Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Jared Mondschein, Director of Research, US Studies Centre, University of Sydney

Prior to the October 7 Hamas attacks on Israel, US national security adviser Jake Sullivan posited that the Middle East had been “quieter than it has been for decades”.

This is obviously no longer the case. On the contrary, the heart-wrenching state of the region has inflamed tensions and inspired generation-defining protests across the world.

This unrest has led many to wonder if the Biden administration’s Middle East policies will ultimately undermine the president’s re-election campaign against former president Donald Trump in November.

It ultimately may. But even if the occupant of the White House changes, US policy toward the region largely will not. This is because Biden and Trump will both do everything possible to attain what Sullivan had hoped for: an ultimately quieter Middle East.

Bipartisan support for coalition-building

No single US initiative will be more crucial to securing a quieter Middle East than the boosting of ties between regional partners. The groundwork has already been laid through the Abraham Accords, the Arab-Israeli normalisation agreements initiated by the Trump administration and embraced by the Biden administration.

The fruits of such efforts became apparent when a diverse coalition – featuring the US, France, the United Kingdom, the United Arab Emirates, Saudi Arabia, Jordan and Israel — worked together to down 300 Iranian projectiles launched at Israel on April 13. It was the first direct attack by Tehran against Israel in their decades-long shadow war.

The coalition’s joint response marked dramatic progress towards a long-term and bipartisan US goal for the Middle East: a level of regional co-operation and stabilisation that will finally allow for a decreased US footprint.

As much as Trump may not have appreciated certain US alliances as much as his predecessors, it is safe to assume that whoever occupies the White House next year will likely seek to build on these regional alliances. There are a number of reasons for this.

Iran’s actions remain unchanged

First, the scope and severity of Iran’s destabilising conduct in the region has only increased.

Iranian proxy militant groups across Iraq, Syria, Lebanon, Yemen and Gaza have displayed unprecedented levels of aggression in recent years. It’s debatable whether Iran was fully aware of Hamas’ attack on October 7, but Tehran undeniably continues to financially support the group.

Iran has been no less aggressive in its own conduct. In addition to its unprecedented attack on Israel in April, this has included:

• alleged plots to assassinate former senior US government officials

• further increasing its stockpile of uranium enriched to near weapons-grade levels

• extensive international hostage-taking

• ever-closer alignment with Russia, North Korea and China.

Israeli-Arab ties persist

Second, Iran’s conduct has undoubtedly contributed to stronger ties between Israel and the Arab world. Such ties have persisted – albeit more quietly since the start of the war in Gaza.

Jordan’s King Hussein, who rules over a mostly Palestinian population, may be a vociferous critic of Israel’s conduct in Gaza, but he nonetheless benefits from record levels of Israeli gas and desalinised water going to his energy-poor and water-scarce country.

The Egyptian economy is so reliant on Israeli energy that Egyptians endured rolling blackouts when Israel briefly cut gas exports at the start of the war.

The UAE and Israel have only deepened their commercial, political and military links after their new Comprehensive Economic Partnership Agreement went into effect last year.

While the UAE has repeatedly condemned Israel for its actions in Gaza, bilateral trade actually increased by 7% in the first quarter of 2024.

Both Trump and Biden want out of the Middle East

Lastly, and perhaps most importantly, both Republicans and Democrats agree on the need to shift US attention and resources to the Indo-Pacific region. This is not lost on US partners in the Middle East.

This is why the Biden administration both endorsed and continued two of the Trump administration’s top diplomatic initiatives in the region — the Abraham Accords and the US troop withdrawal from Afghanistan.

The reason is the longstanding, bipartisan sentiment that the US should not expend further resources — or, even worse, lose more US lives — in the Middle East.

On Gaza, Trump has urged Israel to wrap up its operations, saying:

Israel has to be very careful, because you’re losing a lot of the world, you’re losing a lot of support.

The Biden administration’s public and private urgings for Israeli restraint in Gaza make clear it also has little interest in being further enmeshed in the Middle East.

No matter who wins in November, both Trump and Biden would be vexed if Israel and Hamas’ war continued in January 2025. They would also be equally concerned if Hamas resumed attacks on Israel. But neither wants to expend any more than the bare minimum of political capital to resolve the situation.

In an era in which the US is producing more of its own energy and US fears of terrorism are decreasing, American citizens and politicians alike would much prefer its allies in the Middle East take care of their own security.

The US role in the region remains integral

Despite this desire for the US to pull back from the region, the next president still has a critical role to play.

The normalisation of Saudi-Israeli relations, for example, is undoubtedly the most important goal of the Abraham Accords. And this will prove challenging without a binding US security guarantee for Saudi Arabia, a Saudi-US civil nuclear agreement, and increased US support for an independent Palestinian state.

The US military presence in the region will also continue to prove integral to uniting the diverse coalition of countries countering Iran’s increasing influence. After all, it was the US Central Command’s extensive co-ordination that enabled the international response to Iran’s April 13 attack on Israel.

A future US role in the region could perhaps best be described as “leading from behind” – though no US president has said or likely ever will say that explicitly.

Instead, the winner of November’s election will publicly champion regional “stability”. And on this front, bolstering a regional coalition will remain the primary strategy – and could, ultimately, be the foundation for peace.

This essay is based on an excerpt from the US Studies Centre’s recent publication, Red Book | Blue Book: A guide to the next US administration.

Jared Mondschein 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. No matter who wins, both Biden and Trump can likely agree on one thing: doing less in the Middle East – tag:theconversation.com,2011:article/231604

Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By David Jefferson, Senior Lecturer Above the Bar, University of Canterbury

The problem of “biopiracy” – the misappropriation and patenting for profit of Indigenous knowledge – has been on the rise for some time. So a global treaty aimed at protecting traditional knowledge and genetic resources should be a welcome development.

In late May, the World Intellectual Property Organization (WIPO) adopted the Treaty on Intellectual Property, Genetic Resources and Traditional Knowledge. It is the first international agreement on intellectual property that includes provisions on Indigenous peoples’ knowledge.

More than 20 years in the making, it represents the culmination of negotiations between the 193 WIPO member states since 2000. And on the face of it, the treaty appears to be an important intervention to prevent biopiracy.

However, the new agreement is unlikely to lead to major changes to New Zealand law, or improve the rights of Māori to own or control their intellectual property and taonga (treasured possessions). Given the well-documented misappropriation of Māori knowledge and taonga, more substantive protections are still needed.

Disclosure of origin

Several studies have found instances of non-Māori businesses seeking patents and plant variety rights for the use of native plants similar to known Māori practices.

In these cases, several of which relate to mānuka, there is no evidence Māori were consulted or gave permission for their mātauranga (traditional knowledge) to be used.

The WIPO treaty introduces a “disclosure of origin” requirement. Where patent claims cover genetic resources, applicants must disclose the country of origin or source of those resources.

Furthermore, where the claimed invention is based on traditional knowledge, applicants must disclose which Indigenous peoples, local communities or other sources provided the knowledge.

While this has been heralded as a “historic” step forward, the Intellectual Property Office of New Zealand (IPONZ) already requires patent applicants to indicate whether their application involves traditional knowledge, or might conflict with Māori interests.

Not that new for NZ

IPONZ can then decide to send the application to the Patents Māori Advisory Committee, which advises on whether an invention is derived from Māori traditional knowledge or from indigenous plants or animals.

If it is, the committee also advises on whether the commercial exploitation of that invention might be contrary to Māori values. IPONZ then uses this advice to decide if an application should be rejected on the basis of “morality or public order”.

In other words, the disclosure-of-origin requirement is not such a historic step as some might imagine, at least for Aotearoa New Zealand. That said, the WIPO treaty will require appropriate measures to be implemented in domestic law to address any failure to provide the information.

The possible sanctions or remedies are limited, however. The treaty states that, unless there is fraudulent behaviour, a granted patent cannot be revoked, invalidated or rendered unenforceable due to a failure to disclose.

Still, this is better than the current situation, where there are no sanctions or remedies for failure to disclose.

Earlier drafts went further

Arguably, the new treaty is notable more for what it does not do. In fact, earlier drafts of the treaty articles, released in 2023, went further than the eventual text does.

These included a framework under which traditional knowledge itself could be protected as the intellectual property of Indigenous peoples and local communities. This would have provided them with exclusive collective rights to control their traditional knowledge.

The draft articles also proposed Indigenous peoples and local communities would have the right to receive a fair and equitable share of benefits from the use of their traditional knowledge. They would also have the right of attribution, and the right to use their traditional knowledge in a manner that respects its integrity.

The final treaty does not include this form of positive protection for Indigenous knowledge. It also fails to protect “traditional cultural expressions” – the forms in which Indigenous peoples or local communities express their traditional cultural practices and knowledge, including music, dance, art and handicrafts.

Patent system sanctity

Compared with those earlier drafts, the concluded treaty is significantly narrower and less substantive.

It might help prevent the misappropriation of traditional knowledge in the patent system. But the treaty does not offer a positive form of protection for traditional knowledge itself, or traditional cultural expressions.

In fact, one could argue the treaty is more about ensuring the sanctity of the patent system, than it is about protecting Indigenous knowledge. After all, patent law requires inventions to be new and inventive compared to existing knowledge.

A requirement that applicants disclose the origin of genetic resources, and the knowledge relating to those resources, only improves the patent system.

Implementing the WIPO treaty in Aotearoa New Zealand will protect the patent system from granting bad patents. But it will not protect mātauranga Māori, or ensure Māori retain tino rangatiratanga (sovereignty) over their taonga, as guaranteed by te Tiriti o Waitangi (Treaty of Waitangi).

David Jefferson is the Secretary of the Knowledge of Oceania Society.

Jesse Pirini is the President of the Knowledge of Oceania Society.

Jessica C Lai 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. Patently insufficient: a new intellectual property treaty does little to protect Māori traditional knowledge – tag:theconversation.com,2011:article/231264

Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Denis Muller, Senior Research Fellow, Centre for Advancing Journalism, The University of Melbourne

Peter Costello has long had an uneasy relationship with journalistic truth-telling.

In 2005 he dined with three journalists from the Canberra press gallery, during which he told them the Coalition government led by John Howard, and of which he was treasurer, could not win the election due in 2007 with Howard as leader.

Next morning, a member of his staff induced the three journalists to treat the conversation as off the record – that is, in confidence.

In what was to become known in the press gallery as “Costellogate”, a few months before the 2007 election, one of the journalists wrote that Costello had said he did not believe the Coalition could win under Howard. The subtext was that it could win under him.

Asked about this at a press conference, Costello said he didn’t know where journalists got this kind of information from, and that they made it up half the time.

Outraged by this slur on their colleague, the other two journalists then corroborated the report.

The episode added to the Coalition’s instability going into that election, which it subsequently lost.

Last Thursday there was the spectacle of Costello being confronted at Canberra airport by a reporter from News Corporation, Liam Mendes, asking him pointed but pertinent questions about the sex scandal engulfing the Nine Entertainment Company, of which he was chair.

The scandal follows the departure in March of Nine’s director of news and current affairs, Darren Wick, in the aftermath of which several women staff members have come forward with allegations of sexual misconduct against him.

So, Mendes asks Costello, did he support the way Nine’s chief executive Mike Sneesby was handling the Wick saga? Had Costello been aware of the allegations against Wick? Why would he not support Sneesby publicly?

Getting no answers, he says, “You have to answer the questions, Mr Costello.”

At this point Costello’s face fills the camera viewfinder, there is a jolting motion and the reporter falls on his back, saying, “You’ve just assaulted me”. Costello looks down at him and walks off.

Although Costello denied assaulting the journalist, at that point his position as chair of Nine, a company that employs hundreds of journalists who ask questions like this every day, became untenable. Three days later he was gone.

“Culture” and “renewal” have figured heavily in the Nine Entertainment Company’s public-relations efforts over the weekend to contain the damage.

On the extensive evidence published by The Australian newspaper and by the company’s own major newspapers, The Sydney Morning Herald, The Age and the Australian Financial Review in recent weeks, the need for cultural renewal is well overdue.

The announcement of Wick’s resignation in March was replete with references to long beach walks, longer conversations and his need for a rest after 13 years in the director’s chair.

There was no mention of the fact that his abrupt departure came after a formal complaint from a staff member about his behaviour.

Then in late May, with Wick gone, women began to speak out.

The Australian, Sky News and Nine’s own mastheads began carrying extensive accounts of his alleged predations.

Kate McClymont, the Sydney Morning Herald’s chief investigative reporter, wrote:

Darren Wick, the recently departed head of Channel Nine’s news and current affairs division, has been accused of engaging in drunken, lecherous behaviour in what furious staff say was “an open secret” for more than a decade.

Three women have now alleged to this masthead that Wick, the powerful news and current affairs chief for the past 13 years, brazenly groped them in public view of their colleagues.

A few days later, Wick’s successor, Fiona Dear, confronting a staff revolt, admitted there was a culture of power games at the network, telling the staff she “knows what it’s like” to encounter inappropriate behaviour in the workplace, and promised them “the power games stop today”.

Nine Entertainment subsequently admitted in a letter to staff that it realised they had experienced “trauma” following allegations of “misuse of power and inappropriate behaviour” among leadership in its newsrooms. “We recognise we need to do more.” The letter was co-signed by Costello, the chief people officer Vanessa Morley and Sneesby.

So it should have come as no surprise to someone as experienced in public life as Costello that he should be confronted by a journalist in a public space and asked difficult questions about these matters.

Yet instead of a dignified “no comment” there is an encounter that ends with the reporter flat on his back and Costello saying he fell over an advertising placard. The Nine board met the next day and by Sunday Costello was gone.

The circumstances of his departure, and that of Wick, indicate a culture of arrogance and entitlement at the top of Nine, and invites a question about whether such a culture can be changed while the chief executive, Sneesby, remains.

Reputational considerations affect share prices, and Nine Entertainment’s share price has fallen to $1.40, down 30% this calendar year. It fell 2% on Friday alone.

Former Nine Network chief executive Jeff Browne, who at one time was a candidate for the Nine board, was reported on the weekend as saying, “Not only has the business failed to achieve a culture of mutual trust and respect, it has failed to deliver any incremental value to shareholders.”

A larger question, which is ethical rather than financial, is whether it was right to have a former politician – and a federal treasurer at that – chairing the board of a media company in the first place.

No doubt Costello’s connections to the Coalition were an attractive attribute for Nine when he was appointed to the board in 2013, and particularly when he was appointed chair eight years ago.

It is a tribute to the integrity of the company’s journalists, especially on the newspapers, that their coverage of federal politics over that time has, on the whole, been fair.

But the point of principle remains. One of the crucial functions of the media in a democracy is to hold governments to account. The public’s trust in their ability to do so without fear or favour is central to the workings of democracy.

No law prevents a politician becoming chair of a media company, yet democracies work successfully only if their institutions respect not just the law but conventions – the guardrails of democracy. One such convention is that the media should be, and be seen to be, independent of party politics. For this reason, if for no other, the departure of Costello from the chair of Nine is welcome.

It is difficult at such close range to get a perspective on his legacy. Significant events occurred on his watch, in particular the acquisition by Nine of the old Fairfax newspapers, the SMH, The Age and the Australian Financial Review. We may learn more about the inner workings of the company when the cultural review commissioned by Nine from an external consultancy, Intersection, presents its report, and any vaunted “renewal” occurs.

Denis Muller 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. Costello goes, but the cultural problems at Nine Entertainment remain – tag:theconversation.com,2011:article/232007

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

A national Newspoll, conducted June 3–7 from a sample of 1,232, had Labor and the Coalition tied at 50–50, a two-point gain for the Coalition since the post-budget Newspoll, three weeks ago. This is Labor’s worst position in Newspoll since last November, following the fallout from the defeat of the Voice referendum.

Primary votes were 39% Coalition (up two), 33% Labor (down one), 11% Greens (down two), 7% One Nation (steady) and 10% for all Others (up one). The drop for the Greens will be attributed to their stance on Gaza, but other polls below have the Greens at around 14%.

After recording a non-negative net approval for the first time since the Voice referendum last October in the previous Newspoll, Anthony Albanese’s net approval returned to a negative, with his satisfied rating down four to 43% and his dissatisfied up three to 50%, for a net approval of -7, down seven points.

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

Peter Dutton’s net approval improved two points to -10. In the previous Newspoll, Albanese’s better PM lead over Dutton had blown out to 52–33. In this poll, his lead was drastically reduced to 46–38, Albanese’s lowest Newspoll margin this term.

It’s likely the previous Newspoll was a pro-Labor outlier, and this one may be too rosy for the Coalition. But last week’s YouGov poll alos had a 50–50 tie between Labor and the Coalition. I believe Labor’s struggles are primarily due to the cost of living issue.

YouGov poll remains tied at 50–50

A national YouGov poll, conducted May 31 to June 4 from a sample of 1,500, had Labor and the Coalition tied at 50–50, unchanged from the previous YouGov poll in mid-May. Primary votes were 38% Coalition (steady), 30% Labor (steady), 14% Greens (up one), 8% One Nation (steady) and 10% for all Others (down one).

Albanese’s net approval was steady at -12, with 53% dissatisfied and 41% satisfied. Dutton’s net approval fell seven points to -13. Albanese led Dutton as preferred PM by 47–36 (44–37 previously). By 84–16, respondents supported a right for workers to strike.

Essential poll tied at 48–48

A national Essential poll, conducted May 29 to June 2 from a sample of 1,160, had the Coalition and Labor tied at 48% each with 4% undecided (47–46 to the Coalition in mid-May). Primary votes were 36% Coalition (up two), 32% Labor (up one), 13% Greens (up three), 5% One Nation (down three), 3% UAP (up two), 8% for all Others (steady) and 4% undecided (down two).

Albanese’s net approval was up one point since April to -4, with 47% disapproving and 43% approving. Dutton’s net approval dropped four points to -1 after achieving a positive net approval in April.

On artificial intelligence (AI), 42% (down three since January) said it carries more risk than opportunity, 21% (steady) more opportunity than risk and 37% (up four) said risk and opportunity are about the same.

Respondents were asked whether children aged 10 to 18 should be able to do various things, then the age a respondent selected was averaged. For buying and consuming alcohol, voting and accessing pornography, the average age was about 17.5. For using social media, it was 15.4. For being held criminally responsible, it was 14.3.

By 68–15, respondents supported increasing the age limit on social media platforms from 13 to 16. By 62–16, respondents supported criminalising hate speech.

Morgan poll: Labor regains lead

A national Morgan poll, conducted May 27 to June 2 from a sample of 1,579, gave Labor a 52–48 lead, a 3.5-point gain for Labor since the May 20–26 Morgan poll that had given the Coalition its best position in this poll since the 2022 election.

Primary votes were 36% Coalition (down one), 31% Labor (up 2.5), 14% Greens (down one), 4.5% One Nation (down 1.5), 9% independents (steady) and 5.5% others (up one).

Redbridge Queensland poll: another big lead for the LNP

The Queensland state election will be held in October. A Redbridge poll, conducted in two waves in February and May from a sample of 880, gave the Liberal National Party a 57–43 lead, from primary votes of 47% LNP, 28% Labor, 12% Greens and 13% for all Others.

The “Labor government led by Steven Miles” had a net approval of -11, with 37% giving it a poor rating and 26% a good rating. The LNP opposition led by David Crisafulli had a +14 net approval (35% good, 21% poor).

Since Newspoll gave the LNP a 54–46 lead in March, Queensland polls have all suggested Labor faces a heavy defeat at the October election.

Victorian Redbridge poll: Labor still well ahead

A Victorian Redbridge poll, also conducted in February and May from a sample of 1,000, gave Labor a 55–45 lead, a one-point gain for Labor since a March Redbridge poll. Primary votes were 38% Coalition (steady), 35% Labor (down one), 14% Greens (up four) and 13% for all Others (down three).

The “Labor government led by Jacinta Allan” had a net approval of -7, with 37% giving it a poor rating and 30% a good rating. The Coalition opposition led by John Pesutto had a -15 net approval (34% poor, 19% good).

This poll contrasts with the Victorian Resolve poll that was conducted in April and May, which gave the Coalition a 37–28 primary vote lead over Labor.

Modi’s party loses majority at Indian election

I covered the June 4 vote counting after the seven-stage Indian election for The Poll Bludger. PM Narendra Modi’s BJP party lost 63 seats to lose its single-party majority, although allied parties won enough seats for Modi to be returned for a third successive term. It had been widely expected that Modi would win a landslide.

At the May 29 South African election, the African National Congress lost the majority it had held at every election since 1994. There was a second successive landslide for the left at the June 2 Mexican election.

I am covering the European parliament election, held from Thursday to Sunday, for The Poll Bludger. Labour remains over 20 points ahead of the Conservatives in UK national polls, with the election on July 4. In US national polls, Donald Trump still leads Joe Biden by about one point despite his May 30 conviction.

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. Labor slumps in Newspoll to a tie with Coalition, with Albanese also down – tag:theconversation.com,2011:article/231600

Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Robert Hoffmann, Professor of Economics, Tasmanian Behavioural Lab, University of Tasmania

The Australian Defence Force is facing an acute recruitment crisis. Only 80% of the 69,000 personnel needed to meet future challenges have signed up. The government recently announced recruitment will be opened up to some foreign citizens to try to fill this gap.

Not only is the Australian military failing to achieve planned growth, it is actually shrinking, as Defence Chief General Angus Campbell told a Senate inquiry in February.

There are two fundamental reasons for the current recruitment impasse. One is economic – low unemployment and a perception of better opportunities, work conditions and future prospects in the private sector.

The other reason is cultural: a declining willingness of Gen Z to identify with – and fight to defend – their nation.

Either way, the key to the recruitment crisis lies in understanding the motivations of this generation, the main pool of potential recruits today.

We recently interviewed 19 serving Australian soldiers from a range of demographics (two were Gen Z) and across military branches in a study funded by the Australian Defence Force. We wanted to find out what makes Gen Z recruits tick, and what the force might do to persuade more of them to serve their country.

Read more:
Recruiting for the modern military: new research examines why people choose to serve and who makes the ideal soldier

Enter the ‘anxious generation’

Researchers study every new generation as a guide to the future, from the baby boomers to Generation X (like the authors of this article), and millennials. None is more distinctive than generation Z, or Zoomers – people born roughly between 1997 and 2008.

They are the first generation to grow up with smartphones and social media. In his current bestseller, The Anxious Generation, social psychologist Jonathan Haidt outlines the cataclysmal effect: he claims a large increase in depression and anxiety in young people is the direct effect of unsupervised social media use during adolescence.

Zoomers’ mental health is a barrier to service, as US Marine Corps Lieutenant Matthew Weiss spells out in his book on Gen Z military recruitment.

A military career can be detrimental to psychological wellbeing, as Australia’s Royal Commission into Veteran Suicide has demonstrated. The force’s rigorous mental health entry standards may have reinforced this perception.

The soldiers we spoke to said mental health is an issue for recruitment. On the one hand, they agreed that service is mentally challenging, and that younger soldiers are more psychologically vulnerable. On the other hand, interviewees said the force’s mental health support has been improving. This is a step in the right direction – it may well be that media coverage of veterans’ mental health issues worries Zoomers considering enlistment.

Weiss argues private sector jobs (and money) afford much more online currency than military service. The respondents in our interviews agreed younger recruits were very savvy about pay and conditions.

Waning national pride

But there may be another motivator: as shadow Defence Minister Andrew Hastie recently told the ABC:

People who join the Defence Force don’t just do it for economic reasons, they do it because they love their country.

This means if love of country falls from generation to generation, military recruitment falls too. Weiss suggests in the United States, low patriotism partly explains Gen Z’s reluctance to enlist.

Our interviewees said traditional nationalism played only a modest role for enlisting for young people. They thought a lesser sense of obligation and service is one reason. Another is the fact that the black-and-white picture of “my country right or wrong” has been muddied following media coverage of alleged Australian war crimes in Afghanistan.

The evidence confirms waning national pride among young Australians. We analysed publicly available data from the World Values Survey, a wide-ranging poll of people’s values around the globe conducted since 1981. It shows in 1981, 70.3% of Australians were “very proud” of their nationality. This fell to 60.8% in 2018, the first year to feature Gen Z members in the survey. That year, only 41.6% of twentysomethings (including some millennials) were very proud Australians – the lowest proportion of any Australian age group in any year since the survey began.

All else being equal, older adults tend to be more nationalistic, as surveys in different periods and countries show. But the nationalism gap between old and young has opened up further with Gen Z.

According to the survey data, in 1981, 69% of Australians in their twenties were willing to fight for their country. This was a slightly greater proportion than the 65% of over-70s. By 2018, this was reversed, with only 44% of Australians in their twenties willing to fight, compared with 59% of over-70s.

The moral imperative

Our interviewees suggested that if nationalist values motivate Zoomers, this is only in terms of “doing the right thing”. This offers an alternative opportunity for recruiters: the changing role of the military towards peacekeeping and disaster relief makes defence attractive to those with humanitarian values.

Zoomers fall into this category. Research shows, and our interviewees agreed, that Gen Z care about the environment, diversity, equity and inclusion.

This is reflected by their attitudes to work. Zoomers want a calling and not just a career (let alone merely a job). According to our interviewees, young recruits place greater importance on the intrinsic aspects of work, like learning skills, experiencing adventure and challenges.

So how do we boost recruitment?

Our own and other research suggests Gen Z is strongly motivated by things that support their own growth and wellbeing, both materially and spiritually, rather than service toward others. Researchers label these “pro-self” motivations.

Zoomers may be hard to recruit, especially given the increasing war for talent, but they have a great deal to offer the military. They may be the most success-orientated among recent generations. They have an unprecedented ability to handle digital technologies that are becoming increasingly important in the military.

The inaugural National Defence Strategy unveiled in April has conceded “the need for a fundamental transformation of defence’s recruitment and retention system”.

Many of the proposals to raise military recruitment in Australia are general. The government recently raised pay and bonuses in the defence force, for example. Other measures include making the recruitment process easier, making military service an opt-out system, reducing medical requirements, or increasing the maximum recruitment age and galvanising junior military leaders to change outdated traditions that harm recruitment.

Our research suggests building a force that appeals to Gen Z’s social values and intrinsic motivations is the way forward. Recruitment strategies need to be tailored.

Robert Hoffmann receives funding from the Australian Department of Defence.

Maria Teresa Beamond receives funding from the Australian Department of Defence and from the not-for-profit group Australian Women in Security Network.

– ref. Gen Z is turning away from military service in record numbers. We’re trying to understand why – tag:theconversation.com,2011:article/230671

Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Danielle Harrop, Cardiologist; PhD candidate, Faculty of Medicine, The University of Queensland

A First Nations child born in Australia today can expect to live eight to nine years less than a non-Indigenous child born on the same day.

During their life, they are more likely to have a heart attack, and would be on average 20 years younger than the non-Indigenous patient in the hospital bed next to them when they do. Acute rheumatic fever, a disease virtually non-existent among non-Indigenous Australians, may damage their heart valves. They are more likely to develop and die from cancer, diabetes, kidney failure and lung disease.

A First Nations Australian is also more likely to have a low household income, live in overcrowded housing, and is 14 times more likely to be imprisoned. We know socioeconomic inequalities like these create health inequalities. There’s also evidence that cultural factors and experiences of racism compound the problem.

Closing the health gap between First Nations peoples and non-Indigenous Australians is a national priority. One of the ways to reduce health disparities is by improving the care Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander people receive when they’re admitted to hospital.

Staff at the Princess Alexandra Hospital in Brisbane could see first-hand that our health system wasn’t delivering the care First Nations patients needed. So they sought to develop a culturally informed model of care for First Nations patients with heart disease.

We have all worked with this model and were part of a study to trial it. Our results, published recently in The Lancet Global Health, indicate this culturally informed model of care eliminated the gap between First Nations patients and non-Indigenous patients when we looked at heart health outcomes after they left hospital.

Designing a culturally informed model of care

The model was developed for First Nations patients with acute coronary syndrome. This includes heart attacks and angina, which is chest pain due to disease in the arteries supplying blood to the heart.

The project was co-designed with First Nations stakeholders. Training was tailored and delivered to build cultural capability across the cardiology department and to increase staff knowledge of relevant services available to First Nations patients outside the hospital.

Staff formed formal partnerships with local Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander community-controlled health organisations. They improved the hospital environment with First Nations artwork and uniforms (displaying First Nations flags and artwork).

They brought together a “Better Cardiac Care” team including an Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander hospital liaison officer, a cardiac nurse and a pharmacist. This team visited First Nations patients at their bedside, providing additional support, advocacy, education and care co-ordination.

Patients could confidently ask questions and yarn about their diagnosis and treatment in their own words without feelings of shame or embarrassment.

The team was focused on the patient’s needs. For example, they could co-ordinate accommodation for a patient’s relative who was travelling to the hospital from far away. They could tell a patient’s doctor if the patient needed more time to talk or make a decision, or a better explanation. Before the patient left hospital, the team could co-ordinate with the patient’s local chemist to supply their medications and book a follow-up appointment with their GP.

How we tested the model

We investigated the impact of the model of care by looking at outcomes for First Nations and non-Indigenous patients admitted with heart attacks and angina before and after the model was implemented.

Specifically, we collected data on 199 First Nations patients and 440 randomly selected non-Indigenous patients treated in the 24 months before the project began and compared them with 119 First Nations patients and 467 non-Indigenous patients treated in the 12 months after.

We particularly wanted to know if patients died, had another heart attack, needed an unexpected stent or coronary artery bypass surgery, or had to urgently come back into hospital within 90 days of being discharged.

Before the model was introduced, 34% of First Nations patients had one of those negative outcomes, much higher than the rate of 18% in non-Indigenous patients. Afterwards, these events occurred in 20% of both First Nations and non-Indigenous patients. This was a significant improvement for First Nations patients and eliminated the gap between groups.

The most significant improvement was seen in urgent re-admissions, but there were also fewer heart attacks.

Fewer heart attacks and hospital admissions are good, but we also needed to ensure patients felt culturally safe, and that their social and emotional needs were being met.

A related project asked patients and their families about their experience with the model of care. The researchers identified that relationality or connectedness between patients and the team, particularly Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander staff, may be key to its success.

A promising concept

Our study was not a randomised trial and the control group was historical. So it’s possible factors other than the model of care might have affected the outcomes. The study was also conducted only in a single hospital.

However, we demonstrated that a culturally informed model of care, developed with and for First Nations peoples, can improve clinical outcomes. Better Cardiac Care programs based on this concept have now spread to other Queensland hospitals.

We hope similar results can be replicated in many hospitals and in other medical specialities, because improving hospital outcomes is one of many important steps needed to close the health gap for First Nations peoples in Australia.

Dr Wang receives or has received research or project grants from MRFF, NHMRC, Metrosouth Health and the Queensland Government.

Danielle Harrop and Debra Pauza 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. How a culturally informed model of care helped First Nations patients with heart disease – tag:theconversation.com,2011:article/229912

Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Samantha Ellen Andres, Postdoctoral Research Fellow, Hawkesbury Institute for the Environment, Western Sydney University

More than 52 million hectares of land across Australia is degraded. Degraded land lacks biodiversity and the natural balance of healthy ecosystems, making it unfit for wildlife or cultivation. This means we are losing the benefits that healthy ecosystems provide for nature and people.

To counter this threat, Australia signed the Global Biodiversity Framework in 2022, pledging to ensure 30% of degraded ecosystems are “under effective restoration” by 2030. That’s roughly 15.6 million hectares of land across the nation.

To kick-start ecosystem recovery, governments, environmental managers and landholders often plant a diverse mix of native species on degraded land. The crucial word here is diverse. Planting a wide variety of species makes ecosystems more resilent, laying the foundation of a healthy environment for wildlife.

But effective biodiverse plantings require large quantities of diverse native seed. Amounts range from 600 to 20,000 seeds per square metre.

The problem is we don’t have enough seeds from Australia’s endemic plants – species found only in this country (often with very limited distributions). Our new research shows both the quantity and diversity of native seed available for restoration are limited across the country. Only 10% of our native species are readily available for sale as seed.

Multiply this supply-and-demand issue on the scale needed to meet Australia’s ambitious goals for nature repair, and the seed shortages, are clearly critical.

Our research identifies gaps in the seed supply chain. We have developed a new method to optimise the biodiversity of plantings from these limited supplies. We also recommend ways to strengthen the seed supply chain.

How well does supply match the need for diversity?

Our research explores two urgent questions:

1. Does the present supply of seed for restoration in Australia reflect the diversity of ecosystems where nature repair is intended?

2. Using seed that is readily available, can we achieve the diverse plantings that underpin resilient ecosystems?

We started by making an inventory of seeds from 32 commercial suppliers across Australia. We worked out what percentage of species can be bought immediately as seed across six major vegetation types, such as our eucalypt woodlands and rainforests.

We then compared the diversity of species available as seed to the total species diversity of each vegetation type.

Using this information, we developed a framework to maximise the different types of plant species (their “functional diversity”) used in seed mixes, taking into account supply constraints. The aim is to achieve a diverse mix of species with different plant traits – such as height, seed or leaf variety – from the available seed supply.

Seed supply is missing many ‘little guys’

Overall, only about 10% of Australia’s plant species, or 2,992 species, can be bought as seed. Of course, volunteers or contractors can directly collect seeds for more species out in the bush for restoration projects – if they have permits to do so. Even so, the 10% we found for immediate purchase indicates serious shortfalls in the diversity of our national supply.

When seed was available, it was more often for trees and shrubs. The seeds of ecologically important understorey species were often not available.

These missing “little guys” are mainly herbs and grasses. They are the source of most of the plant diversity in some of our most degraded ecosystems, such as grassy woodlands.

We also looked at changes in the stock from individual suppliers. As suppliers added more species to their list of offerings, the diversity tended to increase for trees and shrubs. These woody plants include species such as Acacia and Eucalyptus.

The increase in woody species’ seeds effectively “diluted” the contribution to diversity of herb and grass species, such as kangaroo grass, flannel flower and flax lily, that make up the understorey. The overall seed mix becomes less representative of the balance of species in native vegetation.

This shift in supply likely reflects the monumental demand for seeds from trees and shrubs. These woody species are favoured for projects focused on reforestation and carbon farming.

How can we improve seed supply?

We show careful planning can make diverse plantings achievable from available seed stocks. It’s still worrying, though, that the seeds of almost 90% of our native plants are missing.

And, of the available 10%, the quantities in stock may not scratch the surface of what is needed to restore large areas of diverse vegetation.

This finding has serious implications for ecosystems where most of the diversity is in the understorey. One example is the critically endangered Cumberland Plain Woodland west of Sydney. In ecosystems like this, restoration is being proposed to offset development impacts.

To restore vegetation that provides good habitat for wildlife and resembles the natural bush we love, we need to get cracking on improving our national seed supply. We highlight the need for better policy and planning to support Australia’s native seed sector.

After delving into the constraints of seed supply, we recommend ways to improve supply by strengthening collaboration along all stages of the supply chain. That includes everyone from financiers to collectors to bush regenerators across the country.

We suggest increasing financial support to expand seed supply systems, particularly for small-scale suppliers. Expanding seed production areas, such as “seed orchards”, across the nation will help to bring more diverse and difficult-to-store seed on the market. It will also avoid compromising wild plant populations due to over-harvesting.

Good guidance on how to maximise a broad suite of different plant types with a wide range of traits might help avoid some of the consequences of poor seed supply. Selections from current limited supplies can be optimised to generate more diverse seed mixes for restoration.

Still, this takes lots of planning. It may be beyond the reach of the average landholder engaging in nature repair.

Ultimately, we need greater investment to improve the seed supply chain in an ethical and ecologically sustainable way. Only then will we have the tools to attempt to reinstate degraded ecosystems.

Joe Atkinson received funding from the Capital Landkeepers Trust and the Ecological Society of Australia for related work. He 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 his postdoctoral position.

Rachael Gallagher receives funding from the Australian Research Council Linkage scheme for work related to this article. She 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 her academic appointment.

Samantha Ellen Andres 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. Only 10% of native plants can be bought as seed – a big problem for nature repair. Here’s how we can make plantings more diverse – tag:theconversation.com,2011:article/228899

Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Peter Hurley, Director, Mitchell Institute, Victoria University

Just before the May budget, the federal government made a surprise announcement: it will introduce caps on the number of international students in the country.

It is fair to say this plan is really worrying some Australian universities.

The sector argues cutting student numbers will see job losses and less money to do research. They also warn cuts will hurt their international reputation and place in global rankings.

This is because international education is a vital source of funding for Australia’s universities. Universities collected about A$8.6 billion from international students in 2022 – more than a quarter of all revenue.

Given the sums involved, the introduction of caps has the potential to have the most significant impact on Australia’s tertiary education system in decades. But a major unanswered question is what the caps will be and how they will be calculated.

Remind me, what did the government announce?

Education Minister Jason Clare introduced legislation to parliament on student caps almost immediately after the budget was released. This would provide ministerial powers to regulate international education in Australia by:

• pausing the registration of new providers and new courses

• limiting the enrolments of overseas students by provider, course or location, over a year

• automatically suspending and cancelling courses.

This comes as the government seeks to reduce net overseas migration (the increase in the number of people in Australia) to pre-pandemic levels of about 260,000 people per year.

It also follows similar moves in Canada and the United Kingdom, which have introduced changes to limit the number of international students in their countries.

How did we get here?

As the Treasury explained last week, it underestimated net overseas migration by 25%. International students are the major cause of this.

They are now at record levels, with about 870,000 current and former international students in Australia. They make up the largest part of the temporary migrant population.

During the pandemic, the number of international students in Australia more than halved. In December 2019, there were more than 630,000 international students in Australia. By December 2021, there were 315,000. Since Australia reopened its borders, the number of international students entering the country have rebounded much quicker than anticipated.

Along with pent-up demand, the Morrison government introduced policies to encourage international students to return. This included removing caps on the number of hours a student could work and allowing students to stay longer after they have finished their course.

Now, amid dual housing and cost-of-living crises, international students have also become a political issue. Not only is the federal government looking to decrease net overseas migration but the opposition wants to go even further.

Who is affected by this change?

So far, the focus of the impact on international student caps has been on universities. But there could be much wider impacts in the economy and community if international student numbers are capped.

One thing that is often lost in the debate is the diversity of the international education sector. Universities only make up about 40% of current international student enrolments.

The remainder of students are in private colleges, English language schools and secondary schools.

International students are also important parts of Australia’s workforce. The occupation with the largest number of international students is “carer and aides”. This means industries like aged care and disability support rely on an international student workforce.

In 2023, international education was also Australia’s fourth largest export valued at $48 billion. Of this, $17 billion was collected in course fees and the remaining $31 billion was spent in the broader economy.

This means any change to international student numbers could have an impact way beyond the campuses of Australia’s elite universities.

We still need detail

During his budget speech, Treasurer Jim Chalmers focused on housing as a central to how caps will be calculated.

As he told parliament:

[…] for too long, enrolments have grown without being matched by an increase in student housing supply.

We will limit how many international students can be enrolled by each university based on a formula, including how much housing they build.

But it is not yet clear how this will happen.

It is also unclear how much international students are impacting upon housing costs. Some research has shown the impact of international students on housing and rental prices is small.

One factor the government could consider here is how many domestic students are enrolled at a particular institution. This is so domestic students do not suffer from a cut that sees fewer resources where they study.

In Australia, it is certainly true the larger, more prestigious universities have the most international students. But they also enrol huge numbers of domestic students.

The largest private vocational colleges enrol almost exclusively international students, usually in courses like business and hospitality. As our analysis (below) shows, of the ten largest private providers, nine were private colleges where there were few domestic students.

It is important to note, this is the part of the international education sector identified as having the most problems with compliance and exploitation. This is what the government has been keen to crack down on when it talks about “shonky” providers.

What happens now?

The bill has been referred to the Senate’s education committee, which is due to report on August 15.

In many ways “too many students” is a good problem to have. It demonstrates Australia’s international education sector is strong.

But we have to watch out for unintended consequences. The diversity of the system – from elite, research universities educating both international and domestic students to private colleges largely educating international students – also needs to be taken into account.

And to adequately understand the impacts, we need more detail now from the government about how they plan to do it.

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. International student caps are creating a huge headache for universities. But they could have an impact beyond elite campuses – tag:theconversation.com,2011:article/231804

Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Melika Soleimani, Senior Data Analyst, Massey University

The artificial intelligence (AI) revolution has begun, spreading to almost every facet of people’s professional and personal lives – including job recruitment.

While artists fear copyright breaches or simply being replaced, business and management are becoming increasingly aware to the possibilities of greater efficiencies in areas as diverse as supply chain management, customer service, product development and human resources (HR) management.

Soon all business areas and operations will be under pressure to adopt AI in some form or another. But the very nature of AI – and the data behind its processes and outputs – mean human biases are being embedded in the technology.

Our research looked at the use of AI in recruitment and hiring – a field that has already widely adopted AI to automate the screening of résumés and to rate video interviews by job applicants.

AI in recruitment promises greater objectivity and efficiency during the hiring process by eliminating human biases and enhancing fairness and consistency in decision making.

But our research shows AI can subtly – and at times overtly – heighten biases. And the involvement of HR professionals may worsen rather than alleviate these effects. This challenges our belief that human oversight can contain and moderate AI.

Magnifying human bias

Although one of the reasons for using AI in recruitment is that it is meant to be to be more objective and consistent, multiple studies have found the technology is, in fact, very likely to be biased. This happens because AI learns from the datasets used to train it. If the data is flawed, the AI will be too.

Biases in data can be made worse by the human-created algorithms supporting AI, which often contain human biases in their design.

In interviews with 22 HR professionals, we identified two common biases in hiring: “stereotype bias” and “similar-to-me bias”.

Stereotype bias occurs when decisions are influenced by stereotypes about certain groups, such as preferring candidates of the same gender, leading to gender inequality.

“Similar-to-me” bias happens when recruiters favour candidates who share similar backgrounds or interests to them.

These biases, which can significantly affect the fairness of the hiring process, are embedded in the historical hiring data which are then used to train the AI systems. This leads to biased AI.

So, if past hiring practices favoured certain demographics, the AI will continue to do so. Mitigating these biases is challenging because algorithms can infer personal information based on hidden data from other correlated information.

For example, in countries with different lengths of military service for men and women, an AI might deduce gender based on service duration.

This persistence of bias underscores the need for careful planning and monitoring to ensure fairness in both human and AI-driven recruitment processes.

Can humans help?

As well as HR professionals, we also interviewed 17 AI developers. We wanted to investigate how an AI recruitment system could be developed that would mitigate rather than exacerbate hiring bias.

Based on the interviews, we developed a model wherein HR professionals and AI programmers would go back and forth in exchanging information and questioning preconceptions as they examined data sets and developed algorithms.

However, our findings reveal the difficulty in implementing such a model lies in the educational, professional and demographic differences that exist between HR professionals and AI developers.

These differences impede effective communication, cooperation and even the ability to understand each other. While HR professionals are traditionally trained in people management and organisational behaviour, AI developers are skilled in data science and technology.

These different backgrounds can lead to misunderstandings and misalignment when working together. This is particularly a problem in smaller countries such as New Zealand, where resources are limited and professional networks are less diverse.

Connecting HR and AI

If companies and the HR profession want to address the issue of bias in AI-based recruitment, several changes need to be made.

Firstly, the implementation of a structured training programme for HR professionals focused on information system development and AI is crucial. This training should cover the fundamentals of AI, the identification of biases in AI systems, and strategies for mitigating these biases.

Additionally, fostering better collaboration between HR professionals and AI developers is also important. Companies should be looking to create teams that include both HR and AI specialists. These can help bridge the communication gap and better align their efforts.

Moreover, developing culturally relevant datasets is vital for reducing biases in AI systems. HR professionals and AI developers need to work together to ensure the data used in AI-driven recruitment processes are diverse and representative of different demographic groups. This will help create more equitable hiring practices.

Lastly, countries need guidelines and ethical standards for the use of AI in recruitment that can help build trust and ensure fairness. Organisations should implement policies that promote transparency and accountability in AI-driven decision-making processes.

By taking these steps, we can create a more inclusive and fair recruitment system that leverages the strengths of both HR professionals and AI developers.

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. What will a robot make of your résumé? The bias problem with using AI in job recruitment – tag:theconversation.com,2011:article/231174

Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Joanna Mendelssohn, Honorary (Senior Fellow) School of Culture and Communication University of Melbourne. Editor in Chief, Design and Art of Australia Online, The University of Melbourne

In awarding this year’s Archibald Prize to Laura Jones’ portrait of the writer Tim Winton, the Trustees of the Art Gallery of New South Wales are doing what they do best: catapulting a relatively unknown artist to instant fame and possible fortune.

Her portrait of Winton is a study of a man in emotional pain, as he contemplates the possible futures of the world around him.

One of the great disadvantages of being a writer or an artist is that they can see what politicians do not: the long-term consequences of abusing the environment. Both Winton the subject and Jones the artist see our planet is on a path to environmental doom.

Jones met Winton when she was undertaking a residency to study the bleaching of the Great Barrier Reef, so it is appropriate the tones she has chosen as the background to his portrait are dull and muted like a degraded world.

Most of the painting is thinly painted with the exception of his face. This gives the portrait an extra impact.

Although Laura Jones has been a finalist in four previous Archibald Prize exhibitions and has exhibited widely, her profile indicates the only significant collection to hold her work is Artbank, the collection of the Australian government.

That is all about to change.

In what may be a coincidence, another exhibition on the same floor is a solo exhibition by a previous Archibald winner, Wendy Sharpe, whose painterly approach is similar to Jones.

Sharpe’s work not only relates to Jones’ painting in style, but also the circumstance of her winning the prize. In 1996, Sharpe was a relatively unknown artist when she too was awarded the Archibald Prize. The prize was the trigger for a career that has included a stint of being a Gallery Trustee.

The Archibald really does sprinkle fairy dust.

Djakaŋu Yunupiŋu wins the Wynne Prize

When the board president of the trustees, David Gonski, announced the Wynne Prize he took great joy in noting this year the majority of the entrants selected for hanging were Aboriginal artists.

Awarded to “the best landscape painting of Australian scenery in oils or watercolours or for the best example of figure sculpture by Australian artists”, this oldest of all Australian art prizes has come a long way from when it was dominated by paintings of gum trees in pastoral landscapes.

Djakaŋu Yunupiŋu’s painting, Nyalala gurmilili, is a celebration of sunrise in Miḏawarr (the harvest season following the wet) when sudden showers surprise during the day.

It is probably the largest bark painting to be exhibited in the gallery, a glorious undulating pattern of rhythms and shapes.

There is a special significance in this artist being awarded the prize for this work at this gallery.

Many years ago her father, Muŋgurrawuy Yunupiŋu, was one of a group of Yolngu elders who sat with the gallery’s assistant director, Tony Tuckson, and showed him the connection between painting and lore. Muŋgurrawuy Yunupiŋu’s bark paintings are among the treasures of the Art Gallery of NSW’s collection.

Naomi Kantjuriny wins the Sulman Prize

Unlike the Archibald and Wynne Prizes, which are judged by the trustees, the Sulman Prize for best subject painting, genre painting or mural project has a single judge, usually an artist.

This means every year the exhibition has a different flavour, reflecting the judge’s taste. This year’s judge, Tom Polo, selected an exhibition ranging from the traditional formalism of David Eastwood to the conceptual humour of Kenny Pittock.

He has awarded the prize to Naomi Kantjuriny for her painting Minyma mamu tjuta, from the Tjala Arts Centre. She has described her painting as being about the stories told and her culture.

It is a lively painting of spirits, good and bad, dancing in the land, gathering around people, always present.

Read more:
Archibald Prize 2024: this year’s finalists range from downright fun to politically ferocious

The Archibald, Wynne and Sulman Prizes 2024 are on display at the Art Gallery of New South Wales, Sydney, until September 8.

Joanna Mendelssohn has previously received funding from the Australian Research Council

– ref. Laura Jones wins the 2024 Archibald Prize with a portrait of Tim Winton, part of a grand artistic tradition – tag:theconversation.com,2011:article/228493

Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Matt Halliday, Lecturer in Advertising and Brand Creativity, Auckland University of Technology

Can we imagine a world without fossil fuel advertising, let alone fossil fuels themselves? That was essentially the question posed by United Nations Secretary General António Guterres this week.

Calling the coal, oil and gas industries the “godfathers of climate chaos”, who had “shamelessly greenwashed” environmental issues through lobbying, legal action and advertising campaigns, he said:

I urge every country to ban advertising from fossil fuel companies.

When the head of the UN calls on your industry to take action to help prevent the catastrophic effects of climate change, it should be a wake-up call. The next question is, then, are the New Zealand advertising and public relations industries listening?

A movement gaining momentum

In 2022, France became the first country to ban fossil fuel ads, although critics say the law doesn’t go far enough, with natural gas and sponsorship of events exempt. Medical professionals in Canada and Australia have also called for bans on fossil fuel advertising.

A private member’s bill in Canada’s parliament, aimed at curbing fossil fuel advertising, has passed its first reading. In Australia, a senate inquiry into greenwashing has heard allegations that Channel Ten blurred the line between news and natural gas advertising.

The inquiry is due to report back at the end of this month. Meanwhile, Australian independent and Green MPs have endorsed Guterres’ call for an ad ban.

Local governments have gone even further. Last week, the City of Edinburgh Council passed a ban on “high-carbon products and services”. Air travel, airports, SUVs, cruises and fossil fuel companies are specifically excluded from advertising on council-owned sites.

Amsterdam was the first city to enact similar laws in 2021, and several smaller cities and regions in the United Kingdom and Europe have done the same.

Closer to home, the Fossil Ad Ban campaign, run by Australian creative industries lobby group Comms Declare, has seen 16 local councils, including the City of Sydney, sign on to cut fossil fuel advertising in their regions.

Targeting high-emissions industry

New Zealand’s largest fossil fuel company, Z Energy, has been taken to court by Consumer NZ, Lawyers for Climate Action NZ and the Environmental Law Initiative for claimed breaches of the Fair Trading Act.

The case is based on Z Energy’s 2022 advertising campaign claim that “we’re in the business of getting out of the petrol business”, while fuel sales have since increased.

According to research by the Sustainable Business Network, Z Energy (which is a member of the network) is among the companies “associated with sustainability among at least 50% of New Zealanders”.

Z Energy is also one of seven corporate defendants facing court action brought by iwi leader Mike Smith, who alleges “public nuisance, negligence and climate system damage”.

Alongside co-defendants Fonterra, Genesis Energy and New Zealand Steel, Z Energy is also a member of the Sustainable Business Council, whose work involves “championing our members to be at the leading-edge of sustainability”.

Advertising slow to change

To date, no local or regional councils in Aotearoa New Zealand have enacted any ad bans of the type seen elsewhere in the world. Similarly, no major advertising or PR firms have declared an intention to divest their fossil fuel clients.

Local initiative Ad Net Zero was launched last year to encourage decarbonisation within the advertising industry itself. Communications Council chief executive Simon Lendrum, who helped launch Ad Net Zero, said in a podcast interview last year there was a need for “collective systemic change”.

But he drew the line at suggesting agencies drop fossil fuel clients from their rosters. Ending fossil fuel advertising without wider support from industry and government, he said, would be “facile”.

Given the National-led coalition’s intention to revive oil and gas exploration, and its commitment to building more roads, it would seem unlikely Guterres’ call for an ad ban will gain much traction in Wellington.

An anxious industry

Within the advertising industry itself, however, there is support for what Guterres is saying. In my work as a teacher, I find students regularly raise concerns about these ethical conflicts as they look to start their careers.

Recent UK research shows climate anxiety is higher among those in the advertising industry than in the general public. MOre than half of industry respondents felt anxious about climate change, while almost 40% felt demoralised about it.

This should come as little surprise. The industry is filled with young, passionate, intelligent and creative people. Advertising is about connecting the dots – bringing together concepts or ideas that might seem unrelated but which create new understandings and emotional “pull”.

Perhaps advertising professionals simply made the connection between their own business and climate change sooner. The question is, will advertising agencies be bold enough to recruit and protect their future talent? Or will they continue to take the money, no matter the cost?

Matt Halliday is affiliated with Comms Declare.

– ref. The UN chief has called for a ban on fossil fuel advertising – is the NZ industry listening? – tag:theconversation.com,2011:article/231809

Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Brendan Wintle, Professor in Conservation Science, School of Ecosystem and Forest Science, The University of Melbourne

Earth is facing a human-driven climate crisis, which demands a rapid transition to low-carbon energy sources such as wind and solar power. But we’re also living through a mass extinction event. Never before in human history have there been such high such rates of species loss and ecosystem collapse.

The biodiversity crisis is not just distressing, it’s a major threat to the global economy. More than half of global Gross Domestic Product (GDP) directly depends on nature. The World Economic Forum rates biodiversity loss in the top risks to the global economy over the next decade, after climate change and natural disasters.

Human-driven climate change damages nature – and loss of nature exacerbates climate change. So if humanity’s efforts to mitigate climate change end up damaging nature, we shoot ourselves in the foot.

Australia, however, must face up to an uncomfortable truth: we are putting renewable energy projects in places that damage the species and ecosystems on which we depend.

Renewables on the run

Renewable energy projects are being developed that damage nature and culturally significant sites. Others are resented by communities, or fail at regulatory hurdles.

Environmentally damaging projects put another nail in the coffin of species and ecosystems already under immense pressure. Even those that affect a relatively small area contribute to nature’s “death by a thousand cuts”.

Take, for example, the proposed Euston wind farm in southwest New South Wales. It would entail 96 turbines built near the Willandra Lakes World Heritage area, potentially affecting threatened birds.

And in North Queensland, the Upper Burdekin wind farm proposal will remove 769 hectares of endangered species habitat relied on by Sharman’s wallabies, koalas and northern greater gliders. The cleared area would be almost 200 times bigger than the Melbourne Cricket Ground.

The simple overlay below, which we prepared, illustrates the problem in Queensland. The analysis, part of a research project funded by Boundless Earth, shows in stark detail the crossover between energy projects, transmission lines and nationally listed threatened species habitats and ecosystems.

The ‘fast-track’ can also be the good track

In their understandable haste to get more clean energy projects built, state and federal governments are promising to “streamline” approvals processes. Fast-tracked approvals will only provide net social benefit if they are based on good data, sound analysis and genuine community engagement.

Two successive reviews of our national environmental laws, most recently by Graeme Samuel, identified what’s needed to improve the efficiency of development approvals and get better outcomes for nature. The answer? Good planning at the regional scale, underpinned by good data.

At a minimum, we need to know the locations of threatened or culturally significant species and places, high-value agriculture and valuable natural areas. A proposed new federal body, Environmental Information Australia, would seek to centralise existing biodiversity data. But significantly more data are required to fill important knowledge gaps.

Good planning can create shared purpose and bring positive environmental and social outcomes, including certainty to developers and conservationists. In Queensland, the Great Barrier Reef Marine Park has enjoyed strong planning support based on good data and high community participation for more than 30 years, with some conservation success.

In contrast, poor planning polarises stakeholders and communities. It erodes trust between stakeholders, developers and government by reducing the integrity and quality of planning decisions. This leads to ongoing conflict over land use, as has been observed in Queensland.

A proposal to build a renewable energy microgrid in Queensland’s Daintree rainforest is a case in point. It is causing pain for local communities, pitting renewable energy advocates against conservation organisations.

When projects fail to gain community support and necessary approvals, the proponent’s money is wasted, and we lose precious time in the urgent transition to renewables.

Renewables projects should enhance nature

It’s surprising and disappointing how few proponents of Australian renewables projects actively seek to enhance the habitat values of the land their projects occupy.

In part, this is because planning regulations are still firmly focused on avoiding impacts to nature, and offsetting damage when it occurs.

Instead, we need policies and laws that compel nature-positive approaches that regenerate biodiversity.

In California, for example, a test project to grow native plants under solar panels is restoring prairie land and pollinator habitat at the site of a decommissioned nuclear power station. In Australia, there are occasional signs we may move in a similar direction.

It’s not hard to envisage a renewables rollout that prioritises projects on degraded, ex-agricultural land, avoiding damage to critical habitats and benefiting nature. Wind turbines should be built away from natural vegetation and migratory routes for birds and bats.

Our mapping for potential wind and solar projects in southern Queensland shows strong potential west of the Great Dividing Range for energy generation without the same level of land-use conflict with natural values and productive agriculture.

A major challenge to energy project development in Queensland, as in some other parts of Australia, is a lack of transmission infrastructure, or “poles and wires”, in the places where renewable energy and nature could most happily coexist. This infrastructure should urgently be developed in a way that does not impact natural vegetation and species habitats.

Rapidly reaching net zero is not negotiable to avoiding the worst ravages of climate change. But doing so in a way that damages nature is self-defeating. We have the planning tools and data needed to create a nature-positive climate transition. Now we need adequate state and Commonwealth government investment, leadership and political will.

Brendan Wintle has received funding from The Australian Research Council, the Victorian State Government, the NSW State Government, the Queensland State Government, the Commonwealth National Environmental Science Program, the Ian Potter Foundation, the Hermon Slade Foundation, Boundless Earth Foundation and the Australian Conservation Foundation. Wintle is a Board Director of Zoos Victoria and a lead councillor of the Biodiversity Council. Thanks to Jaana Dielenberg for contribution to this article.

James Watson has received funding from the Australian Research Council, National Environmental Science Program, South Australia’s Department of Environment and Water as well as from Bush Heritage Australia, Queensland Conservation Council, Australian Conservation Foundation, The Wildnerness Society and Birdlife Australia. He serves on scientific committees for Subak Australia and BirdLife Australia and has a long-term scientific relationship with Bush Heritage Australia and Wildlife Conservation Society. He serves on the Queensland Government’s Land Restoration Fund’s Investment Panel as the Deputy Chair.

Michelle Ward has received funding from The Australian Research Council and the Commonwealth National Environmental Science Program. She was Science and Research Lead at WWF-Australia and is currently on a Technical Advisory Panel for a project run by the Wentworth Group of Concerned Scientists.

Sarah Bekessy receives funding from the Australian Research Council, the National Health and Medical Research Council, the Ian Potter Foundation and the European Commission. She is a lead councillor of the Biodiversity Council, a board member of Bush Heritage Australia, a member of WWF’s Eminent Scientists Group, a member of the Advisory Group for Wood for Good and a member of the Technical Working Group of the Living Future Institute of Australia.

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

– ref. A renewable energy transition that doesn’t harm nature? It’s not just possible, it’s essential – tag:theconversation.com,2011:article/229605

Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Alex Russell, Principal Research Fellow, CQUniversity Australia

Three players from the Macarthur FC A-League soccer team were recently charged by NSW police for allegedly trying to receive yellow cards on purpose so gamblers could make money on the actions.

The trio was arrested by the NSW Police Organised Crime Squad Gaming Unit. Since then, two other Macarthur FC players have been implicated in the scandal.

The controversy raises concerns about the ever-expanding range of betting options, both in terms of gambling problems and sports integrity.

Betting markets and sports integrity

Gambling-related sports integrity issues are not new.

Many sports fans might be familiar with major betting scandals such as the 1919 Black Sox scandal in baseball, the Hansie Cronje match-fixing controversy in cricket, or snooker player Stephen Lee’s match-fixing ban.

Match-fixing requires a player or players to perform poorly on purpose, so people “in the know” can bet on the other team to win. There are obvious difficulties in arranging this, as every person who is approached to be in on the fix could change their mind and approach authorities.

But now there is a larger number of betting markets, including in-game contingencies such as gambling on yellow cards in football, so it is easier to get one or two players to do a particular thing at a preset time in a match without compromising the overall result.

This is known as spot-fixing and this is what the Macarthur FC players are alleged to have done.

It’s hard to fix certain things, like scoring a goal, because it’s an infrequent event and each player only has so much control over this. But it’s easier to deliberately receive a yellow card, without necessarily hurting your team’s chances of winning.

Sometimes, spot-fixing is relatively easy to detect. Former North Queensland player Ryan Tandy was found guilty of trying to increase the chances of a penalty goal being the first scoring point of a 2010 NRL game.

During his trial, TAB reported 95% of bets placed on the game’s first-scoring play were for a penalty goal, which was unusual and raised concerns about a possible fix.

Another example from 2010 was Pakistan cricketers Mohammad Asif and Mohammad Amir deliberately bowling no-balls by overstepping the crease. The evidence against them appeared straightforward, as they were overstepping the crease by so far to ensure the umpires saw the no-balls.

They were banned by the International Cricket Council after a tribunal found them guilty of spot-fixing.

However, in contrast, the fast-paced and highly variable nature of the shorter Twenty20 form of cricket may make it easier to fix incidents that are harder to catch.

More and more betting opportunities

With the help of technology, sports betting has exploded in many countries around the world. According to a UN report, “this evolution has also facilitated the activities of those involved in competition manipulation”.

How has sports betting evolved?

Before sports betting became legal in Australia in 1983, you had to find an illegal bookmaker to place a bet. Betting options were limited, with bets typically placed on who would win and perhaps by how much.

When online gambling started in 1996, Australia took a conservative approach, only allowing certain forms of betting.

Pokies, which experts cite as the most problematic form of gambling in Australia, are not available to Australians online. One reason for this is the fast-paced nature of the betting. Each spin is a bet, and the outcome of the bet is known within seconds. But sports betting (at the time) was seen as slow-paced, with results often taking hours or even days to be determined.

Over time, sports betting companies greatly expanded the range of betting options. It is not uncommon for bookmakers to offer more than 100 different betting markets on matches, including bets on team outcomes, player statistics and in-game contingencies such as the number of yellow cards.

And that’s for every game, every round.

Since 2002, gamblers can also place bets after a game starts (live betting), although in Australia, these bets can’t be placed online and must be done via a phone call or in a venue.

Betting markets are now offered on very particular events in games, such as how many runs will be scored in the next over in cricket (microbetting), meaning bets can be determined in minutes or even seconds.

These fast-paced forms are often touted as the future of sports betting. But they’re problematic for two main reasons.

First, they appeal almost exclusively to people who are already gambling at a high or potentially problematic frequency.

Second, they make it much easier to approach players to perform certain actions for betting purposes.

It could be happening in suburban sport, too

In recent years, betting has made it to suburban sport, with scouts sometimes acting for betting companies by filming matches so people can bet on them.

In fact, it’s not new. In 2012, a news report noted that Sportingbet sponsored an Eastern Football League club and offered bets on games involving the team, despite the club having no betting protocols.

It raises concerns about gambling-related corruption potentially reaching bog-standard amateurs like me and my friends when we play park cricket.

As wagering turnover in Australia continues to climb (despite a COVID dip) on the back of ever-increasing access, and more and more markets being available, gamblers can now bet anywhere, anytime, on seemingly anything.

It opens the door for gambling companies to find new and increasingly harder-to-detect ways of manipulating outcomes for betting.

Alex Russell mostly receives funding from government bodies, including Gambling Research Australia, the New South Wales Office of Responsible Gambling, the Victorian Responsible Gambling Foundation and others. He has previously (2016) analysed data on an industry-funded project to inform a casino operator about gambling and gambling problems amongst their employees, but no longer works on industry-funded projects. He presented to the Hawthorn Hawks player group about concerns relating to gambling products amongst professional athletes, with travel costs covered by the Hawthorn Hawks Players’ Association. These disclosures are declared in the interests of full disclosure and transparency.

– ref. The A-League yellow card scandal might be the tip of the iceberg when it comes to gambling-related corruption – tag:theconversation.com,2011:article/231391

Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Mandy Hagstrom, Senior Lecturer, Exercise Physiology. School of Health Sciences, UNSW Sydney

So you’ve got yourself a gym membership or bought a set of home weights. Now what? With the sheer amount of confusing exercise advice out there, it can be hard to decide what to include in a weights routine.

It can help to know there are broadly two types of movements in resistance training (lifting weights): compound exercises and isolation exercises.

So what’s the difference? And what’s all this got to do with strength, speed and healthy ageing?

What’s the difference?

Compound exercises involve multiple joints and muscle groups working together.

In a push up, for example, your shoulder and elbow joints are moving together. This targets the muscles in the chest, shoulder and triceps.

When you do a squat, you’re using your thigh and butt muscles, your back, and even the muscles in your core.

It can help to think about compound movements by grouping them by primary movement patterns.

For example, some lower body compound exercises follow a “squat pattern”. Examples include bodyweight squats, weighted squats, lunges and split squats.

We also have “hinge patterns”, where you hinge from a point on your body (such as the hips). Examples include deadlifts, hip thrusts and kettle bell swings.

Upper body compounded exercises can be grouped into “push patterns” (such as weighted rows, or vertical barbell lifts) or “pull patterns” (such as chin ups or lat pull downs, which is where you use a pulley system machine to lift weights by pulling a bar downwards).

In contrast, isolation exercises are movements that occur at a single joint.

For instance, bicep curls only require movement at the elbow joint and work your bicep muscles. Tricep extensions and lateral raises are other examples of isolation exercises.

Compound exercises can make daily life easier

Many compound exercises mimic movements we do every day.

Hinge patterns mimic picking something off the floor. A vertical press mimics putting a heavy box on a high shelf. A squat mimics standing up from the couch or getting on and off the toilet.

That might sound ridiculous to a young, fit person (“why would I need to practise getting on and off a toilet?”).

Unfortunately, we lose strength and muscle mass as we age. Men lose about 5% of their muscle mass per decade, while for women the figure is about 4% per decade.

When this decline begins can vary widely. However, approximately 30% of an adult’s peak muscle mass is lost by the time they are 80.

The good news is resistance training can counteract these age-related changes in muscle size and strength.

So building strength through compound exercise movements may help make daily life feel a bit easier. In fact, our ability to perform compound movements are a good indicator how well we can function as we age.

What about strength and athletic ability?

Compound exercises use multiple joints, so you can generally lift heavier weights than you could with isolation exercises. Lifting a heavier weight means you can build muscle strength more efficiently.

One study divided a group of 36 people into two. Three times a week, one group performed isolation exercises, while the other group did compound exercises.

After eight weeks, both groups had lost fat. But the compound exercises group saw much better results on measures of cardiovascular fitness, bench press strength, knee extension strength, and squat strength.

If you play a sport, compound movements can also help boost athletic ability.

Squat patterns require your hip, knee, and ankle to extend at the same time (also known as triple extension).

Our bodies use this triple extension trick when we run, sprint, jump or change direction quickly. In fact, research has found squat strength is strongly linked to being able to sprint faster and jump higher.

Isolation exercises are still good

What if you’re unable to do compound movements, or you just don’t want to?

Don’t worry, you’ll still build strength and muscle with isolation exercises.

Isolation exercises are also typically easier to learn as there is no skill required. They are an easy and low risk way to add extra exercise at the end of the workout, where you might otherwise be too tired to do more compound exercises safely and with correct form.

In fact, both isolation and compound exercises seem to be equally effective in helping us lose body fat and increase fat-free muscle mass when total intensity and volume of exercises are otherwise equal.

Some people also do isolation exercises when they want to build up a particular muscle group for a certain sport or for a bodybuilding competition, for example.

I just want a time efficient workout

Considering the above factors, you could consider prioritising compound exercises if you’re:

• time poor

• keen to lift heavier weights

• looking for an efficient way to train many muscles in the one workout

• interested in healthy ageing.

That said, most well designed workout programs will include both compound and isolation movements.

Mandy Hagstrom is affiliated with Sports Oracle, a company that delivers the IOC diploma in Strength and Conditioning.

Anurag Pandit is currently on a Research Training Program scholarship for his PhD at UNSW.

– ref. What are compound exercises and why are they good for you? – tag:theconversation.com,2011:article/228385

Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Anthony Richardson, Senior Lecturer and Deputy Director, Te Puna Ako Centre for Tertiary Teaching and Learning, University of Waikato

It’s no secret New Zealand universities are at a crossroads. Financial constraints, a post-COVID hangover and sweeping staff layoffs have all made for testing times in the tertiary world.

So the government’s appointment of a University Advisory Group to “consider challenges and opportunities for improvement in the university sector” is more than timely.

The group is charged with assessing the financial challenges facing universities, their overall performance, and whether different funding models would help achieve better outcomes.

Public submissions have now closed. It will be fascinating to see the answers to the first and perhaps most important question on the submissions form: “What should be the primary functions of universities for a contemporary world?”

There is, of course, no single definitive answer. But there are several working definitions that might help. These often overlap and are sometimes contradictory. The challenge will be to find the right balance between the seven outlined below.

1. Driver of economic and social development

This is a common understanding of a university’s role: as well as teaching the next generation of professionals, university research drives technological development and economic growth.

For example, the foundation of Canterbury College (later to become the university) was informed by the economic and social needs of a newly established colonial settlement. This role is compatible with an understanding of the university as a job factory (see below).

Governments regularly provide funding to universities to meet training and employment goals, such as the current plan to fund a new medical school at Waikato University.

2. Promoter of equity

The motto of Waikato University – Ko Te Tangata (For the People) – clearly states what (or who) a university is for. It offers employment opportunities that should not be restricted to a small minority.

While you are still ten times more likely to go to university if your parents also went to university, over the second half of the 20th century New Zealand radically increased participation in university education.

In turn, however, allowing more students to enrol has raised concerns about the risk of lowering academic and teaching standards.

3. Profit-making business

With a 20% decline in government funding since 2012, universities have been forced to act as businesses. Shifting to a user-pays funding model means they are selling a product (education) to individual consumers (students).

Furthermore, free market reforms in the 1980s and 1990s largely deregulated tertiary education. This left universities competing with each other in a marketplace.

The importance of university rankings, student recruitment marketing and student experience all flow from this business model. This aligns with another possible function of the university as preserving status and privilege (see below).

Certain institutions and degrees have always been markers of status for those who can afford them. This perception clearly underpins some arguments against taxpayer funding.

4. Job factory

Another stated purpose of the university is that it exists to reduce unemployment by training people for work (or at least removing them from unemployment statistics while they study).

A university’s success is measured by how employable its graduates are. This then feeds into criticism of certain degrees (usually in the “softer” humanities subjects) producing “unemployable” graduates.

This view dovetails in some ways with the understanding of universities as drivers of national development (see below).

5. Incubator of intellectual inquiry and knowledge

According to the Education Act 1998:

a university is characterised by a wide diversity of teaching and research, especially at a higher level, that maintains, advances, disseminates, and assists the application of, knowledge, develops intellectual independence, and promotes community learning […]

A university fulfils this role through valuable research, free intellectual debate and the creation of good citizens. This purpose can be seen to be threatened by the shift towards the business or job factory models (see above).

This view of the university’s function also conflicts with the view they should be drivers of economic and social development (see above), which goes back to the country’s colonial origins.

In the words of John Macmillan Brown, one of three founding professors of Canterbury College:

God help me, what would be the good of Greek verse for pioneers in a new colony?

6. Preserver of status and privilege

Elite universities have always offered their graduates enhanced social connections and employment opportunities. They increasingly cloak their status (justifiably or not) in the language of educational meritocracy, measured in university rankings and successful alumni.

Their advertised role as incubators of intellectual inquiry and knowledge complements their other identities as job factory and for-profit business because only the wealthiest customers can afford the products they are selling.

But this is clearly in direct conflict with the understanding of universities as promoters of equity.

7. Social critic and instigator of revolutionary change

There is a long history of universities filling the role of “critic and conscience of society”, which generally complements those of promoter of equity and incubator of intellectual inquiry and knowledge.

At the same time, criticisms of universities as elitist ivory towers also have a long history.

Nonetheless, instigating social change extends beyond campus protests and “culture wars” to include research, social commentary and revolutionary technological developments such as the internet and artificial intelligence.

Finally, all universities have to balance some or all of these purposes, whether complementary or contradictory. The answer to the University Advisory Group’s first question is not straightforward. Any useful answer lies in some mix of these various options.

Anthony Richardson 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 the functions of the modern university? 7 answers for the government review – tag:theconversation.com,2011:article/231261

Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Ned Dobos, Senior Lecturer in International Ethics, UNSW Sydney

From July this year, New Zealand nationals will be eligible to serve in the Australian Defence Force. From January 2025, so will Americans, Canadians and Brits. This raises a number of political and ethical issues that will need to be addressed in due course, but some of the early misgivings are unfounded.

Under the new rules, a foreign national from any of these countries need only live in Australia for one year before applying for admission. One might wonder whether this is enough time for any individual to become sufficiently socially bonded to Australia.

So, will these new recruits identify with the civilian population they are entrusted to protect? Maybe not. But why assume other members of the force are any different in this respect?

Us and them

In countries that rely on professional volunteers to populate their armed forces, the military and civilian worlds tend to drift apart and develop distinct (and often conflicting) sets of values, ideologies and attitudes.

Journalist Arthur Hadley once called this “The Great Divorce”. Sociologists today usually call it the “civil-military gap”. It tends to give rise to what I have elsewhere called “warrior-class consciousness”. This is where soldiers come to think of themselves as a distinct caste, rather than a sample of the general population from which they are drawn.

Over time, this feeling of being separate from one’s parent society can mutate into feelings of contempt and even hostility toward the civilian “other”.

US journalist Thomas Ricks found evidence of this among US Marines in the 1990s. At the time, he described it as their “private loathing for public America”. Even after a relatively short period of time in the service, Ricks noticed that Marines started looking at old non-military friends and colleagues with a certain disdain, to the point of avoiding social encounters with them as much as possible.

Eminent military historian Hew Strachan finds much the same among the UK armed forces. Its members are said to see British civilians “as mentally soft and physically feeble”. Military writer Carl Forsling coined the term “veteran superiority complex” to describe this phenomenon.

Should the US and UK expunge from their armed forces any member who is revealed to be insufficiently socially bonded to the civilian population? Would we do that? Unlikely.

But then it is not clear why we should be so bothered by the prospect of a foreign national joining the Australian Defence Force without yet feeling like “one of us”. Any professional soldier that spends enough time sequestered away from his or her parent society is liable to feel alienated from it to some degree.

Risk-averse recruits?

A related worry is that foreign nationals without deep-seated communal bonds will not be prepared to make the sacrifices necessary for effective military service.

A unique feature of the military profession is that it is governed by an “unlimited liability covenant”, so-called because there is no limit to the sacrifice a soldier can legitimately be asked to make.

Soldiers are bound by an “obligation to die”, in the words of philosopher Cheyney Ryan, or at least a duty of obedience unto death.

An explanatory note on the Work Health and Safety Act, issued by the Chief of the Australian Defence Force, stated explicitly that (unlike civilian workers), force members “do not have the right to cease work where they are concerned about […] an immediate or imminent exposure to a hazard”.

Existing defence force personnel, most of whom are born and bred on our shores, may be willing to accept this “unlimited liability” for the sake of their homeland, but can we really expect a foreigner to knowingly give up their life for a country they hardly know?

The problem with this argument is that it makes a dubious assumption about why military personnel are willing to make the personal sacrifices they do.

When asked whether the soldiers who have died in Australia’s past wars should be thought of as “making a glorious sacrifice for their country”, General Sir Peter John Cosgrove had this to say:

It wasn’t like that […] at all. They were scared. When they got hit, they were calling for Mum. They were calling out in agony. They died horribly. And not a lot of them would have said, ‘I do this for Australia’. They were doing it because of that bonding moment between human beings, where they said, ‘Bill’s going over the top, and Tom’s going. I’ve got to go. I can’t have them thinking I’m weak’.

In other words, when soldiers sacrifice their lives or their limbs, they do it, usually, for their fellows-in-arms, not for their institution or their flag or for the people back home.

This explains why even members of profit-driven mercenary groups, or “private military contractors”, are often just as willing to make the ultimate sacrifice as national servicemen and women.

Consider the case of Executive Outcomes, a private firm whose activities in Sierra Leone helped to stabilise the country after years of civil war. Its employees are said to have “never shirked from combat”.

International relations researcher Scott Fitzsimmons describes one situation in which an Executive Outcomes contractor “charged through the hail of bullets and RPG rounds to drag their beleaguered colleagues to safety”.

This should allay any doubts we might have about the willingness of foreign nationals recruited into the Australian Defence Force to face danger with the same bravery as their native-born or already naturalised counterparts.

None of this is to suggest the defence force’s decision to open its doors to outsiders is entirely unproblematic. But if what we are worried about is our defence force admitting members who do not strongly identify with Australian society, or who are unwilling to make the sacrifices demanded by their role, we needn’t be.

Ned Dobos receives funding from the Australian Research Council and the Army Research Scheme

– ref. The defence force is allowing foreign recruits. Will soldiers be willing to die for a country they’ve only lived in for a year? – tag:theconversation.com,2011:article/231697

Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Lesley Russell, Adjunct Associate Professor, Menzies Centre for Health Policy and Economics, University of Sydney

The Albanese government and the Pharmacy Guild of Australia have this week signed the eighth Community Pharmacy Agreement, which will come into effect on July 1.

The government has touted the agreement as enabling people to continue to receive cheaper medicines and world-class health care from their local pharmacies.

There’s no question pharmacists are integral to delivering health care in the community. They are responsible for ensuring prescriptions are filled accurately and in a timely fashion, and for providing advice and guidance to their customers about the medicines they dispense.

But, once again, this agreement shows the power the Pharmacy Guild of Australia, which represents the owners of community pharmacies, wields in shaping policy and funding.

What’s in the agreement?

The Community Pharmacy Agreement was started in 1990 and is renegotiated every five years.

This eighth agreement delivers A$26.5 billion in funding over five years, a $3 billion boost over the previous agreement. This represents about one-quarter of the total cost of the Pharmaceutical Benefits Scheme (PBS).

Of the $26.5 billion, $22.5 billion is for the cost of dispensing prescriptions. The funding also includes $2.1 billion for a new Additional Community Supply Support Payment to address the pharmacy guild’s concern about the financial impact of 60-day prescribing.

There’s $1.2 billion to cover pharmacy services, including continuation and expansion of medication management and medical review programs.

This $1.2 billion also includes an increased Regional Pharmacy Maintenance Allowance, which aims to support access to PBS medicines and pharmacy services for people in rural areas. The program provides financial support to eligible pharmacy owners in regional, rural and remote settings. The new agreement increases funding for this allowance by $52 million. Some of the most remote pharmacies may be eligible to receive up to $95,000 per year in support.

Further, $484.4 million will cover the costs of a one-year freeze on the maximum PBS co-payment for everyone with a Medicare card and up to a five-year freeze for pensioners and other Commonwealth concession cardholders. These changes were announced in the recent federal budget.

These changes will require legislation for their enactment. When introduced, the bill should have further details of how this $484.4 million is distributed in costs to government and funding to pharmacies.

The power of the pharmacy guild

The Pharmacy Guild of Australia is recognised as a powerful lobbying organisation. It’s interesting that pharmacy business owners and not pharmacy professional groups are the key drivers of government policy. Indeed, one analysis has characterised the Community Pharmacy Agreements as industry policy benefiting pharmacy owners rather than health policy.

This latest agreement exemplifies the fact that the pharmacy guild usually gets what it wants. Last year the Albanese government announced the 60-day dispensing policy, which doubled the amount of medicine dispensed with some scripts from a 30-day to a 60-day supply. The pharmacy guild launched an emotional attack, claiming huge pharmacy losses would result.

The government subsequently offered an early renegotiation of the Community Pharmacy Agreement (not due until 2025). The guild eagerly accepted this offer.

In March, Health Minister Mark Butler announced an agreement had been reached between the government and the pharmacy guild. The next Community Pharmacy Agreement would contain an extra $3 billion in pharmacy funding.

This extra funding includes the $2.1 billion, via the new Additional Community Supply Support Payment, to offset presumed pharmacy losses. Pharmacists will receive an extra $4.80, on top of the usual $8.37 dispensing fee and a $4.62 handling fee, when they give out a 60-day script.

Plus there’s the guarantee, in place since 2020, that remuneration per script will increase year on year over the life of the Community Pharmacy Agreement.

Are the agreements effective?

A number of reports have been critical of the lack of data about the effectiveness of the community pharmacy programs supported by the Community Pharmacy Agreements.

A post-implementation review of the seventh agreement found that, in common with previous agreements, there was a lack of effective evaluation and assessment mechanisms for programs. The review said the scarcity and quality of available data for robust and meaningful analysis of health outcomes was a continuing concern.

The government’s Medical Services Advisory Committee made similar findings about the sixth agreement.

Yet several of these medication management and review programs (for example, Dose Administration Aids, MedsCheck and Diabetes MedsCheck) continue to be funded with a 30% increase in this Community Pharmacy Agreement.

Discussion about other programs (for example, Home Medicines Review and Residential Medication Management Review) is continuing as part of the focus on “new and improved pharmacy programs”, allocated $103.3 million in the agreement.

The pharmacy guild says it has secured a 22% increase in funding under this agreement compared to the last one. No other part of the health-care system has seen that level of increase in funding support.

Such exceptionalism should demand greater transparency, accountability and scrutiny of the influence of the Pharmacy Guild of Australia on government policies.

Lesley Russell previously worked as a health policy staffer for the federal Australian Labor Party.

– ref. A new Community Pharmacy Agreement starts next month. Here’s what you need to know – tag:theconversation.com,2011:article/230210