Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Jay Marlowe, Professor, Co-Director Centre for Asia Pacific Refugee Studies, University of Auckland, Waipapa Taumata Rau
In the looming shadow of a threatened Israeli invasion of Rafah at the onset of Ramadan, New Zealand has the opportunity to extend a lifeline to families trapped in the middle of the war in Gaza.
The dire humanitarian situation has been well-documented: more than 30,000 lives lost, nearly a fifth of buildings destroyed, countless people injured and lacking basic necessities.
Estimates from Palestinian New Zealanders put the number of Gazans with a family connection to New Zealand at approximately 400. Some 40 Palestinian families have already committed to hosting family members trapped in Gaza.
Given New Zealand’s previous responses in similar refugee crises, such family-focused assistance would be possible. The government has yet to commit to an intake. But last December, the immigration minister acknowledged an openness to adjusting the response in light of the escalating conflict. Now is the time to make such adjustments.
Previous examples include the family reunification pathways created for Ukrainian nationals in 2022, and the intake of 200 human rights activists and 1,533 people from Afghanistan after the Taliban returned in 2021.
Further back, previous National or National-led governments have accommodated such intakes: 600 extra places were made available to Syrians when John Key was prime minister, 600 family places were offered to people in Kosovo when Jenny Shipley was in power.
Despite initial estimates of about 4,000 eligible Ukrainian family members, fewer than 1,000 have actually arrived in New Zealand. And it may be that only a fraction of the eligible Palestinians in Gaza would take up the offer. But acting quickly and giving those people a choice should be the priority right now.
Practical compassion
Getting out of Gaza, of course, is not easy. Gazans given a visa to join family in Canada, for example, have been struggling to exit at the Egyptian border.
Infrastructure is seriously damaged, making it difficult to communicate and determine where people are located. Social media platform WhatsApp is often the only way to connect with family trapped in Gaza.
Furthermore, issuing visas will not be enough. There needs to be robust consular assistance to get people out whenever possible. For such an intake to work, it would likely need coordination across diplomatic channels, with potential assistance from the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees, the UN Relief and Works Agency and the International Committee of the Red Cross.
There is also the question of how to support family members once they arrive, albeit with a vibrant Palestinian community ready to welcome them.
However, as someone who specialises in refugee issues, I work with a team that has looked into the benefits of functioning family reunification pathways. The data is clear that a united family means better settlement outcomes, both for those who arrive and those who receive them.
Beyond the emotional and psychological benefits, reunified families show higher levels of economic participation and educational enrolment, challenging often misguided assumptions about the strain on host countries’ resources.
The humanitarian imperative of such a programme can’t be overstated. More than seven decades of political unrest and conflict – 15 wars, five since 2008 – has left countless families in Gaza fragmented and grappling with endless uncertainty.
Even if there’s a temporary ceasefire, given the scale of devastation and time needed for reconstruction, options to resettle families will be needed.
New Zealand’s normal annual commitment to taking in 600 family members in the Refugee Family Support Category reflects the importance of family bonds in the resettlement process.
However, the existing system has real limitations: lengthy processes – including a ten-year backlog – and narrow inclusion criteria. This means a more immediate and flexible approach is required. This is where emergency family intakes can play a pivotal role.
Lessons from the wars in Afghanistan, Ukraine and now Gaza should lead to a more formal and practical pathway for New Zealanders to sponsor families in war zones. Rather than the current case-by-case approach (often at ministerial discretion), an ongoing annual commitment to family reunification in acute crises should be considered.
This would also avoid the discrepancies of helping Ukrainian families, for example, but being silent on other less prominent crises.
While the situation in Gaza is making headlines, there are other largely forgotten wars where New Zealand could also step up to protect families. In Myanmar, Sudan, Cameroon and Ethiopia, for example, there are immediate risks to lives and an urgent need for assistance.
By instituting a formalised system of emergency family intake, New Zealand would not only honour its commitments to human rights principles, it would also match initiatives already taken by Australia and Canada.
As one resettled refugee in New Zealand put it: “When elephants fight, it is the grass that gets trampled.”
Establishing a fair and functional pathway to protect those families with connections to New Zealand aligns with the country’s commitment to upholding human rights on the global stage.
Jay Marlowe receives funding from Te Apārangi Royal Society New Zealand as a current Rutherford Discovery Fellow.
Around one in six Australians has some form of hearing loss, ranging from mild to complete hearing loss. That figure is expected to grow to one in four by 2050, due in a large part to the country’s ageing population.
Hearing loss affects communication and social engagement and limits educational and employment opportunities. Effective treatment for hearing loss is available in the form of communication training (for example, lipreading and auditory training), hearing aids and other devices.
Our recent study published in the journal Ear and Hearing showed, for the first time, that working-age Australians from lower socioeconomic backgrounds are at much greater risk of hearing loss than those from higher socioeconomic backgrounds.
We believe the lack of socially subsidised hearing care for adults of working age results in poor detection and care for hearing loss among people from disadvantaged backgrounds. This in turn exacerbates social inequalities.
We analysed a large data set called the Household, Income and Labour Dynamics in Australia (HILDA) survey that collects information on various aspects of people’s lives, including health and hearing loss.
Using a HILDA sub-sample of 10,719 working-age Australians, we evaluated whether self-reported hearing loss was more common among people from lower socioeconomic backgrounds than for those from higher socioeconomic backgrounds between 2008 and 2018.
Relying on self-reported hearing data instead of information from hearing tests is one limitation of our paper. However, self-reported hearing tends to underestimate actual rates of hearing impairment, so the hearing loss rates we reported are likely an underestimate.
We also wanted to find out whether people from lower socioeconomic backgrounds were more likely to develop hearing loss in the long run.
We found people in the lowest income groups were more than twice as likely to have hearing loss than those in the highest income groups. Further, hearing loss was 1.5 times as common among people living in the most deprived neighbourhoods than in the most affluent areas.
For people reporting no hearing loss at the beginning of the study, after 11 years of follow up, those from a more deprived socioeconomic background were much more likely to develop hearing loss. For example, a lack of post secondary education was associated with a more than 1.5 times increased risk of developing hearing loss compared to those who achieved a bachelor’s degree or above.
Overall, men were more likely to have hearing loss than women. As seen in the figure below, this gap is largest for people of low socioeconomic status.
Why are disadvantaged groups more likely to experience hearing loss?
There are several possible reasons hearing loss is more common among people from low socioeconomic backgrounds. Noise exposure is one of the biggest risks for hearing loss and people from low socioeconomic backgrounds may be more likely to be exposed to damaging levels of noise in jobs in mining, construction, manufacturing, and agriculture.
Lifestyle factors which may be more prevalent in lower socioeconomic communities such as smoking, unhealthy diet, and a lack of regular exercise are also related to the risk of hearing loss.
Finally, people with lower incomes may face challenges in accessing timely hearing care, alongside competing health needs, which could lead to missed identification of treatable ear disease.
We like to think of Australia as an egalitarian society – the land of the fair go. But nearly half of people in Australia with hearing loss are of working age and mostly ineligible for publicly funded hearing services.
Hearing aids with a private hearing care provider cost from around A$1,000 up to more than $4,000 for higher-end devices. Most people need two hearing aids.
Hearing loss might be more common in low income groups because they’re exposed to more noise at work. Dmitry Kalinovsky/Shutterstock
Lack of access to affordable hearing care for working-age adults on low incomes comes with an economic as well as a social cost.
Previous economic analysis estimated hearing loss was responsible for financial costs of around $20 billion in 2019–20 in Australia. The largest component of these costs was productivity losses (unemployment, under-employment and Jobseeker social security payment costs) among working-age adults.
Providing affordable hearing care for all Australians
Lack of affordable hearing care for working-age adults from lower socioeconomic backgrounds may significantly exacerbate the impact of hearing loss among deprived communities and worsen social inequalities.
Recently, the federal government has been considering extending publicly subsidised hearing services to lower income working age Australians. We believe reforming the current government Hearing Services Program and expanding eligibility to this group could not only promote a more inclusive, fairer and healthier society but may also yield overall cost savings by reducing lost productivity.
All Australians should have access to affordable hearing care to have sufficient functional hearing to achieve their potential in life. That’s the land of the fair go.
Mohammad Nure Alam acknowledges funding from Macquarie University.
Kompal Sinha acknowledges funding from Macquarie University.
Piers Dawes receives funding from the National Health and Medical Research Council. Piers Dawes represents the University of Queensland on the Hearing Health Sector Alliance.
In the four years since the Black Summer bushfires, Australia has become more focused on how best to prepare for, fight and recover from these traumatic events. But one issue has largely flown under the radar: how the emissions produced by bushfires are measured and reported.
It’s crucial to accurately track the greenhouse gas emissions bushfires produce. However, the modelling and reporting of bushfire emissions is a complex, poorly understood area of climate science and policy.
The University of Tasmania recently brought together leading scientists and policymakers to discuss Australia’s measuring and reporting of bushfire emissions. The resulting report, just released, shows where Australia must improve as we face a fiery future.
Getting a read on bushfire emissions
By the end of this century, the number of extreme fire events around the world is expected to increase by up to 50% a year as a direct result of human-caused climate change.
Emissions from bushfires fuels global warming – which in turn makes bushfires even more destructive. Estimating these emissions is a complicated and technical task, but it is vital to understanding Australia’s carbon footprint.
Australia reports on emissions from bushfires according to rules defined by the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC), and as part of our responsibilities under the Paris Agreement.
Countries estimate bushfire emissions in different ways. Some rely on default data provided by the UNFCCC. In contrast, Australia’s modelling combines the area of burned land with highly specific local data on the types of fuel burned (such as leaves, bark and dead wood) and the amount of different types of gas these fuels emit. This makes it among the most sophisticated approaches in the world.
Australia’s modelling may be sophisticated but it can also be confusing – even for those who follow climate policy closely. One reason is the complex way we differentiate between “natural” fires (those beyond human control) and “anthropogenic” or human-caused fires such as controlled fuel-reduction burns.
Emissions from natural fires are reported to the UNFCCC, but do not initially count towards Australia’s net emissions calculations. This is consistent with guidance from the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change.
However, we believe that to improve transparency and accountability, the federal government should work with the states and territories to provide a separate breakdown of natural and human-caused fire emissions. This data should be made publicly available to provide a clearer picture of bushfire emissions and the impact of climate change on large fires.
As mentioned above, emissions from natural fires do not initially count towards Australia’s net calculations. Consistent with other countries, our modelling assumes that emissions will be offset after the fires because forest regrowth captures carbon from the atmosphere.
This approach is based on current scientific evidence. For example, within two years of the Black Summer fires, 80% of the burned area was almost fully recovered.
If monitoring of a fire site shows regrowth has not fully offset emissions after 15 years, the difference is retrospectively added to Australia’s net emissions for the year of the original fire.
But this approach may soon need to change. That’s because research sugests we cannot assume forests will recover quickly after bushfires. As bushfires become more frequent and intense, they are more likely to irrevocably change landscapes. Bushfires are also more likely to occur in areas that are not adapted to fire and recover poorly – such as Tasmania’s World Heritage-listed northwest.
This has major implications for Australia’s emissions accounting.
Another significant gap in our modelling is the contribution of soil carbon to bushfire emissions. Large amounts of carbon are present in organic material in soil.
Currently, international rules do not require soil carbon emissions from fire to be estimated. This is despite emerging research showing the release of soil carbon during bushfires in some landscapes, such as peatlands, is likely to create substantial emissions. Other research suggests that depleted soil carbon can slow the recovery of forests after fire.
There is currently insufficient evidence to include soil carbon emissions from bushfires in Australia’s estimates, or to model the effects of soil carbon changes on forest regrowth and carbon capture. More research is urgently needed.
Where to now?
Australia’s approach to estimating bushfire emissions is credible and sophisticated. However, our modelling and reporting must be refined as technology improves and the climate changes.
Australia is a fire-prone continent. Our bushfire emissions will increase unless we significantly improve our fire preparedness and management. We must also rapidly reduce emissions from other sectors, to ensure our country is playing its part in the struggle to avoid catastrophic global warming.
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.
This article is part of The Conversation’s series examining the housing crisis. Read the other articles in the series here.
The federal government’s Help to Buy scheme is before the parliament. Both the Coalition and the Greens are opposed to it.
If the bill is passed, the government will provide an equity contribution of up to 40% of the purchase price of a new home, and up to 30% for an existing dwelling, with buyers needing a minimum deposit of 2%.
It’s a limited scheme: 10,000 places will be offered each year.
Here’s why it is a good idea.
Help to Buy is a piece of the housing puzzle
The Help to Buy scheme is similar to a scheme Grattan Institute recommended in 2022.
Help to Buy would help level the playing field when it comes to buying a home, which is slipping out of reach for many Australians, largely because it takes much longer these days to save for a deposit.
In the early 1990s it took the average Australian about seven years to save a 20% deposit for a typical dwelling. Now it takes almost 12 years. Unsurprisingly, a growing proportion of Australians now rely on the “Bank of Mum and Dad” to buy a home.
Help to Buy could be particularly helpful for older renters who do have a deposit but who won’t be in the workforce long enough to pay off a home by the time they retire.
Many older Australians were never able to break into the market as prices far outstripped incomes. Others have found it too hard to get back in after losing the home after a separation. Less than half of women who separate from their partner and lose the house manage to purchase another within 10 years.
Today’s older renters risk joining tomorrow’s renting retirees, nearly half of whom already live in poverty. Help to Buy offers them a pathway back to home ownership and a more secure retirement.
Even if federal and state governments adopt much-needed reforms to boost housing supply and reduce demand, house prices are likely to remain high, relative to incomes.
But Rent to Buy can be improved
Beyond these benefits, there are drawbacks to the government’s plan.
The income thresholds for the scheme – $90,000 for singles and $120,000 for couples – are too high. About 75% of working-age singles earn less than $90,000, and 39% of couples earn less than $120,000.
It’s hard to argue for offering the scheme to people earning above-average incomes, because they have a good chance of buying a home anyway.
Also, requiring borrowers have just a 2% deposit, rather than a minimum of 5% as we proposed, increases the risk of them falling into negative equity if house prices fall.
And the house price caps should be reduced to match those available for stamp duty concessions for first home buyers, which typically begin phasing out in most states for homes valued above $650,000.
Better targeting the scheme in this way would mean the annual cap on the numbers of places could gradually be raised. The current scheme risks becoming a lottery, because the income thresholds are set at such a level that many more people are eligible than the 10,000 places available each year.
The impact on house prices would be tiny
Shared equity schemes can add to house prices, by adding to housing demand. Which is why the main game remains making housing cheaper by building more of it.
But the impact on prices of this capped scheme is likely to be very small. With just 40,000 places on offer over four years, it’ll have close to zero impact on house prices in the context of Australia’s $10.3 trillion housing market.
We estimate that after four years, the 40,000 places on offer could result in overall house prices rising by about 0.016%. That would add $113 to the purchase price of a $700,000 home.
Since participants are limited to buying cheaper homes, it could have a marginally bigger impact on the homes eligible for the scheme.
If the scheme were uncapped, but better targeted as we propose, it would still only have a small impact on house prices.
Our modelling shows that for every 100,000 homes the government helps finance through the scheme, house prices would rise by 0.04%, adding $283 to the purchase price of a $700,000 home.
Parliament should pass the government’s Help to Buy scheme, because it will help some Australians to own their own home. But better still would be a more targeted scheme, which wouldn’t need to be rationed, and which would help more Australians who are struggling to own their own home.
Grattan Institute began with contributions to its endowment of $15 million from each of the Federal and Victorian Governments, $4 million from BHP Billiton, and $1 million from NAB. In order to safeguard its independence, Grattan Institute’s board controls this endowment. The funds are invested and contribute to funding Grattan Institute’s activities.
Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Gemma King, Senior Lecturer in French Studies, ARC DECRA Fellow in Screen Studies, Australian National University
Courtesy Warner Bros. Pictures
In Dune’s sandswept colonialist dystopia of the distant future, power is a force best handled – and transferred – surreptitiously. In a world of ultra-wealthy spice barons and interplanetary warfare, the greatest asset in both diplomacy and resistance is an intangible one: language. Nowhere is this clearer than in the films’ portrayal of sign language.
The Bene Gesserit is an all-woman dynasty leading an empire from behind the scenes. Their arsenal of powers include the mastery of dozens of languages. With these, they conduct diplomacy in public for the benefit of the men they pretend to serve. Meanwhile, they enact their true plans in secret, through whispers, telepathy and the native languages of their conspirators.
Paul Atreides (Timothée Chalamet) is a reluctant messiah, whose prophetic ascendancy is spurred on when there are attempts to have his family exterminated. Believed dead, Paul retreats to the desert with his Bene Gesserit mother, Lady Rebecca (Rebecca Ferguson). There they find the Fremen, the free Indigenous peoples of the dune planet Arrakis. Paul and Rebecca’s knowledge of the Fremen language is crucial to their acceptance by the community. Paul’s initiation into their ranks is also linguistic: the choosing of a Fremen name.
But Rebecca and Paul’s use of the Bene Gesserits’ sign language is the most literal and urgent use of language as they survive threats in both Dune: Part One (2021) and the new Dune: Part Two (2024).
The complexity of sign
In the first film, the mother and son are abducted and transported across Arrakis in a helicopter. Feigning resignation, they use sign to plot their escape, unnoticed by the guards who don’t know this language. In part two, as enemies land just over the dune concealing Paul and his mother, they sign to plan an escape route in silence. Later in the film, a Bene Gesserit advisor signs to subtly annotate a verbal exchange with an untrustworthy group.
When Dune’s characters sign, it is with their hands by their sides, usually without eye contact, and often in brief sentences or even single signs.
This is very different to how sign languages are used in signing communities. In everyday communication, signers use a “sign space”, an approximate rectangle of space in front of the head and torso, and out to the distance of about the elbows. Eye contact is essential, as are facial expressions and body angle, which not only convey emotion but syntactical markers.
All of these components are part of a complete grammar that make sign languages as complex, emotive and capable of abstraction as any verbal language.
The signs used in Dune are closer to military or maritime hand gestures, used in situations that require communication without sound or across distance. These generally convey basic messages rather than grammatically complete sentences, with little emotional or contextual detail.
Although not a true sign language, the use of sign in Dune can still teach us a lesson about the value of sign language.
“Deaf Gain” is an academic principle that considers deaf experience in generative and positive terms: it emphasises what is gained through deafness and sign access, rather than what is lost through hearing loss.
Examples of deaf gain include language skills and cultural belonging, as well as physical skills such as enhanced vision or perception of vibrations. This is not to mention the benefit of being able to switch off a hearing aid or take off a cochlear implant in the presence of distracting or painful sounds.
Deaf gain is becoming increasingly present on contemporary screens.
In the horror franchise A Quiet Place, in which the world is overrun by blind, super-hearing murderous aliens, the family of a Deaf girl use American Sign Language to communicate, and even to thrive, without attracting the monsters’ attention.
In Avatar: The Way of Water, the characters use the Na’vi sign language (invented for the film by Deaf actor CJ Jones) to communicate under water, considering those who cannot sign to be underdeveloped.
But this is not just a contemporary concept. As far back as 1959, in the Marilyn Monroe comedy Some Like It Hot a mob boss switches his hearing aid off just before he gives the order to gun down a group in an enclosed space.
While not deaf themselves, Dune’s characters show us deaf gain through deft manipulation of their environment, from the stealth of their signs to their attunement to the vibrations they make in the sand, which they use to attract or repel the giant beasts below.
These films show us how we can be in our bodies differently; how to navigate the world in different physical, linguistic and sensory ways.
The power of language
The director of Dune, Denis Villeneuve, has a history of making films that understand the subtle power of linguistic control.
Blade Runner 2049 (2017) depicts another multilingual society in a similarly gold-hued, environmentally destroyed dust bowl, in which knowledge of different languages provides access to closed spaces and protection from surveillance.
In his sci-fi drama Arrival (2016), extraterrestrial vessels visit Earth to global awe and creeping panic. Military and political forces cannot determine the aliens’ purpose, and interplanetary war inches closer. It is only a linguist who is able to decipher the aliens’ goal: to gift Earthlings their remarkable language. This language is an inky, visual code – much closer to a sign language than a verbal one – which rewires the brains of those who master it, so they can see through time.
In the Dune films, as in Arrival, language is not only a means through which we can come to know something. It is something which can transform the limits and nature of knowledge itself. As Paul and Rebecca understand, sign language can be both a hiding place and a tool – for survival, and for empowerment.
The United Nations Security Council (UNSC) should act urgently to establish an international protection force to safeguard Palestinian civilians and ensure the unobstructed delivery of humanitarian aid in Gaza as a last-ditch attempt to prevent imminent, says DAWN.
If the UNSC is blocked by a US veto or fails to reach consensus, the UN General Assembly should reconvene the 10th session of “Uniting for Peace” and authorise such a force itself.
Recent airdrops of aid, now with the participation of the US Air Force, are “inadequate to meet the ongoing catastrophe in Gaza”, says DAWN (Democracy for the Arab World Now).
It signals the availability of international military forces to help stabilise the situation.
“We urgently need the UNSC to authorise an international protection force to ensure the safe and effective delivery of food to starving Palestinian men, women, and children, just as it has done in other situations of catastrophic conflicts,” said Sarah Leah Whitson, executive director of DAWN.
“Tragically, without such intervention, it has become clear that Israel will continue to deliberately block such aid, which is the sole cause of the starvation and imminent famine in Gaza.”
On February 29, at least 117 Palestinians were killed, and more than 750 others were wounded after Israeli troops opened fire on civilians gathered at a convoy of food trucks southwest of Gaza City, highlighting both the desperation of the starving civilian population and their inability to safely access humanitarian aid.
Aid delivery halted International humanitarian organisations have halted all aid delivery to northern Gaza for nearly two weeks due to the lack of security, which is a direct result of actions and policies of the Israeli military, including targeting Palestinian police forces attempting to secure aid delivery.
The Biden administration reportedly warned Israel last week that as a direct result of its actions, “Gaza is turning into Mogadishu”.
The same day, the UN Security Council met in an emergency session called by Algeria on what is now being described as the “flour massacre,” but members failed to agree on a statement about the deaths and injuries of civilians seeking aid.
At a meeting of the UNSC last week under the auspices of UNSC Resolution 2417, UN agencies warned that at least 576,000 people in Gaza were facing famine-like conditions.
The UN World Food Programme noted that there would be an “inevitable famine” in the besieged Palestinian enclave, amid increasing reports of children dying of starvation as Israel continued to hinder aid delivery to the population.
Gaza was seeing “the worst level of child malnutrition anywhere in the world,” Carl Skau, deputy head of the World Food Programme, told the UN Security Council last week, with one child in every six under the age of two acutely malnourished.
“Civilians and aid groups have described food shortages so dire that people were turning to leaves and bird food and other types of animal feed for sustenance.”
A new World Bank report has found that Gaza’s total economic output had shriveled by more than 80 percent in the last quarter of 2023, 80 to 96 percent of Gaza’s agricultural infrastructure had been damaged or destroyed, and about 80 percent of Gazans had lost their jobs.
Since the start of the war in Gaza on October 9, Israel’s retaliatory bombardment and ground offensive has killed more than 30,000, more than 10,000 of them children, and wounded more than 70,000 people.
“The whole world is watching in horror as Israel is deliberately starving Palestinians, not only impeding the delivery of aid but actually firing and killing people desperately trying to obtain a few sacks of flour,” said Whitson.
“If the international community doesn’t have the guts to hold Israel accountable for its atrocities and end this grotesque, genocidal assault on Palestinian civilians, the very least it can do is establish a UN protection force to ensure the safe delivery of aid.”
Prime Minister Anthony Albanese will unveil a suite of financial and other incentives to boost Australia’s economic relations with Southeast Asia when he addresses the ASEAN-Australia Special Summit’s CEO forum on Tuesday.
A $2 billion Southeast Asia Investment Financing Facility will provide loans, guarantees, equity and insurance for increasing Australian trade and investment in the region, especially supporting its transition to clean energy and developing infrastructure.
The facility will be managed by Export Finance Australia.
Australia will also provide $140 million over four years to extend the current Partnerships for Infrastructure Program, which has been operating since 2021. This funding will assist Southeast Asian nations to improve their infrastructure development and hasten reforms to attract more diverse infrastructure financing.
The emphasis in this program has been on helping partners in the areas of transport, clean energy and telecommunications.
Among other measures, regional “landing pads” in Jakarta, Indonesia, and Ho Chi Minh City, Vietnam, will support Australian businesses to increase exports of technology services to the region.
Ten “business champions” – senior Australian business leaders – are to strengthen investment and trade ties with each of the Southeast Asian countries.
Business validity visas will be lengthened from three to five years, and the ten-year Frequent Traveller Scheme will be extended to eligible ASEAN countries and Timor-Leste.
In his speech to 100 Australian and Southeast Asian CEOs, Albanese will say that in 2022 Australia’s two-way trade with ASEAN members passed $178 billion. That was more than Australia’s trade with Japan or the United States. Australia’s two-way investment with the region was some $307 billion.
“But we want to do more – to support regional growth and to realise mutual benefits. To deepen our ties and to boost the skills of our people,” Albanese says in his speech, released ahead of delivery.
“There is so much untapped potential,” the PM says, but “not unlimited time.
“We must act together, and we must act now.”
He nominates specific areas for action, which are
to use the digital economy to support the region’s social and economic development
to turn our commodities into higher value exports in competitive global markets
to back women’s equality in business leadership, and
to leverage our expertise and technology to meet the region’s energy needs.
“We want to ensure businesses in Southeast Asia can access the markets that are available in Australia including in infrastructure and the clean energy transition.”
Meanwhile, Foreign Minister Penny Wong told the Maritime Cooperation Forum at the summit the region faced “the most confronting circumstances […] in decades”.
“We face destabilising, provocative and coercive actions, including unsafe conduct at sea and in the air and militarisation of disputed features.
“We know that military power is expanding, but measures to constrain military conflict are not – and there are few concrete mechanisms for averting it,” Wong said.
Australia recognised “ASEAN centrality as key to the region’s stability and security, and we are committed to supporting ASEAN’s leadership,” she said.
She said Australia was working with ASEAN countries “to increase resilience to coercion, and to ensure waterways that serve us all remain open and accessible”.
Wong announced a further $64 million over four years, including $40 million in new funding, for enhancing Australia’s Southeast Asian maritime partnerships.
A further $222.5 million will go to supporting “resilience in the Mekong subregion”.
“A second phase of the Mekong-Australia Partnership will build on our existing partnerships to invest in water security, climate change resilience, combatting transnational crime, and strengthening sub-regional leadership.”
On Monday, Albanese hosted Malaysian Prime Minister Anwar Ibrahim for an official visit to Australia.
At their joint news conference, Anwar stressed that Malaysia sought good relations with both the United States and China.
Malaysia was “fiercely independent”. It remained an important friend to the United States and Australia, but that “should not preclude us from being friendly to one of our important neighbours, precisely China […] We do not have a problem with China,” Anwar said.
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.
Analysis by Dr Bryce Edwards – Democracy Project (https://democracyproject.nz).
Political scientist, Dr Bryce Edwards.
When the First Labour Government came into office in 1935, the new Prime Minister Michael Joseph Savage was determined not to live a bourgeois, extravagant lifestyle. Being a representative of workers meant to him that he shouldn’t just take on the material comforts of the ruling class once he was elected to represent those workers. Hence, he refused to live in Premier House on Tinakori Road, near Parliament.
Savage regarded such a mansion as inappropriate for any politician, let alone one representing the proletariat. The spacious house and gardens were apparently too opulent, and he thus believed it was against socialist principles to occupy such an ostentatious home. Instead, Savage boarded with friends and purchased a bungalow in the suburb of Northland.
Premier House as a dental clinic
Savage directed that Premier House be converted into a large dental clinic for children, as part of his government’s health programme and welfare state. After that, the house was used as a crèche and then left empty for decades. As PM, Robert Muldoon lived in another government-owned house in Lower Hutt, and then David Lange chose to live in a small flat opposite Parliament, on Hill St.
But a decision was made by Lange’s Fourth Labour Government to restore Premier House at great expense. It was then occupied by Lange’s successor, Geoffrey Palmer.
Since then, prime ministers of both sides of the spectrum have lived there, largely without any real criticisms. Savage’s socialist critique of elite living was out of fashion.
Yet to avoid accusations of being out of touch and removed from the realities of the public, the various inhabitants have been careful not to spend money upgrading and maintaining the buildings. This has led to a situation in which the place has been run down, and in need of a huge investment.
Neglect of Premier House by parsimonious PMs
As Prime Minister, Jacinda Ardern knew of the need to continue with at least the appearance of parsimonious spending on politician accommodation. Like other PMs, she didn’t want to run afoul of any Savage-like notions of politicians treating themselves to luxury at the public’s expense.
However, Ardern was also well aware of the neglected state of Premier House, complaining of many water leaks and possums in the walls and roof. Hence, she established the “Premier House Board” to evaluate the health of the property and recommend what should be done to upgrade it. An attempt was made to find a bipartisan solution in which at least Labour and National could quietly agree to put aside the politicking to allow the necessary upgrades.
This all came after an acknowledgement that such Parliamentary manoeuvring had meant no government felt comfortable addressing the declining state of the building. The political editor of Stuff, Luke Malpass, says: “The decades of neglect have clearly come from a lack of leadership, political expediency, buck-passing, from a number of prime ministers spanning four separate decades” – see: How decades of buck-passing left the PM’s pad in disrepair (paywalled)
The Premier House Board report was handed first to Chris Hipkins last year, and then to incoming Prime Minister Christopher Luxon. And although it hasn’t been fully released, media reports from the last week say that a price tag of about $30m has been attached to the recommended upgrades. And the descriptions of the house by officials are rather condemning, saying it is “below current building standards” and “only partially meets building and residential tenancy requirements and does not suit modern living requirements”.
According to her, the report says this about the PM’s residence: “It was commonplace for things to break. It noted the apartment was ‘uncomfortable,’ had small, poor-quality bathrooms and was badly laid out… and fell well short of the status of the Prime Minister and of comparable residences in other countries.”
Others have also commented on the poor state – Grant Robertson said recently that the house had “a slight 80s motel vibe to it”, and “it is in severe need of an upgrade upstairs there … it’s not up to scratch”. Heritage NZ has also described it as being in a “dishevelled” state.
It’s not surprising that Luxon has decided to stay in his own home – in the Kate Sheppard Apartment building, opposite Parliament. Luxon explained all this three weeks ago, with a spokesperson stating that the PM was going to deal with the Premier House Board’s advice first: “The report suggests Premier House requires a significant amount of work so the prime minister will consider that before making any decisions around residing there” – see Thomas Manch’sLuxon yet to move into Premier House as he considers ‘significant’ renovations (paywalled)
The article also explained that, as PM, Luxon was entitled to an upgraded housing allowance: “He has previously claimed an annual $31,000 accommodation allowance while living in his Wellington home as an MP and now, as prime minister, he can claim up to $52,000 a year if he chooses not to relocate to the Thorndon residence for prime ministers.”
A Savage response to Luxon’s entitlement
On Thursday last week, the official work spending figures of all politicians for the last three months of 2023 were released. This showed that MPs and ministers had spent over $2.3m on accommodation, flights, and other travel between October and December. This is best covered in Felix Desmarais’ article: Expenses for MPs and Ministers revealed – who spent what?
Then on Friday Prime Minister Luxon admitted that he had filed a late return, and so although the officially-released figures don’t reflect it, he had decided to claim the accommodation allowance. While visiting Queenstown, Luxon gave a stand-up press conference in which he fielded journalists’ questions over why he was claiming the allowance when he already owned the apartment he was living in, mortgage-free. His answers boiled down to this statement that he was “entitled to the entitlement”, which went down terribly. As one commentator quipped, it looked like Luxon had come down with “chronic entitle-it-is”.
Within hours, Luxon had announced a U-turn on Newstalk ZB, saying that he had come away from his press conference thinking “Wow, people are pretty fixated on the allowance… what’s going on?”. Luxons says he listened to talkback radio and decided he would get rid of this “distraction” by paying back the $13,000 he’d recently been paid, and would no longer claim the allowance – see Adam Pearse’sChristopher Luxon won’t claim $52k accommodation allowance, to repay $13,000 amid Labour claims of ‘hypocrisy’
Commentators and activists were universally united in condemning that Luxon had taken the allowance in the first place. Even the rightwing Taxpayers’ Union spoke out strongly on the issue.
Herald political editor Claire Trevett explained that it was Luxon’s austerity policies and claims of economic parsimoniousness that meant he shouldn’t have claimed the allowance. Pointing to the cuts to the public service and beneficiary entitlements, Trevett said that taking the $52,000 “might be defensible if he was not a Prime Minister who was also a self-proclaimed defender of the taxpayers’ dollar, nipping and tucking away at spending in every other corner of government” – see: Christopher Luxon’s short-lived attempt to claim taxpayer funded accommodation allowance was never going to be defensible (paywalled)
TVNZ’s Maiki Sherman asserted on Friday that Luxon had done the right thing, after initially doing the wrong thing, explaining: “New Zealanders who are doing it tough under the crushing weight of the cost-of-living crisis might have felt they had every right to feel ripped off. At every turn the prime minister has made a point to talk about the pressure everyday New Zealanders are under and is at pains to say the Government is fixated on sorting it” – see: How Luxon learned a tough political lesson
Sunday Star Times editor Tracy Watkins said that Luxon should never have claimed the allowance, because he should simply have chosen to live at Premier House, just as other New Zealanders have to live in uncomfortable homes: “As PM he had the choice of living in a house that may not be all that comfortable, but which let’s face it is probably in better condition than most rentals. He chose not to live in that house but another one that he preferred. He had choices that a lot of other people don’t have, and he expected taxpayers to carry the cost for that choice. That’s why it’s unfair” – see: Why the PM’s accommodation allowance failed the fairness test (paywalled)
The same newspaper also published Vernon Small (a former advisor to David Parker), who said that Luxon had been extremely tone-deaf, especially given his wealth and ownership of seven properties – see: Perk blinds MPs to political risk (paywalled)
But it was Luxon’s austerity measures that were the biggest problem for the PM claiming the allowance: “It also looks like hypocrisy – restraint for others, but not for me – especially when set against cost-cutting (and inevitable job losses) in the public sector, the promise to get the most from every tax dollar and the thundering pledge to no longer treat taxpayers as a ‘bottomless ATM’. Then there is his government’s ‘tough love’ on the work-ready, and the move to curb future benefit increases.”
Similar points were made by Labour leader Chris Hipkins, who stressed that Premier House was good enough for former prime ministers and that Luxon was being rather precious and wasteful.
Should other politicians stop receiving the allowance, and pay it back?
Given the consensus that Luxon was wrong to take the accommodation allowance because he already owns an apartment in Wellington, it raises the question of whether other politicians in the same situation should do likewise. For a long time, politicians from all political parties have bought Wellington properties and claimed the out-of-Wellington allowance.
During the last Government, there were four ministers in the same situation as Luxon, living in their own homes in Wellington and claiming the ministerial accommodation allowance, which is up to $45,000 a year. These were Willie Jackson, Jan Tinetti, Deborah Russell and Duncan Webb. All these MPs are likely to be in the same situation this year, but on a lower accommodation allowance.
In addition, last year four other Labour MPs were living in their Wellington properties while claiming the allowance. These were: Jenny Salesa, Arena Williams, Jamie Strange and Sarah Pallet. This was all covered in October in the Post by Andrea Vance – see: More than 20 MPs rent back their own homes at the taxpayer’s expense (paywalled)
Vance detailed MPs from other parties too: “Twelve National Party MPs, including leader Christopher Luxon, do the same. They are: Andrew Bayly; Gerry Brownlee; Judith Collins; Jacqui Dean; Barbara Kuriger; Melissa Lee; Ian McKelvie; Mark Mitchell; Simon O’Connor; Stuart Smith; Louise Upston and Michael Woodhouse. ACT’s Simon Court also claims the allowance and owns property in the Capital”.
She also points out that many MPs are claiming taxpayer funds for their electoral offices, which are often owned by the politicians themselves – which means that they are the landlords of their own state-funded rentals. For example, in the case of the PM: “Luxon was also claiming $3750 in taxpayer cash a month to rent his electorate office, based in Northpark, in Auckland financial disclosures published in August and covering the year to June, show. Luxon owns the property, which is now valued at $1.52million.”
Although such conflicts of interest must be declared, Parliament continues to allow these rental arrangements, and all parties do it. And Vernon Small argued that both arrangements for politicians – living in their own Wellington houses, and renting their own electorate offices should not be allowed, even via trusts and superannuation funds: “It would be tidier and more transparent if they instead rented their Wellington digs or electorate offices from a third party, though the net effect is probably neutral for taxpayers. (For the benefit of Labour and the Greens, a political party or private superannuation fund are not third parties.) In the interests of public confidence, it is a change our parliamentarians should have made long ago.”
Rising discontent about politicians rorting the system
In the last two decades, there has been a growing global discontent about politicians being overpaid and rorting the system. This phenomenon really kicked off after the 2008 UK Parliamentary Expenses scandal. More scrutiny is now applied everywhere to the cost of politicians. And when Covid hit in 2020, here the Labour Government made a popular move in (temporarily) cutting ministerial salaries and encouraging top public servants to do the same.
In 2024 there’s now an increasing expectation of belt-tightening for the politicians. Part of this is due to the anti-political atmosphere in which elites are challenged and scrutinised more. But it’s also an immediate reaction to the cost-of-living crisis and the austerity that the new Government is pushing on others, especially in the public sector.
The consensus that quickly pressured Luxon to U-turn on Friday was extraordinary. There seemed to be no one willing to defend politicians’ right to their generous allowances. It was almost as if the spirit of Michael Joseph Savage had been revived.
Should politicians’ pay be cut?
That same socialist-like intolerance of elite self-aggrandisement might well continue to plague the new Government and Parliament whenever their perks and extravagance are out of line with any austerity being imposed on the public.
They might even find that there’s a public appetite for politicians to tighten their own generous salaries. At the moment the Remuneration Authority is undertaking their review of how much politicians should get paid. Their recommendations will be delivered next month, mere weeks before Nicola Willis presents her austerity Budget.
Expect to see some campaigning for pay cuts. The Taxpayer Union has recently said: “New Zealand’s MPs are already among the most highly paid in the world, and when you add in their additional perks and spending allowances, all of which are not subject to the Official Information Act, taxpayers aren’t getting a fair deal.”
The last time a major revamp of politician remuneration took place was in the 1980s. Previously politicians were paid more in line with the general public – a backbench MP earned roughly the same amount as an experienced teacher. Now MPs earn more than twice that ratio. And many politicians earn much more because of the other responsibilities they take on in Parliament and Government. With a basic salary of $460K, the prime minister earns about nine times the average wage.
The Remuneration Authority’s review might be expected to give politicians even higher pay, in line with escalating CEO pay. However, part of the Authority’s remit is to consider the economic conditions. They will need to therefore take into account the cost-of-living crisis that the public is experiencing as well as the coming austerity cuts from the new government. This should mean that politician pay is cut.
But if bigger salaries for politicians do come about from the review – especially at the same time that public services are being slashed – then Parliament might expect fireworks from an angry public.
It is also notable that Ministerial Services (the agency in charge of the Beehive administration) has recently briefed the new Government that entitlements for ministers may have to be trimmed to achieve the required 6.5 percent cuts demanded of the agency.
Housing allowances and other perks will also continue to be controversial. In the past, the only real scandals have been when ministers from Wellington have claimed accommodation or allowances that are only meant for those from outside the capital. This happened in 2001 when Labour and Alliance ministers Marian Hobbs and Phillida Bunkle claimed housing allowances even though they owned their properties in Wellington Central and had been candidates and voters in that electorate.
Similarly, in 2009 then Finance Minister Bill English had become a list MP and moved his family to live in Wellington, but illegitimately claimed a ministerial housing allowance based on his belief that he still represented constituents in his old Dipton electorate of Clutha-Southland. In that case, a TVNZ poll at the time showed that 62 percent of the public thought English’s entitlement issue had damaged his credibility.
What should happen next to Premier House?
The new Government has a headache about whether to spend the estimated $30m required to do up Premier House. The Opposition has now made it clear they will politicise anything except the most modest proposal for maintenance. And Luxon himself has suggested that they might just sell the property off.
Some commentators are telling National to just move ahead with the restoration. For example, Stuff’s Luke Malpass is calling for the proper investment to be made, saying “New Zealand is not a two-bit poor country and whoever the prime minister is should have a decent residence where various dignitaries and New Zealanders can be hosted”. He tells Luxon to show some leadership and spend the necessary money: “Simply wimping out and not investing in the House, or selling it to scratch an urgent political itch, would also be far from the leadership Luxon promised when coming into the premiership.”
Or else Luxon could ask himself, “What would Michael Joseph Savage do?”. Looking at the state of the public health system, or even the dire dental system, Luxon might be best to revert Premier House into what it was in the 1930s – a building that served the public rather than politicians.
Dr Bryce Edwards
Political Analyst in Residence, Director of the Democracy Project, School of Government, Victoria University of Wellington
This article can be republished for free under a Creative Commons copyright-free license. Attributions should include a link to the Democracy Project (https://democracyproject.nz)
Recently, Australia’s internal security agency declared there is a greater threat to Australian security than new terrorist attacks. Instead, it’s systemic and existential. The report read:
In 2024, threats to our way of life have surpassed terrorism as Australia’s principle security concern.
So, what is the principle security concern? It’s foreign interference.
In its last annual report, the agency, the Australian Security Intelligence Organisation (ASIO), reported 2016 was its busiest year in the past decade for disrupting terrorist attacks. 2022 was its peak year for disrupting foreign spies.
Amid ongoing worldwide conflicts and a former politician collaborating with a foreign country, is this assessment adequately capturing what Australians need to know about all the possible threats?
In the latest annual threat assessment, ASIO is still assessing the terror threat as lower than in earlier years. In 2022, it was changed from a “probable” likelihood (where it sat for eight years), and it’s now rated as “possible”.
This is against the backdrop of growing community unrest since October 7 last year, when Hamas launched the third-deadliest terrorist attack in the world since 1970, according to the Center for Strategic and International Studies.
Israel’s response has been a war on Hamas in Gaza, which has resulted in tens of thousands of Palestinian fatalities, many of them women and children, though it’s difficult to verify the exact figure. Regardless of the precise numbers, the rage and hatred prompted by these deaths can fuel extremism, both here and overseas.
Two leading US Middle East security specialists have flagged the danger of new attacks both in the Middle East and beyond in response to these events. They also outlined the actual incidents that have happened since October 7, attesting to the new heightened risk. In ASIO’s view, we should not discount the risk at home even while keeping the terrorist threat level unchanged.
Threat concern reveals mixed logic
The most pertinent threat to Australia is foreign espionage and foreign interference. The agency says it’s “deeper and broader than you may think”.
Moreover, ASIO says, the threat level is “certain” (not merely “possible” or “probable”, as the terrorist threat had been).
This latest threat assessment, issued personally by the director general, Mike Burgess, calls out one country in particular, but doesn’t name it. He sketches a foreign espionage and influence-seeking campaign that is pervasive and well-resourced. He mentioned the specific case of an Australian politician (way back before 2018) who was, he says, collaborating with the foreign spies and selling out Australia in the process.
Interestingly, Burgess says that ASIO foiled the plans of the foreign county and neutralised the threat from this politician.
In fact, Burgess went on to say the tradecraft of this adversary (how its spies do their business) has been good, but not good enough to defeat ASIO, supported by its intelligence partners.
This is just one of several points where the logic of the 2024 threat assessment begins to break down. Can the unnamed foreign country really be an existential threat if ASIO has cracked its espionage operations and disrupted its efforts at political influence? Is Australia’s security more threatened by these failed spies than by terrorists who may achieve a mass casualty attack involving Australian victims?
Far-right extremism downplayed
We don’t know which country is the source of this alleged threat to Australia’s way of life, but if it is China, there is room to question the ASIO line of thinking.
In the decade of its expansion of espionage and covert influence operations, China’s overall level of influence in major liberal democracies has radically declined, not increased. This is largely because of China’s anti-democratic or aggressive actions on the world stage.
In fact, as Burgess notes, ASIO faces dilemmas in prioritising the threats it follows and how to present them publicly. He’s limited by what can be revealed publicly, so omission may be distorting how the general public understands what he is saying.
He says terrorism remains a pervasive threat “even with a lower national threat level”. Well at that point, while we can agree with him, we might be forgiven for being a little confused.
The confusion is compounded by the way in which the annual threat assessment and other ASIO reporting appear to downplay right-wing extremism.
The language on this issue in the 2024 threat assessment is defensible to a point (it says “the threat persists”), but the significance of this appears to be softened. Now, ASIO says right-wing extremists are “primarily focused on recruitment and radicalistaion”.
The future threats to internal security implied by the intimidating behaviour of neo-Nazis on Australia Day in Sydney this year, condemned by Prime Minister Anthony Albanese, do not appear to be adequately captured by the assessment of focusing on recruitment and radicalisation, even if that is true.
We can commend ASIO for its transparency under the directorship of Burgess and for its obvious operational successes.
On the other hand, we have now had five annual threat assessments from him. As a body of work meant to inform, reassure and even alert Australians, there are several reasons to question the effectiveness of its current format and guiding logic.
Greg Austin is a co-founder of the Social Cyber Institute.
The morning started with a message from a friend: “I used your photos to train my local version of Midjourney. I hope you don’t mind”, followed up with generated pictures of me wearing a flirty steampunk costume.
I did in fact mind. I felt violated. Wouldn’t you? I bet Taylor Swift did when deepfakes of her hit the internet. But is the legal status of my face different from the face of a celebrity?
Your facial information is a unique form of personal sensitive information. It can identify you. Intense profiling and mass government surveillance receives much attention. But businesses and individuals are also using tools that collect, store and modify facial information, and we’re facing an unexpected wave of photos and videos generated with artificial intelligence (AI) tools.
The development of legal regulation for these uses is lagging. At what levels and in what ways should our facial information be protected?
Is implied consent enough?
The Australian Privacy Act considers biometric information (which would include your face) to be a part of our personal sensitive information. However, the act doesn’t define biometric information.
Despite its drawbacks, the act is currently the main legislation in Australia aimed at facial information protection. It states biometric information cannot be collected without a person’s consent.
But the law doesn’t specify whether it should be express or implied consent. Express consent is given explicitly, either orally or in writing. Implied consent means consent may reasonably be inferred from the individual’s actions in a given context. For example, if you walk into a store that has a sign “facial recognition camera on the premises”, your consent is implied.
An inconspicuous sign that flags camera technology trial is in progress counts as implied consent. Margarita Vladimirova
But using implied consent opens our facial data up to potential exploitation. Bunnings, Kmart and Woolworths have all used easy-to-miss signage that facial recognition technology is used in their stores.
These companies put together databases for sale, used not only by the police in various countries, including Australia, but also by private companies.
Even if you deleted all your facial data from the internet, you could easily be captured in public and appear in some database anyway. Being in someone’s TikTok video without your consent is a prime example – in Australia this is legal.
Furthermore, we’re also now contending with generative AI programs such as Midjourney, DALL-E 3, Stable Diffusion and others. Not only the collection, but the modification of our facial information can be easily performed by anyone.
Our faces are unique to us, they’re part of what we perceive as ourselves. But they don’t have special legal status or special legal protection.
The only action you can take to protect your facial information from aggressive collection by a store or private entity is to complain to the office of the Australian Information Commissioner, which may or may not result in an investigation.
The same applies to deepfakes. The Australian Competition and Consumer Commission will consider only activity that applies to trade and commerce, for example if a deepfake is used for false advertising.
And the Privacy Act doesn’t protect us from other people’s actions. I didn’t consent to have someone train an AI with my facial information and produce made-up images. But there is no oversight on such use of generative AI tools, either.
There are currently no laws that prevent other people from collecting or modifying your facial information.
We need a range of regulations on the collection and modification of facial information. We also need a stricter status of facial information itself. Thankfully, some developments in this area are looking promising.
It contains proposals for regulating the first stage of non-consensual activity: the collection of personal information. That may help in the development of new laws.
Regarding photo modification using AI, we’ll have to wait for announcements from the newly established government AI expert group working to develop “safe and responsible AI practices”.
There are no specific discussions about a higher level of protection for our facial information in general. However, the government’s recent response to the Attorney-General’s Privacy Act review has some promising provisions.
The government has agreed further consideration should be given to enhanced risk assessment requirements in the context of facial recognition technology and other uses of biometric information. This work should be coordinated with the government’s ongoing work on Digital ID and the National Strategy for Identity Resilience.
As for consent, the government has agreed in principle that the definition of consent required for biometric information collection should be amended to specify it must be voluntary, informed, current, specific and unambiguous.
As facial information is increasingly exploited, we’re all waiting to see whether these discussions do become law – hopefully sooner rather than later.
Margarita Vladimirova 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.
Recreational fishing is a popular pastime in Australia’s inland rivers and streams. Unfortunately in the process, many people are unwittingly killing platypuses.
The animals can become trapped in nets commonly used to catch yabbies such as “Opera House traps” (so-called because their shape resembles the sails of the Sydney Opera House). The enclosed structure stops platypuses swimming back to the surface to breathe, causing them to drown in minutes.
Enclosed traps are banned in most states, but they are still being used. They are sold online and can be shippped across Australia. During our field research, we frequently encounter these traps and clumps of discarded fishing line. We have also conducted research on the bodies of platypuses killed by these hazards.
It’s time for a national ban on these inhumane traps. And recreational fishing waste should be kept out of our waterways. We must save our platypuses, before it’s too late.
Platypuses being released back into the Hawkesbury-Nepean River catchment, New South Wales.
The platypus is one of Australia’s most loved and iconic species. These semi-aquatic, air breathing monotremes (egg-laying mammals) can be naturally found in waterways of the east coast, Tasmania and Kangaroo Island.
The animals spend most of their time foraging in freshwater creeks and rivers. They have very poor eyesight underwater and use special sensors in their duck-shaped bill to locate prey. A trap full of live yabbies can attract platypuses, but this tempting feast may be their last meal.
Closed-top traps are baited then submerged in a river or stream for hours or a day, before being hauled out.
The traps funnel creatures into an enclosed space where they can’t escape. They are designed to catch freshwater crayfish (known as yabbies or marron). But they also inadvertently trap aquatic animals such as platypuses, freshwater turtles and the native water rat, rakali.
But there are wildlife-friendly alternatives. For example, some nets are open at the top while others have a hinged lid that can be pushed open by a larger animal, such as a platypus, as it tries to escape.
Queensland allows use west of the Dividing Range, where platypuses are not thought to exist, or on private property. Restrictions around the size of trap entrance holes were introduced in 2015.
An abandoned opera house trap in known platypus territory, a creek in the Southern Highlands, NSW. Katherine Warwick
A litany of platypus deaths
The Australian Platypus Conservancy found 41% of reported platypus deaths from 1980 to 2009 were caused by drowning in enclosed nets.
Meanwhile platypuses have continued to drown in closed-top traps. In 2022, four reportedly died in one trap at Dorrigo on the mid-north coast of New South Wales. In 2021, a platypus died in Queensland’s Broken River and in 2018, one trap drowned seven in Victoria’s Werribee River.
Aside from deaths by closed-top traps, many platypuses become entangled in abandoned fishing line as they search for food along the bottom of waterways.
The animal’s tapered shape, duck-shaped bill and short webbed feet make it hard to free themselves. They are prone to getting wrapped in rings or loops of plastic, rubber or metal rubbish.
In 2021 a Victorian study of 54 cases of platypus entanglement found litter commonly encircled the neck (68%). Almost one in five were wrapped “from in front of a shoulder to behind the opposite foreleg” (22%). Others had plastic around their torso or jaw.
That study also found platypuses in greater Melbourne were up to eight times more likely to become tangled in litter than those in regional Victoria. That’s because urban areas tend to be more polluted.
Fishing line can cut through skin and muscle, causing a slow painful death. Entangled platypuses can also drown after they become caught on underwater debris.
We study how heavy metals and other emerging contaminants accumulate in platypuses. Together with the community, local and state governments and wildlife organisations such as Taronga Zoo, we collect dead platypuses to examine their organs and body tissues.
On a trip this month to regional NSW for water quality testing and sampling, we found multiple instances of tangled fishing line and an abandoned submerged Opera House trap.
A dead platypus entangled in fishing line, found in the Southern Highlands of NSW. Katherine Warwick
Swapping traps and binning trash
TAngler bins are available for the safe disposal of used fishing line on the banks of the the Hawkesbury-Nepean River, NSW. Michelle Ryan
Between December 2018 and February 2019, when the Victorian Fisheries Authority invited people to swap their old closed top nets for a free “wildlife friendly” net, 20,000 traps were exchanged.
OzFish is currently running a Yabby Trap Round Up in NSW and SA. The Opera House traps are recycled and turned into useful fishing products.
Recreational fishers should also round up their used fishing line and hooks. The “TAngler bin” initiative encourages safe disposal. Since 2006, more than 350 TAngler bins have been installed at fishing hotspots in Victoria, NSW and Queensland, collecting more than ten tonnes of discarded fishing line.
Closed-top nets should be banned nationwide. This would ensure recreational fishers can no longer buy these traps and then use them in banned areas, as is happening now.
Net exchange programs should continue, in conjunction with a national awareness campaign, so the closed-top traps already sold are all handed in.
And both fishers and the wider community can take action by collecting discarded fishing line and nets.
Platypuses need all the help they can get. With our support, these beloved iconic animals can live on in Australian waterways.
Katherine Warwick has received funding from industry, community groups, not-for-profit organisations, Commonwealth, New South Wales and local Government. She has previously worked for Blue Mountains City Council.
Ian Wright has received funding from industry, Commonwealth, NSW and local Government. He has previously worked for Sydney Water.
Michelle Ryan receives funding from industry, community groups, not for profit organisations as well as Commonwealth, NSW and local Government.
According to independent watchdog Consumer NZ, New Zealand is “rife with greenwashing”, with many companies positioning themselves as “sustainable”. No doubt you’ll have seen such claims on the products in your weekly shopping basket.
The practice is coming under increasing scrutiny, in New Zealand and around the world, due to concerns that it denies meaningful consumer choice. Studies show brands advertising their sustainability perform better, but consumers can’t be expected to research every claim.
Overseas, legislative moves are being made to tackle greenwashing. The European Parliament, for example, has just approved a directive that will ban baseless marketing claims such as “environmentally friendly”.
The directive will also cover “claims that a product has a neutral, reduced or positive impact on the environment because of emissions offsetting schemes”. This will be particularly challenging for fossil fuel energy companies and other large polluters as they attempt to claim carbon neutrality through offset schemes.
Consumer NZ and others (including the Environmental Law Initiative where I also work), are currently seeking a High Court declaration that Z Energy has breached the Fair Trading Act with its advertising, including the claim it is “in the business of getting out of the petrol business”.
Z Energy has responded by saying its own transparency over emissions reporting makes it a target. The company’s CEO has been reported as saying the threat of legal action might mean big emitters “say less, do less and are less ambitious” about their attempts to meet emissions targets.
It’s the first major case in New Zealand concerning alleged climate greenwashing, and its outcome will be closely watched.
Drawing a legal line
An international consumer survey published late last year looked at perceptions of green claims. It found three out of four European respondents believed “very polluting” companies should not be allowed to use any green claims at all.
Close to 40% of respondents in Europe thought fossil fuel companies should not be allowed to do any advertising. Results were “broadly similar” for New Zealand respondents (and those from other countries) to the same survey.
Behind these sentiments is a simple logic. If advertising drives consumption, and consumption of fossil fuels is driving climate change, then ending the promotion of fossil fuels is part of the solution. There are obvious parallels with the restriction of tobacco advertising.
In practice, however, there are significant challenges to defining the scope of any such laws. We all use fossil fuels every day, not only to run vehicles, but by our reliance on products in which the burning of oil, coal and gas is embedded, including their supply chains.
Where would we draw the line? An ambitious private members bill recently tabled in the Canadian parliament tries to answer that question. It reads:
It is prohibited for a person to promote a fossil fuel, a fossil fuel-related brand element, or the production of a fossil fuel, except as authorized by the provisions of this Act or of the regulations.
“Promotion” in this bill is defined as:
a representation about a product or service by any means […] that is likely to influence and shape attitudes, beliefs and behaviours about the product or service.
This is potentially much larger in scope than some existing European bans on the advertising of specific industries, such as France’s ban on the advertising of fossil fuel energy products. This has been criticised by Greenpeace for still allowing certain types of advertising, including sporting event sponsorship.
Because each country’s emissions profile is different, it might be most feasible to focus legislation on the most polluting companies or sectors, including carbon-intensive sectors that are still growing.
In New Zealand, that would mean limitations on the advertising of fossil fuel-intensive agricultural products and private transport (including non-electric cars and aviation). Or it might simply mean prohibitions on advertising by the largest emitters.
In theory, such measures could be part of New Zealand’s second Emissions Reduction Plan, which is due this year. This will contain strategies, policies and actions for achieving the country’s second emissions budget, and contributing to global efforts to limit temperature rises to 1.5°C.
However, the current government has made it cheaper to buy petrol in Auckland, and has curtailed various public transport schemes. It seems unlikely we will see fossil fuel advertising bans in this parliamentary term, and any private member’s bill also seems destined to fail.
For all these reasons, attention is turning to the use of existing law in novel ways. As the Z Energy case suggests, New Zealand’s Fair Trading Act is likely to be increasingly used to challenge fossil fuel advertising.
The Act contains prohibitions against “misleading and deceptive conduct”, as well as “unconscionable conduct”. Neither has been properly tested in the New Zealand courts in the context of climate change.
Climate and the law
If consumer sentiment continues to harden, we can imagine a time when any positive advertising by a large climate polluter could be deemed to be misleading or unconscionable.
The risk for corporations is therefore increasing. As a recent report on climate litigation from global consultancy Deloitte argued:
If policymakers do not enact adequate laws and standards, and companies do not apply these quickly and forcefully, individual constituents of society will increasingly turn to the courts to protect their own interests, those of their children and descendants, as well as the planet itself.
However, at a time when rapid change is needed to address the climate crisis, driving it through the courts will be slow and incremental.
Specific legislation setting limits on fossil fuel advertising would be a far more efficient way of regulating claims by high-polluting industries. Such legislation would also provide more certainty for those industries.
Matthew Hall is Director, Research and Legal for the Environmental Law Initiative (ELI). Along with Consumer NZ and Lawyers for Climate Action NZ, ELI is one of the plaintiffs in the Fair Trading Act case being brought against Z Energy in the High Court of New Zealand.
“Can’t move ‘em with a cold thing, like economics.”
So says the modernist, Ezra Pound, in the first section of his epic poem, The Cantos.
This is something I kept coming back to while watching Stefano Massini’s five-time Tony Award-winning play, The Lehman Trilogy.
Opening in 1844 and and closing in 2008, The Lehman Trilogy is self-consciously ambitious and epic in scope, concerning the spectacular rise and fall of one of America’s biggest financial institutions: Lehman Brothers.
It strives to explain the historical development of American capitalism in a single evening. While admirable, this cannot disguise the fact that the play is also wildly uneven, and chooses, problematically, to omit important – and commonly known – information regarding the Lehman family: their support for the Confederacy, their direct involvement in the slavetrade, and the reasons behind the Global Financial Crisis, which ultimately led to the collapse of the financial institution they founded in 1850.
A cultural phenomenon in his native Italy, Massini is one of the 21st century’s most celebrated dramatists.
Born in Florence in 1975, Massini started his career as an assistant director to Luca Ronconi, who encouraged him to try his hand at playwrighting. He has since gone on to produce works inspired by writers and artists such as Shelley, Kafka and Van Gogh.
The Lehman Trilogy, Massini’s most famous work, has a curious compositional history. It started out as a nine-hour radio play in 2012, before being reworked as a five-hour, three-act piece of post-dramatic theatre written entirely in free verse.
The Lehman Trilogy has been through many iterations before this version made it to Australia. Daniel Boud
The Lehman Trilogy debuted in Paris in 2013, was adapted by Massini into a 700-page novel that year, and was staged in Italy for the first time in 2015. This production featured 20 actors and was directed by Ronconi, who died while the play was still being performed.
Oscar-winning director Sam Mendes and Ben Power, associate director of the National Theatre, developed a comparably lyrical English-language adaptation in 2018, and now this version of the play is being staged in Australia.
A tighter retelling
Directed by Mendes and featuring a live soundtrack performed by pianist Cat Beveridge, this creation departs from Massini’s original in a number of important ways.
Firstly, by comparison the show is significantly shorter, clocking in at relatively trim three-and-half hours. Secondly, it has a cast of only three.
Aaron Krohn, Howard W. Overshown and Adrian Schiller play a remarkable number of male and female characters, including the three German Jewish immigrants who, in 1850, established the family business that subsequently became Lehman Brothers.
The performances they deliver are uniformly excellent and engaging. Daniel Boud
The performances they deliver are uniformly excellent and engaging. They never change costumes but transition seemlessly from character to character, delivering incredibly complex and detailed lines.
Es Devlin’s set design is equally memorable. The centre of the stage is taken up by a spinning glass box, in which the actors pace back and forth, stopping occasionally to scrawl and expunge names and numbers on the walls. The rest of the space is dominated by a panoramic digital display, which modulates as we move between different historical periods and geographical locales in the United States.
The first act opens with Henry Lehman setting foot on North American soil for the first time. After a short stint in New York City, Henry makes his way down south. He establishes himself as a goods trader in Montgomery, Alabama.
Es Devlin’s set design is memorable. Daniel Boud
Here he is joined by his two brothers, Mayer and Emanuel. They start dealing in raw commodities: cotton, tobacco, coffee. The brothers amass a fortune. The American Civil War starts and ends. They brothers talk finance and family at great length. The money keeps on rolling in. A lot of ground gets covered in the play’s first act, yet it never feels rushed.
Unfortunately, the same can’t be said of the second and third acts.
Too much is left unsaid
Given its thematic focus and sheer duration, the play is, at times, strangely short on detail when it comes to its coverage of major economic events and financial catastrophes.
This becomes increasingly apparent as the piece progresses.
The second act focuses on the Wall Street Crash of 1929. To be sure, there are moments of genuine dramatic intensity on display in this section of the play, as when the actors describe the human damage caused in the immediate wake of the crash. Yet the pain and hardship endured during the decade-long Great Depression that came next is more or less brushed aside.
Something similar happens at the climax of the play, which wraps up without much of an exploration of the underlying reasons behind the Global Financial Crisis of 2008. This elision struck me as especially jarring and unsatisfactory, given it resulted in Lehman Brothers going bankrupt.
While there is much to praise in The Lehman Trilogy, the impression I was left with one of a missed opportunity. Still, judging by the audience’s effusive reaction, it seems clear to me that – contrary to what Ezra Pound might think – people are willing to engage with and can in fact be moved by discussions of pressing economic matters.
Surely this can only be a good thing, as we continue to lurch from one financial crisis to the next.
The Lehman Trilogy is at the Theatre Royal Sydney until March 24.
Alexander Howard 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.
A disturbing video has surfaced of a female, alleged to be a rape victim, attempting to jump out of the Kuri Dom Lecture Building at the University of Papua New Guinea.
UPNG Students Representative Council (SRC) president Joel Rimbu has dispelled this allegation, saying that the female was not a student — she was an outsider visiting her boyfriend, who is alleged to be a staff member.
An argument broke out during their rendezvous where the frustrated female attempted to jump out of the building, while students filmed.
Rimbu said he was at the location assessing the situation with Uniforce Security of UPNG.
“She was later dropped of at the nearest bus stop to go home,” he said.
“She refused to take the matter to the police.”
Speaking about the safety of female students on campus, the SRC female vice-president, Ni Yumei Paul, immediately raised the incident with the Campus Risk Group (UniForce) and they were assured that the group would investigate and report back next week.
The report, spanning 1990 and 2022, found the rate of obesity quadrupled among children and adolescents.
Sir Collin Tukuitonga — who is associate professor, associate dean Pacific and a research director at Auckland University’s medical school — said the results for children were especially concerning.
“The local data here will show that two-thirds of young Pacific girls are obese, overweight. There’s increasing trends in childhood obesity.
Sir Collin said obesity was a longstanding fight for Pacific nations.
“The problem of course is that it’s so difficult to tackle, and it’s all to do with our food systems, how people are not as active as they used to be.”
“There is a need throughout the world for social and agricultural policies and food programmes that address the remaining burden of underweight while curbing and reversing the rise in obesity by enhancing access to healthy and nutritious foods,” it said.
The Lancet report said there was an urgent need for major changes in how obesity is tackled.
Obesity can increase the risk of developing many serious health conditions, including heart disease, type 2 diabetes and some cancers.
This article is republished under a community partnership agreement with RNZ.
Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Anthony Rendall, Lecturer in Conservation Biology, School of Life and Environmental Sciences, Deakin University
The eastern barred bandicoot was once found in abundance across the basalt plains of western Victoria. But habitat destruction and predation by introduced red foxes drove the species to the brink of extinction on the mainland.
Establishing populations in fenced reserves was critical in providing insurance against extinction. To further increase bandicoot numbers to provide long-term security against extinction, we needed more fox-free land.
A bold plan was hatched: move the species to where the predators weren’t. Introduce them to Victoria’s fox-free Phillip and French islands.
Six years later, the bandicoot made conservation history, as the first species in Australia to be reclassified from extinct in the wild to endangered.
Why don’t we translocate all endangered species to islands? The technique can be effective, but can come with unwanted consequences.
The surprising benefits of translocation
Eastern barred bandicoots are ecosystem engineers. As they dig for their dinner of worms, beetles, bulbs, fungi and other foods, their industrious work improves soil quality, and in turn, the health of vegetation.
So when we translocate threatened species, we can get a double win – a rapid increase in their populations and restoration of lost ecosystem functions.
Australia’s landscapes look very different than they did before European colonisation around 230 years ago.
Industrialised farming, introduced predators and habitat destruction and fragmentation are driving biodiversity decline and extinctions. As species die out, ecosystems lose the vital functions wildlife perform. Without them, ecosystems might not operate as well or even collapse – a little like a poorly serviced car engine.
We feel the loss most acutely when we lose keystone species on which many other species depend, such as oysters and bees. Restoring these functions can improve biodiversity and the sustainability of food production. For instance, encouraging owls to return to farmland can cut the use of damaging rodent poisons, as owls eat thousands of mice and rats yearly.
Before colonisation, industrious digging mammals and their soil excavations were extremely widespread. Regrettably, introduced foxes and cats have made short work of many of Australia’s diggers. Six of 29 digging species are now extinct, including the lesser bilby, pig-footed bandicoot and desert rat-kangaroo. Many others are endangered.
New environments don’t necessarily need to be predator-free. The eastern barred bandicoot is thriving on Phillip and French Island, in the presence of feral and domestic cats. The key is there are no foxes.
Many islands are now being thought of as conservation arks, able to provide safe havens for several threatened species at once. Dirk Hartog Island, Western Australia’s largest, is now home to reintroduced western quolls, dibblers, mulgaras and other small mammals, as well as two translocated hare-wallaby species.
Why is translocation not more common?
The technique can work very well – but it can also backfire.
In the 1920s, conservationists undertook the first translocation in Australia by moving koalas to Phillip and French Island – the same Victorian islands now a refuge for bandicoots. While this protected koalas from hunting pressure, koala populations exploded, and the tree-dwelling marsupials ate themselves out of house and home in some areas.
In 2012, conservationists began introducing Tasmanian devils to Maria Island, just off Tasmania’s east coast. They wanted to conserve a healthy population free from the contagious facial tumour which has devastated their populations. On Maria Island, the devils became too successful, wiping out the island’s penguin and shearwater populations.
You can see translocations aren’t a silver bullet. We have to carefully consider the pros and cons of any such conservation intervention. Ecosystems are complex. It’s not easy to predict what will happen to an ecosystem if we introduce a species new to the area.
The decision to translocate a species is a value judgement – it prioritises one species over the broader ecosystem. Opponents of translocation question whether we are doing the right thing in valuing efforts to conserve a single species over the innate value of the existing ecosystem.
Translocation is not the end goal. Islands cannot support the vast array of threatened species in Australia.
The end goal is to establish and expand threatened species populations on the mainland in fenced reserves before eventually reintroducing them to the wild where they will encounter introduced predators.
Research is being done to explore how we can make this work, such as:
1) Predator-savvy wildlife: some native species may be able to adapt to living alongside introduced predators – with some help. For example, conservationists have exposed semi-captive bilbies to small numbers of feral cats with the aim of increasing their wariness and ultimately boosting their chances of survival. Results have been encouraging.
2) Building ecosystem resilience: we know more intact native ecosystems can reduce the chance of damage from invasive species . That means re-establishing native ecosystems could boost their resilience.
Moving a species from its home is a bold and risky decision. It’s critical local communities and First Nations groups are consulted and able to guide discussions and any eventual actions.
For their part, governments, land managers and conservationists must think more broadly about how we might best conserve species and ecosystems in a rapidly changing world.
Anthony Rendall receives funding from the Department of Energy, Environment, and Climate Action. Anthony is a member of the Australian Mammal Society.
Amy Coetsee works for Zoos Victoria, a not-for-profit zoo-based conservation organisation.
Aviya Naccarella is a member of the Ecological Society of Australia, Australian Mammal Society and Royal Zoological Society of NSW.
Euan Ritchie receives funding from the Australian Research Council and the Department of Energy, Environment, and Climate Action. Euan is a Councillor within the Biodiversity Council, and a member of the Ecological Society of Australia and the Australian Mammal Society.
Before the cost of living hit Australian families hard, a group of consumers were already paying top dollar for their staples. Whether it be gluten free, dairy free or lactose free, people with special dietary requirements are used to spending more at the supermarket checkout.
Current examples are easy to find. A white sandwich loaf at Coles costs A$2.40 (or A$0.37 per 100g), whereas the cheapest gluten-free option costs $5.70 (or $1.14 per 100g). That’s over three times as much. Prices are closer comparing Coles Full Cream Milk at A$1.50 per litre with Coles Lactose Free Lite Milk at A$1.60, the exception that confirms the rule.
If manufacturers pay more for ingredients, this is usually reflected in the price of the final product. Regular and gluten-free bread share many common ingredients, but there is a substantial change where wheat flour is replaced by gluten-free flour. This ingredient may cost manufacturers around two times as much given the uniqueness of gluten-free grains, seeds, and nuts. These special ingredients are not as abundant or easy to process as wheat, and are also a bit more difficult to buy in very large scale.
Gluten, a complex mixture of hundreds of related but distinct proteins, has unique properties. It is a binding agent that improves texture in recipes. Gluten-free bread therefore needs extra help to, literally, hold it together. Additional items such as thickeners, tapioca and maize starches are added to gluten-free recipes to improve viscosity and keep baked items in shape. That means a longer ingredient list and a slightly more complex manufacturing process.
So, from an ingredient perspective, gluten-free bread costs more than regular bread. This applies for other allergen-free products as well. But with so many common ingredients, it is reasonable to say that this is not the main explanation.
People with dietary restrictions face higher costs for everyday staples. doublelee/Shutterstock
Is it manufacturing and transporting?
A substantial part of price differences between regular and allergen-free foods comes from economies of scale. Regular products are manufactured in very large quantities, while allergen-free products involve much smaller volumes.
Bulk buying from large suppliers gets you bigger discounts. The more machines in a factory, the cheaper it is to run them. Larger outputs coming from the same place mean smaller costs for each individual product. Given that you have fixed costs to pay anyway, size is king.
You pay the same amount for a grain mill regardless of whether you grind one kilo or one tonne of grains a day. Sure, you spend more on electricity or gas, but those are variable costs.
Deep cleaning machines, thoroughly checking that standards are met, and scrapping whole batches when they are not makes manufacturing allergen-free products more complex and expensive. The implications for non-compliance vary in severity, from a simple recall to a costly infringement notice, plus reputational damage to consumer trust.
It is hard to exactly measure the impact of economies of scale and quality costs on the price of allergen-free products. Each manufacturer will have its own challenges and solutions. But it is reasonable to say a considerable chunk of the difference we see when comparing gluten-free bread with its regular counterpart comes from these factors.
Transportation costs follow a similar rule. If it is easier and quicker to fill your trucks with regular products, while allergen-free products have a hard time making a full load, there are disadvantages in the latter.
Is it the marketing strategy?
The final consideration on allergen-free food prices has to do with competition and willingness to pay.
A quick search on Coles’ website shows 276 results for “bread” once you remove the 42 items that are gluten-free. That means that there are many more brands and products competing for bread consumers than for gluten-free bread consumers.
That’s over six to one! This means customers with dietary restrictions are at a disadvantage as they are beholden to the limited options on offer. As noted by the Australian Competition & Consumer Commission, “competition leads to lower prices and more choice for consumers”.
Fewer allergen-free options means less competition and higher prices. TY Lim/Shutterstock
There is also the willingness to pay, where consumers pay more for products deemed as having higher value. Research shows that on average consumers are willing to pay 30% more for food products that they perceive to be healthier.
Manufacturers and retailers more often than not will capitalise on that, increasing their profit margins for allergen-free products.
4 tips for saving money if you have allergies
People with dietary requirements looking to ease the cost of their weekly grocery shop should use the same strategies as every savvy consumer:
research prices
buy larger quantities where possible
keep a keen eye on price reduction and items on sale
consider replacing products tagged “allergen-free” with alternatives from other categories, such as going for rice instead of gluten-free pasta in a dish.
In the long run, if more customers choose allergen-free products it could lead to more volume and competition, bringing prices down.
Just over a week ago, European physicists announced they had measured the strength of gravity on the smallest scale ever.
In a clever tabletop experiment, researchers at Leiden University in the Netherlands, the University of Southampton in the UK, and the Institute for Photonics and Nanotechnologies in Italy measured a force of around 30 attonewtons on a particle with just under half a milligram of mass. An attonewton is a billionth of a billionth of a newton, the standard unit of force.
The researchers say the work could “unlock more secrets about the universe’s very fabric” and may be an important step toward the next big revolution in physics.
But why is that? It’s not just the result: it’s the method, and what it says about a path forward for a branch of science critics say may be trapped in a loop of rising costs and diminishing returns.
Gravity
From a physicist’s point of view, gravity is an extremely weak force. This might seem like an odd thing to say. It doesn’t feel weak when you’re trying to get out of bed in the morning!
Still, compared with the other forces that we know about – such as the electromagnetic force that is responsible for binding atoms together and for generating light, and the strong nuclear force that binds the cores of atoms – gravity exerts a relatively weak attraction between objects.
And on smaller scales, the effects of gravity get weaker and weaker.
It’s easy to see the effects of gravity for objects the size of a star or planet, but it is much harder to detect gravitational effects for small, light objects.
The need to test gravity
Despite the difficulty, physicists really want to test gravity at small scales. This is because it could help resolve a century-old mystery in current physics.
Physics is dominated by two extremely successful theories.
The first is general relativity, which describes gravity and spacetime at large scales. The second is quantum mechanics, which is a theory of particles and fields – the basic building blocks of matter – at small scales.
These two theories are in some ways contradictory, and physicists don’t understand what happens in situations where both should apply. One goal of modern physics is to combine general relativity and quantum mechanics into a theory of “quantum gravity”.
One example of a situation where quantum gravity is needed is to fully understand black holes. These are predicted by general relativity – and we have observed huge ones in space – but tiny black holes may also arise at the quantum scale.
At present, however, we don’t know how to bring general relativity and quantum mechanics together to give an account of how gravity, and thus black holes, work in the quantum realm.
However, these approaches are entirely theoretical. We currently don’t have any way to test them via experiments.
To empirically test these theories, we’d need a way to measure gravity at very small scales where quantum effects dominate.
Until recently, performing such tests was out of reach. It seemed we would need very large pieces of equipment: even bigger than the world’s largest particle accelerator, the Large Hadron Collider, which sends high-energy particles zooming around a 27-kilometre loop before smashing them together.
Tabletop experiments
This is why the recent small-scale measurement of gravity is so important.
The experiment conducted jointly between the Netherlands and the UK is a “tabletop” experiment. It didn’t require massive machinery.
The experiment works by floating a particle in a magnetic field and then swinging a weight past it to see how it “wiggles” in response.
This is analogous to the way one planet “wiggles” when it swings past another.
By levitating the particle with magnets, it can be isolated from many of the influences that make detecting weak gravitational influences so hard.
The beauty of tabletop experiments like this is they don’t cost billions of dollars, which removes one of the main barriers to conducting small-scale gravity experiments, and potentially to making progress in physics. (The latest proposal for a bigger successor to the Large Hadron Collider would cost US$17 billion.)
Work to do
Tabletop experiments are very promising, but there is still work to do.
The recent experiment comes close to the quantum domain, but doesn’t quite get there. The masses and forces involved will need to be even smaller, to find out how gravity acts at this scale.
We also need to be prepared for the possibility that it may not be possible to push tabletop experiments this far.
There may yet be some technological limitation that prevents us from conducting experiments of gravity at quantum scales, pushing us back toward building bigger colliders.
Back to the theories
It’s also worth noting some of the theories of quantum gravity that might be tested using tabletop experiments are very radical.
Some theories, such as loop quantum gravity, suggest space and time may disappear at very small scales or high energies. If that’s right, it may not be possible to carry out experiments at these scales.
After all, experiments as we know them are the kind of thing that happen at a particular place, across a particular interval of time. If theories like this are correct, we may need to rethink the very nature of experimentation so we can make sense of it in situations where space and time are absent.
On the other hand, the very fact we can perform straightforward experiments involving gravity at small scales may suggest that space and time are present after all.
Which will prove true? The best way to find out is to keep going with tabletop experiments, and to push them as far as they can go.
Sam Baron receives funding from the Australian Research Council.
This year marks 50 years since Australia established diplomatic ties with the Association of Southeast Asian Nations (ASEAN), the political bloc that represents over 650 million people across 10 countries in the region.
Over the years, the relationship has benefited both sides. In 2022, for instance, trade between Australia and ASEAN reached around A$178 billion – greater than our two-way trade with Japan, the United States or the European Union.
However, this is a pivotal time in the region with many pressing challenges, from the ongoing conflict in Myanmar to competing claims and rising tensions with China over the South China Sea.
For example, many of the analysts, academics, policymakers and young leaders we interviewed said Australia has rarely, if ever, been as attentive to Southeast Asia as it has in recent years.
These experts wondered whether this level of enthusiasm, resourcing and engagement could survive a significant geopolitical or economic shock. They raised gentle questions about the viability of long-term Australian engagement in the region at a time when migration, terrorism and strategic competition are, once again, prominent in the Australian public debate.
As one senior Indonesian analyst told me:
It is natural that relations between Australia and ASEAN should be good. We take this for granted. And we take for granted that it will still be in good in the future. But might it not be so good?
In our study, we found the greatest divergence of views on the strength of the relationship is not based on geography. Rather, it is generational.
The emphasis among older, established analysts and policymakers is on sustaining institutional links and maintaining high-level connections between the two sides – traditionally considered the essence of good diplomacy.
Younger leaders, however, were almost all heavily focused on the need to find more innovative and creative ways to foster exchanges. Many had their earliestexperiences of ASEAN-Australia engagement during the COVID-19 pandemic, when they were confined to home and connected to the world through Zoom and other virtual meeting spaces.
They would also like greater opportunities to connect with like-minded, emerging Australian leaders, particularly on issues related to the environment, and social and human rights.
The reality, according to one young ASEAN leader, is “we have a very positive sense of Australia, but the Australia-ASEAN relationship isn’t something that immediately comes to mind”.
The reason, he suggests, is that the great power rivalry between the United States and China dominates much of the discussion among leaders in Southeast Asia. This leaves less space to consider other important countries contributing to the region’s success, such as Australia.
On the flip side, Australians have likely underestimated the importance of ASEAN and its role in resolving conflicts “in a quiet and understated way”, as one senior Australian business figure told me. He added:
We have often desperately underestimated the value of ASEAN for managing China. […] Because in Southeast Asia they’re not shouting we assume they are subservient.
Rather than presuming to act as mediator or providing our own guidance on managing these relationship, perhaps the more prudent Australian approach would be to spend as much time as possible listening. There are many thoughtful voices in the region considering their own futures adjacent to China.
In this context, our report offers some recommendations on how to develop a stronger Australia-ASEAN partnership.
In response to what younger Southeast Asian leaders told us, for instance, we believe a future-focused ASEAN-Australia Centre should be established. This centre could focus on analytically driven and commercially oriented ways to bring Australia and Southeast Asia even closer together.
Australia has also invested heavily in developing educational ties with Southeast Asia, and has become a top education destination for many students. What is lacking, however, is a model to better integrate these students, creating a shared sense of purpose, direction and belonging.
This would provide more opportunities for high-potential future leaders to build connections with one another from a young age. As one youth leader told us:
There is a chance to build a bridge where Australia can also help us to better figure ourselves out.
The ASEAN-Australia Strategic Youth Partnership is already partly fulfilling this appetite for engagement. It has more than 300 members aged 18-29 from Australia and every ASEAN member. The Australia-ASEAN Emerging Leaders Program (or A2ELP, for short) is another organisation geared toward Southeast Asian and Australian social entrepreneurs.
They are a great start. We should now build on the fact Australia has a wide constellation of universities, think tanks, community organisations and other stakeholders that are deeply committed to further developing connections between the regions. For instance, a number of universities have already set up campuses in Southeast Asia, such as RMIT University in Vietnam, Monash University in Malaysia and James Cook University in Singapore.
And a growing number are looking to expand specifically in Indonesia, following the lead of Monash in recent years.
It’s important for graduates to also have greater opportunities to live and work in Australia – and vice versa. Australia’s recent moves towards supporting working holiday visas for young Southeast Asians are a good example, as are the New Colombo Plan scholarships, which support Australian undergraduates studying and undertaking internships in the Indo-Pacific region.
We should now look for other ways to foster talent mobility between Australia and the ASEAN members. As one emerging leader in Southeast Asia who wants to spend more time in Australia explained:
Australia is really open, with good work-life balance, and a business culture that brings people together.
As Pro Vice-Chancellor at the University of Tasmania, Nicholas Farrelly engages with a wide range of organisations and stakeholders on educational issues, including at the ASEAN-Australia interface. The report discussed here was commissioned and funded by the Australian Mission to ASEAN, a part of the Australian Department of Foreign Affairs and Trade. Nicholas has also previously received funding from the Australian Research Council for Southeast Asia-focused work. He is on the board of the Australia-ASEAN Council, which is an Australian government body, and also a director of NAATI, Australia’s government-owned accreditation authority for translators and interpreters. These are his personal views, shaped by strong collaboration with his co-authors for this report.
Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Vikki McLeod, PhD Graduate, Centre for Clean Energy Technologies and Practices, Queensland University of Technology
Unsurprisingly, rooftop solar output is growing fast. In 2022, one-in-three homes had solar panels. Total rooftop solar capacity exceeded 30 gigawatts, compared to the remaining 21GW of coal generation.
Rooftop solar photovoltaic (PV) systems will soon supply half of our electricity demand. At times of the day, they already supply close to 100% of electricity demand and in some regions can briefly meet all demand.
This means renewable energy is displacing the electricity traded through the wholesale market and supplied via the transmission system. The National Electricity Market (NEM) is the wholesale market where large generators and retailers buy and sell electricity to supply the eastern and south-eastern states. It was never designed to cope with large amounts of renewable energy feeding into the grid at large, medium and small scales.
The market’s design doesn’t allow for harnessing the full economic and technical potential of the millions of consumer-owned generators, known as distributed energy resources (DERs). Comprehensive market reforms are urgently needed to achieve an energy transition at least cost to energy users.
What are the challenges of reform?
The National Electricity Market has operated largely in its current form since the 1990s. It was designed for large fossil-fuelled power stations, but many of these are on the way out.
Millions of rooftop solar systems are now connected to the grid. The market needs to change to a system that can manage and co-ordinate these small renewable energy generators.
To minimise disruption, a reformed market has to be able to accommodate and value the electricity and power system services that these millions of distributed energy resources can provide. They offer flexibility and can help balance supply and demand, thus improving grid stability.
Between 2019 and 2023, the former Energy Security Board (ESB) and regulators were tasked with delivering a new market design for the clean energy transition. Reforms to better integrate variable renewable generation included:
The Energy Security Board also proposed a two-sided market to allow energy users to actively trade electricity. The design of the reform fell short, but the intent remains valid. This reform needs to be revisited.
The electricity market rules define what commodities are valued and traded, how they are to be traded and by whom. These rules are embedded in thousands of pages of legislation. Each change takes about two years to progress.
These incremental market and policy patches fall short of the systemic change needed for a clean energy future. The whole National Electricity Market and its processes must be redefined.
The current focus of attention is on the large scale. What is being overlooked is the potential of small-scale and local generation to supply electricity where it is needed. This oversight creates a risk of building too much transmission infrastructure at great cost.
The opportunity of energy market reform is that the millions of small, privately owned, behind-the-meter generators could economically provide a big share of Australia’s future electricity and power system services.
A new Sydney townhouse development has solar panels installed on every roof. HDC Creative/Shutterstock
Government must lead the transformation
The clean energy transition is a national priority. Change on this scale requires governments to work together to deliver economic productivity, affordable energy and climate action.
A clear set of principles is needed to guide these changes. The principles from the National Energy Transformation Partnership agreement between federal, state and territory governments are a good place to start. It recognises consumers’ needs as central to the transformation, and that a strong economy depends on affordable, clean and secure energy sources.
The agreement also recognises the role electricity networks and demand-side participation will play in the energy transition. The demand side includes all the small, behind-the-meter, grid-connected, rooftop solar systems and interruptible uses of electricity such as hot-water systems.
Reforming the electricity market is complex work. It requires an in-depth knowledge of governance and regulatory frameworks, commercial realities and consumer needs.
Putting energy users at the heart of these complex reforms requires a holistic systems thinking approach to policy and regulatory design. Such an approach takes into account how all parts of a complex system interact.
With the consumer having such a key role, the focus, planning and investment in these smaller energy sources must be on par with that given to the large generators.
Renewable Energy Zones – areas with the greatest potential to develop renewable energy projects – have shown that, with the right policy settings, billions of dollars of investment can be mobilised. The same level of focus on policy settings and market reforms is needed at the small scale of “Community Energy Zones”.
Each zone must be able to accommodate the unique characteristics of its energy users. It must create an investment environment that supports a local ecosystem of skills, trades and community benefit, ultimately leading to a zero-emission community. It must also support technological and business innovation and allow distribution networks to transition to a smart grid at low risk and low cost.
Vikki McLeod is in receipt of a PhD write-up scholarship from the RACE for 2030 CRC. She has recently commenced a role as energy market reform adviser at Rewiring Australia.
Prof. Marcus Foth receives research funding from the Australian Research Council and the RACE for 2030 CRC. He is a member of the Queensland Greens.
The federal government has released the final report on a Universities Accord. Taking more than a year to prepare, it is billed as a “blueprint” for reform for the next decade and beyond. It contains 47 recommendations across student fees, wellbeing, funding, teaching, research and university governance. You can find the rest of our accord coverage here.
The Universities Accord final report calls for meaningful steps to increase the numbers of Indigenous graduates and Indigenous leaders in higher education. In post-referendum Australia, this is more important than ever.
The philosophy of “nothing about us without us” runs through the report, with recommendations for Indigenous leadership in policies, programs, funding and decision-making. Is this enough?
What does the accord recommend?
One of the key recommendations of the report is to raise Indigenous participation at university. The accord wants Australia’s university student population to reflect the demographic composition of Australian society.
It wants to do this by introducing equity targets. At the moment, Indigenous Australians make up 3.7% of the Australian population but only 1.5% of university completions.
It also has a strong element of self-determination, with a proposed First Nations-led review of universities and a First Nations council to provide advice to the federal education minister and sector. The report also calls for an increase of more Indigenous people in leadership and governance positions within universities.
This is not the first time
While the sentiments in the report are welcome, this is not the first time there have been plans to boost Indigenous enrolment at university. Although previous reports have advocated for increased Indigenous Australian participation at universities, completion rates have remained low.
So we need more than just good intentions or targets. Preparing Indigenous Australian students for university also needs to involve recognising and valuing different pathways into higher education. This should include recognising work experience and preparatory programs (and not just Year 12 results) and/or participation in pre-university experiences and courses.
It also needs to include mentorships, career counselling and work experience in high school.
Once students are enrolled, universities also need to provide support to Indigenous students throughout their study. This may include culturally responsive approaches to teaching, access to support services, and nurturing a sense of belonging on campus.
For example, Indigenous support units for both undergraduate students and postgraduate students are essential. This support must be tailored to the individual needs of each student.
Financial challenges can prevent students from completing their degrees, especially those from low socioeconomic backgrounds, regional areas or Indigenous students.
Many Indigenous students may also experience intergenerational poverty as a legacy of colonisation. As the National Aboriginal Community Controlled Health Organisation notes, poverty is “reinforced and entrenched” by ongoing experiences of racism.
Our research involving 308 Indigenous Australian students who completed their university degrees between 2018 and 2022 found economic conditions, particularly financial hardship, were one of the key factors affecting Indigenous students’ completion. Students often had to rely on support from family and/or take on work while studying to make ends meet.
So it is vital that Indigenous students get adequate financial support that covers the cost of food, accommodation and study materials. The review suggests financial support to students needs to increase. While costly, this should be a priority.
Approximately 63% of Australia’s Indigenous population also live in outer regional areas or very remote areas.
The report talks at length about boosting infrastructure for regional campuses. This is a crucial component. Indigenous Australians need to be able to study in places close to where they live and that they can easily access.
The report recommends a First Nations-led review of tertiary education with a view to “strengthening” student and university workforce numbers of Indigenous peoples, as well as First Nations knowledge of research.
The Indigenous higher education sector has been calling for reforms for years, which have been documented in various government reports. National Aboriginal and torres Strait Islander Higher Education consortium: Accelerating Indigenous Higher Education consultation paper.
So while this proposed new review sounds like a significant and comprehensive piece of work, it isn’t a new idea. What’s really needed is a commitment to implement recommendations from the years of work by Indigenous experts in the higher education sector, rather than starting a new process.
The accord aims to build a more inclusive and equitable higher education for all Australians, but we need to see more detail and timelines for action.
The government is still considering the report and has indicated it will take several budgets to implement.
So at this stage, it is only a call to action. Whether the call will be answered remains to be seen.
Peter Anderson receives funding from the Australian Research Council (ARC)
Levon Ellen Blue previously received funding from the Australian Research Council (ARC).
Angela Baeza Pena, Melanie Saward, and Thu Dinh Xuan Pham 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.
This article is the first in The Conversation’s series examining the housing crisis. Read the other articles in the series here.
The paradox of Australian housing is the abundance of land – 7.5 million square kilometres of it – and the shortage of accommodation.
The pandemic lockdowns and the changes that flowed from them have disrupted the paradox and will take some time to settle down.
By 1911, most of today’s towns were already established. Regional Australia was then home to 60% of the population.
Since then small towns have died, and regional centres have grown, much of the population has moved to the coast and cities for work, and new towns have grown to support mining in the north and west and farming in irrigation areas.
Only 7% of the population lives outside capital cities.
While the first census in 2011 recorded 24% of the workforce was employed in agriculture, forestry or fishing, the most recent survey recorded less than 3%.
Cities made housing expensive
Packing Australia’s population into capital cities helped push up land prices because the supply of well-located land in cities was limited.
The resultant housing stress is worse than the official figures suggest.
The Bureau of Statistics defines housing stress as occurring when a lower-income household spends more than 30% of its gross household income on housing costs.
But as homebuyers have moved further away from city centres to avoid high housing costs, they’ve been hit with higher commuting costs, boosting the number who are in financial stress because of housing.
A study I conducted with University of Canberra colleagues in the mid-2000s found that when commuting costs were included in housing costs the proportion of home owning couples with children in housing stress jumped from 15% to 19%.
Housing became an ‘investment’
Rising prices have made buying an extra home a “safe investment” for existing homeowners – all the more so when accompanied by generous tax concessions..
The more homeowners bought second (and even third) properties, the more price pressure they added to prices which made lightly-taxed capital gains on investment properties seem an even safer bet.
The latest tax figures show 2.2 million Australians owning investment properties, up from 1.2 million two decades earlier. This means that at a time when Australia’s population grew 32%, the number of Australians owning investment properties grew 83%.
The more homeowners make investment decisions on the assumption that prices will keep rising, the more resistant they become to measures that wind those price rises back.
Among those measures are relaxed planning rules that would increase the supply of competing properties, and changes to tax rules that would make investing less attractive.
Labor campaigned in 2016 and again in 2019 on restricting negative gearing to new housing (with a grandfather clause that would allow it to continue on properties that were already negatively geared) and halving the capital gains tax concession.
It lost both elections.
Modelling published in Australian Economic Papers finds that if Labor’s 2019 program had been adopted, the share of households who own their home rather than rent would have climbed 4.7 percentage points.
For most households that would have been able to buy but now have to rent,
renting is an inferior substitute.
But for landlords the displaced would-be owners are useful. They become tenants, helping the investment make sense.
The pandemic lockdowns prompted a rethink of how and where Australians lived.
Home offices became more attractive and group houses became less attractive pushing down the average number of residents per home and pushing up the demand for homes even before borders reopened.
But many Australians discovered they didn’t need to live as close to their work and moved further away to more distant suburbs, and away from cities altogether to regional locations where housing was more affordable.
While this improved their quality of life by cutting housing and commuting costs, it overwhelmed the supply of houses in those regions and pushed up prices.
In time more homes will be built in those regions to accommodate more of them, unless there’s a return to the office.
The changes wrought by COVID will provide challenges and lessons for planning, especially planning for housing and infrastructure away from Australia’s cities.
Their enduring legacy is likely to be a demand for more housing per Australian, which will take some time to meet.
But even then, the dynamics of cities and tax concessions for householders who own more than one home are likely to conspire to keep pushing prices higher.
Yogi Vidyattama previously (in 2020) received funding from ACT Government for economic research related to housing.
This year, all the Oscar nominees for best documentary feature come from outside of the United States.
The dominance of international nonfiction films has some in Hollywood concerned. The North American market has become saturated with true crime and celebrity-powered offerings – often to the detriment of makers of rigourous investigations, riveting real-life stories or innovative artistic expressions.
My research finds, with courage and persistence, documentary filmmakers outside established centres of power draw attention to global problems at the local level. This year’s nominees demonstrate how the industry has shifted from safe topics for English-speaking viewers. This is good news for audiences who want to see depictions from more of the world in which we live.
Here is your guide to the 2024 nominees for best documentary feature.
Bobi Wine: The People’s President
Bobi Wine: The People’s President charts the journey of Ugandan musician Robert Kyagulanyi Ssentamu (stage name Bobi Wine) from humble roots in a Kampalan slum to contesting the corrupt rule of the inexorable Yoweri Museveni as a presidential candidate in 2021.
The first crossroad comes as Museveni changes the country’s constitution to allow him to rule until his death, which Wine and his supporters oppose. On concocted charges, police arrest and torture the popstar-turned-politician. But Wine has the hearts of young voters, as well as his wife Barbie, who adds a personal insight to this fight for freedom.
Although it contains confronting material, Moses Bwayo and Christopher Sharp’s film is the most accessible of the nominees. The documentary features an uplifting Afrobeat soundtrack, and includes astonishing sequences of “people power” at rallies and in protest against state-sanctioned interference to Wine’s campaign.
Maite Alberdi’s portrait of patience and love, The Eternal Memory, has a strong chance at this year’s awards. The film won a top prize at the 2023 Sundance Film Festival and this is Alberdi’s second Oscar nomination for best documentary, after The Mole Agent in 2021.
Journalist Augusto Góngora witnessed many momentous events of Chilean history but his memories are being ravaged by Alzheimer’s disease. His wife of many years, Paulina Urrutia, attempts to stimulate her husband’s confused mind.
Archival footage of Góngora’s reports during the military overthrow of the democratic socialist government in 1973 intersperse this tender documentary. His efforts to record the violence of the Pinochet regime serve as a warning against forgetfulness, and the lyrical tone and steady pace of The Eternal Memory remind the viewer that time passes quickly, so seize the day.
Four Daughters
Filmmaker Kaouther Ben Hania tells the heartrending story of a Tunisian family affected by Islamic radicalisation. The documentary blends fact and fiction by casting actors to play the roles of two absent daughters, Ghofrane and Rahma.
Since the 2011 uprising that ousted autocratic former President Ben Ali, Tunisia has experienced poverty and violence, leading many young people to go to nearby countries to enlist as jihadists.
We watch as mother Olfa Hamrouni meets her surrogate daughters, played by Ichrak Matar and Nour Karoui. Together with the remaining girls, Eya and Tayssir, they reenact scenes from their lives together. Another actor, Hend Sabry, is on standby to take Olfa’s place for parts that are “too difficult” to play as herself.
Four Daughters examines themes of generational loss for women in the Arab world, but not without moments of resilience and humour. Ben Hania’s therapeutic approach to working with her participants challenges practitioners who deploy exploitative modes of documentary production.
Indian-born Canadian filmmaker Nisha Pahuja’s stunningly shot and scored documentary deals with the gang rape of a 13-year-old girl during a wedding party in Jharkhand in eastern India.
Rice farmer Ranjit seeks justice for his eldest daughter Kiran through the court system: a rare course of action in rural India. Activists from the Srijan Foundation join Ranjit’s quest, hoping to garner a crucial conviction for the crime and to end entrenched prejudices that lead most gender-based violence in India to go unreported.
Pressure and threats mount as Pahuja and her crew capture an all-or-nothing battle. To Kill A Tiger has several unforgettable scenes – and the glimmer of hope on the horizon.
20 Days in Mariupol
Predicted as the favourite to win in a tight race, Pulitzer-prize winning journalist Mstyslav Chernov’s observational-style account of the Russian invasion of the Ukrainian port city Mariupol makes for tense viewing. When Russian troops surround the city, the bombarded citizens and journalists are left without utilities and unable to escape.
This film follows an investigative journalism approach. Chernov sends dispatches to his editors of ordinary people during extraordinary times, and the resulting news items become punctuation points in the film.
Chernov’s camera goes on to tape several atrocities that are terrible yet crucial to witness, making the account an apt recipient of recognition. The bravery to point the camera in the face of oncoming danger is remarkable, and the documentary greatly benefits from a tight assembly by editor Michelle Mizner, who also produced.
Phoebe Hart 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.
Israel continues its annihilation of Gaza despite ICJ finding a prima facie case of genocide exists.
COMMENTARY:By David Robie
New Zealand has taken another shameful act in its tone deaf approach to Israel’s War on Gaza this week by declaring Hamas a “terrorist entity” at a time when millions are marching worldwide for an immediate ceasefire and a lasting peace founded on an independent state of Palestine.
It would have been more realistic and just to condemn Israel for its genocidal war and five months of atrocities.
Instead, it has been corralled into the Five Eyes clique with an increasingly isolated United States as it continues to support the war with taxpayer funded armaments and providing the cloak of diplomacy.
It was really unwise of Prime Minister Christopher Luxon’s coalition government to declare the Hamas political wing as terrorist, after already having declared the military wing terrorist in 2010.
Many argue around the world with increasing insistence that actually Israel is a rogue terrorist state.
Also, it is very unlikely that Benjamin Netanyahu will succeed in his aims of “destroying” the Hamas movement, whatever the final outcome of the war.
As John Minto points out, Palestinian resistance movements have the right under international law to take up arms to fight against their colonial occupiers just as the African National Congress (ANC) had the right to take up arms to fight for freedom in apartheid South Africa.
Hamas represents an ideal, an independent Palestinian state and that can never be defeated.
Factions meet for unity
The various factions of the Palestinian resistance and political movements, including Fatah and Hamas, have been meeting in Moscow this week to settle their differences and stitch together a framework for a “Palestinian government of unity” as a basis for the future political architecture of independence.
Meet Gaza’s 11-year-old war reporter Sumayya Wushah, who says she was inspired by Shireen Abu Akleh to tell Palestine’s stories. pic.twitter.com/a7vB99nkqa
This includes the right to choose their own representatives, including Hamas, a nationalist independence movement defending their illegally occupied territory, not a “terrorist” movement that the US and Israel try to have the world believe.
They are still very likely to be in the post-war line-up ending the status quo after five decades of illegal military occupation of Palestinian lands and the rash of illegal Israeli settlements.
American economist and public policy analyst Professor Jeffrey Sachs . . . “Israel is a criminal. Israel is in non-stop war crime status. Image: Judging Freedom
American economist and public policy analyst Professor Jeffrey Sachs summed up the reality over Israel’s colonial settler project in an interview this week by describing the Netanyahu government as a “murderous gang” and “zealots”, warning that “they are not going to stop”.
“Israel has deliberately starved the people of Gaza. Starved. I am not using an exaggeration.
“I’m talking literally starving a population,” said the director of the Centre for Sustainable Development at New York’s Columbia University.
‘Israel is criminal’
“Israel is a criminal. Israel is in non-stop war crime status. Now, I believe, it is in genocidal status, and it is without shame, without remorse, without truth, without insight into what it is doing.
“But what it is doing is endangering Israel’s fundamental security because it is driving the world to believe that the Israeli state is not legitimate.
“This will stop when the United States stops providing the munitions to Israel. It will not be by any self-control in Israel. There is none in this government.
“This is a murderous gang in government right now. These are zealots. They have some messianic vision of controlling all of today’s Palestinian lands. They are not going to stop.
“They believe in ethnic cleansing, or worse, depending on whatever is needed. And it is, again, the United States, which is the sole support. And it our mumbling, bumbling president and the others that are not stopping this slaughter.”
In addition, to the growing massive protests around the world against the Israeli extremism, a growing number of countries and organisations, inspired by two International Court of Justice cases against Israel — one by South Africa alleging genocide by Israel and the other by the UNGA seeking a ruling on the legality of Israel’s military occupation of Palestine — have introduced lawsuits.
A Dutch court last month ordered the government to block all exports of F-35 fighter jet parts to Israel following concern that the country may be violating international laws such as the Genocide Convention.
Follow-up lawsuit
South Africa is preparing a follow-up lawsuit against the US and the UK for “complicity” in Israel’s war crimes in Gaza. South African lawyer lawyer Wikus Van Rensburg said: “The United States must now be held accountable for the crimes it committed.”
Nicaragua is suing Germany at the ICJ for funding Israel – its export of weapons and munitions to the country has risen ten-fold since the Hamas deadly attack on Israel last October 7 — and cutting aid to the UN Palestinian refugee agency (UNRWA), the major humanitarian agency in Gaza.
It has called for emergency measures that would force Germany to cease military aid to Israel, and restart funding to the UNRWA.
Nicaragua lawyers said in their lawsuit that the action was necessary because of Germany’s “participation in the ongoing plausible genocide and serious breaches of international humanitarian law” in Gaza.
“Would it be OK for you if they killed me?” . . . placard with child in pram at the Palestine solidarity rally in Auckland on Saturday. Image: David Robie/APR
Instead of joining the US-led coalition in the Red Sea operation against the Houthis, who are targeting US, UK and Israeli-linked ships to disrupt maritime trade in support of the Palestinians, New Zealand would have been more constructive by joining the South African case against Israel in The Hague.
Nicaragua lawyers said in their lawsuit that the action was necessary because of Germany’s “participation in the ongoing plausible genocide and serious breaches of international humanitarian law” in Gaza.
No time to be ‘neutral’
This is no time to be “neutral” over the War on Gaza, there are fundamental issues of global justice and human rights at stake. As various global aid officials have been saying, every day that passes without a ceasefire and a step towards an independent Palestine as a long-term solution means more children dying of starvation or from the bombing.
The death toll is already a staggering more than 30,000 — mostly women and children. The war is clearly directed at the people of Gaza, collective punishment.
“At least be real with yourself that by refusing to pick a position you are licking the boot of a nuclear-armed ethnostate that is backed by the most powerful empire the world has ever seen.”
Depending how you want to read it, you can say not a great deal happened in Saturday’s Dunkley byelection, or you find there are messages in it for everyone.
On the first view, Labor’s comfortable win suggests people are feeling the cost-of-living pinch but they’re not blaming the Albanese government.
The Liberals are making the most of a modest swing (3.56% in two-party preferred terms on the latest figures), but it’s par for the course for a byelection. You can’t necessarily say much about other seats from what happened in this one, let alone for a general election more than a year away.
But the parties, naturally and sensibly, will take the view the Dunkley entrails send signals.
We heard this on Saturday when Deputy Prime Minister Richard Marles said “there are many messages in the result tonight and I want to assure every Australian that we will examine this closely and understand every message that is there”.
We’ll see the outcome of this examination initially in the budget. Anthony Albanese’s reworking of the Stage 3 tax cuts helped in Dunkley and more cost-of-living assistance will be rolled out.
Education Minister Jason Clare, who’s just released his universities accord report, should be in a good position to win something on the Higher Education Loan Program (HELP) and/or assistance for teaching and nursing students during their placements. Labor will want to keep its firm grip on younger voters.
What message will the Greens take from the dive in their vote? Perhaps they won’t worry overmuch. Reportedly they were light on the ground at the booths on Saturday. Dunkley is not where they’re trying to be competitive. Their eyes are on inner urban areas.
Most significantly, what lessons will the Liberals garner from Dunkley? Will Peter Dutton adjust his strategy, tactics and team?
In an article on Sunday in the Australian Financial Review, two former MPs, Tim Wilson and Jason Falinski, questioned the hope that the Liberals’ road back to power is via concentrating on the outer suburbs.
They write, “like in Aston nearly twelve months ago, the outer suburbs aren’t sending Liberal MPs to Canberra. An area can’t be the new heartland if your primary vote has a three in front of it.”
Wilson and Falinski are coming from a distinct corner. They lost to teals, in Goldstein in Victoria and Mackellar in NSW respectively; Wilson is seeking preselection for another run and there is speculation Falinski will too. So there is some self-interest at play. Nevertheless their argument will resonate with some Liberals who think Dutton has written off these seats (which he’d strongly deny).
“Dunkley was a critical test for those in circles who theorise that the Liberal heartland has shifted from affluent communities to working class ones,” Wilson and Falenski write. They challenge this theory on the basis of the pattern of swings in Dunkley, and find: “What stands out is the return of the Liberal Party’s traditional stomping ground [such as Mount Eliza North] that has been at risk of going teal”.
Dunkley showed well-off households are “voting defensive once more” in the face of being hit by Labor, Wilson and Falinski say.
“Liberals need to win seats like Dunkley to form government. But it is not their heartland; communities like Curtin, Higgins, Mackellar, Warringah, North Sydney and Wentworth are.”
Their conclusion is the need for the Liberals to have a convincing economic plan (although threading the needle between the outer suburban and former “heartland” constituencies could be much more complicated).
Such a plan, it might be said, requires content and salesmanship. The Liberals are presently lacking in both.
Expectations are now being raised about Peter Dutton’s budget reply – will it contain some serious and major policy?
Whether policy comes then, or around then, the opposition surely cannot delay much longer telling people what it would do in some key areas. Anthony Albanese’s small target approach worked when the Coalition and especially its PM were seriously on the nose. But it’s quite likely the public will still be relatively patient towards the Albanese government next year.
Dutton intends soon to announce a reshuffle of his frontbench, filling the vacancies of shadow assistant treasurer and shadow cabinet secretary (left by the departures of Stuart Robert and Marise Payne), and making some other minor changes.
The reshuffle is long overdue. But it will not address core problems Dutton has with his weak frontbench. His shadow treasurer, Angus Taylor is not up to the job when that job is to match and better Treasurer Jim Chalmers. And Dutton’s deputy, Sussan Ley, has become shrill and displays poor judgement, as shown by her inflammatory social media post last week saying, “If you do not want to see Australian women being assaulted by foreign criminals, vote against Labor”.
But both Taylor and Ley are effectively locked into their positions, and Dutton is the loser.
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.
For years news media bosses warned the creaking business model backing journalism would fail at a major local outlet. It finally happened this week when Newshub’s owners proposed scrapping it. Then TVNZ posted losses prompting warnings of more cuts to come there. Can TV broadcasters pull a crowd without news? And what might the so-far ambivalent government do?
After Warner Bros Discovery top brass broke the bad news to staff on Wednesday, Newshub at 6 that night became a news event in itself.
After Warner Bros Discovery top brass broke the bad news to staff on Wednesday, Newshub at 6 that night became a news event in itself.
In her report, political reporter Amelia Wade reminded viewers more than 30 years of TV news and current affairs — spanning the entire period of commercial TV here — could come to an end in June.
Before TV3 launched in 1989, state-owned TVNZ had been the only game in town.
But for most of its recent history, TV3’s parent company MediaWorks was owned by private equity funds and it was hamstrung with debts.
There were periodic financial emergencies too which seemed to signal the end.
In 2015, the boss Mark Weldon axed the current affairs shows Campbell Live and 3D and replaced them with ones that didn’t pull in more viewers or pull up many trees with their reporting.
“Reports of our death at 6pm have been greatly exaggerated”, host Hilary Barry responded to reports 3 News might be for the chop the following year.
But Weldon persuaded the owners to stump up a significant sum to launch Newshub instead.
When the huge global company Discovery bought MediaWorks loss-making TV channels in December 2020, many in the media were pleased a major media outfit was now in charge.
Using the Official Information Act, Newsroom later reported the Overseas Investment Office fast tracked Discovery’s application and sought no guarantees of a commitment to local news.
“Tova O’Brien breaking stories on CNN NZ at 6pm, before an evening of local reality TV souped up by global budgets and distribution — with major sports and drama rights for good measure,” was one scenario.
“It could also swing the other way, with the New Zealand linear asset seen as too small and obscure,” he warned.
After losses including a $35 million one last year, the owners now “propose” to slice out the entire on-screen and online news operation. New Zealand could lose more than 15 percent of its full-time journalists in one go.
Beginning of the end?
Current affairs journalist Eugene Bingham . . . “this was a moment we’ll look back on as a watershed moment in democracy and journalism.” Image: RNZ
“Oh, the irony, right? When those so-called ‘vulture funds’ had it, the operation still continued, albeit always run on the smell of an oily rag. Then a big media organisation was the one which axed it,” long-serving TV3 current affairs journalist Eugene Bingham told Mediawatch.
“I’ve been around long enough to see death by a thousand cuts over the years. But this was a moment we’ll look back on as a watershed moment in democracy and journalism,” Bingham said.
Former MediaWorks executive Andrew Szusterman told RNZ’s Morning Report the next day this decision would also ripple out to local drama and entertainment.
“We’re going to start to see how this is going to impact the production sector. Irrevocably, possibly,” said Szusterman, now the chief executive at production company South Pacific Pictures.
Does Newshub’s demise also kill off Three?
Mediaworks chief news officer Hal Crawford . . . “The loss of the newsroom represents the loss of the ability to respond to any event in real time.” RNZ
There’s been no shortage of people this week pointing out the appetite for TV news — and linear TV in general — is not what it was. That’s the main reason for the ad revenue slump cited by WBD.
Some who do tune in to Three (and WBD’s other channels) for The Block, Married at First Sight and free movies may not miss the news shows from June 30. So maybe Three will be fine?
“The loss of the newsroom represents the loss of the ability to respond to any event in real time. That is the heart and soul of a traditional TV broadcaster,” Hal Crawford — chief news officer at MediaWorks (and effectively Newshub’s boss) until early 2020 — told Mediawatch.
“When the Queen dies you can send a team to London, you can have someone in the studio talking about it, you can interact in a way that makes people feel like it is alive and a real human entity.”
Warner Bros Discovery executives Glen Kyne (left) and Jamie Gibbons fronting up on Newshub at 6pm last Wednesday. Image: Newshub at 6 screenshot/RNZ
Channels without the live element news brings are effectively just “content databases”, Crawford told Mediawatch.
“News is the one programme that runs 365 days a year . . . which the schedule is going to rely on to lead into prime time. So the rest of your schedule is going to dwindle. Ratings are gonna fall off and everything is going to go to pieces.
“It really is going to dwindle as a cultural entity in New Zealand because you’re not going to be able to justify the funding from NZ on Air if you aren’t getting audiences. It’s hard for me to see a way out of Three basically going away as a cultural force in New Zealand.”
But TV-style news and current affairs is also now being done online.
After Eugene Bingham’s TV3 show 3D was axed in 2016, four members formed the Stuff Circuit investigative team. Its video documentary productions won awards until it was axed by Stuff late last year.
“Of course, there have been changes in viewing habits . . . but there’s still a reason that the ‘1’ and the ‘3’ on remotes around the country are worn down. Hundreds of thousands of people at six o’clock flip the channel. Without a TV bulletin there, doesn’t (Three) just become like Bravo, where there’s just programmes running and you either switch on or you don’t?”
In the end, journalists have to confront the fact that not quite enough people these days care about what they do — including executives at media companies, politicians not inclined to intervene and members of the public.
Most New Zealanders are happy to use services like Netflix or Google search or Facebook that carry news and local content but contribute almost nothing to it.
“But I don’t think people quite understand the depth of the problem facing media and the implications. That certainly came through to me watching the broadcasting minister saying, well, people can still watch programmes like Sky for news,” Bingham said.
The National Party went into the last election without a media or broadcasting policy or any specific manifesto commitments.
What should/could the government do?
Media minister Melissa Lee . . . a case of a private company taking action because “their business model actually wasn’t working”. Image: RNZ/Angus Dreaver
While Wednesday’s announcement shocked the 300-odd staff, the local chief executive Glen Kyne — close to tears on Newshub at 6 — told Newshub’s Michael Morrah he had known about the possibility since January.
The government also got a heads-up earlier this week.
Media minister Melissa Lee told reporters WBD made no requests for help, prompting Glen Kyne to tell Newshub WBD did ask both the current and previous government for assistance, such as a reduction in the multi-million dollar fee paid to state-owned transmission company Kordia.
Lee later clarified her comment but was firm that the government had no role to play because this was a case of a private company taking action because “their business model actually wasn’t working.”
On Morning Report, Andrew Szusterman disagreed.
“Channels 7,9 and 10, SBS, ABC, and Fox in Australia all run news services. I don’t think their government would let the last commercial free-to-air news broadcaster just walk away. The fact the broadcasting minister hasn’t fronted . . . it’s quite shameless,” he told RNZ’s Morning Report.
Stuff’s Tova O’Brien — who famously turned on her former employer MediaWorks on air in real time last year when it closed Today FM — called the minister’s response “cold and tone-deaf” and accused the government of a “glib shrug”.
That was partly because Lee’s first response to the Newshub announcement was to tell reporters: “There’s Sky as well, there’s a whole lot of other media about.”
Sky contracts Newshub to produce its 5.30pm free-to-air news bulletin — and Sky subscribers won’t find any locally-made news on Sky TV’s pay channels.
Lee should have known that. She was a programme-maker before she was an MP and was National’s spokesperson on broadcasting for years in opposition.
Lee declined all interview requests this week — including from Mediawatch — but did tell reporters at Parliament: “I wasn’t as articulate as I could have been. But I am taking this seriously.”
The PM told Stuff he is expecting an update at Cabinet on Monday. The media will be watching that space with pens and cameras poised.
There is legislation currently before a select committee which could compel the big online tech platforms to pay local producers of news for it.
In opposition, Lee opposed it and called it “literally a shakedown” in Parliament. (This weekend Facebook’s owner Meta announced it would not do any more deals with media under Australia’s News Media Bargaining Code, prompting a likely confrontation with the government there.)
“The government’s position on this will obviously take into account these latest developments in terms of the wider media landscape. This government is committed to working with the sector on ways to ensure sector sustainability, while still preserving the independence of a fourth estate and avoiding market interference,” Lee said in Parliament on Thursday when questioned.
The government already heavily intervenes in the market by overseeing the state-owned broadcasters and agencies — including TVNZ — and putting over a quarter of a billion dollars every year onto broadcasting, programmes and other content.
The former government also put $80 million over two years into Māori media content, partly in the expectation there might also be a new public media entity to broadcast it.
His chief executive also urged the government to intervene. AM show host Duncan Garner switched the studio lights off as an on-air stunt.
Crawford is now a digital media consultant based in his native Australia. The broadcasting funding agency in NZ On Air hired him in 2021 to review its own spending of public money on the media.
“It’s not a good idea for governments to knee jerk and sponsor particular commercial companies in some sort of bailout,” he said.
“To give money to the people who are in financially the worst position is the most ineffective and unfair use of public money that I can think of. If the market is telling you that something isn’t wanted and needed, you have to listen to that.
“But it doesn’t mean that you have to always listen to the market and do things that have never been done before.”
He cites the Public Interest Journalism Fund which put $55 million into new content and created new jobs for cash-strapped news media companies.
Crawford’s fact-finding report on the planned PIJF in 2021 records media managers feared cuts and possible closures to come.
“Many of our interviewees believed that if an organisation could show that cuts were imminent, they should be able to apply for funded roles under the PIJF. Many saw the dangers in this non-incremental funding, but argued for exceptions in extreme circumstances. Although these arguments are compelling, Funding could evaporate quickly trying to keep the newsrooms of big commercial companies afloat if this became the primary aim of the fund.”
“Around the world and in New Zealand, there’s ample evidence that public funding of journalism is becoming more essential. There has to be a way there, because what we’re seeing with the the planned closure of Newshub is the end result of the factors that we’ve known about for at least a decade,” Crawford told Mediawatch.
“Direct subsidy from the government to a commercial newsroom isn’t going to work. The government has to find a way to sensibly finance news and structure it so that it doesn’t become a political football.”
This article is republished under a community partnership agreement with RNZ.
The government’s easy retention of the Melbourne seat of Dunkley at Saturday’s byelection is a poor result for Peter Dutton. The two-party swing against the government is modest – 4% (soon after 10 pm).
This swing is in the conventional range of byelection swings – although there are multiple measures of those swings, and during the campaign each side has been promoting its preferred one.
For all the media hype and some serious Labor fears beforehand, the story of the Dunkley byelection is that the government has skated home on what was seen as slippery ice.
This contest had been made for Dutton. Cost of living was the front-and-centre issue, and this outer suburban electorate is the sort of seat the opposition leader is targeting for the 2025 election.
The Liberals will take some comfort from their primary vote rising substantially (6.82% to 38.87%). Many Liberals, alienated in the 2022 election by Scott Morrison, have gone back. The party has benefited from the fact One Nation and the United Australia Party were not in the field.
While the Liberals have regained many of their base voters they have not cut into Labor’s primary vote.
That primary vote is stable (up a whisker to 41.02%), despite fears Labor might lose support because of the personal popularity of Peta Murphy, the former member whose death caused the byelection.
Notably, bucking the recent trend away from the major parties, in this byelection the combined vote of the majors has increased.
The Greens vote flopped (down 3.96% to 6.50%). One explanation being canvassed is that in this electorate, the Greens strong pro-Palestinian position has not gone down well, although it would be more popular in some other electorates.
The result vindicates Anthony Albanese’s decision to break his word on the Stage 3 tax cuts, reworking them so that most taxpayers, including most in Dunkley, will be better off on July 1 they would have been under the original Stage 3.
The Dunkley outcome will reinforce Albanese’s belief in his electoral appeal. But the hard heads in Labor will be drilling down into the detail for lessons. Deputy Prime Minister Richard Marles told the Labor faithful on Saturday night:“there are many messages in the result tonight and I want to assure every Australian that we will examine this closely and understand every message that is there”.
Regardless of Saturday’s vote, the cost of living remains a huge issue that Labor will have to continue to address, most immediately as it puts together the May budget.
The Dunkley result will put pressure on Dutton, despite the improvement in the Liberal vote. It reminds that the Liberals and Dutton have big problems in Victoria. More generally, it reinforces the point that negative campaigning is not enough. Scares on ex-detainees and boat people didn’t cut it (neither did the large spend by Advance).
The Coalition has to start rolling out policies, to tell people what it is for, not just what it is against. And not just roll out policies, but policies that stack up and can convince swinging voters.
Dutton needed to extract some momentum from Dunkley. He didn’t get it.
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.
Negotiations for the release of New Zealand pilot Phillip Mark Mehrtens, who has been held captive by the West Papua National Liberation Army (TPNPB) for more than a year, has been hindered by customary issues and “interference of other parties”, say the Indonesian police.
Senior Commander Faizal Ramadhani, head of the Cartenz Peace Operation, made this statement following a visit from New Zealand’s Police Attaché for Indonesia, Paul Borrel, at the operation’s command post in Timika, Mimika Regency, Central Papua Province, last Tuesday.
Mehrtens has been held by the pro-independence group since he was seized on February 7 last year.
The armed group led by Egianus Kogoya seized Mehrtens after he landed his aircraft at Paro Airport and the militant group also set fire to the plane.
The senior commander told local journalists he had conveyed this information to Borrel.
“The negotiation process is still ongoing, led by the Acting Regent of Nduga, Edison Gwijangge,” said Senior Commander Faizal.
“However, the negotiation process is hindered by various factors, including the interference of other parties and customary issues.”
The commander was not specific about the “other parties”, but it is believed that he may be referring to some calls from pro-independence groups for an intervention by the United Nations.
Negotiations ongoing The chief of Nduga Police, Adjutant Senior Commmander VJ Parapaga, said that efforts to free the Air Susi pilot were still ongoing. He said the Nduga District Coordinating Forum (Forkopimda) was committed to resolving this case through a “family approach”.
NZ Police Attaché to Indonesia, Paul Borrel (left) during a visit to the Cartenz Peace Operation Main Command Post in Timika, Mimika Regency, Central Papua Province, last Tuesday. Image: Cartenz Peace Operation/Jubi
“We bring food supplies and open dialogue regarding the release of the pilot,” said Parapaga when contacted by phone on Tuesday. He said efforts to release Phillip Mehrtens remained a top priority.
A low resolution image of New Zealand hostage pilot Philip Mehrtens . . . medication delivered to him, say police. TPNPB-OPM video screenshot APR
New Zealand’s Police Attaché Borrel commended the efforts made by the Cartenz Peace Operation Task Force, saying he hoped Mehrtens would be released safely soon.
“We express our condolences for the loss of the Indonesian Military (TNI) and police members during the pilot’s liberation operation,” Borrel said.
“We hope that the Cartenz Peace Operation can resolve the case as soon as possible.”
The armed group led by Egianus Kogoya seized Mehrtens after he landed his aircraft at Paro Airport and the militant group also set fire to the plane.
Inspector-General Fakhiri said the police always provided assistance to anyone who could deliver logistical needs or requests made by Mehrtens.
He added that the security forces were ready to help if the New Zealand pilot fell ill or needed medicine, shoes or food.
“We hope that he continues to receive logistical support so that he remains adequately supplied with food. This may also include other necessities for his well-being, including medication,” said the inspector-general.
‘Free Papua’ issue Inspector-General Fakhiri said it had been hoped to reach an agreement in November and January.
But he said there were other parties “deliberately obstructing and hindering” the negotiations, resulting in stalled operation.
“From our perspective, they are exploiting the issue of the abduction of the Susi Air pilot as a Free Papua issue,” he said.
The inspector-general said he hoped that the New Zealand government would trust Indonesia to work towards the release of Mehrtens.
“There is a third party that always tries to approach the New Zealand government to use the hostage issue to bring in a third party. We hope that [this request] will not be entertained,” he said.
Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Adrian Beaumont, Election Analyst (Psephologist) at The Conversation; and Honorary Associate, School of Mathematics and Statistics, The University of Melbourne
With all ordinary booths in Dunkley having primary vote counts and 51% of enrolled votes counted, The Poll Bludger is projecting a final Labor margin of 52.6–47.4, a 3.6% swing to the Liberals. This means Labor candidate Jodie Belyea will win the seat after a byelection was called in the wake of the death of former MP Peta Murphy. There have also been some postals and pre-poll votes included. The Poll Bludger’s Labor win probability is 99%.
This would be a reasonable result for Labor, as analyst Kevin Bonham said the average swing against governments in government-held seats at byelections is 6.1% since federation, and 6.3% in the last 40 years.
Labor holding Dunkley will be a big relief for the party, but it does not predict the next election result. There were four national polls taken last week, and only Newspoll gave Labor a steady lead, with slumps for Labor in Resolve, Essential and Morgan polls.
It’s still likely over a year until the next federal election. What happens in the polls over that time is far more important than the result of this byelection.
Coalition takes lead in Essential for first time this term
A national Essential poll, conducted February 21–25 from a sample of 1,145, gave the Coalition a 48–47 lead including undecided, a reversal of a 50–46 Labor lead last fortnight. This is the first lead for the Coalition this term in this poll.
Primary votes were 35% Coalition (up one), 30% Labor (down one), 13% Greens (down one), 7% One Nation (steady), 2% UAP (up one), 8% for all Others (down one) and 4% undecided (down one). Bonham estimated a Labor lead of 51.4–48.6 from the primaries using 2022 election preference flows, but respondent preferences have been bad for Labor.
Albanese’s net approval improved one point from January to -5, with 47% disapproving and 42% approving. Dutton’s net approval also improved one point to -4.
Labor led the Coalition by 41–28 on supporting higher wages and better working conditions and by 31–23 on addressing climate change. But the Coalition led by 33–28 on reducing cost of living pressures and by 41–23 on keeping Australia’s borders secure.
By 62–19, voters supported making “doxing” (publicly releasing private individual data with malicious intent) a criminal offence. By 76–8, voters would support random alcohol and drug testing of politicians.
Morgan poll and additional questions from Resolve and Newspoll
In this week’s federal Morgan poll, conducted February 19–25 from a sample of 1,682, Labor and the Coalition were tied at 50–50, a 2.5-point gain for the Coalition since the previous week. Primary votes were 38% Coalition (up one), 31.5% Labor (down 2.5), 12% Greens (down one), 5% One Nation (up one) and 13.5% for all Others (up 1.5).
I previously covered the federal Resolve poll and Newspoll that were conducted in late February. Additional questions are below.
Newspoll asked voters their opinion of a proposal to build several small modular nuclear reactors to produce zero-emissions energy on the sites of existing coal-fired power stations once they are retired, finding a 55–31 approval margin. This question is biased in favour of nuclear reactors as it didn’t suggest any other options for replacement.
In the Resolve poll for Nine newspapers, 35% expected the economy to get worse in the next year, 30% get better and 19% stay the same. There was more pessimism for shorter time horizons (six months and three months).
Asked whether the changes to the stage three tax cuts were a broken promise or a changed policy to suit the times, by 46–34 voters backed the changed policy. On whether voters would personally be better or worse off under the changes, 25% said better off, 20% worse off and 55% no change.
By 36–23, voters supported the use of nuclear power, with 27% saying they did not have a strong view and were open to the government investigating its use.
On alcohol in parliament, 68% said politicians should not drink at all during work hours, 20% they could, but not to excess and 4% said drinking alcohol was fine. The most popular options for dealing with an MP suspected of being under the influence were alcohol and drug tests (55% support) and a temporary suspension from parliament (53% support).
Tasmanian EMRS poll: Liberals lead, but likely short of majority
The Tasmanian state election will be held on March 23. An EMRS poll, conducted February 15–21 from a sample of 1,000 – after the election was announced – gave the Liberals 39% (steady since November), Labor 26% (down three), the Greens 12% (steady), the Jacqui Lambie Network 9% (new) and independents 14% (down three).
Incumbent Liberal Premier Jeremy Rockliff led Labor’s Rebecca White as preferred premier by 41–38 (42–35 in November).
Tasmania uses a proportional representation system, so a two party estimate is not applicable. At this election, there will be 35 lower house seats, up from 25 previously. These will be elected in five seven-member electorates, with the quota for election reduced from one-sixth or 16.7% to one-eighth or 12.5%.
Bonham, who is a Tasmanian, estimated that if this poll was accurate, the Liberals would win 15–16 seats, Labor 10, the Greens 2–3, the JLN 2–3 and independents 3–5. If this is the result, the Liberals would be short of the 18 seats needed for a majority, but would likely continue as a minority government.
Bonham also reported on a Tasmanian poll for the Hospitality Association from a large sample of 4,000 taken during the first week of the campaign that was published by The Mercury. Seat numbers in this poll would be similar to the EMRS poll.
Adrian Beaumont does not work for, consult, own shares in or receive funding from any company or organisation that would benefit from this article, and has disclosed no relevant affiliations beyond their academic appointment.
New Zealand news media came under fire at today’s Palestine solidarity rally in Auckland calling for an immediate ceasefire in the war in Gaza with speakers condemning what they said was pro-Israeli “bias” and “propaganda”.
About 500 protesters waved Palestinian flags and many placards declaring “If you’re not heartbroken and furious, you’re not paying attention – stop the genocide”, “Killing kids is not self-defence” and “Western ‘civility, democracy, humanity, morality’ – bitch, where?”.
They gave Prime Minister Christopher Luxon’s government a grilling for the “weak” response to Israel atrocities.
Many speakers were angry over the massacre of starving Palestinians when Israeli military forces opened fire on a crowd seeking aid in the central Gaza City area on Thursday with latest Gaza Health Ministry reports indicating that at least 115 Gazans had been killed with 760 wounded.
The UN Human Rights office called for a swift and independent probe into the food aid shootings, saying “at least 14 “similar attacks had occurred since mid-January.
The Biden administration has announced a plan with Jordan to airdrop aid into Gaza but former USAID director Dave Harden has criticised the move as “ineffectual” for the huge humanitarian need of Gaza.
Airdrops ‘symbol of failure’ “Airdrops are a symbol of massive failure,” he told Al Jazeera.
The bodies of three more Palestinians killed in the food aid slaughter were recovered.
Responses to the Gaza food aid massacre . . . “If you’re not hearbroken and furious, you’re not paying attention.” Image: David Robie/APR
The New Zealand media were condemned for relying on “flawed” media coverage and journalists embedded with the Israeli military.
“The New Zealand media ‘scalps’ information to create public perceptions rather than informing the public of the facts so that we can come to the conclusion that what Israel is doing in Gaza is genocide,” Neil Scott, secretary of the Palestine Solidarity Network (PSNA), told the crowd.
PSNA’s Neil Scott addressing the Palestine solidarity crowd today. Video: APR
“What Israel is doing in Palestine is apartheid, what Israel is doing in Palestine is occupation – each of those three, plus way more, are crimes against humanity.
“And what is the New Zealand media doing and saying about this?”
“Nothing,” shouted many in the crowd.
“Nada,” continued Scott.
‘Puppies are cute’ “Puppies? Puppies are cute. We’ll get those on TV.
“Genocide. Apartheid. Occupation. Crimes against humanity. Don’t give us news.”
Television New Zealand’s 1News headquarters in Auckland . . . target of a protest yesterday and condemnation today over its Gaza war coverage. Image: APR
Scott led a deputation of protesters to the headquarters of Television New Zealand yesterday, citing many examples of misinformation of lack of fair and “truthful” coverage.
But management declined to speak to the protesters and the 1News team failed to cover the protest over TVNZ’s coverage of the war on Gaza.
Criticisms have been mounting worldwide against Western news media coverage, especially in the United Kingdom and the United States, the staunchest supporters of Israel and the source of most of NZ’s global news services, including the Middle East.
CNN ‘climate of hostility’ Yesterday, the investigative website Intercept reported how CNN media staff, including the celebrated international news anchor Christiane Amanpour, had confronted network executives over what they claimed as stories about the war on Gaza being changed and a “climate of hostility” towards Arab journalists.
According to a leaked internal recording, Amanpour told management that the CNN policy was causing “real distress” over “changing copy” and ”double standards”.
Meanwhile, one of some 50 protests across New Zealand today – in Christchurch – was disrupted by a group of counter-demonstrators supporting Israel who performed a haka at the Bridge of Remembrance.
The group from the Freedoms and Rights Coalition – linked to the Destiny Church – waved Israeli flags and chanted “go back to Israel”. The pro-Palestinian supporters yelled “shame on them” and carried on with their regular weekly march to Cathedral Square.
As women and children seek hope of a future without tribal fighting, the cycle of killing continues in Papua New Guinea’s remote Highlands.
Tribal warfare dating back generations is being said to show no signs of easing and considered a complicated issue due to PNG’s complex colonial history.
Following the recent massacre of more than 70 people, community leaders in Wabag held mediation talks in an effort to draw up a permanent solution on Tuesday, with formal peace negotiations set down for yesterday between the warring factions.
A woman, who walked 20 hours on foot with seven children to flee the violence in the remote highlands, was at the meeting and told RNZ Pacific she wants the fighting to stop so she can return home.
In 2019, the then police minister said killings of more than two dozen women and children “changed everything”.
But a tribesman, who has asked to remain anonymous, told RNZ Pacific the only thing that had changed was it was easier to get guns.
Multiple sources have told RNZ Pacific the government appears to be powerless in such remote areas, saying police and security forces are sent in by the government when conflict breaks out, there is a temporary pause to the fighting, then the forces leave, and the fighting starts again.
More than 70 people died in the recent tribal fighting in the PNG Highlands. Many Engans have lamented that the traditional rules of war have been ignored as children have not been spared. Image: RNZ Pacific
There are also concerns about a lack of political will at the national level to enforce the law using police and military due to tribal and political allegiances of local MPs, as recommendations made decades ago by former PNG Defence Force commander Major-General Jerry Singirok are yet to be fully implemented.
While the government, police and community groups look at peaceful solutions, mercenaries are collecting munitions for the next retaliatory fight, multiple sources on the ground, including a mercenary, told us.
Killing pays After “Bloody Sunday”, which left dozens dead in revenge killings, the men with guns were out of bullets.
Tribal fighting in Papua New Gunea’s Enga Province reached boiling point on February 18, fuelled by a long-standing feud between different clans, which resulted in a mass massacre.
The tribesman who spoke to RNZ Pacific said they did not want to fight anymore but believed there was no other option when someone from the “enemy” turned up on their land wanting to burn down their village.
“Prime Minister [James Marape] — we want development in our villages,” he said, speaking from a remote area in the Highlands after his village was burnt to the ground.
There is no employment, no infrastructure, no support, he said, adding that those were the things that would keep people busy and away from engaging in tribal conflict.
At the moment killing people paid, he said.
Hela, Southern Highlands, Enga, West Sepik and Western Province were the provinces most affected by PNG’s February 2018 earthquake. Image: RNZ Pacific/Koroi Hawkins
‘Hundreds of lives lost’ “Businessmen, leaders and educated elites are supplying guns, bullets and financing the engagement of gunmen,” Wapenamanda Open MP Miki Kaeok said.
The MP is worried about the influence of money and guns, saying they have taken over people’s lives especially with the increase in engagement of local mercenaries and availability of military issued firearms.
“Hundreds of lives have been lost. Properties worth millions of kina have been ransacked and destroyed. I don’t want this to continue. It must stop now,” Kaeok pleaded.
Meanwhile, men in the Highlands are paid anything between K3000 (NZ$1300) to K10,000 (NZ$4,400) to kill, the tribesman claimed during the interview.
Then, he called over one of the men involved in that fight, an alleged killer, to join the video interview.
“Um this is the hire man,” he introduced him. “If they put K2000 (NZ$880) for him and say go burn down this village — he goes in groups — they clear the village, they give him money and he goes to his village . . . ”
The “hire man”, standing slouched over holding a machete, looked at the camera and claimed 64 people were killed on one side and eight on another pushing the total death toll to more than 70.
Wabag police told RNZ Pacific on Tuesday that 63 bodies had been recovered so far.
“A lot of people died,” an inspector from Wabag told RNZ Pacific.
The killings have not stopped there; a video has been circulating on social media platforms of what appears to be a young boy pleading for his life before he was killed.
The video, seen by RNZ Pacific, shows the child being hit by a machete until he falls to the ground.
The man who allegedly carried out the brutality was introduced to RNZ Pacific by the tribesman via video chat.
“They recognise that this person was an enemy,” the tribesman — translating for the killer, who was standing in a line with other men holding machetes — told RNZ Pacific.
“This small guy (referring to the dead child) came out of the bush to save his life. But he ended up in the hands of enemies.
“And then they chopped him with a bush knife and he was dead.”
“In revenge, he killed that small boy” because the killer’s three family members were killed about five months ago.
Asked whether they were saddened that children have died in the violence, the killer said: “No one can spare their lives because he was included in the fight and he’s coming as a warrior in order to kill people,” our source translated.
Killing people — “that’s the only way”, they said.
Exporting guns The source explained military guns are a fairly recent addition to tribal fighting.
He said that while fighting had been going on most of his life, military style weapons had only been in the mix for the last decade or so.
He said getting a gun was relatively easy and all they had to do was wait in the bush for five days near the border with Indonesia.
“We are using high-powered rifle guns that we are getting exported from West Papuans.”
He added the change from tribe-on-tribe to clan-to-clan fighting has exacerbated the issue, with a larger number of people involved in any one incident.
Mediation underway A Wapenamanda community leader in Enga Province Aquila Kunza said mediation was underway between the warring factions in the remote Highlands to prevent further violence.
“The policemen are facilitating and meditating the peace mediation and they are listening,” Kunza said.
Revenge killings had been ongoing for years and there was no sign of gunmen stopping anytime soon, Kunza said.
“This fight has lasted about four years now and I know it will continue. It occurs intermittently, it comes and goes,” he said.
“When there’s somebody around (such as the military), they go into hiding, when the army is gone because the government cannot support them anymore, the fighting erupts again.”
Kunza has been housing women and children who fled the violence and after years of violence and watching police come and go, he is calling for a community-led approach.
At a large community gathering in Wabag the main town of Enga on Tuesday people voiced their concerns.
“The government must be prepared to give money to every family [impacted] and assist them to resettle back to their villages to make new gardens to build new houses,” Kunza said.
He said formal peace negotiations are taking place today as residents from across the Enga Province are travelling to Wabag today for peace talks between the warring factions.
‘Value life’ Many Engans have lamented that the traditional rules of war have been ignored as children have not been spared in the conflict and societal norms that governed their society have been broken.
A woman who was kidnapped last year in Hela in the Bosavi region — a different area to where the recent massacre took place — and held for ransom said PNG was on the verge of being a failed state.
“I’ve gone through this,” Cathy Alex told RNZ Pacific.
“People told us who gave them their guns in Hela, people told us who supplied them munitions. People told us the solutions. People told us why tribal fights started, why violence is happening,” Alex shared.
She said they managed to find out that killers got paid K2000 (NZ$880) for killing one person, that was in 2017.
“For a property that’s worth K200/300,000 [up to NZ$130,000] that’s destroyed, the full amount goes to the person who caused the tribal fight,” she said.
“How can you not value the life of a person?”
Prime Minister James Marape says he was “deeply moved” and “very, very angry” about the massacre. Image: Screengrab/Loop PNG
Government help With retaliations continuing the “hire man” who claims to have killed more than 20 people from warring tribes, said he is staring down death.
“He would have to die on his land because…when they come they will fight…we have to shoot in order to protect my village,” the tribesman explained.
“He said he’s not scared about it. He is not afraid of dying. He got a gun in order to shoot, they shoot him, and that’s finished.”
“He’s really worried about his village not to burn down.”
The tribesman said that without government committing financial support for infrastructure, jobs and community initiatives the fighting will continue.
He also wants to see a drastic change in police numbers and a more permanent military presence on the ground.
“We don’t have a proper government to protect us from enemies in order to protect ourselves, our houses . . . and to protect assets we have to buy guns in order to protect them.”
Parliament urged to act Last week, the PNG Parliament discussed the issue of gun violence.
East Sepik Governor Allan Bird, who is on the opposition benches, has called on the government “to respond”.
He said the “terrorists in the upper Highlands” needed their guns to be stripped from them.
“We are a government for goodness sake — let’s act like one,” Bird said.
Deputy Prime Minister John Rosso agreed with Bird’s sentiments and acknowledged that the situation was serious.
He called on the whole of Parliament to unite to fix the issue together.
RNZ Pacific has contacted the PM Marape’s office for comment with no response yet.
This article is republished under a community partnership agreement with RNZ.
A vote of no confidence in Papua New Guinea’s Prime Minister James Marape is set to be moved on May 29.
Sinasina-Yongamugl Open MP Kerenga Kua told the media yesterday that the Marape government had “subverted the opposition’s attempts to hold them accountable for their actions”.
“I want to give confidence to the people of Papua New Guinea that this opposition is committed to ensuring that this government is brought to account,” Kua, an opposition MP, said at a media conference in Port Moresby.
“People are screaming for accountability. On behalf of the people. We are serious. The people are sick and tired of this government.
“They want to see the back of this government. They want to see them out.”
The opposition bloc stands by the motion filed on February 20 despite discrepancies raised by the overseeing Private Business Committee in a letter.
“The Acting Speaker was clear and advised that there was a discrepancy or discrepancies and so on legal advice, we have opted to not challenge that stance.
“But then by the position that the integrity of the notice of motion that we have filed is intact,” said opposition MP Keith Iduhu.
Accused the opposition He said in their view there were no issues with the paper despite the Prime Minister having “rubbished it” and accused the opposition of forging names.
“If the committee or this chair decides to tamper with the motion . . . in any manner other than contemplated by the Supreme Court, section 23 of the constitution will be invoked and punitive measures will be sought from the courts,” Iduhu said.
“What that means is that penalties to the tune of even imprisonment up to 10 years,” he said.
“We will not hesitate to exercise our rights and the cause under the constitution.”
RNZ Pacific understands that Acting Speaker Koni Iguan and the Private Business Committee would be impacted on if that is the case.
Meanwhile, Marape said last week he would refer the second motion of no confidence paper — the one the opposition bloc said it stands by — to the Parliamentary Privileges Committee following allegations of forgery.
“It looks as if somebody is cutting and pasting these signatures and filling in names,” Marape said.
Acting Speaker Iguan told Parliament on Thursday last week that the first motion of no confidence did not qualify to be listed on the notice paper.
All MPs accountable – watchdog Transparency International PNG (TIPNG) said the abuse of Parliament’s processes undermined public confidence and “fed corruption”.
TIPNG said all MPs were ultimately accountable to the people of PNG.
The anti-corruption watchdog said undermining democratic processes not only erodes public trust but hinders the country’s progress and development.
It said the refusal of the acting speaker to allow the motion for a vote against the prime minister, followed by an adjournment until May raises serious questions.
TIPNG chair Peter Aitsi said the motion is a fundamental tool within the parliamentary system, allowing MPs to hold the executive accountable.
He said denying a no confidence motion without due process was an affront to the democratic rights of both the opposition and the people they represented.
It “perpetuates a culture of impunity and weakens the already fragile checks and balances within the government and fuels an environment rife to corrupt behaviour,” he said.
This article is republished under a community partnership agreement with RNZ.
Today is Remembrance Day — marking the 70th anniversary of the largest US nuclear test detonation, Castle Bravo, which took place over Bikini Atoll in the Marshall Islands on 1 March 1954.
As one Marshallese resident noted: “It’s not the middle of nowhere to those who call it home.”
When Castle Bravo was detonated over Bikini Atoll, the immediate radioactive fallout spread to Rongelap and Utrik atolls and beyond.
“The impacts of that test, and the 66 others which were carried out above ground and underwater in Bikini and Enewetak atolls between 1946 and 1958, left a legacy of devastating environmental and health consequences across the Marshall Islands,” said World Council of Churches (WCC) programme executive for human rights and disarmament Jennifer Philpot-Nissen.
“The UK and France followed the US and also began a programme of testing nuclear weapons in the Pacific, the final such test taking place as recently as 1996.”
Philpot-Nissen noted that the consequences of the testing across the Pacific had largely remained invisible and unaddressed.
“Very few people have received compensation or adequate assistance for the consequences they have suffered,” she said.
Advocated against nuclear weapons The WCC has consistently advocated against nuclear weapons.
In 1950, the WCC executive committee declared that
“[t]he hydrogen bomb is the latest and most terrible step in the crescendo of warfare which has changed war from a fight between men and nations to a mass murder of human life.
Man’s rebellion against his Creator has reached such a point that, unless staved, it will bring self-destruction upon him.”
The WCC has continued to call for the complete elimination of nuclear weapons since that time, through its governing bodies, functional commissions, and member churches.
At the WCC 6th Assembly in Vancouver in 1983, Marshallese activist Darlene Keju made a speech during the Pacific Plenary, sharing that the radioactive fallout from the 67 nuclear tests was more widespread than the US had admitted, and spoke of the many unrecognised health issues in the Marshall Islands.
During a WCC visit in 2023, this speech was referred to as the moment in which the Marshallese found their voice to speak out about the continuing suffering in their communities due to the nuclear testing legacy.
Climate change link Philpot-Nissen also noted the nexus with climate change and the environment.
“When the US ended the 12 years of nuclear testing in the Marshall Islands, they buried approximately 80,000 cubic metres of radioactive waste under a concrete dome on Runit island, Enewetak Atoll,” she said.
“In addition, 130 tons of soil from an irradiated Nevada testing site were also deposited in the dome.”
Scientists and environmental activists around the world are concerned that, due to rising sea levels, the dome is starting to crack, releasing its contents into the Pacific Ocean.
“In the Marshall Islands, the human-caused disasters on climate change and nuclear-testing converge and compound each other,” said Philpot-Nissen.
“While the Pacific islanders are faced with the remnants of a vast and sobering nuclear legacy — they have faced this with great resilience and dignity.
“The young people of the Pacific particularly are now leading the calls for an apology, for reparations, compensation, and for measures to be taken to address the damage which was done to their lands, their waters, and their people.”
Facebook’s parent company, Meta, has announced it will stop paying for news content in Australia when the current deals it has expire. Meta will also cease news aggregation on the site.
Three years ago, the company signed deals with Australian news outlets after the government introduced laws requiring tech companies to pay for the news on their platforms. The law only comes into effect if no commercial deal is struck.
Meta has now decided that the cost of providing news in Australia is too high. Its reason for the change is to “better align our investments to our products and services people value the most”. That is, it saves money.
So what does this mean for news on Facebook? What can users expect to find on the platform?
This decision was largely predictable, as it’s consistent with Meta’s actions in the UK, France, and Germany in December 2023. The same “deprecation” will occur simultaneously in the US.
Meta’s rationale is that news is “a small part of the Facebook experience for the vast majority of people” and is not a reason for the use of the platform as it “makes up less than 3% of what people around the world see in their Facebook feed”. It does not comment on the percentage in Australia.
Meta says “this does not impact our commitment to connecting people to reliable information on our platforms”. However, this “reliable information” is a reference to fact-checking in the context of misinformation.
Meta does not see a link between reliable information and Australian news. It has not addressed the issue of the sustainability of news journalism in Australia.
Facebook says that it will simply remove the dedicated tab on the site for news content.
For many users, this will not have an effect. However, for those who use Facebook as a news aggregator, access to links to news publishers will disappear.
Facebook users will need to go to the Facebook page of their favourite news publishers in order to be able to keep up with events. This means having to “follow” all of the news publishers with which Facebook currently has a commercial agreement.
Unlike the approach in 2021, Facebook is not going to shut down all of the pages that its systems thought were “media pages” (including emergency services and helplines such as 1-800-RESPECT).
Instead, Meta is encouraging news publishers to buy the tech giant’s services to increase their own traffic.
However, this means Meta expects that the flow of funds will be from news publishers to Meta, rather than the other way around.
What does this mean for news?
There is already a concern that social media is replacing legacy news sources.
Meta has consistently argues that news is not a driver of its business. In submissions to government, it has sought to differentiate Meta and Google. In fact, news publishers often report having their content buried by algorithms over which they have no control.
Meta contends that news is so unimportant that it would rather not have news options than pay news publishers for content.
The Facebook news ban of 2021 was largely in response to the government’s News Media Bargaining Code – an arrangement in which news organisations could negotiate with big tech companies over payment and inclusion of their content on digital platforms.
In contrast, Google has previously been willing to enter into commercial deals or to launch news aggregator services rather than having a code imposed on it.
It is not clear whether Google will change its view in Australia as a result of the Meta decision. The News Media Bargaining Code has the potential to apply to both businesses. However, Google relies more on news content than Meta.
Can the government do anything?
The relevant ministers, Stephen Jones and Michelle Rowland, have already referred to the decision as a “dereliction of its commitment to the sustainability of Australian news media.”
As a practical matter, the News Media Bargaining Code is only triggered if there is no commercial deal in play. The current commercial deals with news outlets are due to expire in a few months.
Meta has said that it “will not offer new Facebook products specifically for news publishers in the future”. It will let the existing commercial agreements lapse in in Australia, France, and Germany as they already have in the UK and the US.
The treasurer is now faced with a tough decision. He can “designate” Meta under the code and force it to the bargaining table, or he can agree that news is not a driver of Facebook use. This decision will need to take into account the issue of news journalism sustainability.
However, it also risks a repeat of the 2021 shut down in Australia and a similar one in Canada last year.
Rob Nicholls received funding from the Australian Research Council. He has previously received funding from Google (at the University of New South Wales).
Public trust and confidence in NSW Police has been sorely tested in the past two weeks. The charging of a police officer with the murders of a Sydney gay couple, Jesse Baird and Luke Davies, has seen shock turn to grief and then anger.
NSW Police Commissioner Karen Webb’s framing of the case as a “crime of passion” downplayed the alleged culpability of the accused, and overlooked the murders as possible domestic violence. The commissioner’s gratitude to the accused for leading police to the location of the remains of the deceased drew further ire.
Yet the most heated debate has been about the appropriateness of the police force’s presence in the 2024 Sydney Gay and Lesbian Mardi Gras parade. This focus has brought to the surface a spectrum of viewpoints on diversity and inclusion. Much of this focus has ignored the reasons why there is growing dissatisfaction with NSW police among many LGBTQ+ people. This is amid ten-year lows of public perceptions of police integrity nationally. Emotions have been running high.
But these recent events are part of a long and complicated history of the policing of LGBTQ+ people, and of Mardi Gras in particular.
The first Mardi Gras in 1978 was a protest that ended with violence between the police and protesters, and the beating of many of the 53 arrestees while in police custody. The damage was exacerbated by the publication in The Sydney Morning Herald of the names, addresses and professions of those arrested.
The first Mardi Gras was held six years before the decriminalisation of homosexuality in NSW in 1984. That was a time when public attitudes were becoming more accepting of homosexuality. But coming out could still lead to you losing your job, and still can. Acting on your same-sex desire could also get you killed.
The deeper background to the policing of homosexuality in the 1970s was the expansion of laws and penalties against homosexuality amid increased vilification and discrimination against gays and lesbians after the second world war. The legacy of criminalisation continues through stigma that targets gay men, drag queens and transgender women as “child groomers”.
It continues through so-called “conversion” therapies that seek to “correct” same-sex desire, often with catastrophic consequences.
Central to that agreement was that Mardi Gras should be policed in a way that is safe and welcoming for all participants and spectators.
The issues with drug detection dogs were documented comprehensively by the NSW Ombudsman in 2006, yet NSW Police continues to use them at Mardi Gras and other festivals.
This is despite the NSW coroner in 2019 recommending stopping the use of drug detection dogs at music festivals in NSW. This is because, among other things, the presence of the dogs can cause panic ingestion of drugs by party-goers.
NSW Law Enforcement Conduct Commission investigations into strip searches conducted by NSW police officers found that many of the searches were unlawful.
Apologies only go so far
There have been apologies to the LGBTQ+ community over the years from politicians, police and the media, mainly about the treatment of the “78ers” who marched in the first Mardi Gras.
The most recent apology has come from the NSW police commissioner. The commissioner has apologised to the families of gay hate crime victims whose deaths were not properly investigated by NSW police over four decades from 1970 to 2010.
That apology was foregrounded by Justice John Sackar, who led the NSW Special Commission of Inquiry into LGBTIQ+ hate crimes in NSW. It handed down its findings in late 2023.
The police commissioner has come under fire for the time and placement of the apology, which was issued as an exclusive to The Sunday Telegraph as the search for Baird and Davies continued. Further, NSW police has not officially responded to the special commission’s recommendations.
Justice Sackar’s overall impression was that “in significant respects”, NSW Police’s engagement with the inquiry was “adversarial or unnecessarily defensive”. The judge noted that police strike forces Macnamir (2013), Parrabell (2015) and Neiwand (2015) failed in their assessment of hate as a motivator in historical homicides of gay men.
Two of these inquiries occurred after the Mardi Gras and NSW Police Force memorandum was established. In 2023, about two-thirds of the Mardi Gras membership voted to withdraw from it.
Community taking back ownership
Mardi Gras is a member-based organisation that champions LGBTQ+ social issues through leveraging the power of arts, culture, partnerships and celebration.
NSW police-branded pride paraphernalia at the festival sits in stark contrast with its invasive and harmful drug detection dog operations, aggressive policing, and ambivalence about addressing historic wrongs.
For many viewers of the Mardi Gras parade, the presence of the police in uniform may suggest the relationship between the LGBTQ+ community and NSW Police is a positive one. This is partly true.
The force’s negative reaction to Mardi Gras’ request not to march in the 2024 parade illustrates the symbolic significance to police of marching in the parade, and its public relations value.
Mardi Gras members, and the Mardi Gras board, have decided that police force participation in the event is conditional. Police will now march, but out of uniform.
It remains to be seen whether NSW Police will deliver on greater transparency and accountability. If it decides to do so, the benefits will be realised well beyond LGBTQ+ communities.
Nicole L. Asquith is the Convener of the Australian Hate Crime Network, and in that role was contracted by the Special Commission of Inquiry into LGBTIQ Hate Crimes to provide paid, expert testimony.
Justin Ellis 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.
Vaping is on the rise among young Australians. Recent figures from the National Drug Strategy Household Survey show current use of e‑cigarettes among teenagers aged 14–17 increased five-fold from 1.8% in 2019 to 9.7% in 2022–2023. For young adults aged 18–24, use quadrupled from 5.3% to 21% over the same time period.
If these young Australians were using e-cigarettes to quit smoking, perhaps we would have slightly less to worry about. But many young Australians using e-cigarettes do so recreationally and haven’t previously been exposed to nicotine. Although we’re still learning about how vaping will affect health in the long term, we know e-cigarettes are harmful.
Reforms introduced this year by the federal government will be key to reducing rates of e-cigarette use among young Australians, while ensuring those who are genuinely using e-cigarettes to quit smoking have a pathway to do so.
It will take some time to see a reduction in e-cigarette use as a result of these reforms. We need to be patient, and give the laws time to work. Enforcement will be key. But if there’s anything we’ve learnt from decades of tobacco control, it’s that we need a comprehensive approach.
This is where the federal government’s latest initiative – a social media campaign targeting youth vaping – comes in.
Many will be familiar with the anti-smoking TV ads that have aired over the past several decades. Who could forget the “Sponge” campaign featuring tar being squeezed out of a sponge into a jar to represent the tar in the lungs of those who smoke.
Or the hard-hitting testimonial featuring a former smoker named Terrie diagnosed with oral and throat cancer, who had her larynx removed.
But times have changed. Tobacco smoking continues to decline and young Australians spend a lot of their time on social media. For better or worse, platforms such as Snapchat, TikTok, YouTube and Instagram have become a source of information for youth.
And so we need to be creative with our campaigns. We need to present information in a fresh way.
The government’s new influencer-led youth vaping campaign aims “to spark a conversation with the next generation of Australians about the harms of vaping and nicotine addiction”.
This campaign will feature a range of influencers seeking to combat the large amount of pro-vaping content on social media platforms. These influencers – people like Ella Watkins (a writer and actor), Ellyse Perry (a cricketer), Zahlia and Shyla Short (surfers), the Fairbairn Brothers (comedians), and JackBuzza (a gamer) – span multiple areas to ensure young Australians with diverse interests are reached. Some have vaped in the past and subsequently quit.
The government hopes these influencers will engage young people using their own unique style and tone, and communicate authentically about the harms associated with e-cigarette use.
The campaign capitalises on what can be powerful parasocial relationships: one-sided relationships where a person becomes emotionally connected to a public figure such as a celebrity or influencer. Social media influencers are in our children’s bedrooms, bathrooms, and classrooms. Why not use them to promote healthy attitudes and behaviours?
Emerging research suggests the use of social media influencers in anti-vaping campaigns could be a promising strategy for improving the reach of public health messaging and engagement with the target audience.
In the context of vaccination, the use of social influencers in a campaign promoting the flu vaccine in the United States led to significant increases in positive beliefs about the vaccine and marked decreases in negative attitudes toward it.
The use of social influencers to promote a healthy lifestyle is still a relatively new frontier in health communication, and whether this campaign will be effective is a tricky question to answer.
There are several benefits to this approach, such as leveraging the relationships influencers have built with their audience, enhanced authenticity, and meaningful communication of health information.
It also provides an opportunity to shift social norms. In the context of tobacco and vaping control specifically, public health has far fewer resources compared to the tobacco and vaping industries. The strategic use of social influencers can help organisations involved in health promotion to overcome this commercial imbalance.
But there could also be risks associated with this campaign, such as the lack of control over the content an influencer may choose to share, and their actions and opinions on other topics, which may affect their credibility. Vetting influencers and implementing risk mitigation plans will be crucial steps for the government to take.
Specific details of the campaign are yet to be released, so we don’t know exactly how the influencers will be engaged to combat increasing rates of e-cigarette use among youth. But we will be closely watching this innovative approach.
Michelle Jongenelis currently receives funding from the National Health and Medical Research Council and the WA Health Promotion Foundation (Healthway). She is affiliated with the Australian Council on Smoking and Health and the World Federation of Public Health Associations’ Tobacco Control Working Group.
Michelle has never received services, assistance, or support (whether monetary or non-monetary in nature) from the tobacco industry and/or e-cigarette industry. Michelle has never provided services, assistance, or support (whether monetary or non-monetary in nature) to the tobacco and/or e-cigarette industry.
On February 1, senior Australian and New Zealand ministers signed a Joint Statement of Cooperation, acknowledging the long history of collaboration between the two nations.
The same week, New Zealand rejected an Australian proposal on sustainable fishing at the annual fisheries meeting of nations that fish in the high seas of the South Pacific. The move has driven a wedge between these traditional allies.
At stake was an agreement by those nations to protect 70% of special and vulnerable marine ecosystems, such as ancient corals, from destructive fishing practices like bottom-trawling.
Until December 2023, NZ was jointly leading the work to implement this agreement with Australia. But New Zealand’s new government, a coalition of conservative parties, rejected the proposed restrictions, citing concerns about jobs and development.
This sudden about-face raises many questions for Australia, and for progress on sustainable fishing more generally. On fishing, Australia must now be prepared to consider New Zealand an opponent rather than ally.
Sustainable fishing alliance no more?
In 2009, Australia, New Zealand and Chile led successful negotiations for a convention governing sustainable fishing in the South Pacific high seas beyond a nation’s marine exclusive economic zones, meaning more than 370km off the coast. The goal was to make sure fish stocks were not fished out and to protect marine ecosystems. (Tuna are not included, as they are dealt with under a separate convention.)
Since then, New Zealand and Australia have led much of the development of regulations governing the sustainable use of deepwater fish species and the conservation of vulnerable marine ecosystems in the South Pacific region. Their work led to the first measures governing deepwater fisheries, science-based catch limits for deepwater species, and a joint assessment of seafloor fishing methods such as trawling.
But the idea of banning or restricting trawling was controversial. Bottom-trawling, in which boats deploy giant nets that scrape along the ocean floor, is very effective – so much so that it can devastate everything in its path.
In 2015, the United Nations’ first worldwide ocean assessment found bottom-trawling causes widespread, long-term destruction to deep-sea environments wherever it is done. Scientists have compared it to clear-felling a forest. The practice is banned in the Mediterranean and in shallow waters of the Southern Ocean, and is increasingly restricted by many nations, including Australia.
Bottom trawling is effective – but can lay waste to everything else living in the deep. Allexxandar/Shutterstock
The UN has repeatedly called for better protection, as well as specific actions to make it a reality. And many nations and organisations are heeding that call.
The science is clear. But the politics is not. International waters in the South Pacific are one of the few areas where deepwater bottom-trawling is still permitted on seamounts – underwater mountains rich in life – and similar features.
Last year, South Pacific nations agreed to protect a minimum of 70% of marine ecosystems vulnerable to damage from fishing. This agreement came from research done largely by New Zealand.
Other countries pushed for a higher level of protection, but New Zealand insisted on 70% to ensure its fishing could continue. These kinds of compromises are common at meetings like this.
The meeting in February was meant to agree on how to make the consensus decision a reality. But it was not to be. Now that NZ has withdrawn support, the original decision remains but without the mechanisms to make it happen. Bottom-trawling will likely continue in the South Pacific.
Why? The new NZ fisheries minister, Shane Jones, has publicly stated he was “keen to ensure that, number one, we’re looking after our own people, looking after jobs and opportunities for economic development to benefit New Zealand.”
While high seas fishing is an important industry for New Zealand, their bottom trawling activity in the South Pacific is small. One vessel fished the bottom in 2021-2022, catching only 20 tonnes of orange roughy. No bottom trawling has happened since then.
Since coming to power, New Zealand’s new government has questioned 2030 renewable energy targets, promised to “address climate change hysteria”, declared mining more important than nature protection – and supported bottom-trawling.
Many of these changes will be of considerable concern to Australia. For the past 15 years, Australia has taken a prominent leadership role – alongside New Zealand – in sustainable ocean management.
With Pacific island nations, Australia and NZ worked long and hard to progress the High Seas Treaty – a breakthrough opening new legal avenues to protect up to 30% of the unregulated high seas where illegal and exploitative fishing practices are common.
The NZ government’s willingness to jettison long collaborative work, abandon agreed commitments and risk existing agreements bodes poorly for cooperation across the Tasman. Australia must sadly now treat New Zealand as an opponent when it comes to protecting the seas and managing fisheries for the long term.
Lynda Goldsworthy has attended South Pacific regional fisheries meetings as an academic advisor on the Australian delegation for the past 5 years, and provides occasional consultancy advice to the Deep Sea Conservation Coalition on high seas conservation issues.
The Theatre of War video still, Stanislava Pinchuk, image courtesy of the artist.
Through a nuanced exploration of place, time, and memory, a new video work invites audiences to reflect on landscape and its relationship to the echoes of conflict.
Stanislava Pinchuk’s three-channel installation The Theatre of War uses a diverse range of performers, people and locations, interlacing the introductory passages of Homer’s The Iliad across three films which contend with grief, memory and place.
Pinchuk is a Ukrainian-Australian artist who grew up in Melbourne and now resides in Sarajevo, the capital of Bosnia and Herzegovina. Her body of work traces the shifting topographic landscapes of war zones across the world. Her pieces range from large-scale sculpture to data-maps and tapestries, and incorporate drawing, film, tattoo and installation.
At the launch event for this new work on display at ACMI, Pinchuk spoke compellingly of the time the work took to compose, the support she received, and the grief that surrounded it. Commissioned in 2019, the making of The Theatre of War was interrupted by the COVID pandemic, and deeply inflected by the Russian invasion of Ukraine in February 2022.
Artist Stanislava Pinchuk. James Hartley
Describing the piece as “an odd work that has borne the brunt of my grief”, Pinchuk shared memories of months in combat training with the Ukrainian army, where she and the soldiers would spend one minute of silence each day for those who had died.
A carefully constructed sonic world
In the darkened exhibition space, we sit facing three screens with three films in different locations and contexts.
In a Sarajevo theatre, six female performers in traditional costume take their seats on a stage. At the tomb of Homer on the island of Ios, a long path to a craggy isthmus overlooks the Mediterranean, where two young people perch on the rocky bluff. In a remote and destroyed village in the United Kingdom, masked and armed Ukrainian soldiers engage in very realistic combat training: boots, guns and all.
The Theatre of War video still, Stanislava Pinchuk, image courtesy of the artist.
Each film has its own discrete audio which makes for random or purposeful intersection. The soldiers, in full battle gear, run drills, shouting to clear rubble-filled rooms and firing off automatic weapon rounds as the choir’s singing swells and the wind gusts. Ammunition and cartridge cases clink as the opening lines of the Iliad – “Sing, goddess, the wrath of Achilles, Peleus’ son!” – are repeated in text and voice across the three screens: from a smiling chorister and then like a radio broadcast to the soldiers as they move through the destroyed landscape.
At times the films synchronise sets of still, detailed images: discarded bullet casings in the dust, a nose ring, a kneeling soldier. Long fingernails holding a mobile phone, a laughing singer, the metal discs of her head piece dangling. A shoe, a necklace, a freighter in the blue mist. The work builds to a sonic crescendo as the sounds of sirens and songs intersect with the bluster of automatic weapon fire echoing across the concrete bunker. At Homer’s grave, the scene is an azure, infinite sea.
Storytelling at the heart
The Theatre of War is rich, resonant and thoughtful. There is an essence of storytelling at its heart which coheres the work, reminiscent of Pinchuk’s interest in Homer’s universal, timeless themes of migration, battle, loss and yearning.
At times, extreme closeups of lines and wrinkles on hands and lips remind us of the resilience and the frailty of the body in war. There is a potent metaphor of landscape in the work: as a geographic descriptor, certainly, but also as a container for memory, and as a way to think about the terrain of bodies.
The Theatre of War video still, Stanislava Pinchuk, image courtesy of the artist.
There is something vulnerable and arresting about the faces, hands and legs in the work, which are variously marked, lipsticked, wrinkled or pierced. We are reminded of the traces that life leaves on our bodies, as well as the traces through time from ancient stories of war to modern, horrific ones: how innocent people become, as Homer describes, “the spoil for dogs and birds of every kind”.
I am struck by my own inadequate set of understandings as I view this work. I feel lucky, privileged, deeply moved. I notice my attention to the details, the physical bodies, the half hidden bits and pieces, but also the challenge established by the artist in the creation of three films viewed concurrently. Where do I look, and for how long? What is important? What might I miss?
Pinchuk has created a work which is somehow serene and gritty in equal measure. A meditation on memory and sadness, it considers, with compassion and courage, the ways in which places bear witness to history. The Theatre Of War asks us, compels us, to look.
Stanislava Pinchuk: The Theatre of War is at ACMI, Melbourne, until June 9.
Kate Hunter 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.
How do germs and fungi get in my brushes and sponges?
Germs and fungi can make their way into your makeup kit in lots of ways.
Ever flushed a toilet with the lid open with your makeup brushes nearby? There’s a good chance faecal particles have landed on them.
Perhaps a family member or housemate has used your eyeshadow brush when you weren’t looking, and transferred some microbes across in the process.
Bacteria that trigger a pimple outbreak can be easily transferred from the surface of your skin to a makeup brush or sponge.
And tiny little mites called Demodex mites, which have been linked to certain rashes and acne, live on your skin, as well, and so may end up in your sponge or brushes.
Germs and fungi can make their way into your makeup in lots of ways. Chay_Tee/Shutterstock
Bacterial contamination of lip cosmetics, in particular, can pose a risk of skin and eye infections (so keep that in mind if you use lip brushes). Lipsticks are frequently contaminated with bacteria such as Staphylococcus aureus, E. coli, and Streptococcus pneumoniae.
Low-quality cosmetics are more likely to have higher and more diverse microbial growth compared to high-quality cosmetics.
Brushes exposed to sensitive areas like the eyes, mouth and nose are particularly susceptible to being potential sources of infection.
The range of conditions caused by these microorganisms includes:
abscesses
skin and soft tissue infections
skin lesions
rashes
and dermatitis.
In severe cases, infections can lead to invasion of the bloodstream or deep tissues.
Commercially available cosmetics contain varying amounts and types of preservatives aimed at inhibiting the growth of fungi and bacteria.
But when you apply makeup, different cosmetics with unique formulations of preservatives can become mixed. When a preservative meant for one product mixes with others, it might not work as well because they have different water amounts or pH levels.
So preservatives are not foolproof. We also need to observe good hygiene practices when it comes to brushes and other cosmetics applicators.
Start with the basics: never share makeup brushes or sponges. Everyone carries different microbes on their skin, so sharing brushes and sponges means you are also sharing germs and fungi.
If you need to share makeup, use something disposable to apply it, or make sure any shared brushes are washed and sterilised before the next person uses it.
Clean makeup brushes by washing with hot soapy water and rinsing thoroughly.
How often? Stick to a cleaning routine you can repeat with consistency (as opposed to a deep clean that is done annually). Once a week might be a good goal for some, while others may need to wash more regularly if they are heavy users of makeup.
Definitely wash straight away if someone else has used your brushes or sponges. And if you’ve had an eye infection such as conjunctivitis, ensure you clean applicators thoroughly after the infection has resolved.
You can use bactericidal soap, 70% ethanol or chlorhexidine solutions to wash. Just make sure you wash very thoroughly with hot water after, as some of these things can irritate your skin. (While some people online say alcohol can degrade brushes and sponges, opinion seems to be mixed; in general, most disinfectants are unlikely to cause significant corrosion.)
For some brushes, heating or steaming them and letting them dry may also be an effective sterilisation method once they are washed with detergent. Microwaving sponges isn’t a good idea because while the heat generated by a domestic microwave would kill microbes, it would need temperatures approaching 100°C for a decent period of time (at least several minutes). The heat could melt some parts of the sponge and hot materials could be a scalding hazard.
Once clean, ensure brushes and sponges are stored in a dry place away from water sources (and not near an open toilet).
If you’re having makeup applied professionally, brushes and applicators should be sterilised or changed from person to person.
Not only is this expensive, it’s unnecessary. The same benefits can be achieved with cheaper detergents or alcohol (just rinse brushes carefully afterwards).
Disinfection methods such as using bactericidal soap, 70% ethanol, or chlorhexidine are all very good at reducing the amount of microbes on your brushes and sponges.
Rosalie Hocking is currently the recipient of an Australian government Future Fellowship.
Enzo Palombo 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.
Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Tim Windsor, Professor, Director, Generations Research Initiative, College of Education, Psychology and Social Work, Flinders University
“What are the main factors in forming someone’s personality?” – Emma, age 10, from Shanghai
Hello Emma, and thank you for this very interesting question!
Let’s start by exploring what we mean by personality. Have you noticed no two people are completely alike? We all see, experience, and understand the world in different ways.
For example, some people love spending time with friends and being the centre of attention, whereas other people are more shy and enjoy having time to themselves.
Your unique personality is shaped by your genes as well as various influences in your environment. And your personality plays an important role in how you interact with the world.
Did you know there are scientists who spend time researching personality? Their research is concerned with describing the ways people differ from each other, and understanding how these differences could be important for other parts of life such as our health and how well we do in school or at work.
There are many different perspectives on personality. A widely accepted viewpoint based on a lot of research is called the five factor model or the “big five”. According to this theory, a great deal of a person’s personality can be summarised in terms of where they sit on five dimensions, called traits:
the introversion-extraversion trait refers to how much someone is outgoing and social (extroverted) or prefers being with smaller groups of friends or focusing on their own thoughts (introverted)
agreeableness captures how much someone tends to be cooperative and helps others
openness to experience refers to how much a person is creative and enjoys experiencing new things
neuroticism describes a person’s tendency to experience negative feelings, like worrying about things that could go wrong
conscientiousness encompasses how much a person is organised, responsible, and dedicated to things that are important to them, like schoolwork or training for a sports team.
A person can have high, low, or moderate levels of each of these traits. And understanding whether someone has higher or lower levels of the big five can tell us a lot about how we might expect them to behave in different situations.
A number of factors shape our personalities, including our genes and social environment.
Our bodies are made up of many very small structures called cells. Within these cells are genes. We inherit genes from our parents, and they carry the information needed to make our bodies and personalities. So, your personality may be a bit like your parents’ personalities. For example, if you’re an outgoing sort of person who loves to meet new people, perhaps one or both of your parents are very social too.
Our personalities are influenced by the genes we get from our parents. KieferPix/Shutterstock
Personalities are also affected by our environment, such as our experiences and our relationships with family and friends. For example, some research has shown our relationships with our parents can influence our personality. If we have loving and warm relationships, we may be more agreeable and open. But if our relationships are hurtful or stressful, this may increase our neuroticism.
Another study showed that, over time, young children who were more physically active were less introverted (less shy) and less likely to get very upset when things don’t go their way, compared to children who were less physically active. Although we don’t know why this is for sure, one possible explanation is that playing sport leads to reduced shyness because it introduces children to different people.
While we’re learning more about personality development all the time, research in this area presents quite a few challenges. Many different biological, cultural and environmental influences shape our development, and these factors can interact with each other in complex ways.
Is our personality fixed once we become adults?
Although we develop most of our personality when we are young, and people’s personalities tend to become more stable as they get older, it is possible for aspects of a person’s personality to change, even when they are fully grown.
A good example of this can be seen among people who seek treatment for conditions like anxiety or depression. People who respond well to working with a psychologist can show decreases in neuroticism, indicating they become less likely to worry a lot or feel strong negative feelings when something stressful happens.
Hello, Curious Kids! Do you have a question you’d like an expert to answer? Ask an adult to send your question to curiouskids@theconversation.edu.au
Tim Windsor receives funding from the Australian Research Council.
Natalie Goulter receives funding from the National Health and Medical Research Council.
