Page 39

Treaties, truth and equality: how NZ, Australia and Canada are all struggling with colonial politics

Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Dominic O’Sullivan, Adjunct Professor, Faculty of Health and Environmental Sciences, Auckland University of Technology, and Professor of Political Science, Charles Sturt University

The hīkoi (march) to protest NZ’s Treaty Principles Bill crosses Auckland Harbour Bridge, November 13. Getty Images

With the ACT Party’s Principles of the Treaty of Waitangi Bill having its first reading in parliament last week, the debate and protests have been – understandably – focused on the local historical and political landscape.

But New Zealand isn’t alone in struggling with ideas about the truth of colonialism and its impacts, and how these should influence policy debates and legislation.

Similar debates are playing out in British Columbia in Canada and Queensland in Australia. In both cases, the question of colonialism’s relevance when thinking about social, political and economic equality has become politically contentious.

ACT leader David Seymour says his Treaty principles bill aims to promote equality by limiting the influence of te Tiriti o Waitangi/Treaty of Waitangi in public life – because, he argues, it is too often interpreted to give Māori more say in decision-making than others.

The counter arguments have been well canvassed: that te Tiriti does, in fact, protect Māori rights to authority over their own affairs and to participate in public life with a distinctive cultural voice; and that these are essential components of equality.

But in New Zealand, as in Canada and Australia, there is still no general consensus on colonialism’s role in the poor and often violent relationship between the state and Indigenous peoples. And because the truth of these relationships remains contested, so does the possibility of genuine equality.

Indigenous rights in British Columbia

In 2019, British Columbia became the first jurisdiction in the world to enact legislation to implement the UN Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples.

But this year, the Conservative Party of British Columbia made it a major election issue and campaigned to repeal the province’s Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples Act.

The New Democratic Party government was narrowly returned, but Conservative leader John Rustad claimed the UN declaration “was established for conditions in other countries, not Canada”.

Like the declaration itself, however, the British Columbian law didn’t create any new rights for Indigenous peoples. The declaration simply said human rights belong to them as much as to anybody else, and apply to their cultures, languages and land.

Australia, Canada and New Zealand were three of just four UN member states to vote against the declaration in the first place (in 2007), but all later changed their positions. In 2021, Canada passed federal legislation to implement the declaration.

In 2010, New Zealand’s then prime minister, John Key, said the UN declaration “both affirms accepted rights and establishes future aspirations”. Under the current National-NZ First coalition agreement, however, the same declaration is no longer being considered for legal ratification in New Zealand.

Meanwhile, British Columbia’s law requires annual reporting to parliament on progress towards things such as “ending Indigenous-specific racism and discrimination” and “social, cultural and economic wellbeing”.

The aim is to require accountability and strengthen evidence-based (“truthful”) policymaking as part of a democratic process that works equally well for everybody.

Truth-telling in Queensland

Queensland’s newly elected Liberal National Party government recently confirmed its promise to close down the state’s Truth-Telling and Healing Inquiry and repeal its Path to Treaty Act.

“Truth-telling,” according to the inquiry’s official statements, “is an accurate and inclusive account of Queensland’s history.” In particular, it acknowledges that good public policy, which works equally well for everyone, can’t be based on an assumption that everyone’s experiences, values and expectations are the same.

The then Australian prime minister, Scott Morrison, admitted this in 2020 when he said Indigenous policy failed because:

We perpetuated an ingrained way of thinking, passed down over two centuries and more, and it was the belief that we knew better than our Indigenous peoples. We also thought we understood their problems better than they did. We don’t.

In other words, solutions to the problem Morrison identified require an explicit commitment to public institutions that work equally well for everyone. And better outcomes for everyone are a measure of genuine political equality.

Open societies thrive on debate and evidence

The Principles of the Treaty of Waitangi Bill would require a referendum to become law were it to pass.(That’s unlikely, given the coalition partners won’t support it beyond the select committee stage.)

But referendums reduce complex questions to a simple yes-no binary. Ideas that are simply wrong can have as much weight as any other. In fact, the absence of knowledge, or sheer emotion, can decide an issue with profound impacts on people’s lives.

“If you don’t know, vote no” was the successful slogan (borrowed from elsewhere) used in Australia’s referendum last year on an Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Voice to Parliament. Ultimately, truth becomes a casualty when “don’t know” prevails.

As the former British minister and last governor of Hong Kong, Chris Patten, has argued:

Open societies thrive on press freedom, vigorous debate, and evidence-based policymaking. While liberal democracies do not always live up to this ideal, the understanding that this is how things should work […] is the source of their strength.

Liberal democracy means we are all entitled to our opinions, but our fellow citizens also deserve our considered judgment on important issues.

This means bringing truth into the arguments for New Zealand’s Treaty Principles Bill, critiquing British Columbia’s Indigenous rights legislation based on an honest account of what the legislation does, and recognising that genuine equality in Queensland requires truth-telling.

Without truth we can’t know what equality looks like. This remains the challenge for all societies responding to colonialism.

Dominic O’Sullivan 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. Treaties, truth and equality: how NZ, Australia and Canada are all struggling with colonial politics – https://theconversation.com/treaties-truth-and-equality-how-nz-australia-and-canada-are-all-struggling-with-colonial-politics-243575

Businesses will have to accept cash for essentials under government plan

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

The Albanese government, anxious to prevent a dash from cash by businesses, says it will mandate that they must accept it for essential items.

Treasurer Jim Chalmers and Assistant Treasurer Stephen Jones outlined the move in a statement, and are also releasing a plan to make the phasing out of cheques as orderly as possible.

Small businesses in general will be exempted from the cash requirement.

Treasury will consult on what businesses will be affected. They are expected to include supermarkets, those supplying basic banking services, those selling pharmaceuticals, petrol stations, utilities and healthcare services.

Through the consultations the government will consider the size of businesses that must accept cash, for example in the supermarket sector whether it would apply only to the largest supermarkets.

The question of distance will be relevant – what would be a reasonable distance for a person to have to travel to find a business that took cash.

The regime would likely be established through regulation, so it could be adjusted over time.

The ministers said although people increasingly use digital methods to pay, about 1.5 million Australians use cash for more than 80% of their in-person payments.

“Cash also provides an easily accessible back-up to digital payments in times of natural disaster or digital outage,” the ministers said.

They said up to 94% of businesses still accept cash “and we want to see cash acceptance continue particularly for essentials”.

The consultations would consider the needs of people relying on cash, including those in regional areas and those unable to use digital payments, as well as the impact on businesses especially small businesses, the ministers said.

The details of the mandate would be announced next year and it is proposed it start from January 1 2026.

Cash mandates are in place in countries including Spain, France, Norway and Denmark and in some American states.

Under the cheque transition plan, cheques will only stop being issued by June 30, 2028 and stop being accepted on September 30, 2029.

Cheque use has fallen by 90% in the last decade. Many banks and other financial institutions are ending providing cheque books for new customers.

The ministers said the government was acting to give customers and businesses the help they needed to switch to other payment methods. Banks also had a responsibility to support users in a smooth transition.

Chalmers has written to the CEOs of the four major banks outlining what is expected of them.

Parliament begins frantic last fortnight for the year

Parliament is commencing its final fortnight sitting for the year with much more legislation on the agenda than it can deal with.

Among its priorities will be the caps on international students for universities which are set to start next year. The caps will cost some universities large amounts of income, and have also come under attack from the retail and hospitality sectors.

The government is also anxious to have passed before the end of the year its aged care reforms, with the opposition agreed in principle but a wealth of detail to be considered.

There is as well legislation for the indexation of HELP student loans and for new school funding.

On Monday the government will introduce its sweeping changes to election donations and spending, with the aim of passing the legislation by the end of next week.

Other legislation includes restricting the age of access to social media to 16 and over, with the bill to be introduced this week. The opposition supports this move, and indeed advocated it before the government, so this has a good prospect of passage this year.

But the bill for controls on misinformation and disinformation appears at this stage to be unlikely to pass, with Fatima Payman, who defected from Labor, among the crossbenchers who has expressed opposition.

The Greens are looking for negotiations to be reopened on the housing legislation they have been holding up.

Greens spokesman Max Chandler-Mather has written to Housing Minister Clare O’Neil with a list of demands on the Build to Rent and Help to Buy bills, saying the Greens would pass the bills if the government “agrees to make progress” on their points.

With the election fast approaching and housing a central issue, it would seem in the interests of both Labor and Greens to strike a deal.

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. Businesses will have to accept cash for essentials under government plan – https://theconversation.com/businesses-will-have-to-accept-cash-for-essentials-under-government-plan-243899

NFP president slams Labour leader for ‘hallucinating’ about Fiji governance

By Anish Chand in Nadi, Fiji

National Federation Party president Parmod Chand has described Fiji Labour Party leader Mahendra Chaudhry as a “self-professed champion of the poor” and criticised him over “hallucinating” about the country.

Chand made the comment when responding to remarks made by Chaudhry during FLP’s Annual Delegates Conference in Nadi on Saturday.

Chaudhry described Fiji’s coalition government leadership as self-serving and lacking integrity, transparency and accountability.

“As the un-elected Finance Minister in the regime of Frank Bainimarama after the 2006 coup, [Chaudhry] famously stated that people must learn to live with high prices of basic food items essentials,” said Chand.

“The coalition government has been for the past 23 months re-establishing the foundation for genuine democracy, accountability, transparency and good governance dismantled firstly by the regime that Chaudhry was an integral part of for 18 months”.

“The likes of Mahendra Chaudhry can continue hallucinating”.

The current Coalition Finance Minister is Professor Biman Prasad, who is leader of the NFP.

Republished with permission.

Article by AsiaPacificReport.nz

Hīkoi day 8: Significant disruption expected when thousands converge on capital

RNZ News

New Zealand’s hīkoi against the Treaty Principles Bill could be one of the largest rallies that the capital has seen for years, Wellington City Council says.

The Hīkoi mō te Tiriti will arrive in Wellington tomorrow, and locals are being warned to expect disruption and plan ahead.

Yesterday, about 5000 people filled the square in Palmerston North before the convoy headed south, stopping for a rally in Levin.

Thousands of supporters were then welcomed at Takapūwāhia Marae, in Porirua, north of Wellington.

They will have a rest day in Porirua today before gathering at Wellington’s Waitangi Park on tomorrow morning, and converging on Parliament.

“There is likely to be some disruption to roads and highways,” the council said in a statement.

‘Plan ahead’ call
“Please plan ahead if travelling by road or rail on Tuesday, November 19, as delays are possible.”

The Hīkoi will start at 6am, travelling from Porirua to Waitangi Park, where it will arrive at 9am.

It will then depart the park at 10am, travelling along the Golden Mile to Parliament, where it will arrive at midday.

The Hīkoi will return to Waitangi Park at 4pm for a concert, karakia, and farewell.

State Highways 1 and 2 busier than normal.

Police said no significant issues had been reported as a result of the Hīkoi.

A traffic management plan would be in place for its arrival into Wellington, with heavier than usual traffic anticipated, particularly in the Hutt Valley early Tuesday morning, and on SH2 between Lower Hutt and Wellington city.

Anyone living or working in the city should plan accordingly, Wellington District Commander Superintendent Corrie Parnell said.

Police ‘working with Hikoī’
“Police have been working closely with iwi and Hīkoi organisers, and our engagement has been positive.

“The event as it has moved down the country has been conducted peacefully, and we have every reason to believe this will continue.

“In saying that, disruption is expected through the city centre as the hīkoi makes its way from Waitangi Park to Parliament.

“We’ve planned ahead with NZTA, Wellington City Council, Greater Wellington Regional Council, local schools, retailers and other stakeholders to mitigate this as best possible, but Wellingtonians should be prepared for Tuesday to look a little different.”

Riders on horseback have joined the Hīkoi along the route. Image: RNZ/Pokere Paewai

Wellington Station bus hub will be closed, with buses diverted to nearby locations.

Metlink has also added extra capacity to trains outside of peak times (9am-3pm).

Police said parking was expected to be extremely difficult on Tuesday, especially around the bus hub, Lambton Quay and Parliament grounds.

Wellingtonians were being to exercise patience, particularly on busy roads, Parnell said.

“We ask you to allow more time than normal to get where you are going. Plan ahead by looking at how road closures and public transport changes might affect you, and expect that there will be delays at some point throughout the day.”

PM: ‘We’ll wait and see’
Prime Minister Christopher Luxon said he was playing his approach to the Hīkoi “by ear”.

He has been at his first APEC meeting in Peru, but will arrive back in New Zealand today.

He said he was open to speaking with members of the Hīkoi on Tuesday, but no plans had been made as yet.

“We haven’t made a decision. We’ll wait and see, but I’m very open to meeting, in some form or another.

“It’s obviously building as it walks through the country and gets to Wellington, and we’ll just wait and see and take it as it comes.”

This article is republished under a community partnership agreement with RNZ.

Article by AsiaPacificReport.nz

South Australian Labor gains Black at byelection with big swing

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

Twitter

A byelection occurred on Saturday in the South Australian Liberal-held state seat of Black. With all election day votes counted, Labor gained Black by a 60.6–39.4 margin over the Liberals, a 13.3% swing to Labor since the 2022 state election. Primary votes were 46.5% Labor (up 8.4%), 32.3% Liberals (down 17.8%), 15.6% Greens (up 3.8%) and 5.6% Australian Families (new).

SA doesn’t allow pre-poll and postal votes to be counted on election night, so the count is only up to 42% of enrolled voters. ABC election analyst Antony Green expects the large number of pre-poll and postal votes to reduce Labor’s lead, but Labor will still win easily. These votes will be counted from Monday.

This is the second time the SA Labor government has gained a seat from the opposition at a byelection. In March, Labor gained Dunstan, the seat of former SA Liberal premier Steven Marshall. This was the first time in a century that a SA government had gained from the opposition at a byelection.

This byelection was held owing to the resignation of former Liberal leader David Speirs, who became leader after the 2022 election. SA Labor has now gained two former Liberal leaders’ seats.

I don’t think this result is due to a backlash against Donald Trump’s election as US president, as the latest federal polls have been ordinary for Labor.

There’s only been one poll since the 2022 election of SA state voting intentions. That poll, taken in August, gave Labor a 60–40 lead. A very popular Labor government is the most likely explanation for this byelection result.

Australian economic data

The Australian Bureau of Statistics said wages grew 0.8% in the September quarter, the same as in the June quarter, but 12-month wage growth dropped to 3.5% from 4.1%. With headline inflation up 0.2% in the September quarter and up 2.8% in the previous 12 months, real (inflation-adjusted) wages were up 0.6% in the September quarter and up 0.7% in the previous 12 months.

Real wages have increased in the last four quarters, but they fell for the two years until September 2023, with the fall peaking in December 2022 at above a 4% real wage drop.

The ABS said the October unemployment rate was unchanged from September at 4.1%, with 15,900 jobs added. The employment population ratio (the percentage of eligible Austalians who are employed) remained at 64.4%, an equal record high.

Federal Morgan poll: Coalition retains narrow lead

A national Morgan poll, conducted November 4–10 from a sample of 1,665, gave the Coalition a 50.5–49.5 lead, a 0.5-point gain for Labor since the October 28 to November 3 Morgan poll.

Primary votes were 37.5% Coalition (down 0.5), 30.5% Labor (steady), 12.5% Greens (down 1.5), 6.5% One Nation (up 0.5), 8.5% independents (up one) and 4.5% others (up 0.5).

The headline figure uses respondent preferences. By 2022 election flows, Labor led by an unchanged 51–49.

Additional Resolve questions

Support for the Greens was down one to 11% in the November national Resolve poll for Nine newspapers, their lowest since February. Newspoll and Morgan have also shown a drop for the Greens.

Greens leader Adam Bandt’s net likeability was -15 in Resolve, equal with October as his lowest net likeability since February. The Greens’ net likeability was -19, their worst since August.

Other politicians and parties’ net likeability was -40 for Lidia Thorpe, -23 for Pauline Hanson, -15 for Bob Katter, -10 for Albanese, -4 for Labor, -1 for Dutton and +7 for the Liberals.

On flight upgrades, 36% said MPs should get upgrades for work but not personal flights,, 25% wanted no upgrades and 23% wanted them always allowed. By 45–39, voters thought MPs should continue to accept airline lounge memberships as long as they declare it.

On Albanese’s acceptance of benefits, 35% said he should not have accepted them for personal flights, but it was OK for official travel, 30% said it was OK to accept them and 24% said he should not have accepted benefits for either work or personal flights.

WA state and federal polls

The Western Australian state election will be held in March 2025. The Poll Bludger reported on November 13 that a DemosAU poll, conducted October 30 to November 4 from a sample of 948, gave Labor a 56–44 lead.

Primary votes were 41% Labor, 34% Liberals, 4% Nationals, 12% Greens and 9% for all Others. Labor incumbent Roger Cook had a 42–29 lead over the Liberals’ Libby Mettam as preferred premier.

The federal version of this poll gave Labor a 52–48 lead in WA, a 3% swing to the Coalition from the 2022 federal election. Primary votes were 38% Coalition, 34% Labor, 14% Greens, 6% One Nation and 8% for all Others. Albanese led Dutton as preferred PM by 40–33. A federal WA Redbridge poll gave Labor a 54.5–45.5 lead.

Victorian Resolve poll: Pesutto now preferred premier

A Victorian state Resolve poll for The Age, conducted with the federal October and November Resolve polls from a sample of over 1,000, gave the Coalition 38% of the primary vote (up one since September), Labor 28% (up one), the Greens 13% (down one), independents 14% (down one) and others 7% (steady).

Resolve doesn’t usually give a two-party figure, but The Poll Bludger estimated a Coalition lead by 50.5–49.5. Liberal leader John Pesutto led Labor incumbent Jacinta Allan as preferred premier by 30–29, a reversal of a 30–29 lead for Allan in September. It’s the first time Pesutto has led on this measure.

By 42–37, voters supported the building of more high-density housing near train and tram stations in their area.

US election late counting

I continue to follow United States election late counting for The Poll Bludger. Republicans have a 52–47 lead over Democrats in called Senate races, and are likely to win the final uncalled contest in Pennsylvania.

In the House of Representatives, Republicans have a 218–212 lead in called races with five uncalled. I expect Republicans to win two of the uncalled races, Democrats two and one is still undecided.

The Conversation

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

ref. South Australian Labor gains Black at byelection with big swing – https://theconversation.com/south-australian-labor-gains-black-at-byelection-with-big-swing-243468

Trump win, 1.5C warming breach weigh on UN climate ‘finance COP’

By Sera Sefeti of BenarNews

Pacific delegates fear the implications of a Trump presidency and breach of the 1.5 degree Celsius warming target will overshadow negotiations on climate finance at the UN’s annual COP talks that have started in Azerbaijan this week.

At the COP29 summit — dubbed the “finance COP” — Pacific nations will seek not just more monetary commitment from high-emitting nations but also for the funds to be paid and distributed to those countries facing the worst climate impacts.

With the US as one of the world’s largest emitters, it is feared Trump’s past withdrawal from the Paris Agreement could foreshadow diminished American involvement in climate commitments.

COP29 BAKU, 11-22 November 2024

“We have our work cut-out for us. We are wary that we have the Trump administration coming through and may not be favourable to some of the climate funding that America has proposed,” Samoan academic and COP veteran Salā George Carter told BenarNews.

“We will continue to look for other ways to work with the US, if not with the government then maybe with businesses.”

President’s Scientific Council member Salā Dr George Carter (right) at the Alliance of Small Island States (AOSIS) preliminary meeting in Baku, Azerbaijan. Image: Dylan Kava/PICAN

This year, for the first time, a COP President’s Scientific Council has been formed to be actively involved in the negotiations. Carter is the sole Pacific representative.

Past COP funding promises of US$100 billion annually from developed countries to support vulnerable nations “has never been achieved in any of the years,” he said.

Disproportionate Pacific burden
Pacific nations contribute minimally to global emissions but often bear a disproportionate burden of climate change impacts.

Pacific Island Climate Action Network regional director Rufino Varea argues wealthier nations have a responsibility to support adaptation efforts in these vulnerable regions.

“The Pacific advocates for increased climate finance from wealthier nations, utilizing innovative mechanisms like fossil fuel levies to support adaptation, loss and damage, and a just transition for vulnerable communities,” Varea told BenarNews.

COP29 is being held in the capital of Azerbaijan, the port city of Baku on the oil and gas rich Caspian Sea, once an important waypoint on the ancient Silk Road connecting China to Europe.

The country bordering Russia, Iran, Georgia and Armenia is now one of the world’s most fossil fuel export dependent economies.

About 40,000 delegates will attend COP29 from all the U.N. member states including political leaders, diplomats, scientists, officials, civil society organizations, journalists, activists, Indigenous groups and many more.

All nations are party to the 1992 United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC) and most signed up to the 2015 Paris Climate Agreement and the 1.5 degree target.

Priorities for Pacific
Pacific Islands Forum Secretary General Baron Waqa in a statement yesterday said “the priorities of the Pacific Islands countries, include keeping the 1.5 degree goal alive.”

“The outcomes of COP 29 must deliver on what is non-negotiable – our survival,” he said.

Delegates of Alliance of Small Island States (AOSIS) formulated their negotiating strategies at preliminary meetings in Baku, the capital of Azerbaijan, in preparation for COP29 talks. Image: Dylan Kava/PICAN

Ahead of COP29, the 39 members of the Alliance of Small Island States (AOSIS) — representing the Pacific, Caribbean, African, Indian, and South China Sea — met in Baku to discuss negotiation priorities to achieve the 1.5 degree target and make meaningful progress on climate finance.

Pacific negotiators have historically found COP outcomes disappointing, yet they continue to advocate for greater accountability from major polluters.

“There have been people who have come to COP and refuse to attend anymore,” Carter said. “They believe it is a waste of time coming here because of very little delivery at the end of each COP.”

Papua New Guinea is not attending in Baku in an official capacity this year, citing lack of progress, but some key PNG diplomats are present to support the Pacific’s goals.

Climate data last week from the Europe Union’s Copernicus Climate Change Service predicted 2024 will be the hottest year on record, and likely the first year to exceed the 1.5 degree threshold set in Paris.

Science becoming marginalised
Delegates worry science is becoming marginalised in climate negotiations, with some “arguing that we have reached 1.5, why do we continue to push for 1.5?,” Carter said.

“Although we have reached 1.5 degrees, we should not remove it. In fact, we should keep it as a long-time goal,” he said.

Carter argues for the importance of incorporating both scientific evidence and “our lived experience of climate change” in policy discussions.

The fight for the Paris target and loss and damage funding has been central to Pacific advocacy at previous COPs, despite persistent resistance from some countries.

The 1.5-degree target is “a lifeline of survival for communities and people in our region and in most island nations,” Varea said.

He stressed the need for “a progressive climate finance goal based on the needs and priorities of developing countries, small island developing states (SIDS), and least developed countries (LDC) to enable all countries to retain the 1.5 ambition and implement measures for resilience and loss and damage (finance).”

“As Pacific civil society, we obviously want the most ambitious outcomes to protect people and the planet.”

Pacific negotiators include prominent leaders, such as President Hilde Heine of the Marshall Islands, Vanuatu’s Special Envoy Ralph Regenvanu, Tuvalu’s Climate Change Minister Maina Talia and negotiators Anne Rasmussen from Samoa and Fiji’s Ambassador Amena Yauvoli.

Republished from BenarNews with permission.

Article by AsiaPacificReport.nz

Survey warning on Papua ‘box ticking’ mega estates project goes unheeded

By Stephen Wright for Radio Free Asia

Indonesia’s plan to convert over 2 million ha of conservation and indigenous lands into agriculture will cause long-term damage to the environment, create conflict and add to greenhouse gas emissions, according to a feasibility study document for the Papua region mega-project.

The 96-page presentation reviewed by Radio Free Asia was drawn up by Sucofindo, the Indonesian government’s inspection and land surveying company.

Dated July 4, it analyses the risks and benefits of the sugar cane and rice estate in Merauke regency on Indonesia’s border with Papua New Guinea and outlines a feasibility study that was to have been completed by mid-August.

COP29 BAKU, 11-22 November 2024

Though replete with warnings that “comprehensive” environmental impact assessments should take place before any land is cleared, the feasibility process appears to have been a box-ticking exercise. Sucofindo did not respond to questions from RFA, a news service affiliated with BenarNews, about the document.

Even before the study was completed, then-President Joko “Jokowi” Widodo participated in a ceremony in Merauke on July 23 that marked the first sugar cane planting on land cleared of forest for the food estate, the government said in a statement.

Jokowi’s decade-long presidency ended last month.

Excavators destroy villages
In late July, dozens of excavators shipped by boat were unloaded in the Ilyawab district of Merauke where they destroyed villages and cleared forests and wetlands for rice fields, according to a report by civil society organisation Pusaka

Hipolitus Wangge, an Indonesian politics researcher at Australian National University, told RFA the feasibility study document does not provide new information about the agricultural plans.

But it makes it clear, he said, that in government there is “no specific response on how the state deals with indigenous concerns” and their consequences.

The plan to convert as much as 2.3 million ha of forest, wetland and savannah into rice farms, sugarcane plantations and related infrastructure in the conflict-prone Papua region is part of the government’s ambitions to achieve food and energy self-sufficiency.

Previous efforts in the nation of 270 million people have fallen short of expectations.

Echoing government and military statements, Sucofindo said increasingly extreme climate change and the risk of international conflict are reasons why Indonesia should reduce reliance on food imports.

Taken together, the sugarcane and rice projects represent at least a fifth of a 10,000 square km lowland area known as the TransFly that spans Indonesia and Papua New Guinea and which conservationists say is an already under-threat conservation treasure.

Military leading role
Indonesia’s military has a leading role in the 1.9 million ha rice plan while the government has courted investors for the sugar cane and related bioethanol projects.

The likelihood of conflict with indigenous Papuans or of significant and long-term environmental damage applies in about 80 percent of the area targeted for development, according to Sucofindo’s analysis.

The project’s “issues and challenges,” Sucofindo said, include “deforestation and biodiversity loss, destruction of flora and fauna habitats and loss of species”.

It warns of long-term land degradation and erosion as well as water pollution and reduced water availability during the dry season caused by deforestation.

Sucofindo said indigenous communities in Merauke rely on forests for livelihoods and land conversion will threaten their cultural survival. It repeatedly warns of the risk of conflict, which it says could stem from evictions and relocation.

“Evictions have the potential to destabilize social and economic conditions,” Sucofindo said in its presentation.

If the entire area planned for development is cleared, it would add about 392 million tons of carbon to the atmosphere in net terms, according to Sucofindo.

That is about equal to half of the additional carbon emitted by Indonesia’s fire catastrophe in 2015 when hundreds of thousands of acres of peatlands drained for pulpwood and oil palm plantations burned for months.

Then-President Joko “Jokowi” Widodo participates in a sugar-cane planting ceremony in the Merauke regency of South Papua province in July. Image: Indonesian presidential office handout/Muchlis Jr

Indonesia’s contribution to emissions that raise the average global temperature is significantly worsened by a combination of peatland fires and deforestation. Carbon stored in its globally important tropical forests is released when cut down for palm oil, pulpwood and other plantations.

In a speech last week to the annual United Nations climate conference COP29, Indonesia’s climate envoy, a brother of recently inaugurated president Prabowo Subianto, said the new administration has a long-term goal to restore forests to 31.3 million acres severely degraded by fires in 2015 and earlier massive burnings in the 1980s and 1990s.

Indonesia’s government has made the same promise in previous years including in its official progress report on its national contribution to achieving the Paris Agreement goal of keeping the rise in average global temperature to below 2 degrees Celsius.

“President Prabowo has approved in principle a program of massive reforestation to these 12.7 million hectares in a biodiverse manner,” envoy Hashim Djojohadikusumo said during the livestreamed speech from Baku, Azerbaijan.

“We will soon embark on this programme.”

Prabowo’s government has announced plans to encourage outsiders to migrate to Merauke and other parts of Indonesia’s easternmost region, state media reported this month.

Critics said such large-scale movements of people would further marginalise indigenous Papuans in their own lands and exacerbate conflict that has simmered since Indonesia took control of the region in the late 1960s.

Republished from BenarNews with permission.

Article by AsiaPacificReport.nz

Western media ‘parrots Israeli propaganda’ over Gaza, says analyst

Pacific Media Watch

A media studies professor at Qatar’s Doha Institute for Graduate Studies has completed empirical studies examining Western media coverage of Israel’s war on Gaza — and his findings have been highly critical.

Professor Mohamad Elmasry found that Western media have failed to do much more than “parrot Israeli propaganda regarding al-Shifa Hospital [in Gaza City] and the war more generally”.

Western news outlets, such as BBC, CNN, Sky News, MSNBC, Fox News — and others that are frequent sources of news in New Zealand — “tended to rely overwhelmingly on Israeli and pro-Israeli sources,” he told Al Jazeera.

“Palestinian sources were mostly neglected as were pro-Palestinian sources.

“It’s not a conspiracy; it’s not as though journalists are showing up to work and saying, ‘we’re really going to make the Israelis look good today’.

“But there is a structural problem [in the media] today,” Dr Elmasry added.

“Western news organisations simply do not get Israel-Palestine right.”

US ‘scoffs’ at international law
In a separate interview yesterday, Dr Elmasry blamed the United States for ignoring international law to lead the world to “where we are” over the ongoing Gaza genocide with no end in sight.

“About 95 percent of Israel’s weapons come from the United States and Germany, so as long as those countries scoff at the idea of international law, we won’t get anywhere with the calls for an arms embargo against Israel,” Dr Elmasry said.


Professor Mohamad Elmasry on why there is a stalemate over Gaza genocide. Video: Al Jazeera

“There has been a suggestion that there might be a draft resolution put forward at the United Nations Security Council,” he added.

“There is no question in my mind that nearly all of the countries on the Security Council would support that resolution”.

All countries except for the US, Dr Elmasry added.

“There is also no question in my mind that the United States would veto it, so one of the reasons why we are where we are is because of the United States.”

Article by AsiaPacificReport.nz

Plea to bar Prabowo from UK as Indonesian security forces crack down on Papuan rally

Asia Pacific Report

A West Papuan advocacy group for self-determination for the colonised Melanesians has appealed to the United Kingdom government to cancel its planned reception for new Indonesian President Prabowo Subianto.

“Prabowo is a blood-stained war criminal who is complicit in genocide in East Timor and West Papua,” claimed an exiled leader of the United Liberation Movement for West Papua (ULMWP), Benny Wenda.

He said he hoped the government would stand up for human rights and a “habitable planet” by cancelling its reception for Prabowo.

Prabowo, who was inaugurated last month, is on a 12-day trip to China, the United States, Peru, Brazil, and the United Kingdom.

He is due in the UK on Monday, November 19.

The trip comes as Indonesian security forces brutally suppressed a protest against Indonesia’s new transmigration strategy in the Papuan region.

Wenda, an interim president of ULMWP, said Indonesia was sending thousands of industrial excavators to destroy 5 million hectares of Papuan forest along wiith thousands of troops to violently suppress any resistance.

“Prabowo has also restarted the transmigration settlement programme that has made us a minority in our own land. He wants to destroy West Papua,” the UK-based Wenda said in a statement.

‘Ghost of Suharto’ returns
“For West Papuans, the ghost of Suharto has returned — the New Order regime still exists, it has just changed its clothes.

“It is gravely disappointing that the UK government has signed a ‘critical minerals’ deal with Indonesia, which will likely cover West Papua’s nickel reserves in Tabi and Raja Ampat.

“The UK must understand that there can be no real ‘green deal’ with Indonesia while they are destroying the third largest rainforest on earth.”

Wenda said he was glad to see five members of the House of Lords — Lords Harries, Purvis, Gold, Lexden, and Baroness Bennett — hold the government to account on the issues of self-determination, ecocide, and a long-delayed UN fact-finding visit.

“We need this kind of scrutiny from our parliamentary supporters more than ever now,” he said.

Prabowo is due to visit Oxford Library as part of his diplomatic visit.

“Why Oxford? The answer is clearly because the peaceful Free West Papua Campaign is based here; because the Town Hall flies our national flag every December 1st; and because I have been given Freedom of the City, along with other independence leaders like Nelson Mandela,” Wenda said.

This visit was not an isolated incident, he said. A recent cultural promotion had been held in Oxford Town Centre, addressed by the Indonesian ambassador in an Oxford United scarf.

Takeover of Oxford United
“There was the takeover of Oxford United by Anindya Bakrie, one of Indonesia’s richest men, and Erick Thohir, an Indonesian government minister.

“This is not about business — it is a targeted campaign to undermine West Papua’s international connections. The Indonesian Embassy has sponsored the Cowley Road Carnival and attempted to ban displays of the Morning Star, our national flag.

“They have called a bomb threat in on our office and lobbied to have my Freedom of the City award revoked. Indonesia is using every dirty trick they have in order to destroy my connection with this city.”

Wenda said Indonesia was a poor country, and he blamed the fact that West Papua was its poorest province on six decades of colonialism.

“There are giant slums in Jakarta, with homeless people sleeping under bridges. So why are they pouring money into Oxford, one of the wealthiest cities in Europe?” Wenda said.

“The UK has been my home ever since I escaped an Indonesian prison in the early 2000s. My family and I have been welcomed here, and it will continue to be our home until my country is free and we can return to West Papua.”

Article by AsiaPacificReport.nz

Meeting with Seymour ‘pointless’, say protest hīkoi organisers

RNZ News

Thousands of people have joined the national hīkoi opposing the Treaty Principles Bill as it progresses south, with supporters lining State Highway 10 as it passes through Kerikeri en route to Kawakawa.

Leaders of a hīkoi against David Seymour’s Treaty Principles Bill have rejected the ACT party leader’s offer of a meeting as they set off for Wellington.

A dawn karakia at Te Rerenga Wairua launched the national hīkoi today.

Hīkoi mō te Tiriti participants gathered for a dawn blessing ahead of a nine-day journey to Wellington. Police are preparing for 25,000 people to join, while organisers are hoping for as many as 40,000.

Meanwhile, leaders of the hīkoi rejected the ACT party leader’s offer of a meeting as they set off for Wellington.

The hīkoi arrives in Whangārei, on Monday evening, after the first day of travel towards Wellington. Image: RNZ/Layla Bailey-McDowell
How The New Zealand Herald featured the Hīkoi today. Image: NZH screenshot APR

This article is republished under a community partnership agreement with RNZ.

Article by AsiaPacificReport.nz

Will Trump renew ‘maximum pressure’ against Iran – or could there be an opening for dialogue?

Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Ali Mamouri, Research Fellow, Middle East Studies, Deakin University

With Donald Trump returning to the White House, the relationship between the US and Iran could change significantly.

Trump’s unconventional foreign policy led to a period of heightened confrontation with Iran during his first term in office. However, the regional dynamics have evolved over the past four years, and Trump’s approach to Iran may shift as a result.

Tensions are running high between the two adversaries. Last Friday, the US Department of Justice unveiled federal charges in what it said was a thwarted Iranian plot to assassinate Trump. Iranian Foreign Minister Abbas Araghchi dismissed the allegations as “fabricated”.

In a report in the Wall Street Journal, Iranian officials also told the US government in a secret exchange last month that the country wouldn’t seek to kill Trump.

So, will these tensions continue in a second Trump term? Or might there be an opportunity for Iran and the US to actually improve relations?

How did the ‘maximum pressure’ policy work?

During his first term, Trump enacted a so-called “maximum pressure” policy aimed at curbing Iran’s growing influence in the Middle East.

Iran had grown much stronger after sanctions were lifted as part of the 2015 nuclear deal known as the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action (JCPOA), negotiated by the Obama administration.

Trump withdrew from this agreement in 2018. The US re-imposed severe sanctions on Iran and an embargo on its oil exports. This had severe impacts on Iran’s economy and contributed to social unrest within the country.

In January 2020, tensions between the US and Iran culminated in the assassination of Quds Force commander Qassem Soleimani by a US drone strike. This led to reprisal attacks by Iran on a US military base in Iraq.

In response to these mounting pressures, Iran scaled back its adherence to the JCPOA. It barred International Atomic Energy Agency inspectors from monitoring its nuclear program and enriched uranium to near-weapons-grade level.

Regional dynamics have changed

Over the past four years, there have been substantial shifts in Iran’s relationships with Arab states in the region.

Most significantly, Iran and its chief rival, Saudi Arabi, resumed diplomatic relations in March 2023, marking a historic end to a long period of hostility.

Relations between the two nations quickly progressed to a level of co-operation unthinkable just years ago. And as Israel’s wars in Gaza and Lebanon have continued, Saudi Arabia has drifted away from Israel and closer to its biggest foe, Iran.

Although some scepticism remains, the foreign ministers of both countries met last month in Riyadh, followed by a meeting this week between the general chief of staff of Saudi Arabia’s armed forces and his counterpart in Tehran.

And at a summit of regional leaders in Riyadh this week, Saudi Crown Prince Mohammed bin Salman urged Israel to respect Iranian sovereignty and accused Israel of “collective genocide” in Gaza. The summit resolution also warned of the danger of Israel’s “expansion of aggression” against Iran and other regional countries.

The latest confrontations between Iran and Israel have underscored both nations’ destructive capabilities. A war between them would likely trigger a catastrophic broader conflict that could draw in the United States, Russia and other players. Such a scenario would have profound economic and security repercussions worldwide.

Trump’s stance towards Iran

In his campaign for a second term, Trump has consistently spoken out against prolonged US involvement in wars. He also signalled a more conciliatory approach to Iran. Rejecting the idea of US-driven regime change in Tehran, he remarked:

I would like to see Iran be very successful. The only thing is, they can’t have a nuclear weapon.

He further expressed a hope for improved relations: “I’m not looking to be bad to Iran, we’re going to be friendly, I hope.”

Elon Musk, the tech billionaire closely allied with Trump, also met with Iran’s ambassador to the United Nations earlier this week in a bid to defuse tensions in the next administration, The New York Times reported.

However, other reports indicate that Trump’s top advisers are planning to reinstate the “maximum pressure” campaign against Iran. It would include increasing sanctions again and choking off Iran’s oil income by “going after foreign ports and traders who handle Iranian oil”.

Trump’s unpredictable policymaking style suggests it is too early to know what approach he might take.

Iran’s stance toward a second-trump Term

Iran is now led by a reformist government (by Iranian standards), whose tenure would overlap with much of Trump’s second term.

President Masoud Pezeshkian’s administration has voiced its desire to improve relations with the West and resume nuclear talks. And contrary to previous reformist governments in Iran, it generally enjoys the support of Supreme Leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei, who has the ultimate power in the country.

Despite its military strength, Iran faces deep economic challenges, with public dissatisfaction growing. Therefore, Iran may seek to prioritise diplomatic solutions with the new Trump administration, knowing any escalation could destabilise the region.

In a sign of openness towards Trump, Iran’s vice president for strategic affairs, Mohammad Javad Zarif, has urged him to reassess the policy of “maximum pressure”, saying: “Trump must show that he is not following the wrong policies of the past.”

In the same vein, Araghchi, the foreign minister, has sent positive signals to Trump, saying:

The path forward is also a choice. It begins with respect […] Confidence-building is needed from both sides. It is not a one-way street.

He also emphasised that Iran is “NOT after nuclear weapons”.

Iran has yet to respond to Israel’s latest direct attack in late October. Though Iran has launched two direct attacks of its own on Israel this year, it may seek to de‑escalate tensions. In a statement in late October, Iran’s military said a ceasefire in the Gaza and Lebanon conflicts is more important than retaliation against Israel.

If a ceasefire were to occur, the region could enter a period of relative calm after a year of heightened tensions. This would present a valuable opportunity for the US to work with Israel, Arab states and potentially Iran towards a more permanent regional peace framework.

The Conversation

Ali Mamouri 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. Will Trump renew ‘maximum pressure’ against Iran – or could there be an opening for dialogue? – https://theconversation.com/will-trump-renew-maximum-pressure-against-iran-or-could-there-be-an-opening-for-dialogue-243478

NZ’s Treaty Principles Bill ‘inviting civil war’, says former PM Shipley

RNZ News

A former New Zealand prime minister, Dame Jenny Shipley, has warned the ACT Party is “inviting civil war” with its attempt to define the principles of the 1840 Te Tiriti o Waitangi in law.

The party’s controversial Treaty Principles Bill passed its first reading in Parliament on Thursday, voted for by ruling coalition members ACT, New Zealand First and National.

National has said its MPs will vote against it at the second reading, after only backing it through the first as part of the coalition agreement with ACT.

Voting on the bill was interrupted when Te Pāti Māori’s Hauraki Waikato MP Hana-Rāwhiti Maipi-Clarke tore up a copy of the bill and launched into a haka, inspiring other opposition MPs and members of the public gallery to join in.

Dame Jenny, who led the National Party from 1997 until 2001 and was prime minister for two of those years, threw her support behind Maipi-Clarke.

“The Treaty, when it’s come under pressure from either side, our voices have been raised,” she told RNZ’s Saturday Morning.

“I was young enough to remember Bastion Point, and look, the Treaty has helped us navigate. When people have had to raise their voice, it’s brought us back to what it’s been — an enduring relationship where people then try to find their way forward.

“And I thought the voices of this week were completely and utterly appropriate, and whether they breach standing orders, I’ll put that aside.

“The voice of Māori, that reminds us that this was an agreement, a contract — and you do not rip up a contract and then just say, ‘Well, I’m happy to rewrite it on my terms, but you don’t count.’

Te Pāti Māori MP Hana-Rāwhiti Maipa-Clarke led a haka in Parliament and tore up a copy of the Treaty Principles Bill at the first reading in Parliament on Thursday . . . . a haka is traditionally used as an indigenous show of challenge, support or sorrow. Image: RNZ/Samuel Rillstone

“I would raise my voice. I’m proud that the National Party has said they will not be supporting this, because you cannot speak out of both sides of your mouth.

“And I think any voice that’s raised, and there are many people — pākeha and Māori who are not necessarily on this hikoi — who believe that a relationship is something you keep working at. You don’t just throw it in the bin and then try and rewrite it as it suits you.”

Her comments come after Prime Minister Christopher Luxon called the bill “simplistic” and “unhelpful”, and former Treaty Negotiations Minister Chris Finlayson — who negotiated more settlements than any other — said letting it pass its first reading would do “great damage” to National’s relationship with Māori.

The Treaty Principles Bill reading vote.    Video: RNZ News

Dame Jenny said past attempts to codify Treaty principles in law had failed.

“While there have been principles leaked into individual statutes, we have never attempted to — in a formal sense — put principles in or over top of the Treaty as a collective. And I caution New Zealand — the minute you put the Treaty into a political framework in its totality, you are inviting civil war.

“I would fight against it. Māori have every reason to fight against it.

“This is a relationship we committed to where we would try and find a way to govern forward. We would respect each other’s land and interests rights, and we would try and be citizens together — and actually, we are making outstanding progress, and this sort of malicious, politically motivated, fundraising-motivated attempt to politicise the Treaty in a new way should raise people’s voices, because it is not in New Zealand’s immediate interest.

“And you people should be careful what they wish for. If people polarise, we will finish up in a dangerous position. The Treaty is a gift to us to invite us to work together. And look, we’ve been highly successful in doing that, despite the odd ruction on the way.”

She said New Zealand could be proud of the redress it had made to Māori, “where we accepted we had just made a terrible mess on stolen land and misused the undertakings of the Treaty, and we as a people have tried to put that right”.

“I just despise people who want to use a treasure — which is what the Treaty is to me — and use it as a political tool that drives people to the left or the right, as opposed to inform us from our history and let it deliver a future that is actually who we are as New Zealanders . . .  I condemn David Seymour for his using this, asking the public for money to fuel a campaign that I think really is going to divide New Zealand in a way that I haven’t lived through in my adult life. There’s been flashpoints, but I view this incredibly seriously.”

‘Equal enjoyment of the same fundamental human rights’
In response, David Seymour said the bill actually sought to “solve” the problem of “treating New Zealanders based on their ethnicity”.

“Te Pāti Māori acted in complete disregard for the democratic system of which they are a part during the first reading of the bill, causing disruption, and leading to suspension of the House.

“The Treaty Principles Bill commits to protecting the rights of everyone, including Māori, and upholding Treaty settlements. It commits to give equal enjoyment of the same fundamental human rights to every single New Zealander.

“The challenge for people who oppose this bill is to explain why they are so opposed to those basic principles.”

On Thursday, following the passing of the bill’s first reading, he said he was looking forward to seeing what New Zealanders had to say about it during the six-month select committee process.

“The select committee process will finally democratise the debate over the Treaty which has until this point been dominated by a small number of judges, senior public servants, academics, and politicians.

“Parliament introduced the concept of the Treaty principles into law in 1975 but did not define them. As a result, the courts and the Waitangi Tribunal have been able to develop principles that have been used to justify actions that are contrary to the principle of equal rights. Those actions include co-governance in the delivery of public services, ethnic quotas in public institutions, and consultation based on background.

“The principles of the Treaty are not going away. Either Parliament can define them, or the courts will continue to meddle in this area of critical political and constitutional importance.

“The purpose of the Treaty Principles Bill is for Parliament to define the principles of the Treaty, provide certainty and clarity, and promote a national conversation about their place in our constitutional arrangements.”

He said the bill in no way would alter or amend the Treaty itself.

“I believe all New Zealanders deserve tino rangatiratanga — the right to self-determination. That all human beings are alike in dignity. The Treaty Principles Bill would give all New Zealanders equality before the law, so that we can go forward as one people with one set of rights.”

The Hīkoi today was in Hastings, on its way to Wellington, where it is expected to arrive on Monday.

This article is republished under a community partnership agreement with RNZ.

Article by AsiaPacificReport.nz

NACC head Paul Brereton says resigning in the face of bad publicly would ‘undermine’ the commission

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

The head of the National Anti-Corruption Commission. Paul Brereton, has rejected calls he resign after a finding of “officer misconduct”, declaring to do so would harm the NACC.

In a spirited defence of his digging in, Brereton argued if he was to be “deterred from discharging my duties by adverse publicity, the important independence if the commission would be undermined.

“It would be a statement that our yardstick should be popularity, not integrity.

“It would say that we should avoid making difficult decisions, lest they be unpopular.

“From there it is a short path to becoming an architect of oppression and vehicle of vengeance, rather than an instrument of integrity.”

Brereton was found by the Inspector of the NACC to have committed “officer misconduct” because he only partially, rather than adequately, excused himself during the NACC’s consideration of whether the body should investigate six people the royal commission into Robodebt referred to it.

He delegated the actual decision-making in the matter to a deputy commissioner because he had had a professional relationship with one of the people, but he took part extensively in the process of consideration.

Whether there should be an investigation into the conduct of the six is now to be reconsidered by an independent person to be appointed by the NACC.

Brereton said that after the “stinging finding” by the Inspector, some had called for his resignation, while one commentator even posted that it was ‘revolver in the library time’, which was “liked” by 1700 followers.

Brereton’s detailed defence of his actions comes ahead of a meeting this month of the parliamentary committee with oversight of the NACC.

Speaking to the National Public Sector Governance Forum, he explained why he had remained involved in the process when the Robodebt matter was being considered.

He accepted his judgement had been found to be mistaken when viewed through the legal prism of “apprehended bias” but said “the legal lens is not the only one”.

He said the referrals were received in the first week of the NACC’s operation, when it was just establishing its processes, policies and procedures, including the scope of its jurisdiction and the meaning of “corrupt conduct” under its act.

“I considered that it would have been irresponsible and negligent to abandon any involvement, to provide no guidance on these issues.”

In the circumstances he considered “an appropriate balance” could be achieved by delegating the decision to a deputy commissioner and excusing himself when it was made, while continuing to provide input on issues of general application.

“There was a balance to be struck between my responsibility as a leader for managing the affairs of the commission and issues that would have lasting implications for it on the one hand, and avoiding the perception that my prior professional relationship with one of the referred persons might influence the decision on the other.”

He accepted he had got the balance wrong.

Brereton said the NACC had amended its conflict of interest provision so a person with a declared conflict who wasn’t the ultimate decision-maker did not take part in the process.

The Conversation

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. NACC head Paul Brereton says resigning in the face of bad publicly would ‘undermine’ the commission – https://theconversation.com/nacc-head-paul-brereton-says-resigning-in-the-face-of-bad-publicly-would-undermine-the-commission-243802

NZ’s Treaty Principles Bill haka highlights tensions between Māori tikanga and rules of Parliament

By Lillian Hanly, RNZ News political reporter, Craig McCulloch, RNZ deputy political editor, and Te Manu Korihi

Te Pāti Māori’s extraordinary display of protest — interrupting the first vote on the Treaty Principles Bill — has highlighted the tension in Aotearoa New Zealand between Māori tikanga, or customs, and the rules of Parliament.

When called on to cast Te Pāti Māori’s vote, its MP Hana-Rawhiti Maipi-Clarke instead launched into a haka, ripping a copy of the legislation in half.

She was joined by other opposition MPs and onlookers, prompting Speaker Gerry Brownlee to temporarily suspend Parliament and clear out the public gallery.

Brownlee subsequently censured Maipi-Clarke, describing her conduct as “appallingly disrespectful” and “grossly disorderly”.

Maipi-Clarke was named and suspended, barring her from voting or entering the debating chamber for a 24-hour period. She also had her pay docked.

The Ngāti Toa haka performed in Parliament was the well-known “Ka mate, Ka mate,” which tells the story of chief Te Rauparaha who was being chased by enemies and sought shelter where he hid. Once his enemies left he came out into the light.

Ngāti Toa chief executive and rangatira Helmut Modlik told RNZ the haka was relevant to the debate. He said the bill had put Māori self-determination at risk – “ka mate, ka mate” – and Māori were reclaiming that – “ka ora, ka ora”.

Haka was not governed by rules or regulation, Modlik said. It could be used as a show of challenge, support or sorrow.

“In the modern setting, all of these possibilities are there for the use of haka, but as an expression of cultural preferences, cultural power, world view, ideas, sounds, language – it’s rather compelling.”

Modlik acknowledged that Parliament operated according to its own conventions but said the “House and its rules only exist because our chiefs said it could be here”.

“If you’re going to negate . . .  the constitutional and logical basis for your House being here . . . with your legislation, then that negates your right to claim it as your own to operate as you choose.”

He argued critics were being too sensitive, akin to “complaining about the grammar being used as people are crying that the house is on fire”.

“The firemen are complaining that they weren’t orderly enough,” Modlik said. “They didn’t use the right words.”

Robust response expected
Modlik said Seymour should expect a robust response to his own passionate performance and theatre: “That’s the Pandora’s Box he’s opening”.

Following the party’s protest yesterday, Te Pāti Māori co-leader Rawiri Waititi told reporters “everyone should be proud to see [the haka] in its true context.”

“We love it when the All Blacks do it, but what about when the ‘blackies’ do it?” he said.

Today, speaking to those gathered for the Hīkoi mō te Tiriti in Rotorua, Waititi said the party used “every tool available to us to use in the debates in that House”.

“One of those tools are the Māori tools we take from our kete, which is haka, which is waiata, which is pōkeka — all of those things that our tīpuna have left us. Those are natural debating tools on the marae.”

What does Parliament’s rulebook have to say?
Parliament is governed by its own set of rules known as Standing Orders and Speakers’ Rulings. They endow the Speaker with the power and responsibility to “maintain order and decorum” in the House.

The rules set out the procedures to be followed during a debate and subsequent vote. MPs are banned from using “offensive or disorderly words” or making a “personal reflection” against another member.

MPs can also be found in contempt of Parliament if they obstruct or impede the House in the performance of its functions.

Examples of contempt include assaulting, threatening or obstructing an MP, or “misconducting oneself” in the House.

Under Standing Orders, Parliament’s proceedings can be temporarily suspended “in the case of any grave disorder arising in committee”.

The Speaker may order any member “whose conduct is highly disorderly” to leave the chamber. For example, Brownlee ejected Labour MP Willie Jackson when he refused to apologise for calling Seymour a liar.

The Speaker may also “name” any member “whose conduct is grossly disorderly” and then call for MPs to vote on their suspension, as occurred in the case of Maipi-Clarke.

Members of the public gallery can also be required to leave if they interrupt proceedings or “disturb or disrupt the House”.

‘Abusing tikanga of Parliament’
Seymour has previously criticised Te Pāti Māori for abusing the “the tikanga of Parliament,” and on Thursday he called for further consequences.

“The Speaker needs to make it clear that the people of New Zealand who elect people to this Parliament have a right for their representative to be heard, not drowned out by someone doing a haka or getting in their face making shooting gestures,” Seymour said.

Former Speaker Sir Lockwood Smith told RNZ the rules existed to allow rational and sensible debate on important matters.

“Parliament makes the laws that govern all our lives, and its performance and behaviour has to be commensurate with that responsibility.

“It is not just a stoush in a pub. It is the highest court in the land and its behaviour should reflect that.”

Sir Lockwood said he respected Māori custom, but there were ways that could be expressed within the rules. He said he was also saddened by “the venom directed personally” at Seymour.

This article is republished under a community partnership agreement with RNZ.

Article by AsiaPacificReport.nz

Call for expanded Local Democracy Reporting scheme as NZME plans to shut community papers

RNZ News

A group representing local councils in Aotearoa New Zealand is calling for the Local Democracy Reporting programme to be expanded after the media company NZME announced a proposal to close 14 community newspapers.

The LDR programme funds local authority coverage at various publications and is managed and funded by RNZ with support from NZ On Air.

It covers most regions, apart from Waikato, Hawke’s Bay, the Kāpiti Coast, Otago, and parts of Manawatū-Whanganui and Canterbury.

Local Government NZ, a body representing most councils, said the programme should be expanded to all communities.

“Community newspapers have long played a key role in councils sharing what’s happening locally — from roading, parks and emergency management to big decisions about the future of their region,” LGNZ president Sam Broughton said in a statement.

Broughton was concerned NZME’s plan to shut 14 papers would have a devastating impact on a combined 850,000 readers.

“We are concerned that a move like this could have a negative impact on turnout in next year’s local elections.”

Isolating rural communities
Central Hawke’s Bay mayor Alex Walker said the lack of news coverage would isolate rural communities.

“The axeing of the 14 newspapers would mean that communities like Hawke’s Bay are left with a single subscription-only news outlet, that’s focused more on urban areas,” she said.

“These newspapers are also an effective two-way communication tool between council and the people they serve; particularly our older or more remote population who do not always have access to electronic media.”

The group suggested that the LDR programme’s scope be expanded to cover the rest of the country.

This article is republished under a community partnership agreement with RNZ.

Article by AsiaPacificReport.nz

Hīkoi day five: 10,000 join as Treaty bill protest halts traffic in Rotorua

RNZ News

An estimated 10,000 people have marched through Rotorua today as part of Hīkoi mō te Tiriti protesting against the controversial Treaty Principles Bill.

Due to the size of the group, Fenton Street was blocked temporarily as the Hīkoi went through, police said.

It is anticipated that this afternoon the main Hīkoi will travel via Taupō to Hastings, where participants will stay overnight.

Meanwhile, in Gisborne, a smaller hīkoi of around 80 people left Te Poho-O-Rāwiri Marae this morning heading south, accompanied by several vehicles.

There have been no problems reported at any of these locations.

Hīkoi activation events have now concluded for Te Waipounamu South Island ahead of their convoy to Parliament.

Tuesday, November 19 will mark day 10 of the Hīkoi mō te Tiriti and kotahitanga o Ngā Iwi ki Waitangi Park — everyone will meet at Waitangi Park on Wellington’s waterfont before walking to the steps of the parliamentary Beehive.

This article is republished under a community partnership agreement with RNZ.

Hīkoi treaty bill protest heads south from Rotorua. Video: RNZ News

Article by AsiaPacificReport.nz

Here’s what we’ll be telling COP29 about how climate change is harming young people’s mental health

Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Cybele Dey, Conjoint lecturer & PhD candidate in Psychiatry, School of Medicine and Health, UNSW Sydney

Vanatchanan/Shutterstock

As government representatives gather at the COP29 international climate summit in Azerbaijan, the impact of climate change on young people’s mental health needs to be an urgent priority.

As psychiatrists working with children and adolescents, we’re so concerned that we’re sharing our research at the summit on the link between higher temperatures and suicidal thoughts and behaviours.

Our recent study shows young people are more likely to present at the emergency department for suicidal thoughts and behaviours in hotter weather.

Here’s what we found and why one of us (Cybele Dey) is presenting our findings at COP29.

Mental health is getting worse

Young people’s mental health is getting worse in Australia and across the world.
There is growing evidence inadequate action on climate change is contributing. But it goes beyond young people worrying about how climate change will affect their future.

Climate change is here, and its effects are already damaging young people’s mental health. Extreme weather events – such as Australia’s devastating Black Summer bushfires in 2019 and storms and floods since – disrupt children’s schooling, force displacement and cause trauma, anxiety and stress.

Our study is showing another, less talked about dimension.

Suicidal behaviour risk increases with hotter weather

Small increases in average temperatures can mean a large rise in the number of hot days each year. In 2019, for example, Australia had 33 days averaging over 39°C – more than the total number of the preceding 59 years.

While studies have shown a link between hot weather and adult suicidal thoughts and behaviour, the issue is under-researched among young people.

Given suicide is a major health issue for young people – it is the leading cause of death for Australians aged 15-24 – we wanted to investigate this link.

A man and teenage daughter wear particle masks and sunglasses in a smoke-filled landscape.
Young people are already being directly affected by climate change, through events such as the Black Summer bushfires.
Joachim Zens/Shutterstock

Our recent study looked at all emergency department presentations in New South Wales for suicidal thoughts and behaviour by people aged 12-24, during the warmer months (November to March) between January 2012 and December 2019.

We looked at these warmer months to focus on daily average temperature and heatwaves, rather than compare between seasons.

We found for every 1°C rise in average daily temperature, emergency department visits by young people for suicidal thoughts and behaviour increased by 1.3%. For example, presentations were 11% higher on days averaging 30°C, compared to days with an average 21.9°C. The risks also increased significantly even on days that were average temperature (not extreme heat), when compared to mild, cool days during the warmer months.

A study like this can only show an association between heat and suicidal thoughts and behaviour, rather than a direct cause. But the relationship was very strong. This means there was a steady and predictable worsening as ambient temperatures rose.

We also analysed heatwaves, meaning three or more very hot days in a row. Interestingly, presentations increased as much on the first hot day as on later days of a heatwave. That means each single hot day is as bad as another.

Heat and inequality

Our study also found young people in regions with some of Australia’s most disadvantaged suburbs had a higher risk of presenting at emergency for suicidal thoughts and behaviours than those in more advantaged areas, even at the same temperature.

This is significant because previous research has shown socioeconomic disadvantage in itself does not increase risk for suicidal thoughts and behaviour in young people.

But disadvantage can mean people are more vulnerable to the harms of hot weather. For example, this could be through lack of cool shelter or inability to pay for air conditioning or other cooling, as well as a lack of transport and access to trees and water.

Complex interactions for mental health

Understanding mental health impacts of climate change means examining complex interactions between multiple factors, and over time. Simple, linear “cause and effect” models do not capture this.

Anxiety about climate change does also play a role in young people’s mental health. But children and teenagers who show high levels of distress may be expressing a healthy response to an unhealthy reality, rather than a mental disorder.

Inadequate action and dismissive responses by those in authority, including governments, worsens their distress.

Children at a school strike for climate shout and hold signs.
Young people’s distress is exacerbated when governments dismiss their concerns about climate change.
Ben Wehrman/Shutterstock

What we’ll be telling COP29

At COP29, leaders must understand youth mental health is already seriously affected by insufficient action on climate change, from increasing extreme weather, heat, forced migration and disruption to school, work and health care.

High-income countries such as Australia must rapidly and equitably transition off fossil fuels, including gas, in line with scientific evidence and leadership by our Pacific neighbours, to reduce climate distress now.

Our research suggests this may help reduce youth suicide and suicidal thoughts and behaviours, and improve mental health more broadly.

How can we adapt?

If we are to adapt to climate change, we need to prepare the mental health system at national, state and local levels.

Public health messaging about heat should also consider the risks of single hot days, not just heatwaves. It should target young people and include information about mental health as well as physical health.

This information should also be part of how health professionals are trained. The current National Health and Climate Strategy includes two recommendations on mental health, focusing on community resilience and building a workforce trained in climate change and mental health. These need to go from policy into action.

Sensible public health measures – such as improving rental standards and equipping bus shelters for extreme heat – are needed now. We must plan for increases in mental health-care needs, including access to primary mental health care and evidence-based, local and culturally-appropriate treatments for children and young people.

If this article has raised issues for you, or if you’re concerned about someone you know, call Lifeline on 13 11 14. In an emergency, call 000.

The Conversation

Cybele Dey is a member of Doctors for the Environment, Australia, the Climate and Health Alliance, Psychology for a Safe Climate and chairs the NSW Royal Australian and New Zealand College of Psychiatrists’ Climate Psychiatry Group. She is a conjoint lecturer and researcher at UNSW Sydney and works for Sydney Children’s Hospitals Network, where she is a clinical sustainability lead.

Iain Perkes works for UNSW Sydney and the Sydney Children’s Hospital Network. He is an Associate Editor at the Australian and New Zealand Journal of Psychiatry where the original research article featured here was published.

Kay Wilhelm is a member of Doctors for the Environment.

ref. Here’s what we’ll be telling COP29 about how climate change is harming young people’s mental health – https://theconversation.com/heres-what-well-be-telling-cop29-about-how-climate-change-is-harming-young-peoples-mental-health-243480

Gladiator II features a naval battle held in the Colosseum. These brutal spectacles really happened

Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Craig Barker, Head, Public Engagement, Chau Chak Wing Museum, University of Sydney

Paramount Pictures

It’s one of the most thrilling sequences in Ridley Scott’s new film Gladiator II, the long-awaited sequel to the 2000 Oscar-winning blockbuster.

Water gushes from the Colosseum’s fountains and floods the arena. A crew of men led by the film’s hero, Lucius Verus (played by Paul Mescal), row a warship while firing arrows at another ship. Sharks loom in the surrounding water, while the Emperor Caracalla (Fred Hechinger) watches on laughing.

Gladiator II trailer.

It’s Hollywood’s first re-enactment of an ancient Roman naval battle – and it’s spectacular. The special effects from this sequence will have been a major component of the film’s reported US$310 million budget.

But is there much history to be found here, especially given Ridley Scott’s disdain for historical realities in his films? Did the Romans watch naval battles as entertainment?

Whatever is viewed in the circus and the amphitheatre […] let this be the only sea fight known to posterity.
– Martial in Liber Spectaculorum, book 28

War on the water

The term “naumachia” refers to both the staging of naval battles for mass entertainment and the structure or natural feature in which these recreations took place. Naumachiae did exist. And while they seem to have been rare, the death rates would have been high.

Much of what we know of them (and what is written in this article) comes from writing from a handful of historians, including Suetonius, Dio Cassius and Tacitus.

This fresco wall painting on a panel from the Temple of Isis in Pompeii depicts a naumachia.
Wikimedia/Naples National Archaeological Museum, CC BY-SA

The earliest known naumachia was hosted by Julius Caesar in 46 BCE. Suetonius describes a basin dug near the Tiber river, in Rome’s Campus Martius area, which was large enough to host ships with more than 2,000 combatants and 4,000 rowers – all prisoners of war.

An even grander event was held in 2 BCE by the emperor Augustus for the inauguration of the Temple of Mars Ultor. It was held on an artificial lake, or “stagnum”, spanning more than 530 metres by 350 metres. An estimated 270,000 cubic metres of water would have been required to fill it.

This naumachia featured the reenactment of a naval battle between the “Athenians” and “Persians”. According to Augustus himself, more than 3,000 men fought in 30 vessels.

The largest recorded naumachia came some years later. This reenactment of battle between the “Rhodians” and “Sicilians” was staged by Claudius in 52 CE on the natural lake in Abruzzo, Italy. The event consisted of 100 naval ships and 19,000 combatants – all prisoners who had been condemned to death.

According Dio Cassius, the condemned men saluted Claudius with the phrase Ave imperator, morituri te salutant, or “Hail emperor, those who are about to die salute you”. Although this phrase is now commonly and erroneously assumed to have been spoken by gladiators prior to combat, this remains the only recorded example of its use.

Naumachiae were commonly presented as historical or pseudo-historical reenactments of real naval conflicts. Claudius’ spectacle, for instance, was between fleets representing the “Rhodians” and the “Sicilians”.

Naumachiae in amphitheatres

A new development took place in the 1st century CE: naumachiae began being performed in amphitheatres. The earliest recorded event took place in 57 CE under the rule of emperor Nero, in a wooden structure thought to have been located in the Campus Martius.

For the inauguration of the Flavian amphitheatre (the Colosseum) in 80 CE, Emperor Titus presented two naumachiae: one in Augustus’ stagnum and the other in the Colosseum itself. Titus’ successor, Domitian, is also said to have flooded the Colosseum to host a naumachia circa 85 CE.

The term naumachiae became less frequent in historical literature after the Flavian era (69–96 CE). There’s no evidence the Colosseum was hosting naumachiae as late as the 3rd century, when Gladiator II is set.

Other water spectacles across the Empire

There is some better-preserved evidence of aquatic spectacles on a smaller scale outside of Rome. In Spain, ampitheatres at Verona and Mérida feature central basins connected to water supply and drainage channels.

However, only modest naumachiae would have been possible in these – the arenas presumably covered with wooden floorboards when not used for this purpose.

The ampitheatre at Mérida, Spain, with a sunken basin visible in the centre of the arena.
Wikimedia, CC BY-SA

Water was also used in other forms of entertainment, such as to display marine animals. For instance, in 2 BCE 36 crocodiles were released in a flooded arena and hunted. It was also common for female swimmers to portray Nereids (water nymphs) in flooded arenas, similar to modern artistic swimming.

However, there is no evidence of sharks ever being on display – despite Ridley Scott’s insistence.

A case study from Cyprus

Just as there is evidence of older Roman theatres being converted for gladiator contests and beast hunts, there is also strong evidence of theatres having been modified for aquatic spectacles. This includes theatres in the Greek cities of Corinth and Argos, as well as in Ostia, Italy.

Recent investigations by University of Sydney archaeologists have revealed further evidence of such modifications at the site of Paphos in Cyprus.

They’ve found evidence of the Paphos theatre’s orchestra being converted for water spectacles in the mid-third century – its floor covered with a cement and coloured stone. With an estimated capacity of 310 cubic metres, this theatre was likely too small to host naumachiae, but would have been ideal for displaying animals or water nymphs.

A semicircular containment wall about one metre high separated the audience from the action, while drains and terracotta pipes indicate the flow of water from a large reservoir excavated behind the theatre. Analysis of the plaster on the floor has also confirmed it was waterproof.

The site provides a valuable contribution to our understanding of Roman water spectacles.

In this photo of the Paphos theatre, you can see the semi-circular containment wall surrounding the orchestra. This wall acted as abarrier between the arena and the audience in the third century CE.
Photo by Bob Miller/Paphos Theatre Archaeological Project, CC BY-SA

So when you’re watching the naval battle in Gladiator II, it’s worth remembering how the ancient Romans viewed this spectacle in much the same way. Just like back then, a lot of money was spent to bring this entertainment to life.

Luckily, nobody had to die this time around.

The Conversation

I am the director of the Paphos Theatre Archaeological Project which is discussed in this paper.

ref. Gladiator II features a naval battle held in the Colosseum. These brutal spectacles really happened – https://theconversation.com/gladiator-ii-features-a-naval-battle-held-in-the-colosseum-these-brutal-spectacles-really-happened-242394

Australian police are trialling AI to analyse body-worn camera footage, despite overseas failures and expert criticism

Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Kathryn Henne, Professor and Director, School of Regulation and Global Governance, Australian National University

M. W. Hunt/Shutterstock

Police departments around the world are increasingly using body-worn cameras in an attempt to improve public trust and accountability. But this has created huge amounts of data, about 95% of which is never reviewed or even seen.

Enter companies such as Axon, Polis Solutions and Truleo. These companies market artificial intelligence (AI) tools for analysing the data generated by body-worn cameras and other policing technologies.

Some police departments in the United States previously launched trials of these tools before abandoning them because of concerns about privacy.

Truleo told The Conversation that police in Australia were now using its technology, but did not name any specific department. However, when The Conversation asked Australian police departments if they were using or considering using Truleo’s software, all except the Queensland Police Service said they were not.

In a statement, a Queensland Police Service spokesperson said it is currently conducting an AI trial with “a variety of technology” as part of its work tackling domestic and family violence. The spokesperson added: “Once the trial is completed, a detailed evaluation will be undertaken before the QPS considers future options for using the technology”.

But AI will not solve the challenges facing police – at least, not by itself.

The unfulfilled promise of body-worn cameras

The increased use of body-worn cameras by law enforcement agencies in recent years follows a number of high-profile cases involving police using force. In Australia, for example, a police officer is currently on trial for the manslaughter of a 95-year-old great-grandmother by using a taser.

There is debate about whether body-worn cameras actually make police officers’ behaviour more transparent and accountable.

Some experts have said their effectiveness is uncertain. Others have said they are a failed attempt at reform.

These sentiments were echoed by a major study published earlier this year.

The study examined the use of body-worn cameras in response to domestic and family violence in Australia. It acknowledged their potential utility but showed how data from these technologies might not be used to support victim-survivors. This is because of more foundational problems with how police engage with victim-survivors.

AI’s many uses in policing

Police have been using AI as part of their work for a long time.

For example, in 2000, New South Wales Police launched a program that used data analytics to predict which people were at risk of committing a crime, to enhance police supervision.

A report from the Law Enforcement Conduct Commission later revealed the program disproportionately targeted Indigenous youth, who subsequently faced heightened surveillance and increased arrests for minor crimes. This led to NSW Police ending the program in 2023.

The Queensland Police Service has also proposed a program using AI technologies to predict risk of domestic and family violence.

Experts, however, have pointed to potential unintended consequences, including criminalising victim-survivors.

Companies such as Truleo, which provides police with AI tools to analyse body-worn camera footage, say these tools improve police “professionalism”. However, it is not clear if what is being measured and assessed as “professionalism” correlates with officers’ core duties and responsibilities.

In fact, the Seattle Police Department in the US ended its contract with Truleo despite acknowledging it was a “promising” trial.

It did so after finding a case of unprofessional conduct in which the police union cited the use of camera footage as infringing on the police officer’s privacy.

Body camera being worn by a police officer.
About 95% of all body-worn camera footage isn’t reviewed or even seen.
John Gomez/Shutterstock

The need for structural reform

AI tools could help police manage and analyse body-worn camera data. Their value depends on several conditions.

First, police must thoroughly evaluate any AI tools to ensure they are fit for purpose in a local context. Many of these technologies are developed overseas and trained on data that have linguistic features such as accents, inflections and insults that are not common in Australia.

Second, police – and the companies that offer AI data analysis tools – must also be transparent about how they use body worn camera footage. In particular, they must share where, how and by what arrangements data is processed and stored.

Finally – and most importantly – the use of AI technologies by police should not supersede organisational and structural reforms.

Police need to examine the impact of behaviours and processes that have resulted in inequitable surveillance practices. AI technologies are not solutions to these underlying dynamics.

Without an understanding of the systemic structures that sustain disparities in the criminal legal system, police will not be prepared to address the implications of integrating AI technologies into their work. If they do not, these technologies are more likely to exacerbate existing injustices and inequalities.

In short, the questions about AI shouldn’t be simply about technology but about police legitimacy.

The Conversation

Kathryn Henne’s research is supported by funding from the Australian Research Council, Consortium of Humanities Centers and Institutes, Google Academic Research Awards Program, National Endowment for the Humanities and Social Sciences and Humanities Research Council.

Charles Gretton receives funding from Australian government agencies. Charles’ research has also been supported by Oracle for Research. Charles is a Fellow Member of Engineers Australia, a member of the Association for the Advancement of Artificial Intelligence, and an Associate Member of the Australian Information Industry Association.

Kanika Samuels-Wortley receives funding from the Social Science and Humanities Research Council, Canada Research Chair Program.

ref. Australian police are trialling AI to analyse body-worn camera footage, despite overseas failures and expert criticism – https://theconversation.com/australian-police-are-trialling-ai-to-analyse-body-worn-camera-footage-despite-overseas-failures-and-expert-criticism-243371

Developing nations are least responsible for climate change but cop it worst. Will the COP29 climate talks tackle this injustice?

Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Imraan Valodia, Pro Vice-Chancellor, Climate, Sustainability and Inequality and Director, Southern Centre for Inequality Studies, University of the Witwatersrand

Since the Industrial Revolution, country after country has turned to fossil fuels to power their transport and industry.

Now the bill is coming due. Huge volumes of long-buried carbon are in the atmosphere, warming the planet. Climate disasters are arriving more often and getting worse.

But the pain from climate change is not distributed fairly. Developing nations are suffering the worst, despite emitting far fewer greenhouse gases. To date, two regions – Europe and North America – have contributed fully 60% of the world’s total emissions. This has made them much richer, but at a cost borne largely by those of us in the Global South.

This injustice will be in the spotlight this week, as leaders and diplomats gather in Baku, Azerbaijan, for the yearly United Nations climate talks. Climate finance is high on the agenda – specifically, the vexed question of who pays.

Who is responsible for climate change?

Historically, North America and Europe are the highest emitters.

Asia’s emissions have grown sharply in recent decades, due to its high population size, sustained economic growth in China and high emitting, oil-reliant Gulf states.

By contrast, Africa and South America are each only responsible for 3% of the world’s total emissions over time.

This is a necessarily simplistic picture. It hides, for instance, which companies and organisations emitted most in Europe and North America, as well as which income groups emit most.

But even at this level, it is increasingly clear the wealthiest people in the world are the highest emitters – including the rich who live in the Global South.

This unequal distribution of emissions gave rise to the principle of “common but differentiated responsibilities” in international environmental law in the 1990s.

This phrase speaks to the common responsibility to tackle climate change, the fact some nations have contributed less to the problem and some much more, and that some can respond more easily to the threat.

The idea was first articulated in the 1992 Rio Declaration on sustainable development. It was featured in the 1996 Kyoto Protocol on climate change and the 2015 Paris Agreement.

Pain for the poor

Until very recently, economic growth went hand in hand with using ever more fossil fuels.

The problem is the benefits were localised (an industry booms, a country gets wealthier), the environmental cost was deferred until later, and the damage would be borne more widely.

If fast-growing countries like Ethiopia, and Indonesia took the same route, climate change would get even worse and the world would blow through its shrinking carbon budget.

This is just one of many cruel twists of fate. As the damage done by climate change intensifies, developing countries have to spend more of their budgets on maintaining the status quo – repairing broken bridges, keeping farmers afloat – and less on improving the lives of their citizens.

Climate change also poses major financial risks to developing nations. To cope with more and worse disasters, governments have to borrow more. More of their budgets have to go towards servicing debt, leaving less for everything else.

Right now, millions are going hungry in southern Africa, after an unprecedented drought devastated crops. Zimbabwe has lost 80% of its crops, Zambia 70%.

In 2022, catastrophic floods in Pakistan forced almost 8 million people to leave their homes and forced another 20 million to seek immediate humanitarian aid.

These disasters are bad enough. But they can also disrupt national climate efforts. The hydroelectric Kariba Dam has long provided low-carbon power to Zambia and Zimbabwe. But the water level has dropped sharply due to the drought. In September, the dam stopped generating electricity – and brought power cuts across both nations. In response, the governments have looked to solar and even coal.

The Kariba dam between Zambia and Zimbabwe has been turned off, as water levels were too low to generate power.
Keith Syse/Shutterstock

Who pays for loss and damage?

Adapting to climate change can only go so far. In response, nations in the Global South have sought recognition of the disproportionate loss and damage they were suffering.

In 2013, the world community set up the Warsaw Mechanism for Loss and Damage in a bid to tackle this injustice.

It took a decade of negotiation, stalling and delay before agreement was reached to create the Loss and Damage Fund at last year’s COP climate talks. It will be hosted in the World Bank at first. No funds have yet flowed.

This year’s COP meeting has been dubbed the “finance COP”. On the table will be how to structure this fund. One challenge will be securing funding, given contributions are voluntary and the Green Climate Fund and Adaptation Fund are also seeking funding for mitigation and adaptation projects.

At present, pledges come to a meagre US$661 billion. Wealthier countries have consistently tried to avoid liability for climate change and have blocked the use of terms such as “compensation” or “reparation”.

Will we see progress?

In 2009, nations agreed to fund climate change adaptation and mitigation at $100 billion a year. This figure has now been reached.

The top item at this year’s climate talks will be setting a bigger goal for these climate funds. We don’t know yet whether loss and damage will be included alongside adaptation (living with it) and mitigation (preventing it). Leaders and activists in the Global South have called for a much larger sum for loss and damage, starting at $724 billion per year.

Climate change is already costing poor nations a great deal of money, estimated at $100 to $500 billion in damage each year.

If this year’s COP is to correct this injustice, funding must be in line with expected costs. Funding should flow largely as grants, rather than loans. And wealthy nations should also contribute towards the loss and damage already being suffered.

Unfortunately, we’re unlikely to see this happen if history is any guide. The COP discussions will be overshadowed by the election of Donald Trump, who has promised to give fossil fuel companies free rein.

Even so, these talks offer an important way to get wealthy nations to pay attention to the very real damage done by climate change, far from the headlines. Persistence and advocacy may still pay off.




Read more:
COP29: who pays for climate action in developing nations – and how much – becomes more urgent


Imraan Valodia receives fundings from a large number of South Africa and international funding agencies that support academic research at universities.

Julia Taylor receives funding from various South African and international funding agencies that support academic research at universities.

Katrina Lehmann-Grube receives funding from various South African and international funding agencies that support academic research at universities.

ref. Developing nations are least responsible for climate change but cop it worst. Will the COP29 climate talks tackle this injustice? – https://theconversation.com/developing-nations-are-least-responsible-for-climate-change-but-cop-it-worst-will-the-cop29-climate-talks-tackle-this-injustice-243147

Is it OK to use the term ‘neurospicy’ when talking about autism and other neurodivergences?

Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Katharine Annear, Lecturer (Teaching Specialist) Disability and Community Inclusion, Flinders University

Rawpixel.com/Shutterstock

Language trends change quickly at the hands of social media users. They explode into our screens, rather than slowly evolve. This can change the ways we talk about diagnoses such as autism and concepts like neurodiversity.

But before we use a term, we should look at how it came to be and what it means to people.

So where does the new word “neurospicy” come from? And why do some people embrace it, while others reject it?

First, let’s unpack ‘neurodiversity’

The term neurodiversity evolved collectively in the mid-1990s in an online space dedicated to autistic people.

The term refers to the neurological diversity found across the human species. It is a way to include brains and minds that diverge from what society considers neurologically typical or “neurotypical”.

Australian sociologist Judy Singer first used the term in academia in her 1998 honours thesis and it made its way to mainstream media the same year.

The terms neurodivergent and neurotypical are now well studied and well defined by academics and the neurodiversity movement. Outside of this, though, language can change meaning.

The neurodiversity movement promotes equality

The neurodiversity movement came from the autism rights movement, and for many, the term neurodivergent is associated with autism.

The concept of neurodivergence has broadened over time to include people with conditions such as intellectual disability, mental illness, attention deficit hyperactivity disorder (ADHD), dyslexia and acquired brain injury.

However, a person cannot be diagnosed as neurodivergent. A person can only be diagnosed with a condition that indicates neurodivergence.

Person walks on the beach
The term neurodivergence has broadened beyond autism.
Galyna Andrushko/Shutterstock

The neurodiversity movement is a disability rights movement that focuses on equal rights for neurodivergent people.

Advocates say people with conditions such as autism and ADHD should be accepted rather than “cured”. They argue an inclusive society should ensure equal access to ethical care and support to everyone, including neurodivergent people.

This movement began at a time when most of the autism research focused on finding a cure.

Some argue it doesn’t represent people with high support needs

One of the main criticisms of the neurodiversity movement is it doesn’t address the complex needs of many autistic people.

An autistic person can be non-speaking, have intellectual disability and severe anxiety, requiring a lot of daily support. The people who advocate on behalf of autistic people with complex needs are parents and concerned clinicians.

To these advocates, an acceptance of neurodiversity and an equal rights campaign is not enough. Some argue that neurodivergence, particularly autism, is a medical problem that needs “treatment”.

But both groups want to highlight the care and support needs of this part of the autistic population.

Why do some people favour the term ‘neurospicy’?

Words like neurodiverse, neuro-inclusive, neuro-affirming and neurospicy are neologisms (new words) related to neurodiversity.

These words don’t come from the original group in the 1990s or from medical professionals. They come from a large online community of neurodivergent people.

Neurospicy is a way of describing a person who experiences multiple forms of neurodivergence, or a collective, such as a family that has many neurodivergent members.

For some, the use of neurospicy avoids disclosure of a diagnosis.

Others feel it’s a creative way of pushing back against medical terms such as “mild autism”.

Blogger Randi Owsley writes:

Neurospicy embodies the richness, the zest, and the profound depth that characterise our unique neurological makeup. It’s a celebration of the vibrant, sometimes intense, facets of our identities.

Why do some people dislike it?

The use of neologisms like neurospicy is controversial inside and outside the neurodivergent community.

Some parent advocates feel that terms associated with neurodiversity erase the profound difficulties of autistic people.

Speaking of her son Zack, author Whitney Ellenby says:

Blurring his identity under the indistinct banner of “neurodiverse” erases Zack’s lived history – all that he has endured and overcome to get here.

Neurodivergent people have also had some strong reactions to the word neurospicy. Neurodivergent podcaster Danielle Sullivan asks if neurospicy is just a cute, quirky word or a way to avoid saying disabled.

Some argue we should abandon words such as neurospicy and “neurosparkly” and be clear that we’re talking about disability:

So it seems that some neurodivergent people and people who support the medical model of autism agree about refocusing on disability.

So is it OK to say neurospicy?

Before picking up a new language trend, consider the history and the power of words.

Moving forward, we can ask individuals and families how they refer to themselves and their diagnosis. We will find a variety of responses including neurospicy, autistic, disabled, neurodivergent, has autism or ADHD, or my disability doesn’t define me.

Asking about people’s preferences gives us an opportunity to provide an affirming environment for all, and a space to continue to explore this conversation.

The Conversation

Katharine Annear is affiliated with Autism CRC Ltd

ref. Is it OK to use the term ‘neurospicy’ when talking about autism and other neurodivergences? – https://theconversation.com/is-it-ok-to-use-the-term-neurospicy-when-talking-about-autism-and-other-neurodivergences-241349

Many elite women athletes don’t eat enough carbs, which can affect their performance and health

Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Evangeline Mantzioris, Program Director of Nutrition and Food Sciences, Accredited Practising Dietitian, University of South Australia

Just as a Formula 1 team wouldn’t use shoddy fuel for their cars, elite athletes shouldn’t eat poorly as they try to get the best out of themselves.

Nutrition is crucial for fuelling athletes for training, performance and recovery.

The two most important macronutrients for athletes are carbohydrates and protein.

Carbohydrates provide energy – they fuel the body for exercise and help to sustain performance, and then aid recovery after exercise. Protein is important to repair and build muscles after exercise.

Athletes’ nutrient requirements for carbohydrates and protein will depend on the type, intensity, and duration of the exercise they complete and their body weight.

How much do athletes need?

Reflecting their importance for performance, there are specific carbohydrate and protein guidelines for athletes.

There are also guidelines to promote high carbohydrate availability for training sessions and competition.

Individual requirements vary: athletes will need more carbs through the day if they exercise at greater intensities for longer periods. Also, the more the athlete weighs, the more carbs and protein they will require.

Although research in this area has grown and there is increased focus on education, it seems many elite athletes still find it difficult to fuel their bodies.

What did we look at?

The AFLW is an emerging sport, and we were interested to see if these elite women footballers met the recommendations for daily protein and carbohydrate intake as well as during competition.

We asked AFLW players from one team to tell us what they ate across the season by filling out electronic food diaries.

We were also interested in what they ate on match days.

In addition to filling out a diary at home, we videoed and directly observed what they ate when they were at the football ground.

What did we find?

We found more than 80% of these athletes did not consume enough carbohydrates across pre-season and in-season competition.

On match days, only 18% met their daily carbohydrate requirements.

We also found they did not eat carbohydrates at the right time to fuel their performance – which is before (pre-game) and during a game. Interestingly, when the games were scheduled later in the day, athletes were more likely to meet the pre-game recommendations.

All athletes ate enough carbohydrates after a game.

When it came to protein, all the athletes in our study met their requirements across the season, including on match days.

This isn’t new

Unfortunately, these findings are not unusual for women athletes.

In a systematic review that combined 20 studies of field-based women athletes across different sports, many athletes had low energy and carbohydrate intakes. This was also found in women soccer and volleyball players, and individual sport athletes such as gymnasts.

On average across these studies, less than 50% of the women athletes typically met the recommended daily amount of carbohydrates.

Why is this a problem?

While low energy and carbohydrate intakes can negatively impact an athlete’s performance, it also impacts on their general health.

Athletes who consistently fail to eat enough energy and carbohydrates over a long period of time may be at risk of low energy availability. This can result in physical and mental health problems, a syndrome known as relative energy deficiency in sport REDs.

In addition to poor sports performance outcomes, REDs can result in mood disturbances, reduced sleep quality, impaired growth and development, reduced cardiovascular function and impaired bone health.

Reduced performance during exercise could include decreased muscle strength, endurance, power, ability to recover and reduced motivation.

Why do women athletes avoid carbohydrates?

It’s hard to know exactly why an athlete would consume so few carbs but one reason could be due to the messaging on social media spruiking low-carb and keto diets.

It may also be due to the increased time demands for semi-professional athletes: many AFLW athletes are still working while training.

Athletes often report gut discomfort and suppressed appetite, which may also affect their food choices before training and competition.

How to boost your carb intake

Sports dietitians promote a food-first approach, which focuses on using everyday foods to meet athletes’ daily energy and nutrient needs before considering sports foods.

Sports foods are convenient alternatives to everyday foods to fuel performance (such as energy gels or protein bars). There are, however, some potential downsides to consuming them.

While our research focused on elite women athletes, it is relevant for all women involved in sport.

Regardless of your level of competition, or even if you are a weekend warrior, it is important to meet your energy goals with adequate carbohydrate intake for your activity.

Here are some examples of foods and drinks you can eat to help increase your carbohydrate (and energy) intake for improved performance:

The Conversation

Evangeline Mantzioris is affiliated with Alliance for Research in Nutrition, Exercise and Activity (ARENA) at the University of South Australia. Evangeline Mantzioris has received funding from the National Health and Medical Research Council, and has been appointed to the National Health and Medical Research Council Dietary Guideline Expert Committee.

Alison M. Hill and Chloe Otte 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. Many elite women athletes don’t eat enough carbs, which can affect their performance and health – https://theconversation.com/many-elite-women-athletes-dont-eat-enough-carbs-which-can-affect-their-performance-and-health-242211

NZ’s Treaty Principles Bill is already straining social cohesion – a referendum could be worse

ANALYSIS: By Alexander Gillespie, University of Waikato and Claire Breen, University of Waikato

With the protest hīkoi from the Far North moving through Rotorua on its way to Wellington, it might be said ACT leader David Seymour has been granted his wish of generating an “important national conversation about the place of the Treaty in our constitutional arrangements”.

Timed to coincide with the first reading of the contentious Principles of the Treaty of Waitangi Bill yesterday — it passed with a vote of 68-55, the hīkoi and other similar protests are a response to what many perceive as a fundamental threat to New Zealand’s fragile constitutional framework.

With no upper house, nor a written constitution, important laws can be fast-tracked or repealed by a simple majority of Parliament.

As constitutional lawyer and former prime minister Geoffrey Palmer has argued about the current government’s legislative style and speed, the country “is in danger of lurching towards constitutional impropriety”.

Central to this ever-shifting and contested political ground is te Tiriti o Waitangi/Treaty of Waitangi. For decades it has been woven into the laws of the land in an effort to redress colonial wrongs and guarantee a degree of fairness and equity for Māori.

There is a significant risk the Principles of the Treaty of Waitangi Bill would undermine these achievements, as it attempts to negate recognised rights within the original document and curtail its application in a modern setting.

But while the bill is almost guaranteed to fail because of the other coalition parties’ refusal to support it beyond the select committee, there is another danger. Contained in an explanatory note within the bill is the following clause:

The Bill will come into force if a majority of electors voting in a referendum support it. The Bill will come into force 6 months after the date on which the official result of that referendum is declared.

Were David Seymour to argue his bill has been thwarted by the standard legislative process and must be advanced by a referendum, the consequences for social cohesion could be significant.

The referendum option
While the bill would still need to become law for the referendum to take place, the option of putting it to the wider population — either as a condition of a future coalition agreement or orchestrated via a citizens-initiated referendum — should not be discounted.

One recent poll showed roughly equal support for and against a referendum on the subject, with around 30 percent undecided. And Seymour has had success in the past with his End of Life Choice Act referendum in 2020.

He will also have watched the recent example of Australia’s Voice referendum, which aimed to give a non-binding parliamentary voice to Indigenous communities but failed after a heated and divisive public debate.

The lobby group Hobson’s Pledge, which opposes affirmative action for Māori and is led by former ACT politician Don Brash, has already signalled its intention to push for a citizens-initiated referendum, arguing: “We need to deliver the kind of message that the Voice referendum in Australia delivered.”

The Treaty and the constitution
ACT’s bill is not the first such attempt. In 2006, the NZ First Party — then part of a Labour-led coalition government — introduced the Principles of the Treaty of Waitangi Deletion Bill.

That bill failed, but the essential argument behind it was that entrenching Treaty principles in law was “undermining race relations in New Zealand”. However, ACT’s current bill does not seek to delete those principles, but rather to define and restrain them in law.

This would effectively begin to unpick decades of careful legislative work, threaded together from the deliberations of the Waitangi Tribunal, the Treaty settlements process, the courts and Parliament.

As such, in mid-August the Tribunal found the first iteration of ACT’s bill

would reduce the constitutional status of the Treaty/te Tiriti, remove its effect in law as currently recognised in Treaty clauses, limit Māori rights and Crown obligations, hinder Māori access to justice, impact Treaty settlements, and undermine social cohesion.

In early November, the Tribunal added:

If this Bill were to be enacted, it would be the worst, most comprehensive breach of the Treaty/te Tiriti in modern times. If the Bill remained on the statute book for a considerable time or was never repealed, it could mean the end of the Treaty/te Tiriti.

Social cohesion at risk
Similar concerns have been raised by the Ministry of Justice in its advice to the government. In particular, the ministry noted the proposal in the bill may negate the rights articulated in Article II of the Treaty, which affirms the continuing exercise of tino rangatiratanga (self-determination):

Any law which fails to recognise the collective rights given by Article II calls into question the very purpose of the Treaty and its status in our constitutional arrangements.

The government has also been advised by the Ministry of Justice that the bill may lead to discriminatory outcomes inconsistent with New Zealand’s international legal obligations to eliminate discrimination and implement the rights of Indigenous peoples.

All of these issues will become heightened if a referendum, essentially about the the removal of rights guaranteed to Māori in 1840, is put to the vote.

Of course, citizens-initiated referendums are not binding on a government, but they carry much politically persuasive power nonetheless. And this is not to argue against their usefulness, even on difficult issues.

But the profound constitutional and wider democratic implications of the Principles of the Treaty of Waitangi Bill, and any potential referendum on it, should give everyone pause for thought at this pivotal moment.

Dr Alexander Gillespie is professor of law, University of Waikato and Claire Breen is professor of Law, University of Waikato. This article is republished from The Conversation under a Creative Commons licence. Read the original article.

Article by AsiaPacificReport.nz

NZ’s proposed anti-stalking law is good news – but it must be future-proofed against rapidly evolving technologies

Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Cassandra Mudgway, Senior Lecturer in Law, University of Canterbury

Given the ever-increasing problem of digital harm, the government’s proposed legislation criminalising stalking is welcome news.

The yet-to-be-named proposed law, set to be introduced to parliament by the end of the year, refers to a range of stalking behaviours, including the “use of technology in modern stalking methods”.

If passed, the new law will make “cyberstalking” illegal, bringing New Zealand in line with other countries, including the United Kingdom and Australia.

But while the legislation is welcome, there are still issues to be addressed to ensure the law is relevant to where the technology is now – and where it could develop in the future.

Using technology to hurt others

Cyberstalking is the repeated use of digital tools to harass, coerce, frighten or intimidate another person. It can include using social media, GPS tracking or spyware tools to covertly monitor someone’s location or conversations.

It also includes sending repeated unwanted messages or threats, posting someone’s personal information online (also known as “doxxing”), setting up fake social media accounts to spread false information about someone, or sharing intimate images or videos of someone without consent.

Although it often coincides with stalking offline, cyberstalking is unique in that perpetrators do not need to share the same physical space as the victim to harm them.

Because of the central role technology plays in our lives, cyberstalkers can create such a sense of omnipresence that their victims feel they cannot escape them.

Like offline stalking, cyberstalking mostly occurs in the context of intimate partner violence or dating violence – and this is what the government has focused on.

But the proposed legislation would also cover incidents of cyberstalking by strangers. This would give police more options when it comes to helping public figures who experience significant cyberstalking and online harassment.

Overlapping rules

The complete text of the proposed legislation hasn’t been released yet. But from what has been announced, there is some potential overlap with offences under the Harmful Digital Communications Act 2015 (HDCA).

Under the HDCA, it is an offence to post a harmful digital communication with an intent to cause serious emotional distress. It is also a crime to post an intimate visual recording without consent.

These offences cover some aspects of cyberstalking, such as threatening messages, harassment or revenge porn. But they do not cover others such as monitoring or tracking someone, or locking someone out of their social media accounts.

The maximum sentence for these offences is two years imprisonment or a fine of up to NZ$50,000.

The new stalking offence “will capture patterns of behaviour, being three specified acts occurring within a 12-month period”, and will have a maximum sentence of five years imprisonment.

This signals that cyberstalking will be treated as more serious than offences under the HDCA.

Limits of the new law

The focus of the new offence is on patterns of behaviour over a period of time, transforming acts that might be captured under the HDCA into something more serious because of their repetition.

Given the gendered nature of cyberstalking, taking women’s fear seriously in this way is positive and significant. But the government also needs to review the HDCA to ensure there are no unintentional gaps between the two laws.

As well, it’s unclear whether the offence will require proof the victim feared for their safety. As victims advocate Ruth Money has noted, requiring proof of emotional harm forces the victim to give evidence about their experience.

Instead, the offence should require proof that a “reasonable person” would fear for their safety, Money has argued.




Read more:
Technology-facilitated abuse: the new breed of domestic violence


But given the gendered nature of cyberstalking, there are limitations with this, too. The “reasonable person” standard does not easily incorporate the gendered aspects of abuse – the specific ways in which women are targeted.

To address this, the new law could include a list of factors to provide guidance on what would lead a reasonable person to fear for their safety.

Finally, any stalking offence must be defined in a way that is future-proofed as “any stalking facilitated by technology”.

Emerging technologies will undoubtedly introduce new ways to cyberstalk and harass. For example, AI advances are already facilitating non-consensual image manipulation or generation.

The blending of virtual and augmented realities introduces new challenges for addressing harassment in what is often called the “metaverse”.

A blunt instrument

Overall, the proposed law is a step in the right direction for addressing aspects of online abuse.

But it is important to note that criminalisation is a blunt instrument to control behaviour, and often does not coincide with deterrence of that behaviour. The HDCA, for example, has done little to stop the rise of online harassment.

To really address cyberstalking, the government needs to examine the root causes behind the behaviour – including pervasive sexism in the technology development industry and elsewhere.

The Conversation

Cassandra Mudgway 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. NZ’s proposed anti-stalking law is good news – but it must be future-proofed against rapidly evolving technologies – https://theconversation.com/nzs-proposed-anti-stalking-law-is-good-news-but-it-must-be-future-proofed-against-rapidly-evolving-technologies-243465

Egg-shaped galaxies may be aligned to the black holes at their hearts, astronomers find

Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By David Parkinson, Research Scientist in Astrophysics, The University of Queensland

The active galaxy Centaurus A, with jets emanating from the central black hole. ESO/WFI (Optical); MPIfR/ESO/APEX/A.Weiss et al. (Submillimetre); NASA/CXC/CfA/R.Kraft et al. (X-ray), CC BY

Black holes don’t have many identifying features. They come in one colour (black) and one shape (spherical).

The main difference between black holes is mass: some weigh about as much as a star like our Sun, while others weigh around a million times more. Stellar-mass black holes can be found anywhere in a galaxy, but the really big ones (known as supermassive black holes) are found in the cores of galaxies.

These supermassive behemoths are still quite tiny when seen in cosmic perspective, typically containing only around 1% of their host galaxy’s mass and extending only to a millionth of its width.

However, as we have just discovered, there is a surprising link between what goes on near the black hole and the shape of the entire galaxy that surrounds it. Our results are published in Nature Astronomy.

When black holes light up

Supermassive black holes are fairly rare. Our Milky Way galaxy has one at its centre (named Sagittarius A*), and many other galaxies also seem to host a single supermassive black hole at their core.

Under the right circumstances, dust and gas falling into these galactic cores can form a disk of hot material around the black hole. This “accretion disk” in turn generates a super-heated jet of charged particles that are ejected from the black hole at mind-boggling velocities, close to the speed of light.

When a supermassive black hole lights up like this, we call it a quasar.

How to watch a quasar

To get a good look at quasar jets, astronomers often use radio telescopes. In fact, we sometimes combine observations from multiple radio telescopes located in different parts of the world.

Using a technique called very long baseline interferometry, we can in effect make a single telescope the size of the entire Earth. This massive eye is much better at resolving fine detail than any individual telescope.

As a result, we can not only see objects and structures much smaller than we can with the naked eye, we can do better than the James Webb Space Telescope.

Black holes are millions of times smaller than galaxies, yet make jets that are pointed in the same direction as the entire galaxy. Optical image: NASA, ESA, R.M. Crockett (University of Oxford, U.K.), S. Kaviraj (Imperial College London and University of Oxford, U.K.), J. Silk (University of Oxford), M. Mutchler (Space Telescope Science Institute, Baltimore, USA), R. O’Connell (University of Virginia, Charlottesville, USA), and the WFC3 Scientific Oversight Committee. Top right: MOJAVE Collaboration, NRAO/NSF. Bottom right: Event Horizon Telescope / ESO (same as before)
CC BY-SA

This is the technique that was used to make the first “black hole image” in 2019, showing the halo of light generated around the supermassive black hole hosted by the galaxy M87.

Quasar jets that can be detected using very long baseline interferometry can be millions of light years long and are almost always found in elliptical galaxies. Using very long baseline interferometry, we can observe them all the way down to a few light years or so from their black hole of origin.

The direction of the jet near its source tells us about the orientation of the accretion disk, and so potentially the properties of the black hole itself.

Connection to the host galaxy

What about the host galaxies? A galaxy is a three-dimensional object, formed of hundreds of billions of stars.

But it appears to us (observed in optical or infrared) in projection, either as an ellipse or a spiral. We can measure the shape of these galaxies, tracing the profile of starlight, and measure the long axis and short axis of the two-dimensional shape.

In our paper, we compared the direction of quasar jets with the direction of this shorter axis of the galaxy ellipse, and found that they tend to be pointing in the same direction. This alignment is more statistically significant than you would expect if they were both randomly oriented.

This is surprising, as the black hole is so small (the jets we measure are only a few light years in length) compared to the host galaxy (which can be hundreds of thousands or even millions of light years across).

It is surprising that such a relatively small object can affect, or be affected by, the environment on such large scales. We might expect to see a correlation between the jet and the local environment, but not with the whole galaxy.

How galaxies form

Does this have something to say about the way galaxies form?

Spiral galaxies are perhaps the most famous kind of galaxy, but sometimes they collide with other spirals and form elliptical galaxies. We see these three-dimensional egg-shaped blobs as two-dimensional ellipses on the sky.

The merger process triggers quasar activity in ways we don’t fully understand. As a result, almost all quasar jets that can be detected using very long baseline interferometry are hosted in elliptical galaxies.

The exact interpretation of our results remains mysterious, but is important in the context of the recent James Webb Space Telescope discovery of highly massive quasars (with massive black holes), which have formed much earlier in the universe than expected. Clearly, our understanding of how galaxies form and how black holes influence that needs to be updated.

David Parkinson receives funding from the Korea Astronomy and Space Science Institute.

Jeffrey Hodgson receives funding from the National Research Foundation of Korea.

ref. Egg-shaped galaxies may be aligned to the black holes at their hearts, astronomers find – https://theconversation.com/egg-shaped-galaxies-may-be-aligned-to-the-black-holes-at-their-hearts-astronomers-find-236699

Cancer while pregnant is rare, but is becoming more common. Here’s what researchers think is behind the rise

Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Sarah Sasson, Scientia Senior Lecturer in Medicine (Immunology), UNSW Sydney

PeopleImages.com – Yuri A/Shutterstock

Former winner of TV show Alone Australia Gina Chick was diagnosed with breast cancer just days after finding out she was pregnant. She describes in her recent book her experience with chemotherapy and what followed.

Thankfully, cancer diagnoses during pregnancy and in the year following the birth are rare. But such cases are becoming more common in parts of the world, including Australia. Researchers aren’t exactly sure why.

Here’s what researchers know so far, and the options for treatment.

Gina Chick tells ABC TV’s Australian Story about life, loss and Alone Australia.

How rare is it?

A New South Wales study found that in 1994 there were about 94 cancer diagnoses during pregnancy or within one year of birth per 100,000 women giving birth. That rose to about 163 per 100,000 in 2013. Although these statistics are more than ten years old, these are the most recent and rigorous data available in Australia.

A 2023 Swedish study of pregnancies in 1973-2017 had similar findings.

Both studies found about one-quarter of pregnancy-associated cancers are diagnosed before birth, with the rest diagnosed in the year after birth.

What type of cancers are we talking about?

The United Kingdom’s first comprehensive assessment of cancer during pregnancy looked at diagnoses in 2016-2020.

This study, the NSW study, and others, have found breast and skin cancers (often melanoma) were the most common pregnancy-associated cancers. There were also high rates of thyroid, gynaecological (particularly cervical and ovarian) and blood cancers in this group.

The UK study found about 92% of cancers were new diagnoses and about 82% had symptoms. The majority (81%) were treated with the aim to cure and about 82% of pregnancies associated with a cancer diagnosis resulted in a live birth.

However, 20% of mothers died by the end of the five year study period. Gastrointestinal (gut) cancers were particularly concerning. They had the highest mortality rate at about 46% and were associated with diagnosis at a more advanced stage of cancer.

This may be because many symptoms of gastrointestinal cancers such as abdominal pain, fatigue and acid reflux overlap with those of pregnancy. In other words, some cancer symptoms can be mistaken for pregnancy symptoms, “masking” or delaying a cancer diagnosis.

Young woman having mammogram with radiographer or doctor
Breast cancer is one of the most common cancers diagnosed at this time.
My Ocean Production/Shutterstock

Why are cases like this rising?

The broad range of cancers presenting during and after pregnancy suggests a variety of contributing factors.

In high socioeconomic countries women are having children later in life and the biggest risk factor for many cancers is increasing age. However, the evidence for age being a major factor in pregnancy-related cancer is inconclusive. This may account for some but not all cases.

Another factor may be the rising use of prenatal genetic screening tests in early pregnancy. These analyse DNA derived from the mother’s blood to detect chromosomal abnormalities in the developing fetus. But these tests can also give information about the mother’s chromosomes. This has led to diagnoses of Hodgkin disease, breast and colorectal cancer in pregnant women without symptoms.

Oestrogen and progesterone are two hormones important for growth and development of breast tissue and to support other aspects of a healthy pregnancy. These may also contribute to cancer development, particularly breast cancer. However, it’s not clear whether this is linked to rising rates of pregnancy associated cancers.

Other cancers, such as skin cancer, are associated with environmental factors such as UV exposure. Notably, melanoma was the leading pregnancy-associated cancer in the NSW study, reflecting the high rate of skin cancer in the local population. Other environmental factors, such as smoking and human papillomavirus, are associated with cervical cancer. Again we’re not sure whether such factors are linked with rising rates of pregnancy associated cancers.

Health worker wearing gloves examining back of patient with moles
In the NSW study, skin cancer was the most common.
Africa Studio/Shutterstock

What happens after a diagnosis?

Pregnancy complicates a cancer diagnosis, as any potential treatment for the mother may risk the health and viability of the fetus. So some aspects of treatment may need to be adjusted.

Surgery can usually be undertaken during any trimester depending on where the cancer is located.

Radiotherapy needs careful planning because the impact of radiation on the fetus depends on the developmental stage, where the radiation is applied to the body, and the dose.

Chemotherapy should be avoided in the first trimester due to potential toxic effects on the fetus. But it can usually be given in the second and third trimester. Chemotherapy should be avoided within three weeks of the birth to reduce the chance of bleeding and infection in the newborn, who may also have a weakened immune system from the chemo.

More targeted immunotherapies are generally given to the mother after she’s given birth. Depending on the treatment, she may be advised not breastfeed. That’s because the medicine can pass from the mother via breastmilk to the baby.

What happens to the babies?

Reassuringly, the NSW data found no increase in the rate of babies dying around the time of birth if they were born to mothers with a pregnancy-associated cancer.

However, there were more planned preterm births. This is because women are offered an induction of labour and/or a caesarean to facilitate cancer treatment for the mother, while reducing treatment-related risks to the unborn child.

There were also higher rates of babies born with a low birth weight and low Apgar scores (indicators of a baby’s condition shortly after birth) – possibly related to being born pre-term.

What do researchers want to know?

We have much to learn about what’s behind the increasing rates of pregnancy-associated cancers, and what women diagnosed with these cancers can expect.

We also need to combine cancer and obstetric data in national databases. This would allow us to see which areas to prioritise for further research, inform clinical guidelines to screen for cancers during and after pregnancy, and would help evaluate responses to screening programs or therapies in the future.

The Conversation

Sean Seeho receives funding from the National Health and Medical Research Council and the Ramsay Hospital Research Foundation. He is the chair of Stillbirth Foundation Australia.

Sarah Sasson 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. Cancer while pregnant is rare, but is becoming more common. Here’s what researchers think is behind the rise – https://theconversation.com/cancer-while-pregnant-is-rare-but-is-becoming-more-common-heres-what-researchers-think-is-behind-the-rise-238225

35 years after The Satanic Verses controversy, newly unearthed letters reveal some uncomfortable truths

Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By David Smith, Associate Professor in American Politics and Foreign Policy, US Studies Centre, University of Sydney

Former Malaysian Prime Minister Mahathir Mohamad is famous for his forthright statements to other world leaders. In March 1989, Mahathir wrote a letter to then UK Prime Minister Margaret Thatcher that was blunt even by his standards. Unlike a lot of his angry letters, this one wasn’t published.

Mahathir’s letter was about Salman Rushdie’s controversial book, The Satanic Verses. He wrote:

I do not think I am a Muslim fanatic. Yet I find I cannot condone the writings of Salman Rushdie in his book […] And I find the attitude of the “Western Democracies” most patronising, arrogant and insensitive.

In 2019, the UK government declassified many of its Foreign and Commonwealth Office (FCO) files on the diplomatic upheaval over the novel. Mahathir’s letter to Thatcher is one of hundreds of unpublished diplomatic documents I have seen in visits to the UK National Archives since then.

My full analysis of this letter, and Thatcher’s response to it, has just been published in the Review of International Studies. It is part of a larger project I am working on about The Satanic Verses crisis and what it tells us about the place of religion in international relations.

‘The strangest and rarest crisis in history’

The Satanic Verses, published in late 1988, was met with protests throughout the Muslim world, beginning in South Asian communities in Britain. Many Muslims felt Rushdie had insulted the Prophet Muhammad for the entertainment of Western audiences.

In early 1989, Iranian Supreme Leader Ayatollah Khomeini issued an extraordinary fatwa (or religious edict) calling for the death of Rushdie, a British citizen living in London. This led to a diplomatic standoff that the speaker of Iran’s legislature called “the strangest and rarest crisis in history”.

Portrait of Ruhollah Khomeini
Portrait of Ruhollah Khomeini in 1981.
Wikimedia Commons

Khomeini, who was seeking to strengthen Islamic hardliners in Iran, urged “all zealous Muslims” to carry out his fatwa.

No other leader of a majority Muslim country supported the death sentence, which blatantly violated Britain’s sovereignty and international law. But Mahathir and others felt Western powers should ban The Satanic Verses to maintain good relations with the Muslim world.

The British government saw no reason to ban it. Rushdie and his publishers had broken no British law, as the country’s centuries-old blasphemy laws applied only to the defamation of Christianity.

Defending Rushdie’s life was, as Thatcher put it, “a simple matter”. Her government would not tolerate an Iranian incitement to murder a British citizen on British soil.

Defending his book, however, was more complicated. The British government would not ban it, but also wanted nothing to do with it.

An unusually strong and personal letter

On March 15 1989, Thatcher and Mahathir met in London to discuss matters such as arms deals and airport privatisation. The Satanic Verses issue came up only briefly, when Thatcher thanked Mahathir for his government’s “moderate” stance on the book. She explained that while she could understand the offence the book had caused, the “great religions” could withstand such attacks.

Mahathir reassured Thatcher his government would take no action beyond banning the book. He said he had set out his personal views on the affair in a letter, which he handed to Thatcher.

When her private secretary opened the letter later that day, he found it was “cast in exceptionally strong language that was not reflected in Dr Mahathir’s demeanour at the meeting itself”, according to another archival letter.

Mahathir was having none of the argument that Muslims should behave more like Christians when it came to tolerating insults to their faith. He wrote:

It is well to remember that Islam has been around only 1,400 years. The faith and fervour of the Muslims are as strong as the faith and fanaticism of the Christians of the 15th century.

Of course, our behaviour is also influenced by the mores of the time. We are more tolerant than the 15th century Christians. We do not have inquisitions, we do not burn heretics at the stake, we do not torture those who blaspheme, we do not hound the new Muslim sects as you did the Protestants, and we do not indulge in pogroms. Our behaviour is more civilised than Christians when Christianity was 1,400 years old.

Mahathir’s letter was very unusual for a diplomatic correspondence in that it did not mention either Malaysia or Britain. The “we” of his letter referred to Muslims, while the “you” referred to the West.

And the West, for Mahathir, was a Christian world, though he believed Christianity was enfeebled and decaying within it. He did not want Islam to suffer the same fate.

The West controls the world media and denies others access to it. The power is, of course, abused. […] The Muslims are a particular target. They are made out to be cruel brutes given to all kinds of savagery.

While the West claimed to believe in freedom of expression, according to Mahathir, it did not allow Muslims to defend themselves against what they considered “scurrilous misrepresentation”. Rushdie’s book was the final straw.

Your belief in this so-called ‘freedom of expression’ for one disillusioned and misguided man is stronger than your belief in the value of good relations with 1 billion souls.

In that case, he reasoned, the West could hardly blame Muslims for defending their own principles.

“Prime Minister,” he concluded, “I am much saddened.”

A disconnect between two world views

In another archival letter, Thatcher’s private secretary noted that British officials were “rather rocked by the severity” of Mahathir’s letter.

Thatcher instructed FCO officers to draft a “reasoned response” on her behalf. David Gillmore, former high commissioner to Malaysia, warned they must try to address Mahathir’s points or the reply would sound “condescending and supercilious”.

Written in Thatcher’s voice, the letter said she was “well aware of the distress” the book had caused Mahathir and many in the Islamic world. The reply avoided creating a perception the government was responsible for it.

I must emphasise that the British Government do not in any way condone or endorse Mr Rushdie or the content of this book.

Although freedom of speech was a principle of major importance, Thatcher insisted Britain was not seeking to impose its values on the Muslim world. The issue had “nothing to do with relations between Christians and Muslims”. Rather, it was one of national sovereignty and international law.

When it came to the heart of Mahathir’s complaint, Thatcher’s response resorted to language that was polite, firm and vague:

I was especially saddened to hear you suggest that the Western-controlled media made a particular target of the Muslim world. I cannot agree that this is the case. I believe that this century has seen a growing understanding between the nations, cultures and religions of the world. We must continue to work to improve that understanding.

The British government’s view was that states in the modern age could overcome differences once caused by religion. As such, Thatcher’s response would only represent Britain, not Christendom, despite the many symbolic and even legal ways the British state was still tied to Christianity.

This was one of the reasons Thatcher and Mahathir were doomed to talk past each other. For Western leaders, political authority had superseded religious authority in the 17th century. In diplomacy today, the things that mattered were sovereign states.

The leaders of Muslim countries also viewed sovereign states as important –they were the basis of their own legitimacy. And they had to defend the state against religious radicals who wanted to remake the world along classical Islamic lines.

But for leaders like Mahathir, who grew up in a British colony, religion was still a vital force in diplomatic relations. He viewed the Western insistence on a secular world order as a continuation of colonial dominance over the Muslim world.

The legacy of The Satanic Verses

We can see from this exchange how the British government wanted to distance itself from The Satanic Verses, even as it sought to protect Rushdie.

While many fellow writers, including Muslims like Naguib Mahfouz, leapt to the defence of Rushdie and The Satanic Verses, the book had few defenders in the British government. (One exception was Rushdie’s local MP, the future Labour leader, Jeremy Corbyn.)

In his recent memoir, Knife, Rushdie notes that he got a far more sympathetic response when he was nearly murdered in 2022 than when the fatwa was issued in 1989.

Despite the British government’s notable lack of support for Rushdie’s book, Muslims in Britain and around the world felt the political and cultural power of the West was aligned against them.

This continues to be important for understanding controversies around derogatory images of the Prophet Muhammad in the West. They are never just about the images. They are also about a global imbalance of power that goes back to colonialism.

Mahathir and Thatcher were mutual admirers of each other – and both can claim to have been their countries’ most transformative leaders of the past 50 years. Mahathir, now 99, is still active in Malaysian politics despite recurring health issues.

Mahathir’s anger in this letter did not reflect personal animus against Thatcher. It foreshadowed his future emergence as a global advocate of Islamist causes. His modernist brand of Islamism may well outlast Khomeini’s, despite the violent legacy of Khomeini’s fatwa against Rushdie.

The Conversation

David Smith 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. 35 years after The Satanic Verses controversy, newly unearthed letters reveal some uncomfortable truths – https://theconversation.com/35-years-after-the-satanic-verses-controversy-newly-unearthed-letters-reveal-some-uncomfortable-truths-241890

Troubled waters: how to stop Australia’s freshwater fish species from going extinct

Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Mark Lintermans, Adjunct associate in freshwater fisheries ecology and management, University of Canberra

The barred galaxias is already extinct across 95% of its former streams due to trout, bushfires and droughts. Steven Kuiter

Three-quarters of Australia’s freshwater fish species are found nowhere else on the planet. This makes us the sole custodians of remarkable creatures such as the ornate rainbowfish, the ancient Australian lungfish and the magnificently named longnose sooty grunter.

So how are these national treasures faring? To find out, we undertook the first comprehensive assessment of Australia’s freshwater fish species. We examined extinction risks and drivers of decline, before reviewing existing conservation measures.

Our results paint an alarming picture. More than one-third (37%) of our freshwater fish species are at risk of extinction, including 35 species not even listed as threatened. Dozens of species could become extinct before children born today even finish high school.

The study also reveals Australia has been putting its eggs in the wrong basket for conservation by taking actions that don’t address immediate threats, such as pest species and changes in stream flows. Our research points to more effective solutions if governments are willing to step up their efforts.

A light yellow fish with impressive spines and a big dark eye.
The Angalarri grunter is currently not on Australia’s threatened species list but is recommended for listing as endangered. It is declining due to degraded habitat and water quality caused by livestock and feral animals.
Michael Hammer

Identifying species at risk

Recognising when species are in trouble is the first step in preventing their extinction.

Before this study, the extinction risk of most freshwater fish species had never been assessed. The group had never been looked at overall.

We evaluated the conservation risks of 241 species using globally recognised criteria (the IUCN Red List for Threatened Species).

We began our assessments by gathering a team of 52 Australian freshwater fish experts for a five-day workshop in 2019. These experts came from universities, research organisations, museums, state government agencies, natural resource management, consultancies and non-government groups.

Together, we used information from scientific publications, museum databases, Atlas of Living Australia records, government datasets, citizen science data, and our own knowledge of freshwater fish as it applied to the task.

We identified dozens of freshwater fish species that were in trouble, but had not been recognised as threatened. This brings the proportion of our freshwater fishes at risk of extinction to a third.

Some species have declined to the extent that they could disappear after a single disturbance, such as ash washed into streams after a bushfire or the arrival of an invasive non-native fish such as trout.

We also found one New South Wales species, the Kangaroo River perch, is now extinct.

A fish held up with a river behind
Native fish enemy #1. A brown trout caught in NSW. Invasive fish such as brown and rainbow trout are the biggest driver of native fish loss.
Lee Georgeson/iNaturalist, CC BY

Get them on the list

At present, 63 freshwater fish species are on Australia’s national list of species declared as threatened under federal environmental law.

We identified 35 more species that should be listed, based on the available evidence. They include:

  • ornate rainbowfish and longnosed sooty grunter (vulnerable on the IUCN Red List, the global list of threatened species)
  • salamanderfish (endangered on the IUCN Red List)
  • the slender carp, Drysdale and Barrow cave gudgeons in Western Australia (critically endangered on the IUCN Red List).
A long coppery coloured fish with a dark marbled pattern.
The southwest ‘Vic’ blackfish is currently not on Australia’s threatened species list but is recommended for listing as endangered.
Tarmo Raadik

Maintaining an accurate threatened species list is important. When species are in trouble but not listed, they miss out on basic protections and are unlikely to receive any conservation attention.

We also identified 17 already listed species that should be reassessed by the government as their risk categories need to be changed.

For example, the remarkable freshwater sawfish, found in northern Australian rivers, is listed as vulnerable but all evidence indicates it’s now critically endangered.

One sliver of good news is the fact that the Murray cod, a favoured sport fish across eastern Australia, is now doing better and could be assessed to be removed from Australia’s threatened species list.

A map of Australia showing extinction risk hotspots surrounded by 7 fish.
Mapping freshwater fish extinction risk reveals fish are in danger right around Australia.
M. Lintermans, N. Whiterod and J. Dielenberg, CC BY-SA

Address the causes of decline

To prevent species extinctions, you need to address the causes of their declines. That might seem breathtakingly obvious, yet our review found a spectacular mismatch between the major threats to species at risk and the most common conservation actions.

The top three drivers of decline are invasive fish (which threaten 92% of threatened freshwater fish species), modified stream flows and ecosystems (82%), and climate change and extreme weather (54%).

For example, Australia has 40 galaxiid species, scaleless native fish shaped like slender sausages that grow to less than 15cm. But 31 of these are threatened with extinction – and rainbow and brown trout, two introduced predators, have been the biggest driver of their loss.

Australia’s southern states are greatly adding to the problem by releasing millions of trout into waterways each year for recreational fishers.

The endangered eastern freshwater cod has dwindled in part due to historic fish kills linked to dynamite blasting and pollution from mines and agriculture. It remains threatened by changes to river flows, removal of woody snags, and other damage to its habitat.

The endangered blackstriped dwarf galaxias is being stressed by the changing climate in southwest WA. Warmer and drier conditions are resulting in lower water levels and warmer water.

A long sausage shaped pink and black fish with orange fins.
A waterfall has so far saved the critically endangered stocky galaxias from extinction by preventing trout from reaching its last refuge.
Tarmo Raadik

The other major threats facing native fish are agriculture and aquaculture (38%), pollution (38%), hunting and fishing (19%), energy production and mining (17%), and urban development (13%).

For example, the endangered Utchee rainbowfish is struggling due to habitat loss and water pollution from farms surrounding the small number of north Queensland streams where it lives.

In contrast, the most common conservation action was simply the fact that the species occurred in a protected area (88%) or conservation area (55%).

Sadly, invasive species and climate change don’t recognise or stop at protected area boundaries.

Prevention and control of invasive species has occurred for only 21% of affected threatened species, mostly in Tasmania.

Two small diamond shaped silver-blue fish with bold red markings.
The Utchee rainbowfish is currently not on Australia’s threatened species list but is recommended for listing as endangered. It is struggling due to habitat loss and water pollution from agriculture surrounding the small number of streams where it occurs in north Queensland.
ANGFA Qld

A blueprint to end extinctions

Without a major funding commitment to address the actual drivers of native fish losses, species will continue to decline, and extinctions will soon follow.

The most important conservation actions for native freshwater fish are:

  1. update the national threatened species list to include all at-risk species

  2. tackle invasive species such as trout, gambusia and redfin perch

  3. identify, establish and protect additional invasive-fish-free refuge sites for species that currently occur only in a small number of locations and could be wiped out by a single event such as a bushfire

  4. halt ongoing habitat loss and improve habitats that have been damaged

  5. improve freshwater flows to maintain habitats such as wetlands and streams, improve water quality and give fish the natural cues they need to breed.

In 2022, the Australian government made a commitment to end extinctions. Our study provides a blueprint for how to do that for our overlooked native freshwater fish.

Two fish ecologists marvel at a small waterfall that is protecting native fish upstream
This waterfall in NSW has protected the native galaxias fish above it from trout. To prevent extinctions we need to find or create more invasive-fish-free refuges for native fish.
Mark Lintermans

The Conversation

Mark Lintermans was a member of the ACT Scientific Committee and the NSW Fisheries Scientific Committee, a previous convener of the Australian Society for Fish Biology Threatened Fishes Committee, and the Alien Fishes Committee. He now provides research, monitoring and advice for threatened freshwater fish management as director of a small consultancy company. He receives funding from New South Wales and national government departments for threatened fish projects.

Jaana Dielenberg was employed by the now-ended Threatened Species Recovery Hub of the Australian Government’s National Environmental Science Program, which led an earlier stage of this research. She is a Charles Darwin University Fellow and is employed by the University of Melbourne and the Biodiversity Council.

Nick Whiterod works for the Goyder Institute for Water Research, Coorong, Lower Lakes and Murray Mouth Research Centre, which is funded by the national government to delivery research in the region. He is a member of the New South Wales Fisheries Scientific Committee.

ref. Troubled waters: how to stop Australia’s freshwater fish species from going extinct – https://theconversation.com/troubled-waters-how-to-stop-australias-freshwater-fish-species-from-going-extinct-242950

Pupil-free days may be tricky for parents, but they are vital for teachers and schools

Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Ellen Larsen, Senior Lecturer, School of Education, University of Southern Queensland

Iryna Tolmachova/Shutterstock

Pupil-free or student-free days may seem like an extra holiday for students and an inconvenience for parents, who are juggling work and family.

This week, some parents in New South Wales expressed frustration about the “burden” of these days.

It may even seem like they are “easy” days for teachers without classrooms to run and regular teaching duties.

The name, unfortunately, suggests students are not the focus for these days. But nothing could be further from the truth.

How many days do schools get?

The number of pupil-free days and exactly when these occur varies between states and school sectors.

For example, Queensland government schools have five, NSW has set aside eight pupil-free days, and Victoria is considering doing the same number.

Why do we have them?

Research consistently shows teachers do not have the time to do all the things they need to do in their working weeks.

A 2022 Monash University survey of primary and high school teachers found only 41% intended to stay in the profession. One of the main reasons cited was heavy workloads.

A teachers works with a young student at a desk.
Teachers regularly report they do not have enough time to prepare lessons.
DGL Images/ Shutterstock

Teachers’ work involves much more than teaching in the classroom. It also includes planning, assessments and ever-increasing demands for data collection, administrative work and extra-curricular activities.

On top of this, they need to meet with or talk to parents about what is happening with their child and make sure they are meeting the needs of each individual student.

This means they already work more than they are paid for, either during the week or during school holidays.

When teachers are teaching, they need to keep their focus fully on their students and their families. But on top of this, they also need to fit in professional development to maintain and build on their skills, and meet annual registration requirements.

What kind of development is involved?

Pupil-free days allow teachers to stay up-to-date with curriculum changes and the latest approaches to teaching, including technological developments. This may involve training with outside experts, and importantly, opportunities to work together as a staff to share effective teaching ideas.

It also allows schools to improve what they do in the classroom and work on longer-term, school-wide strategies. For example, a schools’ anti-bullying or inclusive education policy.

When teachers do this professional learning together, it allows the whole school to improve and coordinate what they are doing.

Research also shows that working collaboratively is important for teachers’ wellbeing.

Pupil-free days also mean new teachers and new graduates can be properly inducted into the school and help them feel supported.

The bigger picture

We know we have a problem with retaining teachers in Australia.

They already face enormous pressures in terms of workloads, community expectations and in some cases, abuse from students and parents.

Pupil-free days provide crucial breathing room for teachers to focus on their professional learning and keep their approaches to teaching current. But they also ensure schools are teaching and supporting students as well as they can.

The Conversation

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. Pupil-free days may be tricky for parents, but they are vital for teachers and schools – https://theconversation.com/pupil-free-days-may-be-tricky-for-parents-but-they-are-vital-for-teachers-and-schools-243475

What are tariffs?

Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Scott French, Senior Lecturer in Economics, UNSW Sydney

Engineer studio/Shutterstock

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


Thanks to the decisive victory of US President-elect Donald Trump, we’re now set to hear a whole lot more of his favourite word.

It’s something of a love affair. On the campaign trail in October, he said:

To me, the most beautiful word in the dictionary is tariff.

Previously, he’s matched such rhetoric with real policies. When he was last in office, Trump imposed a range of tariffs.

Now set to return to the White House, he wants tariffs of 10-20% on all imports to the US, and tariffs of 60% or more on those from China.

Most of us understand tariffs are some kind of barrier to trade between countries. But how exactly do they work? Who pays them – and what effects can they have on an economy?




Read more:
What is comparative advantage?


What are tariffs?

An import tariff – sometimes called an import duty – is simply a tax on a good or service that is imported into a country. It’s collected by the government of the country importing the product.

How exactly does that work in practice?

Imagine Australia decided to impose a 10% tariff on all imported washing machines from South Korea.

If an Australian consumer or a business wanted to import a $1,200 washing machine from South Korea, they would have to pay the Australian government $120 when it entered the country.

Employees work on an assembly line of washing machines
Tariffs are charged by the government of an importing country, and usually paid by the importer.
Cara Siera/Shutterstock

So, everything else being equal, the final price an Australian consumer would end up paying for this washing machine is $1,320.

If a local industry or another country without the tariff could produce a competing good at a similar price, it would have a cost advantage.

Other trade barriers

Because tariffs make imports more expensive, economists refer to them as a trade barrier. They aren’t the only kind.

One other common non-tariff trade barrier is an import quota – a limit on how much of a particular good can be imported into a country.

Governments can also create other non-tariff barriers to trade.

Close up of a cow in a field in Australia
China suspended imports of beef from many Australian suppliers back in 2020, citing labelling and health certification problems.
William Edge/Shutterstock

These include administrative or regulatory requirements, such as customs forms, labelling requirements or safety standards that differ across countries.

What are the effects?

Tariffs can have two main effects.

First, they generate tax revenue for the government. This is a major reason why many countries have historically had tariff systems in place.

Borders and ports are natural places to record and regulate what flows into and out of a country. That makes them easy places to impose and enforce taxes.

Second, tariffs raise the cost of buying things produced in other countries. As such, they discourage this action and encourage alternatives, such as buying from domestic producers.

Protecting domestic workers and industries from foreign competition underlies the economic concept of “protectionism”.

The argument is that by making imports more expensive, tariffs will increase spending on domestically produced goods and services, leading to greater demand for domestic workers, and helping a country’s local industries grow.




Read more:
What is competition, and why is it so important for prices?


Swapping producers isn’t always easy

Tariffs may increase the employment and wages of workers in import-competing industries. However, they can also impose costs, and create higher prices for consumers.

True, foreign producers trying to sell goods under a tariff may reduce their prices to remain competitive as exporters, but this only goes so far. At least some of the cost of any tariff imposed by a country will likely be passed on to consumers.

Simply switching to domestic manufacturers likely means paying more. After all, without tariffs, buyers were choosing foreign producers for a reason.

Because they make selling their products in the country less profitable, tariffs also cause some foreign producers to exit the market altogether, which reduces the variety of products available to consumers. Less foreign competition can also give domestic businesses the ability to charge even higher prices.

Lower productivity and risk of retaliation

At an economy-wide level, trade barriers such as tariffs can reduce overall productivity.

That’s because they encourage industries to shift away from producing things for which a country has a comparative advantage into areas where it is relatively inefficient.

They can also artificially keep smaller, less productive producers afloat, while shrinking the size of larger, more productive producers.

Foreign countries may also respond to the tariffs by retaliating and imposing tariffs of their own.

We saw this under Trump’s previous administration, which increased tariffs on about US$350 billion worth of Chinese products between 2018 and 2019.

Several analyses have examined the effects and found it was not foreign producers but domestic consumers – and especially businesses relying on imported goods – that paid the full price of the tariffs.

In addition, the tariffs introduced in 2018 and 2019 failed to increase US employment in the sectors they targeted, while the retaliatory tariffs they attracted reduced employment, mainly in agriculture.

Economists’ verdict

Tariffs can generate tax revenue and may increase employment and wages in some import-competing sectors. But they can also raise prices and may reduce employment and wages in exporting sectors.

Do the benefits outweigh the costs? Economists are nearly unanimous – and have been for centuries – that trade barriers have an overall negative effect on an economy.

But free trade does not benefit everyone, and tariffs are clearly enjoying a moment of political popularity. There are interesting times ahead.




Read more:
Trump’s economic vision is no longer a ‘maybe’. Here’s what it might mean for Australia and the world


The Conversation

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

ref. What are tariffs? – https://theconversation.com/what-are-tariffs-243356

Trump’s tariffs are nothing new – NZ’s real problem is the failing free trade system itself

Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Jane Kelsey, Emeritus Professor of Law, University of Auckland, Waipapa Taumata Rau

Getty Images

Headlines following Donald Trump’s election victory focused largely on the influence of personalities, such as Elon Musk or Robert Kennedy junior, and single issues, such as how US tariff hikes would affect New Zealand’s exports.

But this oversimplifies and diverts attention from the more systemic challenges a second Trump presidency will pose for Aotearoa New Zealand’s economy.

Yes, Trump is an unpredictable authoritarian and an economic disruptor. But his policies are not novel and need to be understood in a broader context.

Many of Trump’s trade policies are an extension of recent US-centric strategies to dismantle the global free trade model. Ironically, the US largely created this model, but it no longer serves US objectives.

The international trade regime, and the neoliberal model of free trade in general, now face an existential crisis that New Zealand cannot ignore.

Free trade backlash

Trump’s tool of choice for trade policy is high tariffs or border taxes, which make imports more expensive. His agenda is driven by two factors:

  • increasing production and jobs in the US domestic economy and incentivising foreign firms to invest within the US border to avoid tariffs

  • geopolitically, using super-tariffs to undercut China’s rise as a competing power.

Neither objective is new. The tariffs Trump imposed in his previous term, especially on China, were largely continued under Joe Biden. They were part of a broader backlash against free trade agreements in the US.

Trump withdrew the US from the Trans-Pacific Partnership Agreement (TPPA). The Biden administration did not rejoin and eschewed the Democrats’ traditional approach to free trade.

Biden’s Indo-Pacific Economic Framework (IPEF) promoted non-tariff strategies designed to boost US industrial, investment and security interests in Asia. Its “friend-shoring” approach aimed to strengthen economic and foreign policy alliances, including with New Zealand, while eroding China’s influence, especially over critical supply chains in the region.

Interestingly, Trump condemned the IPEF (incorrectly) as a reincarnation of the TPPA, so its fate remains uncertain.

WTO in crisis

There has been a similar cross-party convergence on US challenges to the “rules-based” international trade regime. Both Democrat and Republican administrations have systematically undermined the World Trade Organization (WTO), claiming it no longer serves US interests.

Successive US administrations, starting with Barack Obama’s, have paralysed the WTO’s two-tier dispute system by refusing to appoint new Appellate Body members. This means they can break the WTO rules with impunity – including by imposing unilateral tariff sanctions.

At this year’s WTO Public Forum in September, people were openly discussing the existential crisis in the organisation and possible responses if the US disengages completely.

Bipartisan agreement: Joe Biden continued trade policies enacted during the first Trump presidency.
Getty Images

Breakdown of rules

This is just one part of the WTO’s institutional disintegration. The Doha Development Round, launched in 2001, had effectively collapsed by 2008.

In large part, this was over the Agreement on Agriculture. Its foundations were laid in 1993 by the so-called Blair House Accord, which ensured the US and European Union did not have to reduce (and could continue to increase) subsidies for their farmers. They insisted that continue.

Meanwhile, the US and EU stymied demands from developing countries for alternative “safeguard” and “public stockholding” arrangements to support their farmers and ensure food security.

The US, EU and others blocked a waiver of intellectual property rights that would have ensured affordable access to vaccines, diagnostics and supplies during the COVID-19 (and future) pandemics.

Subsets of members, including New Zealand, have ignored the WTO’s own rules to negotiate plurilateral agreements without a mandate, and seek to dilute the “consensus” rule to have them adopted. Ironically, the main opponents, India and South Africa, are labelled the “blockers” for standing up for the WTO rules.

New Zealand’s challenge

So, the crises in the international trade regime (and the neoliberal model of free trade) predate Trump’s first term.

But successive New Zealand governments have put all their eggs in the “free trade” basket of the WTO and regional and bilateral trade agreements.

Current Trade Minister Todd McClay seems determined to secure new agreements as rapidly as possible, illustrated by the 100-day negotiation of a recent deal with the United Arab Emirates under strict secrecy and with minimal scrutiny.

The previous Labour government pragmatically engaged in the IPEF more as a geopolitical alliance with the US than as a trade forum, despite New Zealand’s export dependency on China and the lack of any clear economic benefits.

So far, the reaction to Trump’s re-election from government ministers, business, farmers and news media has given an impression of business as usual, albeit with the threat of unhelpful US tariffs. But what is really needed is a far-reaching debate about the risks of a failing international trade system.

New Zealand’s export share of GDP has not changed meaningfully over the past few decades, despite more than two-thirds of New Zealand’s exports being covered by free trade agreements. The primary problem is not a lack of markets, but rather firms’ export capability, weak innovation, and an over-reliance on low-value-added commodities.

The now-disbanded Productivity Commission’s work on improving economic resilience urged New Zealand to tackle head-on the challenges of an increasingly uncertain and volatile economic and geopolitical world.

That apparently fell on deaf ears. But Trump’s re-election is an opportunity to open that debate and confront those challenges.

The Conversation

Jane Kelsey is an adviser to a number of governments and international organisations on international trade issues.

ref. Trump’s tariffs are nothing new – NZ’s real problem is the failing free trade system itself – https://theconversation.com/trumps-tariffs-are-nothing-new-nzs-real-problem-is-the-failing-free-trade-system-itself-243446

How Rohingya activists are using art, food and storytelling as a form of resistance

Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Clare M. Cooper, Lecturer in the School of Architecture, Design & Planning, University of Sydney

Victor Caringal for MSF

Rohingya activists, advocates and health organisations in Australia have been frustrated by the lack of support provided to displaced Rohingya people.

This ethnic minority group called Myanmar home for centuries before being made stateless by the government in 1982, persecuted due to both their race and majority Muslim religion.

While a few hundred Rohinhya refugees have resettled in Australia since 2008, at least a million continue to live in desperate circumstances in the world’s largest refugee camp: Cox’s Bazar, Bangladesh. There are many horrifying stories of displaced Rohingya facing physical and sexual violence and dire health conditions.

In August, the Refugee Council of Australia council called on the government to remain steadfast on its 2023 pledge to increase resettlement places and provide aid to those still living in camps, but we’ve yet to see substantive action.

As such, local advocates are turning to more creative ways to raise awareness, such as hosting events focused on Rohingya art, culture and resistance. These projects help strengthen local Rohingya communities, while educating the public.




Read more:
7 years after genocide, plight of Rohingya refugees in Bangladesh is exacerbated by camp violence


For my research, I’ve investigated how activist groups use creativity and pleasure to encourage broader participation in their efforts.

This work led me to local Rohingya community members and their allies at the Creative Advocacy Partnership, (cofounded by four Australians with Rohingya community leaders). They told me traditional advocacy could increase feelings of oppression and “othering”.

Through interviews with them, I found creative advocacy projects can serve several empowering purposes, including preserving culture (and elevating culture over suffering), honouring ancestors and balancing power dynamics between aid workers and displaced people.

Building bridges to Cox’s Bazar

Last year, Creative Advocacy Partnership cofounders Tasman Munro and Arunn Jegan (who is also a Médecins Sans Frontières emergency coordinator) travelled to Cox’s Bazar to create artworks in collaboration with Rohingya artists, children and storytellers. One outcome was a sculpted bamboo story panel based on a Rohingya folktale.

Munro described the experience to me:

we sat with [Rohingya creators] Nuru Salam and Nurus Safar, in the front room of their shelter and talked about the project. We saw each other’s work, discussed the tools we needed, the time we had and how flexible the bamboo was […] already, there was a common language and understanding. Over two weeks we had the chance to make together, to learn the artful process of stripping bamboo, figuring out the cane-glass technique, listening to Rohingya folktales and collaborating with talented kids to design and make the story panel.

Two men sit cross-legged wearing casual shirts and long pants while handling a bamboo frame holding woven bamboo panel. They are in a large tent. There are umbrellas hanging on the right side
In 2023, Tasman Munro worked alongside Rohingya artist to create the ‘Two Crows’ bamboo mural in Kutapalong, Cox’s Bazar.
Victor Caringal for MSF

This project was shared back on Gadigal land in an exhibition curated by the Creative Advocacy Partnership, Médecins Sans Frontières and Rohingya youth leader Asma Nayim Ullah. It provided ways to engage with both the refugee crisis and Rohingya culture through a photo exhibition, film screening, and live video call set up with Jegan, who was still stationed in Cox’s Bazar, and a Rohingya storyteller named Rezwan.

A delicious meal was cooked by the Australian Rohingya Women’s Development Organisation. The deep connection between both places was palpable.

Four people crouching on a carpet in front of a screen with two men looking out at the camera on the screen. The man on the left is wearing a printed yellow shirt, the man on the right is a bit blurry and is wearing a light blue shirt and cap
A live video link was established between Cox’s Bazar in Bangladesh and Join The Dots in Marrickville as part of the ‘Two Crows’ exhibition.
Victor Caringal for MSF

Jegan has lived the difference between traditional advocacy methods (such as focus groups or clinical rounds in refugee camps) and arts-focused projects. He is passionate about shifting the power dynamics of aid so that local voices are heard and disadvantage isn’t perpetuated.

He said that, outside of these creative approaches, he’d noticed dynamics that held aid workers in higher regard than the disenfranchised communities they served:

The arts has been ‘the great leveller’ for me. It places the community as experts, where their skills and crafts are centred, and their stories, plight, and are story-told through them, rather than through simply their misery, disease, or their service user-ship (usage). I’ve found that by using arts, I’ve created a stronger, more equal relationship.

Creative advocacy can change discourse

Here on Gadigal land, prominent Rohingya activist and cofounder/director of the Rohingya Maìyafuìnor Collaborative Network, Noor Azizah, told me millions of Rohingya continue to face extreme hardship:

With 2.8 million Rohingya worldwide, only 1% live in freedom while 99% remain in refugee camps, in hiding, in exile, or trapped in Arakan, Burma. Cox’s Bazar alone hosts nearly one million Rohingya refugees and the situation there remains dire. We need to ensure their voices are heard as this protracted crisis prevents Rohingya from thriving.

In August, to mark the seventh anniversary of the Rohingyas’ 2017 mass displacement from Myanmar, Azizah co-hosted an event called the Rohingya Social. She described it as an

opportunity to amplify voices and remind everyone that the fight for dignity, rights, and justice continues for those who remain displaced.

The public were invited to share in celebrating Rohingya cuisine, culture and survival over an authentic three-course meal. The event featured stories from survivors and Médecins Sans Frontières workers, poetry by a local Year 11 student and colourful paper decorations created by displaced Rohingya children in Malaysia.

A crowded room with 30 people seated at a long table, and many people standing in conversation around the table. The room is decorated with brightly coloured paper garlands and a large chandelier hanging from the ceiling.
Rohingya Social, held on Gadigal land in August 2024, was co-presented by the Creative Advocacy Partnership, Médecins Sans Frontières and the Rohingya community.
Victor Caringal for MSF

The night was full of generosity of spirit. As Azizah wrote on her social media:

Cooking Rohingya food for family and friends is more than just preparing a meal. It’s about honouring our ancestors who passed down these recipes, supporting our people currently facing struggles, and preserving our culture despite the challenges we face.

The Conversation

The author does not work for, consult, own shares in, or receive funding from any company or organisation that would benefit from this article. Relevant affiliations beyond their academic appointment are with the following climate justice and worker’s rights organisations: Community Environmental Monitoring (co-founder), Workers for Climate Action (member), National Tertiary Educators Union (member), National Association for Visual Arts (member).

ref. How Rohingya activists are using art, food and storytelling as a form of resistance – https://theconversation.com/how-rohingya-activists-are-using-art-food-and-storytelling-as-a-form-of-resistance-237328

Government aims to pass political donation and spending caps within a fortnight after in-principle deal with opposition

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

The Albanese government aims to rush through legislation within a fortnight for political donation and spending caps, after in-principle support from the opposition.

The new regime, to be unveiled by Special Minister of State Don Farrell on Friday, would impose a $20,000 “gift cap” on what any recipient could obtain from a particular donor in one calendar year.

The cap on the total amount a donor could give in a year, covering multiple recipients, is expected to be more than $600,000.

That cap is set high, both to stop donors getting around it and to head off a successful High Court challenge on the grounds of limiting freedom of communication.

There would be multiple spending caps for election campaigns.

These include a national $90 million cap per party, state caps for senate campaigns which would vary between states, and a $800,000 cap per candidate in an individual seat.

The regime will also lower the threshold for publicly declaring donations, and provide for real-time – or close to real-time – disclosure of donations.

The threshold for disclosure – currently $16,900 (which is indexed) – would come down to $1,000. Indexation would only be applied once after each election.

Between elections, donations would have to be disclosed monthly, and would be published by the Australian Electoral Commission.

During campaigns, there would be weekly disclosure. In the final week, it would be daily, and that would continue for a week after the election to limit the opportunity for the requirement to be circumvented.

The changes will include an increase in the public subsidy to $5 a vote. It is now $3.346 per eligible vote.

Also, there will be some modest funding for “administration” for parties and independent parliamentarians – $30,000 for members and $15,000 for senators.

Penalties for non-compliance with the new provisions will be substantial.

The legislation will be introduced to the House of Representatives early next week, and put through by week’s end. It will be debated in the Senate the following week – the final parliamentary week this year.

If passed, the new rules will not come into effect until July 1 2026, with a six-month transition period to allow the AEC and political parties to prepare themselves before the full regime starts in 2027.

The package will also include provision for truth in advertising, based on the South Australian model. But Farrell does not have enough support to get this through and it won’t be passed with the other measures. It is strongly opposed by the AEC (which doesn’t want to have to police such a regime) as well as by the opposition.

Labor has long been committed to donation and spending reform but has been particularly galvanised by the huge spending of Clive Palmer, who outlaid $123 million at the last election.

Farrell said: “Years of inquiries and evidence from multiple elections show us that the biggest weakness to our electoral system is big money influencing our political system.

“Over the last decade we have seen billionaires repeatedly attempt to sway our elections, not through policy or participation, but through money and misinformation.

“This significant package of reforms has been drafted to tackle big money in our electoral system and protect our democracy into the future.”

The Conversation

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. Government aims to pass political donation and spending caps within a fortnight after in-principle deal with opposition – https://theconversation.com/government-aims-to-pass-political-donation-and-spending-caps-within-a-fortnight-after-in-principle-deal-with-opposition-243708

Grattan on Friday: Labor will ask voters ‘who will make you better or worse off in next three years?’

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

The government is standing by Kevin Rudd, albeit with gritted teeth, in the face of calls for him to be replaced as Australia’s ambassador to Washington. But the row is an unhelpful and potentially damaging distraction for a prime minister beset by problems and under the shadow of an approaching election.

Rudd was always set to be controversial if Donald Trump returned, so Anthony Albanese’s appointing him was a gamble.

Moreover, Rudd doesn’t help himself. For example, why didn’t he delete his social media posts graphically disparaging Trump as soon as he was named for the post? Instead, he did so last week, after Trump’s election. His accompanying personal statement announcing the fact just drew fresh attention to the comments, producing a story in the New York Times.

The controversy around Rudd can only intensify with Trump’s naming of Dan Scavino as his deputy chief of staff. Scavino this week posted an hourglass on social media linked to Rudd’s statement.

Although the government is perennially anxious about the risk of some unfortunate fresh “Ruddism”, there is wide agreement he has been effective in building contacts on both sides of US politics.

Those pressing for his replacement are showing scant concern for Australia’s national self-respect. In effect, they are anticipating Trump will bully Australia and advocating we get in first and act the supplicant. That is not what an ally and middle power should do.

Or, in some cases, the attackers just want to damage the Albanese government as the election approaches. The Liberals have backed Rudd, but on Thursday Opposition Leader Peter Dutton was using dog-whistling language.

I want to make sure that we can have an ambassador who can work effectively with the government, whether that’s the US or wherever an ambassador might be appointed.

The general uncertainty of the looming early days of Trump’s presidency adds to Albanese’s challenges as he gets closer to the federal election, the skirmishing for which has already been raging for months.

If, as is likely, Trump moves quickly to install his tariffs regime, the Albanese government will be under pressure to secure an exemption for Australia, as the Turnbull government did during the first Trump presidency.

This might need some difficult direct lobbying by the prime minister, who says he has already discussed trade in his phone call with the president-elect last week.

I pointed out that […] the United States has a trade surplus with Australia. So it’s in the United States’ interest to trade fairly with Australia.

This week, Albanese’s options for timing the election were thrown into relief when Western Australian Premier Roger Cook revealed he had sought advice about the possibility of moving the March 8 (fixed date) WA election, in the event of a clash with the federal poll.

While possible, a March federal election is considered the least likely of Albanese’s options. Not only would there be overlap with a WA campaign, but the government would probably want more time to hang out for a reduction in interest rates.

Those suggesting (or advocating) an April election argue this would avoid the government having to bring down a budget, currently scheduled for March 25. A budget would show deficits into the distant future, they say, which would give ammunition to the opposition.

This point is undermined, however, by the fact that early in the election campaign, the bureaucracy produces the Pre-election Economic and Fiscal Outlook, which is a budget update that contains these figures.

The advantage of a budget is it can give a government a good launchpad.

The third option is for Albanese to wait until May, with the last date May 17 (so the result can be finalised for a July 1 start for the new Senate).

Some in Labor circles believe the prime minister will want to wait as long as possible. On the other hand, others note that when time is running out, it becomes harder for the government to get clear air and it has no flexibility to delay if the unexpected arises.

Albanese this week told journalists the election “will be called April or before” – in other words, he told them nothing.

Meanwhile, the government is announcing a host of things it says it “will” do – but not this term. They amount to election promises. The big one is forgiving one-fifth of people’s HELP debt – that will only be delivered if the government is re-elected.

Next week, parliament sits for its final fortnight of the year, with a big agenda – much of which will be crowded out. A high priority will be given to changing the electoral funding and spending regime, which the government expects to pass before parliament rises for Christmas (although the new provisions would not apply to this election).

Albanese, in South America for the APEC and G20 summits, will miss the first of these weeks. How the government, which sets the parliamentary timetable, had parliament’s sitting coinciding with his absence is a mystery. These final weeks of the year are times of legislative argy bargy and uncertainty.

At home, Treasurer Jim Chalmers, who has been busy with a round of major speeches, will next Wednesday deliver in parliament a statement on the economy.

On his trip, Albanese has multiple bilateral meetings, but of course not the crucial one he needs – with Trump. However, suggestions from the opposition he should fly to the US on his way home were political point-scoring. Just at the moment, the president-elect is busy with organising his new team.

As he tours the country, Dutton, encouraged by the Trump victory, is asking voters – in a version of Trump’s election question – “do you feel better off today than you did when Mr Albanese was first elected?”

Labor, in turn, will try to focus the election on what alternative plans are being presented for the future. Over the coming months it will announce big policies (like the debt forgiveness one) for a second-term agenda.

Labor’s aim is to push back on Dutton’s question with another question: “Who is going to make you better or worse off over the next three years?”

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

ref. Grattan on Friday: Labor will ask voters ‘who will make you better or worse off in next three years?’ – https://theconversation.com/grattan-on-friday-labor-will-ask-voters-who-will-make-you-better-or-worse-off-in-next-three-years-243691

NZ’s Hīkoi challenging controversial draft bill ‘redefines activism’, says Herald

Pacific Media Watch

As thousands take to the streets this week to “honour” the country’s 1840 Treaty of Waitangi, the largest daily newspaper New Zealand Herald says the massive event is “redefining activism”.

The Hīkoi mō te Tiriti has been underway since Sunday, with thousands of New Zealanders from all communities and walks of life traversing the more than 2000 km length of the country from Cape Reinga to Bluff and converging on the capital Wellington.

The marches are challenging the coalition government Act Party’s proposed Treaty Principles Bill, introduced last week by co-leader David Seymour.

The Bill had its first reading in Parliament today as a young first time opposition Te Pāti Māori MP, Hana-Rawhiti Maipi-Clarke, was suspended for leading a haka and ripping up a copy of the Bill disrupting the vote, and opposition Labour Party’s Māori Development spokesperson Willie Jackson was also “excused” from the chamber for calling Seymour a “liar” against parliamentary rules.

After a second attempt at voting, the three coalition parties won 68-55 with all three opposition parties voting against.

In its editorial today, hours before the debate and vote, The New Zealand Herald said supporters of Toitū te Tiriti, the force behind the Hīkoi, were seeking a community “reconnection” and described their kaupapa as an “activation, not activism; empowerment, not disruption; education, not protest”.

“Many of the supporters on the Hīkoi don’t consider themselves political activists. They are mums and dads, rangatahi, professionals, Pākehā, and Tauiwi (other non-Māori ethnicities),” The Herald said.

‘Loaded, colonial language’
“Mainstream media is often accused of using ‘loaded, colonial language’ in its headlines. Supporters of Toitū te Tiriti, however, see the movement not as a political protest but as a way to reconnect with the country’s shared history and reflect on New Zealand’s obligations under Te Tiriti.

“While some will support the initiative, many Pākehā New Zealanders are responding to it with unequivocal anger; others feel discomfort about suggestions of colonial guilt or inherited privilege stemming from historical injustices.”

The Herald said that politicians like Seymour advocated for a “multicultural” New Zealand, promising equal treatment for all cultures. While this vision sounded appealing, “it glosses over the partnership outlined in Te Tiriti”.

“Seymour argues he is fighting for respect for all, but when multiculturalism is wielded as a political tool, it can obscure indigenous rights and maintain colonial dominance. For many, it’s an unsettling ideology to contemplate,” the newspaper said.

“A truly multicultural society would recognise the unique status of tangata whenua, ensuring Māori have a voice in decision-making as the indigenous people.

“However, policies framed under ‘equal rights’ often silence Māori perspectives and undermine the principles of Te Tiriti.

“Seymour’s proposed Treaty Principles Bill prioritises Crown sovereignty, diminishing the role of hapū (sub-tribes) and excluding Māori from national decision-making. Is this the ‘equality’ we seek, or is it a rebranded form of colonial control?”

Te Pāti Māori MP Hana-Rawhiti Maipi-Clarke . . . led a haka and tore up a copy of Seymour’s Bill in Parliament. Image: TVNZ screenshot APR

Heart of the issue
The heart of the issue, said The Herald, was how “equal” was interpreted in the context of affirmative action.

“Harvard philosopher Michael Sandel argues that true equality acknowledges historical injustices and demands action to correct them. In Aotearoa, addressing the legacy of colonisation is essential,” the paper said.

“Affirmative action is not about giving an unfair advantage; it’s about levelling the playing field so everyone has equal opportunities.

“Some politicians sidestep the real work needed to honour Te Tiriti by pushing for an ‘equal’ and ‘multicultural’ society. This approach disregards Aotearoa’s unique history, where tangata whenua hold a constitutionally recognised status.

“The goal is not to create division but to fulfil a commitment made more than 180 years ago and work towards a partnership based on mutual respect. We all have a role to play in this partnership.

“The Hīkoi mō te Tiriti is more than a march; it’s a movement rooted in education, healing, and building a shared future.

“It challenges us to look beyond superficial equality and embrace a partnership where all voices are heard and the mana (authority) of tangata whenua is upheld.”

The first reading of the bill was advanced in a failed attempt to distract from the impact of the national Hikoi.

RNZ reports that more than 40 King’s Counsel lawyers say the Bill seeks to “rewrite the Treaty itself” and have called on Prime Minister Christopher Luxon and the coalition government to “act responsibly now and abandon” the draft law.

Article by AsiaPacificReport.nz

Collins and Rocket Lab challenged over satellites linked to Israeli war crimes

Asia Pacific Report

The Palestine Solidarity Network Aotearoa (PSNA) has written to the Minister for Space Judith Collins and Rocket Lab CEO Peter Beck to warn that satellites being launched from the Māhia Peninsula are “highly likely” to conduct surveillance for Israel.

And also to assist in the commission of war crimes in Gaza and in Lebanon, said PSNA national chair John Minto.

“Three companies are of particular concern to us: BlackSky Technology, Capella Space, and HawkEye 360,” Minto said in a statement.

“In particular, BlackSky has a US$150 million contract to supply high temporal frequency images and analysis to Israel,” Minto said.

“We believe it is highly likely that BlackSky provides data to Israel which it uses to target civilian infrastructure across Gaza and Lebanon.”

Minto said that PSNA understood that Rocket Lab had launched satellites for BlackSky since 2019.

The advocacy group also aware that by the end of 2024, Rocket Lab was expected to begin deploying BlackSky’s constellation of next generation earth observation satellites, with improved capability.

Asking for suspension
“We are asking the minister and Rocket Lab to suspend all further satellite launches for BlackSky, full stop,” Minto said.

“For Capella Space and HawkEye 360, we are asking that the minister suspend satellite launches from the Māhia Peninsula until an investigation has taken place to assure New Zealanders that further launches will not put us in breach of our commitments under international law.

“New Zealanders don’t want our country used to support war crimes committed by Israel or any other country”, he said.

“If we are serious about our responsibilities under international law, including the Genocide Convention, then we must act now.”

Stopping the satellite launches was the “least we can do”.

A PSNA support lawyer, Sam Vincent, said: “New Zealand has solemn responsibilities under international law which must trump any short-term profit for Rocket Lab or the convenience of our government.”

He said that all three companies were sponsors of a geospatial intelligence conference in Israel taking place in January 2025 [Ramon GeoInt360], of which the Israel Ministry of Defence and BlackSky were “leading partners” and HawkEye 360 and Capella Space were sponsors.

Minto added: “All the alarm bells are ringing. These companies are up their eyeballs in support for Israel.”

Article by AsiaPacificReport.nz

OzAsia festival 2024: a celebration of Asian culture and art – and what it means to be Asian-Australian

Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Tets Kimura, Adjunct Lecturer, Creative Arts, Flinders University

Xplorer Media/Adelaide Festival Centre

The well-documented history of Asian mass migration to modern Australia dates from the gold rush era in the mid-19th century. With a history that is longer a century and a half, breaking down stereotypes deeply ingrained over generations remains a task.

This year’s OzAsia festival’s programming continues to challenge against these old narratives, celebrating the diverse voices and stories Asian-Australians bring to the cultural landscape of Australia.

Australian-ness from an Asian lens

Although the festival focuses on Asia, it also offers opportunities to view Australia.

In Rising out of Water, three Adelaide writers (Danielle Lim, Elvy-Lee Quichi, Matt Hawkins) offered new compelling scripts in development.

Matt Hawkins’ Typhoon, which delves into the “first world” mindset of an Australian banker in Hong Kong, was possibly the most confronting. Written by an Australian of non-Asian heritage, it asks if Australians are fair to Asians.

Hawkins suggests colonial attitudes linger through exploring a conflict between the banker and a Filipino nanny. While both love their respective daughters, the banker is “time-poor”, while the nanny is “money-poor.”

When a typhoon strikes Manila, the nanny pleads to return home to search for her daughter. The banker insists she stay in Hong Kong. Although the banker had previously shown a willingness to help the nanny’s daughter by funding her tuition, the banker prefers the nanny to continue doing domestic duties rather than looking for the missing daughter.

This story challenges Australians to query how we relate to our Asian neighbours. Do we genuinely see them equally, or only support them when it suits us?

Breaking the model minority stereotype

Is it difficult for parents of Asian heritage to let their children pursue their own paths?

The “model minority” stereotype of Asian-Australians – mirroring that of Asian-Americans – is they are “intellectually and financially successful, deferential to authority, and highly competent”.

Book cover
Qin Qin spoke to her decision to step away from the path set out for her.
Hachette Australia

This “success” is often attributed to strict “tiger parenting”.

Among the many established and emerging authors presenting at this year’s Weekend of Words, two stood out through their focus on memoir.

In a panel moderated by Smriti Daniel, Sita Shaw and Qin Qin both spoke to their recent memoirs, The God of No Good and Model Minority Gone Rogue, respectively.

Qin Qin, who went by the adopted English name Lisa until last year (drawn from Lisa Simpson, who, like Qin Qin, would panic if teachers go on strike), embodied the model minority stereotype in her educational achievements. As a child, she attended Kumon classes and took piano lessons. Later, she studied law, earned a postgraduate scholarship to Harvard, and worked with UNESCO.

Qin Qin spoke to her decision to step away from this path, rediscovering her love of books and beginning to write. In the United States, tiger parenting is already declining, a trend likely to take hold in Australia as well.

I wonder how many more Asian-Australians will follow her lead and free themselves from parental expectations.

Do Asians need to be minorities?

Asian-Australians are a minority in Australia. I am aware of the discrimination that historically excluded Asians in this country, including the harsh treatment against those with Japanese backgrounds during the Second World War.

At ABC RN’s Stop Everything! Live, hosted by Beverly Wang with comedian guests Benjamin Law and Urvi Majumdar, I found myself reflecting on whether “Asian-ness” matters in the discussion of current issues.

The live broadcast, held on the festival’s final Sunday, covered two major topics of the previous week: Raygun’s retirement from competitive breakdancing, and the US election.

For the latter, they discussed how pop stars’ endorsements hold less sway than the financial moves of Elon Musk. This was a conversation where cultural or ethnic backgrounds did not define the discussion.

Closing my eyes, I could not sense any division between the Asian-Australian presenters and the largely white audience. In that room, we were all simply Australians.

A universal story of growing up

Among the offerings for a family audience was The Story of Chi, a commissioned work presented by Terrapin and Contemporary Asian Australian Performance (CAAP).

The play follows the emotional journey of 12-year-old Chi, who identifies as a Japanese-Vietnamese-Australian.

While coping with the recent loss of her beloved Vietnamese father, Chi’s overprotective Japanese mother tries to “help” by arranging additional support from Chi’s school teacher. The mother’s actions put Chi on edge and offer no comfort.

Is this dynamic specific to “Asian parenting,” or is it simply a universal challenge of adolescence?

A girl chases a dragon.
The Story of Chi explores what it means to be an adolescent in Australia.
Adelaide Festival Centre

For Chi, the growing distance from her mother is a natural part of her coming of age – a time marked by both physical changes and the emotional turbulence of moving from childhood to adulthood.

Adolescents often view their parents as “annoying”, a response that can be intensified by grief.

The play incorporates some elements unique to Eastern culture, such as the spiritual belief in a 49-day period before the soul is judged and sent to heaven or hell.

However, Chi’s experience resonates universally. Her coming-of-age story is not necessarily bound by cultural expectations.

Ultimately, The Story of Chi reminds us Asian-Australians are, above all, simply Australians, navigating the complexities of growing up.

Pop culture’s universal language

For younger Australians, Asian culture might simply be part of their cultural fabric.

Japanese manga and animation feel familiar rather than foreign, as they have been a part of their lives growing up.

AnimeGO shows the deep connections to Asian pop culture in Australia.
Xplorer Media/Adelaide Festival Centre

While literature and theatre are often viewed as “high culture” and may not resonate with the broader public, pop culture offers accessible entry points into Asian culture, just like food as I highlighted in my article on last year’s festival.

At this year’s festival, two key events reflected pop culture: AnimeGo and the Aussie K-poppers United Concert. The latter, a free event, proved especially popular based on audience size and enthusiasm.

Groups such as KM United, Monochrome and ABK Crew delivered dynamic, well-choreographed dancing on the outdoor stage at the Lucky Dumpling Market where everybody could freely walk in.

Six dancers on stage.
SeoulVibe performing at the the Aussie K-poppers United Concert.
Adelaide Festival Centre

Having observed members of local dancers of ABK Crew practising in Rundle Mall, I felt their spirited, inspirational performances were more at home on the streets than on stage. Yet, performing on stage offers a benefit too. Held on a Sunday afternoon as a free outdoor event there are older people as well as many young families. It gathers a broader audience beyond dedicated K-pop fans, creating an opportunity to introduce Asian pop culture to the broader community.

Asians are funny

Despite the growing normalisation of Asian pop culture and cuisine in Australia, certain stereotypes about Asians persist.

Comedians Jason Chong, Lawrence Leung and Urvi Majumdar took the stage for the Asians are Funny showcase, acknowledging when they began performing, the presence of Asian comedians was rare. All three shared the scepticism they faced around whether Asians could be funny.

Later, these three comedians joined the festival’s closing mock-debate, Chinese Food vs Indian Food. The debate was hilarious and witty, showing individual and collective comedic talents and defying outdated expectations around Asian-ness.

Being Asian-Australian should mean no more than and no less than being Australian. Asian-Australians are new to Australia, but as said by Bruce Woodley and Dobe Newton, “I am, you are, we are Australian”. I am Tets Kimura. I am Australian.

The Conversation

Tets Kimura 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. OzAsia festival 2024: a celebration of Asian culture and art – and what it means to be Asian-Australian – https://theconversation.com/ozasia-festival-2024-a-celebration-of-asian-culture-and-art-and-what-it-means-to-be-asian-australian-240106

NZ’s Treaty Principles Bill passes first reading after Māori MP evicted over haka

RNZ News

New Zealand’s controversial Treaty Principles Bill passed its first reading in Parliament today and will now go to the Justice Committee for consideration as the national Hīkoi continued its journey to the capital.

Opposition Te Pati Māori’s Hana-Rawhiti Maipi-Clarke was suspended from the House following a haka.

Maipi-Clarke interrupted the vote on the Bill’s first reading with the Ka Mate haka taken up by members of the opposition and people in the public gallery.

Meanwhile, thousands continued their Hīkoi mō te Tiriti on the fourth day towards Wellington opposed to the draft legislation.

A huge crowd earlier stopped traffic in Hamilton as the national Hīkoi made its way through the city.

During the haka by Maipi-Clarke, Speaker Gerry Brownlee rose to his feet.

When it finished, he suspended Parliament and asked for the public gallery to be cleared.

First vote attempt disrupted
It caused enough disruption that the Speaker suspended Parliament during the vote on the first reading.

Labour’s Māori Development spokesperson Willie Jackson was ejected from the House after calling the Bill’s sponsor ACT leader David Seymour a “liar” — breaking parliamentary rules.

When the House returned, Brownlee said Maipi-Clarke’s behaviour was “grossly disorderly”, “appallingly disrespectful”, and “premeditated”.

The government parties voted in favour of the Bill, with opposition parties voting against.

The bill passed its first reading in spite of the opposition Greens calling for its MPs to be allowed to vote individually on their conscience.

This article is republished under a community partnership agreement with RNZ.

Labour MP Willie Jackson “excused” from the House.  Video: RNZ

Article by AsiaPacificReport.nz

There is reliable evidence social media harms young people – debates about it are a misdirection

Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Danielle Einstein, Adjunct Fellow, School of Psychological Sciences, Macquarie University

Tanya Gorelova/Pexels

The Australian government is developing legislation that will ban children under 16 from social media. There has been a huge public debate about whether there is sufficient direct evidence of harm to introduce this regulation.

The players in this debate include academics, mental health organisations, advocacy groups and digital education providers. Few step back to look at the entire research landscape.

Social media has become integral to everyday life. Not many teens want to be extensively researched, so studies are pragmatic, require consent and findings are limited. As a result, we tend to hear that the effects are small or even inconclusive.

For the public it’s crucial to understand all research studies have limitations, and must be interpreted within the context in which the data was collected. To understand any report, we must scrutinise the details.

Several mechanisms are at play

In recent years, anxiety has been on the rise among children and young people. Understanding why young people are anxious, depressed or overly focused on themselves is no easy task.

When it comes to the potential negative impact of social media, several mechanisms are at play. To unpack them, data is needed from many angles: examining mood while online, examining mental health over several years, school relationships, even brain scans, to name just a few.

Despite all this complexity, the public tends to mostly hear about it through splashy headlines. One example is the “small and inconsistent” result from an umbrella study of several meta-analyses totalling 1.9 million children and teenagers. However, it’s important to recognise this umbrella study included many research papers from an earlier time when researchers couldn’t measure social media use as accurately as they can now.

One influential data set asked people to leave out time spent “interacting with friends and family” when they estimated their time on social media. Yet in 2014 to 2015, sharing photos, following, and interacting with people you knew was the main use of social media. The findings appeared within a larger study a few years later, resulting in one headline that stated: “screen time may be no worse for kids than eating potatoes”.

With so many sources of error, it’s no wonder there is vigorous debate among researchers over the extent of social media harm. Limitations are par for the course. Worse, researchers are often not given full access to data from social media companies. That’s why we need to pay more attention to big tech whistleblowers who have inside access.

Meanwhile, these companies do have access to the data. They use it to exploit human nature.

Focusing on debates between researchers is a misdirection and makes us complacent. There is enough evidence to demonstrate excessive social media use can be harmful to young people.

A distant photo of four boys in school uniforms sitting in a stadium and looking at their phones.
The research landscape might be complex, but that doesn’t mean there is no evidence for harm.
Jacky Watt/Unsplash

Here’s what the evidence shows

One argument you may hear a lot is that it’s not clear whether depression and anxiety cause higher screen time use, or higher screen time causes more depression and anxiety. This is known as a bidirectional effect – something that goes both ways.

But that’s no reason to ignore potential harms. If anything, bidirectional effects matter more, not less, because factors feed into one another. Unchecked, they cause the problem to grow.

Harms of social media use are shown in studies that examine the effects of sharing selfies, the impact of algorithms, influencers, extreme content, and the growth in cyberbullying.

Social media activates envy, comparisons and fear of missing out, or FOMO. Many teens use social media while procrastinating.

It is through these mechanisms that the links to depression, anxiety, low self esteem and self harm are clear.

Finally, until the age of 16, increased time on social media is associated with feeling less satisfied with appearance and school work.

There is also reliable evidence that limiting social media use reduces levels of anxiety, depression and FOMO in 17–25-year-olds.

We ignore this evidence at our peril.

Four kids on a sunny day playing with a ball outdoors.
We know limiting social media use reduces levels of FOMO.
Mandy Godbehear/Shutterstock

The evidence is sufficient

Understanding the intricacies of how every aspect of modern life affects mental health will take a long time. The work is difficult, particularly when there is a lack of reliable data from tech companies on screen time.

Yet there is already enough reliable evidence to limit children’s exposure to social media for their benefit.

Instead of debating the nuances of research and levels of harm, we should accept that for young people, social media use is negatively affecting their development and their school communities.

In fact, the government’s proposed ban of children’s social media use has parallels with banning phones in schools. In 2018, some critics argued that “banning smartphones would stop children gaining the knowledge they needed to cope online”.

Yet evidence now shows that smartphone bans in schools have resulted in less need for care around mental health issues, less bullying, and academic improvements – the latter especially for socio-economically disadvantaged girls.

It’s time to agree that the harms are there, that they are damaging our community, and that we need strong, thoughtful regulation of social media use in young people.

The Conversation

Danielle Einstein has supported the 36 Months Campaign to raise the age of teens who can use social media. She has published a book with Judith Locke called “Raising Anxiety: Why our good intentions are backfiring on children (and how to fix it)”.

ref. There is reliable evidence social media harms young people – debates about it are a misdirection – https://theconversation.com/there-is-reliable-evidence-social-media-harms-young-people-debates-about-it-are-a-misdirection-243482

Politics with Michelle Grattan: shadow communications minister David Coleman says misinformation legislation ‘one of the worst bills ever’

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

The government has embarked on a raft of new online safety measures aimed at protecting Australians from the excesses of misinformation and social harm online.

However, these policies have been met with backlash. Experts criticise the plan to enforce an age limit of 16 on social media access. Both the federal opposition and several crossbenchers have come out against Labor’s misinformation bill.

At the same time, the government has to produce its long-anticipated changes to gambling advertising.

On this podcast episode we’re joined by shadow communications minister David Coleman to discuss these issues.

On the government’s proposed misinformation and disinformation reforms, Coleman is trenchant in his criticism:

The fundamental problem here is it gives the digital platforms an immense financial incentive to censor the free speech of Australians because if ACMA [Australian Communications and Media Authority], the regulator, decides that a digital platform isn’t doing enough in the eyes of ACMA to censor misinformation, they’re up for massive fines.

So, what’s a digital platform going to do in that circumstance? It’s going to say we don’t want big fines. We care about our profits. They don’t care about the free speech of Australians. So, the sensible thing for them to do economically is err on the side of caution and censor a whole lot of material.

I think it is literally one of the worst bills ever put forward by a government. And whilst it’s changed a bit since the first version, it actually hasn’t changed all that much, and the fundamental problems remain, and it’s just utterly unacceptable.

On the move to age limit access to social media, which the opposition advocated head of the government, Coleman advocated action as quickly as possible:

We’d like to get it through the parliament this year. And then in terms of implementing it. It should be implemented as soon as it possibly can because this needs to happen. These platforms, for far too long, have got away with basically abrogating their responsibility towards children. There is no question that the very significant rises in mental health conditions that we’ve seen in the past decade – there is a strong link between that and social media.

We cannot trust the social media platforms to do the right thing, and it is appropriate that we put in place rules to require them so that they can’t just let an eight-year-old child on their platforms with impunity as they do today.

On gambling, Coleman outlines what a future coalition government would do and contrasts the lack of movement so far from the government:

We put legislation back in June-July last year to implement the ban on gambling advertising during live sport. The government walked into the Senate chamber and blocked that legislation. Now, if that legislation had gone through, we would now be in a situation where kids would not be seeing that gambling advertising during live sport. We would be better off as a community as a consequence, and the government is just dragging the chain to a dramatic degree on this topic, and it needs to be resolved.

Minister Rowland, who ultimately is responsible, just needs to do something, frankly, because this has gone on for far too long.

The Conversation

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. Politics with Michelle Grattan: shadow communications minister David Coleman says misinformation legislation ‘one of the worst bills ever’ – https://theconversation.com/politics-with-michelle-grattan-shadow-communications-minister-david-coleman-says-misinformation-legislation-one-of-the-worst-bills-ever-243695

- ADVERT -

MIL PODCASTS
Bookmark
| Follow | Subscribe Listen on Apple Podcasts

Foreign policy + Intel + Security

Subscribe | Follow | Bookmark
and join Buchanan & Manning LIVE Thursdays @ midday

MIL Public Webcast Service


- Advertisement -
- Advertisement -
- Advertisement -
- Advertisement -
- Advertisement -