethical governance standards.

The role of a company board

Despite the board’s ultimate findings, questions remain about whether the governance practices were robust enough to detect and address these issues sooner.

The role of the board of any organisation is always going to be complex. Under Australian law, their overarching requirement is to:

exercise their powers and discharge their duties in good faith in the best interest of the corporation and for a proper purpose.

From the outside, the current board of MinRes appears to tick all the boxes of good governance.

It is made up of nine members, eight of whom are independent, with the remaining position held by the managing director.

There appears to be no indication the board was compromised – which may occur if board members are large shareholders or have financial interests in other companies that MinRes might deal with.

It could therefore be expected that they have been acting in the best interests of MinRes, to the best of their ability.

But did the board have the skills and ability, for example, to be aware of the use of company resources by the managing director?

Adviser to institutional investors, CGI Glass Lewis, has called for more accountability for former directors who were on the board at the time the allegations took place.

Where were the regulators?

The nation’s corporate watchdog, the Australian Securities and Investments Commission (ASIC), has now commenced a formal investigation. But some stakeholders might feel earlier regulatory intervention could have helped.

Ellison reportedly sought an agreement with the Australian Tax Office to keep his offshore tax arrangements confidential, potentially limiting broader regulatory awareness.

It’s too early to say what the corporate regulator will find. But there appears to be an opportunity for regulators to evaluate how they approach oversight in complex, high-stakes corporate environments.

Gerhard is a member of the Australian Institute of Company Directors, CFA Institute and CFA Societies Australia.

Deborah Cotton is a member of the Australian Insititute of Company Directors and the Australian Sustainable Finance Institute.

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

– ref. What does the Mineral Resources crisis tell us about the state of corporate governance in Australia? – https://theconversation.com/what-does-the-mineral-resources-crisis-tell-us-about-the-state-of-corporate-governance-in-australia-243038