All humanity benefits from Antarctica and the Southern Ocean that surrounds it. To some, these benefits may seem priceless. But in our market-driven world, calculating the economic value of the environment can be a useful tool in garnering support for its protection.
That was the intention of our new research. We crunched the numbers on the value of services Antarctica and the Southern Ocean provide in terms of fisheries, tourism and various natural processes that support Earth’s functioning.
And the result? We calculate the economic value at a whopping US$180 billion (A$276 billion) each year. We hope our findings will help prioritise conservation actions in Antarctica and galvanise international support to protect the region from the ravages of climate change.
Benefits seen, and unseen
The many benefits nature provides to humans are known as “ecosystem services”.
Some services provided by Antarctica and the Southern Ocean are invisible to most people. For example, the Southern Ocean absorbs carbon dioxide (CO₂) from the atmosphere, and ice in the region reflects heat. These processes help regulate Earth’s climate
The Southern Ocean also helps transport water around the globe, which helps distribute heat, fresh water, carbon and nutrients. These are known as “regulating” services.
We can think about the value of these services in terms of the cost that would accrue if it was not provided. For example, the Antarctic ice sheet contains 30 million cubic kilometres of ice. If that ice melted as a result of global warming, the effects on coastal communities around the world would be catastrophic.
Other benefits provided by the Antarctic region are more visible. For example, humans rely on toothfish and krill for food, pharmaceuticals and dietary supplements. A warmer and more acidic Southern Ocean would affect fish stocks – both in the region and elsewhere – and some species may become extinct.
The Antarctic region also provides cultural services such as hosting vital scientific research. And in recent years, Antarctica has experienced a surge in tourist numbers.
So how much are these services actually worth to humanity? Our research examined that question.
We used various methods to estimate the value of each service. Some, such as the provision of food, can be easily calculated by looking at what the market is willing to pay. Others, such as the avoidance of harm due to CO₂ absorption, are more complicated to ascribe value to.
Let’s start with tourism. Visitor numbers to Antarctica – mostly by ship – have increased markedly in recent decades, from about 8,000 a year in 1993–1994 to 105,000 in 2022–2023. We estimate the annual value of the Antarctic tourism industry at about US$820 million.
And what about the benefits of fisheries? Considering the tonnes of toothfish and krill caught in the region, we estimate the value at about US$370 million per year.
Finally, we estimated the economic value of “regulating services” such as carbon storage, sea level regulation and light reflection. We did this by multiplying estimates of the value of carbon stored in the Southern Ocean by estimates of the social cost of carbon.
This was a complex calculation, which we explain in greater detail in our paper. Overall, we estimate the value of the region’s regulating services at about US$179.3 billion a year.
All up, this brings the total value of Antarctica and the Southern Ocean’s ecosystem services to about US$180 billion a year. This is a conservative estimate which excludes some ecosystem services.
For example, the Antarctic Circumpolar Current and neighbouring ocean gyres – which distribute Antarctic nutrients around the world – are thought to help boost the value of global fisheries by about US$2.8 billion. We did not include this in the calculation above to avoid double-counting with other regulating services.
And due to a lack of data, we could not even roughly estimate the value of scientific work in Antarctica, so this is also excluded. But Antarctic research may have prevented significant damage to livelihoods and infrastructure across the world – for example, by monitoring changes in ice and sea levels – and we can expect this contribution to increase in future.
And the region provides other important services that we don’t have enough information to estimate, such as medicinal ingredients yet to be discovered.
As the Southern Ocean becomes warmer and more acidic, its natural systems will undergo huge changes. This will reduce the many benefits the Antarctic region provides, at great cost to the world. So how should the global community respond?
The Antarctic and Southern Ocean is governed by the Antarctic Treaty, which was adopted in 1959. The threats we’ve outlined were not anticipated at the time, and the treaty does not address them.
Treaty parties have the authority to safeguard some ecosystem services, such as tourism, fishing and science. But are unable to effectively safeguard others, such as regulating services when the threat comes from outside the Antartctic area.
The treaty has evolved over the years. Now it must go further, to safeguard the huge benefits – economic and otherwise – the region provides to the world.
Natalie Stoeckl is on the Scientific Expert Panel for Queensland’s sustainable fisheries strategy and was a member of the Reef 2050 Expert panel, and the Wet Tropics Scientific Advisory Board.
Rachel Baird 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 Alex Polyakov, Medical Director, Genea Fertility Melbourne; Clinical Associate Professor, Faculty of Medicine, Dentistry & Health Sciences, The University of Melbourne
In December 2020 in Alabama, a hospital patient gained unauthorised access to an adjoining IVF storage facility, which was not adequately secured. The patient is said to have removed several frozen embryos, which they then dropped on the floor, owing to a freeze-burn to their hand. The embryos were destroyed.
In Alabama, the Wrongful Death of a Minor Act allows parents of a deceased child to recover punitive damages for their child’s death, and three couples affected by the incident subsequently brought lawsuits against the clinic under this legislation.
When this case was heard recently in the Supreme Court of Alabama, the majority of justices opined this statute applies to frozen embryos because:
an unborn child is a genetically unique human being whose life begins at fertilization and ends at death.
This essentially means frozen embryos are protected under Alabama law to the same extent as any living child. While this was a civil matter, it’s not inconceivable that, based on this interpretation, anyone who destroys a frozen embryo in Alabama – accidentally or on purpose – could face criminal penalties, such as manslaughter or even murder charges.
Likely for fear it’s too risky, clinics in the state are now limiting their IVF services, leaving patients having to seek treatment elsewhere.
Ascribing personhood to frozen embryos is not a novel idea, but such a conviction is held only by the very fringes of the religious and conservative spectrum. There are clear political dimensions to this ruling, which appears to be an extension of a radical agenda on the altar of which the Supreme Court of the United States recently sacrificed the right to abortion.
This ruling from the Supreme Court of Alabama reflects a profound ignorance about how the process of IVF works.
Creating multiple embryos is essential for overall IVF success
The process of in vitro fertilisation, or IVF, begins with a “stimulated” cycle, where hormones are injected into a woman to stimulate an ovary to produce multiple eggs. These eggs are then collected and combined with sperm, forming embryos that are placed in an incubator to grow.
Five days later, the embryos are assessed. Some develop into “good quality” embryos suitable for transfer into a woman’s uterus. The hope is that following the transfer, the embryo will implant and result in a viable pregnancy, ultimately leading to the birth of a healthy child. Any good-quality embryos not used in a stimulated cycle are usually frozen for future attempts.
Unfortunately, IVF is somewhat inefficient, with attrition a prominent feature at every stage. Not all collected eggs are suitable for fertilisation, not all fertilise, not all embryos fertilise normally, and not all normally-fertilised embryos are of good quality. Poor-quality eggs, abnormally-fertilised embryos and poor-quality embryos are routinely discarded.
The practical implications of this process and the heartbreaking reality for individuals and couples undergoing IVF is that it takes, on average, three to five eggs to produce one good-quality embryo. However, this number is age-dependent and significantly higher for older women.
The chance of achieving pregnancy from one embryo transfer is also significantly influenced by the woman’s age, being as high as 50% in younger women but decreasing exponentially as a woman gets older. At the age of 46, it can be as low as 1-2%.
So it’s vital to be able to safely produce as many good-quality embryos as possible from one stimulated IVF cycle in case multiple sequential embryo transfers are needed to achieve a healthy pregnancy.
Should the initial embryo transfer fail to produce a viable pregnancy, and frozen embryos are available, those can be thawed and transferred into a woman’s uterus in a “thaw” cycle. These cycles usually don’t require the use of injectable hormones or an egg collection and, in most instances, require only monitoring (including ultrasounds and blood tests), and timed embryo transfer.
The risks associated with IVF, such as bleeding and infections, are mostly confined to the stimulated cycles, while thaw cycles pose minimal risk. Notably, the most labour-intensive, and, therefore, costly portion is the stimulated cycle, while a thaw cycle can be around three to four times cheaper.
Should embryo freezing become unavailable, all people undergoing IVF would have to rely solely on stimulated cycles to achieve pregnancy, significantly increasing the risks and radically escalating the costs.
The judge’s error in interpreting Australian practice
Tom Parker, the Chief Justice of the Supreme Court of Alabama, made the following statement in his judgement:
in Australia and New Zealand, prevailing ethical standards dictate that physicians usually create only one embryo at a time.
He implied that in Australia, the only IVF cycles ethically permitted are stimulated cycles, where just one embryo is created and transferred, with no embryos being frozen.
However, this assertion is demonstrably false. There are no guidelines or regulations in Australia that discourage the creation of multiple embryos, as this practice enhances overall pregnancy rates, while making IVF safer and more cost-effective.
What is discouraged is the transfer of multiple embryos at one time, as this increases the likelihood of multiple births, which carry heightened medical risks for both mothers and babies.
It seems the Chief Justice has fundamentally misunderstood the Australian regulatory framework. Ironically, the excellent IVF outcomes and very low rates of multiple births in Australia are largely attributable to the widespread use of frozen embryo transfer cycles – a practice now under threat in Alabama.
I am a fertility specialist and a Medical Director of Genea Fertility Melbourne, a private IVF unit.
Prime Minister James Marape has commended Papua New Guinea’s police, defence force and the local community for their quick action in the release of an Australian pilot and two local workers who were kidnapped in the Highlands yesterday.
The pilot of Hevilift and two locals were at Hela’s Mt Sisa on routine work at a Digicel tower yesterday when they were kidnapped by an armed group in the area.
The group demanded a ransom to be paid.
However, due to quick action by the police, defence and locals in the area, the three were released safely a few hours after their kidnapping.
Marape, also the Tari-Pori MP in Hela, said lawlessness had “destroyed” the country.
“This country does not have any place for lawbreakers. You can hide and run now but you cannot hide forever,” he said.
“The more you hide and run, you will put yourself and your family at risk just like others who are in prison or dead because of their crimes.”
Special force ‘armed to teeth’ Marape said PNG would not tolerate lawbreakers.
“The special police force unit we are building will be armed to the teeth to deal with any crime anywhere, any place,” he said.
“Just as we did in the first kidnapping and this second attempt, we will not tolerate such crimes in our country.”
Police Commissioner David Manning said in a statement the Australian pilot of a Hevilift helicopter and two Papua New Guinean subcontractors were released without harm following “a rapid deployment of security force elements”.
Manning said security forces were mobilised and deployed in the area in large numbers through yesterday afternoon, and through local leaders the abductors had been warned that lethal force would be employed in order to free the captives.
He said the helicopter had since been flown to Hides with the pilot and sub-contractors on board.
Manning said security forces had entered the “direct apprehension” phase of the operation in which the abductors were being tracked so they could face justice.
“If these criminals resist or show any hostility towards police, other security personnel or any member of the public, their fates will be sealed,” he said.
‘Enough of domestic terrorists’ “Our country has had enough of these domestic terrorists who are undermining the safety and security of our communities, and they have no place walking free.
“These criminals will be caught or they will be killed in the process,” Manning said.
The pilot and technicians had been taken captive at a remote site in the vicinity of Mt Sisa, Tari.
It is understood the issue motivated the group was acting in connection with a compensation claim, and demands were being communicated by the group.
“I congratulate security forces personnel who worked together with local leaders and axillary police to bring this situation to a successful and swift conclusion,” Manning added.
Rebecca Kuku is a journalist with The National. Republished with permission from The National and PNG Post-Courier (front page screenshot).
Late last week, the American company Intuitive Machines, in collaboration with NASA, celebrated “America’s return to the Moon” with a successful landing of its Odysseus spacecraft.
Recent Chinese-built sample return missions are far more complex than this project. And didn’t NASA ferry a dozen humans to the Moon back when microwaves were cutting-edge technology? So what is different about this mission developed by a US company?
Back to the Moon
The recent Odysseus landing stands out for two reasons. For starters, this is the first time a US-built spacecraft has landed – not crashed – on the Moon for over 50 years.
Secondly, and far more significantly, this is the first time a private company has pulled off a successful delivery of cargo to the Moon’s surface.
NASA has lately focused on destinations beyond the Earth–Moon system, including Mars. But with its Commercial Lunar Payload Services (CLPS) program, it has also funded US private industry to develop Moon landing concepts, hoping to reduce the delivery costs of lunar payloads and allow NASA engineers to focus on other challenges.
Working with NASA, Intuitive Machines selected a landing site about 300 kilometres from the lunar south pole. Among other challenges, landing here requires entering a polar orbit around the Moon, which consumes additional fuel.
At this latitude, the land is heavily cratered and dotted with long shadows. This makes it challenging for autonomous landing systems to find a safe spot for a touchdown.
NASA spent about US$118 million (A$180 million) to land six scientific payloads on Odysseus. This is relatively cheap. Using low-cost lunar landers, NASA will have an efficient way to test new space hardware that may then be flown on other Moon missions or farther afield.
Ten minutes of silence
One of the technology tests on the Odysseus lander, NASA’s Navigation Doppler Lidar experiment or NDL, appears to have proved crucial to the lander’s success.
As the lander neared the surface, the company realised its navigation systems had a problem. NASA’s NDL experiment is serendipitously designed to test precision landing techniques for future missions. It seems that at the last second, engineers bodged together a solution that involved feeding necessary data from NDL to the lander.
Ten minutes of silence followed before a weak signal was detected from Odysseus. Applause thundered through the mission control room. NASA’s administrator released a video congratulating everyone for returning America to the Moon.
It has since become clear the lander is not oriented perfectly upright. The solar panels are generating sufficient power and the team is slowly receiving the first images from the surface.
However, it’s likely Odysseus partially toppled over upon landing. Fortunately, at the time of writing, it seems most of the science payload may yet be deployed as it’s on the side of the lander facing upwards. The unlucky payload element facing downwards is a privately contributed artwork connected to NFTs.
The lander is now likely to survive for at least a week before the Sun sets on the landing site and a dark, frigid lunar night turns it into another museum piece of human technology frozen in the lunar regolith.
The Moon visible 10km beneath the Odysseus lander after it entered lunar orbit on February 21. Intuitive Machines, CC BY-NC-ND
NASA’s commercial approach to stimulating low-cost payload services all but guarantees some failures. But eventually NASA hopes that several commercial launch and landing providers will emerge from the program, along with a few learning experiences.
The know-how accumulated at organisations operating hardware in space is at least as important as the development of the hardware itself.
The market for commercial lunar payloads remains unclear. Possibly, once the novelty wears off and brands are no longer able to generate buzz by, for example, sending a piece of outdoor clothing to the Moon, this source of funding may dwindle.
However, just as today, civil space agencies and taxpayers will continue to fund space exploration to address shared science goals.
Ideally, commercial providers will offer NASA an efficient method for testing key technologies needed for its schedule of upcoming scientific robotic missions, as well as human spaceflight in the Artemis program. Australia would also have the opportunity to test hardware at a reduced price.
Meanwhile, in Australia, we may have nothing to launch anyway. We continue to spend less than the OECD average on scientific research, and only a few Australian universities – who traditionally lead such efforts – have received funding provided by the Australian Space Agency.
If we do support planetary science and space exploration in the future, Australians will need to decide if we want to allocate our limited resources, competing with NASA and US private industry, to supply launch, landing and robotic services to the global space industry.
Alternatively, we could leverage these lower-cost payload providers to develop our own scientific space program, and locally developed space technologies associated with benefits to the knowledge economy, education and national security.
Two years after Russia’s full-scale invasion of Ukraine, the European landscape has been completely transformed by Ukrainian migrants fleeing their homeland.
According to the European Union, around 4.2 million Ukrainians currently receive temporary protection in EU countries, which entitles them to residence permits, working rights and access to health care and education.
The largest number are in Germany, where 1.2 million Ukrainians were living as of November 2023. Surprisingly, the second-largest number of refugees (960,000) are in Poland, a country with no significant history of accepting forced migrants.
In the weeks after Russia’s full-scale invasion in February 2022, Poland immediately opened its borders and became the primary recipient of Ukrainian refugees. By May 2022, 3.5 million Ukrainians – or 53% of all people who fled the country – had crossed the border into Poland.
Many have since returned to Ukraine or settled elsewhere, but many have stayed. Why has Poland been so open to this large number of migrants – and how long will they be able to stay?
During Poland’s post-1989 transition to democracy, migrants from Ukraine became an important part of the labour force. Then, in 2014, conflict sparked by Russian-backed separatists in eastern Ukraine drove more Ukrainian migrants to Poland.
Before the 2022 Russian invasion, roughly 2 million foreigners lived in Poland – some 1.35 million of them Ukrainians. These Ukrainians were largely male workers, benefiting from the huge demand for labour in a country with an ageing and shrinking workforce.
Given this history of migration, it stands to reason Poland would show solidarity with Ukrainians after the invasion. And the large Ukrainian migrant population already familiar with living in Poland volunteered to help the refugees when they arrived – mostly women with children.
What drove this huge swell of public empathy? While some were motivated by their previous contact with migrants, the collective memory of Soviet invasion and occupation was also important.
As the war has dragged on, some Poles have begun to worry about the impact of refugees on the country’s finances and health care. While public support was nearly universal (94%) for admitting Ukrainian refugees in March 2022, it slipped to 65% in September 2023.
Polish volunteers rushed to aid recent Ukrainian refugees arriving at the Wroclaw railway station in early 2022. Maksym Szyda/Shutterstock.
The Polish government also swiftly adopted a special-purpose law that gave Ukrainians temporary protection status and access to the same publicly funded services as Poles, such as welfare and employment rights, including business ownership. This law is rooted in the 2001 EU Temporary Protection Directive, which was activated after the invasion for the first time.
By December 2023, more than 1.64 million Ukrainians had applied for asylum or temporary protection in Poland – by far the highest number in eastern Europe. Their protection status was recently extended until June 30 of this year, with a further extension expected.
This was a startling move for the right-wing, anti-immigration, populist government led by the Law and Justice party. After all, this is the same Polish government that did not implement the EU relocation scheme in response to the 2015–16 European migration crisis. It also responded with force when neighbouring Belarus manufactured another crisis in 2021 by sending hundreds of migrants from the Middle East and Africa to the Polish border.
We believe this paradox can be explained by the Ukrainian refugees being aligned with the government’s then-criteria for acceptance. They were perceived as being “genuine” refugees (for example, women, children and elderly people fleeing war) and shared cultural traits with Poles.
This open-door response contrasted with the earlier rhetoric of right-wing politicians and media, who presented non-European refugees as a security risk and a threatening “other” forced on the government by EU quotas.
Better opportunities beyond Poland
Because Ukrainian refugees now hold various residency permits, thanks to their EU-mandated temporary protection status, they can cross borders easily. There have been more than 17 million crossings from Ukraine to Poland since the invasion, and nearly 14.7 million crossings in the other direction.
Given their high mobility, it remains to be seen how many Ukrainian migrants decide to stay in Poland. The ability to work is key. In 2022, one survey showed the employment rate of Ukrainian refugees in Poland to be 65% – the highest for displaced Ukrainians in Europe. A year later, it had only dipped slightly to 62%.
About half the refugees in one survey said they couldn’t find a job in 2023, double the rate the year before. And only 7.7% said they wouldn’t take a job below their qualifications, compared with 20% the year before.
Whether refugees ultimately return to Ukraine, however, depends on several factors. Surveys show upwards of 39% of migrants intend to remain in Poland permanently or for the long term. The main reasons include the ability to work and provide for themselves and their families, job satisfaction, the opinions of their children, and better housing.
How Poland responds to these needs will influence whether Ukrainian refugees feel welcome to stay and further integrate into Polish society, particularly under the newly elected, more liberal Polish government.
Marta Pachocka is an expert of the Team Europe Direct Poland.
Sabina Kubiciel-Lodzińska has collaborated academically (without financial reward) with the research company Openfield on a research report comparing pre-war Ukrainian migrants and refugees in Poland.
Kate Golebiowska 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 tiny foe threatens Australian beekeepers’ livelihood, our food supply and the national economy. First detected in New South Wales in 2022, the Varroa mite is now established in Australia.
The parasitic mite, which feeds on honey bees and transmits bee viruses, has since spread across New South Wales.
It is expected to kill virtually all unmanaged honey bees living in the bush (also known as “feral” honey bees), which provide ecosystem-wide pollination. Honey bees managed by beekeepers will survive only with constant and costly use of pesticides.
As the last holdout against Varroa, Australia has a key advantage – we can still take action that was impossible elsewhere. We know Varroa-resistant bees would be the silver bullet.
Despite decades of research, no fully resistant strains exist, largely because the genetics of Varroa resistance are complex and remain poorly understood.
A recently released national management plan places a heavy focus on beekeeper education, aiming to transition the industry to self-management in two years. This leaves research gaps that need to be urgently filled – and we can all work together to help tackle these.
Without human intervention, Varroa kills around 95% of the honey bees it infects, but the survivors can evolve resistance. However, losing almost all bees would decimate Australia’s agriculture.
Our feral honey bees will have no choice but to evolve resistance, as they have in other countries. However, feral honey bees are not suited for beekeeping as they are too aggressive, don’t stay with the hive and don’t produce enough honey.
In principle, we could breed for a combination of feral resistance and domestic docility. But figuring out the genetics of how feral bees resist Varroa has been a challenge. As most bees exposed to the parasite will die, the survivors will be genetically different.
Some of these differences will be due to natural selection, but most will be due to chance. Identifying the genes responsible for resistance in this scenario is difficult. The best way to find them is to measure genetic changes before and after Varroa infestation. But to do that, we need bee populations largely unaffected by Varroa.
This is where our unique Australian opportunity comes in. We have a small and vanishing window to collect bees before the inevitable rapid spread of the mites, and the mass die-offs, occur.
A Varroa mite visible in a beehive – they mainly reproduce on bee larvae. Igor Chus/Shutterstock
We are collecting information… and bees
My lab at the Australian National University’s Research School of Biology has started collecting data on feral bee populations around New South Wales to identify pre-Varroa genetic diversity.
We will also monitor changes in bee population size and the spread of viruses and mites.
The most efficient way to collect bees is to go to a local clearing, such as a sports oval surrounded by forest. Unbeknownst to the cricket players, honey bee males (that is, drones) congregate at these sites by the thousands on sunny afternoons looking for mates.
You can lure them with some queen pheromone suspended from a balloon, and sweep them up with a butterfly net. Bee drones have no stinger and only come out for a couple of hours when the weather is fantastic, making collecting them literally a walk in the park, suitable for nature enthusiasts of all ages.
The author pictured with a stingless male honey bee (a drone) collected for genetic research into Varroa resistance. Nic Vevers/ANU
Anyone can help
You can help this effort by collecting some drones in your local area – this would save us time and carbon emissions from driving all over the country. We will provide pheromone lures, instructions, and materials for sending the bees back via mail. By sacrificing a few drones for the research now, we might save millions of bees in the future.
If you can spare just a couple of summer afternoons, this would give two timepoints at your location, and we can monitor any changes as the Varroa infestation progresses. More information can be found on our website.
Apart from our project, there are also other urgent research questions. For example, how will native forests respond to the loss of their dominant pollinators? Will honey bee viruses spread into other insects?
Work on these and other projects also requires pre-Varroa data. Unfortunately, Varroa falls through our research infrastructure net. Most of Australia’s agricultural funding is industry-led, however, the beekeeping industry is small and lacks the resources to tackle Varroa research while also reeling from its impacts.
Other industries that rely on honey bees for pollination, including most fruit, nut and berry growers, have diverse research needs and are one step removed from the actual problem.
Together, we can take action to save Australia’s honey bees and assure security for our key pollinators.
The new Mean Girls is a fresh take on a classic teen comedy, this time appealing to a new audience: Gen Z. So how does the film paint the new generation? As one that loves to drink.
Mean Girls is filled with references to and depictions of alcohol. There’s drinking at parties, a scene where Cady gets drunk, and even a joke about a vodka-filled inhaler.
On-screen alcohol exposure is an important issue, particularly when underage drinking is shown. Greater on-screen exposure to alcohol is associated with an increased risk of beginning to drink alcohol at a younger age, and increased likelihood of weekly drinking and binge drinking among young people.
But despite the attempts to appeal to a young audience, the new Mean Girls film doesn’t reflect most of Gen Z’s attitudes towards drinking. In fact, research shows young people are increasingly rejecting alcohol, especially when compared to older generations. So why does alcohol retain a chokehold on our screens?
Drinks all round?
A 2023 Cancer Council report found in 1996, 90% of Australian secondary school students aged 16–17 reported drinking alcohol in the past year. By 2023, this had dropped to 64%.
The report also found recent risky drinking – that is, consuming five or more alcoholic drinks on any day within the past week – among 16- and 17-year-olds has particularly declined, dropping from 22% in 1996 to 9% in 2023.
This trend isn’t unique to Australia. Gen Z-ers across the world are drinking much less alcohol than previous generations.
But we’re yet to see this decline reflected in films and television targeting young people.
A 2019 analysis found alcohol remains the most frequently portrayed substance in films, and substance use (including alcohol) on screen was more often portrayed as having either neutral or rewarding consequences (such as increased popularity), in comparison to unrewarding consequences (such as vomiting or headaches).
One-fifth of teenage characters in PG-13 (roughly equivalent to an Australia M rating) and R-rated films are shown drinking alcohol, and nearly half of G-rated animated films show alcohol use.
One prime example is Ratatouille (2007). This Disney-Pixar film is so beloved by Gen Z it got turned into a TikTok musical. The film shows alcohol a whopping 60 times, even though it’s rated PG and aimed at children.
Alcohol imagery isn’t limited to film or broadcast TV. Recent research found more alcohol in streaming content from Amazon and Netflix than in broadcast television.
And despite the sheer volume of on-screen alcohol depictions, our research shows films depict alcohol exposure nearly five times more frequently than the average Australian adult thinks they do.
Lack of regulation – and young filmmakers
Locally, alcohol exposure in films is governed by the Australian Classification Board. The board considers six classifiable elements, such as sex and violence, when deciding on a rating.
Currently, alcohol is not explicitly represented among these, although excessive consumption and alcohol dependency is considered under the element of “themes”.
This has an impact: alcohol brand placements have nearly doubled in the last two decades, and alcohol brands appear in 41% of children’s films.
When we consider why young people are so often shown drinking in films, it’s not just a matter of what can be shown under Australian regulations. Film and television is largely not yet directed, written or created by Gen Z-ers. A lack of representation can lead to young people’s perspectives not being understood, or unaccounted for.
As Gen Z enters the film industry, the depiction of alcohol on screen may change. Grusho Anna/Shutterstock
The mismatch between Gen Z’s drinking habits and the overexposure of alcohol in films is also surprising when we consider most adults in our research were supportive of a range of policies restricting alcohol exposure in films. A significant number of adult Australians support policies de-glorifying alcohol consumption and beverages in films – especially in films aimed at children.
Australia intends to reform its National Classification Scheme. Perhaps these changes – along with Gen Z entering the film industry themselves – will allow for young people’s actual drinking habits to be reflected more accurately on screen.
Maree Patsouras receives funding from an Australian Government Research Training Program Scholarship.
Amy Pennay receives funding from the Australian Research Council, the National Health and Medical Research Council, the Victorian Health Promotion Foundation and the Victorian Responsible Gambling Foundation.
Benjamin Riordan’s research is funded by La Trobe University, the Victorian Health Promotion Foundation (VicHealth), the Australian Research Council (ARC), the National Health and Medical Research Council (NHMRC), and National Institute on Alcohol Abuse and Alcoholism (NIAAA; US).
Emmanuel Kuntsche receives funding from La Trobe University, the Victorian Health Promotion Foundation (VicHealth), the National Health and Medical Research Council (NHMRC), the Australian Research Council (ARC), and the University of Bayreuth Centre of International Excellence “Alexander von Humboldt”. Emmanuel Kuntsche serves as that Secretary of the Australasian Professional Society on Alcohol and other Drugs (APSAD).
Australian consumers don’t understand how companies – including data brokers – track, target and profile them. This is revealed in new research on consumer understanding of privacy terms, released by the non-profit Consumer Policy Research Centre and UNSW Sydney today.
Our report also reveals 70% of Australians feel they have little or no control over how their data is disclosed between companies. Many expressed anger, frustration and distrust.
If Australians are to have any hope of fair and trustworthy data handling, the government must stop companies from hiding their practices behind confusing and misleading privacy terms and mandate fairness in data handling.
We are all being tracked
Our activities online and offline are constantly tracked by various companies, including data brokers that trade in our personal information.
This includes data about our activity and purchases on websites and apps, relationship status, children, financial circumstances, life events, health concerns, search history and location.
Many businesses focus their efforts on finding new ways to track and profile us, despite repeated evidence that consumers view this as misuse of their personal information.
Companies describe the data they collect in confusing and unfamiliar terms. Much of this wording seems designed to prevent us from understanding or objecting to the use and disclosure of our personal information, often collected in surreptitious ways.
Businesses commonly try to argue this information is “de-identified” or not “personal”, to avoid running afoul of the federal Privacy Act in which these terms are defined.
But many privacy policies muddy the waters by using other, undefined terms. They create the impression data can’t be used to single out the consumer or influence what they’re shown online – even when it can.
These terms have no legal definition and no fixed meaning in practice.
Data brokers and other companies may use “pseudonymised information” or “hashed email addresses” (essentially, encrypted addresses) to create detailed profiles. These will be shared with other businesses without our knowledge. They do this by matching the information collected about us by various companies in different parts of our lives.
“Anonymised information” – not a legal term in Australia – may sound like it wouldn’t reveal anything about an individual consumer. Some companies use it when only a person’s name and email have been removed, but we can still be identified by other unique or rare characteristics.
What did our survey find?
Our survey showed Australians do not feel in control of their personal information. More than 70% of consumers believe they have very little or no control over what personal information online businesses share with other companies.
Only a third of consumers feel they have at least moderate control over whether businesses use their personal information to create a profile about them.
Most consumers have no understanding of common terms in privacy notices, such as “hashed email address” or “advertising ID” (a unique ID usually assigned to one’s device).
And it’s likely to be worse than these statistics suggest, since some consumers may overestimate their knowledge.
The terms refer to data widely used to track and influence us without our knowledge. However, when consumers don’t recognise descriptions of personal information, they’re less likely to know whether that data could be used to single them out for tracking, influencing, profiling, discrimination or exclusion.
Most consumers either don’t know, or think it unlikely, that “pseudonymised information”, a “hashed email address” or “advertising ID” can be used to single them out from the crowd. They can.
Most consumers think it’s unacceptable for businesses they have no direct relationship with to use their email address, IP address, device information, search history or location data. However, data brokers and other “data partners” not in direct contact with consumers commonly use such data.
Consumers are understandably frustrated, anxious and angry about the unfair and untrustworthy ways organisations make use of their personal information and expose them to increased risk of data misuse.
Fairness, not ‘education’
Simply educating consumers about the terms used by companies and the ways their data is shared may seem an obvious solution.
However, we don’t recommend this for three reasons. Firstly, we can’t be sure of the meaning of undefined terms. Companies will likely keep coming up with new ones.
Secondly, it’s unreasonable to place the burden of understanding complex data ecosystems on consumers who naturally lack expertise in these areas.
Thirdly, “education” is pointless when consumers are not given real choices about the use of their data.
Urgent law reform is needed to make Australian privacy protections fit for the digital era. This should include clarifying that information that singles an individual out from the crowd is “personal information”.
We also need a “fair and reasonable” test for data handling, instead of take-it-or-leave-it privacy “consents”.
Most of us can’t avoid participating in the digital economy. These changes would help ensure that instead of confusing privacy terms, there are substantial, meaningful legal requirements for how our personal information is handled.
Katharine Kemp receives funding from the UNSW Allens Hub for Technology, Law and Innovation. She is a Member of the Expert Panel of the Consumer Policy Research Centre, and the Australian Privacy Foundation.
Should American allies be worried that if Donald Trump returns to the White House next year, he will tear apart treaties, recast decades-old international arrangements and adopt a go-it-alone approach to global affairs?
Recent comments from Trump disparaging NATO allies have put this question on the front burner in Washington and other world capitals.
Trump is, of course, in the middle of a presidential campaign and is seeking to show he would be a very different president from Joe Biden. Given Biden’s difficulties on foreign policy, it is easy to see why.
Biden’s mixed foreign policy record
Biden’s approval numbers are near historic lows – just under 40% of Americans approve of the job he is doing. In particular, Biden’s foreign policy has been a problem. His plunge in popularity began around the time of the catastrophically mismanaged US troop withdrawal from Afghanistan two and a half years ago.
Israel’s war against Hamas in Gaza – and the Houthi attacks in the Red Sea and Iranian proxy attacks against American forces in Iraq and Syria that followed – have only made Biden look weaker. In fact, recent polls show only a third of American voters approve of his foreign policy.
A resurgent Iran reminds older Americans of the more than 50 Americans taken hostage in Tehran in 1979 and then-President Jimmy Carter’s failure to free them – one of the main reasons why Carter lost the 1980 presidential election to Ronald Reagan. The hostages were freed the day Reagan took office.
Today, Biden faces the same potential election-year problem with the Gaza war. Younger, progressive Americans, as well as Arab-Americans, are more likely to be aghast at Biden’s support for Israel’s assault on Hamas in Gaza and the consequent civilian deaths. Many Biden supporters are concerned this could affect his chances against Trump in November’s election, particularly in swing states like Michigan, which has a large number of Arab-American voters.
Also working against Biden is the war fatigue felt by many Americans. After 20 years of fighting in Afghanistan and Iraq, many Americans are ready to take a break from global leadership responsibilities.
A long tradition of placing America first
Biden’s foreign policy weaknesses opens the door for Trump to show voters he will take a different approach.
Over the past four decades, starting with Reagan, successful presidential candidates have criticised foreign adventures, instead emphasising domestic investment. Political scientists use the term “strategic retrenchment” to describe this, but politicians are more likely to use a phrase like “America First.”
In 1984, for instance, Reagan ran one of the most effective presidential campaign ads in history called “Morning in America”, which depicted a return to domestic tranquillity and prosperity.
Reagan’s ‘Morning in America’ ad from the 1984 presidential campaign.
In 1992, Democratic strategist James Carville coined another famous phrase, “It’s the economy, stupid”, which then-candidate Bill Clinton’s campaign evoked successfully to focus on domestic economic issues in his race against President George H.W. Bush.
Then, in 2000, then-Republican challenger George W. Bush sharply criticised the Clinton administration’s focus on “nation building”, comparing it to “international social work”.
When it comes to Trump, bombast is a feature, not a bug. When he ran for the White House for the first time in 2016, he outlined his isolationist, “America first” approach, criticising President Barack Obama and his secretary of state, Hillary Clinton, for their “reckless, rudderless and aimless foreign policy”. He said, if elected,
I will return us to a timeless principle. Always put the interest of the American people and American security above all else.
He has returned to this rhetoric in the current campaign, even encouraging Russia to invade NATO countries that don’t spend the required 2% of their GDP on defence. While offensive at first blush, these comments serve the very useful purpose of showing a huge difference from Biden.
A 19th century, populist world view
It is also important to understand a deeper truth about these comments. In his bones, Trump does not truly value any formal alliances formed before his ascent to power. Call it narcissism or isolationism if you must (and neither is entirely inaccurate), the former president sees formal alliances as a lower priority than fair play and power politics.
Andrew Jackson portrait. Wikimedia Commons
In this, Trump is a prime example of the Jacksonian tradition in American politics. Described best by the scholar and columnist Walter Russell Mead, the Jacksonian tradition is based on the political beliefs of former President Andrew Jackson, who was president from 1829 to 1837.
Jacksonians, like Trump and his most ardent supporters today, have a highly sceptical view of America’s involvement in global affairs. As Mead writes:
They prefer the rule of custom to the written law, and that is as true in the international sphere as it is in personal relations at home. Jacksonians believe that there is an honour code in international life […] and those who live by the code will be treated under it. But those who violate the code – who commit terrorist acts in peacetime, for example – forfeit its protection and deserve no consideration.
For Jacksonians, when a country welches on its obligations (such as, in Trump’s view, the level of defence spending of many European NATO nations), it is morally right to punish them by calling into question treaty obligations.
Seen as a liar and fabulist by his opponents, Trump embodies this Jacksonian tradition of “customary honour” for his supporters, whose contempt for global elites and international institutions is deep and profound. (Trump was so enamoured with Jackson, in fact, he had a portrait of the former president hanging in the Oval Office.)
This means, if Trump becomes president again, America’s allies, whether in NATO or the Indo-Pacific or elsewhere, will have to de-emphasise lawyerly arguments about international obligations and adapt quickly to the Trump-Jacksonian customary honour approach to diplomacy.
Superficially, this will mean global leaders offering praise for Trump’s various political performances. Going deeper, it also means finding a way to demonstrate that their relationship with the US is congruent with his sense of customary honour (and is also materially beneficial to the US, and maybe even to Trump himself).
The model for this is the late prime minister of Japan, Shinzo Abe. Within days of Trump’s surprising election win over Hillary Clinton in 2016, Abe visited him at Trump Tower in New York and gave him a gold-plated golf club worth almost US$4,000. Trump immediately identified Abe as “friend.”
After then-Australian Prime Minister Malcolm Turnbull had an unpleasant phone call with Trump in 2017, the Australian ambassador to the US, Joe Hockey, took to the links with Trump.
With good humour and some personal charm, Hockey helped restore the diplomatic relationship – not by emphasising legalistic constraints but by developing a personal relationship that was grounded in common sense and customary honour.
Lester Munson is a Non-Resident Fellow at the U.S. Studies Centre. Lester Munson has worked for President George W. Bush and congressional Republicans during his public service career in Washington.
February 28 marks four years since COVID-19 was first reported in Aotearoa New Zealand. Many of us are probably surprised this virus is still causing a pandemic.
The World Health Organization refers to COVID-19 as a continuing pandemic. As Scientific American put it recently, it “has been the elephant in every room — sometimes confronted and sometimes ignored but always present”.
It wasn’t meant to be like this. The 1918 influenza pandemic swept through New Zealand in eight weeks, killing 9,000 people – almost 1% of the population. Then it was gone, returning as a new seasonal flu virus.
In doing so, it defined how pandemics were expected to behave. This model was written into pandemic plans and collective thinking across the globe.
But COVID is still circulating four years after New Zealand reported its first case, and more than two years after the Omicron variant arrived and infection became widespread.
Constantly present, it is also occurring in waves. Unexpectedly, the current fifth wave was larger than the fourth, suggesting we can’t rely on the comforting assumption that COVID will get less severe over time.
Unpredictable evolutionary shifts
These waves are driven by the interaction of the organism (SARS CoV-2 virus), the host (human characteristics such as immunity and behaviour), and environmental factors (such as indoor ventilation).
Continuing viral evolution is a major contributor to the changing dynamic. The virus has demonstrated an ability for large, unpredictable evolutionary shifts that dramatically alter its genome and spike protein.
The result is an enhanced ability to evade prior immunity and infect more people. This jump was seen with the highly mutated BA.2.86 subvariant in mid-2023.
Its offspring, JN.1, has acquired additional changes and is causing such a wave of new infections it could potentially be the next variant of concern, with its own Greek letter. It is now driving epidemic increases across the globe, including in New Zealand. This dominance by a single subvariant takes us back to the first year of Omicron in 2022.
The pandemic continues to have a large, visible health impact. It is a leading cause of serious illness and death, mainly in older populations and those with existing long-term health conditions.
But COVID-19 also has an important and largely unmeasured burden of disease as the cause of long COVID, which may become its biggest health impact. A growing number of studies are describing an estimated incidence of long COVID of 5% to 15% of all infections.
For example, a recent large study of almost 200,000 Scottish adults reported that, after adjustment for factors that might confuse the results, long COVID prevalence following an infection was 6.6% at six months, 6.5% at 12 months, and 10.4% at 18 months.
New Zealand now needs a strong, integrated response to COVID-19 and other respiratory infections.
The major pandemic interventions have not changed: vaccination, public health and social measures to prevent infection, and antivirals for more vulnerable groups. The evidence has firmed up that long COVID risk is reduced by vaccination, but research is less certain for antivirals.
But growing pandemic complacency from political leaders and the public has changed things. Some of this apparent indifference can be put down to understandable fatigue with response measures. But it remains dangerous in the face of a continuing pandemic.
One way to keep a focus on prevention and control would be to include these measures in an integrated respiratory infectious disease strategy. This would combine COVID-19 control measures with those used to protect against influenza, respiratory syncytial virus (RSV), and other respiratory infections.
Measles could be added to the list, given the rising threat to New Zealand from a global resurgence of the disease.
This integrated strategy would include vaccination, promoting testing and self-isolation when sick, and measures to reduce transmission in critical indoor environments such as healthcare, public transport and education settings.
Such a programme would need to be supported with community engagement, education, surveillance and research.
Structural inequalities mean Māori, Pacific peoples, and those living in relative deprivation, are less vaccinated, less protected from infection, less tested and less likely to have antivirals.
Consequently, they are more likely to be hospitalised and die from COVID-19. These inequities are currently not being systematically tracked and acted on.
As we enter the fifth pandemic year, we need a change in thinking about COVID-19. This infection has pathological features in common with the other severe coronaviruses (SARS and MERS).
It is wishful thinking to imagine it will suddenly transform into a common cold coronavirus. As a recent review article concluded:
Transition from a pandemic to future endemic existence of SARS-CoV-2 is likely to be long and erratic […] endemic SARS-CoV-2 is by far not a synonym for safe infections, mild COVID-19 or a low population mortality and morbidity burden.
In the face of this continuing pandemic threat, we need a response that is evidence-informed rather than evidence-ignored.
Michael Baker is a member of the Ministry of Health’s COVID-19 Technical Advisory Group (TAG). The University of Otago receives funding from the Health Research Council of New Zealand and the New Zealand Ministry of Health for his research on COVID-19 and other infectious diseases.
The University of Otago receives funding from the Health Research Council of New Zealand and the New Zealand Ministry of Health for research on COVID-19 and other infectious diseases.
Matire Harwood was a member of the Ministry of Health COVID-19 TAG. She receives research funding from Health Research Council, National Heart Foundation and National Science Challenge-Healthier Lives. She also works at Papakura Marae which received funding for COVID-19 testing, vaccination and management.
Men continue to outstrip women in the salary stakes, with men’s median annual salary $11,542 greater than women’s, according to newly released data for Australian private companies. It’s a gap of 14.5%, down from last year’s 15.4%.
Men’s median annual base salary in 2022-23 of $79,613 compares to $68,071 for women.
When bonuses and overtime are added – common for high-paying jobs mostly held by men – the gap in total remuneration widens to $18,461, equivalent to 19% and hardly budging from the previous year’s 19.8%).
This is the first time that the Workplace Gender Equality Agency, which annually reports gender pay gaps by industry, has released the names of actual companies and the differences in what they pay male and female employees.
In this year’s snapshot released on Tuesday, the difference is largest in male-dominated industries (including mining, construction and utilities), with a gender gap in base salaries of 17.5%.
The WGEA data is based on the median of workers’ annual salaries in all large private companies in Australia. The agency includes all workers and converts the numbers into full-time equivalent earnings.
The gap, highlighted in these figures, is the difference between what men and women in each company earn overall, as opposed to the differences between what they are paid for doing the same job.
While the latest ABS figures for average weekly earnings released last week show women’s wages are improving, they are still lagging behind men.
Which industries and companies?
Companies have been required to report their gender pay gap to the WGEA for the past decade, but until now, these statistics relating to individual businesses have not been made public.
New laws mandating the publication of numbers mean we can now dive deeper into company spreadsheets and find out the size of the gender pay gap for every private organisation in Australia with more than 100 employees.
This data reveals that we can’t typify companies by industry. There are bad performing companies – as well as good performers – across all industries.
Among Australia’s biggest employers, the retailers had relatively low gaps in total remuneration, with Woolworths reporting 5.7%, Coles 5.6%, and Wesfarmers 3.5%.
The mining companies had much bigger gaps, with BHP Group reporting 20.3%, and Rio Tinto 13.5%.
Qantas reported 37% and Telstra Group 20.2%.
This new transparency is part of reforms passed last year to the Workplace Gender Equality Act 2012, designed to spur companies to take more action on gender equity.
Of the almost 5,000 companies included in the WGEA report, almost 1,000 have a gender pay gap in median base earnings exceeding 20%.
About 350 of these have a gap of over 30% and for about 100, the gap is greater than 40%.
At the other end of the scale, there are about 1,000 companies where the pay gap favours women. These companies deal mainly in health, education and disability services where the high concentration of women means that senior roles are likely to be held by women.
Who does this data empower?
Pay gap transparency places public pressure on employers to do something about their gender pay inequities.
It equips employees with more information to take into their salary negotiations. This tackles the problem of “asymmetric information” where employers know where each worker sits on the pay scale, but employees don’t.
Transparency gives customers and investors more information about whether a company is an equitable employer. They can use this new knowledge to make decisions about which companies to do business with.
This data empowers the whole Australian community. Any member of the public can go to the WGEA data explorer and search for any large private sector company to see the magnitude of their gender pay gap.
Supermarkets, banks, telecommunication companies, retailers, airlines, builders and energy providers are all on the list.
But new knowledge needs to be followed by action
While evidence on the benefits of transparency for closing the gender pay gap is promising, it’s not a silver bullet.
Firstly, while this public outing aims to spark stronger pressure on companies to take action, some companies will be more driven by public perceptions than others.
Evidence of how widespread these gender pay gaps are could even normalise them, leading companies to reason they are not that out of step with others in their sector.
One of the biggest gaps in pay exists between men and women in mining. Shutterstock
Secondly, there are risks in expecting individual women to use this new information try to negotiate more strongly for a pay rise.
Women still face the risk of backlash for showing assertiveness in bargaining. Being armed with extra data does not necessarily shield against these other gender biases.
Thirdly, even if women can bargain successfully, studies suggest pay transparency mostly empowers senior women. This was the outcome in UK universities where transparency led to more senior women securing a pay rise or switching to another higher-paying employer. Junior women with weaker bargaining power could not leverage this data in the same way.
Research shows that pay transparency can even worsen morale, productivity and perceptions of fairness if not also matched by clear explanations from employers on what actions they are taking to rectify inequities.
Employers and governments now have to act
With their gender pay gaps now in full view, the onus is on employers to adopt more equitable hiring, promotion and pay-setting practices.
This can even bring cost savings.
After Denmark mandated pay transparency, the gender pay gap narrowed. Not because women’s wage growth accelerated, but because men’s faster wage growth slowed down. It means pay transparency can moderate employers’ wage bill.
While greater transparency of information is empowering, it alone will not be enough. It needs to be accompanied by actions.
The fact Australia’s gender pay gap has endured, even over 50 years since equal pay was enshrined in law, reflects a combination of society-wide factors, family dynamics, organisational culture and practices, and policy settings.
Actions also need to include evidence-informed policy, such as increasing access to affordable child care and expanding paid parental leave, to close the gender pay gap for good.
Angela Jackson undertakes research consulting projects for state governments and non-for profits focused on achieving gender equity in Australia including closing the gender pay gap. Angela is currently a member of the Economic Inclusion Advisory Committee which will make recommendations to the Australian Government on measures to improve economic inclusion, including gender equity, ahead of the Commonwealth Budget.
Leonora Risse has undertaken research for WGEA and made a submission to the review of the Workplace Gender Equality Act. She serves as an Expert Panel Member on gender pay equity for the Fair Work Commission. She receives research funding from the Trawalla Foundation and the Women’s Leadership Institute Australia. She is a member of the Economic Society of Australia and the Women in Economics Network.
Asbestos is making national news once again after being found in contaminated mulch used in hundreds of locations, including schools and hospitals, across Sydney and regional New South Wales.
With headlines featuring terms such as “crisis”, “nightmare” and “deadly”, it’s hard to believe the toxic mineral was once hailed for its supposedly “magical” properties.
In fact, the history of asbestos goes back at least 6,700 years. Its prevalence in our built environment means it’s (unfortunately) here to stay for a long time.
Before it became a ‘killer dust’
Asbestos is a naturally occurring mineral found in rock formations across the globe, including in some national parks in Australia.
It gets its name from the Greek word for inextinguishable (ásvestos), alluding to its resistance to fire and corrosion. It was these characteristics, along with its insulating properties, that made asbestos seem like a “magic mineral” in centuries prior.
Researchers have found ancient clay pottery from East Finland, dated to 2500 BC, with asbestos fibres mixed into it – likely added for extra strength and resilience. Some of the earliest asbestos pottery, also found in Finland, has been dated to 4700 BC. Asbestos use has also been recorded at other neolithic sites, including in Central Russia and Norway.
In (Western) literature, the first known reference to what might have been asbestos comes from Theophrastus (circa 372-287 BC), a student of Greek philosopher Aristotle and his successor at the Lyceum. In his book On Stones, Theophrastus writes:
In the mines at Scapte Hyle a stone was once found which was like rotten wood in appearance. Whenever oil was poured on it, it burnt, but when the oil had been used up, the stone stopped burning, as if it were itself unaffected.
In the 10th century, Christian pilgrims travelling to Jerusalem were sold pieces of asbestos as fragments of the True Cross – their divinity supposedly evidenced by their incombustibility. By the medieval ages, trading asbestos-containing items had become common. This fascination continued for millennia.
This earthenware pilgrim flask (circa 1585-1600) has an impresa with burning asbestos and the words ‘ardet aeternum’, meaning ‘burn forever’. It’s painted with a medallion showing a nude male (Bacchus) holding two bunches of grapes. British Museum, CC BY-NC
In 1725, a young Benjamin Franklin found himself broke and living in London. In need of cash to pay his bills, he sold a purse made of fibrous mineral asbestos that he’d brought from North America. The recipient was Hans Sloane, whose collections would later be used to establish the British Museum.
A class I carcinogen
The carcinogenic effect of asbestos – even at brief, transient and “low” doses (such as bystander exposure) – has been recognised since at least 1965. Today, it is classified as a class I carcinogen and considered a deadly threat to humans.
Asbestos is the main cause of mesothelioma, a cancer of the surface of the lung. It can also cause lung cancer and is implicated in other cancers, including throat and stomach cancers.
In Australia, there are more than 700 cases of mesothelioma each year. We don’t know how many of the roughly 6,000 yearly cases of lung cancer are caused, wholly or partially, by asbestos.
Although asbestos use has been banned in Australia since 2003, people the world over continue to deal with its harmful effects.
The spread of ‘fibro houses’
Australia started using asbestos goods from around the 1880s, largely for steam-driven machines that benefited from its insulating properties. Only small local mines operated at the time.
Eventually, the world wars increased demand and active exploration led to larger-scale mining, especially at Wittenoom in Western Australia. Even then, local production wasn’t meeting demand.
It was initially miners who presented with the disease, followed by workers in industries manufacturing asbestos-containing products, as well as builders, plumbers and fitters. The Wittenoom miners and their families are still being followed by researchers to determine the effects of exposure.
The economic boom that followed WWII further drove demand for asbestos. In addition to local production, more than 50,000 tons of asbestos were imported to Australia each year throughout the 1950s and into the late 1970s.
Asbestos afforded many Australians a home. Timber-framed houses clad in flat asbestos cement sheeting (called “fibro houses”) were favoured by people who built or legally supervised the building of their own home.
In the mid-1960s, nearly 20% of Australia’s housing stock was made up of fibro houses – with the highest uptake (more than 50%) in the Northern Territory. It’s impossible to say exactly what percentage of existing buildings contain asbestos.
When cyclone Tracy swept through Darwin in 1974, the death and disease that resulted from the uncoordinated cleanup served as a warning of the possible dangers of asbestos removal.
Asbestos-related cancers have a long lag time between exposure and detectable disease. Although this lag is typically about 30 years, it can range anywhere between 10 and 70 years. As such, it can be difficult to trace exposure retrospectively.
Many buildings constructed before the mid-1980s contain asbestos. It’s often inseparably bound to other materials, such as tiles, vinyl and cement.
Regulations demand specialist removal for asbestos-affected areas of more than 10 square metres. In reality, whether this happens comes down to how effectively it can be detected, and whether the people affected can afford removals. Without specialised assessment and analysis, asbestos can be difficult to recognise.
Since there is no recognised “safe” dose – a dose below which there’s no risk of developing asbestos-related cancer – workplace standards can only minimise risk, not eliminate it.
Only time will tell what the long-term outcomes are from the latest exposure in NSW. The risk from asbestos depends on several factors, including the overall amount inhaled, the type of asbestos and the number of years since exposure.
Among the most heavily exposed Wittenoom miners, about 20% have developed mesothelioma so far.
Documenting cases
Since July 2010, the Australian Mesothelioma Registry has collected information on new mesothelioma cases diagnosed in Australia. The national Asbestos Exposure Register also allows any person to register a documented or suspected case of exposure.
If you’re worried about your neighbourhood, the Asbestos and Silica Eradication Agency has produced a national heat map showing the probability of asbestos presence in buildings by geographic area.
Sonja Klebe works for SA Pathology and gets called as a paid expert to court. She has received funding from NHMRC, MRFF, AstraZeneca, Roche and Ventana.
Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Magnus Söderberg, Professor & Director, Centre for Applied Energy Economics and Policy Research, Griffith University
Building transmission lines is often controversial. Farmers who agree to host new lines on their property may be paid, while other community members protest against the visual intrusion. Pushback against new lines has slowed development and forced the government to promise more consultation.
It’s not a new problem. Communities questioned the routes of earlier transmission lines built during the 1950s-70s to link new coal and hydroelectric plants to the cities.
But this time, the transition has to be done at speed. Shifting from the old coal grid to a green grid requires new transmission lines. In its future system planning, Australia’s energy market operator sees the need for 10,000 kilometres of new transmission lines in the five states (and the Australian Capital Territory) which make up the National Energy Market.
Do we need all of these new transmission lines? Or will the “staggering growth” of solar on houses and warehouses coupled with cheaper energy storage mean some new transmission lines are redundant?
The answer depends on how we think of electricity. Is it an essential service that must be reliable more than 99.9% of the time? If so, yes, we need these new lines. But if we think of it as a regular service, we would accept a less reliable (99%) service in exchange for avoiding some new transmission lines. This would be a fundamental change in how we think of power.
Why do we need these new transmission lines?
The old grid was built around connecting a batch of fossil fuel plants via transmission lines to consumers in the towns and cities. To build this grid – one of the world’s largest by distance covered – required 40,000 km of transmission lines.
The new grid is based around gathering energy from distributed renewables from many parts of the country. The market operator foresees a nine-fold increase in the total capacity of large scale solar and wind plants, which need transmission lines.
That’s why the market operator lays out integrated systems plans every two years. The goal is to give energy users the best value by designing the lowest-cost way to secure reliable energy able to meet any emissions goals set by policymakers.
To avoid having to build transmission lines everywhere, policymakers have opted to group renewables in “renewable energy zones” with good wind or solar resources, and build transmission lines just to the zones.
Even so, some energy insiders question whether we need all these new transmission lines.
What if the growth of behind-the-meter energy resources such as rooftop solar, grid-connected home batteries and electric cars begin to cut demand from the grid?
About one in three households now have solar on their rooftops – the highest solar take up per capita in the world. And as more electric cars arrive in driveways, we will start using their large batteries as a backup power supply for our homes – or to sell the power on the grid. Could it be that cities could make their own power, as Nationals leader David Littleproud has called for?
Planners at Australia’s market operator do anticipate ever-greater levels of rooftop solar, batteries and electric vehicles. Their latest forecasts see these resources with enough capacity to power 30% of the grid by the end of the decade and 45% by mid-century.
These are substantial contributions, but not enough to power a nation. As we move to electrify everything, we will need to roughly double how much electricity we produce. Electricity is a much more efficient way to power transport, for instance, but switching from petrol to electric vehicles will mean more grid demand.
Having said that, we cannot be certain. When we model ways of giving up fossil fuels and ending emissions, there is always major uncertainty over what shape the future will take. Some technologies may splutter while others surge ahead.
Over time, more of us will use electric vehicle batteries to store power or to send it back to the grid. Owlie Productions/Shutterstock
We could trade new transmission lines for a less reliable supply
At present, electricity is considered an essential service under national electricity laws. That means there has to be enough power 99.998% of the time. To meet that threshold, outages have to be kept to ten minutes in a year.
Making electricity an essential service is a choice. We could choose differently. If we decided electricity should be a regular service, where 99% reliability is OK (translating to outages of up to 87 hours a year), we would be able to get away with fewer new transmission lines.
That’s because wealthier households would likely respond to more outages by investing more in big solar arrays and batteries. Some would become energy self-sufficient and cut ties with the grid.
In this scenario, self-generation by the rich would mean a reduced demand on the grid, and we might be able to get away with building fewer new transmission lines.
But we should be careful here. If we took this approach, we would reshape society. The rich would be insulated while poorer households deal with the pain of power outages. The idea of the grid as a public good would begin to disappear.
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.
We all want to eat healthily, especially as we reset our health goals at the start of a new year. But sometimes these plans are sabotaged by powerful cravings for sweet, salty or carb-heavy foods.
So why do you crave these foods when you’re trying to improve your diet or lose weight? And what can you do about it?
There are many reasons for craving specific foods, but let’s focus on four common ones:
1. Blood sugar crashes
Sugar is a key energy source for all animals, and its taste is one of the most basic sensory experiences. Even without specific sweet taste receptors on the tongue, a strong preference for sugar can develop, indicating a mechanism beyond taste alone.
Neurons responding to sugar are activated when sugar is delivered to the gut. This can increase appetite and make you want to consume more. Giving into cravings also drives an appetite for more sugar.
In the long term, research suggests a high-sugar diet can affect mood, digestion and inflammation in the gut.
While there’s a lot of variation between individuals, regularly eating sugary and high-carb foods can lead to rapid spikes and crashes in blood sugar levels. When your blood sugar drops, your body can respond by craving quick sources of energy, often in the form of sugar and carbs because these deliver the fastest, most easily accessible form of energy.
2. Drops in dopamine and serotonin
Certain neurotransmitters, such as dopamine, are involved in the reward and pleasure centres of the brain. Eating sugary and carb-rich foods can trigger the release of dopamine, creating a pleasurable experience and reinforcing the craving.
Serotonin, the feel-good hormone, suppresses appetite. Natural changes in serotonin can influence daily fluctuations in mood, energy levels and attention. It’s also associated with eating more carb-rich snacks in the afternoon.
Low carb diets may reduce serotonin and lower mood. However, a recent systematic review suggests little association between these diets and risk for anxiety and depression.
3. Loss of fluids and drops in blood sugar and salt
Sometimes our bodies crave the things they’re missing, such as hydration or even salt. A low-carb diet, for example, depleats insulin levels, decreasing sodium and water retention.
Very low-carb diets, like ketogenic diets, induce “ketosis”, a metabolic state where the body switches to using fat as its primary energy source, moving away from the usual dependence on carbohydrates.
Ketosis is often associated with increased urine production, further contributing to potential fluid loss, electrolyte imbalances and salt cravings.
Stress, boredom and emotional turmoil can lead to cravings for comfort foods. This is because stress-related hormones can impact our appetite, satiety (feeling full) and food preferences.
A 2001 study of 59 premenopausal women subjected to stress revealed that the stress led to higher calorie consumption.
A more recent study found chronic stress, when paired with high-calorie diet, increases food intake and a preference for sweet foods. This shows the importance of a healthy diet during stress to prevent weight gain.
What can you do about cravings?
Here are four tips to curb cravings:
1) don’t cut out whole food groups. Aim for a well-balanced diet and make sure you include:
sufficient protein in your meals to help you feel full and reduce the urge to snack on sugary and carb-rich foods. Older adults should aim for 20–40g protein per meal with a particular focus on breakfast and lunch and an overall daily protein intake of at least 0.8g per kg of body weight for muscle health
fibre-rich foods, such as vegetables and whole grains. These make you feel full and stabilise your blood sugar levels. Examples include broccoli, quinoa, brown rice, oats, beans, lentils and bran cereals. Substitute refined carbs high in sugar like processed snack bars, soft drink or baked goods for more complex ones like whole grain bread or wholewheat muffins, or nut and seed bars or energy bites made with chia seeds and oats
2) manage your stress levels. Practise stress-reduction techniques like meditation, deep breathing, or yoga to manage emotional triggers for cravings. Practising mindful eating, by eating slowly and tuning into bodily sensations, can also reduce daily calorie intake and curb cravings and stress-driven eating
3) get enough sleep. Aim for seven to eight hours of quality sleep per night, with a minimum of seven hours. Lack of sleep can disrupt hormones that regulate hunger and cravings
4) control your portions. If you decide to indulge in a treat, control your portion size to avoid overindulging.
Overcoming cravings for sugar, salt and carbs when trying to eat healthily or lose weight is undoubtedly a formidable challenge. Remember, it’s a journey, and setbacks may occur. Be patient with yourself – your success is not defined by occasional cravings but by your ability to manage and overcome them.
Hayley O’Neill is a wellness coach for Hayley M O’Neill Enterprises.
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 hopes more Australians will get a tertiary education. This calls for a huge increase in the numbers of university students: from 860,000 today to more than 1.8 million by 2050.
To achieve this, Australia will need more students from currently underrepresented backgrounds going to university. The report also notes the importance of keeping students at uni once they get there.
As the interim report noted last year, “too few” Australians are finishing their university degrees, with completions of a first bachelor degree “at their lowest since 2014”.
All of this is happening at time when the nature of university study is changing. Gone are the days when students spent all their time on campus, in lecture halls and tutorial groups with teachers and other students. University life is increasingly spent online.
This makes it harder to ensure students have a sense of belonging, which in turn impacts upon their wellbeing and capacity to succeed with their studies.
A significant part of this picture is students’ sense of belonging. Humans have a psychological need to have mutual and meaningful connections with others. A low sense of belonging has been linked to lower self-esteem, greater mistrust, feeling rejected and mental health issues including depression and anxiety. This can make it harder for students to persist with and stay resilient about completing their studies.
The accord final report notes how important it is for universities to ensure learning environments are welcoming and inclusive, saying students need to:
feel a sense of connection and belonging to their university, which can have positive impacts on wellbeing, student transition and retention and academic outcomes.
But recent research suggests belonging is a significant issue for Australian students and universities. The 2022 national student experience survey found only one in two (46.5% of undergraduates and 44.7% of postgraduates) students felt they belonged at university.
Having a low sense of belonging has been linked with low self-esteem and mental health issues. Armin Rimoldi/ Pexels, CC BY
The move online makes things more difficult
In a 2023 study we used machine learning (or artificial intelligence) to analyse data from the student experience survey on more than one million students between 2013 and 2019. We looked at what factors helped students have a sense of belonging at their university.
We found the most important demographic feature contributing to a sense of belonging was whether the students studied online or on campus. This was more important than gender, age, where they were up to in their degree, or the language they spoke at home
Unfortunately, the momentum post-COVID is towards more online learning, not less. As the final report notes, the pandemic saw physical university spaces shut down and there has been a “profound shift” towards virtual classrooms.
In 2023 online learning grew by 34% in US universities and face-to-face learning declined by 24%. It is likely Australia shares similar growth.
The accord report notes the growth of technology to communicate with students, use of artificial intelligence in curriculum and support services (such as chatbots), “can affect students’ sense of belonging to their universities”.
In this sense, technology has undermined a formerly unique advantage of campus life.
The review also notes many students also need to work to fund their studies, which also makes it difficult for them to spend time on campus, even if their courses are in-person.
So if we can’t necessarily rely on traditional in-person approaches, what can universities do to help students feel as though they belong?
During the pandemic, universities began to grapple with this issue. Some approaches included informal peer-to-peer time before online classes and peer-to-teacher time afterwards.
This was to mimic an on-campus class waiting space and catching the teacher before they leave the lecture theatre. Initial feedback from students and staff about these measures was positive.
During COVID, some universities encouraged social time before online classes to help students feel more connected to each other. Fauxels/ Pexels, CC BY
Mentoring, meeting and working together
In preparing the final report, the Universities Accord review panel commissioned 19 reports on specific issues. In my report for the panel on belonging, I suggested some other approaches universities could take to help students feel connected. These include:
1. a peer mentoring system: formal mentoring between different year group students, such as pairing first and last year students, can help younger students in particular see their way through difficult patches and understand they are not alone
2. keeping in touch with teachers: university often means having different teaching staff for different subjects and year levels, which is necessary to support academic specialisation. But universities should look at ways students can maintain contact with the same academic staff throughout their studies, to provide further opportunities for mentorship and connection
3. orientations: universities should have compulsory mandatory orientations or inductions to create space for students to make their first university friends. These should preferably be in person and at least be in the first semester, but reinforcement each semester can also help
4. teamwork, not group work: research suggests “teamwork” skills matter a lot for belonging, but “group work” does not. Group work is more about multiple people being involved in a task, such as a group assessment. Team work is about team members having skills to communicate clearly, plan together, solve conflicts and collaborate. Universities can train academic staff in creating collaborative learning environments online. This means teachers can then facilitate high-quality team interactions before setting group-based assessments
5. structuring opportunities to meet in person: if courses are all or mostly online, universities should look at onsite intensive sessions, informal but mandatory events such as guest speakers or assessments done face-to-face. While these will be logistically challenging – particularly in regional and remote learning – they can create important opportunities for students to connect
6. encouraging students to come to campus: there is a growing number of students studying online in the city they live in. These students ought to be encouraged to study in the campus library or attend a free food event, even if they are considered “online” or “distance” students. And when procuring on-campus shops and cafes, universities can also ensure they have features that encourage connection and a social atmosphere. These might include plenty of tables, places to meet, internet connections and spaces to work.
The accord’s final report places contains ambitious targets to see more Australians educated at tertiary level. This is welcome but we need to acknowledge the nature of university life is changing rapidly. Universities will need to change their approach to ensure students feel like they are a part of a something and not just on the receiving end of a pre-recorded lecture or online task.
Joseph Crawford 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 kidnapped Australian pilot of a Hevilift helicopter and two Papua New Guinean subcontractors have been released in without harm following a rapid deployment of security forces.
Security forces were mobilised and deployed in the Mt Sisa, a remote area near the border of Hela and Southern Highlands, in large numbers this afternoon in response to the hostage-for-ransom ttack.
The kidnappers were warned through local leaders that the security forces would use lethal force to free the captives.
This latest daring attack for ransom took place a year on from the infamous kidnap and ransom demand at Mt Bosavi.
Tribal warriors from Mt Sisa, just north of Mt Bosavi, took control of a Hevilift helicopter and its expatriate crew at 9am yesterday morning.
The kidnappers demanded a substantial amount of money for the release of the Australian pilot and his crew.
In a statement tonight, Police Commissioner David Manning said the helicopter had been flown to Hides in the Southern Highlands with the pilot and sub-contractors onboard.
Security forces tracking kidnappers Security forces were now tracking the kidnappers so they would face justice.
“If these criminals resist or show any hostility towards police, other security personnel or any member of the public, their fates will be sealed,” he said.
The unidentified helicopter pilot and two contract workers taken captive . . . freed after their ordeal. Image: PNG Post-Courier
“Our country has had enough of these domestic terrorists who are undermining the safety and security of our communities, and they have no place walking free.
“These criminals will be caught, or they will be killed in the process.
The pilot and technicians had been taken captive at a remote site in the vicinity of Mt Sisa, Tari.
It was understood the issue motivating the group was over a compensation claim, and demands were being communicated by the group.
Released safely The pilot with the two workers and the helicopter were released safely after the kidnappers heard that members of the PNG Defence Force and men from Mobile Squad 07,SMG HQ, and Mobile Squad 20 had been deployed in the Mt Sisa area.
“We have learned a lot from previous situations of a similar nature in this area, and landowners, leaders and village auxiliary police from the local area worked together with police command to resolve the situation,” Commissioner Manning said.
“I congratulate security forces personnel who worked together with local leaders and auxillary police to bring this situation to a successful and swift conclusion.
“As information comes to hand on the hunt for the abductors this will be released for public distribution,” the commissioner’s statement added.
Republished from the PNG Post-Courier with permission.
There will be nervous executives all over Australia this week.
Come Tuesday, large private sector organisations will have their company’s gender pay gaps published for the first time for all to see, name, and shame.
As they brace for the fallout, let’s look at how what we will be told is changing, and what it will mean for you.
What is changing?
Every year, the Workplace Gender Equality Agency (WGEA) collects information from every employer with more than 100 employees. Until now it has published only a summary of the findings on its website, including Australia’s overall gender pay gap, and the gap by industry and employment arrangement.
But for the first time legislation enacted last year also allows WGEA to publish the gender pay gaps of individual employers.
Tuesday’s release will include each large company’s median gender pay gap, and the share of women it employs in lower- and higher-paid jobs.
Employers will have the chance to publish a statement alongside their results to provide context.
That means from Tuesday you will be able to look on the WGEA website and find the median gender pay gap of your large private sector organisation, or of an organisation you are thinking of joining, and how it stacks up against its competitors.
Why the change?
Australian women, like women elsewhere, have made astounding progress in the workforce in recent decades.
Women are both working and earning more than ever before. But progress has stalled, and the gender pay gap remains stubbornly persistent.
But beyond this, the options for governments are limited. Most of the barriers to women getting better-paid jobs can only be broken by employers.
The public naming and shaming that will begin on Tuesday will push accountability onto employers, holding them responsible for the conditions in their workplaces.
Workers and bosses are going to take notice: when employer gender pay gaps were released in the UK in 2018 it was the biggest business news story of the year, with coverage rivalling the wedding of Prince Harry and Meghan Markle.
At a time when companies are fighting for top talent, it is going to make it more difficult for employers with large pay gaps to hire talented women.
Research shows that on average women are willing to accept a 5% lower salary in order to avoid working for the employers with the biggest gender pay gaps.
Workplace Gender Equality Agency.
Let’s not rush to judge
While naming and shaming will help make this policy effective, we should be careful about rushing to judgement.
It is possible for an employer to be making serious efforts to improve while its gap remains large.
And some actions aimed at improving things, such as implementing a gender quota on entry-level positions, can worsen a company’s apparent gender pay gap in the short term by temporarily increasing the number of lowly-paid women.
Also, there will be firms that have a low gender pay gap because they pay both men and women poorly.
On Tuesday, we should instead look closely at whether the organisation has outlined clear steps it will take to improve, and how it compares to its competitors. In future years, we will be able to see how things have changed.
What will matter is what employers do next
Since the UK reforms were introduced in 2018, the gender pay gap has narrowed by one-fifth, with the biggest improvements coming from the worst offenders.
UK companies have also become more likely to include wage information in their job ads, equalising the starting point of wage negotiations for all applicants.
But for existing employees, the narrowing of the gap has been caused more by slower growth in men’s wages than faster growth in women’s wages, which isn’t good news for anyone looking for a pay rise.
The full effects of the Australian reforms won’t be seen for some time.
It is likely that making high-paid jobs more accessible to women will allow employers to tap into a new talent pool and encourage more highly credentialed women into the workforce, adding to productivity growth.
What is clear now is that if we want to narrow the gender pay gap, we need to know what’s happening. The avalanche of data due on Tuesday will be a start.
The 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. Grattan Institute also receives funding from corporates, foundations, and individuals to support its general activities as disclosed on its website.
The government has released its Universities Accord report, produced by a committee chaired by Mary O’Kane, a former vice-chancellor at the University of Adelaide.
The recommendations will be considered by the Minister for Education, Jason Clare and the government over the coming months, although Clare has given a few hints about what his response might be on certain issues.
One proposal Clare clearly favours is for an Australian Tertiary Education Commission which the report says would “provide the leadership and stewardship necessary to transform the tertiary education system”. Clare says it would give
the ability to steer and drive reform over the long term. This [accord] is a blueprint for 20 years, not for two years – it strikes me as a good idea.
The report canvasses a range of changes to assist students cope better financially. One is to pay students for time spent in (now unpaid) placements, which are often extensive in courses such as nursing and teaching. Clare is sympathetic.
I’ve spent the last year or so in this job talking to students. They tell me about the impact that has, often having to move to do the prac – having to give up the part-time job, working in the cafe or the restaurant or wherever else, to do unpaid work, and sometimes having to give up the degree […]. The theory can’t do the prac, can’t get the qualifications. So it strikes me this is the sort of thing that governments need to work on. And as I said, this is the sort of thing that I want us to have a look at.
On why the government isn’t hastening to do more now, Clare describes why he takes the long-term view.
Often we get criticised in government for just having quick fixes or thinking about what’s around the corner, what’s the immediate problem that needs to be solved. If we’re serious about fixing things in education, you’ve got to think long term.
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.
There will be nervous executives all over Australia this week.
Come Tuesday, large private sector organisations will have their company’s gender pay gaps published for the first time for all to see, name, and shame.
As they brace for the fallout, let’s look at how what we will be told is changing, and what it will mean for you.
What is changing?
Every year, the Workplace Gender Equality Agency (WGEA) collects information from every employer with more than 100 employees. Until now it has published only a summary of the findings on its website, including Australia’s overall gender pay gap, and the gap by industry and employment arrangement.
But for the first time legislation enacted last year also allows WGEA to publish the gender pay gaps of individual employers.
Tuesday’s release will include each large company’s median gender pay gap, and the share of women it employs in lower- and higher-paid jobs.
Employers will have the chance to publish a statement alongside their results to provide context.
That means from Tuesday you will be able to look on the WGEA website and find the median gender pay gap of your large private sector organisation, or of an organisation you are thinking of joining, and how it stacks up against its competitors.
Why the change?
Australian women, like women elsewhere, have made astounding progress in the workforce in recent decades.
Women are both working and earning more than ever before. But progress has stalled, and the gender pay gap remains stubbornly persistent.
But beyond this, the options for governments are limited. Most of the barriers to women getting better-paid jobs can only be broken by employers.
The public naming and shaming that will begin on Tuesday will push accountability onto employers, holding them responsible for the conditions in their workplaces.
Workers and bosses are going to take notice: when employer gender pay gaps were released in the UK in 2018 it was the biggest business news story of the year, with coverage rivalling the wedding of Prince Harry and Meghan Markle.
At a time when companies are fighting for top talent, it is going to make it more difficult for employers with large pay gaps to hire talented women.
Research shows that on average women are willing to accept a 5% lower salary in order to avoid working for the employers with the biggest gender pay gaps.
Workplace Gender Equality Agency.
Let’s not rush to judge
While naming and shaming will help make this policy effective, we should be careful about rushing to judgement.
It is possible for an employer to be making serious efforts to improve while its gap remains large.
And some actions aimed at improving things, such as implementing a gender quota on entry-level positions, can worsen a company’s apparent gender pay gap in the short term by temporarily increasing the number of lowly-paid women.
Also, there will be firms that have a low gender pay gap because they pay both men and women poorly.
On Tuesday, we should instead look closely at whether the organisation has outlined clear steps it will take to improve, and how it compares to its competitors. In future years, we will be able to see how things have changed.
What will matter is what employers do next
Since the UK reforms were introduced in 2018, the gender pay gap has narrowed by one-fifth, with the biggest improvements coming from the worst offenders.
UK companies have also become more likely to include wage information in their job ads, equalising the starting point of wage negotiations for all applicants.
But for existing employees, the narrowing of the gap has been caused more by slower growth in men’s wages than faster growth in women’s wages, which isn’t good news for anyone looking for a pay rise.
The full effects of the Australian reforms won’t be seen for some time.
It is likely that making high-paid jobs more accessible to women will allow employers to tap into a new talent pool and encourage more highly credentialed women into the workforce, adding to productivity growth.
What is clear now is that if we want to narrow the gender pay gap, we need to know what’s happening. The avalanche of data due on Tuesday will be a start.
The 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. Grattan Institute also receives funding from corporates, foundations, and individuals to support its general activities as disclosed on its website.
After a decade searching for new species of bees in forests of the Pacific Islands, all we had to do was look up.
We soon found eight new species of masked bees in the forest canopy: six in Fiji, one in French Polynesia and another in Micronesia. Now we expect to find many more.
Forest-dwelling bees evolved for thousands of years alongside native plants, and play unique and important roles in nature. Studying these species can help us better understand bee evolution, diversity and conservation.
Almost 21,000 bee species are known to science. Many more remain undiscovered. But it’s a race against time, as the twin challenges of habitat loss and climate change threaten bee survival. We need to identify and protect bee species before they disappear forever.
Searching for bees in the rainforest on Vanua Levu, formerly known as Sandalwood Island, the second largest island of Fiji. James Dorey Photography
We believe this sampling bias is replicated across much of the world. For example, another related Oceanic masked bee, Pharohylaeus lactiferus (a cloaked bee), was recently found in the canopy after 100 years in hiding.
This masked bee was collected from a canopy-flowering mistletoe near Mount Nadarivatu on Viti Levu, Fiji. James Dorey Photography
Our first decade of bee sampling in Fiji turned up only one bee from the genus Hylaeus. This bee probably belonged in the canopy so we were very lucky to catch it near the ground. Targeted attempts over the next few years, using our standard short insect nets, failed to find any more.
But this changed when we turned our attention to searching the forest canopy.
Sampling in the canopy is physically challenging. Strength and skill are required to sweep a long, heavy net and pole through the treetops. It’s quite a workout. We limit our efforts to the edges of forests, where branches won’t tangle the whole contraption.
By lifting our gaze in this way, we discovered eight new bee species, all in the genus Hylaeus. They are mostly black with stunning yellow or white highlights, especially on their faces – hence the name, masked bees.
They appear to rely exclusively on the forest canopy. This behaviour is striking and has rarely been identified in bees before (perhaps because few scientists have been looking for bees up there).
Because the new species live in forests and native tree tops, they’re likely to be vulnerable to land clearing, cyclones and climate change.
More work is needed to uncover the secrets hidden in these dense tropical treetops. It may require engineering solutions such as canopy cranes and drones, as well as skilful tree-climbing using ropes, pulleys and harnesses.
The journey of bees across the Pacific region is a tale of great dispersals and isolation.
Almost 60 years ago, world-renowned bee expert Charles Michener described what was probably the most isolated masked bee around, Hylaeus tuamotuensis.
Fiji’s highest peak, Mount Tomanivi, is home to unique bee species. James Dorey Photography
The specimen was found in French Polynesia. At the time, Michener said that was “entirely unexpected”, because the nearest relatives were, as the bee flies, 4,000km north in Hawaii, 5,000km southwest in New Zealand, and 6,000km west in Australia.
So how did it get there and where did it come from?
Our research helps to answer these questions. We found eight new Hylaeus species including one from French Polynesia. Using genetic analysis and other methods, we found strong links between these species and H. tuamotuensis.
So Michener’s bee was probably an ancient immigrant from Fiji, 3,000km away. A journey of that magnitude is no mean feat for bees smaller than a grain of rice.
We don’t yet know how many new Hylaeus species might exist in the South Pacific, or the routes they took to get to their island homes. But we suspect there are many more to be found.
The early origins of Fijian bees – both ground-dwelling Homalictus and forest-loving Hylaeus – can be traced to the ancient past when Australia and New Guinea were part of one land mass, known as Sahul. The ancestors of both groups then undertook epic oceanic journeys to travel from Sahul to the furthest reaches of the Pacific, where they diversified. But the Hylaeus travelled furthest, by thousands of kilometres.
These little emissaries have similarly brought together researchers across the region. We resolved difficulties sampling and gathering knowledge by working with people across the Pacific, including Fiji, French Polynesia, and Hawaii. It shows what can be accomplished with international collaboration.
Together we are making great strides towards understanding our shared bee biodiversity. Such collaborations are our best chance of discovering and conserving species while we can.
We would like to thank Ben Parslow and Karl Magnacca for their contribution to this article. We would further like to thank our collaborators and their home institutions, the Hawiian Department of Land and Natural Resources, Muséum national d’Histoire naturelle, University of the South Pacific, the South Australian Museum and Adelaide University.
James B. Dorey has received funding for this work from The Playford Trust as a PhD and Honours scholarship recipient, Flinders University through the AJ and IM Naylon PhD Scholarship, and the Australian Government through the New Colombo Plan . He is affiliated with both Flinders University and the University of Wollongong.
Amy-Marie Gilpin is affiliated with the School of Science and Hawkesbury Institute for the Environment, Western Sydney University. Funding to publish this work was in part provided by Western Sydney University. Amy-Marie is also a member of the IUCN Wild Bee Specialist Group Oceania.
Olivia Davies 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.
An Australian-based West Papua advocacy group has condemned the arrest and “humiliation” of two teenagers by Indonesian security forces last week.
The head of Cartenz 2024 Peace Operations, Kombes Faizal Ramadhani, said in a statement on Friday that the 15-year-olds had been arrested after a clash with the West Papua National Liberation Army (TPNPB) in Kali Brasa on Thursday, February 22.
During the shootout, a TPNPB member named as Otniel Giban (alias Bolong Giban) had been killed.
The Sydney-based Australia West Papua Association (AWPA) today condemned the arrest of the teenagers, only identified by the Indonesian authorities by their initials MH and BGE and who were initially seized as “suspects” but later described as “witnesses”.
Faizal said that the teenagers had been arrested because they were suspected of being members of the TPNPB group and that they were currently being detained at the Damai Cartenz military post.
However, the TPNPB declared that the two teenagers were not members of the TPNPB and were ordinary civilians.
The teenagers were arrested when they were crossing the Brasa River in the Yahukimo Regency.
Aircraft shot at The clash between security forces and the TNPB occurred while the Cartenz Peacekeeping Operation-2024 searched for those responsible for shooting at an aircraft in Yahukimo in which a military member had been wounded.
Meanwhile, also in Jakarta last Friday the Australian Deputy Prime Minister and Defence Minister, Richard Marles, met with Indonesian Defence Minister Prabowo Subianto — who is poised to win this month’s Indonesian presidential election.
Marles stressed at a media conference at the Defence Ministry that Australia did not support the Free Papua Movement, saying the country “fully recognise[d] Indonesia’s territorial sovereignty”.
“We do not endorse any independence movement,” he told a media conference.
However, in Sydney AWPA’s Joe Collins said in a statement: “I was at first surprised that West Papua even got a mention at the meeting as usually Australia tries to ignore the issue but even our Defence Minister can hardly ignore a media question on it.”
Subianto: “Thank you very much. I don’t think there is any need for questions. Questions?”
Journalist: “Thank you very much Mr Deputy Prime Minister. Regarding the huge amount of [the] Australian defence budget, how should the Indonesian people see it? Is it going to be a trap or an opportunity for our national interest?
“And my second question is what is Australia’s standpoint regarding the separatist [pro-independence] movement in Papua because there are some voices from Australia concern[ed] about human rights violations?”
Marles: “Thank you for the question. Let me do the second issue first. We, Australia utterly recognise the territorial sovereignty of Indonesia, full stop. And there is no support for any independence movements.
“We support the territorial sovereignty of Indonesia. And that includes those provinces being part of Indonesia. No ifs, no buts. And I want to be very clear about that.”
Collins said there was no shortage of comments during the delegation’s visit to Indonesian around how important the relationship was.
“West Papua will remain the elephant in the room in the Australia-Indonesian relationship,” Collins said. “We can expect many hiccups in the relationship over West Papua in the coming years “.
In 2009, an Air France jet crashed into the ocean, leaving no survivors. The plane’s autopilot system shut down and the pilots, having become reliant on their computerised assistant, were unable to correct the situation manually.
In 2015, a bus driver in Europe typed the wrong destination into his GPS device and cheerfully took a group of Belgian tourists on a 1,200 kilometre detour in the wrong direction.
In 2017, in a decision later overturned on appeal, US prosecutors who had agreed to release a teenager on probation abruptly changed their minds because an algorithm ruled the defendant “high risk”.
These are dramatic examples, but they are far from isolated. When we outsource cognitive tasks to technology – such as flying a plane, navigating, or making a judgement – research shows we may lose the ability to perform those tasks ourselves. There is even a term for our tendency to forget information that is available through online search engines: the Google effect.
As new AI technologies promise to automate an increasing range of activities, the risk of “skill erosion” is growing. Our research shows how it can happen – and suggests ways to keep hold of the expertise you need, even when you don’t need it every day.
The company had recently stopped using software that automated much of its fixed-asset accounting service. However, the accountants found themselves unable to carry out the task without it. Years of over-reliance on the software had eroded their expertise, and ultimately, they had to relearn their fixed-asset accounting skills.
While the software was rule-based (it did not use machine learning or “AI”), it was “smart” enough to track depreciation and produce reports for many tax and financial purposes. These are tasks that human accountants found very complex and tedious.
The company only became aware of skill erosion after a client found errors in the accounting team’s manual reports. With its accountants lacking sufficient expertise, the company had to commission the software provider to fix the errors.
How skill erosion happens
We found that a lack of mindfulness about the automation-supported task had led to skill erosion. The old saying, “use it or lose it”, applies to cognitively intense work as much as to anything else.
The accountants were not concerned about outsourcing their thinking to the software, since it operated almost flawlessly. In other words, they fell prey to “automation complacency”: the assumption that “all is well” while ignoring potential risks.
they lost their awareness of what automation was doing
they lost the incentive to maintain and update relevant knowledge (such as tax legislation), because the vendor and software did that for them
as the software was reliable, they no longer bothered to check the outgoing reports for accuracy.
How to maintain your skills
So, how do you prevent complacency while using AI and other automated systems? Here are three tips:
pay attention to what the system is doing – what inputs are used, for what purpose, and what might affect its suggestions
keep your competence up to date (especially if you are legally accountable for the outcomes)
critically assess the results, even if the final outcomes appear satisfactory.
Keeping your skills sharp while using automated systems requires paying close attention. Shutterstock
What would this look like in practice? Here’s an everyday example: driving with the help of an AI-powered navigation app.
Instead of blindly following the app’s instructions, pay attention to road signs and landmarks, and be aware of what you are doing even when guided by the app.
Study the map and suggested route before driving to increase your “domain knowledge”, or understanding of what is around the route. This helps you relate your specific path to the broader environment, which will be helpful if you get lost or want to find alternative routes.
When you reach your destination, reflect on the route the app suggested: was it fast, was it safe, was it enjoyable? If not, consider taking a different route next time, even if the app suggests otherwise.
Is AI a necessary companion?
The case of the accounting firm also raises a bigger question: what skills are relevant and worth maintaining, and which ones should we relinquish to automation?
There is no universal answer, as professional skills change across time, jurisdictions, industries, cultures and geographical locations. However, it is a question we will have to contend with as AI takes over activities once considered unable to be automated.
Despite the struggles, the accounting manager in our case study believes the automated software is highly beneficial. In his view, his team just got caught off guard by complacency.
In a world focused on efficiency and annual or quarterly targets, organisations favour solutions that improve things in the short term, even if they have negative long-term side effects. This is what happened in the accounting case: efficiency gains overshadowed abstract concerns about expertise, until problems ensued.
This does not mean that we should avoid AI. Organisations cannot afford to miss out on the opportunities it presents. However, they should also be aware of the risk of skill erosion.
Tapani Rinta-Kahila is a recipient of the Australian Research Council Discovery Early Career Researcher Award (project number DE240100269) funded by the Australian Government. His research on this topic has previously been funded by the Jenny and Antti Wihuri Foundation.
A tawny-crowned honeyeater in an artificial refugeAuthor provided
Australia is home to some of the most spectacular and enigmatic wildlife on Earth. Much of it, however, is being eaten by two incredibly damaging invasive predators: the feral cat and the red fox.
Each year in Australia, cats and foxes kill an estimated 697 million reptiles, 510 million birds, and 1.4 billion mammals, totalling a staggering 2.6 billion animals. Since the predators were introduced more than 150 years ago, they have contributed to the extinction of more than 25 species – and are pushing many more to the brink.
Research suggests cats and foxes can be more active in areas recently burnt by fire. This is a real concern, especially as climate change increases the frequency and severity of fire in south-eastern Australia.
We urgently need new ways to protect wildlife after fires. Our study trialled one such tool: building artificial refuges across burnt landscapes. The results are promising, but researchers need to find out more.
Video showing a buttonquail using an artificial refuge built by the researchers.
Triple threat: cats, foxes and fire
Many native animals are well-adapted to fire. But the changing frequency and intensity of fire is posing a considerable threat to much of Australia’s wildlife.
Fire removes vegetation such as grass, leaf litter and shrubs. This leaves fewer places for native animals to shelter and hide, making it easier for cats and foxes to catch them.
We conducted our experiment in three Australian ecosystems: the forests of the Otway Ranges (Victoria), the sand dunes of the Simpson Desert (Queensland) and the woodlands of Kangaroo Island (South Australia). Each had recently been burnt by fire.
We built 76 refuges across these study areas. They were 90cm wide and up to 50m long – and backbreaking to install! They were made from wire mesh, mostly covered by shade cloth. Spacing in the mesh of 50mm allowed small animals to enter and exit from any point, while completely excluding cats, foxes and other larger animals. The shade cloth obstructed the vision of predators.
We then placed remote-sensing camera traps both inside and away from each refuge, and monitored them for periods ranging from four months to four years.
The placement of the cameras meant we could compare the effect of the refuges with what occurred outside them.
Across the three study areas, the artificial refuges were used by 56 species or species groups. This included the critically endangered Kangaroo Island dunnart, the threatened white-footed dunnart and the threatened southern emu-wren.
For around half the species, we detected more individuals inside the refuges than outside. As we predicted, the activity of small birds and reptiles, in particular, was much higher inside the refuges.
But surprisingly, reptile activity was also generally higher inside the refuges, particularly among skinks. We had not predicted that, because the shade cloth likely made conditions inside the refuges cooler than outside, and reptiles require warmth to regulate their body temperature.
Over time, the number of animals detected inside the refuges generally increased. This was also a surprise. We expected detections inside the refuges to decline through time as the vegetation recovered and the risk of being seen by predators fell.
But there were also a few complicating factors. For example, in the Otway Ranges and Simpson Desert, similar numbers of the mammals were detected inside and away from the refuges. This suggests the species didn’t consider the refuges as particularly safe places, which means the structures may not reduce the risk of these animals becoming prey.
So what’s the upshot of all this? Our findings suggest that establishing artificial refuges after fire may help some small vertebrates, especially small birds and skinks, avoid predators across a range of ecosystems. However, more research is required before this strategy is adopted as a widespread management tool.
Almost all evidence for an increase in cat and fox activity after fire comes from Australia, particularly the tropical north. But cats are an invasive species in more than 120 countries and islands.
That means there’s real potential for post-fire damage to wildlife to worsen globally, especially as fire risk increases with climate change.
Our results suggest artificial refuges may be a way to help animals survive after fire. But there are still important questions to answer, such as:
can artificial refuges improve the overall abundance and survival of individuals and species?
if so, how many refuges would be required to achieve this?
in the presence of natural refuges – such as rocks, logs, burrows, and unburnt patches – are artificial refuges needed?
does their effectiveness vary between low-severity planned burns and high-severity bushfires?
These questions must be answered. Conservation budgets are tight. After fires, funds must be directed towards actions that we know will work. That evidence is not yet there for artificial refuges.
Our team is busy trying to find out more. We urge other ecologists and conservationists to do so as well. We also encourage collaboration with designers and technologists to improve on our refuge design. For example, can such large refuges be made biodegradable and easier to deploy?
Solving these problems is important. It’s almost impossible to rid the entire Australian continent of cats and foxes. So land managers need all the help they can get to stop these predators from decimating Australia’s incredible wildlife.
The impact of roaming pet cats on Australian wildlife.
Darcy Watchorn receives funding from the Hermon Slade Foundation, Parks Victoria, the Conservation and Wildlife Research Trust, the Ecological Society of Australia, the Victorian Environmental Assessment Council, and the Geelong Naturalists Field Club. He is a member of the Ecological Society of Australia and the Society for Conservation Biology Oceania.
Chris Dickman receives funding from the Australian Research Council.
Don Driscoll receives funding from the ARC, Melbourne Water and Parks Victoria. He is affiliated with the Ecological Society of Australia and the Society for Conservation Biology.
For women diagnosed with endometriosis it is often a long sentence of chronic pain and cramping that impacts their daily life. It is a condition that is both difficult to diagnose and treat, with many women needing either surgery or regular medication.
A medicine called Ryeqo has just been approved for marketing specifically for endometriosis, although it was already available in Australia to treat a different condition.
Women who want the drug will need to consult their local doctor and, as it is not yet on the Pharmaceutical Benefits Scheme, they will need to pay the full cost of the script.
Endometriosis affects 14% of women of reproductive age. While we don’t have a full understanding of the cause, the evidence suggests it’s due to body tissue that is similar to the lining of the uterus (called the endometrium) growing outside the uterus. This causes pain and inflammation, which reduces quality of life and can also affect fertility.
Ryeqo is a tablet containing three different active ingredients: relugolix, estradiol and norethisterone.
All three components work together to regulate the levels of oestrogen and progesterone in the body that contribute to endometriosis, alleviating its symptoms.
Relugolix reduces the overall levels of oestrogen and progesterone in the body. The estradiol compensates for the loss of oestrogen because low oestrogen levels can cause hot flushes (also called hot flashes) and bone density loss. And norethisterone blocks the effects of estradiol on the uterus (where too much tissue growth is unwanted).
But individually, all three active ingredients in Ryeqo have been in use since 2019 or earlier.
Ryeqo has been available in Australia since 2022, but until now was not specifically indicated for endometriosis. It was originally approved for the treatment of uterine fibroids, which share some common symptoms with endometriosis and have related causes.
In addition to Ryeqo, current medical guidance lists other drugs that are suitable for endometriosis and some of these have also only been recently approved.
The oral medicine Dienogest was approved in 2021, and there have been a number of injectable drugs for endometriosis recently approved, such as Sayana Press in 2023.
You can’t take the contraceptive pill with Ryeqo but the endometriosis drug could replace it. Shutterstock
How to take it and what not to do
Ryeqo is a once-a-day tablet. You can take it with, or without food, but it should be taken about the same time each day.
It is recommended you start taking Ryeqo within the first five days after the start of your next period. If you start at another time during your period, you may experience initial irregular or heavier bleeding.
Because it contains both synthetic and natural hormones, you can’t use the contraceptive pill and Ryeqo together. However, because Ryeqo does contain norethisterone it can be used as your contraception, although it will take at least one month of use to be effective. So, if you are on Ryeqo, you should use a non-hormonal contraceptive – such as condoms – for a month when starting the medicine.
Ryeqo may be incompatible with other medicines. It might not be suitable for you if you take medicines for epilepsy, HIV and AIDS, hepatitis C, fungal or bacterial infections, high blood pressure, irregular heartbeat, angina (chest pain), or organ rejection. You should also not take Ryeqo if you have a liver tumour or liver disease.
The possible side effects of Ryeqo are similar to those of oral contraceptives. Blood clots are a risk with any medicine that contains an oestrogen or a progestogen, which Ryeqo does. Other potential side effects include bone loss, a reduction in menstrual blood loss or loss of your period.
Ryeqo can now be prescribed in Australia, so you should discuss whether Ryeqo is right for you with the doctor you usually consult for your endometriosis.
While the maker has made a submission to the Pharmaceutical Benefits Advisory Committee, it is not yet subsidised by the Australian government. This means that rather than paying the normal PBS price of up to A$31.60, it has been reported it may cost as much as $135 for a one-month supply. The committee will make a decision on whether to subsidise Ryeqo at its meeting next month.
Nial Wheate in the past has received funding from the ACT Cancer Council, Tenovus Scotland, Medical Research Scotland, Scottish Crucible, and the Scottish Universities Life Sciences Alliance. He is a Fellow of the Royal Australian Chemical Institute, a member of the Australasian Pharmaceutical Science Association, and a member of the Australian Institute of Company Directors. Nial is the chief scientific officer of Vaihea Skincare LLC, a director of SetDose Pty Ltd a medical device company, and a Standards Australia panel member for sunscreen agents. Nial regularly consults to industry on issues to do with medicine risk assessments, manufacturing, design, and testing.
Jasmine Lee 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 Kathryn Daley, Senior Lecturer, Youth Work & Youth Studies, Social Equity Research Centre, RMIT University
Two teens were arrested in Melbourne last month after horrific video footage of them pushing an unsuspecting elderly fisherman off a pier went viral.
The “prank” appeared to have been undertaken and filmed for the purpose of social media content. The man had to be rescued by good samaritans and the teens have been charged.
Soon after this, a schoolboy made headlines after being filmed on a footbridge pouring a whole bottle of milk on women enjoying a boat ride on Melbourne’s Yarra River.
It is easy to explain this behaviour away as poor parenting, problem children or with the old rationale that “kids will be kids”. But we can better explain human behaviour by considering biological, psychological and social influences.
Perhaps the most important factor to consider is the development of a young person’s brain. The evidence is clear that a person’s brain does not fully mature until they are well into their 20s.
The prefrontal cortex of the brain is the last part to develop fully. The function of the prefrontal cortex is higher-order tasks such as decision-making and emotional regulation. Importantly, this is the part of the brain that considers information that is not immediately obvious.
So when a child rides their bike on a footpath, the adult behind them might tell them to slow down just in case a car reverses from a driveway. But the child doesn’t foresee this risk because there is no car to be seen. The potential risk is clear to the adult but, as it isn’t immediately identifiable, it is invisible to the child.
If risks aren’t immediate to children, parents’ warnings about them can fall flat. Shutterstock
Humans have a self-preservation instinct: when we understand the risk of death, we avoid it. When a usually sensible young man drives his car too fast, he is not consciously taking a risk. He is simply enjoying the rush of going fast. The risk is not tangible or visible, and therefore not present in his decision-making.
For the teenaged boys in the viral videos, they’re in the same prank-like mindset of an annoying older brother. It is not that they are choosing to ignore potential consequences, it’s just that not all the consequences are visible to them. They might be driven by the immediate attention of laughs or internet notoriety, but harm to others, police charges and potential school expulsion are probably not in their thought process.
Personalities formed through nature and nurture
Some people have a larger appetite for risk. One child will dive head-first into an ocean and another won’t get their feet wet.
This is likely due to a combination of environmental and biological factors: some people are more comfortable with the feeling of fear, whereas some may have had parents who were overprotective, or perhaps an early life experience of trouble near water that has left a legacy.
These factors all contribute to a person’s psychology. A person who is risk-averse is more likely to be “scared” of pranks or unsafe behaviour. This is not necessarily because they are cognitively more able to think through the potential outcomes, but because they are acting on their fear of new or unknown environments. A new situation elicits fear and, in turn, cautionary behaviour.
Some children have a higher capacity for fear than others. Shutterstock
A young person who is less fearful will be less reluctant in new environments. So it’s not a coincidence that the “good” child who appears not to make “reckless” decisions is often the same child who struggles more with adapting to life changes, such as starting school. Similarly, the “naughty” toddler or the “class clown” might be the most adaptable and open to new environments.
Finally, our behaviour is influenced by those around us. When we are in a group we behave differently from when we are alone. We are all driven by a desire to fit in, to be liked, and sometimes we might do things we would not normally to be included.
For young people today, this is amplified through social media. Their audience is not only those right near them, but those who are in their wider digital circle. There is an instant reinforcement of a behaviour when there is a large, online audience.
Young people are often driven by a desire to fit in, especially on social media. Shutterstock
Frequently, we see prankster behaviour when young people are on school holidays. They are bored and looking for entertainment.
There are few spaces that are welcoming for groups of teenagers to simply “hang out”, and there are many that are actively hostile to groups of youths. Move-on laws for example, were designed with the intention of being able to prohibit young people from gathering.
Finally, a crucial factor is the construction of gender, where boys’ larrikinism can be seen as hyper-masculine and cool, making these types of behaviours more likely to be socially endorsed.
What can be done?
Unfortunately, not a lot. You cannot expedite the development of a brain and you can’t do much about someone’s psychology. School programs might be understood by some young people but not by others, and are expensive to deliver. Nationwide organisations like Life Education, which offers a program of health education to primary school students, and Elephant Ed, which is increasingly used by schools to deliver sex education, are provided at cost to the school.
However, social influences can be changed, albeit slowly.
If we can provide young people with social places to be where they are engaged, they will then be less bored. The Adolescent Community Reinforcement Approach (an intervention developed to reduce “antisocial” behaviours by connecting people to their communities) is based on the premise that behaviour change shouldn’t be focused on stopping a problem behaviour.
Instead, it should provide young people with opportunity for positive “prosocial activity”. So for example, offering more access to free basketball courts for young people interested in basketball gives them a positive way to spend their time.
When we continue to see young people as wild criminals who have no respect, we create a greater divide between young people and ourselves.
Kathryn Daley has received funding from FARE Australia and Melbourne City Mission. She is a member of the Women’s Correctional Services Advisory Committee. She was formerly a youth worker at the Youth Support and Advocacy Service (YSAS).
Fiji’s Women and Children’s Minister Lynda Tabuya says Pacific island countries need to “strengthen our laws” on online harassment.
Tabuya spoke to RNZ Pacific on the sidelines of the Pacific Women in Power forum taking place in Auckland this week.
She said the issue that she was dealing with — which is allegations of a sex and drug scandal between her and former cabinet minister Aseri Radrodro — was currently with the police.
“[Police] are investigating it,” she said.
“And it just so happens that a person who was causing this harassment online lives in Sydney,” she said.
She said she was able to get the assistance of Australia’s online safety watchdog to issue the notice to the person to take down the content — images — because it is a crime in Australia.
“If you put up content that is or appears to be the person, so then the person [who published it] needs to take the content down otherwise they can face prosecution,” she said.
‘Grateful for swift action’ “That was the process I followed and I’m grateful to the Safety Commissioner of Australia for the swift action.”
However, she said the situation she found herself in was not exclusive to her.
“It’s me today, it could be someone else tomorrow. It doesn’t have to be a minister or public figure.
“But if you have women in Fiji or across the Pacific who are facing this, and they’re being attacked — especially for populations where there are more people outside of the country than in [the] country.
Tabuya said therefore there was a need for strong policies, not just in Fiji, but across the region.
“You get more attacks from people who live overseas. Women MPs need to reach out to those countries where those people are attacking them live because the laws are much stronger.
“But it’s also a lesson for us within to strengthen our laws so that we can stand up against online bullying.
“The world is unfair and being a woman in politics, we face a lot of unfairness and injustices. But I think it also makes us so much more determined to stand up and be heard,” she added.
Meanwhile, Tabuya is currently the subject of an inquiry by her political party following the sex and drug allegation, the outcome of which has yet to be released.
This article is republished under a community partnership agreement with RNZ.
Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Adrian Beaumont, Election Analyst (Psephologist) at The Conversation; and Honorary Associate, School of Mathematics and Statistics, The University of Melbourne
A federal Newspoll, conducted February 19–23 from a sample of 1,245, gave Labor a 52–48 lead, unchanged since the previous Newspoll three weeks ago. Primary votes were 36% Coalition (steady), 33% Labor (down one), 12% Greens (steady), 6% One Nation (down one) and 13% for all Others (up two).
Anthony Albanese’s ratings were 51% dissatisfied (steady) and 43% satisfied (up one), for a net approval of -8, up one point. Peter Dutton’s net approval was down one point to -14. Albanese led Dutton as better PM by 47–35 (46–35 previously).
This graph of Albanese’s net approval in Newspoll shows there has not been a recovery since the defeat of the Voice referendum.
The Australian Bureau of Statistics reported last Wednesday that the wage price index rose 4.2% in the full year 2023 and 0.9% in the December quarter. This is the highest annual rise since 2009, though the quarterly rise was down from 1.3% in September.
The annual inflation rate for the full year 2023 was 4.1%, so wage rises just beat inflation. For the December quarter, inflation was up 0.6%, so wage rises exceeded inflation by 0.3%. I expect this will be good news for the government.
Labor down in Resolve poll, but would still lead
A federal Resolve poll for Nine newspapers, conducted February 21–24 from a sample of 1,603, gave the Coalition 37% of the primary vote (up three since early December), Labor 34% (down one), the Greens 11% (down one), One Nation 6% (up one), the UAP 1% (steady), independents 9% (steady) and others 4% (up one).
Resolve does not give a two party estimate until near elections, but applying 2022 preference flows to this poll gives Labor about a 52.5–47.5 lead, a 2.5-point gain for the Coalition since December. This is easily Labor’s worst position this term in a Resolve poll, which has been very pro-Labor relative to other polls.
Despite Labor’s drop, Albanese’s net approval improved six points to -6, with 47% giving him a poor rating and 41% a good rating. Dutton was down three points to a -11 net approval. Albanese led Dutton by 39–32 as preferred PM, a narrowing from 42–28 in December. Voters supported the changes to the stage three tax cuts by a 52–14 margin.
The Liberals increased their lead over Labor on economic management from 35–27 in December to 38–27. On keeping the cost of living low, the Liberals led by 30–26 (26–21 in December).
Labor gains in Freshwater poll for a 51–49 lead
A national Freshwater poll for The Financial Review, conducted February 16–18 from a sample of 1,049, gave Labor a 51–49 lead, a one-point gain for Labor since a mid-January Freshwater poll for The Daily Telegraph. Primary votes were 38% Coalition (down one since January), 31% Labor (steady), 14% Greens (steady) and 17% for all Others (up two).
Freshwater has been Labor’s worst pollster this term, while Resolve has been its best. Results from Freshwater, Newspoll and Resolve are now closer together than previously.
Albanese led Dutton as preferred PM by 42–38 (47–38 in January). In comparisons with the December poll, Albanese’s net approval was down two points to -7, while Dutton’s was down seven to -9. Barnaby Joyce’s net approval crashed 16 points to -33.
By 44–15, voters supported the changes to the stage three tax cuts, with 26% “indifferent”. By 32–12, voters thought they would be better off under the changes, with 43% saying there would be no difference.
The cost of living is still the top issue for voters, with 69% listing it as a priority. The Coalition led Labor as best party to manage cost of living by 34–28. Since December, “crime and social order” jumped eight points to 25% to rank fifth on the list of voters’ priorities.
Net approval of the federal political parties was +1 for the Liberals, -4 for Labor, -7 for the Nationals and -19 for the Greens. Net approval of other prominent Labor ministers was +6 for Penny Wong, -3 for Jim Chalmers, -4 for Tanya Plibersek and -10 for Chris Bowen.
Morgan poll: 52.5–47.5 to Labor
In last week’s Morgan poll, conducted February 12–18 from a sample of 1,706, Labor led by 52.5–47.5, a 0.5-point gain for Labor since the previous week. Primary votes were 37% Coalition (steady), 34% Labor (down 0.5), 13% Greens (up one), 4% One Nation (down 0.5) and 12% for all Others (steady).
Queensland UComms poll has a 50–50 tie
The Queensland state election will be held in October. A UComms poll for The Courier Mail, conducted February 13 from a sample of 1,743, had Labor and the Liberal National Party tied at 50–50, a one-point gain for Labor since December. This is the first Queensland poll commissioned by The Courier Mail that has not shown a LNP lead since December 2022.
The Poll Bludger reported the primary votes were 37.3% LNP (down 0.7), 34.2% Labor (down 0.2), 12.2% Greens (down 1.1), 7.7% One Nation (up 0.4) and 3.9% Katter’s Australian Party (down 0.1). Respondent preferences were better for Labor than in December.
Labor premier Steven Miles’ ratings were 44.2% positive (up 1.5), 25.2% neutral (down 2.4) and 25.2% negative (down 2.4). LNP leader David Crisafulli’s ratings were 41.7% positive (up 3.9), 31.2% neutral (up 1.0) and 18.7% negative (down 4.1). Crisafulli led Miles as preferred premier by 51–49 (52.2–47.8 in December).
This is the second UComms poll since Miles replaced Annastacia Palaszczuk as Labor premier in December. Some of Labor’s poll problems were probably due to Palaszczuk’s unpopularity. But Labor will have been in government for almost ten years by the October election, so there may be an “it’s time” factor.
Trump wins South Carolina, UK byelections and Indonesian election
Donald Trump won the South Carolina Republican primary on Saturday (US time), defeating Nikki Haley in her home state by a 59.8–39.5 margin. He is almost certain to seal the Republican presidential nomination by March 19, when 69% of Republican delegates will have been determined. I covered this for The Poll Bludger.
I covered the two February 15 UK byelections in Conservative-held seats for The Poll Bludger. Both seats were gained by Labour on massive swings. The next UK general election is likely to be held late this year, with Labour far ahead in national polls. However, Labour was forced to disendorse their candidate for the February 29 Labour-held Rochdale byelection after nominations had closed.
I covered the February 14 Indonesian election, in which the right-wing Prabowa Subianto won the presidency with an outright majority of the vote, meaning there won’t be a runoff election.
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.
Analysis by Dr Bryce Edwards: Democracy Project (https://democracyproject.nz)
Political scientist, Dr Bryce Edwards.
The Labour Party’s fortunes go from bad to worse. Ever since the party was turfed out of power in October, incurring its biggest-ever loss, the party has shown no real sign of learning any lessons from its defeat, nor does it show any capacity to revive itself.
Last week is being labelled its “worst week yet” by commentators. One of them, Vernon Small, who until recently was the senior adviser to David Parker, wrote yesterday in the Sunday Star Times that Labour appears to have finally hit rock bottom last week, with another poor opinion poll result of 28 per cent support, Grant Robertson abandoning ship, and a new report out showing that in government Labour had failed on child poverty – see: Was that Labour’s worst week yet? (paywalled)
Not only is Robertson a major loss of talent for the party in opposition, Small points out that most of the other stars have been departing: “As well as Robertson and Ardern, Kelvin Davis, Nanaia Mahuta, Andrew Little, Michael Wood and Kiritapu Allan have all jumped ship or been thrown overboard. Third-ranked Megan Woods is being equivocal about her long-term plans.” Meanwhile, Small points out that Chris Hipkins has demoted other solid talent, such as Damien O’Connor and David Parker, leaving Labour’s front bench “looking decidedly callow.”
Small suggests that Labour views tax reform as a recurrent campaign nightmare” to avoid rather than “an opportunity to define itself, and fund its policy platform”. And he says that in keeping Parker away from the revenue and economic portfolios, he’s signalling that a wealth tax is off the agenda. Instead, Hipkins has put the rather dry Deborah Russell in charge of tax, and she says that wealth taxes are “largely unknown” and too complicated to explain.
And in the weekend another Labour insider wrote an analysis on the Labour-aligned blogsite The Standard about how Hipkins is more interested in preserving his leadership than giving MPs like Parker a chance to innovate on tax policy: “Hipkins is also using the elevation of Edmonds and Russell to shank David Parker. Parker is the only guy left with that combination of progressive chops, huge track record, and the merest mote of charisma to be an alternative leader to Hipkins. Hipkins has sent yet another signal to Parker to retire. This leaves Hipkins free to turn the entire Labour effort into an even more ineffectual Wellington-circling wankathon taking two terms to recover from the smashing he got it in 2023” – see: What’s Left?
Labour failed on poverty and inequality
It’s last week’s Statistics New Zealand report on child poverty that is truly eviscerating for Labour. As Small argues, Labour MPs and activists now need to acknowledge their government “didn’t adequately protect the most vulnerable being hit hard by the cost-of-living crisis.”
This is why many on the political left have been so disappointed by the last government. Arguably things got much worse for the poor and working class, while the rich got richer under Hipkins, Jacinda Ardern and Grant Robertson. Hence, some of the farewell commentaries for Robertson have been less than positive.
Some of the most scathing are from those on the political left. For example, activist Steven Cowan sums up what a lot of those on the left think: “The unvarnished truth is that, despite Prime Minister Jacinda Ardern promising to lead a government focused on economic transformation, very little changed. The Labour Government, supported by the Greens, merely tinkered. Working people were, again, like Oliver Twist, left pleading for more. The new child poverty figures only serve to underline the fact that the Labour Government continued to deliver out thin gruel for the working class its so-called ‘socialist’ MPs claimed to represent. And, presiding over it all, was Finance Minister Grant Robertson. While he wrote, in a nod to New Zealand’s myth of egalitarianism, that he wanted to give everyone ‘a fair suck of the sav’, in reality he was a resolute defender of the neoliberal status quo” – see: A loyal lieutenant of capital
Robertson’s end of an error
The toughest column on Robertson’s time in power has been written by Newstalk’s Heather du Plessis-Allan who says that his departure is not being accurately evaluated by the commentariat and press gallery because he’s the sort of politician that they like having a beer with. She rightly reckons that Robertson won’t be willing to have any more beers with her once he’s read her column: Grant Robertson is a great bloke, but he was a terrible Finance Minister (paywalled)
Robertson is praised by du Plessis-Allan for many of his talents, but she says he should be ranked as New Zealand’s worst finance minister on record – even worse than Robert Muldoon. This is mainly because he took the public’s debt from “$5 billion in 2019 to a projected $93b this year” without producing anything much to show for it. She says at least when Muldoon wasted money on building dams and energy infrastructure the country was left with some assets as a result – but in Robertson’s case, he seemed to blow all those billions without anyone really knowing where it went. She poses the question: “What can we point to and say ‘Grant paid for that’?”
Here’s one good example she gives of Robertson’s propensity to spend very poorly: “He said yes to Michael Wood’s bike bridge, which is the perfect example of wasteful spending. It was a stupid idea. It cost us more than $51m in consultants and rented office space. Then it was canned. We spent money and we have nothing to show for it. The implications are serious. We now don’t have enough money to pay the nurses their backpay or the police the pay rise they’re due. Or the GPs.”
Robertson also failed to advance any real economic reform. And despite lots of talk about how unfair the tax system is, Robertson mostly retained the status quo: “If he really believed the tax system needed to be fairer, he had his chance. He had the ear of Jacinda Ardern. He is one of her best friends. And he either couldn’t convince her or didn’t really try.”
Should Hipkins be replaced as Labour leader?
The worst part of the 1News poll for Labour last week was Hipkins’ plummeting numbers for preferred prime minister. Falling by ten percentage points revived speculation about whether Hipkins had to go. The NBR’s political editor Brent Edwards argued in the weekend that Hipkins is safe for the moment: “the knives will not be out now. It is surely too early in the electoral cycle to consider a change of leader, but the question might arise closer to the election if Labour is unable to lift its support and bridge the gap between it and National” – see: Tragedy, polls, retirement, forced apology and a grim scorecard
Herald political editor Claire Trevett also says that Hipkins is currently safe: “He does have some time up his sleeve. There are no signs as yet that any other credible leadership contender is ready to put their hand up. Once regular speculation starts around one or two names, that will become a more present danger for him. But until there are proper contenders to be a new leader, there is no point in rolling the old one. That gives him a window of opportunity to make sure that those names do not emerge, and that he is the one still standing in 2026” – see: Ginny Andersen’s attack on Mark Mitchell does Chris Hipkins no favours (paywalled)
Trevett also points to another low point in Labour’s past week, with another rising star in the party displaying questionable judgment, and making HIpkins’ job harder: “Ginny Andersen has done no favours for him with her bizarre attack on Police Minister Mark Mitchell on Newstalk ZB about his past as a security contractor in the Middle East. Mitchell quite rightly described it as a character assassination. Hipkins has said it went too far. Andersen has apologised to Mitchell personally, but not publicly and clearly not satisfactorily. She is now refusing to front on it.”
Nonetheless, Anderson is still talked about as the “running mate” for Kieran McAnulty in any attempt to replace the current leadership with a new generation of leaders that might be more able to connect with working class voters.
Labour is still the party of the Professional Managerial Class
The Labour’s progressive agenda and identity is very much their strongest sales pitch. And with the departure of Grant Robertson, the party’s reputation as a feminist force has become stronger – 70 per cent of its front bench is now female.
Also, by appointing Barbara Edmonds to replace Robertson as finance spokesperson, she creates a record as the party’s first female in that role and the first the Pasifika person as well.
This achievement is saluted in yesterday’s Herald with an editorial that says “The once impossibly high glass ceiling has been smashed”, with Edmonds creating “a new pathway not only for herself but one for other Pacific politicians and those aspiring to be so one day. She also represents something that was not always evident in New Zealand and overseas – brown women in leadership roles. Brown women in politics” – see: Barbara Edmonds’ new appointment another step forward for Pasifika (paywalled)
However, as to whether the party still represents working people is more in question these days. In recent years it’s become more apparent the party has been captured by the Wellington “professional managerial class”, pushing the party away from its traditional working class politics towards a middle class social liberalism.
This was discussed in the weekend by political commentator Janet Wilson: “October’s election result proved Labour has a problem of Democrat-sized proportions; they’ve become disenfranchised from their base while other left-wing parties enjoy the benefits. Which is how the Greens managed to snaffle the red strongholds of Rongotai and Wellington Central, and Te Pāti Māori grabbed six of the seven Maori seats. That’s what happens when there’s a divide between the professional managerial class running the party and the supposed blue-collar workers they’re meant to represent” – see: As Robertson heads for the exit, Labour’s reset becomes critical (paywalled)
Wilson explains that Hipkins epitomises that professional managerial class, and continues to hamper any tax reform that might threaten the interests of his own wealthy milieu: “As a paid-up member of that managerial class, having worn the well-trampled path from student politics directly to Parliament, the question must be, is Chris Hipkins the man to represent the workers in an age when AI threatens to disrupt all jobs? Can a leader who scuttled the tax work of his peers in one election hope to stop increasing dissension in the ranks if its polling numbers continue to slide and party irrelevancy beckons?”
There’s a hollowness to a party that continually refuses to implement reforms that would benefit Labour’s traditional base. Wilson says the party has therefore “lost its ideological compass and is adrift in the wilderness of what-it-doesn’t-stand-for. All while applying the magical thinking of all opposition parties – that the government of the day will only last for a term before they are ushered back into power.”
The hollowness has been recently discussed by Matthew Hooton, who has argued that Labour (along with National) has become a “mere empty vessel” for “the personal ambitions and brands of whoever gets control” of the party. Therefore, in lacking any real connection with social forces apart the Liberal Establishment of places like Grey Lynn, Hooton says the party can’t enthuse working people anymore.
In his recent column, What Labour must do to reclaim its core support (paywalled)Hooton says that Labour was “supposed to be about redistributing at least some power and wealth, from capital to labour and from the ruling establishment to ordinary people.” But looking through Labour’s last two times in office, Hooton suggests that the party has given up on its traditional constituency in favour of conservatism, and this will need to change if it is to be re-elected: “Labour will never win back the working-class and middle-income voters who switched to National in 2023 until it offers more change than Ardern and Hipkins were comfortable with. If there is to be a do-nothing Government, former Labour voters may as well stick with National, which is historically so good at it, but isn’t seen to pander to the woke, Wellington, pounamu- and David Jones-wearing, yet mainly Pākehā elites.”
A similar argument was made two weeks ago by Andrea Vance, writing in The Post, saying that Labour’s “existential crisis” relates to its inability to relate to working people, and the fact that it has evolved “into a clique of career-driven politicians who marketed themselves at the progressive middle class”. In lieu of an interest in working class politics, Labour now specialises in “futile culture wars and identity politics” – see: What’s left for the left? (paywalled)
To find a way forward, Vance argues “Labour should be asking: who does it now represent?” And “this requires a more fundamental reshaping of how the party thinks about workers.”
Is there anyone in Labour that can at least pretend to be in touch with working people rather than the professional managerial class? Hooton wrote a column for the Herald at the start of the year that singled out who the best replacement for Hipkins might be – see: Apologies needed for Labour to be taken seriously (paywalled)
Here’s his conclusion: “Thirty-eight-year-old list MP Kieran McAnulty is on manoeuvres, with speculation list MP Ginny Andersen would make a good running mate. Both served briefly as ministers in the last year of the defeated regime. McAnulty, while assuring Labour activists he is well to the left of Ardern on economics and tax, has built a blokey non-woke brand based on driving a ute and liking a beer and a bet. He’s certainly more in tune with today’s post-Covid, recessionary New Zealand than anyone from Grey Lynn.”
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)
Earlier this month, a Hong Kong company lost HK$200 million (A$40 million) in a deepfake scam. An employee transferred funds following a video conference call with scammers who looked and sounded like senior company officials.
Generative AI tools can create image, video and voice replicas of real people saying and doing things they never would have done. And these tools are becoming increasingly easy to access and use.
But if you’ve been a victim of a deepfake scam, can you obtain compensation or redress for your losses? The legislation hasn’t caught up yet.
Who is responsible?
In most cases of deepfake fraud, scammers will avoid trying to fool banks and security systems, instead opting for so-called “push payment” frauds where victims are tricked into directing their bank to pay the fraudster.
So, if you’re seeking a remedy, there are at least four possible targets:
the fraudster (who will often have disappeared)
the social media platform that hosted the fake
any bank that paid out the money on the instructions of the victim of the fraud
the provider of the AI tool that created the fake.
The quick answer is that once the fraudster vanishes, it is currently unclear whether you have a right to a remedy from any of these other parties (though that may change in the future).
In principle, you could seek damages from a social media platform if it hosted a deepfake used to defraud you. But there are hurdles to overcome.
Platforms typically frame themselves as mere conduits of content – which means they are not legally responsible for the content. In the United States, platforms are explicitly shielded from this kind of liability. However, no such protection exists in most other common law countries, including Australia.
The Australian Competition and Consumer Commission (ACCC) is taking Meta (Facebook’s parent company) to court. They are testing the possibility of making digital platforms directly liable for deepfake crypto scams if they actively target the ads to possible victims.
The ACCC is also arguing Meta should be liable as an accessory to the scam – for failing to remove the misleading ads promptly once notified of the problem.
At the very least, platforms should be responsible for promptly removing deepfake content used for fraudulent purposes. They may already claim to be doing this, but it might soon become a legal obligation.
In Australia, the legal obligations of whether a bank has to reimburse you in the case of a deepfake scam aren’t settled.
This was recently considered by the United Kingdom’s Supreme Court, in a case likely to be influential in Australia. It suggests banks don’t have a duty to refuse a customer’s payment instructions where the recipient is suspected to be a (deepfake) fraudster, even if they have a general duty to act promptly once the scam is discovered.
That said, the UK is introducing a mandatory scheme that requires banks to reimburse victims of push payment fraud, at least in certain circumstances.
In Australia, the ACCC and others have presented proposals for a similar scheme, though none exists at this stage.
Australian banks are unlikely to be liable for customer losses due to scams, but new schemes could force them to reimburse victims. TK Kurikawa/Shutterstock
The providers of generative AI tools are currently not legally obliged to make their tools unusable for fraud or deception. In law, there is no duty of care to the world at large to prevent someone else’s fraud.
However, providers of generative AI do have an opportunity to use technology to reduce the likelihood of deepfakes. Like banks and social media platforms, they may soon be required to do this, at least in some jurisdictions.
The recently proposed EU AI Act obligates the providers of generative AI tools to design these tools in a way that allows the synthetic/fake content to be detected.
Currently, it’s proposed this could work through digital watermarking, although its effectiveness is still being debated. Other measures include prompt limits, digital ID to verify a person’s identity, and further education about the signs of deepfakes.
Can we stop deepfake fraud altogether?
None of these legal or technical guardrails are likely to be entirely effective in stemming the tide of deepfake fraud, scams or deception – especially as generative AI technology keeps advancing.
However, the response doesn’t need to be perfect: slowing down AI generated fakes and frauds can still reduce harm. We also need to pressure platforms, banks and tech providers to stay on top of the risks.
So while you might never be able to completely prevent yourself from being the victim of a deepfake scam, with all these new legal and technical developments, you might soon be able to seek compensation if things go wrong.
With audio, video and image deepfakes only growing more realistic, we need multi-layered strategies of prevention, education and compensation.
This week Scott Morrison, Australia’s 30th prime minister, will deliver his valedictory speech to the House of Representatives. As Morrison leaves parliament, it’s timely to ask where he is placed in the pantheon of Australia’s national leaders.
Already there have been unflattering verdicts on Morrison’s prime-ministerial standing. For example, in her withering account of his leadership, veteran columnist and author Niki Savva writes that among detractors, “Morrison was regarded as the worst prime minister since Billy McMahon”. Moreover, according to Savva, following the August 2022 revelation of his commandeering of five ministries during the COVID pandemic, his reputation sunk still lower: “he was worse than McMahon. Worse even than Tony Abbott, who lasted a scant two years in the job”.
How might we know how Morrison’s record stacks up against his prime-ministerial peers? One device for evaluating comparative leadership performance is expert rankings. Australia has had a slow take-up in this field, unlike the United States, where presidential rankings have a lineage stretching back three-quarters of a century and are a veritable scholarly cottage industry.
In recent years, there have been forays into this territory in Australia, with three prime-ministerial rankings conducted by newspapers and two initiated by Monash University in 2010 and 2020. (I was the organiser of both of these Monash rankings.)
These rankings have been largely consistent in their results. The experts, mostly political historians and political scientists, have judged the nation’s greatest prime minister to be its second world war leader, John Curtin. The other leaders in the top echelon are, in rough order, Bob Hawke, Ben Chifley, Alfred Deakin, Robert Menzies, Andrew Fisher, John Howard, Paul Keating and Gough Whitlam.
Billy McMahon is often considered to be Australia’s worst prime minister. National Archives of Australia
At the other end of the scale, Billy McMahon, who is chiefly remembered for being defeated by Labor’s Whitlam at the December 1972 election, thereby bringing to a close the Liberal Party’s postwar ascendancy, has been consistently rated Australia’s prime-ministerial dunce. Even his biographer, Patrick Mullins, acknowledges that McMahon has become “a by-word for failure, silliness, ridicule”.
However, in the most recent of the rankings, the Monash 2020 survey, McMahon had a close competitor for bottom place: Tony Abbott. Forty-four out of 66 respondents to that survey assessed Abbott’s prime ministership a failure. Other prime ministers to the rear of the field included Abbott’s contemporaries, Kevin Rudd and Malcolm Turnbull.
Morrison was not included in the 2020 rankings because as the incumbent his prime ministership was incomplete, and so it was premature to evaluate his performance. Let us now, though, measure his record against the nine benchmarks that the experts were asked to consider in rating the nation’s leaders.
The first is “effectively managing cabinet”. To date, little has been disclosed about the integrity of cabinet processes under Morrison’s stewardship. Yet, whatever the merits of that management, his scandalous breach of the norms of cabinet government by secretly assuming several ministries will irretrievably stain his reputation in this regard.
Next is “maintaining support of Coalition/party”. That Morrison avoided being deposed by his party, which was the fate of his immediate predecessors (Rudd, Julia Gillard, Abbott and Turnbull), counts in his favour. As the ABC docuseries Nemesis shows, however, his prime ministership was marked by serious frictions both within the Liberal Party and between the Liberal and National coalition partners.
“Demonstrating personal integrity”. This was not one of Morrison’s strong suits. As Savva makes searingly evident, and Nemesis also highlights, Morrison earned a reputation for being economical with the truth (including hiding his acquisition of colleagues’ ministries), for evading accountability and shifting blame (“I don’t hold a hose, mate”), and for corrupted processes under his watch (an example being the shameless pork-barrelling of the community sport infrastructure program in the lead-up to the 2019 election).
“Leaving a significant policy legacy”. Here Morrison is partly damned by his own words. In office, he insisted he was not concerned about his legacy, equating the idea with a vanity project. Indeed, an obsession with the theatre of politics and a corresponding lack of substance caused his prime ministership to come to be seen as bereft of purpose.
On the other hand, management of the COVID pandemic, however mixed, accords a significance to his time in office. AUKUS stands as the other major legacy of Morrison’s prime ministership, entrenched as it has been by his successor, Anthony Albanese. The agreement promises to influence Australia’s defence capability until the middle of this century and beyond, although only time will tell whether it enhances the nation’s security or is a dangerous white elephant.
“Relationship with the electorate”. Morrison’s record here is mixed. In his favour, he won an election (something McMahon couldn’t claim). Yet, by the time of the 2022 election, according to the Australian Election Study, he was the least popular major party leader in the history of that survey, which dates back to the 1980s.
His public toxicity was a primary factor in the Coalition’s defeat, one of his Liberal colleagues comparing the depth of public sentiment against the prime minister in 2022 to “having a 10,000-tonne boulder attached to your leg”.
“Communication effectiveness”. Styling himself as a Cronulla Sharks-supporting “daggy dad” from the suburbs, at least initially Morrison’s communication mode seemed to be well received in the community. He was relentlessly on message during the 2019 election campaign.
But the shine rapidly wore off his persona following that victory, with growing doubts about his authenticity. Rather than persuade, his habit was to hector, and rather than empathise, he exuded smugness. A series of notorious tin-eared statements, which especially alienated women voters, came to define his image. By the end he was known as the “bulldozer-in-chief”.
“Nurturing national unity”. An innovation of Morrison’s at the beginning of the pandemic was the national cabinet. Bringing together the prime minister and premiers, it worked effectively for a time, only for partisan interests over lockdowns to strain relations between Canberra and the states.
Under pressure, Morrison also flirted with divisive culture-war politics, instances being his divisive Religious Discrimination Bill and his egregious handpicking of the anti-transgender Liberal candidate Katherine Deves to contest the 2022 election.
“Defending and promoting Australia’s interests abroad”. The AUKUS pact has vehement critics, led by Morrison’s prime-ministerial peers Keating and Turnbull, who argue it jeopardises national sovereignty.
There is no denying, however, that AUKUS was Morrison’s signature foreign policy enterprise. On the other hand, Australia’s reputation as a laggard on climate change under the Coalition hurt our international standing, not least among Pacific neighbours. The Morrison government’s belated commitment to a net zero carbon emissions by 2050 target was too little, too late. Bellicose rhetoric towards Beijing also led to a deterioration in relations with the nation’s major trading partner (as well as estranging Chinese-Australian voters).
“Being able to manage turbulent times”. Here, again, Morrison’s record is at best mixed. In his favour is decisive early actions to ameliorate the COVID pandemic, headed by the JobKeeper program. As the pandemic progressed, however, his government was too often flat-footed, demonstrated by its dilatory approach to procuring vaccines. His response to natural disasters, most notably the 2019-20 Black Summer bushfires, was another shortcoming, exemplified by his secret holiday to Hawaii in the midst of the crisis. Arguably, his prime ministership was doomed from that moment.
And the verdict?
Prime-ministerial reputations can take time to settle. The passing of years fleshes out historical knowledge as well as providing greater perspective on performance in office. For example, the fate of AUKUS will quite possibly affect Morrison’s standing well into the future.
Even allowing for this, it seems safe to forecast that Morrison will be rated among the least distinguished of Australian prime ministers. His government’s relatively successful early management of the COVID pandemic and the legacy of AUKUS might spare him from falling below McMahon and Abbott at the bottom of the prime-ministerial heap. But avoiding that ignominy will probably be a close-run thing.
In the past Paul Strangio received funding from the Australian Research Council.
Although some viral videos have been taken down following a series of reports in The Guardian, clips featuring Australian influencers have claimed nicotine pouches are a safe and effective way to quit vaping. A number of the videos have included links to websites selling these products.
With the rapid rise in youth vaping and the subsequent implementation of several reforms to restrict access to vaping products, it’s not entirely surprising the tobacco industry is introducing more products to maintain its future revenue stream.
The major trans-national tobacco companies, including Philip Morris International and British American Tobacco, all manufacture nicotine pouches. British American Tobacco’s brand of nicotine pouches, Velo, is a leading sponsor of the McLaren Formula 1 team.
But what are nicotine pouches, and are they even legal in Australia?
Like snus, but different
Nicotine pouches are available in many countries around the world, and their sales are increasing rapidly, especially among young people.
Nicotine pouches look a bit like small tea bags and are placed between the lip and gum. They’re typically sold in small, colourful tins of about 15 to 20 pouches. While the pouches don’t contain tobacco, they do contain nicotine that is either extracted from tobacco plants or made synthetically. The pouches come in a wide range of strengths.
As well as nicotine, the pouches commonly contain plant fibres (in place of tobacco, plant fibres serve as a filler and give the pouches shape), sweeteners and flavours. Just like for vaping products, there’s a vast array of pouch flavours available including different varieties of fruit, confectionery, spices and drinks.
The range of appealing flavours, as well as the fact they can be used discreetly, may make nicotine pouches particularity attractive to young people.
Users absorb the nicotine in their mouths and simply replace the pouch when all the nicotine has been absorbed. Tobacco-free nicotine pouches are a relatively recent product, but similar style products that do contain tobacco, known as snus, have been popular in Scandinavian countries, particularly Sweden, for decades.
Snus and nicotine pouches are however different products. And given snus contains tobacco and nicotine pouches don’t, the products are subject to quite different regulations in Australia.
What does the law say?
Pouches that contain tobacco, like snus, have been banned in Australia since 1991, as part of a consumer product ban on all forms of smokeless tobacco products. This means other smokeless tobacco products such as chewing tobacco, snuff, and dissolvable tobacco sticks or tablets, are also banned from sale in Australia.
Tobacco-free nicotine pouches cannot legally be sold by general retailers, like tobacconists and convenience stores, in Australia either. But the reasons for this are more complex.
In Australia, under the Poisons Standard, nicotine is a prescription-only medicine, with two exceptions. Nicotine can be used in tobacco prepared and packed for smoking, such as cigarettes, roll-your-own tobacco, and cigars, as well as in preparations for therapeutic use as a smoking cessation aid, such as nicotine patches, gum, mouth spray and lozenges.
If a nicotine-containing product does not meet either of these two exceptions, it cannot be legally sold by general retailers. No nicotine pouches have currently been approved by the Therapeutic Goods Administration as a therapeutic aid in smoking cessation, so in short they’re not legal to sell in Australia.
However, nicotine pouches can be legally imported for personal use only if users have a prescription from a medical professional who can assess if the product is appropriate for individual use.
We only have anecdotal reports of nicotine pouch use, not hard data, as these products are very new in Australia. But we do know authorities are increasingly seizing these products from retailers. It’s highly unlikely any young people using nicotine pouches are accessing them through legal channels.
Health concerns
Nicotine exposure may induce effects including dizziness, headache, nausea and abdominal cramps, especially among people who don’t normally smoke or vape.
Although we don’t yet have much evidence on the long term health effects of nicotine pouches, we know nicotine is addictive and harmful to health. For example, it can cause problems in the cardiovascular system (such as heart arrhythmia), particularly at high doses. It may also have negative effects on adolescent brain development.
The nicotine contents of some of the nicotine pouches on the market is alarmingly high. Certain brands offer pouches containing more than 10mg of nicotine, which is similar to a cigarette. According to a World Health Organization (WHO) report, pouches deliver enough nicotine to induce and sustain nicotine addiction.
Pouches are also being marketed as a product to use when it’s not possible to vape or smoke, such as on a plane. So instead of helping a person quit they may be used in addition to smoking and vaping. And importantly, there’s no clear evidence pouches are an effective smoking or vaping cessation aid.
A Velo product display at Dubai airport in October 2022. Nicotine pouches are marketed as safe to use on planes. Becky Freeman
Further, some nicotine pouches, despite being tobacco-free, still contain tobacco-specific nitrosamines. These compounds can damage DNA, and with long term exposure, can cause cancer.
Overall, there’s limited data on the harms of nicotine pouches because they’ve been on the market for only a short time. But the WHO recommends a cautious approach given their similarities to smokeless tobacco products.
For anyone wanting advice and support to quit smoking or vaping, it’s best to talk to your doctor or pharmacist, or access trusted sources such as Quitline or the iCanQuit website.
Becky Freeman is an Expert Advisor to the Cancer Council Tobacco Issues Committee and a member of the Cancer Institute Vaping Communications Advisory Panel. These are unpaid roles. She has received relevant competitive grants that include a focus on e-cigarettes/vaping from the NHMRC, MRFF, NSW Health, the Ian Potter Foundation, VicHealth, and Healthway WA; relevant research contracts from the Cancer Institute NSW and the Cancer Council NSW; relevant personal/consulting fees from the World Health Organization, the Hong Kong Special Administrative Region Department of Health, BMJ Tobacco Control, the Heart Foundation NSW, the US FDA, the NHMRC e-cigarette working committee, NSW Health, and Cancer Council NSW; and relevant travel expenses from the Oceania Tobacco Control Conference and the Australia Public Health Association preventive health conference.
Official dietary advice in Australia is set to warn of the climate impact of certain foods. The move has raised the ire of farmers, meat producers and others who branded it “green ideology” and a “war on meat”.
Critics say the The National Health and Medical Research Council (NHMRC), which is behind the change, is overreaching and should not expand its remit beyond providing nutritional advice. We strongly disagree.
Having explored the scientific evidence about the harm food can cause to both the planet and human health, we firmly believe environmental information about food choices should be prominent in dietary guidelines.
Human health depends on having a safe, liveable planet and the state of our planet is inextricably linked to food systems. It’s entirely sensible that consumers are informed about whether their food choices are sustainable.
‘A thorough review of the evidence’
Australia’s dietary guidelines were released in 2013. The document provides general information about the environmental sustainability of food, but it’s buried in an appendix and the recommendations are fairly inconclusive.
The guidelines are currently under review and will be updated in 2026. The NHMRC says feedback from the public suggested sustainability information should be more accessible and explicit in the new guidelines. In fact, it said one in three people surveyed nominated the change as a priority.
The NHMRC says developing or updating its guidelines involves:
a thorough review of the evidence, methodological advice on the quality of these reviews, drafting of the guidelines, public consultation and independent expert review of the final guidelines.
It said the dietary recommendations would first consider Australia-specific health impacts, followed by sustainability and other factors – an approach in line with guidelines overseas.
Australia’s dietary guidelines are under review. Shutterstock
Critics come out swinging
Australians are among the world’s biggest meat eaters. However, recent trends indicate Australians’ beef consumption is in decline.
Meat creates almost 60% of greenhouse gas emissions from food production, and red meat has the highest environmental footprint out of all food choices.
Perhaps unsurprisingly, the change to dietary guidelines has prompted opposition from some quarters. In a report in The Australian, for example, Red Meat Advisory Council chair John McKillop said the moves:
go well beyond the policy intent of the Australian Dietary Guidelines to provide recommendations on healthy foods and dietary patterns […] [the] review process must not be allowed to be used as a vehicle to drive ideological agendas at the expense of the latest nutritional science.
He said the industry’s concerns were not related to its progress on sustainability, about which it had “a strong story” to tell.
The newspaper also quoted a Central Queensland cattle farmer, who said perceived misinformation about the health impacts and sustainability of red meat production were rife in the media, public policy and nutritional advice.
Conservative media outlets also weighed in on the changes. Sydney radio station 2GB declared the move a “war on meat” and host Ben Fordham claimed farmers were being “screwed over again”.
Australians are among the world’s biggest meat eaters. Shutterstock
The global picture
The upcoming changes are not unprecedented globally. Environmental sustainability is highlighted in the official dietary guidelines of at least ten other countries. They include Sweden which introduced climate-friendly food advice in 2015.
The title of the Swedish guidelines translates to “Find your way to eat greener, not too much and be active!” Among the recommendations are to:
Eat less red and processed meat, no more than 500 grams a week. Only a small amount of this should be processed meat.
But other nations have struggled to include sustainability advice in official dietary guidelines. In the United States, for example, lobby groups prevented the change, despite the recommendations of government-appointed nutritionists.
Dietary officials have not overreached
The Australian dietary guidelines already suggest limiting red meat consumption on health grounds.
Research has shown regular consumption of red meat, especially if it’s processed, contributes substantially to the risk of premature death. A high intake of red meat has been associated with cardiovascular disease, coronary heart disease, cancers and type 2 diabetes.
Adding information about the environmental effects of red meat health simply reinforces the benefits of eating less of it.
The link between food, the natural environment and health is well-established. Even before food is produced, vegetation is cleared to create space for crops and livestock. This leads to both the release of carbon dioxide and biodiversity loss, among other harms.
When it comes to meat, the digestive systems of sheep and cattle produce a lot of methane, a potent greenhouse gas. Greenhouse gas emissions are also created when food is processed, transported, stored and disposed of. Food packaging contributes to pressure on landfill and creates pollution.
All these processes threaten human health. Researchers have called for a global transformation of food systems, to ensure they operate within Earth’s limits.
The role of NHMRC is to protect public health in Australia. It makes sense, then, that it provides consumers with information about which foods cause the least environmental damage – and by extension, are also good for their personal health.
Clearing land for food production is a major source of biodiversity and vegetation loss. Shutterstock
A rightful part of the public health agenda
Dietary guidelines are a government tool to influence food consumption towards good choices. They are based on the best available evidence, and evolve along with our understanding of food and its impacts.
Of course, even if Australia’s guidelines are changed to incorporate environmental advice, this does not guarantee everyone will make healthy and sustainable food choices. Such a shift requires major behaviour changes, of which dietary guidelines are only one component.
Arming consumers with the right information about food sustainability however should be part of the federal government’s public health agenda.
Dora Marinova receives funding from the Australian Research Council.
Diana Bogueva 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.
There will be nervous executives all over Australia this week.
Come Tuesday, large private sector organisations will have their company’s gender pay gaps published for the first time for all to see, name, and shame.
As they brace for the fallout, let’s look at how what we will be told is changing, and what it will mean for you.
What is changing?
Every year, the Workplace Gender Equality Agency (WGEA) collects information from every employer with more than 100 employees. Until now it has published only a summary of the findings on its website, including Australia’s overall gender pay gap, and the gap by industry and employment arrangement.
But for the first time legislation enacted last year also allows WGEA to publish the gender pay gaps of individual employers.
Tuesday’s release will include each large company’s median gender pay gap, and the share of women it employs in lower- and higher-paid jobs.
Employers will have the chance to publish a statement alongside their results to provide context.
That means from Tuesday you will be able to look on the WGEA website and find the median gender pay gap of your large private sector organisation, or of an organisation you are thinking of joining, and how it stacks up against its competitors.
Why the change?
Australian women, like women elsewhere, have made astounding progress in the workforce in recent decades.
Women are both working and earning more than ever before. But progress has stalled, and the gender pay gap remains stubbornly persistent.
But beyond this, the options for governments are limited. Most of the barriers to women getting better-paid jobs can only be broken by employers.
The public naming and shaming that will begin on Tuesday will push accountability onto employers, holding them responsible for the conditions in their workplaces.
Workers and bosses are going to take notice: when employer gender pay gaps were released in the UK in 2018 it was the biggest business news story of the year, with coverage rivalling the wedding of Prince Harry and Meghan Markle.
At a time when companies are fighting for top talent, it is going to make it more difficult for employers with large pay gaps to hire talented women.
Research shows that on average women are willing to accept a 5% lower salary in order to avoid working for the employers with the biggest gender pay gaps.
Workplace Gender Equality Agency.
Let’s not rush to judge
While naming and shaming will help make this policy effective, we should be careful about rushing to judgement.
It is possible for an employer to be making serious efforts to improve while its gap remains large.
And some actions aimed at improving things, such as implementing a gender quota on entry-level positions, can worsen a company’s apparent gender pay gap in the short term by temporarily increasing the number of lowly-paid women.
Also, there will be firms that have a low gender pay gap because they pay both men and women poorly.
On Tuesday, we should instead look closely at whether the organisation has outlined clear steps it will take to improve, and how it compares to its competitors. In future years, we will be able to see how things have changed.
What will matter is what employers do next
Since the UK reforms were introduced in 2018, the gender pay gap has narrowed by one-fifth, with the biggest improvements coming from the worst offenders.
UK companies have also become more likely to include wage information in their job ads, equalising the starting point of wage negotiations for all applicants.
But for existing employees, the narrowing of the gap has been caused more by slower growth in men’s wages than faster growth in women’s wages, which isn’t good news for anyone looking for a pay rise.
The full effects of the Australian reforms won’t be seen for some time.
It is likely that making high-paid jobs more accessible to women will allow employers to tap into a new talent pool and encourage more highly credentialed women into the workforce, adding to productivity growth.
What is clear now is that if we want to narrow the gender pay gap, we need to know what’s happening. The avalanche of data due on Tuesday will be a start.
The 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. Grattan Institute also receives funding from corporates, foundations, and individuals to support its general activities as disclosed on its website.
A former Fiji university head who was banned from returning to the country by the previous Bainimarama government has had her ban revoked.
Professor Shushila Chang, a former vice-chancellor of University of Fiji (UoF) in a daring move had departed during the covid-19 lockdown in March 2020, breaching the border restriction order at the time, to be with her sick husband in Australia.
The Immigration Department subsequently declared her a prohibited immigrant and UoF sacked her for unauthorised departure.
She applied for a judicial review later that year but it was turned down by the High Court, which ruled the government’s decision could not be challenged through judicial review, as Fiji’s immigration law does not allow anyone to challenge the decision of a minister in any court.
However, Professor Chang said that she received a letter via email from the coalition government’s Immigration Minister Pio Tikoduaudua on January 22 informing her that she can now return to Fiji.
“The travel ban on Professor Chang has been revoked after a thorough review of her case,” Tikoduadua confirmed to RNZ Pacific on Friday.
“This decision aligns with our commitment to justice, transparency, and fairness.”
The minister said Professor Chang was a respected academic and former vice-chancellor of the UoF who could now return to Fiji.
Principles of natural justice “This step reflects our government’s dedication to reassessing past actions to ensure they align with our values and principles of natural justice,” he said.
“We recognise the importance of academic freedom and the contributions individuals like Professor Chang can make to Fiji’s education and society.”
He said the Fiji government aims to foster an environment that encourages open dialogue and values the exchange of ideas, adding “lifting this ban demonstrates our commitment to these ideals.”
Immigration Minister Pio Tikoduadua . . . “We recognise the importance of academic freedom and the contributions individuals like Professor Chang can make.” Image: Fiji govt/FB
Chang, who was in the United States when she received the news, is now looking forward to visiting Fiji and reconnecting with friends.
She said her partner and children, who were “very concerned and supportive”, were also “happy and relieved” that her travel ban has been lifted.
“[My husband] was having severe mobility problems in Fiji such as losing his balance and headaches. Upon our return to Australia, the oncologist discovered he was suffering from lung cancer which had spread to the brain.
“It is fortunate we returned immediately and sought treatment. We are thankful he was able to receive treatment and is well.”
Invited back Professor Chang said apart from prioritising her husband’s wellbeing to aid in his recovery, she had also been meeting and consulting with universities such as the University of Bordeaux (France) and Coventry (United Kingdom), and delivering training programmes.
She confirmed she was appointed as an academic advisor to Pacific Polytech — a private technical and vocational education and training (TVET) provider in Fiji.
She said it was “an exciting role as Pacific Polytech has a visionary mandate”.
“I have been invited to present a public lecture by Pacific Polytech on a globally accredited National Inspection and Testing Laboratory in Fiji.
“The intent is to improve the safety, quality and sustainability of all products from Fiji including water, food, soil, air, furniture, cement, food, wood and others.”
This article is republished under a community partnership agreement with RNZ.
Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Gwilym Croucher, Associate Professor, Melbourne Centre for the Study of Higher Education, The University of Melbourne
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 makes recommendations that could significantly change what many Australian students pay for their higher education.
Course fees have increased dramatically in recent years for many domestic university students, burdening graduates with high debts. It is not unheard of for graduates to have debts over A$100,000.
The report is damning of the former Morrison government’s Job-ready Graduates scheme, introduced in 2021. This fuelled debts when it increased fees to some courses, such as humanities, communications and human movement.
But what should replace it?
The report says student fees should be based on lifetime earnings. But it also leaves a lot unsaid about what students will actually pay or when change might come.
What will Australian students pay?
By world standards, Australians already contribute a huge amount to the cost of their education.
Data from the OECD shows there are only a few other countries where students and their families contribute more to the total cost of tertiary education.
To make the system “fairer and better reflective of the lifetime benefits that students”, the report recommends a reversal of some or all of the fee increases introduced under Job-ready Graduates.
This would mean significant reductions for many students. For example, the cost of many subjects in an arts degree rose by 113% under the scheme. Reversing the Job-ready Graduates increases could cost the federal budget a billion dollars or more, depending on the final details.
The report recommends “Commonwealth Supported” students (most undergraduates in Australia) should still pay different amounts for different areas of study. But it says fees should reflect “projected potential lifetime earnings” for graduates.
This would return to a logic that helped set fee levels before Job-ready Graduates. In the past, lawyers have earned more on average over a lifetime than nurses, so students studying law are asked to contribute more than those studying nursing.
To simplify the system, the report suggests fees would also be divided into three tiers instead of the current four.
Better ‘HELP’
Australia’s HECS-HELP and FEE-HELP schemes for undergraduate and graduate students are the envy of many other countries. They mean students contribute to the cost of their education but remove barriers for those who cannot afford the fees upfront.
This is because students only begin to pay back their loans once they earn a certain level of income, and repayments change yearly if earnings change. There is no “real” interest on the loans, but they are pegged to inflation. This was less of an issue while inflation was low, but has recently seen student debts climb by more than 7%.
So the report recommends debts are increased each year based on whatever is lower, the Consumer Price Index (CPI) or Wage Price Index (WPI): in other words, inflation or how much wages are growing. This will cost the federal budget more but would mean the growth of an individual’s debt is more closely tied to wage growth.
The report also asks Australian banks to view HELP loans differently from other debt, such as credit card debt, when assessing whether or not to approve a bank loan. This follows concerns graduates are not able to secure home loans due to their HELP debts.
As the review panel explain, a key feature of a HELP scheme loan is the repayments change with income and only needs to be repaid above an minimum earning threshold, so it has much better terms than other loans.
The report also recommends other ways the HELP system can improve, especially for some groups of low-income earners. At the moment, repayments are based on a debtor’s entire income, rather than income above the repayment threshold.
This means repayments can increase as incomes rise above each threshold but by more than the total increase in income. As the report notes, in 2022-23, when a person’s income was $48,360 they repay nothing of their student debt, but a $1 increase in their earnings and they had to repay $483.61.
So the report recommends we move to a marginal repayment rates approach (like in some tax systems, which applies a tax rate to each extra dollar over a threshold), to minimise the chance that some HELP debtors are actually worse off for earning more.
Further help for students
The report wants to see the government subsidise new fee-free “preparation” courses (an expanded range of what has been termed enabling courses). These are designed to prepare students to succeed in their studies and would be offered to anyone who had been accepted into government supported courses, with a Commonwealth Supported Place.
The review also wants to see financial support for students who have to do work placements to complete their degrees, such as nursing, allied health and teaching. These compulsory placements can be very costly for students. For example, recent research on social work students has found the financial burden of doing these placements can be crippling, with students having to give up paid work, travel long distances and pay for clothing.
Student income support
The report recognises one of the biggest challenges for many students, especially many underrepresented groups, is the cost of living while studying.
The current $639-a-fortnight from Youth Allowance is hardly enough for even the most meagre lifestyle. This means university can be almost impossible for many people unless they have family support or additional paid work, which can often put pressure on their studies.
The report makes specific recommendations about extending eligibility criteria for student income support payments for some part-time students as well as increasing the threshold for the parental income test for eligibility for some students.
While the final accord report proposes some major changes, much of the detail, such as fee levels, is not included.
In fact, it suggests it should be up to a new Australian Tertiary Education Commission to sort out.
The details, not least who pays, what, when and how, are critical to the success or otherwise of the accord. They will likely shape its impact (positive or negative) for a generation to come.
Ahead of the next federal election (either this year or early next), any major new policy with a high price tag like reducing students fees could be a big ask for the government.
Establishing a complex body such as a Tertiary Education Commission will also take time. And this runs the risk that political will could falter and priorities will shift, especially if there is a change of government.
Nevertheless, this much anticipated final report has good news for many universities students who are struggling with the costs of study, even if it does not offer any immediate relief.
Gwilym Croucher is an Associate Professor at the University of Melbourne
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.
Australian universities could get more federal government funding, in changes recommended by the Universities Accord final report. But there is little detail so far on how it will be paid for.
The accord wants to set a target to more than double the number of government-funded students by 2050. This would see the number of students grow from 860,000 to 1.8 million.
On an individual student level, the accord proposes Australia adopt a “needs-based” funding model. This means universities would receive a base amount per student. Then there would be further loadings for equity students – those from low socioeconomic backgrounds, First Nations students and students with a disability. Regional universities would also receive extra funding.
Some universities are set to gain more than others
The accord has recommended that per student funding is changed so universities receive more money for students from equity backgrounds.
This is a similar approach to funding in Australia’s schools, introduced as part of the “Gonski” reforms a decade ago.
The Mitchell Institute modelled what a Gonski-style funding model might look like, using the categories identified by the accord and based on funding rates in the school sector.
We found the overall funding per student would increase by about 11%, or A$1.3 billion per year.
Regional universities and universities in outer-suburban areas would receive the biggest share of funding increases, as they tend to enrol more students from under-represented backgrounds. The more prestigious universities, the so-called Group of Eight, would gain the least.
Why have a new approach to funding?
The accord has proposed a needs-based funding model because, it says,
people from groups under-represented in higher education on average require greater support to succeed, often due to experiencing educational disadvantage.
The aim is to help universities improve outcomes for students from disadvantaged backgrounds. These students are less likely to to university, and less likely to finish their studies if they do, than students from more advantaged backgrounds. Peter checking this language ok
Managing funding across the system
The accord is proposing a government funding cap for each university based on the number of students. The Tertiary Education Commission would manage allocations and adjust funding every year to ensure there is “sustained and system-wide growth”.
Built into the model are other provisions intended to remove barriers to higher education access, including:
new funding rates for courses that cover the full cost of teaching them
fee-free preparation programs for anyone who has qualified for a government-supported university place. This is to help get students ready for their course
freedom for universities to make more choices about their enrolments and finances, including using government-supported places for postgraduate courses. This means some expensive postgraduate qualifications could become more affordable
extending government supported places to non-universities such as TAFEs, so they can offer higher education courses without having to charge full-fees.
International student levy not mentioned
One of the most controversial ideas from the accord’s interim report in July was an international student levy. It suggested income from international students would be used to pay for the extra funding required to support the growth in equity students.
But the international student levy is not mentioned in the final report. Instead, the accord recommends the establishment of two funds.
The first is a “Higher Education Future Fund” which would be used to support infrastructure for the sector, including student housing. The recommendation is for a fund of $10 billion, with half coming from universities and the other half from the federal government. Universities with higher non-government revenue, such as high international student income, would be expected to contribute more.
The accord also recommends a new “Solving Australia’s Challenges Fund” to reward universities that use their research expertise and capability to solve national problems. The size of this fund is unclear.
An levy on international student fees is not mentioned in the report, but there are two new funds for unis. Priscilla du Preez/ Unsplash, CC BY
The proposals outlined in the accord report will likely result in a redistribution of federal government financial support in the sector.
But the report has not outlined how this will be done. Instead, the Tertiary Education Commission will be required to determine funding rates and funding caps with universities.
This is understandable because determining final funding models can be very technical work. But it does mean we lack a lot of crucial detail.
It also means a new Tertiary Education Commission (if one is set up) has a very difficult job to do in a constrained funding environment.
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.
Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Sally Patfield, Lecturer, Teachers and Teaching Research Centre, School of Education, University of Newcastle
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.
Equity has been an ongoing theme in Australian higher education policy for decades. Beginning with the Whitlam government in 1972, equity has often been viewed as a major challenge or “wicked problem” that needs solving.
It’s also been at the forefront of discussions about the Universities Accord, with “access and opportunity” for underrepresented groups highlighted in the review’s terms of reference.
So it’s not surprising to see equity feature prominently in the final report. In fact, “equity” is mentioned more than 200 times. But does it live up to its promise to improve access to education for all Australians?
The accord report continues the tradition of many previous federal government policies by defining equity as “parity” or “proportional representation”. This means the major goal is for the university student population to reflect more closely the demographic composition of Australian society.
For example, Australians from low socio-economic status backgrounds currently make up around 17% of enrolments in higher education but 25% of the broader Australian population. So the aim here would be to have participation rates closer to, if not at, 25%. The other key target groups are First Nations peoples, people living in regional and remote areas, and people with a disability.
At face value, this a noble pursuit. Expanding access to higher education helps expand opportunities for all Australians and can lead to more diverse voices in professions and public life.
But this is not necessarily the accord’s rationale. The report notes we need to increase enrolments from underrepresented groups to increase the number of skilled workers. As such, we end up with phrases in the final report such as “growth through equity” and “skills through equity”.
So it downplays the importance of equity as a genuine concern in its own right.
Both sides of Australians politics have long used the language of “aspiration” to suggest anybody can have a good life, as long as they just “get on with things” and try hard enough.
In 2008, the Bradley Review (the previous broad review of higher education in Australia) similarly argued one of the main barriers to increasing the enrolment of underrepresented groups was a lack of aspiration.
There is a large body of Australian research demonstrating aspiration is not the problem it has been made out to be – many young people from all different kinds of backgrounds aspire to go to university. Nevertheless, the accord continues to talk about “increasing aspiration” and “building aspiration” as a strategy for facilitating access to higher education.
The accord proposes access to higher education can be improved, in part, by strengthening careers advice in schools and enhancing familiarity with university through outreach programs.
These are important for students who are the first in their family to go to university, as they are often complete “newcomers” to higher education. But we need to move beyond seeing aspiration as a problem to be fixed.
Despite these limitations, the accord does propose a “whole of student” approach to raising university attainment levels (from how students learn to how they are financially supported), noting it’s not enough simply to enrol disadvantaged students “hoping they succeed”.
A number of practical recommendations likely to make a positive difference to students at various stages in their university journey include:
a significant increase in the availability of fee-free places in preparation or enabling programs, which prepare students for university study
government financial support for compulsory work placements in teaching, nursing and other care-related fields
a new national “Jobs Broker” to help students find appropriate part-time employment during their studies
abolishing the Job-Ready Graduates scheme for fees, so student contributions are based on potential lifetime earnings.
The Universities Accord report recommends a change to course fees as well as more academic and financial support for students. Nathan Dumlao/ Unsplash, CC BY
While these measures are welcome, we know there are longstanding challenges to getting underrepresented groups into university, including improving academic outcomes during school. Cost-of-living pressures may also continue to make university study a challenge, despite increases in government help.
But even if targets are reached, achieving parity for underrepresented groups does not necessarily make higher education equitable.
Equity is much more than physical presence or getting bums on seats. We also need to think about what students are accessing, how they are supported, and how universities ultimately value and include them.
Sally Patfield currently receives funding from the NSW Department of Education, Commonwealth Department of Education, and the Paul Ramsay Foundation.
Federal education Minister Jason Clare has released the highly-anticipated Universities Accord final report, billing it as a “blueprint” to change higher education for decades to come.
It is the first broad review of the sector since 2008. As The University of Melbourne’s Gwilym Croucher has noted it “could mean the most significant changes to higher education in a generation”.
More than a year in the making, the final report is 400 pages and contains 47 recommendations.
Where did it come from?
The Universities Accord started as a pre-election promise when Labor was in opposition. In 2021, then Labor education spokesperson Tanya Plibersek proposed to
seek to end some of the political bickering over higher education policy by establishing an Australian universities accord.
As higher education expert Gavin Moodie has written, the name invokes the landmark Prices and Incomes Accord, negotiated by the Hawke government and union movement.
But when the accord process was set up by Clare in November 2022, the emphasis was more on creating “lasting reform” and a “long-term plan” for higher education.
Clare appointed an expert panel to undertake a review for the accord. It has been led by Mary O’Kane, former vice-chancellor of the University of Adelaide and includes former Labor minister Jenny Macklin and former Nationals minister Fiona Nash.
The review has involved more than 820 public submissions and 180 meetings with stakeholders. It has covered almost every aspect of higher education from student fees, to research, teaching, student and staff welfare, and international students.
The emphasis from the government and review team has been on ideas that can last for decades.
O’Kane called on contributors to “be bold. Think big and think beyond the immediate challenges”. An interim report was released in July, seeking feedback on more than 70 “spiky” policy ideas, such as a levy on international student fees (which is noticeably missing from the final document).
What’s in the final report?
The final report finds “significant change” is needed in higher education if Australia is going to have the skills and knowledge it needs to support its economy and society. It sets “ambitious targets”, including:
increasing the tertiary education attainment rate from the current 60% to at least 80% of Australians in the workforce by 2050
increasing the proportion of university educated Australians aged 25 to 34 from 45% to 55% by 2050.
It says to achieve this increase, the government will need to more than double the number of Commonwealth supported students at university from 860,000 to 1.8 million by 2050.
This is going to require more people from disadvantaged backgrounds (including Indigenous students, students in regional areas and students from low socioeconomic backgrounds) to go to university. The review wants to see these students achieve “participation parity” by 2050.
Other recommendations cover support for students on the way through their study as well as what happens to their loans once they graduate. These include:
a “jobs broker” to help university students find part-time work and work experience
The review notes how important international students are to Australia’s economy and higher education sector (international education is Australia’s fourth largest export). The report calls for
less reliance on just a handful of source countries
more international students studying in regional campuses.
While it didn’t include precise dollar figures in the report, the review made multiple recommendations around funding arrangements in different parts of the system. These include:
new targets for how much Australia spends on research and development as a proportion of GDP
a fund to support universities to solve challenges facing Australia
developing a “pathway” to fund the “full economic cost of research”
a new “needs based” funding system that provides extra funding to universities for educating students from disadvantaged backgrounds
and a “Higher Education Future Fund” with contributions from universities and government to build infrastructure (like student housing).
Ultimately, the review panel wants to see a new Australian Tertiary Education Commission set up to oversee the reforms and the sector as a whole.
But it does not recommend quick change. Rather, it initially calls for a committee to oversee implementation and for a “staged approach”.
The federal government, (which has had the report since December) is now “considering” the recommendations. Clare is already managing expectations about timing. As he said on Sunday:
This is a plan not for one budget, but a blueprint for the next decade and beyond.
While telling today’s Palestine solidarity rally in Auckland about creative “good news” humanitarian aid plans to help Palestinians amid the War on Gaza, New Zealand Kia Ora Gaza advocate and organiser Roger Fowler also condemned Israel’s genocidal conduct. He was interviewed by Anadolu News Agency after a Freedom Flotilla Coalition planning meeting in Istanbul with his views this week republished here.
By Faruk Hanedar in Istanbul
“Women, children, and families have no food. They are trying to drink water from puddles. People are eating grass.”
— Kia Ora Gaza advocate Roger Fowler
New Zealand activist Roger Fowler has condemned the Israeli regime’s actions in the Gaza Strip, saying “this is definitely genocide”.
“The Israeli regime has not hidden its intention to destroy or displace the Palestinian people, especially those in Gaza, from the beginning,” he said.
“They are committing a terrible act — killing tens of thousands of people, injuring more, and destroying a large part of this beautiful country.”
The death toll from the Israeli War on Gaza topped 29,000 this week – mostly women and children – and there were reports of deaths from starvation.
Fowler demanded action to halt the attacks and expressed hope about the potential effect of the international Freedom Flotilla — a grassroots organisation working to end the illegal Israeli blockade of Gaza.
He noted large-scale protests against Israel’s actions in Gaza and emphasised efforts to pressure governments, including through weekly protests in New Zealand to unequivocally condemn Israel’s actions as unacceptable.
A Palestinian mother and family hug the dead body of their child who died in an Israeli attack in Deir al-Balah, Gaza, on 18 February 2024. Image: Kia Ora Gaza
Long-standing mistreatment He stressed that the “tragedy” had extended beyond recent months, highlighting the long-standing mistreatment endured by Palestinians — particularly those in Gaza — for the last 75 years.
Fowler pointed out the dire situation that Gazans faced — confined to a small territory with restricted access to essential resources including food, medicine, construction materials and necessities.
He noted his three previous trips to Gaza with land convoys, where he demonstrated solidarity and observed the dire circumstances faced by the population.
“Boycott is a very effective action,” said Fowler, underlining the significance of boycotts, isolation and sanctions, while stressing the necessity of enhancing and globalising initiatives to end the blockade.
“I believe that boycotting has a great impact on pressuring not only major companies to withdraw from Israel and end their support, but also on making the Israeli government and our own governments understand that they need to stop what they are doing.”
Fowler also criticised the International Court of Justice’s (ICJ) “genocide decision” for being ineffective due to the arrogance of those governing Israel.
South Africa brought a genocide case against Israel to the ICJ in December and asked for emergency measures to end Palestinian bloodshed in Gaza, where nearly 30,000 people have been killed since October 7.
Anadolu journalist Faruk Hanedar talks with Kia Ora Gaza organiser Roger Fowler (left) after the recent Freedom Flotilla Coalition planning meeting in Istanbul. Image: Kia Ora Gaza/Anadolu
World Court fell short The World Court ordered Israel last month to take “all measures within its power” to prevent acts of genocide in Gaza but fell short of ordering a ceasefire.
It also ordered Israel to take “immediate and effective” measures to enable the provision of urgently needed basic services and humanitarian assistance in the Gaza Strip.
Fowler said all nations must persistently advocate and exert pressure for adherence to decisions by the UN court.
Fowler acknowledged efforts by UN personnel but he has concerns about their limited resources in Gaza, citing the only avenue for change is for people to pressure authorities to stop the genocide and ensure Israel is held accountable.
“It’s definitely tragic and heartbreaking. Women, children, and families have no food. They are trying to drink water from puddles. People are eating grass. This is a very desperate situation. No one is talking about the children. Thousands of people are under the rubble, including small babies and children,” he said.
Roger Fowleris a Mangere East community advocate, political activist for social justuce in many issues, and an organiser of Kia Ora Gaza.
“Gaza is starving to death” . . . a banner in today’s Palestine solidarity rally in Auckland Tāmaki Makaurau. Image: David Robie/Asia Pacific Report“Blood on your hands” . . . a protest banner condemning Israel and the US during a demonstration outside the US consulate in Auckland Tāmaki Makaurau today. Image: David Robie/Asia Pacific Report
Women’s rights advocates in Papua New Guinea are calling for peace and for the men in Parliament to act against the violence in the country.
The call comes following tribal fighting in Enga Province ended in a mass massacre at the weekend, which has so far claimed more than 60 lives.
Dorothy Tekwie, founder of Papua New Guinea Women in Politics, said she was heartbroken for the women who’ve have lost their children in the brutal killings.
“Any woman would be emotional…and I am also calling on women throughout Papua New Guinea to stand up. Enough is enough of violence of all forms.
“We are asking for accountability from our members of Parliament. It doesn’t matter whether they are in government or in opposition. This is a national crisis.”
Tekwie said the government needed to return the peace in the Highlands so infrastructure, housing, health and education development could begin.
On Wednesday, the government addressed a motion to take action on tribal conflicts and violence, specifically in Enga province.
Mothers mourning Another advocate Esmie Sinapa said as gunmen planned their next attack in the Highlands, mothers were mourning the deaths of their children.
Sinapa said violence had been escalating across the nation for some years.
“Imagine 60 mothers, wailing, weeping for their sons. As mothers of this country, women of this country, we are very concerned,” she said.
Papua New Guinea Women in Politics founder Dorothy Tekwie . . . the government needs to return the peace in the Highlands. Image: RNZ Pacific/Scott Waide
Cathy Alex, who was kidnapped last year in the Bosavi region and held for ransom, said PNG was on the verge of being a “failed state”.
As a woman who herself had experienced similar violence, Alex said the government must act.
“I don’t know what kind of country we call ourselves,” she said.
“This is a country . . . that if we look at indicators that shows a failed state. We are already it.
‘Individuals stand up’ “What’s holding this country together is individuals like these individuals who stand up for their communities and hold peace.
“What happened [in Enga] is completely unprecendented,” she added.
Tekwie said PNG women want affirmative action taken by government to deal with some of these issues.
“Starting with early education for one. We are mothers and are finding it so hard to get our kids into school,” she said.
This article is republished under a community partnership agreement with RNZ.
Women’s advocate Esmie Sinapa . . . “Imagine 60 mothers, wailing, weeping for their sons.” Image: RNZ Pacific/Scott Waide
