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

Listening to the politicians and union leaders, one could be forgiven for thinking Nine’s Nick McKenzie and his journalist colleagues were the only ones aware of the nefarious activities in the CFMEU.

Amid the revelations from Nine’s investigation, Workplace Relations Minister Tony Burke told the ABC on Sunday “all options” for action were on the table, and he had asked for departmental advice.

By Monday morning the union’s national secretary Zach Smith had put the Victorian branch into administration.

Victorian Premier Jacinta Allan whipped off a request for Labor’s national executive to suspend the CFMEU’s construction division from the Victorian Labor Party. She also asked Victorian Labor “to immediately pause political donations from the CFMEU”.

Anthony Albanese declared “zero tolerance” for the union’s bad behaviour. ACTU secretary Sally McManus said there was “no place whatsoever” for criminal activities in unions: the ACTU executive will meet on Wednesday to discuss matters.

The allegations made in the Nine reports include thuggery, standover tactics, the parachuting of senior bikie figures into lucrative union delegate roles on major Victorian construction projects, kickbacks, and much else.

The series is a remarkable expose. But it is hard to credit that senior players, including the minister, his department, the national office of the union, and federal authorities were not able to find out what was happening without the assistance of McKenzie and co.

Surely, some of them would have had their ears to the ground. If they didn’t, it can only be put down to incompetence or that they didn’t seriously seek to hear (despite all those visits to construction sites in hi-vis).

After he became opposition leader, Anthony Albanese drove the union’s strong man, John Setka, out of the Labor Party, following his disparaging the work of Rosie Batty, a campaigner against domestic violence. But the union movement could not dislodge him. McManus urged him to quit his union post for the good of the movement, to no effect.

In 2020 the union’s national secretary Michael O’Connor (one of the union’s good guys and brother of federal minister Brendan O’Connor) quit his post after prolonged pressure from Setka’s construction division. His apparent sin was not defending Setka following his conviction for harassing his wife.

It was only last Friday, facing the Nine expose, that Setka (who had been due to leave his position later this year) suddenly resigned as Victorian and Tasmanian secretary of the union.

Labor in government has twice bowed to what the CFMEU – and the wider union movement – wanted: the abolition of the Australian Building and Construction Commission, the so-called cop-on-the-beat.

The Gillard government got rid of the ABCC. The Coalition restored it. Tony Burke scrapped it again. Burke was so anxious to act that he defanged the body ahead of having the legislation passed.

Burke said on Sunday the allegations reported in the Nine expose (to that point) related to when the ABCC was in operation.

“It completely failed, for the simple reason that the whole concept of it was wrong from the beginning, which was about pushing people into their corners,” Burke said.

“That’s what it was about, and that meant that you would always in those situations empower the most militant players. That’s what happens when you push people into their corners.”

This sounded like a stretch. But accepting the ABCC was ineffective, the latest revelations suggest it should have been beefed up, not scrapped.

The government recently rushed through parliament legislation to allow the manufacturing part of the CFMFU to split off.

Nine reported this followed a long campaign by CFMEU’s assistant national secretary Leo Skourdoumbis. For his trouble Skourdoumbis received what Nine described as “a menacing nighttime visit” by Setka to the family home”, where he dumped a suitcase with the words “LEO THE DOG” scrawled on it. The incident was captured by a neighbour’s CCTV.

A few years ago the Morrison government legislated to allow the mining and energy division to leave the union.

Its members were anxious to take the exit path. A resolution said: “The ruthless use of raw numbers against the smaller divisions; the disrespect and disregard shown to the views of mining and energy workers; and the public undermining of our former national secretary [Michael O’Connor] to settle a personal score, is simply intolerable.

“It is clear that there is no longer a place of equality and dignity for the mining and energy division within the amalgamated union.”

What the union and the government – that was expected to discuss the situation at Monday’s cabinet meeting – do now must be judged in terms of actions, not fighting or reassuring words.

Burke might be right in noting deregistration could be counterproductive, just reducing the regulation of the union rather than enhancing it.

The union, pledging to change its ways, will want to be left, to the greatest extent possible, to reform itself. Zach Smith is one of the up-and-comers of the union movement, with a lot to prove.

But after all that’s gone before, the union can’t be trusted to clean out its Augean stables. Burke must recognise this – he said on Monday the union’s response so far was “progress, but falls short”.

The government needs to use its powers to impose independent administrators or some other process.

Labor also should show its seriousness by putting a moratorium on political donations from the union (whose construction division donated $1 million to the federal party for the last election). When asked about this on Monday, the prime minister dodged the questions. He said such matters were for the party organisation.

Labor’s national executive will meet this week, to discuss the Allan request and, no doubt, the question of donations. We’ll see whether “everything” is really on the table, as the government says.

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: If it’s serious about CFMEU, Labor should decline its money – https://theconversation.com/view-from-the-hill-if-its-serious-about-cfmeu-labor-should-decline-its-money-234670

Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Rosemary Gibson, Lecturer in Contract Law, The University of Queensland

This article is part of The Conversation’s “Business Basics” series where we ask experts to discuss key concepts in business, economics and finance.

In the Bluey episode “The Sign”, the Heeler family enters a contract to sell their family home to a pair of English Sheepdogs, or as Bluey calls them, “the dogs with no eyes”.

But towards the end of the episode, the Sheepdogs spy another house that they prefer. Unlike Bluey’s house, the new place has a pool.

They telephone Bandit and tell him that they have changed their mind. Happily for Bluey’s family – and let’s face it, most of Australia – Bandit decides not to press ahead with the sale and the Heelers end up staying put in their family home.

But aside from the fact that the contracting parties are all cartoon dogs – how realistic is this scenario? Is it possible to end a contract to purchase or sell a house simply because you’ve changed your mind?

The reality is that once a contract of sale is signed, there are only limited circumstances in which buyers and sellers can bring the contract to an end.

What do you sign when buying or selling a house?

In Australia, each state and territory has its own standard form contract for the sale of land that buyers and sellers must sign.

The terms of these contracts mirror relevant state or territory laws, meaning they differ throughout Australia. It is important for parties to obtain advice from a property lawyer with experience in a particular jurisdiction’s contract.

Can you change your mind after signing?

Once a contract has been signed, a buyer may only end it for a “change of mind” during the “cooling off period”. The cooling off period is a short period of time – usually between two and five business days – after the contract is signed.

During this time, the buyer can end the contract, “no questions asked”. But there are usually financial consequences for terminating during the cooling off period.

For example, in New South Wales, Queensland and the ACT, a buyer who ends the contract during the cooling off period must pay the seller 0.25% of the purchase price. For a house purchase of A$1 million, this termination penalty would be $2,500.

But not all states and territories guarantee a cooling off period for buyers. And in such a hot property market, an individual seller may be unlikely to agree to include such a term in a contract.

What if something goes wrong down the track?

When negotiating the contract terms, the parties may agree that the sale is subject to certain conditions. Typically, these conditions are in the purchaser’s favour. If one of the conditions is not satisfied in time, then the contract can be brought to an end.

It is up to the parties to negotiate which conditions (if any) are included in the contract, and the time by which the conditions must be satisfied. The most common conditions of sale are:

• the buyer obtains finance by a certain date (a finance clause)
• the buyer obtains satisfactory building and pest inspection reports by a certain date (a building and pest clause).

The buyer may also want the sale to be subject to the buyer first selling an existing property.

Once all of the conditions of sale are satisfied, the contract is said to be “unconditional”. From this time, there are no express circumstances in which either party may bring the contract to an end.

When the Sheepdogs telephoned Bandit, the Heelers had already moved all their furniture out of the house. Clearly, the sale had already gone unconditional. There was no express basis on which the Sheepdogs could have terminated the contract.

Could the Heelers have sued for breach of contact?

A party who ends a contract without justification is liable to pay compensation to the other party.

A house purchaser who wrongly terminates a contract would almost certainly lose their deposit. They may also be liable for additional losses the seller suffers as a result of the breach, including any deficiency in price on a resale of the property.

But a buyer and seller may bring a contract to an end by “mutual agreement”, which seems to be what happened in Bluey. The Sheepdogs sought to end the contract and – to the relief of all Australians – the Heelers agreed.

This is, however, unlikely to occur “in real life”, especially in today’s highly competitive property market.

At the very least, the seller would be entitled to retain the purchaser’s deposit. There would also be the issue of who bears the costs incurred in advertising and agency fees.

It seems Bandit followed his heart rather than the strict terms of the contract — and Australia is the better for it.

Rosemary Gibson 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. Can you change your mind after you buy a house? – https://theconversation.com/can-you-change-your-mind-after-you-buy-a-house-234659

Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Adam Daniel, Associate Lecturer in Communications, Western Sydney University

This year marks the 25th anniversary of The Blair Witch Project, a film that popularised the found-footage horror sub-genre and captivated a generation of horror fans.

Made on a shoestring budget of less than US$60,000 by writer/director team Daniel Myrick and Eduardo Sanchez, the film went on to gross US$248 million internationally, becoming one of the most successful films of all time by return on investment.

It also inspired a generation of indie filmmakers to overcome the limitations of low-budget filmmaking by leaning into the explicit presence of a camera within the story, such as with the Paranormal Activity series (2007–15), Creep (2014) and Hell House LLC (2015). In more recent tributes to the genre, such as the 2023 film Missing, older-style cameras are replaced with phone and laptop cameras.

Between reality and fiction

The Blair Witch Project famously opens with the following title card:

In October of 1994, three student filmmakers disappeared in the woods near Burkittsville, Maryland while shooting a documentary called ‘The Blair Witch Project’. A year later their footage was found.

This introduction – and the promotion of the film as a record of true events – was part of a successful viral marketing strategy that leveraged the burgeoning internet culture of the time.

This strategy included a website which presented further details about the disturbing legend of the Blair Witch and the police investigation into the disappearance of students Heather, Mike and Josh.

Combined with the buzz from a successful Sundance debut in January 1999, the mythology surrounding the film intrigued audiences. And some viewers considered the possibility what they were watching was a genuine set of recordings – and not just fiction.

This conceit of blurring the line between fiction and reality had already been established in cult horror movies such as Ruggero Deodato’s 1980 film Cannibal Holocaust. But it was The Blair Witch Project that catapulted found-footage horror into the broader public consciousness.

The rise of reality TV in the 2000s meant viewers were increasingly being presented with documentary-style images which were claimed to be authentic (despite their constructed nature). In my book on found-footage horror, I argue the growing presence of screens and cameras in everyday life also contributed to the sub-genre’s popularity.

Found-footage scholar Alexandra Heller-Nicholas describes the experience of watching found-footage horror as an invitation to “indulge in an active horror fantasy”. Part of the appeal, she says, emerges from “something we rationally know not to be true (the supernatural)” being temporarily accepted as true because of our trust in the documentary-style aesthetic.

But of course, this temporary acceptance is underpinned by the knowledge the events are not real.

The future of Blair Witch

Since the early 2000s, there has been a marked decrease in the power of such “active horror fantasy” at the cinema. This is no doubt related to the public’s increasing scepticism of the visual image.

Speaking to The New York Times, The Blair Witch Project creators Myrick and Sanchez acknowledge that part of the success of the film was that it was a product of a unique window of time (before the media identified it as fiction). In 2016, a sequel to the two original Blair Witch films was met with a middling critical and audience response, seemingly confirming their beliefs.

This year, film studios Lionsgate and Blumhouse touted plans for a new sequel to The Blair Witch Project, although the original filmmaking team and cast were reportedly not approached for input. Upon hearing the news, the cast shared an open letter calling for retroactive compensation and meaningful consultation on the new film.

On a recent podcast, Sanchez shared his hopes for both a prequel set in the 1700s and a potential TV series that picks up where the original film ended.

New generations of film makers

While the presence of found-footage horror at the cinema may have declined in recent decades, the internet and streaming have provided a location for those inspired by The Blair Witch Project to continue to draw on the film’s aesthetics and storytelling devices.

Running from 2009 to 2014, the web series Marble Hornets adapted the Slenderman mythology as a found-footage exploration of a mysterious entity haunting the lives and cameras of a group of college students.

More recently, YouTuber Kane Parsons created a viral sensation by adapting a creepypasta known as The Backrooms into a series of YouTube short films. The viral success of these led to Parson’s recruitment to adapt the story into a feature film for studio A24.

The inventive 2022 series Archive 81 also became a critical success on Netflix, but was unfortunately cancelled after one season.

Horror as a genre will always find a way to infiltrate the media we consume. While it may seem unlikely any modern found-footage horror could captivate an audience the way The Blair Witch Project did, it’s only a matter of time before the next generation of storytellers create a terrifying new monster to haunt us.

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

– ref. The Blair Witch Project at 25: how one film changed the horror genre as we know it – https://theconversation.com/the-blair-witch-project-at-25-how-one-film-changed-the-horror-genre-as-we-know-it-233104

Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Joanne Crawford, Worksafe New Zealand Chair in Health and Safety, Te Herenga Waka — Victoria University of Wellington

The government’s recently announced review of New Zealand’s health and safety system puts the spotlight back on the 2015 Health and Safety at Work Act – and why it has failed to keep New Zealanders safe on the job.

According to Workplace Relations and Safety Minister Brooke van Velden, the current rules are not fit for purpose. She has argued legal requirements that make sense in some areas don’t always make sense in others.

But the fact remains, work-related deaths and injuries have not reduced significantly in the past five years, despite the 2015 rule changes. Approximately 70 people die from work-related accidents each year – higher per capita than in Australia and the United Kingdom.

The review will look at whether current health and safety requirements are too strict or ambiguous to comply with, the overlap of workplace safety legislation with other regulations, and workplace risk management.

Nearly ten years after the law came into force, then, it’s a good time to examine which parts of current heath and safety legislation work – and what doesn’t. This may mean a revision of all, or parts, of the existing law.

But it’s essential any review does not simply seek to justify the weakening of rules in a sector where deregulation often worsens outcomes.

Worse than the UK and Australia

Despite an established safety framework in New Zealand, work can still be dangerous.

As well as the 70 people who die at work each year, an estimated 750 to 900 die from work-related diseases such as cancer and chronic obstructive pulmonary disease. According to a recent report from WorkSafe New Zealand, 20 people died from work-related suicides in 2020.

There are also approximately 5,000 to 6,000 hospitalisations each year from work-related health events. And between 2022 and 2023, 35,805 injuries resulted in a week or more away from work.

Data from earlier this year show an average of 2.3 deaths per 100,000 working people in New Zealand a year. Australia had 1.6 deaths per 100,000 people and the United Kingdom had 0.8. over the same period.

Too much guess work

Where other developed countries differ from New Zealand lies in their strong enforcement backed up by well-written guidance, access to professional advice and applied research.

New Zealand’s legislation outlines what is required of businesses to identify hazards and manage the risks. But the ten-year health and safety strategy released in 2018 by the Ministry of Business, Innovation and Employment contains no quantifiable outcomes or milestones regulators and industries can use to measure improvement.

Regulators and businesses are simply left to guess whether the health and safety changes have been successful or not. This makes it difficult to anticipate or mitigate problems.

Indeed, a 2022 independent review of workplace regulator WorkSafe found the organisation was unclear about its role. According to the review, WorkSafe could not say if its activities were cost-effective or reducing workplace harm.

A new strategy

This year, WorkSafe announced a new strategy focusing on acute, chronic and catastrophic harm. In particular, the regulator will be monitoring and intervening in high-risk sectors such as forestry, transport, manufacturing and construction.

But this prioritisation of hazardous industries does not mean health and safety can stop in other areas. It is still required by the Health and Safety at Work Act.

To be effective, any new strategy needs to clearly set the standard and expectations for different industries – not just high-risk ones. This is particularly the case for small businesses, which need different support and access to training and advice.

The country also needs to develop a complete set of regulations and approved codes of practice with industry that guide employers about the health and safety of their workers and customers.

Profit-driven businesses cannot be expected to invest in training for staff to ensure on-site health and safety unless required to by law.

Creating accountability

If the government wants to tangibly improve health and safety in the workplace, the ten-year health and safety strategy needs updating to explicitly guide everyone about how to make measurable improvements.

WorkSafe must also be empowered to hold directors and businesses accountable, and businesses must ensure they are getting competent advice and putting it into practice. Workers’ concerns need to be taken seriously and they must have the ability (and protection) to stop work that is dangerous.

The International Labour Organisation’s declaration on the fundamental principles and rights at work includes the statement that “health and safety at work is a human right”. New Zealand is a signatory to this.

Ensuring that right requires more than orange cones and red tape. Clear legal requirements and monitoring, as well as listening to workers, are what will make the real difference to the safety of all New Zealanders.

Joanne Crawford receives funding from the Health Research Council. She is an honorary member of the New Zealand Institute of Safety Management and chairs the Tertiary Education Group within the Health and Safety Association of New Zealand.

Chris Peace was elected a Life Member of the New Zealand Institute of Safety Management in 2024 and received the Safeguard Lifetime Achievement award in 2023.

Danaë Anderson 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. An overdose of orange cones? What the review of NZ’s workplace safety rules must get right – https://theconversation.com/an-overdose-of-orange-cones-what-the-review-of-nzs-workplace-safety-rules-must-get-right-234151

Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Lester Munson, Non-Resident Fellow, United States Studies Centre, University of Sydney

It is tempting to draw grand conclusions from the assassination attempt on former president Donald Trump this weekend. The coarse rhetoric currently in vogue in American politics, not to mention the Capitol riot on January 6, 2021, provide plenty of fodder for this kind of speculation.

In reality, the shooting, while horrible, does not come as a total surprise in the context of American history or even in the current presidential campaign.

Divisive and extreme political campaigns from both parties are now the norm. Criminal prosecutions of Trump and President Joe Biden’s son Hunter have become politicised. And American voters are more often driven to vote against the other party’s candidate than to vote for their own.

Yes, activists and officials in both parties will try to use the shooting for campaign advantage by tapping into voters’ emotions. Politicians will accentuate the horror of the attempted assassination and declare various phenomena as “existential threats” or use similar apocalyptic language.

But the overall political environment, while uncomfortable, embarrassing and occasionally deeply concerning, is not entirely unprecedented or even an extreme example of American political life.

To put it plainly: American politics has always been a bloody fight.

A history of political violence

In the latter half of the 20th century, one American president was assassinated (John F. Kennedy), another was wounded (Ronald Reagan) and another targeted (Gerald Ford). In addition, two major presidential candidates were assassinated (Robert F. Kennedy) or nearly so (George Wallace). Numerous other plots were disrupted.

American politics from the 1960s to the early 1980s were incredibly divisive and violent. During just the years 1971 and 1972, more than 2,500 politically motivated bombings occurred in the United States (nearly five per day), mostly from left-wing protesters against the war in Vietnam.

As the US has become increasingly polarised in recent years, the political environment today has become volatile again.

In 2011, Representative Gabby Giffords was shot and nearly killed at an event in Arizona by a man suffering from paranoid schizophrenia. In 2017, a Bernie Sanders supporter shot at several Republican congressmen and staffers, nearly killing Representative Steve Scalise of Louisiana, now the House majority leader.

And of course, the Trump-instigated insurrection of the Capitol during the counting of electoral votes in the 2020 presidential election gives millions of Americans good reason to believe that Trump and his supporters remain a threat to democratic processes.

Democrats’ opportunity

Another immediate consequence of the assassination attempt will be to turn the national conversation temporarily away from Biden’s debate performance in late June. This political dilemma for Democrats, however, will not go away.

Given Biden’s age and obvious decline, White House efforts to prop up perceptions about his fitness for office will likely not be enough to persuade his fellow Democrats he can beat Trump in November.

Even before the shooting, polls indicated Biden was likely to lose the election. It will be even harder now, given the shooting will galvanise Trump’s supporters and likely widen his appeal to others.

Many Democrats believe a different candidate – Vice President Kamala Harris or another leading Democrat – would have a better chance.

The Trump shooting now presents a new opportunity for Democrats to reset their campaign and make a broader appeal to American voters for calm and national unity.

They will need to tone down their own rhetoric about Trump’s threat to democracy and instead make the case that their policy agenda is the preferred one for the American people.

The question is: can they quickly identify a new candidate to drive this new message? Even in the wake of Trump’s near-death experience, that remains the biggest question in American politics.

Republicans’ challenge

Trump’s near-death experience will give his campaign – already based on portraying him as a victim of Democrats and the establishment – renewed energy. The pictures of Trump, with blood on his face, raising his fist in defiance after he was shot, are more valuable than hundreds of millions of dollars in campaign ads.

However, Republicans and fervent Trump supporters will now face a different challenge. The urge to exploit the shooting – whether the shooter was politically motivated or not – will be very difficult to resist.

Some Trump supporters are already blaming Democrats for the event, such as Republican Senator JD Vance, considered a frontrunner to be Trump’s vice presidential running mate.

House Speaker Mike Johnson and others have also criticised Biden for saying before the assassination that he would “put a bullseye” on Trump.

Politicising the shooting in this way might have success in boosting turnout of Trump supporters in November, but it could also drive further acrimony and unhinged rhetoric from those on the right.

For instance, any attempt to turn this tragedy into an attack on Democrats or Biden and his character could prove counterproductive and only remind voters of Trump’s tendency to incite nasty divisiveness.

Instead, Trump has an opportunity to show real leadership and make a broader appeal to undecided and independent voters. With his base locked in more than ever, will he reach out to persuadable Republican moderates and disaffected Democrats? Can he show that he can tone down his antagonistic rhetoric and even reach across the aisle?

Reagan did so – at least in tone if not his policy agenda – after he nearly died from an assassin’s bullet in 1981.

So, can Republicans and Democrats use the tragic Trump shooting to pivot to a more positive message? American voters – as well as the US’s friends and allies around the world – are no doubt hoping so.

The day after the shooting, Biden called Trump to express his concerns about his health and discuss the tragic event. Perhaps this small gesture of bipartisanship and civility can be an example for all in the days ahead.

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

– ref. The Trump assassination attempt has upended the US election race. How will both parties react now? – https://theconversation.com/the-trump-assassination-attempt-has-upended-the-us-election-race-how-will-both-parties-react-now-234658

Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Dr Claire Konkes, Senior Lecturer in Media and Communication, University of Tasmania

In recent weeks, the Menzies Research Centre, the Liberal party-aligned think tank, has criticised the rise in “environmental lawfare”. National media outlets duly took up the mantle.

With an introduction by BHP Chief Executive David Hughes and nearly all the case studies involving the fossil fuel industry, its report tries to paint a picture of a “cashed-up” environmental movement. By extension, the report says, the use of the court system by environmental groups threatens democracy.

It attacked private donations, government funding, and charity status of public interest advocacy groups (such as the Environmental Defenders Office, a body Peter Dutton has pledged to defund). But these attacks disguise the David and Goliath battles that occur when environmental groups challenge large industries such as mining and fossil fuels.

Accusations that environmentalists are abusing our legal system, blocking progress, and costing the economy are not new, but they are getting louder. In reality, legal cases have long featured in this space because changing law is an important goal of any social change movement.

But it’s not just green groups turning to the courts. Large corporations, too, use the law to further their cause. Far from threatening democracy, this is democracy in action.

What is ‘green lawfare’?

“Green lawfare” refers to the various ways individuals and organisations use legal action to achieve their goals, which might include stopping a new mine or changing government climate policy.

I’ve extensively researched the concept for my book. In it, I explore how activists, corporations and government have all turned to the courts to prosecute environmental cases. Notably, these strategies also involve communication strategies aimed at getting, or avoiding, media attention.

The battle to save Tasmania’s Franklin River blockade in the southern summer of 1982–83 is a great example. News and other media shared images of protest, arrests and jail time to the world as symbols of defiance. The battle was ultimately won in the High Court.

It is not a question of whether individuals and public interest groups should be able to use the courts. Instead, the current debate focuses our attention on the importance of access to the courts in any healthy democracy.

In contrast, the current attacks on justice systems, including personal attacks on judges, prosecutors, and lawyers and stopping participatory governance have become a hallmark of the swing to authoritarian and far-right governments.

Democracy in action

These legal cases provide a window into the relationship between democracy and powerful economic interests. They also bind the legal system to environmental politics, which has long been fought out in the media.

For decades, the global environmental movement has campaigned, protested, and appealed to governments to mend the divide between human activity and the natural world on which we all depend.

These are exercises in democracy. Public participation and protest, alongside scientific and economic expertise, has created a large body of environmental law. This then spurred on the creation of the institutions that manage these laws, such as environmental departments.

In Australia, our environmental laws continue to evolve because Australians overwhelmingly want them to be stronger. The government is at least trying to heed that call, albeit not as urgently as many would like. It currently has an environmental protection bill before parliament.

Legislation inevitably sometimes lands parties in court. All stakeholders have – and should have – access to our legal system to ensure these laws are not ignored, broken or bent.

Prosecuting opposition

What often goes unmentioned is the full extent of green lawfare in Australia by industry, which includes the rise in strategic litigation against public participation. This means environmentalists can be subject to expensive lawsuits designed to intimidate or silence their opposition.

Climate activists are already being targeted this way. Ben Pennings is being sued for millions of dollars by Gautam Adani, chairman of multinational conglomerate Adani.

Adani has little chance of recovering the $17 million he wants. But the legal harassment may be more the point. Adani has hired private investigators to photograph Pennings and his family and asked the courts to force him to hand over his electronic devices.

It’s not just individuals being sued this way, but governments. The fossil fuel industry leads the world in investor-state arbitration claims, which allow offshore companies to sue governments for millions, and often billions, of dollars. These claims have become a major obstacle to global climate action.

Climate in the courtroom

Science has clearly told us that carbon emissions, pollution, and biodiversity loss caused by human activity are threatening global wellbeing. We only need to turn to the news to see the human suffering causes by a dangerous heatwaves, polluted waterways and spoiled habitats.

While science is diagnosing the cause of our troubles, addressing environmental problems is a social challenge for local communities and their governments. The courts are increasingly the chosen arena for all sides in the debate.

As a result, we are seeing increasingly novel approaches to what legal systems, especially the courts, are being asked to determine.

Landmark cases, including Sharma vs Minister for the Environment and Pabai Pabai vs Commonwealth of Australia have asked the courts to determine whether the Australian government has the duty to protect Australians from climate change.

Corporations, too, are using novel approaches. For instance, mining giant Santos is currently using the courts to uncover the financial backers behind a case that delayed their $5.4 billion Barossa gas project.

Green lawfare is on the rise because our knowledge and understanding of our environment, and what needs to be done to fix the mess we are in, tells us we need to change.

People are demanding our governments do more to address the problem. Public participation in our democratic processes includes access to our legal system.
The turn to the courts is a sign that our legal system is working exactly as it should.

Dr Claire Konkes 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. Climate in the courtroom: all sides are using ‘green lawfare’, and it’s good for democracy – https://theconversation.com/climate-in-the-courtroom-all-sides-are-using-green-lawfare-and-its-good-for-democracy-234269

Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Caitlin Fox-Harding, Lecturer/Researcher, Edith Cowan University

As the world’s best athletes head to Paris for the upcoming Olympics, the International Olympic Committee (IOC) is trying to make it easier for new parents to compete at their best.

Led by an initiative from the IOC Athletes’ Commission, the IOC will enable, for the first time, a nursery for parent-athletes to spend time with their young children including private breastfeeding spaces.

Traditionally, children are banned from entering the athletes’ village where participants and coaches stay during the Olympics. But the IOC gesture represents a significant advancement in addressing the challenges faced by new mums as they return to sport.

The move follows FIFA’s recent introduction of new measures designed to support the wellbeing of players and coaches during pregnancy and after the birth of their children. This includes the addition of coaches receiving 14 weeks of paid maternity leave (whereas it was previously just for players) and additional considerations for parents seeking to adopt.

When it comes to supporting pregnant athletes and new mums returning to sport, what’s happening within Australia’s major sports?

The situation is complex and inconsistent

Three Australian Olympians – water polo player Keesja Gofers, marathoner Genevieve Gregson and kayaker Alyce Wood – recently detailed their experiences in returning to their respective sports ahead of the 2024 Olympics. But what’s sometimes missing from these narratives are official governing policies to protect and encourage similar athletes.

Some Australian sports are doing their part.

The AFLW, WNBL, Swimming Australia and Cricket Australia have guidelines explicitly for their players.

Further examples, such as the Victorian Pony Club, Football NSW, as well as the Gaelic Football and Hurling Association of Australia can be found after some digging.

And while the NRLW has policies in place, clarifications and additional negotiations were required to rectify additional considerations led by the Rugby League Players Association (RLPA).

And while netball was the first major team sport in Australia to establish a parental leave policy, job security was a significant impediment – the policy only protected athlete income until the end of their playing contract, which affected some players.

The Australian Institute of Sport (AIS) also has guidelines on high performance sport and pregnancy.

It’s important all sporting organisations be proactive in supporting their athletes through this difficult juggling act of pregnancy, motherhood and sport.

How athletes are impacted

Without strong structures in place to support them, athletes can be disadvantaged in many ways.

Supportive postpartum return-to-play policies are important to minimise injury, enable athletes to maintain their income while expanding their families.

The barriers which need to be addressed include varying postpartum recovery times and the difficulty of managing motherhood and sporting demands. To make it work, athletes need more social support.

What does the research say?

Frustratingly, research in this space has historically been quite limited, with organisations often relying on lived or shared experiences of a few athletes.

With the growth of professional sporting opportunities for women, more elite athletes are being acknowledged as working mothers.

This growth has triggered broader discussions to identify best practices and address the difficulties women face returning to sport after pregnancy.

Fortunately, high-quality research is on the rise.

For athletes, comprehensive rehabilitation strategies have been recommended in the postpartum period.

In late 2022, researchers out of the AIS helped develop the “mum-alete” survey, which gathered perceptions and experiences of sport participation among high-performance pregnant or postpartum athletes.

The survey captured the experiences of athletes during pregnancy or returning to high-performance sport post-pregnancy and the resulting data, when released, should hopefully contribute to development of sport policies, structures, and processes to support the health and wellbeing of female athletes.

Key highlights from other recent research emphasises a variety of social factors impacting an athlete’s return to elite sport including childcare and access to maternity leave.

This growing body of evidence can then meaningfully aid sporting organisations in making informed decisions about their return-to-play policies.

Where do we go from here?

As of 2023, other international sporting bodies have launched maternity provisions.

The Women’s Tennis Association (WTA) have a special ranking rule to provide players returning from maternity leave immediate opportunities to compete for higher prize money and ranking points instead of starting from scratch.

And the Rugby Football Union (RFU) have recognised the risks posed to pregnant players due to the physicality of the game and support their athletes into alternative employment within the rugby network until their leave begins.

Without these policies in place, dropping out of sport can sometimes feel like an athlete’s only option, which can have detrimental physical, social and emotional effects.

Adopting a biopsychosocial approach – combining biological, psychological and social factors – is a proactive example of perinatal athlete management.

Emphasis should also be placed on not just how the athlete was before their child but rather recognising what can be done to strengthen and re-conceptualise how the athlete adjusts and performs postpartum.

Hopefully progress continues to inspire a new generation of athletes that reflect on the excellence possible when we invest in mothers.

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

– ref. The Olympics and FIFA are trying to better support ‘mum-aletes’ – what are Australian sports doing? – https://theconversation.com/the-olympics-and-fifa-are-trying-to-better-support-mum-aletes-what-are-australian-sports-doing-233218

Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Sonali Gnanenthiran, Cardiologist and Research Fellow, Cardiovascular Program, George Institute for Global Health

About one-third of adults have high blood pressure. Two-thirds of these have uncontrolled high blood pressure.

A key driver of poor blood pressure control is people not taking their tablets as prescribed. Tablets have been used to treat high blood pressure for decades. But about one in two people prescribed them stop taking them in the first year. Others don’t take their tablets reliably.

Tablets for high blood pressure, or hypertension, are short-acting. So they need to be taken at least once a day. But in recent clinical trials, injectable treatments have reduced blood pressure for up to six months.

If approved, these injectables would be the first new drug class for high blood pressure in decades.

By potentially making it easier for people to stick with their treatment, these injectables could help achieve a long-lasting reduction in blood pressure.

Lowering blood pressure by even just 5mmHg (millimetres of mercury, a measurement used to record blood pressure) can dramatically lower the chance of developing heart disease or stroke.

Are these injections like vaccines?

These injectables are not “vaccines” in the conventional sense. Instead, they are similar to already-approved injectables, such as the diabetes and weight-loss drugs Ozempic and Trulicity. But unlike these medicines which are self-administered, the ones for high blood pressure would be delivered by a doctor or nurse under the skin.

Two drug candidates in recent clinical trials target a liver protein called angiotensinogen. This is a crucial part of your body’s hormone system that regulates blood pressure and fluid balance.

The injectables work by a process called “RNA interference”, which interferes with synthesis of the angiotensinogen protein. This disrupts the cascade of events that would otherwise lead to high blood pressure.

Blood pressure tablets also target the angiotensinogen system, but their effect only lasts a maximum 24 hours.

Do they work?

Two promising candidates in clinical trials are IONIS-AGT-LRx from Ionis Pharmaceuticals and zilebesiran from Alnylam Pharmaceuticals.

IONIS-AGT-LRx is injected under the skin weekly. It was found to be safe in very small trials of healthy volunteers or those with mild-to-moderate high blood pressure. But larger trials are needed to confirm blood pressure lowering benefits.

In comparison, zilebesiran is injected under the skin every six months. Studies in recent months show a significant blood pressure lowering effect and good safety profile in younger and middle-aged people, even when taken with traditional blood pressure tablets.

Zilebesiran’s blood pressure lowering effect appears to be equivalent to what you’d acheive if you took one type of blood pressure tablet (about a 10–15 mmHg reduction), but clearly with a much longer lasting action. Most people would need to use it with another blood pressure lowering pill.

Are they safe?

Early evidence is promising. Studies show good tolerance in younger and middle-aged people with limited other health problems. The most common side effects are minor reactions such as redness or swelling at the injection site in about one in six people.

A small proportion of people had mildly raised blood potassium levels and mild changes in kidney function, but this seemed to be short term. We also see these changes with other classes of high blood pressure treatments.

How can I access these new treatments?

These injectables are not available to the public. Clinical trials are under way around the world to provide more evidence about:

• their long-term safety, especially in high-risk people with multiple health conditions

• any interactions with other drugs

• their ability to reduce rates of heart disease and stroke.

One such trial, running in 2024, is of zilebesiran. This will be conducted at sites including Sydney’s Concord Repatriation General Hospital.

If large-scale trials are successful, the drug companies would then need to apply for regulatory approval. So it would likely be at least five years before these drugs were on the market.

Will they replace tablets?

Although such long-acting injections could make it easier for people to stick with their treatment, they’re unlikely to replace tablets any time soon.

Even if approved, initially at least these are likely to be prescribed for people at high risk or whose blood pressure is not adequately controlled by tablets.

Many people need more than one medicine to lower their blood pressure. So it is likely these medicines would be used in addition to current therapies.

In a nutshell

Injectables are potentially the first new drug class for high blood pressure in decades. They would be administered every few weeks or months via regular injections rather than taking tablets every day or even several times a day.

If these progress successfully through clinical trials and receive regulatory approval, these injectables could be a game-changer in how we treat high blood pressure.

More information on high blood pressure is available from Hypertension Australia.

Sonali Gnanenthiran receives funding from NSW Health and the Medical Future Fund of Australia to conduct clinical trials to treat high blood pressure.

Alta Schutte receives funding from the National Health and Medical Research Council of Australia, the Medical Research Future Fund, and NSW Health. She is Company Secretary of the Australian Cardiovascular Alliance, Board Member of Hypertension Australia, and Co-Chair of the National Hypertension Taskforce of Australia.

Anthony Rodgers receives funding from the National Health and Medical Research Council and is an employee of the he George Institute for Global Health (TGIGH). George Health Enterprises Pty Ltd, the social enterprise arm of TGIGH, has received investment to develop fixed-dose combination products containing aspirin, statin and blood pressure lowering drugs. TGIGH holds and have filed applications for combination products for the treatment of hypertension and diabetes, and Professor Rodgers is listed as one of the inventors (Granted: US 10,369,15; US 10,799,487; US 10,322,117; US 11,033,544; US 11,478,462; Pending: US 17/932,982; US 18/446,268; US 17/598,122; US 17/317,614). Professor Rodgers is seconded part-time to George Medicines Pty Ltd (GM), a subsidiary of George Health Enterprises.

None of The George Institute staff have a financial interest in these investments or patents.

– ref. Injectables for high blood pressure are in the works. Could they mean no more daily pills? – https://theconversation.com/injectables-for-high-blood-pressure-are-in-the-works-could-they-mean-no-more-daily-pills-224623

Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Bill Grace, Adjunct Professor, Australian Urban Design Research Centre, The University of Western Australia

Before renewables came along, coal-fired power stations pumped out electricity (and carbon emissions) 24 hours a day. But now, this type of “always on” baseload power is no longer necessary or commercially viable.

This is one of many reasons why the Coalition’s proposed nuclear strategy is flawed. Even if nuclear power was cheap, which it isn’t, it would have to be the least appropriate energy source going around.

Why? Because the world has changed. The greening of the electricity grid means we need far more flexibility. Solar and wind can do the heavy lifting, provided we have enough storage (batteries, pumped hydro and other technologies) and something we can quickly switch on and off to fill the gaps, such as gas or (eventually) hydrogen.

The only way to make nuclear power work in Australia is to switch off cheap renewable energy. Stop exporting electricity from your rooftop solar system. Forget feed-in tarrifs. The system has to call on baseload nuclear power first, or the plan makes no sense whatsoever. And to make space for nuclear in 10-15 years, you’d have to somehow make coal financially viable now.

Comparing the cost of electricity

The price we pay for electricity as customers is a function of the wholesale price retailers pay, to secure energy from generators, plus the cost of transporting it (transmission and distribution).

To compare the cost of nuclear power to other sources, we need to take a closer look at each generator’s capital and operating costs.

For capital costs, the market operator and most energy analysts turn to the CSIRO GenCost report. It finds conventional nuclear power stations cost 40% more to build than coal, 2.5 times more than onshore wind and 5 times more than large-scale solar.

Operating costs reflect both fixed costs (such as maintenance) and variable costs (such as fuel). The less time the plant operates, the higher the capital and operating costs per megawatt hour (MWh) of output.

Both coal and nuclear can operate around 90% of the time at full capacity, while both wind and solar only operate at full capacity some of the time. So it’s best to compare annual operating costs on the basis of the actual energy generated in a year. Even on this basis it costs less to operate onshore wind and solar than coal or gas, mainly because there is no fuel cost.

Nuclear plants are incredibly complex and cost about five times more to maintain and manage than onshore wind and large scale solar. And that’s not including the high cost of decommissioning the plant, or treating and disposing of used fuel and wastes during its use.

South Australia offers a glimpse of the future

So far this analysis assumes all of the power plants operate at their optimum capacity. But the real world is not like that.

The market operator is required to supply electricity according to customer demand, which they do by dispatching the cheapest form available at the time.

This is onshore wind and solar, when available. However, network demand for electricity is also heavily influenced by what customers are doing to meet their own demand with rooftop solar.

South Australia has lots of rooftop solar plus large-scale onshore wind and solar power plants. Just take a look at the hour-by-hour supply of electricity to SA customers on July 6 this year.

On this day in the middle of winter, private rooftop solar reduced demand by more than half in the middle of the day. Renewables (mainly wind) provided almost all the network electricity demand. A small amount of electricity was supplied by gas turbines (which are not baseload power generators) and batteries. No coal or gas generation was imported from other states.

About one third of SA homes have rooftop solar. As take-up inevitably grows, total network demand will continue to fall.

SA was the first state to see network demand fall below zero back in October 2021.

In the southwest of Western Australia the market operator is projecting network loads will become negative in coming years, something I predicted a decade ago.

As baseload generation is used less and less, it costs more and more per MWh and becomes less competitive and commercially viable. This is the main reason coal fired power stations are closing and baseload generation is becoming redundant.

SA is a predictor of the whole of Australia in coming years. If coal is not commercially viable into the future, then how can nuclear possibly be, when it is far more expensive?

Switching off solar and propping up coal

According to analysis by the Smart Energy Council the Coalition’s proposed seven nuclear reactors would only provide 3.7% of Australia’s electricity demand by 2050.

However, even if nuclear was to be a significant component of the mix by 2040 (under a very optimistic scenario), it wouldn’t be compatible with renewables already on rooftops and in the network.

That’s because nuclear power stations have very limited flexibility to power up, or power down. So if they are always on, something else has to be switched off. The only solution would be to “curtail” (switch off) cheap renewable energy, including exports from your rooftop solar.

For nuclear to be a significant energy source in future, Australia would have to start making more room for baseload power generation now.
Existing coal-fired generators would have to be made financially viable so they can continue to operate until they’re eventually replaced by nuclear.

Meanwhile renewable generators and rooftop solar exports would have to be either disallowed from supplying the network or financially undermined – by government subsidies for coal and gas plants. The result of either would of course be higher costs and higher emissions.

The market operator’s Integrated System Plan for the National Electricity Market aligns with my analysis of the WA network. That is, the optimum energy solution, from both a cost and emissions perspective, is a combination of:

• renewable generation (mainly wind and solar)
• storage in the form of pumped hydro and batteries
• small amounts of gas, eventually replaced by hydrogen, to fill in the gaps.

There is neither room, nor need, for nuclear energy in Australia.

Bill Grace is an independent sustainability adviser, researcher and consultant. He is a research committee member with the Centre for Policy Development.

– ref. No room for nuclear power, unless the Coalition switches off your solar – https://theconversation.com/no-room-for-nuclear-power-unless-the-coalition-switches-off-your-solar-234156

Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Sam Whiting, Lecturer – Creative Industries, University of South Australia

The Western Australian government subsidised two exclusive 2023 concerts by Coldplay to the tune of A$8 million, Guardian Australia reported last week.

The November performances at Perth’s Optus Stadium were described by the government as a “major tourism coup” for WA.

The state’s “return on investment” will no doubt be reported by one of the big four accountancy firms, inevitably citing ticket purchases, overnight stays and hospitality spend.

Whether one believes these reports or not, these metrics do not measure the true cost-benefits of large scale cultural initiatives.

The return on government investments in arts and events should be measured over a decade, not a month, and include a range of non-quantifiable social and cultural benefits that require time and understanding to emerge.

Picking winners

The subsidy of concerts hosted by United States-based multinational promoter Live Nation Entertainment reflects a broader trend led by state governments of handing large sums of public money to very successful commercial firms.

South Australia has pursued a similar strategy, with the state tourism commission investing in Harvest Rock festival, which has been criticised for its lack of local artists in the lineup.

With Live Nation being pursued by the US Department of Justice for anti-competitive behaviour, questions regarding the propriety and value of rewarding such entities with considerable public funding are being raised.

Governments argue such events inject “visitor spend” into the local economy, and justify subsidies by way of increased tourism.

It is a quick win. But there is a strong argument this use of cultural events for short-term “sugar hit” economic stimulus erodes capacity in the local arts community.

Instead of audience revenue going towards local artists, venues and producers that nurture and develop grassroots talent, spending goes towards hospitality and accommodation.

Headline talent is almost always imported. While such events offer temporary employment to local industry workers, such as crew and events staff, the lack of longer term investment in the sector further contributes to the precarity of these workers.

Meanwhile, many small live music venues are shuttering and grassroots festivals and events are in crisis.

When funding for music is directed through tourism budgets rather than arts budgets there may be an increased spend on hospitality in the short-term – but this is often at the expense of the long-term health of the local sector. Such events are often funded as one-offs featuring largely imported talent produced by overseas firms, undermining the capacity of the local sector.

Bread and circuses

Festivals have long been a means to encourage cultural tourism, but they require investment in institutional capacity and the availability of local talent, creatives and support workers.

Arts and culture spending is often subject to considerable scrutiny. But tourism spending is relatively unrestricted and justified via opaque cost-benefit analyses.

While there is a compelling argument that strong public support for the events sector was necessary immediately post-pandemic to kick-start a sector on its knees, it is becoming increasingly difficult to justify when international music tourism is now back with a vengeance – as Taylor Swift’s recent tour illustrates.

While the live music market trends towards more consolidation and monopolistic behaviour, there should be even greater scrutiny of the shape of government spending on major music events.

Public funding for cultural events needs to aim beyond generating money for hospitality and look to invest in the long-term capacity of the local sector.

Who misses out?

The rising trend of the “visitor economy” raises serious concerns about the purpose of arts and cultural policy.

Live music becomes about generating money, not for any expected return to a local industry, but from consumer spending on imported cultural goods.

Chief economist at The Australia Institute, Greg Jericho, estimated a $55 million spend on Swift’s recent Australian tour. However, he writes:

not much of this will remain in Australia. There’s a reason this world tour will possibly make Swift a billionaire.

While Swift’s tour was an entirely commercial affair, state governments seeking to replicate this effect by handing millions to multinational conglomerates is another matter.

Subsidy of international artists and festivals may generate short term relief for the tourism, hospitality and accommodation sector, producing increased “visitor spend”.

But it is not very public spirited, and not in the long-term interests of the Australian music sector.

Local music used to be the heart-blood of Australian popular culture, inseparable from the country’s sense of self-confidence and identity. It is now in dire straits.

The Australian music sector requires investment in small and medium venues, a completely new approach to regulating global tech platforms such as Spotify, and rethinking the role of public radio for a new era.

Importing mainstream British acts at the cost of millions while Australian music is atrophying is ultimately counterproductive.

Sam Whiting receives funding from Creative Australia and the Australasian Performing Right Association.

Justin O’Connor receives funding from the Australia Research Council.

– ref. The WA government spent $8 million on Coldplay – but this tourism sugar hit comes at the expense of local music – https://theconversation.com/the-wa-government-spent-8-million-on-coldplay-but-this-tourism-sugar-hit-comes-at-the-expense-of-local-music-234370

Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Sarah Kendall, Adjunct Research Fellow, The University of Queensland

Yesterday morning, the Australian Federal Police arrested a Russian-born Australian couple for spying.

Police allege Kira Korolev, an Australian Defence Force (ADF) army private, undertook undeclared travel to Russia while on long-term leave. While there, she allegedly instructed her husband, Igor Korolev, to log on to her work account and access defence force material to send to her.

It is alleged the couple intended to provide the information to Russian authorities. The Korolevs have been charged with “preparing for an espionage offence”, which could see them in jail for up to 15 years.

This is a significant case and one worth watching. Not only is it the first time that someone has been charged with an espionage offence since new laws were introduced in 2018, but it is only one of a handful of known espionage charges that have ever been laid in Australia. The Korolevs have also been charged with a standalone “preparatory” national security offence, which only existed in the terrorism context prior to 2018.

Espionage and the law

According to ASIO, espionage is:

the theft of information by someone acting on behalf of a foreign power, or intending to provide information to a foreign power which is seeking advantage over Australia.

Espionage has been a crime in Australia since the first world war.

In 2018, Australia completely overhauled its espionage offence framework to better address the threat of modern espionage. Espionage today targets a wide range of information from many different people (not just those in intelligence or the military). It can be engaged in by any foreign power, not only those considered to be “enemies”, and is increasingly conducted using cyber-espionage.

The 2018 offences include “underlying” espionage offences, a “solicitation” offence and a “preparatory” offence. A standalone offence of “preparing for espionage” did not exist prior to 2018.

There has only ever been one recorded case in Australia in which a person has been prosecuted for an espionage offence.

In R v Lappas, a Defence Intelligence Organisation employee was convicted of the 1914 offence of “making a sketch, plan, model or note that might or was intended to be useful to an enemy”. He had passed annotated documents that revealed sources of ongoing intelligence to a third party, who was to sell them on to a foreign power. The attempted sales were unsuccessful.

While Lappas faced up to seven years in jail, he was sentenced to two years.

Pre-crimes on top of pre-crimes

The Korolevs are the first people to be charged under the 2018 espionage law reforms.

Unlike Lappas, who was found to have committed an offence similar to the 2018 underlying offences, the Korolevs have been charged with “preparing for espionage”.

“Preparing for espionage” is a broad offence that makes it a crime for a person to engage in any conduct. However, in doing so, they must intend to prepare for an underlying espionage offence. If found guilty, a person faces up to 15 years in jail.

The similar offence of “preparing for terrorism” has a maximum penalty of life in prison. It has been the foundation of a number of successful prosecutions in which defendants have been sentenced to very lengthy periods of imprisonment.

Standalone preparatory offences such as preparing for espionage or terrorism aim to prevent harm from occurring in the first place. However, they expand the criminal law beyond its traditional bounds because they punish people for crimes that may occur in the future, not for substantive crimes that have already been committed. For this reason, they can be considered “pre-crimes”.

Preparatory crimes are a type of “inchoate” offence: an offence relating to a substantive crime that has not been committed. Other inchoate offences in the Commonwealth Criminal Code include attempt, incitement and conspiracy. Each inchoate offence has different elements that must be proved.

Because “preparing for espionage” is a standalone offence, the general inchoate offences in the Criminal Code can “attach” to the preparatory offence to create “pre-pre-crimes”. For example, a person could be charged with “conspiracy to prepare for espionage”.

This kind of offence broadens the scope of the law even more by criminalising conduct a further step removed from the commission of any substantive offence.

These offences can be easier to prove than both the substantive offence and the preparatory offence, yet defendants could still face many years in jail. For example, the offence of “conspiring to prepare for terrorism” has been routinely used in the terrorism context in Australia and has supported sentences of up to 28 years in prison.

The Korolevs have been charged with “preparing for espionage”, but could conceivably have been charged with “conspiring to prepare for espionage” given two parties were involved.

Authorities are still investigating whether the couple did in fact share information with Russian authorities. If they did, police have confirmed that further charges could be laid. This includes charges for underlying espionage offences, which carry maximum penalties of 15 years to life in prison.

Legal test case

The Korolev case will be one of the most significant national security cases to watch. If it proceeds to trial, it will provide an opportunity to clarify the operation of Australia’s 2018 espionage offences and resolve some of the key issues with the offences.

For example, many key terms and phrases used in the espionage offences are not clearly defined or are defined with significant breadth. This creates offences that are unclear and have the potential to be inappropriately wide-reaching.

For example, many of Australia’s espionage offences could apply to the legitimate conduct of journalists, sources or academics. Even where the person’s conduct is more obviously nefarious, there are uncertainties as to how the offences operate.

Some of the issues with the espionage offences also extend to other offences that were introduced in 2018, such as the secrecy, foreign interference and sabotage offences.

Apart from clarifying the operation of the law, the Korolev case joins only a small number of other known cases in Australia in which a person has been charged with spying. So keep your eyes peeled – you’ll be watching history in the making.

This article was written in Sarah Kendall’s personal capacity as an Adjunct Research Fellow at the University of Queensland School of Law. It does not reflect the views of any organisation with which the author is affiliated.

– ref. A Russian-born ADF soldier and her husband have been charged with spying. What does this mean? – https://theconversation.com/a-russian-born-adf-soldier-and-her-husband-have-been-charged-with-spying-what-does-this-mean-234555

Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Darren O’Donovan, Senior Lecturer in Administrative Law, La Trobe University

Following the release of a review into the National Disability Insurance Scheme (NDIS) late last year, reform is on the cards for the scheme in 2024.

The first step, the proposed NDIS Amendment Bill, has, however, generated political controversy and significant concerns in the disability community.

The bill had been moving forward to a final vote, but the Opposition demanded more time to study the bill. It now faces a second senate inquiry.

So why has the bill generated concern? And what issues will the new inquiry examine?

From concept to detail

In December last year the NDIS review proposed key reforms to ensure the sustainability of the scheme and improve outcomes for people with disability.

It recommended NDIS plans should shift from arguing line by line over each requested support to an overall funding amount for each participant. That global budget would be based on a standardised assessment of defined categories of needs.

This would replace the current subjective rules centred on contestable ideas of what’s reasonable. Too often the operation of these has been marred by gruelling and complex bureaucracy for people claiming support.

The review also called for state and federal governments to cooperate in improving support across the lifecycle of disability. There would be greater focus on early intervention rather than letting people languish until they meet the NDIS entry criteria, for example.

In March, the federal government introduced a bill to implement a limited number of the review’s recommendations (the NDIS Amendment Bill). I would argue three dynamics in the bill have clouded the original vision of the NDIS review.

1. An uncertain ‘method’

The bill replaces the existing test for funding with an as yet unwritten “method” for calculating budgets for individual participants. This would occur after a transition period of up to five years.

The method will be created by rules which, unlike the current approach, can be passed without the consent of the states and territories. This provoked an outcry from state premiers. NDIS participants, meanwhile, have been left wondering if the co-operation needed for effective reform will eventuate. If not, this could lead to people going without the supports they need in areas like health and education.

Other elements of the bill also risked narrowing the supports available. For example, the original definition of NDIS support did not fully reflect Australia’s obligations under the United Nations Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities. That definition was removed from the bill after the Disability Discrimination Commissioner warned it risked the NDIS not being “holistically responsive” to individuals’ needs.

Further, the bill proposed using an unclear 2015 policy document – a series of bulletpoint tables – to set the interface between state and federal services. Fortunately, this was also removed from the bill as it risked disputes between governments over who was responsible for what.

Finally, the bill stated assessments would only fund needs resulting from “impairments” which meet the NDIS entry criteria. This deficit-focused language risked not fully addressing complex and overlapping disabilities and the barriers people face in society. In the past fortnight, the federal government has moved amendments to moderate this, but complexities remain.

The federal government was responsive on these issues, but only to a point. The bill does little to stop such flaws re-emerging as the rule-making process moves forward. So what protections apply at that point?

2. Ensuring co-design and oversight

If a bill is passed, rules, or “legislative instruments”, are used to fill in the detail needed to implement chosen policy. In this case, such instruments will determine fundamental issues like what supports NDIS participants receive.

But rules made through legislative instruments are subject to much more limited parliamentary oversight than primary legislation (acts). They receive accelerated and condensed examination – which will mean far less opportunity for disability organisations to be heard.

Disability representative organisations have stressed co-design and transparency are absolute essentials in the making of future rules. Co-design requires government to work in partnership with people with disability when designing policies, programs and services.

This must be protected by the bill. But the government has only consented to inserting vague assurances of consultation, which lack mechanisms for enforcement. This contrasts sharply with other countries, which regularly subject bureaucrats to enforceable consultation requirements.

Responsible government should mean more than just promising standards of behaviour. It should mean holding people accountable to them. Otherwise, what will stop future governments abandoning today’s promises?

3. Bureaucratic power

The bill comes replete with broad powers allowing the National Disability Insurance Agency (NDIA) to regulate the supports people receive or impose administrative requirements upon them. In the hands of one government these might drive a vision of quality services. Under another they could lead to damaging forms of conditionality or administrative burden.

One key area is what happens when the NDIA believes a participant has spent money in a way that’s not compliant with their plan (debt raising). While public commentary has been awash with “rorts” rhetoric, the bill leaves vital duty of care questions under-addressed.

In reality, most “rorts” are cases of abuse involving the costly non-delivery of supports to people who need them. Yet the bill fails to spell out exactly when a debt will be raised against a third party versus a participant. It should do more to protect the person with a disability who acted under duress, was misled or was the victim of abusive practices.

Trust

This bill commences a long reform process that can only succeed if it’s based on clarity, accountability and transparency. The voices and experiences of NDIS participants and their representatives are key to delivering people-centred reform.

The question is whether Australia’s political class – federal and state – is capable of living up to the trust which this bill will place in them.

Darren O’Donovan 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. NDIS reforms are still in limbo. What’s going on, and are people with disability getting enough say? – https://theconversation.com/ndis-reforms-are-still-in-limbo-whats-going-on-and-are-people-with-disability-getting-enough-say-234275

Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Jathan Sadowski, Senior Research Fellow (ARC DECRA), Emerging Technologies Research Lab and CoE for Automated Decision-Making and Society, Monash University, Monash University

Last week, two big names in the artificial intelligence (AI) and wellness industries announced a collaboration to develop a “customised, hyper-personalised AI health coach that will be available as a mobile app” to “reverse the trend lines on chronic diseases”.

Sam Altman (head of OpenAI, maker of ChatGPT) and Arianna Huffington (a former media executive who runs a high-tech wellness company called Thrive Global) announced their new company, Thrive AI Health, in a Time magazine advertorial.

Health is an appealing direction for an AI industry that has promised to transform civilisation, but whose huge growth of the past couple of years is beginning to look like it’s stalling. Companies and investors have pumped billions into the technology, but it is still often a solution looking for problems.

Meanwhile, venture capitalists Sequoia and the investment bank Goldman Sachs are wondering out loud whether enough revenue and consumer demand will ever emerge to make this bubble feel more solid.

Enter the next big thing: AI that will change our behaviour, for our own good.

Personalised nudges and real-time recommendations

Altman and Huffington say Thrive AI Health will use the “best peer-reviewed science” and users’ “personal biometric, lab and other medical data” to “learn your preferences and patterns across the five behaviours” that are key to improving health and treating chronic diseases: sleep, food, movement, stress management and social connection.

Whether you are “a busy professional with diabetes” or somebody without “access to trainers, chefs and life coaches” — the only two user profiles the pair mention — the Thrive AI Health coach aims to use behavioural data to create “personalised nudges and real-time recommendations” to change your daily habits.

Soon, supposedly, everybody will have access to the “life-saving benefits” of a mobile app that tells you — in a precisely targeted way — to sleep more, eat better, exercise regularly, be less stressed and go touch grass with friends. These “superhuman” technologies, combined with the “superpowers” of incentives, will change the world by changing our “tiny daily acts”.

Despite claims that AI has unlocked yet another innovation, when I read Altman and Huffington’s announcement I was struck by a sense of déjà vu.

Insurance that manages your life

Why did Thrive AI Health and the logic behind it sound so familiar? Because it’s a kind of thinking we are seeing more and more in the insurance industry.

In fact, in an article published last year I suggested we might soon see “total life insurance” bundled with “a personalised AI life coach”, which would combine data from various sources in our daily lives to target us with prompts for how to behave in healthier, less risky ways. It would of course take notes and report back to our insurers and doctors when we do not follow these recommendations.

In a related article, my colleagues Kelly Lewis and Zofia Bednarz and I took a close look at the theories of behavioural risk that might power such products. A model of insurance based on managing people’s lives via digital technology is on the rise.

We examined a company called Vitality, which makes behavioural change platforms for health and life insurance. Vitality frames itself as an “active life partner with […] customers”, using targeted interventions to improve customer well-being and its own bottom line.

Similar projects in the past have had questionable results. A 2019 World Health Organization report on digital health intervention said:

The enthusiasm for digital health has also driven a proliferation of short-lived implementations and an overwhelming diversity of digital tools, with a limited understanding of their impact on health systems and people’s wellbeing.

Hyper-personalisation

Altman and Huffington say AI-enabled “hyper-personalisation” means this time will be different.

Are they right? I don’t think so.

The first problem is there is no guarantee the AI will work as promised. There is no reason to think it won’t be plagued by the problems of bias, hallucination and errors we see in cutting-edge AI models like ChatGPT.

However, even if it does, it will still miss the mark because the idea of hyper-personalisation is based on a flawed theory of how change happens.

An individualised “AI health coach” is a way to address widespread chronic health problems only if you envision a world in which there is no society – just individuals making choices. Those choices turn into habits. Those habits, over time, create problems. Those problems can be rooted out by individuals making better choices. Those better choices come from an AI guardian nudging you in the right direction.

And why do people make bad choices, in this vision? Perhaps, like middle-class professionals, they are too busy. They need reminders to eat a salad and stretch in the sunshine during their 12-hour workday.

Or – again from the AI health coach perspective – perhaps, like disadvantaged people, they make bad choices out of ignorance. They need to be informed that eating fast food is wrong, and they should instead cook a healthy meal at home.

The social determinants of healthcare apps

But individual lifestyle choices aren’t everything. In fact, the “social determinants of health” can be far more important. These are the social conditions that determine a person’s access to health care, quality food, free time and all the things needed to have a good life.

Technologies like Thrive AI Health are not interested in fundamental social conditions. Their “personalisation” is a short-sighted view that stops at the individual.

The only place society enters Altman and Huffington’s vision is as something that must help their product succeed:

Policymakers need to create a regulatory environment that fosters AI innovation […] Health care providers need to integrate AI into their practices […] And individuals need to be fully empowered through AI coaching to better manage their daily health […]

And if we don’t bend society to fit the AI models? Presumably we will only have ourselves to blame.

Jathan Sadowski receives funding from the Australian Research Council (grant DE220100417).

– ref. Why an ‘AI health coach’ won’t solve the world’s chronic disease problems – https://theconversation.com/why-an-ai-health-coach-wont-solve-the-worlds-chronic-disease-problems-234369

Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Michelle Evans, Associate Professor, specialising in Indigenous leadership, The University of Melbourne

When discussing the creativity and ingenuity of Indigenous people, we often talk about our deadly artists, sportspeople and Elders.

But more and more, Indigenous business leaders are finding themselves in the spotlight.

This year’s NAIDOC Male Elder of the Year is Uncle Kim Collard, a Balladong/Wadjuk Elder of the Noongar Nation.

Collard established two of Australia’s largest Indigenous-owned businesses – workplace supplier Kulbardi and fleet management and salary packaging firm Kooya.

But he and his family have also made outstanding philanthropic contributions to Aboriginal communities, raising almost A$1.5 million through the Bibbulmun Fund.

Collard is just one example of many outstanding leaders across the thriving Indigenous business sector.

This cohort drive more than just dollars and cents in the economy – they serve as role models and employers, sponsors and philanthropists, and suppliers to major corporations. They also bring important cultural knowledge and cultural guidance to bear.

Yet many Australians still don’t grasp the sheer size and diversity of Indigenous-owned and led businesses.

Greater visibility of these businesses – both in government statistics and Indigenous business directories – would do more than just showcase their diversity and excellence. It would also help them succeed further.

A thriving sector

Indigenous businesses operate at every scale in Australia, from small sole traders through to large corporate enterprises.

As previously reported in The Conversation, our research revealed that in 2022, the Indigenous business sector generated more than A$16 billion in revenue. We found that 13,693 unique businesses employed more than 100,000 people, paying annual wages of $4.2 billion.

Read more:
Indigenous businesses are worth billions but we don’t know enough about them

This job creation is really important. One of the sector’s biggest benefits is that it supports such a wide range of families and households across Australia.

Previous research has found that Indigenous businesses employ Indigenous Australians at a greater rate than non-Indigenous businesses.

Operating across diverse industries

Indigenous-owned businesses are often associated with important cultural services and cultural tourism. But their influence extends far beyond these areas into industries such as technology, architecture and construction, manufacturing, property, financial services, education and legal services.

There are some great examples of firms integrating cultural knowledge at the cutting edge of their fields.

The Queensland-based agriculture technology company RainStick uses electricity to mimic the natural effects of lightning to grow bigger crops faster.

And design firm Nguluway DesignInc is currently overseeing the design and development of the new University of Technology Sydney Indigenous Residential College.

But registration really helps

To help people and organisations engage with Indigenous businesses, whether as customers or large-scale suppliers, it’s important they are able to find them.

It’s not currently possible to declare a business as Indigenous when filing for an Australian business number (ABN).

However, it is possible to become registered in other directories. These include a range of state and territory chambers of commerce and other non-profit organisations.

The NSW Indigenous Chamber of Commerce (NSWICC) was the first of its kind when it was established in 2006. It has now grown to represent more than 500 businesses in 70 different spend categories.

Victoria’s Kinaway Chamber of Commerce was established in 2010 and now has close to 300 businesses on its registry.

At a national level, Supply Nation operates a large non-profit directory called Indigenous Business Direct. This aims to connect the procurement teams of large organisations with verified Indigenous businesses.

To register with Supply Nation, businesses need to demonstrate Indigenous ownership of at least 50% to be a “registered” business, or 51% or greater ownership to become “certified”.

Relevant documents are verified with bodies including ASIC. And regular audits and spot checks are conducted to ensure these companies continue to be Indigenous-owned and led.

Supply Nation has just passed the significant milestone of registering its 5,000th Indigenous business, up from just 13 in 2009.

Registration takes effort on the part of a business, but it’s really important. Our Snapshot study found that formally registered businesses were responsible for around 70% of all the revenue and jobs generated across the Indigenous business ecosystem.

All of these organisations provide business mentoring, guidance on procurement and a clearing house for opportunities.

But more importantly, registering a business as Indigenous on any of these directories allows corporations, non-profits and governments to find and connect with it, opening the door to all kinds of opportunities.

Read more:
Indigenous businesses are worth billions but we don’t know enough about them

Michelle Evans receives funding from the Australian Research Council.

– ref. Indigenous businesses are thriving across a wide range of industries – here’s how to make sure that continues – https://theconversation.com/indigenous-businesses-are-thriving-across-a-wide-range-of-industries-heres-how-to-make-sure-that-continues-234170

Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Babak Zolghadr-Asli, QUEX Joint PhD Candidate, Centre for Water Systems, University of Exeter, and Sustainable Minerals Institute, The University of Queensland

When it comes to inland surface water bodies, saline lakes are unique. They make up 44% of all lakes worldwide and are found on every continent including Antarctica. These lakes’ existence depends on a delicate balance between a river basin’s water input (precipitation and inflows) and output (evaporation and seepage).

The reason a lake turns saline is often because it doesn’t have a consistent stream outlet, leading to a build-up of dissolved salts from water inflows. The water levels of saline lakes are naturally unstable and these lakes are generally susceptible to any disturbance.

This heightened sensitivity makes saline lakes more responsive than freshwater lakes to natural and human-caused factors. The main cause of change in a saline lake is disturbances in its water balance. These can be the result of natural or human-induced factors that are local, such as droughts, pollution, and upstream water diversions, or global, such as climate change, decreasing precipitation and increasing temperature.

The rapid response of saline lakes to the changing conditions makes these lakes suitable candidates for reliably reflecting the regional, and potentially global, status of water resources, and revealing crucial changes in the water balance. Unsurprisingly, many of the world’s saline lakes are shrinking rapidly, a major warning about the sustainability of regional water resources.

How are saline lakes changing?

There have always been fluctuations in saline lakes. Unfortunately, more lasting changes have become more common in recent years due to regional human activities and global climate change.

Most lakes have been shrinking and their water quality has declined. In permafrost regions of the Arctic and the Tibetan Plateau, however, some salt lakes have expanded due to areas of ice melting in a warming climate.

Changes in saline lakes pose significant challenges. They can endanger local ecosystems and industries, threaten public health and cause broader socio-economic harm.

Iran’s Lake Urmia is a good example. Until a few decades ago, Lake Urmia was one of the the world’s largest saline lakes, but it shrunk rapidly due to unsustainable human activities. The resulting problems include a decline in tourism, dust and salt storms, falling agricultural productivity and a loss of biodiversity.

The Aral Sea, once the world’s fourth-largest inland water body, is another tragic example. Since the 1960s it has shrunk to a fraction of its former size largely due to poorly planned irrigation development in the region.

The consequences have been disastrous. Despite many efforts, it has not been possible to restore the lake to its former glory.

Our natural early-warning systems

Saline lakes, much like the canaries used to give coalminers early warning of dangerously poor air quality, could play a vital role in monitoring the health of our water resources.

To better understand this analogy, we must first step back in time to the depths of underground mines where coalminers battled a hidden danger: carbon monoxide. This gas could build up silently, without any warning, endangering the miners’ lives.

Miners devised an ingenious solution: canaries. These small birds, with their rapid breathing rate, small size and fast metabolism, were tiny detectors of danger. When carbon monoxide levels rose, the canaries would be the first to show signs of distress, giving the miners a crucial warning to evacuate before it was too late.

The natural world continues to offer us unexpected insights. Saline lakes, with their intricate ecosystems and unique characteristics, act as nature’s early-warning systems.

Just as the canaries signalled hidden dangers in coalmines, the behaviour of saline lakes can alert us to looming issues with our water resources.

The bigger picture demands our attention

Of course, it is crucial to act when lakes are shrinking, whether through preservation efforts or restoration projects. But we must not overlook the bigger picture. It would be like a miner focusing on a distressed canary when it’s a sign of a more serious problem.

The real challenge lies in delving into the root cause, much like improving poor air quality in mines rather than merely trying to revive the birds.

This highlights the urgent need for a fundamental shift to water management and getting to the root of the problem rather than just dealing with the surface issues. Unfortunately, real-world experience shows we’ve often failed to make much of an impact when tackling these issues. But we can learn from our past mistakes to make better decisions now and in the future.

In the quest to ensure water resources remain sustainable, paying attention to saline lakes would be a good starting point. We need to grasp their intricacies and accurately gauge the water budget of these lakes around the world. We can only do that by investing in continuous monitoring of their health and behaviour.

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

– ref. Why saline lakes are the canary in the coalmine for the world’s water resources – https://theconversation.com/why-saline-lakes-are-the-canary-in-the-coalmine-for-the-worlds-water-resources-232477

Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Tanita Northcott, Research Fellow, Melbourne Law School, The University of Melbourne

The Australian government has been investigating whether we should ban unhealthy food advertising online, and how it could work. In the United Kingdom, a ban on unhealthy food and drink advertising online will start in October 2025.

We recently used the Australian Ad Observatory to investigate targeted junk-food ads on Facebook in Australia. Our study finds that unhealthy food and drinks are promoted in ways designed to appeal to parents and carers of children, and children themselves. Additionally, young men in our study were being targeted by fast-food ads.

Kids, young people and parents should be aware of the strategies online advertisers use to normalise unhealthy eating patterns. We should all demand a more healthy digital environment.

Our work supports ongoing calls for a ban on junk food advertising online.

What did we see in the ads?

The Australian Ad Observatory has created the world’s largest known collection of the targeted ads people encounter on Facebook. Our 1,909 volunteers have donated 328,107 unique ads from their social media feeds. This gives researchers an unprecedented opportunity to examine what ads Australians see on social media and how they are being targeted.

We searched the database for ads promoting the top-selling unhealthy food and drink brands. These are “discretionary” or “sometimes” foods that tend to be high in fats and sugars. They include fast-food meals, confectionery, sugary drinks and snacks. (To identify unhealthy food and drink categories, we used government guidance on healthy food and drinks.)

We also looked at online food delivery companies because of their popularity on digital platforms. They play a likely role in promoting unhealthy foods.

We found nearly 2,000 unique ads by 141 separate advertisers observed about 6,000 times by individuals. Ads for fast-food brands made up half of the unhealthy food ad observations in our study.

Fast-food giants KFC and McDonald’s combined accounted for roughly 25% of all unhealthy food ad observations. Snack and confectionery brands, like Cadbury, featured in a third of the ad observations. Soft drink brands such as Coca-Cola were promoted in 11% of observations.

About 9% of ads promoted online food delivery companies, and typically promoted fast-food options. Other advertisers we might not think of as junk food brands, such as Coles supermarkets and 7-Eleven convenience stores, also regularly promoted junk foods.

The power of junk food

The vulnerability of children to junk food ads is well established. Children’s exposure to food marketing has been associated with what types of food they prefer and ask their parents to purchase. When they develop preferences for unhealthy foods, this contributes to unhealthy habits and related health concerns.

But it’s not only children who are susceptible to unhealthy food marketing. Junk food advertising also shapes the food norms and attitudes of young people aged 18 to 24.

Our experiences online and digital technologies more generally can impact our health. These are known as “digital determinants of health”.

Food advertisers use the vast amounts of data collected about individuals to target specific audiences. They can seamlessly integrate advertising into everyday life.

Our study shows junk food advertising is disproportionately served to young people, especially young men. Young men are seeing a much higher proportion of fast food ads (71%) compared to the sample overall (50%), suggesting fast food is marketed to them more aggressively. Many ads promoted special “app-only” deals, including free delivery, especially for fast food.

The ‘halo effect’

We also found examples of ads aimed at busy parents, painting fast food as something that saves parents time, quietens children and feeds families.

Even though Facebook accounts are available only to people 13 and over, junk-food ads still use child-oriented themes, such as characters and games. Many appear to be designed to appeal directly to children. This included ads promoting “healthy” foods, such as vegetables, in kids’ meals.

The most insidious marketing tactics we found connect junk foods, and the brands synonymous with junk foods, to wholesome or popular activities. This creates a “halo effect”.

For example, many ads use “sports-washing” to associate unhealthy foods with healthy sports activities or pleasurable spectator sports. Sports in junk-food marketing can appeal to a broad audience, including young people.

While not all of these sport-related ads promoted or displayed unhealthy food products directly, the sport provided the focal point of ads with strong brand-specific elements, therefore forging the connection.

Other ads used “mental health-washing”, including ads for chocolate bars, packaged snacks or fast food co-promoting community mental health organisations.

Unhealthy food advertising should be banned

Last week a Parliamentary Inquiry into Diabetes in Australia repeated calls for the government to restrict the marketing and advertising of unhealthy food to children on television, radio, in gaming and online.

The federal government should soon issue its report on how best to limit unhealthy food marketing to children. Our study supports the government’s proposal to ban all unhealthy food and drink advertising online.

The proposed ban should cover not just unhealthy food itself, but also any mention of the brands synonymous with those foods. This is because mentioning these brands brings such foods instantly to mind.

We also recommend the government should include all types of promotions. This includes ads from online food delivery companies, supermarkets and sports clubs that cross-promote unhealthy foods.

Many are concerned about the impact of social media and its algorithmic content feeds on children and young people. Our study highlights the food and drink ads targeting children, young people and harried parents can also create an unhealthy digital environment.

Christine Parker receives funding from the Australian Research Council (ARC) for the ARC Centre of Excellence for Automated Decision-Making and Society.

Tanita Northcott 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. Junk food is promoted online to appeal to kids and target young men, our study shows – https://theconversation.com/junk-food-is-promoted-online-to-appeal-to-kids-and-target-young-men-our-study-shows-234285

Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Richard Shaw, Professor of Politics, Massey University

It’s easy to look back at the bad haircuts, beige clothes and brown Beehive carpets and chuckle. But whatever one’s views on its aesthetics, the Fourth Labour Government – elected 40 years ago on July 14 – was no laughing matter.

After nine years of economic nationalism and social conservatism under National prime minister Robert Muldoon, David Lange’s new broom left no corner unswept. In the space of a few short years, fuelled by a high-octane blend of neoliberal theory and neoclassical state minimalism, it reinvented the nation.

The incoming government was helped on its way by Muldoon precipitating a constitutional crisis just days after the election, and by a political system that allowed a government with a parliamentary majority to legislate with relative impunity.

Lange and his finance minister Roger Douglas also relied heavily on the intellectual support of senior Treasury officials who had spent the Muldoon years absorbing the free market philosophies of the Chicago School of Economics.

Labour deployed the political resources of a new, reforming government to full effect. And the list of its reforms says as much about the country we once were as it does about the one we have become.

The rise of Rogernomics

During its first term in office, public subsidies in the agriculture and forestry sectors were removed. Foreign exchange and interest rate controls were lifted. The dollar was floated and financial markets substantially deregulated.

The goods and services tax (GST) was introduced, the personal income tax structure simplified, and the top tax rate for individual income earners fell from 66 to 48 cents in the dollar.

Government businesses and departments were corporatised. Many were then privatised, particularly after Labour’s increased support at the 1987 election. One of the most regulated economies in the world rapidly became one of the most open.

It was dubbed “Rogernomics”, but the Lange-Douglas government’s social and foreign policy reforms were almost as significant. Rape within marriage was finally outlawed, homosexuality was decriminalised, and nuclear-free laws passed as part of a newly assertive and independent foreign policy.

Attorney-general Geoffrey Palmer revised parliament’s Standing Orders, transforming our legislature into one of the most open in the parliamentary democratic world. Palmer also shepherded the Constitution Act (1986) through the House, which formally ended the outmoded provision that New Zealand governments could ask the British parliament to legislate on their behalf.

The past shapes the present

The Lange government would drive other, deeper transformations over time. The manner in which both Labour and its National Party successor threw their executive weight about, for instance, goes a long way to explaining the advent of the MMP proportional electoral system in 1993.

Many, perhaps naively, hoped MMP would clip the wings of the political executive. But the more astute architects of reform recognised MMP was the perfect system for locking in the structural changes made in the 1980s and 1990s by Labour and National.

The sort of radical politics that would be required to undo the neoliberal reforms enacted since 1984 are much harder to achieve in a multi-party system than in one dominated by two parties which swap executive power.

Moreover, the DNA of Labour’s Lange-Douglas era can still be found in the party system that has evolved under MMP.

Most obviously, the ACT Party was co-founded by Roger Douglas. It draws its intellectual inspiration less from Ayn Rand’s Atlas Shrugged than from the Treasury’s epochal briefing to the incoming government in 1984, Economic Management. NZ First leader Winston Peters still adheres to aspects of the world Lange and his core cabinet ended.

And Te Pati Māori is the latest in many attempts to wrangle something for tangata whenua out of our Westminster parliamentary arrangements. The political environment in which it operates was shaped by Labour’s expansion of the Waitangi Tribunal’s powers.

A new orthodoxy

Perhaps the Fourth Labour Government’s most enduring legacy, however, is the least visible: it changed the way we talk and think about politics, especially what we now consider either politically possible or beyond the pale.

We have voluntarily chosen to constrain our ability to control fiscal and monetary policy. And these self-imposed limits on state power are now so embedded in legislation that any form of fiscal activism – such as saving jobs and businesses during a pandemic – seems extraordinary.

The notion that the human condition amounts to the rational pursuit of individual self-interest is similarly pervasive. By this reasoning, wealth inequality – of which there is a great deal more than in 1984 – is a moral not a market failure. Not even a global financial crisis or pandemic could really shift the paradigm.

These things are now widely accepted as natural and immutable, rather than the political choices they are. Without anyone really noticing, two equivalent fictions – the “dead hand” of the state and the “invisible hand” of the market – have assumed the status of both lore and law.

In France, one of the crucibles of modern democracy, the fall of the ancien régime during the revolution is commemorated on July 14, Bastille Day. On that same day in 1984, an old New Zealand order also fell. It was replaced by a new orthodoxy that has effectively smothered an alternative political or economic imagination.

We are all still living in the shadow of 1984. That is the real legacy of the Fourth Labour Government.

Richard Shaw 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 nation reinvented: 40 years on from its 1984 victory, the Fourth Labour Government still defines NZ – https://theconversation.com/a-nation-reinvented-40-years-on-from-its-1984-victory-the-fourth-labour-government-still-defines-nz-232133