Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Rod Sims, Professor in the practice of public policy and antitrust, Crawford School of Public Policy, Australian National University

Meta’s announcement nearly eight months ago that it would no longer do commercial deals under the News Media Bargaining Code has led to much speculation as to how the government would respond.

The code became law in 2021. Facing the threat of designation under it – which would involve further legal obligations platforms may wish to avoid – both Google and Facebook (now Meta) did deals with news media businesses worth up to A$250 million per year.

Google did deals with essentially all qualifying news media business, large and small – the criteria largely being that their journalists provide news. Facebook did deals with news businesses likely employing up to 85% of Australian journalists

With little response from the government so far, a new report from a federal parliamentary committee investigating the impact of social media on Australian society provides welcome focus on this issue.

Key recommendations

The committee makes 11 recommendations, three of which in particular are worth focusing on.

Recommendation two says the Australian government should explore alternative revenue mechanisms to supplement the code, such as a digital platform levy. But it also says “exploration should include consideration for preserving current and future commercial deals”, presumably under the code.

Recommendation three says the Australian government should develop an appropriate mechanism to guide the fair and transparent distribution of revenue arising from any new revenue mechanisms. In particular, this would support the:

sustainability of small, independent and digital only publishers, as well as those operating in underserved communities and rural, regional and remote areas.

Recommendation six says the Australian government “should investigate the viability and effectiveness of ‘must carry’ requirements for digital platforms in relation to Australian news content”.

Coalition members provided a different perspective on some of the committee’s recommendations. They expressed concern about the lack of action from the government in response to Meta’s decision to not do more deals under the code. Further, they read the report as saying that the code is “no longer fit for purpose” – a view they strongly disagree with.

Meta has also heavily criticised the committee, saying it has ignored:

the realities of how our platforms work, the preferences of the people who use them, and the value we provide news publishers who choose to post their content on our platforms.

Not so simple

The committee’s recommendations raise many questions.

First, how would the levy sit with wanting to maintain existing and future deals under the code? In any solution to dealing with Meta it would seem silly to damage the current arrangements with Google, which has committed to continue supporting news organisations under the code, and who are paying the majority of the up to $250 million per year?

Second, biasing any revenue to smaller and/or rural and regional publishers may mean that, despite most news stories coming from the larger media companies, they would not benefit in accordance with their content being used. The code did see benefit to large, medium and small media businesses. But, of course, the larger companies gained most money as they provided most content.

Some smaller media businesses did miss out on funding. But it was often judged that they do not provide news journalism, which was what the code is seeking to promote.

In 2018, the Australian Competition and Consumer Commission (of which I was then chair) made a number of recommendations to the government. These included the code. They also included government funding for journalism in underserved areas and support for other objectives, such as boosting smaller news media companies. A different objective requiring a different policy instrument.

Third, the problem that arose with Meta’s decision to not do further deals under the code saw many calls for Meta to be designated under the code. This would have meant they would be forced to do deals and potentially face arbitration if the news media businesses were not happy with the outcome.

As the parliamentary committee would be aware, when Canada largely copied the code, it automatically designated Meta. In response, Meta took all news and links to news off its platform. This allows Meta to escape the Canadian version of the code as it only applies to platforms that carry news.

One solution to this is to insist the tech platforms “must carry” news, as suggested in recommendation six. Then they would be back under the code and could be successfully designated and forced to negotiate. It is unclear in the report whether the “must carry” idea, which would make the code relevant to all platforms, is an alternative to the levy.

A way through

Overall, the report provides welcome renewed focus on this topic. By recommending the government “explore” a levy or “investigate” must carry obligations, the committee appears to recognise the potential difficulties with these options.

Would there be international trade implications from a levy? How would money from a levy be distributed? It is one thing to have a fund to help small players in underserved markets; quite another for the government to be distributing money to large media players.

And how would the “must carry” provision be enforced given that carrying content may not be the same as users discovering it?

But there may be a way through these problems. Allow Google to continue as they are under the code, look at what other platforms need to be covered by the code, and threaten that if Meta or another platform were to take news off their site, then a levy or a must carry provision would be introduced. In the case of Meta, such threats, which must be real, could see them revert to doing deals under the code.

To help new and emerging news journalism, particularly in underserved areas, this would seem to require government funding, as the Australian Competition and Consumer Commission recommended all the way back in 2018.

Rod Sims is a former chair of the Australian Competition and Consumer Commission.

– ref. Should a big tech tax fund news? A new report reopens debate on platforms and media – https://theconversation.com/should-a-big-tech-tax-fund-news-a-new-report-reopens-debate-on-platforms-and-media-241897

Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Tristan Dunning, Sessional Academic, School of Social Sciences, Macquarie University

While the killing of Hamas leader Yahya Sinwar could have provided an off-ramp for the conflict in Gaza, Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu’s ongoing vows of “total victory” make this seem unlikely.

The concept of “total victory”, however, is extremely problematic. Every time Israel declares an area cleared of Hamas and then withdraws, Hamas, which carried out the horrific attack on southern Israel on October 7 2023, has quickly returned to reestablish control.

As a result, there has been a marked Israeli escalation in northern Gaza in recent days, and much discussion about a so-called “general’s plan” being pushed by some right-wing members of Netanyahu’s government.

Concocted by a former Israeli general, Giora Eiland, the plan is, in essence, to forego negotiations, bisect the enclave and give northern Gaza’s 400,000 inhabitants the bleak choice between leaving and dying.

We don’t know whether Netanyahu will officially endorse the plan. Israeli leaders reportedly told US Secretary of State Antony Blinken this week they are not implementing it. However, it nonetheless has broad support among Israel’s political and military elite.

The Israeli military has already issued expulsion orders to the people of northern Gaza. The government has said anyone who remains would be considered a military target and will be deprived of food and water.

While Israel denies obstructing humanitarian aid, the World Food Program said no food aid entered northern Gaza for two weeks in early October. While some aid has been entering since then, thousands are still at risk of starvation and outbreaks of preventable diseases.

Moreover, many Palestinians, including the sick, elderly and wounded, are unable to move and have nowhere to go. The prospect of the overcrowded and unprotected tent cities of the south is hardly enticing.

Israeli human rights groups say the military had been deliberately blocking aid to give the population no choice but to leave northern Gaza. Israel may now be backtracking under pressure from the United States, which has given Netanyahu’s government a 30-day deadline to increase the amount of aid it allows into Gaza or risk losing US weapons funding.

Undermining international norms and rules

Israel’s war against Gaza, and now Lebanon, has repeatedly challenged the foundations of the liberal international rules-based order set up after the second world war, as well as the tenets of international law, multilateral diplomacy, democracy and humanitarianism.

The norms of the liberal world order are expressed in various institutions, such as:

• the UN Charter
• the UN Security Council, with its notionally legally binding resolutions
• the International Court of Justice (ICJ) in The Hague
• the Geneva Conventions governing the rules of war
• the Universal Declaration of Human Rights
• and the Rome Statute of the International Criminal Court (ICC), among many others.

Recently, the ICJ ruled Israel’s occupation of the West Bank, Gaza Strip and East Jerusalem is illegal and ordered it to withdraw. In response, Netanyahu said the court had made a “decision of lies”.

In a separate case, South Africa brought a charge to the ICJ, alleging Israel has committed genocide against the Palestinian people over the past year. The world’s top court has preliminarily ruled there is a “plausible” case for a finding of genocide, and said Israel must take measures to ensure its prevention.

At this juncture, however, human rights groups and others have argued that Israel has failed to comply with this order, thereby undermining one of the key institutions of the liberal world order.

This is compounded by the fact that few major democratic states have been willing to strongly condemn Israel’s failure to comply with international law in Gaza – or have done so belatedly – let alone intervened in any concrete fashion.

In addition, the UN Security Council has failed – primarily due to the veto power exercised by the US – to take any tangible measures to enforce its own resolutions against Israel, as well as the rulings of the ICJ.

This is fuelling widespread perceptions of hypocrisy in relation to the accountability of notionally democratic states for alleged violations of humanitarian law, compared with other nations that don’t have great power patrons.

In the early 1990s, for instance, the UN Security Council unanimously passed several resolutions against Iraq’s invasion of Kuwait, followed a decade later by resolutions demanding Saddam Hussein’s regime comply with weapons inspection mandates. The US and its allies used these resolutions as the legal justification for their invasion of Iraq. Ultimately, no weapons of mass destruction were found. Then UN Secretary General Kofi Annan later said the invasion of Iraq was illegal and contrary to the UN Charter.

However, dozens of UN Security Council resolutions concerning Israel have been passed and not enforced. Many others have been vetoed by the US.

The prosecutors of the ICC have also requested arrest warrants for Netanyahu and Defence Minister Yoav Gallant for alleged crimes against humanity (in addition to several Hamas leaders, now dead). The warrants for Netanyahu and Gallant were met with indignation by some Western politicians. Yet, the West broadly praised the ICC’s arrest warrant against Russian President Vladimir Putin.

Furthermore, the US Congress attempted to sanction the court over the Netanyahu arrest warrant, once again underscoring the often selective way in which international law is applied by nation states.

A crisis of legitimacy for the world order

Democratic states like to present themselves as the protectors, and sometimes enforcers, of the liberal world order, ensuring continued international peace and security.

Indeed, Israel and its supporters often characterise its military actions as the forward defence of the democratic world against tyrannical larger powers, as a means of protecting itself from adversaries that want to destroy it. The problem is Israel’s actions often directly contradict the liberal world order it purports to defend, thereby undermining its legitimacy.

Failure to rein in Israel’s actions has led to accusations of “double standards” regarding international law. The US and Germany provide Israel with 99% of its arm imports and diplomatic cover. Although Germany has stopped approving new weapons exports to Israel, both countries certainly have more leverage to stop the carnage in Gaza if they wish.

The West’s self-abrogated moral superiority is arguably in tatters as it continues to undermine the principles of the liberal world order. The question is: if this world order falls, what will the new world order look like?

Tristan Dunning has signed a statement of solidarity with Palestine from academics in Australian universities.

Shannon Brincat has signed a statement of solidarity with Palestine from academics in Australian universities.

Martin Kear 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. Israel’s actions in Gaza, backed by the US, are shaking the world order to its core – https://theconversation.com/israels-actions-in-gaza-backed-by-the-us-are-shaking-the-world-order-to-its-core-241460

Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Andrea de Silva, Adjunct professor, Monash University

Many Australians are victims and survivors of child sexual abuse.

Almost one in three have been sexually abused as a child, generally more than once, and often with significant and lifelong impacts.

The National Centre for Action on Child Sexual Abuse has released findings from more than 4,000 adults in a new study examining the community’s attitudes towards, knowledge of, and responses to child sexual abuse.

The data reveal some troubling findings, with pervasive and harmful community norms and attitudes that act to enable child sexual abuse to continue.

What are social norms?

Social norms are “rules” shared among people in a particular society, community, or group, and define what is considered “normal” and appropriate behaviour within the group.

These rules are often unwritten and not openly discussed.

These norms influence what people do (and don’t do) in many aspects of life, including preventing and responding to child sexual abuse.

Why do they matter?

Some cultures’ norms and attitudes limit disclosure of abuse.

In our study, 62% were pretty sure they knew someone who had been sexually abused as a child.

Yet only 9% had directly been told by a child about being sexually abused, while 35% had been told by an adult about historical child sexual abuse.

These low rates suggest there are forces at play that limit talking about child sexual abuse.

Some in the community believe it’s not acceptable to discuss child sexual abuse. In response to a hypothetical disclosure by an adult friend, about one in ten thought it was very/extremely important to tell their friend that it’s best not to talk about it at all.

Some (5%) reported they would try to avoid their friend.

What else did the research reveal?

There was also evidence community members didn’t think child sexual abuse was an important problem or that it affected them directly.

Around two in three adults felt they were not directly affected or were unsure if they were affected by child sexual abuse. More than half didn’t think child sexual abuse happened where they live.

One in ten thought child sexual abuse receives too much media coverage.

Some norms and attitudes also limit intervention to stop child sexual abuse.

We found that of those who discovered or received a child’s disclosure about sexual abuse, less than half had a supportive conversation with the child (about 40%) and/or reported to authorities like police or child protection agencies (about 30%).

Also, almost one in three adults were “not at all” confident about how to talk to the parent/carer of a child they suspected had been sexually abused. More than a quarter (28%) felt “not at all” confident about how to start a conversation with the child they suspected had been sexually abused.

Not having these conversations or not reporting maintains secrecy around child sexual abuse. It can send a message to victims and survivors not to talk about it, or that nothing will be done to stop the abuse.

Though the lack of intervention may be due to a lack of confidence, we also found adults held attitudes that children can’t always be believed (22%) or were too unreliable to take their word over an adult’s (18%).

These attitudes mean many children won’t be believed and protected if they disclose sexual abuse.

Some norms and attitudes increase acceptance of child sexual abuse, or blame victims, especially adolescents.

Alarmingly, 40% of respondents in the study thought older children were responsible for actively resisting an adult’s sexual advances, and 12% believed adolescent girls who wear very revealing clothing are “asking” to be sexually abused.

Adding to this, 13% believed children who act “seductively” are at least partly to blame if an adult responds sexually, while 8% thought obedient children are less likely to experience child sexual abuse, implying “good” children won’t be sexually abused.

These harmful attitudes misdirect the blame for the abuse onto the victim, making it unsafe for them to disclose and at the same time, making it acceptable for adults to stay silent.

Blaming victims maintains the status quo of unacceptably high levels of child sexual abuse and causes further harm.

Where to from here?

Putting an end to the sexual abuse of children in Australia requires concerted and co-ordinated action at all levels of society.

Global initiatives offer some guidance on how shifting entrenched and harmful attitudes and norms can change behaviours.

At a minimum, we must challenge gender inequality and power imbalances, promote equitable relationships and shared responsibilities. Mobilisation programs intervening directly at the community level and initiatives with specific populations who hold harmful and problematic attitudes are also promising in preventing child sexual abuse.

Now we have benchmarks on the community’s attitudes towards child sexual abuse, we can measure the effectiveness of Australia’s efforts for change.

It is everyone’s responsibility to know the signs, listen, believe and act in response to child sexual abuse.

Andrea de Silva works for the National Centre for Action on Child Sexual Abuse who conducted this study. The National Centre is funded by the Department of Social Services. The National Centre is a partnership between the Australian Childhood Foundation, Blue Knot Foundation and the Healing Foundation.

Amanda L. Robertson works for the National Centre for Action on Child Sexual Abuse who conducted the study with funding from the Department of Social Services.

– ref. New research shows problematic community attitudes allow child sexual abuse to continue – https://theconversation.com/new-research-shows-problematic-community-attitudes-allow-child-sexual-abuse-to-continue-241792

Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Lauren Breen, Professor of Psychology, Curtin University

When was the last time you heard someone talk in detail about their grief?

For many of us, it could be rarely or never. There are several reasons for this.

Grieving people often avoid raising the topic in conversation because they want to avoid upsetting or burdening people. Family and friends of grieving people often feel unsure or uncomfortable about asking them to talk about it, fearing they will infringe on the person’s privacy. One study of grieving adults in Australia and Ireland showed nearly one-third said they didn’t receive the support they would have liked. Some experts note we tend to deny or minimise others’ grief, increasing their isolation.

Actor Andrew Garfield, best known for playing Spiderman, appeared on Sesame Street last week and spoke with Elmo in moving and affirming ways about grieving his mother’s death. Clips of their short conversation have been widely shared on social media. It presents a great example of communicating well about grief.

Kids grieve too

Issues around grief and isolation can be the same for children and young people as for older people.

In fact, grief in young people is recognised as “the last taboo in public health”. By the age of 18, around one in 20 children have a parent die. Even more will experience grief following the deaths of other close people such as siblings and grandparents. Children also grieve the deaths of pets. Yet we struggle to acknowledge, let alone understand and help them with the grief.

Due to a desire to protect them from harm or distress, adults are often reluctant to talk about dying and death with children. We also underestimate their abilities to understand such difficult topics. My recent work with Lionheart Camp for Kids shows such good intentions leave grieving children with many unanswered questions.

So it was great to see Andrew Garfield (who has discussed the topic before on talk shows and in interviews) share his experience on children’s television.

Read more:
‘Why did he Leve Me?’ 5 things grieving children want to know about the death of a loved one

It takes two (or more)

Their exchange begins with the character of Elmo checking in with Garfield, to see if he’s OK. He asks in a warm and open-ended way.

What Garfield communicates well is checking if Elmo is willing and comfortable to hear him talk about his thoughts and feelings. He conveys his feelings of grief and speaks about how missing someone is due to love. He shares his understanding about the comforting role memories can bring to the bereaved, and about recognising a deceased person can be celebrated and missed at the same time.

Elmo also does a great job of listening. He normalises Garfield’s thoughts and feelings, and gently affirms his memories of his deceased mother. Importantly, Elmo doesn’t make the conversation about himself or resort to tired clichés like “this shall pass” or “she’d want you to move on”. He doesn’t minimise his discomfort with jokes or provide unsolicited advice on how to feel or behave.

Social support in the wake of loss helps grieving people – if it’s done right. Too often, however, it’s not, and can leave grieving people more distressed.

Though an almost universal need, providing effective social support for grieving people is a complex process. It must involve:

• a potential supporter recognising the bereaved person’s need for support

• support that is available, sufficient and offered to the bereaved

• them perceiving the support as helpful.

Perceptions of whether an offer if support is useful can depend on where it comes from, the type of support, whether it is offered at the right time, and the griever’s level or receptiveness or social isolation.

Listening, validating, support

Garfield and Elmo aren’t the first celebrities to talk openly about grief.

But in daily life, it’s rare to hear anyone talk openly about these feelings. That’s why it’s so refreshing when people in the public eye break the taboo that surrounds grief and loss. It is important for grieving people of all ages to be able to talk about their grief and be listened to. For potential supporters, it is enriching to think about they can listen, validate and support.

As Garfield and Elmo show, grieving people and their support people can work together to develop a compassionate connection in a conversation that benefits both parties.

Lauren Breen receives funding from Healthway and has previously received funding from Wellcome Trust, Australian Research Council, Department of Health (Western Australia), Silver Chain, iCare Dust Diseases Board (New South Wales), and Cancer Council (Western Australia). She is on the board of Lionheart Camp for Kids and is a member of Grief Australia and the Australian Psychological Society.

– ref. Andrew Garfield and Elmo are going viral with their moving chat. Celebrities can help us talk about grief – https://theconversation.com/andrew-garfield-and-elmo-are-going-viral-with-their-moving-chat-celebrities-can-help-us-talk-about-grief-241782

Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Lauren Ball, Professor of Community Health and Wellbeing, The University of Queensland

Scurvy is is often considered a historical ailment, conjuring images of sailors on long sea voyages suffering from a lack of fresh fruit and vegetables.

Yet doctors in developed countries have recently reported treating cases of scurvy, including Australian doctors who reported their findings today in the journal BMJ Case Reports.

What is scurvy?

Scurvy is a disease caused by a severe deficiency of vitamin C (ascorbic acid), which is essential for the production of collagen. This protein helps maintain the health of skin, blood vessels, bones and connective tissue.

Without enough vitamin C, the body cannot properly repair tissues, heal wounds, or fight infections. This can lead to a range of symptoms including:

• fatigue and weakness
• swollen, bleeding gums or loose teeth
• joint and muscle pain and tenderness
• bruising easily
• dry, rough or discoloured skin (reddish or purple spots due to bleeding under the skin)
• cuts and sores take longer to heal
• anaemia (a shortage of red blood cells, leading to further fatigue and weakness)
• increased susceptibility to infections.

It historically affected sailors

Scurvy was common from the 15th to 18th centuries, when naval sailors and other explorers lived on rations or went without fresh food for long periods. You might have heard some of these milestones in the history of the disease:

• in 1497-1499, Vasco da Gama’s crew suffered severely from scurvy during their expedition to India, with a large portion of the crew dying from it

• from the 16th to 18th centuries, scurvy was rampant among European navies and explorers, affecting notable figures such as Ferdinand Magellan and Sir Francis Drake. It was considered one of the greatest threats to sailors’ health during long voyages

• in 1747, British naval surgeon James Lind is thought to have conducted one of the first clinical trials, demonstrating that citrus fruit could prevent and cure scurvy. However, it took several decades for his findings to be widely implemented

• in 1795, the British Royal Navy officially adopted the practice of providing lemon or lime juice to sailors, dramatically reducing the number of scurvy cases.

Evidence of scurvy re-emerging

In the new case report, doctors in Western Australia reported treating a middle-aged man with the condition. In a separate case report, doctors in Canada reported treating a 65-year old woman.

Both patients presented with leg weakness and compromised skin, yet the doctors didn’t initially consider scurvy. This was based on the premise that there is abundant vitamin C in our modern food supply, so deficiency should not occur.

On both occasions, treatment with high doses of vitamin C (1,000mg per day for at least seven days) resulted in improvements in symptoms and eventually a full recovery.

The authors of both case reports are concerned that if scurvy is left untreated, it could lead to inflamed blood vessels (vasculitis) and potentially cause fatal bleeding.

Last year, a major New South Wales hospital undertook a chart review, where patient records are reviewed to answer research questions.

This found vitamin C deficiency was common. More than 50% of patients who had their vitamin C levels tested had either a modest deficiency (29.9%) or significant deficiency (24.5%). Deficiencies were more common among patients from rural and lower socioeconomic areas.

Now clinicians are urged to consider vitamin C deficiency and scurvy as a potential diagnosis and involve the support of a dietitian.

Why might scurvy be re-emerging?

Sourcing and consuming nutritious foods with sufficient vitamin C is unfortunately still an issue for some people. Factors that increase the risk of vitamin C deficiency include:

• poor diet. People with restricted diets – due to poverty, food insecurity or dietary choices – may not get enough vitamin C. This includes those who rely heavily on processed, nutrient-poor foods rather than fresh produce

• food deserts. In areas where access to fresh, affordable fruits and vegetables is limited (often referred to as food deserts), people may unintentionally suffer from a vitamin C deficiency. In some parts of developing countries such as India, lack of access to fresh food is recognised as a risk for scurvy

• the cost-of-living crisis. With greater numbers of people unable to pay for fresh produce, people who limit their intake of fruits and vegetables may develop nutrient deficiencies, including scurvy

• weight loss procedures and medications. Restricted dietary intake due to weight loss surgery or weight loss medications may lead to nutrient deficiencies, such as in this case report of scurvy from Denmark

• mental illness and eating disorders. Conditions such as depression and anorexia nervosa can lead to severely restricted diets, increasing the risk of scurvy, such as in this case report from 2020 in Canada

• isolation. Older adults, especially those who live alone or in nursing homes, may have difficulty preparing balanced meals with sufficient vitamin C

• certain medical conditions. People with digestive disorders, malabsorption issues, or those on restrictive medical diets (due to severe allergies or intolerances) can develop scurvy if they are unable to absorb or consume enough vitamin C.

How much vitamin C do we need?

Australia’s dietary guidelines recommend adults consume 45mg of vitamin C (higher if pregnant or breastfeeding) each day. This is roughly the amount found in half an orange or half a cup of strawberries.

When more vitamin C is consumed than required, excess amounts leave the body through urine.

Signs of scurvy can appear as early as a month after a daily intake of less than 10 mg of vitamin C.

Eating vitamin C-rich foods – such as oranges, strawberries, kiwifruit, plums, pineapple, mango, capsicum, broccoli and Brussels sprouts – can resolve symptoms within a few weeks.

Vitamin C is also readily available as a supplement if there are reasons why intake through food may be compromised. Typically, the supplements contain 1,000mg per tablet, and the recommended upper limit for daily Vitamin C intake is 2,000mg.

Lauren Ball receives funding from the National Health and Medical Research Council, Queensland Health and Mater Misericordia. She is a Director of Dietitians Australia, a Director of Food Standards Australia and New Zealand, a Director of the Darling Downs and West Moreton Primary Health Network and an Associate Member of the Australian Academy of Health and Medical Sciences.

– ref. Scurvy is largely a historical disease but there are signs it’s making a comeback – https://theconversation.com/scurvy-is-largely-a-historical-disease-but-there-are-signs-its-making-a-comeback-241894

Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Ebony Birchall, Lecturer, Law School, Macquarie University

Australian mining giant BHP is at the centre of one of the world’s largest class actions, the trial for which started this week in London.

The Fundão Dam in Mariana, Brazil, co-owned by BHP, collapsed in 2015 spilling a gigantic wave of toxic mud across 700 kilometres of land. Nineteen people were killed, villages and livestock wiped out, vast areas of land rendered uninhabitable and rivers and water supplies contaminated.

Corporate accountability

The class action has renewed questions about the responsibilities multibillion-dollar corporations have to local communities.

Leaders of the traditional people groups impacted by the disaster visited Australia with their lawyer Tom Goodhead from international legal firm Pogust Goodhead to raise awareness of the case two weeks ago.

Goodhead told a public forum at Macquarie University this was a case of corporate negligence and putting profit before safety. He said the operators were warned of the risk of dam collapse and continued to push operations beyond what was safe.

The class action is brought on behalf of more than 600,000 claimants. The trial is expected to run for 12 weeks and will be heard in the UK, because this is where BHP was headquartered at the time of the disaster.

The UK courts will apply the Brazilian laws, which say environmental polluters must pay for the damage they cause.

Can BHP fix this?

The claimants’ lawyers say the case is valued at more than A$68.8 billion. The figure is based on an estimation of the impact of the disaster on land, culture and sacred places, as well as some form of recompense for the lost lives.

Maycon Krenak, one of the Krenak chiefs, explained:

[the] river has always been there for us to guarantee our livelihoods. It is a sacred space for us. The river is where we carry out our sacred practices. That’s where we sing, where we dance, where we gather. The new leaders, [our] children, have to learn how to swim in a water tank of a thousand litres.

BHP is reported as saying its Renova Foundation, established in 2016, has spent more than A$11.5 billion to compensate victims and remediate the environment.

But Thatiele Monic, president of the Vila Santa Efigênia and Adjacências Quilombola Association said the victims don’t trust the foundation.

In the same way that the mining company invades our land, the Renova Foundation also is invading our space and our territories. They do not respect our land. They do not respect our people, and they are creating more and more conflict. So that people are essentially giving up pursuing this.

Poor human rights record

Australian corporations operating overseas have a poor record on human rights.

Two weeks ago, a preliminary report of the Panguna Mine Legacy Impact Assessment uncovered human rights violations, including risks to life, at Rio Tinto’s abandoned Panguna mine in Bougainville, Papua New Guinea.

The gold and copper mine triggered a brutal civil war between 1988 and 1998. Despite decades passing since the mine was decommissioned, the recent report confirms the mine continues to pose risks to life and safety due to the collapsing mine and ongoing contamination down rivers and into new areas.

Australian mining corporations have also been linked to death and destruction in their operations in Africa.

Corporate activities within Australia have impacted our own Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Peoples. For example, Rio Tinto’s explosion at Juukan Gorge destroyed sites of cultural significance dating more than 46,000 years.

Where Australia stands

The Australian government has endorsed the UN Guiding Principles on Business and Human Rights and the OECD Guidelines for Multinational Enterprises both of which outline corporations’ human rights obligations.

The UNGPs say states should set out clearly the expectation that corporations in their jurisdiction respect human rights in all their operations – even those occurring overseas.

The Human Rights Law Centre found in a 2018 report on this topic that the Australian government was not doing enough to hold corporations to account.

It found Australian corporations operating overseas did so with impunity. Efforts to seek justice locally is often thwarted by corruption, lack of resources or ineffective legal process. At the same time, attempts by overseas communities to take legal action in Australian courts face enormous hurdles and rarely succeed.

This is why cases like the class action for claimants in Mariana are crucial for corporate accountability.

In my 2023 report with colleagues Surya Deva and Justine Nolan, we found this kind of litigation can raise awareness, facilitate broader industry developments and shape laws and policy.

Our report also found litigation needs to be supported by strong regulatory responses from governments, and complementary advocacy like shareholder or consumer engagement.

Cost of litigation

Litigation comes with significant risks to victims and their allies.

In a controversial development for corporate accountability in Australia, oil and gas giant Santos is using legal processes to challenge environmental groups who supported traditional owners opposing their Barossa gas project. Santos’ tactics, if allowed to continue, could limit public interest litigation in the future.

Thatiele Monic ended her speech at the Macquarie University event with a question worth repeating

This has happened in Brazil, but it has happened in many other places, and if we don’t do anything about it, and we don’t talk about it, it will continue to happen in many more other places. This is not the future I want for myself and for my people. I’d like to know. What future do you want for yourselves?

Ebony Birchall is affiliated with Macquarie University’s B&HR Access to Justice Lab.

– ref. ‘They do not respect our land. They do not respect our people’. Brazil’s traditional people take on BHP in one of the world’s biggest class actions – https://theconversation.com/they-do-not-respect-our-land-they-do-not-respect-our-people-brazils-traditional-people-take-on-bhp-in-one-of-the-worlds-biggest-class-actions-241777

Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Mona Krewel, Senior Lecturer in Comparative Politics, Te Herenga Waka — Victoria University of Wellington

Companies and shareholders associated with the government’s fast-track projects gave more than $500,000 in donations to National, ACT and New Zealand First, according to a recent analysis by RNZ.

While it is impossible to say whether these companies were listed for consideration because of their donations, allegations of possible “undue influence” are inevitably made.

New Zealand’s reputation as a country with little to no corruption owes nothing to our lack of rigour in the regulation of party donations. As Philippa Yasbek, the author of a report by the Helen Clark Foundation calling for tougher rules to combat the risk of political corruption, said:

Our political integrity and honesty have largely evolved from social norms over many decades. Politicians by and large knew the conduct that was expected of them by New Zealand society. Sadly, today, we’re naive to think that’s enough.

Some political parties seem to take little heed of the existing rules. The Electoral Commission has issued warnings to several parties about large donations being declared too late.

The Independent Electoral Review released early this year recommended parties give up access to corporate donations in exchange for greater public funding. Other recommendations included a cap on political donations set at NZ$30,000, and a much lower threshold for disclosing donors’ names.

As one might expect, the political parties disagree about how funding should be regulated, as their main income sources vary. Labour approves of the proposals, although analysis indicates its revenue streams would suffer most if such policies were in place.

ACT is strongly opposed to the principle of public funding, although there are already significant public funds supporting parliament and party advertising during election campaigns.

What New Zealanders think

But what about public opinion? Do people believe large donors have “undue influence”?

The latest New Zealand Election Study, conducted after the 2023 election, included a module of questions that give insights into New Zealanders’ attitudes to potential party funding reforms. The study is a representative sample of nearly 2,000 eligible voters.

What stands out? Many people answered “don’t know” to the questions – which is quite reasonable. The laws that regulate political party activity in New Zealand are complex and of little relevance to most.

Nonetheless, some clear messages emerge. In general, a near majority of people were concerned about the influence of “big interests”. When asked if they agreed with the statement “The New Zealand government is largely run by a few big interests”, 45% agreed and 27% disagreed.

Drilling deeper into the data, about 35% of business owners agreed, compared to just under half of people who don’t own a business.

Asked whether they believed donors exert “undue influence” on politicians, 43% agreed. Only 18% disagreed. Almost 40% had no opinion on this topic and either didn’t know or took a neutral position.

While Labour, Green and NZ First voters leaned heavily to “undue influence”, National and ACT voters were evenly divided between “undue” and “not undue”.

National voters also strongly opted for “don’t know”. About a third of business owners perceived undue influence, compared with about 45% of non-owners.

The 2023 Election Study also included a question on the recommendation made by the Electoral Review that corporate groups and trade unions should be prohibited from making direct donations to political parties: 53% supported this change, while only 17% opposed it.

The Independent Electoral Review also recommended a limit of $30,000 for any individual donation: 57% agreed, compared to 14% who disagreed. While support was strongest on the left and among New Zealand First voters, significant numbers of National and ACT voters also agreed (47% and 44%).

Finally, we asked for people’s views on anonymity of “promoter donations”. Promoters are people or groups registered to advertise during an election campaign for an issue, or for or against a political party. They can collect anonymous donations that are not subject to the same disclosure requirements as parties.

Only 14% of respondents believed in continued promoter donation anonymity on the basis of privacy, and 47% preferred greater transparency. Breaking this down by party vote, some National and ACT voters prefer transparency over privacy, although more were either neutral or answered “don’t know”.

Support for reform

These results show public perceptions of undue influence by donors are widespread. While these perceptions are strongest on the left, they also penetrate deeply into groups who vote for the parties on the right, and into the business community.

And while the political parties have conflicts of interest, there is significant support for the recommendations of the Independent Electoral review across party lines among the New Zealand public, and inside the business community.

Assuming political parties in a democracy should be responsive to voters’ concerns and demands, this should give them food for thought when it comes to potential party funding reform.

This article is based on our submission to the Justice Select Committee inquiry into the 2023 general election.

The New Zealand Election Study (NZES) has been funded by Te Herenga Waka-Victoria University of Wellington, the New Zealand Electoral Commission, the Gama Foundation, and the University of Auckland.

– ref. The best government money can buy? How New Zealanders feel about political party funding – https://theconversation.com/the-best-government-money-can-buy-how-new-zealanders-feel-about-political-party-funding-241881

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

King Charles – as the old-fashioned saying goes – didn’t come down in the last shower. He’s unlikely to have been fazed by the outburst from independent senator Lidia Thorpe, who disrupted Monday’s Parliament House reception for the royals.

And neither, frankly, should anyone else.

Thorpe, clad in a possum-skin cloak, shouted: “You are not our king.”

“You destroyed our land. Give us a treaty. We want a treaty in this country. You are a genocidalist.”

“You committed genocide against our people. Give us our land back. Give us what you stole from us – our bones, our skulls, our babies, our people.”

The conduct of Thorpe, who used to be with the Greens and is an outspoken advocate of ‘Blak sovereignty’, was rude, albeit absolutely in character. She acts up in the parliament regularly.

As a senator, Thorpe, who was escorted out of the Great Hall, still yelling, had the right to be at the reception. And it is not the only time a parliamentarian has created a fuss when a dignitary was visiting. In 2003, Greens senator Bob Brown shouted out during the address to the joint houses by US President George W. Bush.

While not at all condoning Thorpe’s exhibitionism, she wasn’t inciting violence. Was she bringing our parliament into disrepute? Sadly, many parliamentarians do that all the time in less dramatic ways, as visitors to question time will tell you.

Those muttering that perhaps there should be some parliamentary censure of Thorpe are misguided. As Senate Opposition leader Simon Birmingham pointed out on Tuesday, Thorpe “would probably revel in being censured by the Senate”. The one thing she wants is publicity.

Thorpe pushes her right to air her views to the limit, but her antics are not at the sharp end of the current “free speech” debate in this country. There are two, very different and much more important, fronts in that debate.

One relates to the pro-Palestine demonstrations. The other is the government’s attempt to crack down on misinformation and disinformation on digital platforms.

Those on the political right tend to play down worries about limiting free expression when it comes to the pro-Palestinian demonstrations. On the other hand, they are worried about putting more restrictions on the internet. Those on the left tend to support the battle against misinformation and disinformation on digital platforms, and are less worried about its free speech impact.

Increasing antisemitism has fuelled calls for the ubiquitous pro-Palestinian protests to be curbed in some way.

Critics highlight the hate preached on occasion; they say the demonstrations make Jewish Australians feel unsafe, disrupt citizens’ weekends, and are a drag on police resources.

What are the relevant rights here, and their comparative weights? The right to free expression and protest. The right to feel safe. The right for people to go about their business without undue inconvenience. The tradeoffs are much more complicated than any questions thrown up by Thorpe’s behaviour.

The number and regularity of the pro-Palestine demonstrations have driven some critics to argue enough is enough. That is not convincing, and nor is the argument that these protests soak up police resources. Unfortunately, these are the costs of preserving the right to protest.

Much more troubling is that these protests can foster hate and make people feel threatened in their own country. Here balances must be carefully struck, and that’s hard.

Incitement laws must be enforced. Beyond that, demonstrations have to be managed, so that the protesters’ right to have their say and the safety of others, especially a vulnerable section of the population, are both preserved.

So for example, it’s important university campuses can have protests (as they always have). But “encampments” on campuses have been properly condemned and should not be allowed.

Even more complex in the free speech debate is how to deal with disinformation (the deliberate spread of false information) and misinformation (where the misleading is not deliberate).

The government presently has a bill in parliament seeking to combat misinformation and disinformation on digital platforms. It is a reworked version of a much-attacked earlier draft.

In her second reading speech on the bill last month, Communications Minister Michelle Rowland said:

To protect freedom of speech, the bill [which does not apply to “professional news content”] sets a high threshold for the type of misinformation and disinformation that digital platforms must combat on their services – that is, it must be reasonably verifiable as false, misleading or deceptive and reasonably likely to cause or contribute to serious harm.

The harm must have significant and far-reaching consequences for Australian society, or severe consequences for an individual in Australia.

Among the “serious harms” in the bill is “harm to the operation or integrity of an electoral or referendum process in Australia”.

The struggle against misinformation and disinformation on digital platforms will always be a losing one. The reach is just too vast.

But more particularly, there is also the problem that what is “misinformation” and “disinformation” can be less clear than one might think. On occasion, what seems wrong at the time turns out to be correct later.

Beyond those obvious points, some material so-labelled is not one or the other but disputed information.

For example, proponents of the Voice have blamed its loss at least partly on misinformation and disinformation. However, much of this involved highly contested claims, especially about an unpredictable future.

What this legislation does is push as much responsibility as it can, backed by a regulatory framework, onto the platforms to do the censoring of misinformation and disinformation, thus trying to avoid constitutional issues of implied freedom of political communication.

Human rights lawyer Frank Brennan has written, “The real challenge for Minister Rowland is that debating such a detailed bill without the backstop of a constitutional or statutory bill of rights recognising the right to freedom of expression, there are no clear guard rails for getting the balance right for ‘the freedom of expression that is so fundamental to our democracy’.”

All things considered, It is hard to see the bill clearing its obstacle course before the election.

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

– ref. View from The Hill: We have bigger issues around freedom of speech than Lidia Thorpe’s noisy protest – https://theconversation.com/view-from-the-hill-we-have-bigger-issues-around-freedom-of-speech-than-lidia-thorpes-noisy-protest-241906

Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Jack Hetherington, Phd Candidate in circular business models, University of Adelaide

Every year, 7.6 million tonnes of food is lost or wasted in Australia. When we think about this, we might picture mouldy fruit, stale bread and overly full fridges. But in fact, almost half of this waste happens before food ever gets to us. Waste is common in food production, processing and transportation.

For example, the process of making cheese from milk results in a comparatively small amount of cheese and a lot of whey – up to 90% the mass of the raw milk.

Whey is useful, as it still has about half the nutrients of milk. But whey remains one of the largest sources of food loss and waste in Australia’s large dairy sector. Every year, about 350 million litres goes down the drain, costing businesses over A$580 million to dispose of it and wasting some of the resources it takes to make milk.

In our new research, we interviewed cheesemakers from 42 companies – representing almost a third of Australia’s cheese industry.

We found cheesemakers knew what waste whey could be used for but were put off by practical challenges.

What can you do with whey?

You can already buy whey products such as fermented drinks and protein powders. Infant formula may contain the highly valuable lactoferrin, which would be usually left in whey. A popular Swiss soft drink, Rivella, is also made from whey.

In Australia, some producers have begun making alcoholic spirits by fermenting the lactose in whey. Researchers have found whey-based alcohol can emit less greenhouse gases than traditional grains.

Our research found over half of our cheesemakers were using multiple methods to reduce whey going to waste, from making animal feed to making ricotta to irrigating paddocks. Even so, there is still room to make much more use of whey.

What did we find?

Every year, 43% of all milk produced in Australia is used to make cheese – about eight billion litres a year. When we did this research, there were 132 cheesemakers, using cow, goat, sheep, and camel milk to make cheese. The industry is characterised by a few large manufacturers (about 2% of companies) and many small manufacturers (about 90% of the total). Cheesemakers are largely concentrated in Australia’s southeast.

To understand the challenge of avoiding whey waste, we spoke to cheesemakers, big and small, right across Australia between November 2022 and June 2023.

All of our cheesemaker respondents knew of at least one whey-based product.

But there were barriers to using whey themselves by a range of things, from the set-up cost of a new facility to the challenge of scale, competing priorities and the distance to potential partners. As one respondent said:

Every single part of the business would have to be changed, upgraded, or increased to accommodate using the whey in any way

Another said:

We’re all doing 60 to 70-hour weeks and you [need] someone to actually drive it

How can we overcome the barriers?

Based on our interviews, we found four possible ways to encourage cheesemakers to put their whey to use:

1. turning whey into value-added products in-house. This could be quite effective – one of our respondents reported making more money from whey-based products than cheese. But setting it up requires time and money.

2. engaging other companies to take the waste. Partnering with outside companies can help overcome time and money issues – but everyone needs to agree on a price for a product previously considered waste.

3. starting joint ventures, such as teaming up with other cheesemakers. This method suits cheesemakers wanting to keep the value of the whey. Successful ventures require clear leadership and transparent business plans.

4. scaling up. Some cheesemakers are already using their own whey. If they move to accept whey from other makers, they can scale up – as long as the new whey sources can meet their specifications.

We found giving Australian cheesemakers the full range of options greatly increased how willing they were to find ways to use whey.

When they only had in-house options, 33% of respondents said they would find ways to use way. This rose to 79% when all four options were available.

Which whey forward?

Our research shows there’s no silver bullet to solve whey waste. We’ll have to come at it from different angles and focus on collaboration between cheesemakers, governments, industry bodies and consumers.

One crucial thing is to make sure there there is demand for these changes. In separate research, we found there is currently little expectation from consumers and retailers about what happens to whey waste. Increasing demand for whey-based products and setting expectations for cheesemaking practices could drive this change. But food safety regulations and taxes on alcohol can make it more challenging still for makers.

In regions with a cluster of cheesemakers, it might make more sense for one or two makers to take all the whey waste and turn it into value-added products to benefit from the scale. While many cheesemakers told us they felt isolated from potential partners, we found a potential partner was right around the corner – just one or two kilometres in most cases.

This is where decision support tools may be able to help in future. These software tools help you lay out your options so you can compare them and pick the best one. They can take into account financial outlay, risks and environmental impacts.

The good news is, there is an abundant, nutrient rich byproduct able to be converted into other products. The challenge now is to find ways of boosting collaboration between cheesemakers and other companies – and ensuring whey-based products have a market.

Jack Hetherington’s PhD project receives funding from the End Food Waste Cooperative Research Centre, CSIRO and the University of Adelaide. Jack is currently the Treasurer for the Landcare Association of South Australia and a member of the SA Crawford Fund committee.

Adam James Loch has received funding from the Australian Research Council, the South Australian Department for Environment and Water, and the European Commission.

Pablo Juliano 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. Huge volumes of whey go to waste. We could do much more with this nutrient rich liquid – https://theconversation.com/huge-volumes-of-whey-go-to-waste-we-could-do-much-more-with-this-nutrient-rich-liquid-241588

Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Darius von Guttner Sporzynski, Historian, Australian Catholic University

Throughout history, queens have often been judged on their looks. Beauty standards shaped early-modern queenship. Even today, royal women such as the UK royal family’s Camilla, Catherine and Meghan are scrutinised for their looks, while their male counterparts aren’t held to the same standard.

One woman who faced particular scrutiny for her looks was Elizabeth of Austria (1436/37–1505). Known as the “mother of kings”, Elizabeth married Casimir IV of Poland and had 13 children, securing the Jagiellon dynasty’s future. Yet she is still remembered for her supposed lack of beauty.

This obsession with her appearance overlooks what really mattered for queens in her time: fertility, motherhood, political alliances and dynastic stability.

Beauty versus duty

Elizabeth was a powerful queen consort of Poland who played a significant role in European politics. Yet for centuries, she has been chiefly labelled as unattractive. This narrative likely began as early as 50 years after her death, with commentators focusing on her supposed ugliness.

But the foundation for these claims is shaky, at best. Medieval chroniclers, such as Jan Długosz, who documented the lives of Polish rulers and their families, made no mention of Elizabeth’s appearance.

This omission is significant as Długosz often commented on the beauty, or lack thereof, of other royal women. The absence of such remarks in Elizabeth’s case suggests her physical appearance was not a matter of public concern during her lifetime.

Later chroniclers such as Maciej of Miechów (1457–1523) and Marcin Bielski (1495–1575), who drew heavily from Długosz, also failed to comment on Elizabeth’s looks, further underscoring the lack of focus on her beauty.

In 1548, Polish nobleman Andrzej Górka alleged in a rhetorical speech that King Casimir IV was disappointed by Elizabeth’s appearance and considered breaking off their engagement. Górka claimed the king expressed doubts about the impending marriage because of Elizabeth’s lack of beauty – and the only thing that persuaded him to wed was a sense of duty.

However, Górka’s speech took place almost a century after the actual events. It was delivered in a political context where the goal was to influence Casimir’s grandson not to marry for love.

This saga mirrors a well-known English story involving Henry VIII and Anne of Cleves. In 1540, Henry, eager to meet his new bride, rode in disguise to surprise her. The meeting didn’t go as planned. Henry’s disappointment in Anne’s appearance became notorious and the marriage was speedily annulled.

Both of these stories reflect the pressure queens faced to meet idealistic beauty standards, often with serious consequences. Henry’s judgement of Anne based on her looks altered the course of their marriage and, by extension, future political alliances. His behaviour reinforced the idea that a queen’s worth was tied to her physical appearance, overshadowing her political or dynastic significance.

Elizabeth as the ‘ugly queen’

The primary role of a queen in early-modern Europe was to provide heirs and secure political alliances through marriage. Beauty was arguably not the most important factor.

Elizabeth of Austria’s marriage to Casimir IV of Poland was about strengthening ties between the Habsburg and Jagiellon dynasties, not about physical attraction. Of Elizabeth’s 13 children, several went on to become kings and queens across Europe. Her ancestry and status as a mother were the basis of her political influence – far more valuable than her looks.

Around 1502, in anticipation of the birth of her grandchild, Elizabeth commissioned a treatise to provide practical advice on raising a future ruler. She believed a royal child should embody values, attitudes and behaviours befitting a future monarch.

However, as history shows, the perception of a queen’s beauty could still end up influencing her legacy. While Elizabeth’s contemporaries didn’t seem to care about her appearance, later generations did.

The myth of Elizabeth’s unattractiveness gained traction primarily after a 1973 investigation into the royal tombs at the Wawel Cathedral in Kraków. Skeletal remains identified as belonging to Elizabeth showed facial deformities, reinforcing the myth. However, there’s no solid proof these bones were even hers, and the findings have since been questioned.

Nonetheless, the idea that a queen had to be beautiful to be politically capable took hold over time. Even though Elizabeth helped secure the future of one of Europe’s most powerful dynasties, her legacy is clouded by a narrative focused on her appearance.

Royal beauty standards today

Royal women in the 21st century continue to be haunted by the same narratives that plagued Anne of Cleves and Elizabeth of Austria. Queen Camilla, for instance, has been criticised for her looks throughout her public life, especially in comparison to the late Princess Diana.

Kate Middleton and Meghan Markle also face intense media scrutiny over their appearance, with headlines dissecting everything from their fashion choices to their weight. Queen Mary of Denmark, Princess Charlene of Monaco and Queen Letizia of Spain face similar scrutiny.

Sure, queens were and are aware of this. Many even weaponised beauty, ritual and fashion for their own gain. Cleopatra did this to hold onto power in ancient Egypt, and Marie Antoinette to protect herself from the hostile French court.

Elizabeth I’s reign in England gave rise to a concept of “Elizabethan beauty”, characterised by pale skin and rosy lips and cheeks. And the late Elizabeth II understood the need to dress the part.

By reducing royal women to their looks – or framing them as fashion icons – we fail to reckon with their individual characters and influence in the world. Meanwhile, men such as King Charles, King Frederick of Denmark and King Felipe of Spain are more likely to be judged by their virility, actions and policies.

Should beauty really matter when it comes to royal women? Shouldn’t we be more interested in their contributions to history, politics and society?

It’s time to shift the conversation away from appearance and focus on what matters: the impact these women have on the world. Like their male counterparts, they are crucial figures in shaping history and politics, so we ought to think carefully about how we judge them.

Darius von Guttner Sporzynski receives funding from the National Science Centre, Poland as a partner investigator in the grant “Polish queen consorts in the 15th and 16th centuries as wives and mothers” (2021/43/B/HS3/01490).

Magdalena Biniaś-Szkopek receives funding from the National Science Centre, Poland, as the principal investigator in the grant “Polish queen consorts in the 15th and 16th centuries as wives and mothers” (2021/43/B/HS3/01490).

Robert Tomczak receives funding from the National Science Centre, Poland, as a post-doctoral fellow in the grant “Polish queen consorts in the 15th and 16th centuries as wives and mothers” (2021/43/B/HS3/01490).

– ref. From Camilla to the ‘ugly’ Elizabeth of Austria: a problematic history of obsessing over royal women’s looks – https://theconversation.com/from-camilla-to-the-ugly-elizabeth-of-austria-a-problematic-history-of-obsessing-over-royal-womens-looks-241674

Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Sara Webb, Lecturer, Centre for Astrophysics and Supercomputing, Swinburne University of Technology

A large communications satellite has broken up in orbit, affecting users in Europe, Central Africa, the Middle East, Asia and Australia, and adding to the growing swarm of space junk clouding our planet’s neighbourhood.

The Intelsat 33e satellite provided broadband communication from a point some 35,000km above the Indian Ocean, in a geostationary orbit around the equator.

Initial reports on October 20 said Intelsat 33e had experienced a sudden power loss. Hours later, US Space Forces-Space confirmed the satellite appears to have broken up into at least 20 pieces.

So what happened? And is this a sign of things to come as more and more satellites head into orbit?

A space whodunnit

There are no confirmed reports about what caused the breakup of Intelsat 33e. However, it is not the first event of its kind.

In the past we’ve seen deliberate satellite destructions, accidental collisions, and loss of satellites due to increased solar activity.

What we do know is that Intelsat 33e has a history of issues while in orbit. Designed and manufactured by Boeing, the satellite was launched in August 2016.

In 2017, the satellite reached its desired orbit three months later than anticipated, due to a reported issue with its primary thruster, which controls its altitude and acceleration.

More propulsion troubles emerged when the satellite performed something called a station keeping activity, which keeps it at the right altitude. It was burning more fuel than expected, which meant its mission would end around 3.5 years early, in 2027. Intelsat lodged a US$78 million insurance claim as a result of these problems.

However, at the time of its breakup, the satellite was reportedly not insured.

Intelsat is investigating what went wrong, but we may never know exactly what caused the satellite to fragment. We do know another Intelsat satellite of the same model, a Boeing-built EpicNG 702 MP, failed in 2019.

More importantly, we can learn from the aftermath of the breakup: space junk.

30 blue whales of space junk

The amount of debris in orbit around Earth is increasing rapidly. The European Space Agency (ESA) estimates there are more than 40,000 pieces larger than 10cm in orbit, and more than 130,000,000 smaller than 1cm.

The total mass of human-made space objects in Earth orbit is some 13,000 tonnes. That’s about the same mass as 90 adult male blue whales. About one third of this mass is debris (4,300 tonnes), mostly in the form of leftover rocket bodies.

Tracking and identifying space debris is a challenging task. At higher altitudes, such as Intelsat 33e’s orbit around 35,000km up, we can only see objects above a certain size.

One of the most concerning things about the loss of Intelsat 33e is that the breakup likely produced debris that is too small for us to see from ground level with current facilities.

The past few months have seen a string of uncontrolled breakups of decommissioned and abandoned objects in orbit.

In June, the RESURS-P1 satellite fractured in low Earth orbit (an altitude of around 470km), creating more than 100 trackable pieces of debris. This event also likely created many more pieces of debris too small to be tracked.

In July, another decommissioned satellite – the Defense Meteorological Satellite Program (DMSP) 5D-2 F8 spacecraft – broke up. In August, the upper stage of a Long March 6A (CZ-6A) rocket fragmented, creating at least 283 pieces of trackable debris, and potentially hundreds of thousands of untrackable fragments.

It is not yet known whether this most recent event will affect other objects in orbit. This is where continuous monitoring of the sky becomes vital, to understand these complex space debris environments.

Who is responsible?

When space debris is created, who is responsible for cleaning it up or monitoring it?

In principle, the country that launched the object into space has the burden of responsibility where fault can be proved. This was explored in the 1972 Convention of International Liability for Damage Caused by Space Objects.

In practice, there is often little accountability. The first fine over space debris was issued in 2023 by the US Federal Communications Commission.

It’s not clear whether a similar fine will be issued in the case of Intelsat 33e.

Looking ahead

As the human use of space accelerates, Earth orbit is growing increasingly crowded. To manage the hazards of orbital debris, we will need continuous monitoring and improved tracking technology alongside deliberate efforts to minimise the amount of debris.

Most satellites are much closer to Earth than Intelsat 33e. Often these low Earth orbit satellites can be safely brought down from orbit (or “de-orbited”) at the end of their missions without creating space debris, especially with a bit of forward planning.

In September, ESA’s Cluster 2 “Salsa” satellite was de-orbited with a targeted re-entry into Earth’s atmosphere, burning up safely.

Of course, the bigger the space object, the more debris it can produce. NASA’s Orbital Debris Program Office calculated the International Space Station would produce more than 220 million debris fragments if it broke up in orbit, for example.

Accordingly, planning for de-orbiting of the station (ISS) at the end of its operational life in 2030 is now well underway, with the contract awarded to SpaceX.

Christopher Fluke works for Swinburne University of Technology. He has previously received funding from the SmartSat CRC, including funding to support a research collaboration with CGI Australia (Space, Defence and Intelligence). He is a member of the International Astronomical Union.

Sara Webb and Tallulah Waterson 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. 4,300 tonnes of space junk and rising: another satellite breakup adds to orbital debris woes – https://theconversation.com/4-300-tonnes-of-space-junk-and-rising-another-satellite-breakup-adds-to-orbital-debris-woes-241790

Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Adam Simpson, Senior Lecturer, International Studies, University of South Australia

Two former Soviet republics have important elections this week that will likely be pivotal in their respective journeys toward tighter integration with the West against the backdrop of rising Russian influence and the Ukraine war.

What happens in Georgia and Moldova is being closely watched across the European Union and Moscow. Russia has invested heavily in trying to influence the outcomes of both elections. If it succeeds, this will be a cause of significant concern in other ex-Soviet states, as well as the West.

Moldova takes a tentative step towards the EU

On Sunday, Moldovans voted in the first round of their presidential election. A referendum was also on the ballot to amend the country’s Constitution to include an aspiration to join the EU.

Pre-election polls had suggested the referendum would easily pass and the popular pro-EU president, Maia Sandu, would be re-elected.

However, Russia launched a significant “propaganda blitz” ahead of the vote, including credible allegations of widespread vote buying, to undermine the electoral process.

Sandu won the first round comfortably, with over 42% of the vote, though not by enough to avoid a run-off on November 3. The country’s pro-Russia parties are now likely to coalesce behind the second-place candidate in an attempt to oust her.

The referendum, however, teetered on the edge of failure before narrowly passing by the tightest of margins.

Though Moldova’s negotiations with the EU were certain to continue under Sandu regardless of the outcome, the result was nonetheless concerning. It demonstrates the strength of Russia’s influence operations to destabilise a nation seen as key to security on the eastern boundaries of the EU and NATO.

Moldova has a 1,200-kilometre border with Ukraine in the east and borders Romania, an EU and NATO member, in the west.

Polling suggests a majority of Moldovans condemned Russia’s invasion of Ukraine, but a significant minority retain pro-Russian views.

Russia also has a history of interference in Moldova’s sovereignty.

Moldova declared independence in 1991 during the dissolution of the Soviet Union but Transnistria, a small part of the country along the border with Ukraine, was taken over by separatists in a military operation backed by Russian troops.

Following Russia’s full-scale invasion of Ukraine in 2022, the Parliamentary Assembly of the Council of Europe formally recognised Transnistria as Moldovan territory still occupied by Russia.

What’s at stake in Georgia?

On the day of Moldova’s vote, tens of thousands of pro-EU supporters staged a demonstration in Tblisi, Georgia’s capital, calling for their country to choose a pro-EU path in their own election

The Georgian Dream party has been in power since 2012 and while it remains nominally pro-EU, it has gradually shifted towards a more pro-Russia stance.

The Georgian Dream-dominated legislature recently passed an antidemocratic, Putinesque law that requires groups receiving at least 20% of their funding from overseas to register as “agents of foreign influence”. And earlier this month, it passed a sweeping anti-LGBTQ+ bill that bans same-sex marriages, adoption by same-sex couples and changing one’s gender on identity documents.

The EU suspended Georgia’s accession process after the foreign agents law was passed and has recently cancelled €121 million (A$196 million) in funding due to “democratic backsliding”. This month, the European Parliament also overwhelmingly adopted a resolution calling for a freeze on EU funding to Georgia until its undemocratic laws are repealed.

The opposition parties are now working together to try to remove Georgian Dream from power, support the re-election of the current pro-EU president and return the country to the road of rapid integration with the EU.

Polls show support for joining the EU remains very high at nearly 80%. However, as the Moldovan election demonstrates, this may not necessarily be reflected in the vote on election day.

Read more:
‘We do not want to be like Russia’: a first-hand account of Georgia’s fight for democracy

Russian interference

Russia has long meddled in its southern neighbour. After an invasion of Georgia in 2008, Russian troops supported two pro-Russian breakaway republics, South Ossetia and Abkhazia, as they had done in Transnistria.

Russia has now established military bases in both regions, as well as a new naval base in Abkhazia to serve as a permanent base for parts of Russia’s Black Sea fleet.

These incursions set the stage for Russia’s invasion of Crimea and eastern Ukraine in 2014. As the post-Soviet Baltic states have argued, the lack of an adequate response from the West to these invasions set the stage for Russia’s full-scale invasion of Ukraine.

Georgians are understandably concerned that Russia may invade their country again. Polls suggest two-thirds of people support joining NATO.

There are concerns that Saturday’s election could also be tainted. The Parliamentary Assembly of the Council of Europe issued a declaration earlier this month, saying there are “alarming reports” indicating the Russian-backed Georgian Dream party might be “preparing to steal” the election.

The report accused the ruling party of a “massive intimidation campaign” against opposition candidates and their supporters, including physical attacks. It also said the Central Election Commission has apparently been brought under the control of Georgian Dream.

The opposition and civil society groups claimed electoral fraud after the 2020 elections, which resulted in mass protests and a political crisis when the opposition boycotted parliament.

Why these elections matter

These elections in Georgia and Moldova are crucial for reinforcing democratic rights in vulnerable former Soviet states. Any outcome that shifts their trajectory towards Russia will likely result in increased repression of both minorities, including the LGTBQ+ community, and the political opposition.

Wins by pro-Russian candidates and parties – legitimate or otherwise – will also drive greater military and economic integration with Russia. Despite popular support in both countries for joining NATO, wins by Russian-backed candidates will likewise undermine support for Ukraine in its war with Russia.

While it looks like pro-EU results might have squeaked through in Moldova, the elections in Georgia are potentially more hazardous for European relations.

The stakes in both elections could not be higher.

Adam Simpson 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’s at stake in elections in Georgia and Moldova this week: a stark choice between Russia and the West – https://theconversation.com/whats-at-stake-in-elections-in-georgia-and-moldova-this-week-a-stark-choice-between-russia-and-the-west-240675

Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Arlie Loughnan, Professor of Criminal Law, University of Sydney

The decades-long mystery about what happened to 19-year-old Amber Haigh made it to court in New South Wales earlier this year. Those accused of murdering Haigh were found not guilty.

Usually we don’t know precisely why someone was found guilty or not. But in this case, the reasons were given.

This is because the trial was “judge alone”: a trial without a jury. This means the judge decides on the factual questions as well as the legal ones. And as judges are required to give reasons for their decisions, we learned what was behind the verdict, something usually hidden by the “black box” of the jury room.

Judge alone trials are increasing in New South Wales. Moves are being made in some other Australian jurisdictions to increase access to judge alone trials.

While it’s only possible to hold a judge alone trial in certain circumstances, and there are small numbers of such trials relative to other trials, some lawyers and judges think these trials have advantages over those with a jury.

This is because jury trials face a lot of challenges. Some have pondered whether, in this media-saturated environment, there is such a thing as a fair jury trial. So what are these challenges, and where do they leave the time-honoured process?

What happens in a jury trial?

The criminal trial brings together knowledge of the facts that underpin the criminal charge. The task of the jury is to independently assess that knowledge as presented in the trial, and reach a conclusion about guilt to the criminal standard of proof: beyond reasonable doubt.

Crucially, lay people provide legitimacy to this process, as individuals drawn from all walks of life are engaged in the decision-making around the guilt of the accused.

The jury is therefore a fundamental part of our democracy.

The changing trial

For its legitimacy, the criminal trial traditionally relies on open justice, independent prosecutors and the lay jury (the “black box”), all overseen by the impartial umpire, the judge, and backed up by the appeal system.

But these aspects of the criminal trial are being challenged by changes occurring inside and outside the courtroom.

These challenges include high levels of media attention given to criminal justice matters.

Another is the questioning about the way public prosecutors are using their discretion in bringing charges against individuals. This is happening in NSW, ACT and Victoria.

There are also concerns about “junk science” being relied on Australian courtrooms. This is where unreliable or inaccurate expert evidence is introduced in trials.

Some legal bodies are also demanding a post-appeal criminal cases review commission to prevent wrongful convictions.

Added complexity

It is not just juries that must come to grips with complex evidence in criminal matters. Judges and lawyers are also required to grasp intricate scientific evidence, understand new areas of expertise, and get across changing practices of validating expert knowledge.

The difficulty of these tasks for judges and lawyers was on show in the two special inquiries into Kathleen Folbigg’s convictions for the murder of her children, held in 2019 and 2022–23. Rapid developments in genetic science, alongside other developments, came to cast doubt on the accuracy of Folbigg’s convictions. This was just a few years after the first inquiry concluded there was no reasonable doubt about her guilt.

The challenges facing criminal trials are one dimension of much wider social and political dynamics. News and information is produced and consumed differently now. People have differing degrees of respect for scientific knowledge and expertise. Trust in authority and institutions is low.

These factors come together in a perfect storm and pose existential questions about what criminal justice should look like now.

What does the future look like?

The future of criminal law and its institutions depends on their legitimacy. It’s legitimacy that gives courts the social license and power to proscribe conduct, prosecute crimes and authorise punishment. Juries are a vital piece of this picture.

Amid the changing environment, there are things we can do to improve jury trials and in turn, safeguard and enhance their legitimacy.

One is providing extremely careful instructions to juries to make sure jurors understand their tasks, and do not feel frustrated.

Another is introducing higher and better standards for expert evidence. Experts testifying in court need firm guidance, especially on their use of industry jargon, to decrease chances of wrongful convictions.

These sorts of changes might be coupled with changes in criminal laws, like enhancing laws of self-defence so they are more accessible to women in domestic violence situations.

Together, this would help to future-proof criminal law, ready to meet the challenges of coming years and decades that we are yet to detect.

Arlie Loughnan 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. Is it possible to have a fair jury trial anymore? – https://theconversation.com/is-it-possible-to-have-a-fair-jury-trial-anymore-239401

Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Michael B. Charles, Associate Professor, Management Discipline, Faculty of Business, Arts and Law, Southern Cross University

When people think of eunuchs, someone like Lord Varys from Game of Thrones often springs to mind. Chubby, obsequious and a flatterer, he is involved in court intrigues and manipulates people and events behind the scenes.

These traits oppose military prowess and valour endorsed by traditional models of masculinity across various times and cultures. According to those tropes, a eunuch’s weapon is the whisper, not the sword.

In reality, not every eunuch in the ancient world was a servile, cloistered being. In fact, eunuchs sometimes led armies on campaign, and were entrusted with high-level administrative tasks.

What was a eunuch?

A eunuch was someone whose testicles had been deliberately crushed or excised.

In Greek myth, Cronus (the father of Zeus) castrated his own father Uranus to overthrow his tyranny and become king of the Titans.

Greek historians reported castration as war punishment, and persistently linked the castration of young boys to sexual slavery.

The ancient Greek historian Herodotus stressed the demand for castrated boys at the court of the Persian kings. But the market for eunuchs was evidently larger than just the Persian court.

The Romans replicated the Greeks’ negative view of eunuchs. They are often portrayed in Roman texts as being in the company of “bad” emperors such as the supposedly cruel and narcissistic Domitian – even though he forbade the practice of making eunuchs.

The notion of the unmanly eunuch in antiquity was reinforced by Orientalist literature, which imagined ancient eunuchs in charge of something akin to a Turkish sultan’s harem. Unable to procreate, the eunuch is paradoxically surrounded by beautiful women, his in-between-ness granting him access to the psychological makeup of both genders.

Orientalism drew inspiration from historical accounts written after the Greco-Persian wars, which the Greeks won in 449 BCE. These accounts were written in the shadow of Alexander the Great’s conquest of the Near East (including areas such as modern-day Iraq, Iran and Syria), which was followed by the Roman hegemony.

Instead of critically evaluating the sources, colonial writers and their readers indulged in a world of fantasy where eunuchs offered a sensualised peek into the “secrets of the harem”.

In fact, a deeper look at the historical record reveals that eunuchs often occupied positions of great military power and civil authority.

Eunuchs as bodyguards, enforcers and governors

Cyrus, the first Persian king (590–529 BCE), praised eunuchs for their reliability. He insisted that gelded men, like gelded horses, are easier to control. He believed they made up for their lack of physical strength with their loyalty.

Cyrus may have owed his life to eunuchs, who played a role in saving him as a baby from a murderous plot by his grandfather.

The Greek historian Herodotus also reports that eunuch-bodyguards tried to protect, albeit unsuccessfully, the man on the Persian throne just before Darius the Great took power in 522 BCE (Darius contended that this man was not a real king but an imposter).

The historical record also mentions a Persian eunuch being in charge of a garrison at Gaza around 332 BCE.

The Egyptian pharaoh Amasis, who reigned in the sixth century BCE, also relied on eunuchs to recover fugitive slaves.

Eunuchs appeared in the courts of the Hittites and Assyrians (civilisations in modern-day Turkey and Iraq respectively) from the 13th century BCE.

Assyrian kings often appointed eunuchs as provincial governors. The Assyrian king Shamshi-Adad V (who ruled Assyria 824–811 BCE) praised his chief eunuch Mutarris-Ashur as “clever and experienced in battle”. Mutarris-Ashur led the Assyrian army on a military campaign to the Nairi lands in the Armenian Highlands.

King Ashurbanipal, who ruled the Neo-Assyrian Empire from 669 BCE to 631 BCE, sent his chief eunuch on missions against neighbouring Mannea (a kingdom in modern-day Iran) and the rebellious Gambulu tribe in ancient Babylonia.

Bagoas the eunuch

In the fourth century BCE, there was Bagoas, a Persian court eunuch who is sometimes conflated with a eunuch lover of Alexander the Great who had the same name. Bagoas became the second most important person in the Persian court, after the Persian king.

Bagoas had served in Persian king Artaxerxes III’s campaign against Egypt, and rose to the rank of Chiliarch (the leader of the royal infantry guard).

Bagoas developed a reputation as a kingmaker – he was instrumental in replacing Artaxerxes III with his son, Artaxerxes IV. He later poisoned Artaxerxes IV and installed as king Darius III, who was eventually defeated by Alexander the Great.

Bagoas had plotted to replace Darius too, but Darius outsmarted him; he forced Bagoas to drink the poison the latter had prepared for Darius to drink.

Eunuchs in Rome

Despite the bias of the Greco-Roman sources, including their suspicion of eastern cults that involved eunuch priests, eunuchs were important in Roman imperial service.

The emperor Claudius rewarded his eunuch Posides for his service during Rome’s invasion of Britain in 43 CE.

In 399 CE, the eunuch Eutropius became a powerful consul in Rome’s eastern empire under the emperor Arcadius. Some Romans, however, attacked the appointment of a semivir (half man) as consul as an abomination.

In early Christianity, the concept of becoming a eunuch for the kingdom of God acquired currency. According to some interpretations of the Bible, being a eunuch was connected to the virtues of chastity and celibacy.

By the sixth century CE, Byzantine eunuchs found themselves in charge of large armies. (What we now call the Byzantine Empire, or the Eastern Roman Empire, was known by its people as the Roman Empire until 1453 CE).

Narses was a eunuch and one of the Byzantine emperor Justinian’s great generals. He managed to recapture Italy, including Rome, from the Goths (a Germanic people who had invaded Italy).

Narses, possibly an Armenian by birth, was no armchair general. At the battle of Mons Lactarius (552 or 553 CE), Narses fought on foot with his fellow soldiers against the Goths. He encouraged his men to hang on against a brave enemy.

Despite the stereotypes, eunuchs clearly often played important roles in the ostensibly masculine world of strategic planning and combat.

This plurality of masculinities in the ancient Mediterranean world remains relevant to modern society as it challenges notions of a simple gender binary.

Eva Anagnostou-Laoutides receives funding from the Australian Research Council and the Gerda Henkel Foundation.

Michael B. Charles 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. From Ancient Rome to Persia, eunuchs often led armies and were powerbrokers of the ancient world – https://theconversation.com/from-ancient-rome-to-persia-eunuchs-often-led-armies-and-were-powerbrokers-of-the-ancient-world-235957

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

The Australian National Health and Medical research Council (NHMRC) has today released draft guidelines for acceptable levels of per- and polyfluoroalkyl substances, or PFAS, in drinking water.

PFAS chemicals are also known as “forever chemicals”, because they don’t break down easily and can persist in the environment, including drinking water supplies.

The new guidelines – which are not mandatory but will inform state and territory policy – are expected to be finalised in April 2025. They propose a reduction in the maximum levels previously considered safe for four key PFAS chemicals: PFOS, PFOA, PFHxS and PFBS.

Continually scrutinising and updating our PFAS regulations is important to ensure Australians’ safety. However, these updated guidelines are unlikely to have a significant impact on Australia’s drinking water. The majority of potable water supplies in Australia either have no detectable PFAS, or have levels already below the new limits.

What are PFAS chemicals?

PFAS are highly fat-soluble compounds that are very slow to break down. They are basically long chains of carbon atoms studded with fluorine molecules.

PFAS chemicals are inert, water-repellent and heat-resistant. These properties make them ideal for industrial usage and they have been used in firefighting foams and fire-retardant material. They have also been used in common household items such as nonstick pans and stain-resistant fabrics.

Unfortunately, their useful industrial stability means they persist in the environment and can accumulate in the human body. It can take five years for half an ingested dose of PFAS to be removed.

Given PFAS chemicals have the potential to mimic the body’s own fats, there has been concern they could harm our health if sufficient amounts accumulated in the body.

What sorts of health effects are they linked to?

The buildup of a chemical that’s hard to remove from our bodies is always of concern. Despite this, the potential health risks appear to be low. In 2018 the Australian Expert Health Panel for PFAS looked in detail at the evidence.

One of the largest concerns was PFAS chemicals’ ability to increase levels of cholesterol in the blood, potentially increasing heart disease risk. However, studies of people who have been chronically exposed to significant levels of PFOA have not shown statistically significant increases in heart disease.

In 2018, the report from Australia’s expert health panel stated:

Evidence to date does not establish whether PFAS at exposure levels seen in Australia might increase risks of cardiovascular disease… Established risk factors … are likely to be of a much greater magnitude than those potentially caused by PFAS.

Cancer has also been a concern. However the expert panel found no consistent evidence that PFAS chemicals are associated with cancer. One study even found exposure to PFOA decreased the incidence of bowel cancer.

However, the impact of PFAS on human health is continuously reviewed as new evidence comes to light.

Why has Australia revised its drinking water guidelines?

Australia began to phase out PFAS chemicals in the early 2000s. Since then, the levels of PFAS detected in the Australian population have steadily dropped.

Now that industrial use is being phased out, the main way we are exposed to PFAS is through things like persistent environmental contamination. While drinking water is not a major source of PFAS, water can be contaminated from environmental sources, for example, if contaminated dust or ground water makes its way into reservoirs.

The Australian Drinking Water Guidelines provide limits for how much PFAS is allowed to be in our drinking water.

The NHMRC periodically reviews the health evidence around PFAS used to develop these guidelines, which were last updated in 2018. The latest review looks at additional evidence available since then.

A few developments were of particular interest in this review: studies about the influence of PFAS on thyroid function. Altering thyroid function can be problematic because thyroid hormones regulate our metabolism, growth and development.

The International Agency for Cancer Research’s (IARC) recent ruling on PFAS and cancer also needed to be investigated. The IARC has classified PFOS – one of the four key chemicals Australia is regulating – as “possibly carcinogenic to humans”. However the IARC noted there was “inadequate” evidence PFOS directly causes any type of cancer in people.

This agency can rule on the probability that a chemical can cause cancer under any possible exposure, no matter how extreme. But it doesn’t evaluate the risk of cancer from ordinary exposure.

This means the NHMRC needed to reevaluate the evidence that the levels present in drinking water would constitute a risk.

What are the new PFAS limits?

The NHRMC considered evidence about PFAS exposure in animal studies, and by looking at human epidemiology.

In studies involving animals, the NHMRC review paid particular attention to what concentration of PFAS exposure had no effect on their health. This threshold is used to determine limits for humans, by adding a safety buffer usually a hundred times lower than the level that was safe for animals.

The limits are set are carefully considering the evidence about impact on human health, as well as evaluating how much PFAS exposure is likely from sources beyond drinking water, such as food and inhaled dust.

The proposed limits are:

These guidelines are unlikely to have a significant impact on health. As the NHMRC report shows, majority of potable water supplies in Australia have no detectable PFAS, or levels are already below these new limits.

For example, drinking water sampling for WaterNSW found PFOS levels were between 1.2ng/L and undectable. Similar results were found for PFHxS (between 1.4 and 0.1ng/L) and PFOA (basically undetectable).

While the concentration of PFAS in bores near contamination sites are higher, these are typically not used as sources of drinking water.

The Australian guidelines differ from some international guidelines. The draft guidelines note that different jurisdictions place different weighting on animal and human evidence, and this will affect these regulatory levels.

The draft guidelines are now open to public consultation, with submissions closing on November 22 2024. Final guidelines are expected to be released in April 2025.

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

– ref. Draft guidelines for ‘forever chemicals’ have been released. Here’s what it means for drinking water safety in Australia – https://theconversation.com/draft-guidelines-for-forever-chemicals-have-been-released-heres-what-it-means-for-drinking-water-safety-in-australia-241773

Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Daryl Higgins, Professor & Director, Institute of Child Protection Studies, Australian Catholic University

An ABC report on Monday revealed a concerning rise in peer-on-peer sexual abuse within Australian primary schools.

Data on Victorian schools shows hundreds of such incidents were reported in 2022 and 2023, with many involving children under the age of ten.

The Australian Child Maltreatment Study also showed rates of sexual abuse inflicted by peers has been increasing. Overall, 18.2% of participants aged 16 to 24 reported being sexually abused by a peer during their childhood, compared to 12.1% of those aged 45 years and over.

Parents may be wondering how they can protect their children at school.

One of the most effective tools parents have is open, regular and age-appropriate conversations with their kids.

Read more:
There are reports some students are making sexual moaning noises at school. Here’s how parents and teachers can respond

Talk about boundaries and consent early

What should you be talking about?

It is crucial for parents to talk with their children about boundaries and consent from an early age. For younger children, this can be as simple as teaching them their body belongs to them and no one else has the right to touch them without permission. Asking if its OK for a hug, and respecting when children say “no” is a great start.

When discussing consent, it is important to highlight consent is not just about saying “no”, but also recognising and respecting others’ boundaries.

Peer relationships and trusted adults play a crucial role in a child’s life. Helping children identify adults they can trust if they need to talk about something is also very important. Peers are often the first to hear of concerns or are often the recipients of disclosures, so fostering healthy friendships and teaching children to report to trusted adults is crucial.

Addressing peer pressure and secrecy

Children may feel pressured by peers or may be told to keep certain behaviours secret.

It is essential for parents to emphasise no matter who asks them to keep a secret, they should always share concerns or things they are unsure about with a trusted adult.

Parents can reinforce the message that if someone tells them not to tell, it is a “red flag”.

Children can often feel unsure or scared of whether what has happened is wrong. This is why encouraging openness and creating a nonjudgmental space for children to share is important.

Discussing online safety

Research shows exposure to harmful material, like pornography, is a contributing factor to inappropriate sexual behaviour among peers.

Being aware of your child’s internet use and educating them on how to keep themselves safe online is crucial.

What else can parents do?

While conversations with your children are vital, parents can also take practical steps to ensure their child’s safety at school. These include:

• familiarising yourself with school policies: understand the school’s procedures for reporting bullying, harassment and sexual abuse. Parents should ask about how teachers manage supervision during breaks or other occasions where children may be less well unsupervised

• advocating for comprehensive sex education at your school: when parents are involved in sex education it leads to better outcomes for children. Check what your school covers in the curriculum. Ask about what supports are available to parents, and how you can be involved

• getting involved in your child’s social world: knowing who your child’s friends are and staying connected with teachers can offer insight into troubling dynamics. Create opportunities for your child to talk about their friendships and school experiences regularly. And as they start navigating the digital world, it’s even more important to know who they are engaging with

• teach assertiveness and confidence: find ways to empower your child to speak up for themselves when they are unsure, or something feels wrong. Don’t leave this up to a class teacher to deal with in respectful relationship education. At home, you can encourage assertiveness in expressing their preferences and boundaries. You can also model how to stand up to peer pressure. Children can learn and be encouraged to say simple phrases such as, “stop, I don’t like it” or “no, I don’t want to”.

If there is a problem

If you do come across an issue or problem, try and work with your school. Despite your distress, try not to be adversarial – rather pitch your conversation to the teacher or principal as “How can I help us work through this together?”

Parental involvement in education, can reduce the risk of child sexual abuse. If parents and schools can work together, they are more likely to be effective in keeping children safe.

Prevention requires vigilance, communication and support from both parents and schools. Parents play a crucial role in shaping their child’s understanding of what’s OK, what’s harmful, as well as boundaries, safety and consent.

By having ongoing conversations, staying informed, and working with schools, parents are the first step to creating safety for children – and supporting them if something goes wrong.

Daryl Higgins receives funding from the Australian Research Council, the National Health and Medical Research Council and a range of government departments, agencies, and service providers, including Bravehearts. He was a Chief Investigator on the Australian Child Maltreatment Study.

Gabrielle works with the Australian Child Maltreatment Study (ACMS) team as part of her PhD Candidature. She has also previously worked for Bravehearts in various roles, including for the Turning Corners program, which provides support to young people who have displayed harmful sexual behaviours.

– ref. With reports of students abusing peers in primary schools, how can parents help keep their kids safe? – https://theconversation.com/with-reports-of-students-abusing-peers-in-primary-schools-how-can-parents-help-keep-their-kids-safe-241786

Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Jonathan Boymal, Associate Professor of Economics, RMIT University

Australia’s fertility rate has fallen to a new record low of 1.5 babies per woman. That’s well below the “replacement rate” of 2.1 needed to sustain a country’s population.

On face value, it might not seem like a big deal. But we can’t afford to ignore this issue. The health of an economy is deeply intertwined with the size and structure of its population.

Australians simply aren’t having as many babies as they used to, raising some serious questions about how we can maintain our country’s workforce, sustain economic growth and fund important services.

So what’s going on with fertility rates here and around the world, and what might it mean for the future of our economy? What can we do about it?

Are lower birth rates always a problem?

Falling fertility rates can actually have some short-term benefits. Having fewer dependent young people in an economy can increase workforce participation, as well as boost savings and wealth.

Smaller populations can also benefit from increased investment per person in education and health.

But the picture gets more complex in the long term, and less rosy. An ageing population can strain pensions, health care and social services. This can hinder economic growth, unless it’s offset by increased productivity.

Other scholars have warned that a falling population could stifle innovation, with fewer young people meaning fewer breakthrough ideas.

A global phenomenon

The trend towards women having fewer children is not unique to Australia. The global fertility rate has dropped over the past couple of decades, from 2.7 babies per woman in 2000 to 2.4 in 2023.

However, the distribution is not evenly spread. In 2021, 29% of the world’s babies were born in sub-Saharan Africa. This is projected to rise to 54% by 2100.

There’s also a regional-urban divide. Childbearing is often delayed in urban areas and late fertility is more common in cities.

In Australia, we see higher fertility rates in inner and outer regional areas than in metro areas. This could be because of more affordable housing and a better work-life balance.

But it raises questions about whether people are moving out of cities to start families, or if something intrinsic about living in the regions promotes higher birth rates.

Fewer workers, more pressure on services

Changes to the makeup of a population can be just as important as changes to its size. With fewer babies being born and increased life expectancy, the proportion of older Australians who have left the workforce will keep rising.

One way of tracking this is with a metric called the old-age dependency ratio – the number of people aged 65 and over per 100 working-age individuals.

In Australia, this ratio is currently about 27%. But according to the latest Intergenerational Report, it’s expected to rise to 38% by 2063.

An ageing population means greater demand for medical services and aged care. As the working-age population shrinks, the tax base that funds these services will also decline.

Unless this is offset by technological advances or policy innovations, it can mean higher taxes, longer working lives, or the government providing fewer public services in general.

What about housing?

It’s tempting to think a falling birth rate might be good news for Australia’s stubborn housing crisis.

The issues are linked – rising real estate prices have made it difficult for many young people to afford homes, with a significant number of people in their 20s still living with their parents.

This can mean delaying starting a family and reducing the number of children they have.

At the same time, if fertility rates stay low, demand for large family homes may decrease, impacting one of Australia’s most significant economic sectors and sources of household wealth.

Read more:
No savings? No plans? No Great Australian Dream. How housing is reshaping young people’s lives

Can governments turn the tide?

Governments worldwide, including Australia, have long experimented with policies that encourage families to have more children. Examples include paid parental leave, childcare subsidies and financial incentives, such as Australia’s “baby bonus”.

Many of these efforts have had only limited success. One reason is the rising average age at which women have their first child. In many developed countries, including Australia, the average age for first-time mothers has surpassed 30.

As women delay childbirth, they become less likely to have multiple children, further contributing to declining birth rates. Encouraging women to start a family earlier could be one policy lever, but it must be balanced with women’s growing workforce participation and career goals.

Research has previously highlighted the factors influencing fertility decisions, including levels of paternal involvement and workplace flexibility. Countries that offer part-time work or maternity leave without career penalties have seen a stabilisation or slight increases in fertility rates.

The way forward

Historically, one of the ways Australia has countered its low birth rate is through immigration. Bringing in a lot of people – especially skilled people of working age – can help offset the effects of a low fertility rate.

However, relying on immigration alone is not a long-term solution. The global fertility slump means that the pool of young, educated workers from other countries is shrinking, too. This makes it harder for Australia to attract the talent it needs to sustain economic growth.

Australia’s record-low fertility rate presents both challenges and opportunities. On one hand, the shrinking number of young people will place a strain on public services, innovation and the labour market.

On the other hand, advances in technology, particularly in artificial intelligence and robotics, may help ease the challenges of an ageing population.

That’s the optimistic scenario. AI and other tech-driven productivity gains could reduce the need for large workforces. And robotics could assist in aged care, lessening the impact of this demographic shift.

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. Australia’s fertility rate has reached a record low. What might that mean for the economy? – https://theconversation.com/australias-fertility-rate-has-reached-a-record-low-what-might-that-mean-for-the-economy-241577

Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Raffaele F Ciriello, Senior Lecturer in Business Information Systems, University of Sydney

Irish writer John Connolly once said:

The nature of humanity, its essence, is to feel another’s pain as one’s own, and to act to take that pain away.

For most of our history, we believed empathy was a uniquely human trait – a special ability that set us apart from machines and other animals. But this belief is now being challenged.

As AI becomes a bigger part of our lives, entering even our most intimate spheres, we’re faced with a philosophical conundrum: could attributing human qualities to AI diminish our own human essence? Our research suggests it can.

Digitising companionship

In recent years, AI “companion” apps such as Replika have attracted millions of users. Replika allows users to create custom digital partners to engage in intimate conversations. Members who pay for Replika Pro can even turn their AI into a “romantic partner”.

Physical AI companions aren’t far behind. Companies such as JoyLoveDolls are selling interactive sex robots with customisable features including breast size, ethnicity, movement and AI responses such as moaning and flirting.

While this is currently a niche market, history suggests today’s digital trends will become tomorrow’s global norms. With about one in four adults experiencing loneliness, the demand for AI companions will grow.

The dangers of humanising AI

Humans have long attributed human traits to non-human entities – a tendency known as anthropomorphism. It’s no surprise we’re doing this with AI tools such as ChatGPT, which appear to “think” and “feel”. But why is humanising AI a problem?

For one thing, it allows AI companies to exploit our tendency to form attachments with human-like entities. Replika is marketed as “the AI companion who cares”. However, to avoid legal issues, the company elsewhere points out Replika isn’t sentient and merely learns through millions of user interactions.

Some AI companies overtly claim their AI assistants have empathy and can even anticipate human needs. Such claims are misleading and can take advantage of people seeking companionship. Users may become deeply emotionally invested if they believe their AI companion truly understands them.

This raises serious ethical concerns. A user will hesitate to delete (that is, to “abandon” or “kill”) their AI companion once they’ve ascribed some kind of sentience to it.

But what happens when said companion unexpectedly disappears, such as if the user can no longer afford it, or if the company that runs it shuts down? While the companion may not be real, the feelings attached to it are.

Empathy – more than a programmable output

By reducing empathy to a programmable output, do we risk diminishing its true essence? To answer this, let’s first think about what empathy really is.

Empathy involves responding to other people with understanding and concern. It’s when you share your friend’s sorrow as they tell you about their heartache, or when you feel joy radiating from someone you care about. It’s a profound experience – rich and beyond simple forms of measurement.

A fundamental difference between humans and AI is that humans genuinely feel emotions, while AI can only simulate them. This touches on the hard problem of consciousness, which questions how subjective human experiences arise from physical processes in the brain.

While AI can simulate understanding, any “empathy” it purports to have is a result of programming that mimics empathetic language patterns. Unfortunately, AI providers have a financial incentive to trick users into growing attached to their seemingly empathetic products.

The dehumanAIsation hypothesis

Our “dehumanAIsation hypothesis” highlights the ethical concerns that come with trying to reduce humans to some basic functions that can be replicated by a machine. The more we humanise AI, the more we risk dehumanising ourselves.

For instance, depending on AI for emotional labour could make us less tolerant of the imperfections of real relationships. This could weaken our social bonds and even lead to emotional deskilling. Future generations may become less empathetic – losing their grasp on essential human qualities as emotional skills continue to be commodified and automated.

Also, as AI companions become more common, people may use them to replace real human relationships. This would likely increase loneliness and alienation – the very issues these systems claim to help with.

AI companies’ collection and analysis of emotional data also poses significant risks, as these data could be used to manipulate users and maximise profit. This would further erode our privacy and autonomy, taking surveillance capitalism to the next level.

Holding providers accountable

Regulators need to do more to hold AI providers accountable. AI companies should be honest about what their AI can and can’t do, especially when they risk exploiting users’ emotional vulnerabilities.

Exaggerated claims of “genuine empathy” should be made illegal. Companies making such claims should be fined – and repeat offenders shut down.

Data privacy policies should also be clear, fair and without hidden terms that allow companies to exploit user-generated content.

We must preserve the unique qualities that define the human experience. While AI can enhance certain aspects of life, it can’t – and shouldn’t – replace genuine human connection.

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. Humanising AI could lead us to dehumanise ourselves – https://theconversation.com/humanising-ai-could-lead-us-to-dehumanise-ourselves-240803

Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Annette Greenhow, Assistant Professor, Faculty of Law, Bond University

In September 2023, an Australian Senate committee released a landmark report on concussions and repeated head trauma in contact sports.

The committee made 13 recommendations to improve outcomes for past, present and future players.

The report emphasised shared responsibility and transparency in developing a national approach, with the government to lead nine of the recommendations.

As of October 2024, no official government update has been provided.

We’ve assessed the status of the recommendations – of the publicly available sources, we found evidence of action in some areas but no national strategy in directly addressing the focus of several key recommendations.

As part of this review, we searched the websites of the Australian government’s Department of Health and Aged Care and the Australian Sports Commission/Australian Institute of Sport (ASC/AIS).

We approached the Senate committee secretary and the Department of Health and Aged Care for more information but neither was able to comment.

We acknowledge there is likely more work going on behind the scenes, and these processes take time.

Here’s what we found.

Progress being made

In the past year, there has been progress made with several recommendations including those addressing community awareness, education and guidelines for amateur and youth sports.

The AIS continues to engage in health-led efforts with a suite of resources aimed at increasing community awareness and education.

In June this year, the institute published a new set of return-to-play guidelines specifically targeting community and youth athletes.

This represents a tangible response from a federally funded sporting body.

However, these guidelines must be easily implemented by clubs. To date, there is no indication the government plans to increase funding or resources to clubs to help do so.

The committee also called for national sporting organisations to “further explore rule modifications to prevent and reduce the impact of concussions and repeated head trauma, prioritising modifications for children and adolescents”.

Several major sporting codes have modified their rules and we expect them to remain focused on rule modifications to ensure the longevity of their sports.

General practitioners (GPs) are often the first port of call after a concussion, and the committee recommended the development of standardised guidelines for GPs and first aid responders.

This addresses concerns that GPs may require additional training in treating sport-related brain trauma.

In response, the AIS developed a free, online short course for registered GPs.

Work in progress, or lack of progress?

There appears to be work in progress or a lack of progress elsewhere, including key recommendations for a National Sports Injury Database (NSID) and professional sport data sharing.

The inquiry highlighted how patchy data collection had contributed to evidence gaps in understanding sports injury management and surveillance. The committee’s most urgent recommendation therefore was for the government to establish the NSID.

This would work closely with another recommendation that called for professional sport codes to collect and share de-identified concussion and sub-concussive event data with the NSID.

As of October 2024, the Australian Institute of Health and Welfare reports the NSID is still under development and is not yet ready to receive data.

Other recommendations related to research – establishing an independent research pathway, ongoing funding commitments and a co-ordinated and consolidated funding framework.

These recommendations called for the government’s existing agencies, or a newly created body, to coordinate research on the effects of concussion and repeated head trauma.

No new dedicated sports-related concussion research pathways have emerged since the inquiry.

In terms of funding commitments, in April this year – after former rugby league star Wally Lewis’s National Press Club appearance – Dementia Australia reported the government had pledged $A18 million for concussion and CTE support services and education.

Read more:
Why a portrait of a former NRL great could spark greater concussion awareness in Australia

The May 2024 federal budget allocated $132.7 million to boost sports participation from grassroots to high performance. But this did not address concussion and repeated head trauma, and we haven’t been able to find evidence of a co-ordinated and consolidated funding framework.

Our view is concussion funding pools should be primarily focused on supporting independent research projects. However, sporting bodies clearly need to be involved – they provide access to athlete populations and most people in these organisations have a genuine care for athlete welfare.

Another recommendation called for a national concussion strategy. This should focus on binding return-to-play protocols and rules to protect participants from head injuries.

The recommendation included a role for government and whether any existing government bodies would be best placed to monitor, oversee and/or enforce concussion-related rules and protocols.

In our view, this recommendation involves much more than producing guidelines. It requires a more comprehensive national strategy, with consideration to monitoring compliance and enforcement.

We could not find any evidence indicating the current status of this recommendation.

Increased funding and support for affected athletes were also focus areas.

These recommendations called for a review to address barriers to workers’ compensation and ensure adequate insurance arrangements remain in place.

We could not find any evidence of whether state and territory governments are involved in the reviews of workers compensation to apply to professional athletes.

The committee recommenced the government consider measures to increase donations to brain banks for scientific research.

We couldn’t find any evidence of steps taken to implement this recommendation.

Moving forward

There has been progress in education and guidelines but a lack of the coordinated, transparent approach the committee envisioned.

A formal government response, as demonstrated in Canada and the United Kingdom, is essential to establish trust and chart a clear path forward.

The Australian government, as guardian of the Australian public’s health, has an opportunity to do the same.

Annette Greenhow receives funding from SSHRC Partnership Development Grant. Annette is a Board Member of the Australian and New Zealand Sports Law Association. The views expressed in this article are her own.

Stephen Townsend 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. A year on from the Senate inquiry into concussion, what’s changed and what comes next? – https://theconversation.com/a-year-on-from-the-senate-inquiry-into-concussion-whats-changed-and-what-comes-next-239929

Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Jongkil Jay Jeong, Senior Research Fellow in the School of Computing and Information System, The University of Melbourne

Despite huge advances in cyber security, one weakness continues to overshadow all others: human error.

Research has consistently shown human error is responsible for an overwhelming majority of successful cyber attacks. A recent report puts the figure at 68%.

No matter how advanced our technological defences become, the human element is likely to remain the weakest link in the cyber security chain. This weakness affects everyone using digital devices, yet traditional cyber education and awareness programs – and even new, forward-looking laws – fail to adequately address it.

So, how can we deal with human-centric cyber security related challenges?

Understanding human error

There are two types of human error in the context of cyber security.

The first is skills-based errors. These occur when people are doing routine things – especially when their attention is diverted.

For example, you might forget to back up desktop data from your computer. You know you should do it and know how to do it (because you have done it before). But because you need to get home early, forgot when you did it last or had lots of emails to respond to, you don’t. This may make you more exposed to a hacker’s demands in the event of a cyber attack, as there are no alternatives to retrieve the original data.

The second type is knowledge-based errors. These occur when someone with less experience makes cyber security mistakes because they lack important knowledge or don’t follow specific rules.

For example, you might click on a link in an email from an unknown contact, even if you don’t know what will happen. This could lead to you being hacked and losing your money and data, as the link might contain dangerous malware.

Traditional approaches fall short

Organisations and governments have invested heavily in cyber security education programs to address human error. However, these programs have had mixed results at best.

This is partly because many programs take a technology-centric, one-size-fits-all approach. They often focus on specific technical aspects, such as improving password hygiene or implementing multi-factor authentication. Yet, they don’t address the underlying psychological and behavioural issues that influence people’s actions.

The reality is that changing human behaviour is far more complex than simply providing information or mandating certain practices. This is especially true in the context of cyber security.

Public health campaigns such as the “Slip, Slop, Slap” sun safety initiative in Australia and New Zealand illustrate what works.

Since this campaign started four decades ago, melanoma cases in both countries have fallen significantly. Behavioural change requires ongoing investment into promoting awareness.

The same principle applies to cyber security education. Just because people know best practices doesn’t mean they will consistently apply them – especially when faced with competing priorities or time pressures.

New laws fall short

The Australian government’s proposed cyber security law focuses on several key areas, including:

• combating ransomware attacks
• enhancing information sharing between businesses and government agencies
• strengthening data protection in critical infrastructure sectors, such as energy, transport and communications
• expanding investigative powers for cyber incidents
• introducing minimum security standards for smart devices.

These measures are crucial. However, like traditional cyber security education programs, they primarily address technical and procedural aspects of cyber security.

The United States is taking a different approach. Its Federal Cybersecurity Research and Development Strategic Plan includes “human-centred cybersecurity” as its first and most important priority.

The plan says

A greater emphasis is needed on human-centered approaches to cybersecurity where people’s needs, motivations, behaviours, and abilities are at the forefront of determining the design, operation, and security of information technology systems.

3 rules for human-centric cyber security

So, how can we adequately address the issue of human error in cyber security? Here are three key strategies based on the latest research.

1. Minimise cognitive load. Cyber security practices should be designed to be as intuitive and effortless as possible. Training programs should focus on simplifying complex concepts and integrating security practices seamlessly into daily workflows.

2. Foster a positive cyber security attitude. Instead of relying on fear tactics, education should emphasise the positive outcomes of good cyber security practices. This approach can help motivate people to improve their cyber security behaviours.

3. Adopt a long-term perspective. Changing attitudes and behaviours is not a single event but a continuous process. Cyber security education should be ongoing, with regular updates to address evolving threats.

Ultimately, creating a truly secure digital environment requires a holistic approach. It needs to combine robust technology, sound policies, and, most importantly, ensuring people are well-educated and security conscious.

If we can better understand what’s behind human error, we can design more effective training programs and security practices that work with, rather than against, human nature.

Jongkil Jay Jeong 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. Human error is the weakest link in the cyber security chain. Here are 3 ways to fix it – https://theconversation.com/human-error-is-the-weakest-link-in-the-cyber-security-chain-here-are-3-ways-to-fix-it-241459

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

Federal Environment Minister Tanya Plibersek’s recent decision to approve expansion plans for three New South Wales coal mines disappointed many people concerned with stabilising the global climate.

Two of these mines, Narrabri and Mount Pleasant in New South Wales, featured in the high-profile but ultimately unsuccessful Living Wonders court case, intended to force the federal government to take account of climate damage done by coal mine approvals. A lawyer involved in the case said Plibersek’s decision showed a refusal to “recognise their climate harms”.

Why did Plibersek sign off on this? She has argued the mines will abide by domestic industrial emissions rules. As her spokesperson told the ABC:

The emissions from these projects will be considered by the minister for climate change and energy under the government’s strong climate laws.

But these laws apply only to emissions produced in Australia, which in this case will be from extracting and transporting coal and the relatively small amount of coal burned here. Most of the coal will be exported and burned overseas. Australian laws do not count those much larger emissions.

The government is effectively washing its hands of the far larger emissions created when the coal is burned overseas. Since taking office, the Albanese government has approved seven applications to open or expand coal mines. Just this week, NSW Treasurer Daniel Mookhey said his state would keep exporting coal into the 2040s.

This reasoning doesn’t stack up. If we stopped expanding coal mines, coal would get more expensive – and we would accelerate the global shift to clean energy.

How can more coal be compatible with net zero?

Under the 2015 Paris Agreement on climate action, nations must publicly commit to domestic emissions reductions goals and are expected to steadily ramp up ambition.

But these emissions cuts are domestic only – we don’t measure the emissions we enable by exporting coal and gas.

The Albanese government has increased domestic ambition by committing to a 43% reduction on 2005 figures by 2030. This seems to be a substantial advance on the 26-28% commitment made by the previous government. In reality, internal tensions in the Morrison Coalition government handed Labor an unintentional gift.

In 2021, estimates suggested Australia was already on track for a 35% reduction. But internal opposition among Coalition backbenchers stopped Morrison announcing this as a target. As a result, Labor’s change looks about twice as impressive as it should.

Still, progress is happening. Domestically, Australia is now burning less and less coal.

But in terms of exports, the government’s position – clear in Plibersek’s decision as well as the government’s plan to keep gas flowing for decades – is as long as there is a demand for coal and gas from other countries, Australia will be ready and willing to meet it.

Most of the coal unlocked by Plibersek’s decision will go overseas, given NSW exports 85% of its coal to partners such as Japan, China, South Korea and Taiwan.

How does the government defend this?

Expanding coal mines while maintaining a public commitment to net zero is a consistent theme between this government and its predecessor, which also committed to net zero. It meets a minimal interpretation of our legal obligations under the Paris Agreement, but maintains the planet’s path towards dangerous warming.

In her statement of reasons given in 2023 as to why the Mount Pleasant mine expansion should be permitted, Plibersek and the Labor government offer several defences.

The first is she is simply acting in accordance with Australian law, as the project would comply with “applicable Commonwealth emissions reduction legislation”. This is a weak reed, to put it mildly. The Albanese government, with the support of Greens and independents, can change the law whenever it chooses.

In reality, the government has steadfastly resisted pressure to include a “climate trigger” in Australia’s environmental approval processes. Their resistance is relatively new – as recently as 2016, Labor policy included a climate trigger for land clearing.

Labor’s second defence has often been dubbed the “drug dealer’s defence”. That is, if Australia didn’t export coal, other producers would take our place. As Prime Minister Anthony Albanese has put it:

policies that would just result in a replacement of Australian resources with resources that are less clean from other countries would lead to an increase in global emissions, not a decrease.

As I’ve argued previously, this defence doesn’t work. Coal is subject to a rising cost curve – if we stopped exporting it, new or expanded production from other sources would cost more to extract and hence be priced higher. More expensive coal would, in turn, accelerate the global energy transition. We do have agency – we could choose not to unlock more coal.

Finally, Plibersek claims emissions from burning Mount Pleasant coal – estimated at over 500 million tonnes of carbon dioxide equivalent over the mine’s extended lifetime – would not be “substantial” relative to total global emissions. For context, Australia’s total emissions are now less than 500 million tonnes a year.

This “litterbug’s defence” suggest Australia’s emissions – whether produced domestically or exported – are not big enough to make a difference. This is not true – we are now the second largest exporter of emissions globally, after Russia. That is due largely to coal.

Are fossil fuel exports untouchable?

There’s a huge gap between global pledges to cut emissions and the reductions needed to actually achieve the Paris targets. Most countries we export coal and gas to are not yet on a path to achieve the reductions in emissions necessary to stabilise the global climate – though China’s emissions may, remarkably, be about to decline.

That’s why we need to press for decarbonisation at every stage of the energy system, from extraction of coal, oil and gas to the financing of new carbon-based projects as well as at the point where the fuel is burned and emissions produced generated.

The problem for Australia is we sell a lot of coal and gas – more than ever before. So even as solar and wind energy begins to displace coal and gas in domestic power generation, our coal and gas exports seem all but untouchable.

We should be saddened but not surprised at this pattern. The Albanese government seems guided by the principle of doing nothing to generate substantial opposition – and to count on the fact a Dutton Coalition government would do even less.

John Quiggin is a former member of the Climate Change Authority

– ref. Expanding coal mines – and reaching net zero? Tanya Plibersek seems to believe both are possible – https://theconversation.com/expanding-coal-mines-and-reaching-net-zero-tanya-plibersek-seems-to-believe-both-are-possible-241007