Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Ellen Larsen, Senior Lecturer, School of Education, University of Southern Queensland

Pupil-free or student-free days may seem like an extra holiday for students and an inconvenience for parents, who are juggling work and family.

This week, some parents in New South Wales expressed frustration about the “burden” of these days.

It may even seem like they are “easy” days for teachers without classrooms to run and regular teaching duties.

The name, unfortunately, suggests students are not the focus for these days. But nothing could be further from the truth.

How many days do schools get?

The number of pupil-free days and exactly when these occur varies between states and school sectors.

For example, Queensland government schools have five, NSW has set aside eight pupil-free days, and Victoria is considering doing the same number.

Why do we have them?

Research consistently shows teachers do not have the time to do all the things they need to do in their working weeks.

A 2022 Monash University survey of primary and high school teachers found only 41% intended to stay in the profession. One of the main reasons cited was heavy workloads.

Teachers’ work involves much more than teaching in the classroom. It also includes planning, assessments and ever-increasing demands for data collection, administrative work and extra-curricular activities.

On top of this, they need to meet with or talk to parents about what is happening with their child and make sure they are meeting the needs of each individual student.

This means they already work more than they are paid for, either during the week or during school holidays.

When teachers are teaching, they need to keep their focus fully on their students and their families. But on top of this, they also need to fit in professional development to maintain and build on their skills, and meet annual registration requirements.

What kind of development is involved?

Pupil-free days allow teachers to stay up-to-date with curriculum changes and the latest approaches to teaching, including technological developments. This may involve training with outside experts, and importantly, opportunities to work together as a staff to share effective teaching ideas.

It also allows schools to improve what they do in the classroom and work on longer-term, school-wide strategies. For example, a schools’ anti-bullying or inclusive education policy.

When teachers do this professional learning together, it allows the whole school to improve and coordinate what they are doing.

Research also shows that working collaboratively is important for teachers’ wellbeing.

Pupil-free days also mean new teachers and new graduates can be properly inducted into the school and help them feel supported.

The bigger picture

We know we have a problem with retaining teachers in Australia.

They already face enormous pressures in terms of workloads, community expectations and in some cases, abuse from students and parents.

Pupil-free days provide crucial breathing room for teachers to focus on their professional learning and keep their approaches to teaching current. But they also ensure schools are teaching and supporting students as well as they can.

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

– ref. Pupil-free days may be tricky for parents, but they are vital for teachers and schools – https://theconversation.com/pupil-free-days-may-be-tricky-for-parents-but-they-are-vital-for-teachers-and-schools-243475

Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Scott French, Senior Lecturer in Economics, UNSW Sydney

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

Thanks to the decisive victory of US President-elect Donald Trump, we’re now set to hear a whole lot more of his favourite word.

It’s something of a love affair. On the campaign trail in October, he said:

To me, the most beautiful word in the dictionary is tariff.

Previously, he’s matched such rhetoric with real policies. When he was last in office, Trump imposed a range of tariffs.

Now set to return to the White House, he wants tariffs of 10-20% on all imports to the US, and tariffs of 60% or more on those from China.

Most of us understand tariffs are some kind of barrier to trade between countries. But how exactly do they work? Who pays them – and what effects can they have on an economy?

Read more:
What is comparative advantage?

What are tariffs?

An import tariff – sometimes called an import duty – is simply a tax on a good or service that is imported into a country. It’s collected by the government of the country importing the product.

How exactly does that work in practice?

Imagine Australia decided to impose a 10% tariff on all imported washing machines from South Korea.

If an Australian consumer or a business wanted to import a $1,200 washing machine from South Korea, they would have to pay the Australian government $120 when it entered the country.

So, everything else being equal, the final price an Australian consumer would end up paying for this washing machine is $1,320.

If a local industry or another country without the tariff could produce a competing good at a similar price, it would have a cost advantage.

Other trade barriers

Because tariffs make imports more expensive, economists refer to them as a trade barrier. They aren’t the only kind.

One other common non-tariff trade barrier is an import quota – a limit on how much of a particular good can be imported into a country.

Governments can also create other non-tariff barriers to trade.

These include administrative or regulatory requirements, such as customs forms, labelling requirements or safety standards that differ across countries.

What are the effects?

Tariffs can have two main effects.

First, they generate tax revenue for the government. This is a major reason why many countries have historically had tariff systems in place.

Borders and ports are natural places to record and regulate what flows into and out of a country. That makes them easy places to impose and enforce taxes.

Second, tariffs raise the cost of buying things produced in other countries. As such, they discourage this action and encourage alternatives, such as buying from domestic producers.

Protecting domestic workers and industries from foreign competition underlies the economic concept of “protectionism”.

The argument is that by making imports more expensive, tariffs will increase spending on domestically produced goods and services, leading to greater demand for domestic workers, and helping a country’s local industries grow.

Read more:
What is competition, and why is it so important for prices?

Swapping producers isn’t always easy

Tariffs may increase the employment and wages of workers in import-competing industries. However, they can also impose costs, and create higher prices for consumers.

True, foreign producers trying to sell goods under a tariff may reduce their prices to remain competitive as exporters, but this only goes so far. At least some of the cost of any tariff imposed by a country will likely be passed on to consumers.

Simply switching to domestic manufacturers likely means paying more. After all, without tariffs, buyers were choosing foreign producers for a reason.

Because they make selling their products in the country less profitable, tariffs also cause some foreign producers to exit the market altogether, which reduces the variety of products available to consumers. Less foreign competition can also give domestic businesses the ability to charge even higher prices.

Lower productivity and risk of retaliation

At an economy-wide level, trade barriers such as tariffs can reduce overall productivity.

That’s because they encourage industries to shift away from producing things for which a country has a comparative advantage into areas where it is relatively inefficient.

They can also artificially keep smaller, less productive producers afloat, while shrinking the size of larger, more productive producers.

Foreign countries may also respond to the tariffs by retaliating and imposing tariffs of their own.

We saw this under Trump’s previous administration, which increased tariffs on about US$350 billion worth of Chinese products between 2018 and 2019.

Several analyses have examined the effects and found it was not foreign producers but domestic consumers – and especially businesses relying on imported goods – that paid the full price of the tariffs.

In addition, the tariffs introduced in 2018 and 2019 failed to increase US employment in the sectors they targeted, while the retaliatory tariffs they attracted reduced employment, mainly in agriculture.

Economists’ verdict

Tariffs can generate tax revenue and may increase employment and wages in some import-competing sectors. But they can also raise prices and may reduce employment and wages in exporting sectors.

Do the benefits outweigh the costs? Economists are nearly unanimous – and have been for centuries – that trade barriers have an overall negative effect on an economy.

But free trade does not benefit everyone, and tariffs are clearly enjoying a moment of political popularity. There are interesting times ahead.

Read more:
Trump’s economic vision is no longer a ‘maybe’. Here’s what it might mean for Australia and the world

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

– ref. What are tariffs? – https://theconversation.com/what-are-tariffs-243356

Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Jane Kelsey, Emeritus Professor of Law, University of Auckland, Waipapa Taumata Rau

Headlines following Donald Trump’s election victory focused largely on the influence of personalities, such as Elon Musk or Robert Kennedy junior, and single issues, such as how US tariff hikes would affect New Zealand’s exports.

But this oversimplifies and diverts attention from the more systemic challenges a second Trump presidency will pose for Aotearoa New Zealand’s economy.

Yes, Trump is an unpredictable authoritarian and an economic disruptor. But his policies are not novel and need to be understood in a broader context.

Many of Trump’s trade policies are an extension of recent US-centric strategies to dismantle the global free trade model. Ironically, the US largely created this model, but it no longer serves US objectives.

The international trade regime, and the neoliberal model of free trade in general, now face an existential crisis that New Zealand cannot ignore.

Free trade backlash

Trump’s tool of choice for trade policy is high tariffs or border taxes, which make imports more expensive. His agenda is driven by two factors:

• increasing production and jobs in the US domestic economy and incentivising foreign firms to invest within the US border to avoid tariffs

• geopolitically, using super-tariffs to undercut China’s rise as a competing power.

Neither objective is new. The tariffs Trump imposed in his previous term, especially on China, were largely continued under Joe Biden. They were part of a broader backlash against free trade agreements in the US.

Trump withdrew the US from the Trans-Pacific Partnership Agreement (TPPA). The Biden administration did not rejoin and eschewed the Democrats’ traditional approach to free trade.

Biden’s Indo-Pacific Economic Framework (IPEF) promoted non-tariff strategies designed to boost US industrial, investment and security interests in Asia. Its “friend-shoring” approach aimed to strengthen economic and foreign policy alliances, including with New Zealand, while eroding China’s influence, especially over critical supply chains in the region.

Interestingly, Trump condemned the IPEF (incorrectly) as a reincarnation of the TPPA, so its fate remains uncertain.

WTO in crisis

There has been a similar cross-party convergence on US challenges to the “rules-based” international trade regime. Both Democrat and Republican administrations have systematically undermined the World Trade Organization (WTO), claiming it no longer serves US interests.

Successive US administrations, starting with Barack Obama’s, have paralysed the WTO’s two-tier dispute system by refusing to appoint new Appellate Body members. This means they can break the WTO rules with impunity – including by imposing unilateral tariff sanctions.

At this year’s WTO Public Forum in September, people were openly discussing the existential crisis in the organisation and possible responses if the US disengages completely.

Breakdown of rules

This is just one part of the WTO’s institutional disintegration. The Doha Development Round, launched in 2001, had effectively collapsed by 2008.

In large part, this was over the Agreement on Agriculture. Its foundations were laid in 1993 by the so-called Blair House Accord, which ensured the US and European Union did not have to reduce (and could continue to increase) subsidies for their farmers. They insisted that continue.

Meanwhile, the US and EU stymied demands from developing countries for alternative “safeguard” and “public stockholding” arrangements to support their farmers and ensure food security.

The US, EU and others blocked a waiver of intellectual property rights that would have ensured affordable access to vaccines, diagnostics and supplies during the COVID-19 (and future) pandemics.

Subsets of members, including New Zealand, have ignored the WTO’s own rules to negotiate plurilateral agreements without a mandate, and seek to dilute the “consensus” rule to have them adopted. Ironically, the main opponents, India and South Africa, are labelled the “blockers” for standing up for the WTO rules.

New Zealand’s challenge

So, the crises in the international trade regime (and the neoliberal model of free trade) predate Trump’s first term.

But successive New Zealand governments have put all their eggs in the “free trade” basket of the WTO and regional and bilateral trade agreements.

Current Trade Minister Todd McClay seems determined to secure new agreements as rapidly as possible, illustrated by the 100-day negotiation of a recent deal with the United Arab Emirates under strict secrecy and with minimal scrutiny.

The previous Labour government pragmatically engaged in the IPEF more as a geopolitical alliance with the US than as a trade forum, despite New Zealand’s export dependency on China and the lack of any clear economic benefits.

So far, the reaction to Trump’s re-election from government ministers, business, farmers and news media has given an impression of business as usual, albeit with the threat of unhelpful US tariffs. But what is really needed is a far-reaching debate about the risks of a failing international trade system.

New Zealand’s export share of GDP has not changed meaningfully over the past few decades, despite more than two-thirds of New Zealand’s exports being covered by free trade agreements. The primary problem is not a lack of markets, but rather firms’ export capability, weak innovation, and an over-reliance on low-value-added commodities.

The now-disbanded Productivity Commission’s work on improving economic resilience urged New Zealand to tackle head-on the challenges of an increasingly uncertain and volatile economic and geopolitical world.

That apparently fell on deaf ears. But Trump’s re-election is an opportunity to open that debate and confront those challenges.

Jane Kelsey is an adviser to a number of governments and international organisations on international trade issues.

– ref. Trump’s tariffs are nothing new – NZ’s real problem is the failing free trade system itself – https://theconversation.com/trumps-tariffs-are-nothing-new-nzs-real-problem-is-the-failing-free-trade-system-itself-243446

Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Clare M. Cooper, Lecturer in the School of Architecture, Design & Planning, University of Sydney

Rohingya activists, advocates and health organisations in Australia have been frustrated by the lack of support provided to displaced Rohingya people.

This ethnic minority group called Myanmar home for centuries before being made stateless by the government in 1982, persecuted due to both their race and majority Muslim religion.

While a few hundred Rohinhya refugees have resettled in Australia since 2008, at least a million continue to live in desperate circumstances in the world’s largest refugee camp: Cox’s Bazar, Bangladesh. There are many horrifying stories of displaced Rohingya facing physical and sexual violence and dire health conditions.

In August, the Refugee Council of Australia council called on the government to remain steadfast on its 2023 pledge to increase resettlement places and provide aid to those still living in camps, but we’ve yet to see substantive action.

As such, local advocates are turning to more creative ways to raise awareness, such as hosting events focused on Rohingya art, culture and resistance. These projects help strengthen local Rohingya communities, while educating the public.

Read more:
7 years after genocide, plight of Rohingya refugees in Bangladesh is exacerbated by camp violence

For my research, I’ve investigated how activist groups use creativity and pleasure to encourage broader participation in their efforts.

This work led me to local Rohingya community members and their allies at the Creative Advocacy Partnership, (cofounded by four Australians with Rohingya community leaders). They told me traditional advocacy could increase feelings of oppression and “othering”.

Through interviews with them, I found creative advocacy projects can serve several empowering purposes, including preserving culture (and elevating culture over suffering), honouring ancestors and balancing power dynamics between aid workers and displaced people.

Building bridges to Cox’s Bazar

Last year, Creative Advocacy Partnership cofounders Tasman Munro and Arunn Jegan (who is also a Médecins Sans Frontières emergency coordinator) travelled to Cox’s Bazar to create artworks in collaboration with Rohingya artists, children and storytellers. One outcome was a sculpted bamboo story panel based on a Rohingya folktale.

Munro described the experience to me:

we sat with [Rohingya creators] Nuru Salam and Nurus Safar, in the front room of their shelter and talked about the project. We saw each other’s work, discussed the tools we needed, the time we had and how flexible the bamboo was […] already, there was a common language and understanding. Over two weeks we had the chance to make together, to learn the artful process of stripping bamboo, figuring out the cane-glass technique, listening to Rohingya folktales and collaborating with talented kids to design and make the story panel.

This project was shared back on Gadigal land in an exhibition curated by the Creative Advocacy Partnership, Médecins Sans Frontières and Rohingya youth leader Asma Nayim Ullah. It provided ways to engage with both the refugee crisis and Rohingya culture through a photo exhibition, film screening, and live video call set up with Jegan, who was still stationed in Cox’s Bazar, and a Rohingya storyteller named Rezwan.

A delicious meal was cooked by the Australian Rohingya Women’s Development Organisation. The deep connection between both places was palpable.

Jegan has lived the difference between traditional advocacy methods (such as focus groups or clinical rounds in refugee camps) and arts-focused projects. He is passionate about shifting the power dynamics of aid so that local voices are heard and disadvantage isn’t perpetuated.

He said that, outside of these creative approaches, he’d noticed dynamics that held aid workers in higher regard than the disenfranchised communities they served:

The arts has been ‘the great leveller’ for me. It places the community as experts, where their skills and crafts are centred, and their stories, plight, and are story-told through them, rather than through simply their misery, disease, or their service user-ship (usage). I’ve found that by using arts, I’ve created a stronger, more equal relationship.

Creative advocacy can change discourse

Here on Gadigal land, prominent Rohingya activist and cofounder/director of the Rohingya Maìyafuìnor Collaborative Network, Noor Azizah, told me millions of Rohingya continue to face extreme hardship:

With 2.8 million Rohingya worldwide, only 1% live in freedom while 99% remain in refugee camps, in hiding, in exile, or trapped in Arakan, Burma. Cox’s Bazar alone hosts nearly one million Rohingya refugees and the situation there remains dire. We need to ensure their voices are heard as this protracted crisis prevents Rohingya from thriving.

In August, to mark the seventh anniversary of the Rohingyas’ 2017 mass displacement from Myanmar, Azizah co-hosted an event called the Rohingya Social. She described it as an

opportunity to amplify voices and remind everyone that the fight for dignity, rights, and justice continues for those who remain displaced.

The public were invited to share in celebrating Rohingya cuisine, culture and survival over an authentic three-course meal. The event featured stories from survivors and Médecins Sans Frontières workers, poetry by a local Year 11 student and colourful paper decorations created by displaced Rohingya children in Malaysia.

The night was full of generosity of spirit. As Azizah wrote on her social media:

Cooking Rohingya food for family and friends is more than just preparing a meal. It’s about honouring our ancestors who passed down these recipes, supporting our people currently facing struggles, and preserving our culture despite the challenges we face.

The author does not work for, consult, own shares in, or receive funding from any company or organisation that would benefit from this article. Relevant affiliations beyond their academic appointment are with the following climate justice and worker’s rights organisations: Community Environmental Monitoring (co-founder), Workers for Climate Action (member), National Tertiary Educators Union (member), National Association for Visual Arts (member).

– ref. How Rohingya activists are using art, food and storytelling as a form of resistance – https://theconversation.com/how-rohingya-activists-are-using-art-food-and-storytelling-as-a-form-of-resistance-237328

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

The Albanese government aims to rush through legislation within a fortnight for political donation and spending caps, after in-principle support from the opposition.

The new regime, to be unveiled by Special Minister of State Don Farrell on Friday, would impose a $20,000 “gift cap” on what any recipient could obtain from a particular donor in one calendar year.

The cap on the total amount a donor could give in a year, covering multiple recipients, is expected to be more than $600,000.

That cap is set high, both to stop donors getting around it and to head off a successful High Court challenge on the grounds of limiting freedom of communication.

There would be multiple spending caps for election campaigns.

These include a national $90 million cap per party, state caps for senate campaigns which would vary between states, and a $800,000 cap per candidate in an individual seat.

The regime will also lower the threshold for publicly declaring donations, and provide for real-time – or close to real-time – disclosure of donations.

The threshold for disclosure – currently $16,900 (which is indexed) – would come down to $1,000. Indexation would only be applied once after each election.

Between elections, donations would have to be disclosed monthly, and would be published by the Australian Electoral Commission.

During campaigns, there would be weekly disclosure. In the final week, it would be daily, and that would continue for a week after the election to limit the opportunity for the requirement to be circumvented.

The changes will include an increase in the public subsidy to $5 a vote. It is now $3.346 per eligible vote.

Also, there will be some modest funding for “administration” for parties and independent parliamentarians – $30,000 for members and $15,000 for senators.

Penalties for non-compliance with the new provisions will be substantial.

The legislation will be introduced to the House of Representatives early next week, and put through by week’s end. It will be debated in the Senate the following week – the final parliamentary week this year.

If passed, the new rules will not come into effect until July 1 2026, with a six-month transition period to allow the AEC and political parties to prepare themselves before the full regime starts in 2027.

The package will also include provision for truth in advertising, based on the South Australian model. But Farrell does not have enough support to get this through and it won’t be passed with the other measures. It is strongly opposed by the AEC (which doesn’t want to have to police such a regime) as well as by the opposition.

Labor has long been committed to donation and spending reform but has been particularly galvanised by the huge spending of Clive Palmer, who outlaid $123 million at the last election.

Farrell said: “Years of inquiries and evidence from multiple elections show us that the biggest weakness to our electoral system is big money influencing our political system.

“Over the last decade we have seen billionaires repeatedly attempt to sway our elections, not through policy or participation, but through money and misinformation.

“This significant package of reforms has been drafted to tackle big money in our electoral system and protect our democracy into the future.”

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

– ref. Government aims to pass political donation and spending caps within a fortnight after in-principle deal with opposition – https://theconversation.com/government-aims-to-pass-political-donation-and-spending-caps-within-a-fortnight-after-in-principle-deal-with-opposition-243708

Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Tets Kimura, Adjunct Lecturer, Creative Arts, Flinders University

The well-documented history of Asian mass migration to modern Australia dates from the gold rush era in the mid-19th century. With a history that is longer a century and a half, breaking down stereotypes deeply ingrained over generations remains a task.

This year’s OzAsia festival’s programming continues to challenge against these old narratives, celebrating the diverse voices and stories Asian-Australians bring to the cultural landscape of Australia.

Australian-ness from an Asian lens

Although the festival focuses on Asia, it also offers opportunities to view Australia.

In Rising out of Water, three Adelaide writers (Danielle Lim, Elvy-Lee Quichi, Matt Hawkins) offered new compelling scripts in development.

Matt Hawkins’ Typhoon, which delves into the “first world” mindset of an Australian banker in Hong Kong, was possibly the most confronting. Written by an Australian of non-Asian heritage, it asks if Australians are fair to Asians.

Hawkins suggests colonial attitudes linger through exploring a conflict between the banker and a Filipino nanny. While both love their respective daughters, the banker is “time-poor”, while the nanny is “money-poor.”

When a typhoon strikes Manila, the nanny pleads to return home to search for her daughter. The banker insists she stay in Hong Kong. Although the banker had previously shown a willingness to help the nanny’s daughter by funding her tuition, the banker prefers the nanny to continue doing domestic duties rather than looking for the missing daughter.

This story challenges Australians to query how we relate to our Asian neighbours. Do we genuinely see them equally, or only support them when it suits us?

Breaking the model minority stereotype

Is it difficult for parents of Asian heritage to let their children pursue their own paths?

The “model minority” stereotype of Asian-Australians – mirroring that of Asian-Americans – is they are “intellectually and financially successful, deferential to authority, and highly competent”.

This “success” is often attributed to strict “tiger parenting”.

Among the many established and emerging authors presenting at this year’s Weekend of Words, two stood out through their focus on memoir.

In a panel moderated by Smriti Daniel, Sita Shaw and Qin Qin both spoke to their recent memoirs, The God of No Good and Model Minority Gone Rogue, respectively.

Qin Qin, who went by the adopted English name Lisa until last year (drawn from Lisa Simpson, who, like Qin Qin, would panic if teachers go on strike), embodied the model minority stereotype in her educational achievements. As a child, she attended Kumon classes and took piano lessons. Later, she studied law, earned a postgraduate scholarship to Harvard, and worked with UNESCO.

Qin Qin spoke to her decision to step away from this path, rediscovering her love of books and beginning to write. In the United States, tiger parenting is already declining, a trend likely to take hold in Australia as well.

I wonder how many more Asian-Australians will follow her lead and free themselves from parental expectations.

Do Asians need to be minorities?

Asian-Australians are a minority in Australia. I am aware of the discrimination that historically excluded Asians in this country, including the harsh treatment against those with Japanese backgrounds during the Second World War.

At ABC RN’s Stop Everything! Live, hosted by Beverly Wang with comedian guests Benjamin Law and Urvi Majumdar, I found myself reflecting on whether “Asian-ness” matters in the discussion of current issues.

The live broadcast, held on the festival’s final Sunday, covered two major topics of the previous week: Raygun’s retirement from competitive breakdancing, and the US election.

For the latter, they discussed how pop stars’ endorsements hold less sway than the financial moves of Elon Musk. This was a conversation where cultural or ethnic backgrounds did not define the discussion.

Closing my eyes, I could not sense any division between the Asian-Australian presenters and the largely white audience. In that room, we were all simply Australians.

A universal story of growing up

Among the offerings for a family audience was The Story of Chi, a commissioned work presented by Terrapin and Contemporary Asian Australian Performance (CAAP).

The play follows the emotional journey of 12-year-old Chi, who identifies as a Japanese-Vietnamese-Australian.

While coping with the recent loss of her beloved Vietnamese father, Chi’s overprotective Japanese mother tries to “help” by arranging additional support from Chi’s school teacher. The mother’s actions put Chi on edge and offer no comfort.

Is this dynamic specific to “Asian parenting,” or is it simply a universal challenge of adolescence?

For Chi, the growing distance from her mother is a natural part of her coming of age – a time marked by both physical changes and the emotional turbulence of moving from childhood to adulthood.

Adolescents often view their parents as “annoying”, a response that can be intensified by grief.

The play incorporates some elements unique to Eastern culture, such as the spiritual belief in a 49-day period before the soul is judged and sent to heaven or hell.

However, Chi’s experience resonates universally. Her coming-of-age story is not necessarily bound by cultural expectations.

Ultimately, The Story of Chi reminds us Asian-Australians are, above all, simply Australians, navigating the complexities of growing up.

Pop culture’s universal language

For younger Australians, Asian culture might simply be part of their cultural fabric.

Japanese manga and animation feel familiar rather than foreign, as they have been a part of their lives growing up.

While literature and theatre are often viewed as “high culture” and may not resonate with the broader public, pop culture offers accessible entry points into Asian culture, just like food as I highlighted in my article on last year’s festival.

At this year’s festival, two key events reflected pop culture: AnimeGo and the Aussie K-poppers United Concert. The latter, a free event, proved especially popular based on audience size and enthusiasm.

Groups such as KM United, Monochrome and ABK Crew delivered dynamic, well-choreographed dancing on the outdoor stage at the Lucky Dumpling Market where everybody could freely walk in.

Having observed members of local dancers of ABK Crew practising in Rundle Mall, I felt their spirited, inspirational performances were more at home on the streets than on stage. Yet, performing on stage offers a benefit too. Held on a Sunday afternoon as a free outdoor event there are older people as well as many young families. It gathers a broader audience beyond dedicated K-pop fans, creating an opportunity to introduce Asian pop culture to the broader community.

Asians are funny

Despite the growing normalisation of Asian pop culture and cuisine in Australia, certain stereotypes about Asians persist.

Comedians Jason Chong, Lawrence Leung and Urvi Majumdar took the stage for the Asians are Funny showcase, acknowledging when they began performing, the presence of Asian comedians was rare. All three shared the scepticism they faced around whether Asians could be funny.

Later, these three comedians joined the festival’s closing mock-debate, Chinese Food vs Indian Food. The debate was hilarious and witty, showing individual and collective comedic talents and defying outdated expectations around Asian-ness.

Being Asian-Australian should mean no more than and no less than being Australian. Asian-Australians are new to Australia, but as said by Bruce Woodley and Dobe Newton, “I am, you are, we are Australian”. I am Tets Kimura. I am Australian.

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

– ref. OzAsia festival 2024: a celebration of Asian culture and art – and what it means to be Asian-Australian – https://theconversation.com/ozasia-festival-2024-a-celebration-of-asian-culture-and-art-and-what-it-means-to-be-asian-australian-240106

Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Danielle Einstein, Adjunct Fellow, School of Psychological Sciences, Macquarie University

The Australian government is developing legislation that will ban children under 16 from social media. There has been a huge public debate about whether there is sufficient direct evidence of harm to introduce this regulation.

The players in this debate include academics, mental health organisations, advocacy groups and digital education providers. Few step back to look at the entire research landscape.

Social media has become integral to everyday life. Not many teens want to be extensively researched, so studies are pragmatic, require consent and findings are limited. As a result, we tend to hear that the effects are small or even inconclusive.

For the public it’s crucial to understand all research studies have limitations, and must be interpreted within the context in which the data was collected. To understand any report, we must scrutinise the details.

Several mechanisms are at play

In recent years, anxiety has been on the rise among children and young people. Understanding why young people are anxious, depressed or overly focused on themselves is no easy task.

When it comes to the potential negative impact of social media, several mechanisms are at play. To unpack them, data is needed from many angles: examining mood while online, examining mental health over several years, school relationships, even brain scans, to name just a few.

Despite all this complexity, the public tends to mostly hear about it through splashy headlines. One example is the “small and inconsistent” result from an umbrella study of several meta-analyses totalling 1.9 million children and teenagers. However, it’s important to recognise this umbrella study included many research papers from an earlier time when researchers couldn’t measure social media use as accurately as they can now.

One influential data set asked people to leave out time spent “interacting with friends and family” when they estimated their time on social media. Yet in 2014 to 2015, sharing photos, following, and interacting with people you knew was the main use of social media. The findings appeared within a larger study a few years later, resulting in one headline that stated: “screen time may be no worse for kids than eating potatoes”.

With so many sources of error, it’s no wonder there is vigorous debate among researchers over the extent of social media harm. Limitations are par for the course. Worse, researchers are often not given full access to data from social media companies. That’s why we need to pay more attention to big tech whistleblowers who have inside access.

Meanwhile, these companies do have access to the data. They use it to exploit human nature.

Focusing on debates between researchers is a misdirection and makes us complacent. There is enough evidence to demonstrate excessive social media use can be harmful to young people.

Here’s what the evidence shows

One argument you may hear a lot is that it’s not clear whether depression and anxiety cause higher screen time use, or higher screen time causes more depression and anxiety. This is known as a bidirectional effect – something that goes both ways.

But that’s no reason to ignore potential harms. If anything, bidirectional effects matter more, not less, because factors feed into one another. Unchecked, they cause the problem to grow.

Harms of social media use are shown in studies that examine the effects of sharing selfies, the impact of algorithms, influencers, extreme content, and the growth in cyberbullying.

Social media activates envy, comparisons and fear of missing out, or FOMO. Many teens use social media while procrastinating.

It is through these mechanisms that the links to depression, anxiety, low self esteem and self harm are clear.

Finally, until the age of 16, increased time on social media is associated with feeling less satisfied with appearance and school work.

There is also reliable evidence that limiting social media use reduces levels of anxiety, depression and FOMO in 17–25-year-olds.

We ignore this evidence at our peril.

The evidence is sufficient

Understanding the intricacies of how every aspect of modern life affects mental health will take a long time. The work is difficult, particularly when there is a lack of reliable data from tech companies on screen time.

Yet there is already enough reliable evidence to limit children’s exposure to social media for their benefit.

Instead of debating the nuances of research and levels of harm, we should accept that for young people, social media use is negatively affecting their development and their school communities.

In fact, the government’s proposed ban of children’s social media use has parallels with banning phones in schools. In 2018, some critics argued that “banning smartphones would stop children gaining the knowledge they needed to cope online”.

Yet evidence now shows that smartphone bans in schools have resulted in less need for care around mental health issues, less bullying, and academic improvements – the latter especially for socio-economically disadvantaged girls.

It’s time to agree that the harms are there, that they are damaging our community, and that we need strong, thoughtful regulation of social media use in young people.

Danielle Einstein has supported the 36 Months Campaign to raise the age of teens who can use social media. She has published a book with Judith Locke called “Raising Anxiety: Why our good intentions are backfiring on children (and how to fix it)”.

– ref. There is reliable evidence social media harms young people – debates about it are a misdirection – https://theconversation.com/there-is-reliable-evidence-social-media-harms-young-people-debates-about-it-are-a-misdirection-243482

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

The government has embarked on a raft of new online safety measures aimed at protecting Australians from the excesses of misinformation and social harm online.

However, these policies have been met with backlash. Experts criticise the plan to enforce an age limit of 16 on social media access. Both the federal opposition and several crossbenchers have come out against Labor’s misinformation bill.

At the same time, the government has to produce its long-anticipated changes to gambling advertising.

On this podcast episode we’re joined by shadow communications minister David Coleman to discuss these issues.

On the government’s proposed misinformation and disinformation reforms, Coleman is trenchant in his criticism:

The fundamental problem here is it gives the digital platforms an immense financial incentive to censor the free speech of Australians because if ACMA [Australian Communications and Media Authority], the regulator, decides that a digital platform isn’t doing enough in the eyes of ACMA to censor misinformation, they’re up for massive fines.

So, what’s a digital platform going to do in that circumstance? It’s going to say we don’t want big fines. We care about our profits. They don’t care about the free speech of Australians. So, the sensible thing for them to do economically is err on the side of caution and censor a whole lot of material.

I think it is literally one of the worst bills ever put forward by a government. And whilst it’s changed a bit since the first version, it actually hasn’t changed all that much, and the fundamental problems remain, and it’s just utterly unacceptable.

On the move to age limit access to social media, which the opposition advocated head of the government, Coleman advocated action as quickly as possible:

We’d like to get it through the parliament this year. And then in terms of implementing it. It should be implemented as soon as it possibly can because this needs to happen. These platforms, for far too long, have got away with basically abrogating their responsibility towards children. There is no question that the very significant rises in mental health conditions that we’ve seen in the past decade – there is a strong link between that and social media.

We cannot trust the social media platforms to do the right thing, and it is appropriate that we put in place rules to require them so that they can’t just let an eight-year-old child on their platforms with impunity as they do today.

On gambling, Coleman outlines what a future coalition government would do and contrasts the lack of movement so far from the government:

We put legislation back in June-July last year to implement the ban on gambling advertising during live sport. The government walked into the Senate chamber and blocked that legislation. Now, if that legislation had gone through, we would now be in a situation where kids would not be seeing that gambling advertising during live sport. We would be better off as a community as a consequence, and the government is just dragging the chain to a dramatic degree on this topic, and it needs to be resolved.

Minister Rowland, who ultimately is responsible, just needs to do something, frankly, because this has gone on for far too long.

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

– ref. Politics with Michelle Grattan: shadow communications minister David Coleman says misinformation legislation ‘one of the worst bills ever’ – https://theconversation.com/politics-with-michelle-grattan-shadow-communications-minister-david-coleman-says-misinformation-legislation-one-of-the-worst-bills-ever-243695

Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Natalie Peng, Lecturer in Accounting, The University of Queensland

Does your superannuation fund also provide you with insurance? Many of us are automatically enrolled without even realising. Now, the way super funds handle such claims has been thrust into the spotlight.

Australia’s corporate watchdog – the Australian Securities and Investments Commission (ASIC) – has put our $3.9 trillion superannuation sector on notice, launching legal action against one of the country’s largest industry super funds.

On Tuesday, ASIC alleged that Cbus – which manages more than $85 billion on behalf of more than 900,000 Australians – was too slow to process millions of dollars in death and disability payouts, leaving many families in prolonged financial uncertainty.

ASIC Deputy Chair Sarah Court said in a statement:

We allege Cbus failed its members and claimants at their most vulnerable time, and we are taking this case to protect all those vulnerable Australians trying to access the financial support to which they are entitled.

In response, Cbus apologised for the delays and announced a new compensation program for affected members.

But at a press conference on Wednesday, Court said the way claims are handled remains a “broader issue” in the superannuation industry. She indicated the regulator may take further actions against other funds early next year.

If true, this raises some urgent questions. Are Australia’s big super funds doing enough to protect and look after their members at the times it matters most? And what are your rights?

Read more:
After a lifetime studying superannuation, here are 5 things I wish I knew earlier

The case against Cbus

ASIC’s allegations centre on Cbus’s handling of a number of death benefits and total and permanent disability (TPD) insurance claims.

The regulator alleges that since September 2022, more than 10,000 members were impacted by significant delays in processing and payment of claims – 6,000 of whom by more than a year.

This allegedly resulted in a financial loss to members of about $20 million.

ASIC also alleges that the trustee for Cbus – United Super – failed to report the situation to ASIC within the 30-day timeframe required by law, and didn’t “take all reasonable steps” to ensure its reports were not materially misleading.

The case comes at a bad time for Cbus. The superannuation giant’s high senior staff turnover, links to embattled union CFMEU, and other governance concerns have led some analysts, such as those at Morningstar, to raise questions about whether Cbus is equipped to manage the complex needs of its members effectively.

A safety net at risk

Many Australians are automatically enrolled in life and disability insurance through their superannuation. This is designed to offer a financial safety net for members and their families in times of hardship.

These benefits can provide crucial support if a member dies, faces terminal illness, or becomes unable to work due to disability. For those counting on this support, delayed claims can cause immense financial and emotional distress, particularly during already vulnerable times.

ASIC’s scrutiny of Cbus signals a deeper problem – the risk that some funds are prioritising administrative convenience and cost savings over timely management of claims.

A wake-up call for the industry

ASIC’s lawsuit against Cbus underscores a critical point: that super funds must act in the best interests of their members at every stage, from managing contributions to paying out insurance claims.

Super policy reform discussions often centre on encouraging members themselves to save more for retirement. That approach is too one-sided.

If a broader regulatory crackdown goes ahead, it could become a turning point. Funds will be prompted to re-evaluate their governance practices, reinforce their claims management procedures, and make sure they operate with more transparency and accountability.

For superannuation members, it serves as a reminder to stay informed and engaged with their super funds, understanding their rights and expectations.

What should I know about my rights?

If you have insurance through your super, understanding your entitlements and the claims process is crucial.

Here are some key steps to ensure a smoother claims experience:

1. Review your coverage: Super funds usually offer life, total and permanent disability (TPD), and income protection insurance. Check your super statement or fund portal to confirm your coverage details. If unclear, contact your fund for a breakdown of benefits.

2. Understand the claims process: Each fund has its own procedures for handling claims, often involving medical assessments, proof of death, or evidence of disability. Knowing what documentation is required in advance can help prevent delays.

3. Ask for clear timelines: Request an estimated timeline when you submit a claim. Although funds must process claims within a reasonable time, delays can happen. A responsive fund should provide updates on your claim’s progress.

4. Escalate delays if necessary: If your claim is taking longer than expected, contact your fund’s claims team. If their response is unsatisfactory, consider filing a formal complaint. For unresolved issues, you can escalate to the Australian Financial Complaints Authority (AFCA), which assists in mediating disputes.

5. Hold your fund accountable: As a super member, you have the right to prompt and fair treatment. ASIC’s action against Cbus highlights the importance of regulatory oversight, but members also play a role in holding their funds accountable. Don’t hesitate to advocate for your rights if you feel your claim is mishandled.

Natalie Peng 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. ASIC’s lawsuit against Cbus has put the big super funds on notice – https://theconversation.com/asics-lawsuit-against-cbus-has-put-the-big-super-funds-on-notice-243684

Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Lisa M. Given, Professor of Information Sciences & Director, Social Change Enabling Impact Platform, RMIT University

In an escalation of its battle with big tech, the federal government has announced it plans to impose a “digital duty of care” on tech companies to reduce online harms.

The announcement follows the government’s controversial plans to legislate a social media ban for young people under 16 and impose tighter rules on digital platforms such as Google, Facebook, Instagram, X and TikTok to address misinformation and disinformation.

In a speech last night, Minister for Communications Michelle Rowland explained why the government was planning to introduce a digital duty of care:

What’s required is a shift away from reacting to harms by relying on content regulation alone, and moving towards systems-based prevention, accompanied by a broadening of our perspective of what online harms are.

This is a positive step forward and one aligned with other jurisdictions around the world.

What is a ‘digital duty of care’?

Duty of care is a legal obligation to ensure the safety of others. It isn’t limited to just not doing harm; it also means taking reasonable steps to prevent harm.

The proposed digital duty of care will put the onus on tech companies such as Meta, Google and X to protect consumers from harm on their online platforms. It will bring social media platforms in line with companies who make physical products who already have a duty of care to do their best to make sure their products don’t harm users.

The digital duty of care will require tech companies to regularly conduct risk assessments to proactively identify harmful content.

This assessment must consider what Rowland called “enduring categories of harm”, which will also be legislated. Rowland said these categories could include:

• harms to young people
• harms to mental wellbeing
• the instruction and promotion of harmful practices
• other illegal content, conduct and activity.

This approach was recommended by the recent review of the Online Safety Act. It is something that is already in effect elsewhere around the world, including in the United Kingdom as part of the Online Safety Act and under the European Union’s Digital Services Act.

As well as placing the onus on tech companies to protect users of their platforms, these acts also put the power to combat harmful content into the hands of consumers.

For example, in the EU consumers can submit online complaints about harmful material directly to the tech companies, who are legally obliged to act on these complaints. Where a tech company refuses to remove content, users can complain to a Digital Services Coordinator to investigate further. They can even pursue a court resolution if a satisfactory outcome cannot be reached.

The EU act sets out that if tech companies breach their duty of care to consumers, they can face fines of up to 6% of their worldwide annual turnover.

The Human Rights Law Centre in Australia supports the idea of a digital duty of care. It says “digital platforms should owe a legislated duty of care to all users”.

Why is it more appropriate than a social media ban?

Several experts – including myself – have pointed out problems with the government’s plan to ban people under 16 from social media.

For example, the “one size fits all” age requirement doesn’t consider the different levels of maturity of young people. What’s more, simply banning young people from social media just delays their exposure to harmful content online. It also removes the ability of parents and teachers to engage with children on the platforms and to help them manage potential harms safely.

The government’s proposed “digital duty of care” would address these concerns.

It promises to force tech companies to make the online world safer by removing harmful content, such as images or videos which promote self-harm. It promises to do this without banning young people’s access to potentially beneficial material or online social communities.

A digital duty of care also has the potential to address the problem of misinformation and disinformation.

The fact Australia would be following the lead of international jurisdictions is also significant. This shows big tech there is a unified global push to combat harmful content appearing on platforms by placing the onus of care on the companies instead of on users.

This unified approach makes it much more likely for tech companies to comply with legislation, when multiple countries impose similar controls and have similar content expectations.

How will it be enforced?

The Australian government says it will strongly enforce the digital duty of care. As Minister Rowland said last night:

Where platforms seriously breach their duty of care – where there are systemic failures – we will ensure the regulator can draw on strong penalty arrangements.

Exactly what these penalty arrangements will be is yet to be announced. So too is the method by which people could submit complaints to the regulator about harmful content they have seen online and want to be taken down.

A number of concerns about implementation have been raised in the UK. This demonstrates that getting the details right will be crucial to success in Australia and elsewhere. For example, defining what constitutes harm will be an ongoing challenge and may require test cases to emerge through complaints and/or court proceedings.

And as both the EU and UK introduced this legislation only within the past year, the full impact of these laws – including tech companies’ levels of compliance – is not yet known.

In the end, the government’s turn towards placing the onus on the tech companies to remove harmful content, at the source, is welcome. It will make social media platforms a safer place for everyone – young and old alike.

Lisa M. Given receives funding from the Australian Research Council. She is a Fellow of the Academy of the Social Sciences in Australia and the Association for Information Science and Technology.

– ref. Australia will impose a ‘digital duty of care’ on tech companies to reduce online harm. It’s a good idea – if it can be enforced – https://theconversation.com/australia-will-impose-a-digital-duty-of-care-on-tech-companies-to-reduce-online-harm-its-a-good-idea-if-it-can-be-enforced-243682

Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Park Thaichon, Associate Professor of Marketing, University of Southern Queensland

Your landlord has just raised your rent by 10% and your mind starts running the numbers – should you cop it sweet or look to move?

It’s a familiar scenario in today’s unpredictable housing market.

Understanding the real costs of staying versus moving is essential for making informed choices: renters must consider hidden expenses such as moving costs, deposits and changing rental rates, giving them tools to handle rising rent pressures more effectively.

A grim time for many renters

National median market rents have hit record highs, reaching $627 per week, with an average annual growth rate of 9.1% during the past three years, according to real estate giant CoreLogic.

CoreLogic also reported annual rental changes (houses and units) in regional Australia are not far off from the big cities: annual rent changes were 9.4% for combined capital cities, 6.4% for combined regional areas, and 8.5% nationally.

So, is it better to stay or move if your rent is raised by 10%? Let’s examine the costs and benefits of each option.

A breakdown of typical moving costs

We’ll start with the most obvious expense: moving costs.

Professional moving services aren’t cheap. For example, moving a three-bedroom house in the Gold Coast costs $1,095.25 on average, with an hourly rate of $158.26.

In a bigger city like Melbourne, the cost is slightly higher at about $1,118.46.

The moving costs between states or cities will be more expensive if you move further away.

You could choose to handle packing yourself and hire some help with a truck – a common option with businesses such as “Two Men and a Truck”, which typically costs around $100 per hour.

Be aware, though, that the hourly rate often starts from the moment the truck leaves the company’s warehouse until it returns. Alternatively, you can rent a van for a lower price, such as $87 for a 24-hour Handivan rental at Bunnings.

Don’t forget the cost of moving boxes, too: Bunnings’ 52 litre moving cartons cost $2.66 each.

End-of-lease or bond cleaning is another common expense.

For a typical three-bedroom property, internal cleaning can range from $365 to $500.

If you have pets, or kids who love drawing on the walls, your cleaning costs might be a bit higher.

Now, let’s look at utility connection expenses that can catch people by surprise.

Cancelling your internet service can be costly if you don’t meet the exit or cancellation policies. With Telstra Home Internet, for example, if you cancel within the first 24 months, you must return your modem within 21 days to avoid a $400 non-return fee.

Most providers charge a cancellation fee or require final device repayments, typically ranging from $100 to $500, depending on the remaining contract period. As a renter, it might be wise to choose a no-lock-in contract plan to avoid these fees if you need flexibility.

Electricity and gas connection and disconnection fees are usually minor but can add up, often costing about $40 to $60 for connection and disconnection fees for electricity alone. If your house uses gas for hot water or cooking, you may have to pay additional fees for setting up service.

However, there are also non-financial costs, like the time spent searching for a new home, attending inspections, and putting in applications.

Moving takes effort and energy for packing, transporting and unpacking.

Some people feel emotionally attached to their current home, which can make leaving harder.

Older renters seem to draw strength from their familiarity with, attachment to, and enjoyment of their place and community. This is something to be considered.

Plus, moving can take an emotional toll.

The benefits of not moving

The clear benefit of staying is avoiding the hassle of relocating.

Staying means saving on moving expenses and avoiding the time spent searching for a new place, packing and unpacking.

This may also save some people from needing to take time off work.

Changing and updating an address is also another tedious task that can be avoided by staying.

Moving can hit the hip pocket with “after moving costs” that people may not initially consider.

For instance, a new location might mean a longer commute. If each trip adds just 15 extra minutes, that could amount to an additional 11 hours per month over 22 workdays.

For drivers, increased fuel and parking expenses might also come into play.

Is the current or new location closer to a supermarket, hospital, and school? This proximity could be beneficial or detrimental, depending on the surrounding environment and available services.

To move or not to move?

One point to note is that overall, moving costs are likely to be similar between big cities and regional areas if you get moving supplies or rent a van from a large company such as Bunnings.

In the end, moving costs will be around $2,000 based on the figures above, and it can be around $800 to $1,000 cheaper if you opt to rent a van instead of using a full-service moving company.

Therefore, if the current rent is $600 per week and is about to increase by 10% to $660, the additional cost would be $3,120 per year.

So is it cheaper to move or stay when your rent increases by 10%?

The answer is moving may save about $1,000 to $2,000, but comes with the hassle and emotional toll of relocation. Staying will be more expensive, but with less hassle and emotional strain.

The right choice depends on your situation.

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. To move or not to move: is it cheaper to find a new place or stay when your rent increases by 10%? – https://theconversation.com/to-move-or-not-to-move-is-it-cheaper-to-find-a-new-place-or-stay-when-your-rent-increases-by-10-243155

Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Cameron Webb, Clinical Associate Professor and Principal Hospital Scientist, University of Sydney

Are you one of these people who loathes spending time outdoors at dusk as the weather warms and mosquitoes start biting?

Female mosquitoes need blood to develop their eggs. Even though they take a tiny amount of our blood, they can leave us with itchy red lumps that can last days. And sometimes something worse.

So why does our body react and itch after being bitten by a mosquito? And why are some people more affected than others?

What happens when a mosquito bites?

Mosquitoes are attracted to warm blooded animals, including us. They’re attracted to the carbon dioxide we exhale, our body temperatures and, most importantly, the smell of our skin.

The chemical cocktail of odours from bacteria and sweat on our skin sends out a signal to hungry mosquitoes.

Some people’s skin smells more appealing to mosquitoes, and they’re more likely to be bitten than others.

Read more:
Feel like you’re a mozzie magnet? It’s true – mosquitoes prefer to bite some people over others

Once the mosquito has made its way to your skin, things get a little gross.

The mosquito pierces your skin with their “proboscis”, their feeding mouth part. But the proboscis isn’t a single, straight, needle-like tube. There are multiple tubes, some designed for sucking and some for spitting.

Once their mouth parts have been inserted into your skin, the mosquito will inject some saliva. This contains a mix of chemicals that gets the blood flowing better.

There has even been a suggestion that future medicines could be inspired by the anti-blood clotting properties of mosquito saliva.

It’s not the stabbing of our skin by the mosquito’s mouth parts that hurts, it’s the mozzie spit our bodies don’t like.

Are some people allergic to mosquito spit?

Once a mosquito has injected their saliva into our skin, a variety of reactions can follow. For the lucky few, nothing much happens at all.

For most people, and irrespective of the type of mosquito biting, there is some kind of reaction. Typically there is redness and swelling of the skin that appears within a few hours, but often more quickly, after just a few minutes.

Occasionally, the reaction can cause pain or discomfort. Then comes the itchiness.

Some people do suffer severe reactions to mosquito bites. It’s a condition often referred to as “skeeter syndrome” and is an allergic reaction caused by the protein in the mosquito’s saliva. This can cause large areas of swelling, blistering and fever.

The chemistry of mosquito spit hasn’t really been well studied. But it has been shown that, for those who do suffer allergic reactions to their bites, the reactions may differ depending on the type of mosquito biting.

We all probably get more tolerant of mosquito bites as we get older. Young children are certainly more likely to suffer more following mosquito bites. But as we get older, the reactions are less severe and may pass quickly without too much notice.

How best to treat the bites?

Research into treating bites has yet to provide a single easy solution.

There are many myths and home remedies about what works. But there is little scientific evidence supporting their use.

The best way to treat mosquito bites is by applying a cold pack to reduce swelling and to keep the skin clean to avoid any secondary infections. Antiseptic creams and lotions may also help.

There is some evidence that heat may alleviate some of the discomfort.

It’s particularly tough to keep young children from scratching at the bite and breaking the skin. This can form a nasty scab that may end up being worse than the bite itself.

Applying an anti-itch cream may help. If the reactions are severe, antihistamine medications may be required.

To save the scratching, stop the bites

Of course, it’s better not to be bitten by mosquitoes in the first place. Topical insect repellents are a safe, effective and affordable way to reduce mosquito bites.

Covering up with loose fitted long sleeved shirts, long pants and covered shoes also provides a physical barrier.

Mosquito coils and other devices can also assist, but should not be entirely relied on to stop bites.

There’s another important reason to avoid mosquito bites: millions of people around the world suffer from mosquito-borne diseases. More than half a million people die from malaria each year.

In Australia, Ross River virus infects more than 5,000 people every year. And in recent years, there have been cases of serious illnesses caused by Japanese encephalitis and Murray Valley encephalitis viruses.

Cameron Webb and the Department of Medical Entomology, NSW Health Pathology, have been engaged by a wide range of insect repellent and insecticide manufacturers to provide testing of products and provide expert advice on mosquito biology. Cameron has also received funding from local, state and federal agencies to undertake research into mosquito-borne disease surveillance and management.

– ref. What causes the itch in mozzie bites? And why do some people get such a bad reaction? – https://theconversation.com/what-causes-the-itch-in-mozzie-bites-and-why-do-some-people-get-such-a-bad-reaction-243044

Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Baran Yildiz, Senior lecturer in Renewable Energy Engineering, UNSW Sydney

Your hot shower or bath uses 15-30% of your household’s total energy, second only to the heating and cooling of air.

More than half of all Australian households rely on electric water heaters with a storage tank. These act like thermal batteries and often store more energy than a home battery. Traditionally, these heaters operated during off-peak hours overnight when power demand was low. This practice also helps maintain stability for coal power stations.

But there’s a better option: cheap heating at daytime. More than 40% of freestanding Australian houses now have solar. Switching water heaters to charge during the day can soak up solar power going to waste – known as curtailment – and make sure electricity supply and demand match.

In our new real world trial, we put this technique to the test and found it works.

From propping up coal to soaking up solar

Electric water heaters have traditionally be set to operate off-peak. On your electricity bill, it would be listed as a “controlled load” item. Switching from night to day isn’t as easy as flicking a switch. It’s often hardwired.

The solution: use smart meters. Almost all Victorian households (99.6%) and most Tasmanian (79%) have smart meters, while other states sit around 35-40%, according to the Australian Energy Regulator. By 2030, every Australian household is projected to have one.

Smart meters can do more than just monitoring use – they can remotely control appliances such as electric water heaters.

Electricity retailers or distribution network operators could offer to change the times of hot water heating via smart meters. Consumers could approve this change and it could be done remotely.

For this to become a reality, the method has to be tested in trials like ours.

Why does this matter?

In October this year, rooftop solar met 18% of Australia’s electricity demand.

One problem with the rooftop solar boom is matching supply with demand. Solar power peaks in the middle of the day but household demand is highest in the afternoon and evening, as people return from work and school.

When there’s more solar power than a household can use, it returns to the grid. Scaled up, this creates new challenges, such as minimum network demand, where floods of cheap solar can destabilise the grid or overload its voltage, forcing authorities to temporarily stop or reduce households sending their solar power back to the grid. That’s where heating water could help – by soaking up excess solar.

What did we learn?

To do real-world testing, we enrolled 18,000 South Australian households with smart meters and electric water heaters. The trial was funded by the Australian Renewable Energy Agency and led by metering company PLUS ES in collaboration with energy retailer AGL and the University of New South Wales.

Over the course of a year, the retailer shifted close to 50% of the water heating from night to day. Most householders reported no noticeable change to their hot water. Only 0.3% of households opted out. Participating households cut their emissions from water heaters by about 15%.

Energy retailers buy power at wholesale prices from generators. Nighttime power used to be cheapest. But daytime rates are falling as solar floods the grid. In the trial, the retailer’s use of daytime power produced savings of A$63 per household. We would expect these savings to increase as more renewables enter the grid.

At present, these savings go to the retailer. But as cheap solar pushes out other forms of power, we are seeing this ripple through to cheaper daytime rates which should be offered by retailers to consumers. This will allow households to take direct advantage of savings.

DIY water heating has a cost for the grid

At present, most people can’t directly use rooftop solar to heat water. Solar and hot water are generally installed on different circuits, even in households with smart meters.

But about 25% of Australian households have already taken matters into their own hands and opted out of controlled load circuits so they could use rooftop solar to heat water.

This appeals to some consumers, as it can significantly cut their water heating bill, but the extra cost of installing timers or diverters may put others off. Some diverters can also worsen the quality of the power on the grid.

By contrast, if the smart meter method gains traction, retailers and energy authorities would be better able to manage the grid as more renewables enter.

What’s in it for consumers? If retailers pass on savings from cheaper wholesale rates, households would be more likely to take the automated smart-meter control option.

Rooftop solar can lead to household voltage increasing slightly, which makes it harder to export solar and can reduce the lifespan of some appliances. That’s because household inverters need to push voltages higher than the grid to be able to push solar onto the network.

But if water heaters run during the day, they soak up more of the output from rooftop solar and keep voltages lower. Voltage levels in trial households dropped by an average of 2.6V, or up to 3.4V for homes regularly experiencing high voltages.

The trial also showed water heating demand could be predicted very accurately, benefiting network operators in day-ahead planning and operations.

What’s next?

Now that we have real-world evidence this method works, authorities can think bigger.

If smart meters were taken up across Australia’s main grid, the National Electricity Market, we could shift 3.8 terawatt hours of electricity use from night to day. That would represent 1.4% of our current electricity consumption of 273 TWh.

At present, about 2.3 TWh worth of utility-scale solar is curtailed annually. Far better to use it to heat water at daytime.

Would this approach work for heat pumps? Yes, with caveats. Heat pumps use electricity to heat water much more efficiently than older heaters. They do, however, require longer heating times. Our trial suggests heat pumps are largely compatible with smart meter control, but they may need different control strategies.

As ever more renewables enter the grid and more Australian households go electric, many of us will ditch gas hot water systems. These trends mean heating water during the day will be even more valuable.

Baran Yildiz receives funding from the Australian Renewable Energy Agency (ARENA) and RACE for 2030, an industry-led cooperative research centre

Hossein Saberi receives funding from the Australian Renewable Energy Agency (ARENA) and RACE for 2030, an industry-led cooperative research centre

– ref. If our hot water heaters ran off daytime solar, we would slash emissions and soak up cheap energy – https://theconversation.com/if-our-hot-water-heaters-ran-off-daytime-solar-we-would-slash-emissions-and-soak-up-cheap-energy-242705

Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Sihong Wu, Lecturer, School of Business, University of Auckland, Waipapa Taumata Rau

The resurgence of nationalism across the globe is not just a political issue. It’s emerging as a powerful force that multinational companies cannot afford to ignore.

Recent events such as Brexit, Russia’s war in Ukraine and the United States election can have far-reaching implications for businesses.

These events can influence investor confidence and alter government restrictions on foreign companies.

Managers are increasingly faced with a key question: should they push forward with new initiatives targeting international markets or hang on and wait for acceptance from those local communities?

There is ongoing debate over whether going global can directly help a company’s ability to innovate. Entering international markets can allow a business to gain new knowledge through connecting global production networks, accessing global talent and creating diversified global teams.

But what happens when a company’s plans to go global clash with nationalist sentiment – either at home or abroad?

Our research looked at how two factors – a country’s focus on technological progress, and its nationalist sentiment – can affect companies’ decisions when it comes to expanding into the global market.

These factors are particularly important when it comes to the spread of new technology that might be perceived to go against national interests.

While it may be obvious that companies need to take the political temperature of a new market, our research highlights the complexity of national sentiments – and how these can alter internal business decisions.

Different reactions

In our study of companies from 27 countries, we found multinationals react differently to nationalist attitudes in their home country versus nationalism in the foreign countries where they operate.

We identified four broad scenarios.

• There are more opportunities for a business to adopt innovative strategies when there is little to no competition over who gets the new technology first. This lack of nationalist sentiment allows the company to innovate using ideas from both countries.

• When nationalist sentiment is strong in a company’s home country, a company’s technological development efforts tend to align with its government’s priorities.

• In foreign countries with strong nationalist sentiments, managers often struggle with bringing new technologies to the market. This is, in part, due to difficulties in gaining acceptance in the local community.

• Where nationalism is strong in both a company’s home country and the country it wants to enter, it becomes harder to successfully introduce new technologies. This is often due to local resistance as well as conflicts between nationalist groups and others.

Progress vs national identity

Over the past two decades, there have been several examples of companies struggling to make inroads due to nationalist sentiment – either at home or abroad. There have also been a few success stories.

While we examined companies from multiple countries, China’s political relations with other nations provide several examples of why considering nationalism is important to multinational companies.

Aluminium company Chinalco, for example, failed in it’s bid to buy Australia’s Rio Tinto in 2008. The Chinese company encountered significant resistance due to concerns surrounding its status as a state-owned enterprise.

China’s Huawei has also faced difficulties in its efforts to expand its 5G technology. This is, in part, due to nationalist sentiment in concerns in countries such as the US and Australia over threats to national security and the need for technological sovereignty.

Our study also found that when nationalism and technological advances are combined, they can create a sense of techno-nationalism (when a country prioritises technological progress to enhance its global power). This can further influence a multinational company’s decision to stay or expand in a particular market.

Volkswagen, for example, was once a major player in China’s electric vehicle market. It now faces barriers to maintaining its market share in the country. The Chinese government is, instead, focusing on nurturing and supporting domestic manufacturers – sidelining the German company.

Similarly, Intel has responded to the US government’s push for semiconductor self-sufficiency by boosting domestic production, aiming to reduce reliance on foreign partners.

These examples highlight how the combination of nationalism and technological development goals can affect multinational companies.

Gaining local and global acceptance

Throughout our research, we found that to gain acceptance in a foreign market, multinational companies need to build a positive public image and foster genuine relationships.

Partnering with local businesses and non-governmental organisations can help them increase the credibility of their new ideas and acquire support support for developing new projects based on local needs.

When expanding overseas, companies also need to reduce the perception of excessive government involvement or political motives. Increasing transparency can help ease local and global concerns about the development and spread of new technology.

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. Nationalism is surging – changing the way companies do business overseas – https://theconversation.com/nationalism-is-surging-changing-the-way-companies-do-business-overseas-241905

Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Bridgette Glover, PhD Candidate in Media and Communications, University of New England

From hot flashes to hysteria, film and TV have long represented menopause as scary, emotional and messy.

Recently, celebrities have been sharing their personal menopause experiences on social media, helping to re-frame the conversation in popular culture.

We are also seeing more stories about menopause on television, with real stories and depictions that show greater empathy for the person going through it.

Menopause is having a moment. But will it help women?

The change onscreen

This is not what we’re used to seeing on our screens. Countless sitcoms, from All in the Family (1971–79) to Two and a Half Men (2003–15) have used the menopause madness trope for laughs.

Retro sitcom That ‘70s Show (1998–2006) used mom Kitty’s menopause journey as comedic fodder for multiple episodes. When she mistakes a missed period for pregnancy, Kitty’s surprise menopause diagnosis results in an identity crisis alongside mood swings, hot flashes and irritability.

But the audience is not meant to empathise. Instead, the focus is on how Kitty’s menopause impacts the men in her family. Having to navigate Kitty’s symptoms, her veteran husband likens the experience to war: “I haven’t been this frosty since Korea”.

Even when male characters are not directly involved, women are determined to reject menopause because they see it as a marker of age that signals a loss of desirability and social worth. In Sex and the City (1998–2004), Samantha describes herself as “day-old bread” when she presumes her late period signifies menopause.

This is a popular framing of menopause in post-feminist TV of the 1990s and early 2000s. While the menstruating body is constructed as uncontrollable and in need of management, the menopausal body requires management and maintenance to reject signals of collapse.

These storylines erase the genuine experiences of confusion, discomfort and transformation that come with menopause.

A cultural moment arrives

Since 2015, stories of menstruation have increased in popular culture.

Series like comedy Broad City (2014–19) and comedy-drama Better Things (2016–22) directly call out the lack of menopause representations. When Abbi in Broad City admits she “totally forgot about menopause”, a woman responds “Menopause isn’t represented in mainstream media. Like, no one wants to talk about it”.

Similarly, in Better Things, while watching her three daughters stare at the TV Sam laments: “No one wants to hear about it, which is why nobody ever prepared you for it”.

And lack of preparation becomes a key theme for perimenopausal Charlotte in the Sex and the City reboot, And Just Like That … (2021–) when she has a “flash period”.

Fleabag (2016–19) included a groundbreaking monologue about menopause delivered by Kristen Scott-Thomas, playing a successful businesswoman. She describes menopause as “horrendous, but then it’s magnificent”.

[…] your entire pelvic floor crumbles, and you get fucking hot, and no one cares. But then you’re free. No longer a slave. No longer a machine with parts.

Scripted by Phoebe Waller-Bridge, this celebrated monologue critiques the post-feminist notion of striving to be the “idealised feminine body”. Through this new feminist lens, menopause is acknowledged as both painful – physically and emotionally – and necessary for liberation.

Today’s menopause on screen

Alongside more recent series like The Change (2023), multiple documentaries including The (M) Factor (2024), and arguably even films like The Substance (2024), social media has become a prolific space for raising awareness about menopause.

Celebrities use social media to share tales of perimenopause and menopause, often in real time.

Last year, actor Drew Barrymore experienced her “first perimenopausal hot flash” during her talk show.

And ABC News Breakfast guest host, Imogen Crump, had to pause her news segment, saying

I could keep stumbling through, but I’m having such a perimenopausal hot flush right now, live on air.

Both Barrymore and Crump shared clips of their live segments to their social media pages, to challenge stigma and create conversations. Crump even posted to LinkedIn to raise awareness in a professional setting.

In a podcast interview clip shared to Instagram, writer and skincare founder, Zoë Foster Blake describes perimenopause as a “real mental health thing”, because of the lack of awareness. Recalling conversations with other perimenopausal women, Foster Blake says “We all think we’re crazy. We don’t know what the fuck is going on”.

Feeling “crazy” is a constant theme in these conversations. As actor and menopause awareness advocate Naomi Watts points out, this is largely thanks to Hollywood. Despite the stigmatising media stereotype of “crazy lady that shouts”, Watts argues that with “support and community”, women experiencing perimenopause and menopause “can thrive”.

In fact, Watts believes menopause should be celebrated: “we know ourselves better, we’re wiser for our cumulative experiences”.

Medical professionals like American doctors Marie Clare Haver and Corinne Menn have been well-positioned to share their expertise and experiences via social media. They are catching and helping fuel a wave of advocacy and awareness for midlife women’s health.

Building community

After watching the menopause madness trope on our screens for decades, we are now seeing perimenopause and menopause depicted with more empathy. These depictions allow viewers – those who menstruate, who have menstruated, and who know menstruators – to feel seen and be informed.

By sharing their experiences on social media and adding to these new screen stories, celebrities are building a community that makes the menopausal journey less lonely and helps those on it remember their worth.

Bridgette Glover 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. Menopause is having a moment. How a new generation of women are shaping cultural attitudes – https://theconversation.com/menopause-is-having-a-moment-how-a-new-generation-of-women-are-shaping-cultural-attitudes-241784

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

The Albanese government will develop and legislate a “Digital Duty of Care” to place the onus on platforms to keep people safe and better prevent online harms, Communications Minister Michelle Rowland has announced.

In a speech to the Sydney Institute on Wednesday night, Rowland said a change of approach was needed.

“To date, the Online Safety Act has been a crucial tool for incentivising digital platforms to remove illegal content, usually applied remedially and case by case. However, it does not, in a fundamental sense, incentivise the design of a safer, healthier, digital platforms ecosystem.

“What’s required is a shift away from reacting to harms by relying on content regulation alone, and moving towards systems-based prevention, accompanied by a broadening of our perspective of what online harms are.”

The change would bring Australia into line with the United Kingdom and European Union approaches. Platforms would have to take reasonable steps to prevent foreseeable harms, underpinned by risk assessment and risk mitigation and informed by safety-by-design principles.

A duty of care was “a common law concept and statutory obligation that places a legal obligation to take reasonable steps to protect others from harm. It is a proven, workable and flexible model,” Rowland said.

“This, as part of a growing global effort, will deliver a more systemic and preventative approach to making online services safer and healthier.

“Where platforms seriously and systemically breach their duty of care we will ensure the regulator can draw on strong penalty arrangements,” Rowland said.

The duty of care model was recommended by a review of the Online Safety Act, which went to the government last month. The government brought forward the statutory review of the act by a year to ensure online safety laws were up to date.

The government says legislating a duty of care will mean tech platforms will need to continually identify and mitigate potential risks as technology and services alter.

The changes will support the existing complaint and removal schemes for illegal and harmful material. under the Online Safety Act.

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

– ref. Government to impose ‘duty of care’ on digital platforms: Communiations Minister Rowland – https://theconversation.com/government-to-impose-duty-of-care-on-digital-platforms-communiations-minister-rowland-243598

Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Roy Green, Emeritus Professor of Innovation, University of Technology Sydney

Productivity is the greatest structural problem in our economy, according to Treasurer Jim Chalmers. He says there is “no higher priority for reform”.

Announcing a A$900 million productivity fund to be shared with the states, the treasurer told a meeting of the Australian Business Economists on Wednesday Australia’s productivity challenges would take time to turn around.

The boost comes on top of measures in the ambitious $22.7 billion Future Made in Australia initiative announced as part of the federal budget in May.

The new fund is similar to a scheme under the Keating and Howard governments. That scheme helped the states launch competition reforms, including introducing national food standards and lifting retail trading restrictions.

Chalmers told Wednesday’s gathering:

Our productivity problem didn’t show up two years ago, it showed up two decades ago. And not just in Australia but in almost every comparable country. The Productivity Commission’s five-yearly review of our productivity performance had to concede that growth in the last full decade was the slowest in 60 years.

Stalled productivity growth has translated into real wage stagnation and a prolonged cost-of-living crisis.

A A$900 million productivity fund will help, but fixing productivity is going to require some big changes by government, industry, and research and education institutions.

Causes of lower growth and productivity

Much of the drop in productivity growth occurred during the commodity boom, when a high Australian dollar made our trade-exposed industries less competitive.

This particularly affected manufacturing, which historically had been the major source of increasing productivity. Manufacturing was only just finding its feet in global markets after the tariff reductions of the late 1980s and 90s.

While the slowdown is global, Australia is finding it much harder to deal with due to our dependence on resources, such as iron ore and coal. This is a phenomenon observed across most of the industrialised world. Economists have come up with various explanations.

Have we already done our best innovating?

One line of thinking, associated with US economist Bob Gordon, is the slowdown can be explained simply by the fact that the most fundamental innovations are behind us.

By this he means such things as urban sanitation, commercial flight and telecommunications. Nothing since compares, and of course he has a point. We could probably live without an iPhone, but not so much without modern dentistry.

Counting the intangibles

Another explanation makes it a measurement issue. Productivity is a measure of the outputs of an enterprise or a country per unit of the inputs required to produce them. Traditionally these outputs have been physical goods.

What happens when the outputs are intangible, such as software or internet services? However unlikely, this could mean we have raging productivity but are not detecting it in the data.

The explanation which has had most influence is that the digital revolution, with the further development of machine learning, robotics and artificial intelligence, has indeed had an impact on productivity.

However, it is concentrated in “frontier firms,” which drive technological change and innovation.

Why we need more ‘frontier firms’

The extent to which this impact is reflected in national data depends on the share of frontier firms in the economy and the rate of deployment of technologies and skills to the larger group of laggard firms.

Even in the 1980s, just before a decade-long productivity boom, US economist and Nobel laureate Bob Solow lamented

You can see the computer age everywhere but in the productivity statistics.

Simply put, the problem in Australia is we have too few frontier firms, too many laggards and too slow a rate of technology adoption.

Lifting productivity more challenging here than overseas

As a result, the productivity slowdown is harder to fix here than in other countries, with Treasury downgrading its forecasts from 1.5% growth to 1.2%. Real wage growth not only compares unfavourably with elsewhere but has gone backwards in recent years.

Treasury analysis attributes much of the continuing decline in productivity growth to “Australia’s changing mix of industries”. This has seen more people working in services where productivity grows more slowly.

However, the increased role of services is common to most countries. The factors specific to Australia are the low manufacturing share of GDP and the failure of mining to compensate, despite massive resource exports.

In fact, it can be argued Australia’s reliance on unprocessed raw materials is part of the problem. While fuelling consumption at the height of the commodity boom, they reduced our capacity to grow globally competitive, knowledge-intensive industries. We therefore have a less complex, less diverse export mix than any other advanced economy.

Clearly, Chalmers’ proposed measures to strengthen national competition policy and enable the states to update and streamline planning regulations will not fix this problem on their own.

At most, they will help create conditions to set up new frontier firms and scale existing ones to innovate more successfully in global markets.

The government’s major effort to diversify our narrow trade and industrial structure, and in so doing reinvigorate productivity growth, is its new industrial policy framework. This is still taking shape.

It features Future Made in Australia and is a combined commitment to achieve net zero emissions with policies to simultaneously build economic resilience and complexity.

The government is also undertaking a “strategic examination” of its research and development policies. These must drive the industrial transformation necessary for both productivity improvement and a sustainable, decarbonised economy. New approaches to collaboration between industry and researchers in “innovation ecosystems”, where Australia has again fallen behind, are needed.

Restoring Australia’s productivity growth is a huge task. It will largely be driven by the development and adoption of new technologies, as the Technology Council of Australia has argued in a new report. But there is also an important role for “non-technology innovation”, such as business model design and systems integration.

This brings us back to the quality of Australian management, which has been found wanting, especially in small to medium companies, by comparison with international counterparts. Ultimately, transformational change will depend on managers at the enterprise level, drawing on the talent and creativity of their workforces.

We shall find out soon enough whether we are up for the productivity task, which will benefit from a bipartisan approach and policy continuity across governments. Our future living standards and social cohesion depend on it.

Roy Green 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. Jim Chalmers has provided an extra $900 million to boost productivity. But this ‘high priority’ problem is going to need an across the board effort – https://theconversation.com/jim-chalmers-has-provided-an-extra-900-million-to-boost-productivity-but-this-high-priority-problem-is-going-to-need-an-across-the-board-effort-243557

Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Amin Saikal, Emeritus Professor of Middle Eastern and Central Asian Studies, Australian National University

Donald Trump’s re-election as the US president last week comes at a time of extreme volatility in the Middle East.

The president-elect has promised to end all wars. In his usual impulsive and unpredictable manner, he has pledged to resolve the Ukraine war within 24 hours of taking office and help Israel finish its Gaza and Lebanon operations quickly.

Yet the Middle East is a complex place. Trump will have much difficulty balancing his ardent support of Israel and his other ambitions in the region, especially given the changing dynamics between Iran and its rival, Saudi Arabia.

Here’s what Trump can expect when he takes office in a few months.

Collapse of talks between Israel and Hamas

Overshadowed by the US election was Qatar’s announcement that it has paused its role as a ceasefire mediator between Israel and Hamas.

The tiny, oil-rich emirate has worked hard over the past year to try to reach a deal to end the war. In the process, it made good use of its close relations with the United States, which has its largest Middle East military base in Qatar, and with Hamas, whose political leadership and office have been based in Doha. This, Qatar believed, would help it gain the confidence of the warring parties.

However, its efforts did not produce anything more than a brief ceasefire last year, which resulted in the release of more than 100 Israeli hostages in exchange for 240 Palestinian prisoners.

There are several reasons for this.

For one, the two sides cannot get past a couple of main sticking points. Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu has resolved to eliminate Hamas completely, ruling out a temporary truce. Hamas is demanding a complete end to the fighting and total Israeli military withdrawal from Gaza.

Meanwhile, Washington has failed to play a meaningful role in the talks. While repeatedly emphasising its desire for a ceasefire, the Biden administration did not at any point put tangible pressure on Israel beyond diplomatic rhetoric.

It has also refused to cut off military aid to Israel. Instead, it approved a US$20 billion (A$30 billion) arms sale to Israel in August. This means Netanyahu has had no compelling reason to divert from his mission.

A possible ceasefire in Lebanon

As the chances of a Gaza ceasefire have faded, hopes have been raised about a Lebanon ceasefire.

Washington has reportedly engaged in intensive diplomatic efforts to get Israel and Hezbollah to reach a common ground to end the fighting there.

Israel wants Hezbollah to be disarmed and pushed back at least beyond the Litani River in southern Lebanon – about 30km north of the Israeli border – with a security zone to be established between the two. Israel wants to maintain the right to strike Hezbollah if necessary, which Lebanese authorities are likely to reject.

Israel has considerably weakened Hezbollah in its bombing and ground invasion of southern Lebanon at the expense of massive civilian casualties.

However, just as Israel has not been able to wipe out Hamas, it has so far not succeeded in crippling Hezbollah to the extent it would be forced to accept a ceasefire on Israel’s terms. The militant group continues to possess sufficient political and military prowess to remain resilient.

Changing regional dynamics

Now, Trump re-enters the scene.

His electoral triumph has comforted Netanyahu’s government to the extent that his finance minister, Bezalel Smotrich, has asked the relevant authorities to prepare for the formal annexation of Jewish settlements in the West Bank.

Trump has been a committed supporter of Israel for a long time. During his first presidency he recognised Jerusalem as the capital of Israel and ordered the US embassy to move there. He also recognised Israeli sovereignty over the Golan Heights, which Israel seized from Syria in 1967.

He castigated Iran as the real villain in the region and withdrew the US from the multilateral Iran nuclear agreement. He also instigated the Abraham Accords, in which several Arab states normalised relations with Israel.

However, the Gaza and Lebanon wars, as well as the direct military exchanges between Israel and Iran over the past year, have changed the regional texture.

Trump has voiced unwavering backing of Israel against Hamas and Hezbollah, and is likely to resuscitate his “maximum pressure” campaign against Iran. This could involve strangling Tehran with stringent sanctions and blocking its oil exports, while seeking to isolate it internationally.

Meanwhile, as a transactional leader, Trump also wants to strengthen America’s lucrative economic and trade ties with the Arab governments of the region.

However, these countries have been shaken by the scale of Israel’s Gaza and Lebanon operations. Their populations are boiling over with frustration at their leaders’ inability to counter Israel’s actions. This is nowhere more evident than in Jordan.

As a result, Saudi Arabia – America’s richest and most consequential Arab ally in the region – has lately taken the lead in voicing strong opposition to Israel. Saudi Arabia’s de facto ruler, Crown Prince Mohammed bin Salman, has also made a path toward an independent Palestinian state a condition of normalising relations with Israel.

Further, Riyadh is strengthening its more than year-long rapprochement with its arch rival, Iran. The two countries’ defence ministers met last weekend, following a joint military exercise involving their navies.

In addition, Bin Salman has just convened a meeting of Arab and Muslim leaders in Riyadh to forge a consensual position in dealing with Israel and the incoming Trump administration.

Where is it all heading?

Trump will need to find a balance between his commitment to Israel and upholding America’s close relations with its traditional Arab allies. This will be crucial to ending the Middle East wars and rebuffing Iran.

Tehran is no longer as vulnerable to Trump’s venom as it may have been in the past. It is more powerful militarily and enjoys strong strategic relations with Russia, China and North Korea, as well as improved relations with regional Arab states.

Given the absence of a Gaza ceasefire, the thin hope of a halt to the Lebanon fighting, Netanyahu’s intransigence and Trump’s pursuance of an “Israel first” policy, the Middle East’s volatility is likely to persist.

It may prove to be as much of a headache for Trump as it was for Joe Biden in a very polarised and unpredictable world.

Amin Saikal 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. Donald Trump fancies himself a skilled dealmaker, but Middle East peace might be beyond him – https://theconversation.com/donald-trump-fancies-himself-a-skilled-dealmaker-but-middle-east-peace-might-be-beyond-him-243570

Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Nafis Alam, Professor and Head, School of Business, Monash University Malaysia

It can be hard to make sense of the price of bitcoin, which has swung wildly throughout its history. But in the aftermath of Donald Trump’s presidential victory in the United States, it’s reached unprecedented highs.

Last weekend, it surged past US$80,000 (A$122,492) for the first time. Then, on Tuesday, it briefly flirted with the US$90,000 threshold.

Many other cryptocurrencies also saw a significant boost.

In Trump, the crypto community sees a powerful new friend. Speaking at a major bitcoin conference in Nashville in July, he promised to create a friendlier business environment if re-elected:

We will have regulations, but from now on the rules will be written by people who love your industry, not hate your industry.

So, are things really looking up for crypto? Many of Trump’s plans have caused excitement in the sector – but there’s still good reason to be cautious.

Read more:
Trump’s economic vision is no longer a ‘maybe’. Here’s what it might mean for Australia and the world

Less red tape, more crypto

Trump has long been a strong supporter of government deregulation – favouring less intervention in many areas of the economy.

That could reduce regulatory pressure on cryptocurrencies and open the door for more rapid growth and innovation within the industry.

Overt government support could also attract more institutional investors by creating a favourable environment for digital assets.

Trump has flagged a wide range of pro-crypto policies, including building a government bitcoin stockpile, preventing the government from selling its cryptocurrency holdings, and even using cryptocurrency to address the national debt.

Furthering his pro-bitcoin stance, he’s also previously voiced opposition to “central bank digital currencies”, or CBDCs.

CBDCs are a relatively new digital form of money – and the US doesn’t have one yet. However, unlike decentralised cryptocurrencies such as bitcoin, the value of a CBDC is determined by its issuing country’s central bank.

Trump’s previous criticisms of the US Federal Reserve have resonated with many cryptocurrency supporters who have advocated for decentralised financial systems.

A volatile US dollar

A Trump presidency could lead to substantial US dollar volatility against major currencies.

A cornerstone policy of Trump’s re-election campaign has been to impose tariffs of 10–20% on all imports to the US, and 60% on imports from China.

New or escalated tariffs could lead to trade tensions, impacting currency markets. This would likely strengthen the dollar temporarily, as domestic goods become more expensive.

But such uncertainty could also drive market speculation and fluctuations in the dollar.

If the dollar falls, some investors looking for alternatives may turn to cryptocurrencies as a hedge against inflation or currency devaluation.

Geopolitical risk

Trump’s presidency could bring increased geopolitical and domestic political tension. Is cryptocurrency a safe haven in such times? Some proponents have previously touted the asset class as a kind of “digital gold”.

On some occasions during Trump’s first presidency, it may appear to have acted like one.

In 2019, bitcoin’s price surged as US–China trade tensions escalated. It also spiked briefly in early 2020 when Iran struck two US military bases in retaliation for the killing of Iranian General Qassem Soleimani.

Such a reputation may influence investor behaviour. However, previous research has challenged the idea that bitcoin acts as a safe haven, finding its price declined under heightened financial uncertainty.

Other research has found that bitcoin and fellow cryptocurrency Ethereum are not safe havens from many international equity markets. When included in a portfolio, they added to downside risk.

Is the euphoria justified?

The euphoria in the crypto market following Trump’s victory may be understandable. His support for digital currency could benefit investors and industry leaders seeking fewer regulations.

However, these markets remain inherently volatile. Less regulation could amplify this characteristic even further.

If Trump’s deregulation of cryptocurrency leads to increased speculation by investors, it could make the crypto market even more susceptible to bubbles and crashes. Global markets could have a rough ride ahead of them.

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

– ref. The crypto community sees a powerful new friend in Donald Trump. Here’s why – https://theconversation.com/the-crypto-community-sees-a-powerful-new-friend-in-donald-trump-heres-why-243366

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

Media coverage in Australia of the US presidential election and of the Voice referendum in October 2023 offer some pointers to what we might expect during next year’s federal election campaign.

They also suggest some ways in which the professional mass media might better respond to the challenges thrown up by the combination of disinformation, harmful speech and hyper-partisanship that disfigured those two campaigns.

The ideological contours of the Australian professional media, in particular its newspapers, have become delineated with increasing clarity over the past 15 years. In part this is a response to the polarising effects of social media, and in part it is a reflection of the increased stridency of political debate.

The right is dominated by News Corporation, with commercial radio shock jocks playing a supporting role. The left is more diffuse and less given to propagandising. It includes the old Fairfax papers, The Age and The Sydney Morning Herald, now owned by the Nine Entertainment Company, and Guardian Australia.

These contours are unlikely to change much, if at all, between now and the 2025 election.

Impartiality versus ‘bothsidesism’

Under these conditions, how might Australian journalism practice be adapted to better serve democracy under the pressures of an election campaign? The objective would be to contribute to the creation of a political culture in which people can argue constructively, disagree respectfully and work towards consensus.

In pursuing that objective, a central issue is whether and how the media are committed to the principle of impartiality in news reports. This principle is under sustained pressure, as was seen in both the presidential election and the Voice referendum.

We know from the words of its own editorial code of conduct that News Corp Australia does not accept the principle of impartiality in news reports. Paragraph 1.3 of that code states:

Publications should ensure factual material in news reports is distinguishable from other material such as commentary and opinion. Comment, conjecture and opinion are acceptable as part of coverage to provide perspective on an issue, or explain the significance of an issue, or to allow readers to recognise what the publication’s or author’s standpoint is on a matter.

This policy authorises journalists to write their news reports in ways that promote the newspaper’s or the journalist’s own views. This runs directly counter to the conventional separation of news from opinion accepted by most major media companies. This is exemplified by the policy of The Guardian, including Guardian Australia:

While free to editorialise and campaign, a publication must distinguish clearly between comment, conjecture and fact.

Appended to The Guardian’s code is the essay written in 1921 by C. P. Scott, first the editor and then the owner-editor of the Manchester Guardian, to mark the newspaper’s centenary. It includes these words: “Comment is free, but facts are sacred”. Referring to a newspaper’s public duty, he added: “Propaganda […] is hateful.”

In the present overheated atmosphere of public debate, impartiality has come to be confused with a discredited type of journalism known as “bothsidesism”.

“Bothsidesism” presents “both sides” of an issue without any regard for their relative evidentiary merits. It allows for the ventilation of lies, hate speech and conspiracy theories on the spurious ground that these represent another, equally valid, side of the story.

Read more:
‘Suicide for democracy.’ What is ‘bothsidesism’ – and how is it different from journalistic objectivity?

Impartiality is emphatically not “bothsidesism”. What particularly distinguishes impartiality is that it follows the weight of evidence. However, a recurring problem in the current environment is that the fair and sober presentation of evidence can be obliterated by the force of political rhetoric. As a result, impartiality can fall victim to its own detached passivity.

Yet impartiality does not have to be passive: it can be proactive.

During the presidential campaign, in the face of Trump’s egregious lying, some media organisations took this proactive approach.

When Trump claimed during his televised debate with Kamala Harris that Haitian immigrants were eating people’s pets in the town of Springfield, Ohio, the host broadcaster, the American Broadcasting Company, fact-checked him in real time. It found, during the broadcast, that there was no evidence to support his claim.

And for four years before that, The Washington Post chronicled Trump’s lies while in office, arriving at a total of 30,573.

Challenging misinformation

During the Voice referendum, many lies were told about what the Voice to Parliament would be empowered to do: advise on the date of Anzac Day, change the flag, set interest rates, and introduce a race-based element into the Constitution, advantaging Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander people over others.

These were rebutted by the relevant authorities but by then the lies had been swept up in the daily tide of mis- or disinformation that was a feature of the campaign. At that point, rebuttals merely oxygenate the original falsehoods.

More damaging still to the democratic process was the baseless allegation by Opposition Leader Peter Dutton that the Australian Electoral Commission had “rigged” the vote by accepting a tick as indicating “yes” but not accepting a cross as indicating “no”.

Opposition Senate leader, Simon Birmingham, also said allowing ticks but not crosses undermined the integrity of the process.

The electoral commissioner, Tom Rogers, was reported as repudiating these claims, but by then these lies had acquired currency and momentum.

A proactive approach to impartiality requires establishing the truthful position before or at the time of initial publication, then calling out falsehoods for what they are and providing supporting evidence. Neither the principle of impartiality nor any other ethical principle in journalism requires journalists to publish lies as if they might be true.

It would not have been a failure of impartiality to say in a news report that Dutton’s claims about a rigged referendum were baseless, with the supporting evidence.

That evidence, set out in an excellent example of proactive impartiality by the ABC’s election analyst Antony Green at the time, was that the ticks and crosses rule had been in place since 1988.

‘Proactive impartiality’ is the key to reporting the 2025 election

The question is, do Australia’s main media organisations as a whole have the resources and the will to invest in real-time fact-checking? The record is not encouraging.

In March 2024, the ABC dissolved its fact-checking arrangement with RMIT University, replacing it with an in-house fact-checking unit called ABC News Verify.

In 2023, a team led by Andrea Carson of La Trobe University published a study tracking the fate of fact-checking operations in Australia. Its findings were summarised by her in The Conversation.

Read more:
Is Australia’s golden age of third-party fact checking over?

In the absence of a fact-checking capability, it is hard to see how journalists can perform the kind of proactive impartiality that current circumstances demand.

On top of that, the shift from advertising-based mass media to subscription-based niche media is creating its own logic, which is antithetical to impartiality.

Mass-directed advertising was generally aimed at as broad an audience as possible. It encouraged impartiality in the accompanying editorial content as part of an appeal to the broad middle of society.

Since a lot of this advertising has gone online, the media have begun to rely increasingly on subscriptions. In a hyper-partisan world, ideological branding, or alternatively freedom from ideological branding, has become part of the sales pitch.

Where subscribers do expect to find ideological comfort, readership and ratings are at put risk when their expectations are disappointed.

Rupert Murdoch learned this when his Fox News channel in the US called the 2020 election for Joe Biden, driving down ratings and causing him to reverse that position in order to claw back the losses.

These are unpalatable developments for those who believe that fair, accurate news reporting untainted by the ideological preferences of proprietors or journalists is a vital ingredient in making a healthy democracy work. But that is the world we live in as we approach the federal election of 2025.

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. How should Australian media cover the next federal election? Lessons from the US presidential race – https://theconversation.com/how-should-australian-media-cover-the-next-federal-election-lessons-from-the-us-presidential-race-243267

Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Carolyn Heward, Lecturer, Clinical Psychology, James Cook University

Imagine spending years hiding who you are to fit into a group, only to become invisible once you leave. This is the reality for many women who serve in the military.

Our research has found ex-servicewomen face a double burden: first, via suppressing their femininity to fit into military culture, then struggling to be recognised as veterans at all.

The recent final report of the Royal Commission into Defence and Veteran Suicide has drawn attention to a very concerning statistic: ex-serving women are twice as likely to die by suicide compared to civilian women.

For those aged 25–34, they’re significantly more likely to need mental health care – 7.4% compared to 4.9% of civilian women their age.

Our paper reviewing the research evidence on military culture, identity and mental health uncovered a pattern that helps explain these statistics.

Playing a character

Women in the military often feel compelled to “play a character”. They feel they must change their behaviour, appearance and communication style to fit into a hypermasculine “warrior identity” that defines military culture.

One US study described the experience for women as:

being a female in a man’s world […] but if you’re going to play the female role, then you’re not going to be respected.

Another participant in a Canadian study explained that fitting in meant having to “prove yourself” and “work twice as hard, as a woman, to be considered half as good.”

This pressure to conform doesn’t just mean wearing a uniform. It often involves suppressing fundamental aspects of their identity by doing things such as hiding emotional responses during difficult situations because showing empathy is seen as “weak”, or downplaying their achievements to avoid standing out from their male peers.

Identity suppression can, over time, lead to profound stress, anxiety and other mental health challenges.

But the challenges for women don’t end when they leave service.

Becoming invisible

Society’s perception of veterans remains steadfastly male, leaving women’s service unrecognised and their struggles often unacknowledged.

Worse still, female veterans are accused of misrepresenting themselves. As one female veteran put it in a media report:

On ANZAC Day this year I got to wear both of my medals in civilian dress and someone came up and said ‘oh, you’ve got your medals on the wrong side, love’, or ‘whose medals are they?’ And you just have to say ‘they’re mine — why wouldn’t they be?’

This invisibility compounds the mental health impacts of service.

Women veterans report feeling excluded from veteran support services and communities, their service questioned or diminished.

Our research found this lack of recognition can trigger or worsen existing mental health conditions, creating a cycle of isolation and distress.

Australian military culture remains heavily masculine

While much of the research in our review is from international studies, the problem is acute in Australia.

Australian military culture remains heavily masculine despite increasing numbers of women in service.

Our research found women often experience harassment and betrayal when they don’t perfectly fit the hypermasculine military ideal, leading to feelings of exclusion and internalised inferiority.

The mental health impact is significant.

Ex-serving women in Australia show higher rates of anxiety disorders (41.9%) and PTSD (24.8%) compared to their male counterparts.

Almost one in five service members transitioning to civilian life experience very high levels of psychological distress. This is four times the rate in the general community.

The military urgently needs new recruits

The Australian Defence Force is facing what has been described as “an acute recruitment crisis”.

With the Australian Defence Force actively working to recruit more women, understanding and addressing the challenges military women face is crucial.

The current pattern of identity suppression followed by invisibility isn’t just harmful to individuals. It undermines efforts to build a more diverse and effective military force.

One anonymous submission to the Royal Commission into Defence and Veteran Suicide said:

I can’t in good consciousness recommend the Army as a place to work for any female, which truly saddens me as someone who has many grandparents and great grandparents that were veterans and that I want to honour.

Where to from here?

There is an opportunity for the military to consider how to create space for different ways of being a successful service member. Currently, success is often measured by how well someone fits the warrior stereotype – tough, stoic and aggressive. But military effectiveness also requires leaders who can build teams, show judgement, and adapt to complex situations. These qualities don’t depend on conforming to a hypermasculine ideal.

In the broader community, we must expand our recognition of who veterans are and what they look like.

For the thousands of Australian families with women relatives currently serving or transitioning from the Australian Defence Force, understanding these challenges is the first step.

Recognition of women’s service – both during and after their military careers – isn’t just about acknowledgement.

It’s about preventing the devastating mental health impacts that come from having to hide who you are, then being ignored when you leave.

It’s time to recognise the true cost of asking women to suppress their identity to serve their country – and to ensure that when they finish serving, they’re no longer rendered invisible.

Carolyn Heward has previously worked as a Clinical Psychologist within both the Department of Defence and as a contracted health provider to the Australian Defence Force.

– ref. Our research reveals women suppress their femininity to fit into military culture – and struggle to be seen as veterans when they leave – https://theconversation.com/our-research-reveals-women-suppress-their-femininity-to-fit-into-military-culture-and-struggle-to-be-seen-as-veterans-when-they-leave-242699

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

The furore over Australia’s ambassador to Washington, Kevin Rudd, is a “self-licking icecream” created by some at Sky News, former defence chief and former ambassador to the United States, Dennis Richardson says.

Richardson told The Conversation on Wednesday that the whipping up of the issue  was driven by a combination of personal and political motives: to have Rudd removed from his post and to get at the Albanese government.

He said the Australian government should do “precisely nothing”
in response, except to express its confidence in the ambassador, who had been doing “an outstanding job”, working across the aisle in Washington.

Richardson, highly respected on both sides of politics, previously headed ASIO (1996–2005), the foreign affairs department (2010-12) and the defence department (2012-17).

He was ambassador to Washington in 2005–10.

Rudd has come under fire over his previous social media posts denigrating Trump, which last week he deleted. Sky recently played footage of him describing Trump as a “village idiot”.

Richardson said the present controversy around Rudd “is not an issue  that arose out of any normal process. This is an issue that’s been pursued by one news outlet.”

He said the origin went back to an interview British political figure Nigel Farage did with Trump earlier this year. Farage, resurrected what he described as some “most horrible things” Rudd had said about Trump. He said “our friends at Sky News Australia” had requested he ask the question.

Richardson said Trump’s response suggested he didn’t know who Rudd was, and his answer that “if he’s at all hostile, he will not be there long” was qualified.

Some presenters and other commentators on Sky had created a “self-licking ice cream” in relation to Rudd, Richardson said.

In political jargon a self-licking ice cream is described as “a self-perpetuating system that has no purpose other than to sustain itself”.

Richardson said Rudd had in the past said “some pretty strong stuff” about Trump – but so had people around the now president-elect, including the vice president-elect, JD Vance.

He pointed to a number of Liberals, including former ambassador to the US Joe Hockey and former prime minister Scott Morrison, who had said Rudd was doing a good job.

He said the campaign on Sky might well create a difficult situation. Some at Sky “may feed stuff to people around Trump or put questions [about Rudd] to people around Trump.”

A senior Trump aide, Dan Scavino, has posted on social media, replying to Rudd’s message congratulating Trump on his victory, an hourglass with the sand running.

On Sky this week, a former Trump White House press secretary Sean Spicer said “Mr Rudd is going to have some problems, Donald Trump doesn’t forget these kind of comments”.

Richardson said it would be “extraordinary” for a government to withdraw an ambassador because it thought he might not be acceptable to an incoming administration.

Who Australia’s ambassador was wouldn’t be in the top 200-300 issues in  the minds of the Trump administration, Richardson said.

“Left to itself this wouldn’t be an issue.”

Former prime minister Tony Abbott has said on his podcast Australia’s Future with Tony Abbott, “I am confident that Kevin has been hyper active on our behalf as he sees it in Washington. So I would be surprised if there is any pressure from the Americans to change our ambassador.

“I have no reason to think that Kevin is not doing a good job at present. He will do whatever he humanly can to win over senior people in the incoming administration. And he’s already done everything he humanly can to row back his previous ill-advised remarks about the incoming president.”

Opposition leader Peter Dutton told the ABC on Wednesday: “We’ve supported Kevin Rudd and we’ve made public commentary before about our support of the ambassador.

“It’s important that he does work in our country’s name. He’s been a very effective contributor to public debate, particularly as a former prime minister, he’s well respected. I hope that he’s able to form a relationship with the new administration as he’s done with the current one.”

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

– ref. Former US ambassador accuses Sky News of creating a ‘self-licking ice cream’ to attack Kevin Rudd – https://theconversation.com/former-us-ambassador-accuses-sky-news-of-creating-a-self-licking-ice-cream-to-attack-kevin-rudd-243582