With the government’s changes to the stage 3 tax cuts to favour lower and middle income earners, and a looming by-election in the Victorian seat of Dunkley, eyes are now on the opposition for its response to Labor’s new package.
In our first podcast of 2024, Shadow Treasurer Angus Taylor discusses the tax broken promise, where the economy is heading, falling inflation, and more.
On the government’s tax backflip he says:
I think Labor has shifted to a robbing-Peter-to-pay-Paul mindset now. They clearly believe in zero-sum economics, a zero-sum politics, where you take something from some and give it to another, and that is not acceptable.
On stage 3 itself, Taylor is quick to defend the Coalition version:
Stage 3 tax cuts were tax reform. They are about incentivising people to change their behaviours in positive ways for the economy and for all of us.
On whether the government should be giving further cost-of-living assistance now:
[It] tells us something about how the political culture has changed – which is the idea that if someone gets behind, the only answer is to give them money. Actually, the number one objective here has to be to enable people to get ahead.
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.
Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Steve Macfarlane, Head of Clinical Services, Dementia Support Australia, & Associate Professor of Psychiatry, Monash University
An article published this week in the prestigious journal Nature Medicine documents what is believed to be the first evidence that Alzheimer’s disease can be transmitted from person to person.
The finding arose from long-term follow up of patients who received human growth hormone (hGH) that was taken from brain tissue of deceased donors.
Preparations of donated hGH were used in medicine to treat a variety of conditions from 1959 onwards – including in Australia from the mid 60s.
The practice stopped in 1985 when it was discovered around 200 patients worldwide who had received these donations went on to develop Creuztfeldt-Jakob disease (CJD), which causes a rapidly progressive dementia. This is an otherwise extremely rare condition, affecting roughly one person in a million.
What’s CJD got to do with Alzehimer’s?
CJD is caused by prions: infective particles that are neither bacterial or viral, but consist of abnormally folded proteins that can be transmitted from cell to cell.
Other prion diseases include kuru, a dementia seen in New Guinea tribespeople caused by eating human tissue, scrapie (a disease of sheep) and variant CJD or bovine spongiform encephalopathy, otherwise known as mad cow disease. This raised public health concerns over the eating of beef products in the United Kingdom in the 1980s.
Human growth hormone used to come from donated organs
Human growth hormone (hGH) is produced in the brain by the pituitary gland. Treatments were originally prepared from purified human pituitary tissue.
But because the amount of hGH contained in a single gland is extremely small, any single dose given to any one patient could contain material from around 16,000 donated glands.
An average course of hGH treatment lasts around four years, so the chances of receiving contaminated material – even for a very rare condition such as CJD – became quite high for such people.
hGH is now manufactured synthetically in a laboratory, rather than from human tissue. So this particular mode of CJD transmission is no longer a risk.
What are the latest findings about Alzheimer’s disease?
The Nature Medicine paper provides the first evidence that transmission of Alzheimer’s disease can occur via human-to-human transmission.
The authors examined the outcomes of people who received donated hGH until 1985. They found five such recipients had developed early-onset Alzheimer’s disease.
They considered other explanations for the findings but concluded donated hGH was the likely cause.
Given Alzheimer’s disease is a much more common illness than CJD, the authors presume those who received donated hGH before 1985 may be at higher risk of developing Alzheimer’s disease.
Alzheimer’s disease is caused by presence of two abnormally folded proteins: amyloid and tau. There is increasing evidence these proteins spread in the brain in a similar way to prion diseases. So the mode of transmission the authors propose is certainly plausible.
However, given the amyloid protein deposits in the brain at least 20 years before clinical Alzheimer’s disease develops, there is likely to be a considerable time lag before cases that might arise from the receipt of donated hGH become evident.
In Australia, donated pituitary material was used from 1967 to 1985 to treat people with short stature and infertility.
More than 2,000 people received such treatment. Four developed CJD, the last case identified in 1991. All four cases were likely linked to a single contaminated batch.
The risks of any other cases of CJD developing now in pituitary material recipients, so long after the occurrence of the last identified case in Australia, are considered to be incredibly small.
Early-onset Alzheimer’s disease (defined as occurring before the age of 65) is uncommon, accounting for around 5% of all cases. Below the age of 50 it’s rare and likely to have a genetic contribution.
The risk is very low – and you can’t ‘catch’ it like a virus
The Nature Medicine paper identified five cases which were diagnosed in people aged 38 to 55. This is more than could be expected by chance, but still very low in comparison to the total number of patients treated worldwide.
Although the long “incubation period” of Alzheimer’s disease may mean more similar cases may be identified in the future, the absolute risk remains very low. The main scientific interest of the article lies in the fact it’s first to demonstrate that Alzheimer’s disease can be transmitted from person to person in a similar way to prion diseases, rather than in any public health risk.
The authors were keen to emphasise, as I will, that Alzheimer’s cannot be contracted via contact with or providing care to people with Alzheimer’s disease.
Keith Rankin, trained as an economic historian, is a retired lecturer in Economics and Statistics. He lives in Auckland, New Zealand.
Analysis by Keith Rankin.
Keith Rankin, trained as an economic historian, is a retired lecturer in Economics and Statistics. He lives in Auckland, New Zealand.
Collectiveness at it most potent has been called asabiyya by macrohistorian and cliodynamicist Peter Turchin.At its least potent, collectiveness is a recipe for social division, top-heaviness, escalating inequality, and societal breakdown.
The present ‘debates’ in Aotearoa New Zealand – ostensibly about Te Tiriti, the Treaty of Waitangi – represent a case in point. Increased bipartisanship festers, with the two sides largely talking past each other.
Pre-contact indigenous culture in Aotearoa New Zealand can be characterised as on the collectivist side of the collective-individual spectrum, at least with respect to tribal Iwi; whereas anglo-celtic culture was and is much more individualist. The protagonists on the Māori side of our present governance-wars are rhetorically harking back to the more collectivist worldview of their ancestral predecessors. And they are indulging in forms of co-sovereignty rhetoric that border on separate governance, without much explanation of what that means for individual Aotearoans.
One aspect of the more collectivist conceptual apparatus is the language, Te Reo. There is no explicit plural form. The word Māori covers Māori as a collective (or as a set of tribal collectives) and Māori as a set of individuals. While non-Māori used to refer to Māori as ‘Maoris’, this is simply not done in polite circles anymore. (I remember in 1984, how the leader of the “New Zelland Party” used to refer to “the Marries”.) Yet I do it here, as a way to emphasise my differentiation of collective Māori from individual ‘Maoris’.
In addition to pre-contact cultural differences in relation to the collective-individual spectrum, the established political Left and the established political Right (at least as we understand those terms in Aotearoa New Zealand; the United States has muddied those waters) define themselves through that spectrum. So Māori on the Left of politics have two predispositions towards collectivism. (Here we must note that the present ‘sovereignty debate’ is at least as much a debate within Māori as between Māori and non-Māori; the principal antagonists as well as the principal protagonists are conspicuously Māori. Twenty-first century Māori culture is by no means as collectivist as the rhetoric of the protagonists conveys; the divisions are Left versus Right, with a cultural overlay.)
Vertical Equity and ‘Targeting’; trickle-down or micro-management
Vertical equity is not a liberal concept (refer to my To be (a) liberal). Whereas horizontal equity means ‘treating equals equally’ – a concept central to (individualist) liberalism – vertical equity means ‘treating unequals unequally’. Discrimination. The liberals of the political Right, who emphasise the targeting of social services and public income distribution, square this illiberal circle by emphasising policies which solely target ‘need’; not race nor religion, not sex nor gender.
The political ‘progressives’ of the Left emphasise a collective form of targeting, but cannot (or refuse to) individualise this. Thus they may advocate more resources for Māori (and often tag-on Pasifika) and more resources for women; but they avoid any korero about individual discrimination.
At Budget-time, we have routinely heard the claim that there is not enough provision in the Budget – the government’s annual fiscal statement – for Māori. Perhaps less so from 2018 to 2022. But what does that mean? Resources for Māori? Or for ‘Maoris’?
The collectivist approach mandates that discrimination happens at the top-level of political society; at the governance level. Thus bureaucracies are created or extended – including governmental ‘entities’, and indeed ‘non-governmental’ entities (which nevertheless depend on government mandates) – which are openly discriminatory in their intent.
Discrimination in favour of an allegedly disadvantaged identity is justified through a process of leverage. Statistics are gathered from individuals and coded according to attributes – especially ethnicity, sex or gender, and health status; age and religion are less fashionable at present. The never unexpected results are then presented to justify forms of collective discrimination in the political process. Predictably, the incomes of ‘Maoris’ are lower on average than the incomes of ‘non-Maoris’, and female incomes are lower on average than male incomes.
The aim of this political process is not to remove these statistical differences. Rather it is to justify and extend identity bureaucracies – indeed to create advocacy ‘industries’ around such statistical differences – in such a way that there is a large suite of highly-paid jobs available to highlight these inequalities of averages. Such political theatre typically generates much heat and very little actionable ‘light’.
Essentially, what is supposed to happen is that much resource goes into these funded governance structures, and it is meant to trickle-down to the leverage group of disadvantaged people. The result in practice is that Left governments consume large slices of the national income, while achieving very little for the disadvantaged groups ostensibly being served. Trickle-down never worked. Instead the result is too much political superstructure and too little ballast. Government becomes top-heavy.
(These same principles apply to the under-provision – and particularly the lack of maintenance – of physical infrastructure as well. Hence all the water leaks from neglected pipes, and potholes across the roading network; pipes are ballast, and potholes are examples of missing ballast. Gold-plated schemes are created and discarded.)
Policies which benefit ‘Maoris’
The disconnect between the Treaty Māori and the leaders of the present government, is that the present leaders have an individualist mindset which means the parties talk past each other. Chrisopher Luxon genuinely wants to improve life for ‘Maoris’. Problems arise because his philosophical approach of targeting the needy – disproportionately ‘Maoris’ – has its own bureaucratic short-comings; and because his understandings of public finance are medieval (in the better sense of that word), and because he is a mercantilist at heart. Mr Luxon equates national progress with ‘making money’, with the accrual of financial wealth.
Nevertheless, and despite his philosophical blindspots, Luxon is correct to emphasise that expanding discriminatory superstructure is part of the problem, rather than a solution, to the statistical disadvantages used to justify that superstructure. Christoper Luxon and David Seymour clearly understand that effective direct support for the disadvantaged will disproportionately assist ‘Maoris’, because Maoris are disproportionately disadvantaged. Further, direct assistance also provides support for disadvantaged ‘non-Maoris’, who are no more nor less deserving. Indeed – and given the practical Ministry of Health definition of who is a ‘Maori’ – there are more disadvantaged ‘non-Maoris’ in Aotearoa New Zealand than disadvantaged ‘Maoris’ (because ‘Maoris’ represent perhaps twenty percent of that database of individual Aoteroans).
Collectivism and Individualism
As Stephen Joyce noted in his recent book, collectivism has an individual dimension and individualism necessarily has a collectivist dimension. Both sides of the present ‘debate’ need to expand their fields of vision, and address these blindspots.
‘Trickle-down’ policies have wasted much of this nation’s income. The Left version of trickle-down is no better than the Right version (which includes ‘tax-cuts for the rich’) which the Left like to lampoon. And the Right indulge in much more collectivism – albeit private sector collectivism – than they would ever want to admit. (Proper macro-accounting, incorporating public equity, helps to reveal the over-distribution of resources to elite private interests.)
It is clear that Christopher Luxon and David Seymour would have preferred not to have Winston Peters and Shane Jones as lead rhetoricians for their government. The irony is that, with one small adjustment to National’s tax policies, National would probably have got at least five percent more votes, and we would have a two-party rather than a three party coalition today. The adjustment was to have an income tax policy which only gave tax cuts to people earning less than $180,000 a year. National’s rhetoric of tax cuts to “low and middle income earners” was hollow, because everyone knew that high income earners were also getting the maximum tax cut (not counting a contrived higher amount only envisaged for a few thousand families). All National had to do was to bring the top tax threshold down to about $160,000 (refer my Christopher Luxon is tone deaf, 14 Nov 2023); but it did not do this, on account of its own lack of imagination and unwillingness to seek or take advice from outsiders.
Māori are important to Aotearoa New Zealand, not because of their ‘race’ but because they were Aotearoa’s first boat people. The Tiriti is not about ethnicity – though it is about indigeneity – and people who want to continue discussing its principles are not racist. Separatist agendas based on distinguishing individual Aotearoans on the basis of their race – their ethnicity, their ancestry – are racist. Collectivism averts the racist problem of individual discrimination, but creates another problem; the growth of an expanded high-earning elite class which leverages off rather than practically addresses socio-economic problems which are there for all to see.
Christopher Luxon operates by a mercantilist metaphor that sees Aotearoa New Zealand as a ship that must “go forward”. While that metaphor represents both shallow politics and shallow economics, the prime minister does at least understand that superstructure sinks ships.
*******
Keith Rankin (keith at rankin dot nz), trained as an economic historian, is a retired lecturer in Economics and Statistics. He lives in Auckland, New Zealand.
Who funds Australia’s political parties? Besides the occasional scandal – think Aldi bags full of cash – most Australians would not hear much about it.
But money matters: political donations can buy access to politicians and create opportunities to sway public decisions in the donor’s favour.
New data, released today by the Australian Electoral Commission, provide the best information available on political party funding and Australia’s major donors. So let’s follow the money.
Even in a non-election year, fundraising continued apace
In the 2022-23 financial year, Australia’s political parties collectively raised $394 million, with most of the money (88%) flowing to the major parties.
But in a rare turn of events, Labor raised substantially more ($220 million) than the Coalition ($125 million). The Coalition has been ahead on fundraising for more than a decade, but the gap closed in 2022 when Labor returned to power, and now Labor is in its strongest fundraising position on record.
Who are the major donors?
A few big donors dominate the $16.6 million in donations to political parties that are on the public record.
The single largest donor to Labor was Anthony Pratt, the paper and packaging businessman, who gave $1 million. This continues Pratt’s long history of big donations to both major parties, totalling more than $11 million over the past ten years.
Other major donors to Labor were Labor Services & Holdings ($598,000) – an investment vehicle for the party – and Labor Business Roundtable ($100,000), which runs fundraising events for the party.
The Coalition’s biggest donors were the Cormack Foundation ($3.46 million) – an investment vehicle for the party – and fundraising body the Kooyong 200 Club ($193,000). The Coalition also received $100,000 from Meriton Property Services, $90,000 from Laneway Assets, and $80,000 from John McEwen House.
But some of the largest single donations were to minor parties. Former MP Clive Palmer’s mining company Mineralogy gave $7 million to the party he founded, the United Australia Party. And Heston Russell, a former member of the defence force, gave $650,000 to the now-disbanded Australian Values Party that he founded.
Federal politics is awash in dark money
These are the big donors on the record, but declared donations make up only 4% of political parties’ total income. There are other sources of income on the public record, including public funding, but about half the money remains hidden.
Labor’s funding is particularly murky: 72% of Labor party income in 2022-23 was hidden, compared with 22% for the Coalition.
In the main, this isn’t because pollies are walking away with briefcases full of cash from shadowy carpark rendezvous. Giant holes in disclosure laws create plenty of perfectly legal dark corners.
At the federal level, parties were not obliged to disclose donations below $15,200 in 2022-23. This means, hypothetically, a donor could have donated $15,000 every week, adding up to $780,000 over the year, and political parties would not be required to declare it. The donor themselves has an obligation to tally their own donations and declare themselves when they reach the threshold, but there is no effective way to police this.
Even among the declared funds, it can be difficult to distinguish investment income from political fundraising, because income from fundraising events is not classified as a “donation” – it is instead grouped in with everything else in an ambiguous category of “other receipts”.
Are donations swaying decisions?
Some groups only donate – or donate much more – when particular policy issues are “live”.
Gambling was one of the top issues in the 2023 NSW state election, with the Liberal Party proposing tighter regulation of pokies. Gambling groups have a history of making big political donations when gambling restrictions are on the table.
Donations from gambling groups to NSW election campaigns are banned, but industry players still made their presence felt nationally. The ALP received $197,000 in income from pokies supporters (including Clubs NSW, Clubs Australia, and the federal and NSW branches of the Australian Hotels Association), while the Coalition received $123,000.
And accounting firm PwC – whose unethical behaviour in managing conflicts of interest in work for the public service came to the fore last year – continued its regular pattern of political donations and other party support, giving $422,000.
Explicit quid pro quo is probably rare, but there is still substantial risk in more subtle influences – that donors get more access to policymakers and their views are given more weight. These risks are exacerbated by a lack of transparency in dealings between policymakers and special interests.
The states show us a better way
Many of the states have stronger rules on money in politics than the Commonwealth.
For example, NSW and Victoria require election donations to be reported within 21 days, and cap total donations. They have lower thresholds for when donations must be made public, and have banned donation-splitting, so it’s harder to flout the threshold. And NSW sets limits on election spending, taking away the drive for politicians to fundraise quite so frenetically.
The effect of these rules is clear. Donations in the lead-up to the last federal election were dominated by a handful of people and organisations: 5% of donors contributed 73% of declared donations. In contrast, in the most recent NSW and Victorian elections, the top 5% of donors contributed just a third of donations. Better rules help to reduce the potential influence of individual donors.
The federal donations disclosure regime has long lagged the states. But there are finally signs of change afoot.
A federal parliamentary committee inquiry into the 2022 election has recommended several changes to better regulate money in Australian politics, including:
lowering the donations disclosure threshold to $1,000 to reduce the amount of dark money in the system
introducing “real time” disclosure requirements so that Australians know who’s donating while policy issues – and elections – are still “live”
introducing expenditure caps for federal elections to reduce the fundraising arms race.
It is still to be seen if the government will implement these recommendations. It should, because better rules around donations would ensure Australians know who funds our political parties and enable us to keep our politicians in check.
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.
Elizabeth Baldwin 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.
Days after a drone attack killed three US soldiers at a military outpost in Jordan – an attack blamed on a shadowy Iranian-linked militia group – it appears a wider regional conflict may have been averted. At least for now.
The US has indicated it will take a tiered response to the attack – though it hasn’t said how – and the head of Iran’s Revolutionary Guards has said that Tehran is “not looking for war.”
But Iranian-backed militias in Iraq and Syria have now launched more than 160 attacks against the US military since the October 7 Hamas attack on Israel and start of the war in Gaza. And Houthi militants in Yemen, also supported by Iran, have threatened to continue their attacks on ships in the Red Sea.
So, what is driving these groups in the so-called “axis of resistance” and how much control does Iran have over their actions?
The militia blamed by the US for the drone attack in Jordan, Kata’ib Hezbollah, said earlier this week it was halting its military operations in Iraq under pressure from both Iran and Iraq.
It is just one of many Iran-backed groups in the country that operates under the umbrella banner of Islamic Resistance in Iraq.
Armed militias began emerging in Iraq in the wake of the US invasion of the country in 2003. These groups grew exponentially stronger when they organised as a collective front to confront the ISIS terror group.
The Popular Mobilisation Forces, or Al Hashd Al Sha’bi, was established in 2014 and became the main Shia paramilitary organisation confronting ISIS, alongside other Iran-backed groups such as Hezbollah in Syria.
But with threat of ISIS decreasing after its military defeat in 2019, the Popular Mobilisation Forces shifted their attention back to US targets in Iraq.
In recent years, these groups have presented themselves as the muqawama, or “resistance”, against the US and its allies in Iraq. As such, they have launched hundreds of attacks against US and Turkish military bases and other targets in Iraq and Syria.
Hezbollah
Hezbollah, or the “Party of God”, emerged in the 1980s as an armed militia to free the southern parts of Lebanon from Israeli occupation and to improve conditions for the marginalised Shia minority in Lebanon.
The party has subsequently portrayed itself as a legitimate political party in Lebanon. As such, Hezbollah has been able to successfully operate across multiple domains. It has a civilian (da’wa) role in social welfare and religious education in Lebanon, as well as a military-resistance role (jihad), carrying out attacks against US and Israeli targets in Lebanon and across the border with Israel.
Its relationship with Iran has deepened over the years, with Hezbollah receiving hundreds of millions of dollars a year from Iran for training and weapons.
Yet, Hezbollah has proved to be extremely competent in its ability to downplay its religious ideals and principles to operate with autonomy as a mainstream political organisation in Lebanon.
Houthis
Also known as Ansar Allah (“Supporters of God”), the Houthis are a Shia armed group that emerged out of the Zaydi sect from Yemen’s northern highlands in the 1990s. The group rebelled against Yemen’s government in 2014 and eventually took control over most of the country. The group then spent years, with Iran’s backing, fighting a military coalition led by Saudi Arabia that was trying to oust them.
Interestingly, even though Houthis were never directly engaged in attacking US targets (or its allies) in the past, this changed with the Israeli war against Hamas in Gaza.
From the outset, what these groups have in common is a shared sectarian and ideological connection – Shia Islam.
Shias have historically been a minority in the Muslim world, suffering systematic persecution, political isolation and low socio-economic status in countries such as Iraq, Lebanon and the Gulf states.
But this began to change with the Iranian revolution in 1979 and the rise of Shia clergy in that country. The Iranian regime, mainly through its military apparatus, the Revolutionary Guards, sought to transfer the “Shia revolution” across borders to try to redress years of Shia political isolation and economic deprivation.
Hezbollah was considered the first and most successful of the Iran-backed organisations that arose from this movement. It was able to build and maintain a strong military arm and political presence in Lebanon that made it a key regional player – and still does.
With its weaponry and financial backing, Iran became the ideological guardian of this growing “axis” of groups across the Middle East. These proxy groups, in turn, have helped Iran maintain a great degree of strategic power in the region, which has become key to its foreign policy and its ability to wield influence.
But even though these groups share deep political and ideological connections, they still operate as nationalist organisations in their respective countries. As such, each has its own domestic interests and ambitions. This has included improving the livelihoods of Shia communities and gaining political power.
This has been framed as a form of resistance or muqawama. This can be viewed in different ways: resistance against occupation, resistance against oppressive regimes and resistance against imperialist, hegemonic powers.
This is a cornerstone of Shia ideology – the idea of “oppressors vs. the oppressed” – which grew from the martyrdom of Hussein ibn Ali, grandson of the Prophet Muhammad, during the battle of Karbala in the year 680. This narrative has become the symbol of Shia resistance in its various forms.
This is part of the reason why groups like Hezbollah, the Houthis and the Islamic Resistance in Iraq have united under the same banner – “Axis of Resistance”. This theme extends to Hezbollah’s resistance against the Israeli occupation of southern Lebanon, the Houthis resistance against the Saudi-coalition forces, and the armed Shi’ite groups in Iraq attacking ISIS and now US troops.
More recently, these groups have united as a form of resistance against Israel (and its main supporter, the US) over its war in Gaza.
The extent of Iran’s power over these proxies remains a big question. Iran has denied ordering the attacks on US forces in Iraq, Syria and now Jordan, saying each faction in the “axis of resistance” acts independently to oppose “aggression and occupation”.
The fact we are seeing a rise in military operations by all of these groups, however, indicates they are becoming increasingly essential to Iran and its strategy of expanding its influence and countering the US in the Middle East.
Mariam Farida 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 Sarah Diepstraten, Senior Research Officer, Blood Cells and Blood Cancer Division, Walter and Eliza Hall Institute
All cancers begin in a single organ or tissue, such as the lungs or skin. When these cancers are confined in their original organ or tissue, they are generally more treatable.
But a cancer that spreads is much more dangerous, as the organs it spreads to may be vital organs. A skin cancer, for example, might spread to the brain.
This new growth makes the cancer much more challenging to treat, as it can be difficult to find all the new tumours. If a cancer can invade different organs or tissues, it can quickly become lethal.
When cancer spreads in this way, it’s called metastasis. Metastasis is responsible for the majority (67%) of cancer deaths.
Our bodies are made up of trillions of tiny cells. To keep us healthy, our bodies are constantly replacing old or damaged cells.
Each cell has a specific job and a set of instructions (DNA) that tells it what to do. However, sometimes DNA can get damaged.
This damage might change the instructions. A cell might now multiply uncontrollably, or lose a property known as adherence. This refers to how sticky a cell is, and how well it can cling to other surrounding cells and stay where it’s supposed to be.
If a cancer cell loses its adherence, it can break off from the original tumour and travel through the bloodstream or lymphatic system to almost anywhere. This is how metastasis happens.
Many of these travelling cancer cells will die, but some will settle in a new location and begin to form new cancers.
Particular cancers are more likely to metastasise to particular organs that help support their growth. Breast cancers commonly metastasise to the bones, liver, and lungs, while skin cancers like melanomas are more likely to end up in the brain and heart.
Unlike cancers which form in solid organs or tissues, blood cancers like leukaemia already move freely through the bloodstream, but can escape to settle in other organs like the liver or brain.
When do cancers metastasise?
The longer a cancer grows, the more likely it is to metastasise. If not caught early, a patient’s cancer may have metastasised even before it’s initially diagnosed.
Metastasis can also occur after cancer treatment. This happens when cancer cells are dormant during treatment – drugs may not “see” those cells. These invisible cells can remain hidden in the body, only to wake up and begin growing into a new cancer months or even years later.
For patients who already have cancer metastases at diagnosis, identifying the location of the original tumour – called the “primary site” – is important. A cancer that began in the breast but has spread to the liver will probably still behave like a breast cancer, and so will respond best to an anti-breast cancer therapy, and not anti-liver cancer therapy.
As metastases can sometimes grow faster than the original tumour, it’s not always easy to tell which tumour came first. These cancers are called “cancers of unknown primary” and are the 11th most commonly diagnosed cancers in Australia.
One way to improve the treatment of metastatic cancer is to improve our ways of detecting and identifying cancers, to ensure patients receive the most effective drugs for their cancer type.
What increases the chances of metastasis and how can it be prevented?
If left untreated, most cancers will eventually acquire the ability to metastasise.
While there are currently no interventions that specifically prevent metastasis, cancer patients who have their tumours surgically removed may also be given chemotherapy (or other drugs) to try and weed out any hidden cancer cells still floating around.
The best way to prevent metastasis is to diagnose and treat cancers early. Cancer screening initiatives such as Australia’s cervical, bowel, and breast cancer screening programs are excellent ways to detect cancers early and reduce the chances of metastasis.
The best way to prevent cancer spreading is to diagnose and treat them early. Peakstock/Shutterstock
New screening programs to detect cancers early are being researched for many types of cancer. Some of these are simple: CT scans of the body to look for any potential tumours, such as in England’s new lung cancer screening program.
Using artificial intelligence (AI) to help examine patient scans is also possible, which might identify new patterns that suggest a cancer is present, and improve cancer detection from these programs.
More advanced screening methods are also in development. The United States government’s Cancer Moonshot program is currently funding research into blood tests that could detect many types of cancer at early stages.
One day there might even be a RAT-type test for cancer, like there is for COVID.
Will we be able to prevent metastasis in the future?
Understanding how metastasis occurs allows us to figure out new ways to prevent it. One idea is to target dormant cancer cells and prevent them from waking up.
Directly preventing metastasis with drugs is not yet possible. But there is hope that as research efforts continue to improve cancer therapies, they will also be more effective at treating metastatic cancers.
For now, early detection is the best way to ensure a patient can beat their cancer.
Sarah Diepstraten receives funding from the Victorian Cancer Agency.
John (Eddie) La Marca is also affiliated with the Olivia Newton John Cancer Research Institute.
Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Nicola Henry, Professor & Australian Research Council Future Fellow, Social and Global Studies Centre, RMIT University
Sexually graphic “deepfake” images of Taylor Swift went viral on social media last week, fuelling widespread condemnation from Swifties, the general public and even the White House.
This problem isn’t new. Swift is one of many celebrities and public figures, mainly women, who have fallen victim to deepfake pornography in recent years. High-profile examples garner significant media attention, but the increasingly sophisticated nature of AI means anyone can now be targeted.
While there are grave concerns about the broader implications of deepfakes, it’s important to remember the technology isn’t the cause of abuse. It’s just another tool used to enact it.
Deepfakes and other digitally manipulated media
The sexually explicit deepfakes of Swift appeared on multiple social media platforms last week, including X (formerly Twitter), Instagram, Facebook and Reddit.
Most major platforms have bans on sharing synthetic and digitally manipulated media that cause harm, confusion or deception, including deepfake porn. This includes images created through simpler means such as photo-editing software. Nonetheless, one deepfake depicting Swift was viewed 47 million times over a 17-hour period before it was removed from X.
There’s a long history of digital technologies, apps and services being used to facilitate gender-based violence, including sexual harassment, sexual assault, domestic or family violence, dating abuse, stalking and monitoring, and hate speech.
As such, our focus should also be on addressing the problematic gender norms and beliefs that often underpin these types of abuse.
The emergence of deepfakes
The origins of deepfakes can be traced to November 2017 when a Reddit user called “deepfakes” created a forum and video-editing software that allowed users to train their computers to swap the faces of porn actors with the faces of celebrities.
Since then, there’s been a massive expansion of dedicated deepfake websites and threads, as well as apps that can create customised deepfakes for free or for a fee.
In the past, creating a convincing deepfake often required extensive time and expertise, a powerful computer and access to multiple images of the person being targeted. Today, almost anyone can make a deepfake – sometimes in a matter of seconds.
That said, deepfakes are often created for malicious purposes, including disinformation, cyberbullying, child sexual abuse, sexual extortion and other forms of image-based sexual abuse.
A report published by startup Home Security Heroes estimated there were 95,820 deepfake videos online in 2023, a 550% increase since 2019.
When it comes to deepfake porn, women in particular are disproportionately targeted. According to DeepTrace, 96% of all deepfakes online are non-consensual fake videos of women. These are mostly (but not exclusively) well-known actors and musicians.
This is concerning but not surprising. Research shows online abuse disproportionately affects women and girls, particularly Indigenous women, women from migrant backgrounds and lesbian, gay, bisexual, transgender and intersex people.
Public figures in particular face higher rates of online abuse, especially women and gender-diverse people. One study found celebrities are attributed more blame than non-celebrities for the abuse they receive online, and this abuse is often viewed as less serious.
Research shows image-based abuse can result in significant harms for victims, including anxiety, depression, suicidal ideation, social isolation and reputational damage. For public figures, deepfakes and other forms of online abuse can similarly result in diminished career prospects, withdrawal from public life and negative mental health outcomes.
In 2016, Australian activist and law reform campaigner Noelle Martin’s photos were taken from social media and superimposed onto pornographic images. Martin reported feeling “physically sick, disgusted, angry, degraded, dehumanised” as a result. Digitally altered and deepfake images of Martin continue to circulate online without her consent.
Responding to deepfake porn
Anyone can be targeted through deepfakes. All that’s needed is an image of someone’s face. Even professional work images can be used.
Although law reform alone won’t solve this socio-legal problem, it can signal the issue is being taken seriously. We need laws specifically targeting non-consensual deepfake porn.
In Australia, there are image-based sexual abuse offences in every Australian state and territory except Tasmania, as well as at the federal level. However, only some laws specifically mention digitally altered images (including deepfakes).
Technology companies could also do a lot more to proactively detect and moderate deepfake porn. They need to prioritise embedding “safety by design” approaches into their services from the outset. This could mean:
designing and testing AI with potential misuses in mind
using watermarks and other indicators to label content as synthetic
“nudging” users to refrain from certain behaviours (such as using pop-ups to remind them about the importance of consent).
Research shows there are gaps in public understanding of deepfakes and how to detect them. This further highlights a need for digital literacy and education on the difference between consensual and non-consensual uses of intimate images, and the harms of non-consensual deepfake porn.
Finally, and perhaps most importantly, we need to address the underlying systemic inequalities that contribute to technology-facilitated abuse against women and gender-diverse people. This includes recognising deepfake porn for the often-gendered problem it is – for celebrities and non-celebrities alike.
If this article has raised issues for you, or if you’re concerned about someone you know, call 1800RESPECT on 1800 737 732 or visit the eSafety Commissioner’s website for help with image-based abuse. In immediate danger, call 000.
Nicola Henry receives funding from the Australian Research Council (ARC), Google, and the Victorian Attorney General’s Office. She is also a member of the Australian eSafety Offices Expert Advisory Group.
It’s back-to-school time for students and staff across Australia. But the politics of school funding has also turned up at the front gate.
On Wednesday, Federal Education Minister Jason Clare told nearly 325,000 Western Australian students and their families that by 2026, theirs will be “the first state in Australia to fully fund public schools” (the Australian Capital Territory already has full funding). The federal government has pledged an additional A$774 million, which is to be matched by the WA government.
It’s a significant announcement, given the next national funding agreement (due by the end of 2024) is still to be thrashed out between the Commonwealth, states, territories and non-government school sectors.
The government has also only just released a major review looking at what the next phase of school reforms should involve.
What does the WA news mean for schools, and what does full funding really involve?
“Fully funded” is often talked about when it comes to education debates. To the casual observer, the aspiration is a peculiar one. At one level, public schools across all states and territories are already funded almost entirely by governments.
State and territory governments provide most of the recurring annual funding for their school systems. The federal government provides about 20% of the total funding via agreements made every five years. As the Productivity Commission notes, 2.6 million students in Australian public schools cost federal and state taxpayers A$54.9 billion, or just shy of $21,000 per student per year.
But as significant as this amount might seem to the wider public, this isn’t enough to provide all students in public schools with what has been agreed is a reasonable standard of funding.
More than a decade ago, a school funding review led by David Gonski recommended Australia introduce a “schooling resource standard”. This would be a mechanism to ensure fair and equitable distribution of government funding. This means funding should be based on need – schools with greater levels of student need receive greater funds.
On top of a base rate, there are extra loadings for schools with students with disability, students of Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander background, students with socio-educational disadvantage, students with low English proficiency, small schools and schools in regional and remote locations.
This system seems uncontroversial, particularly when those who benefit most are those most in need.
But despite broad agreement about the idea, there has been (and still is) a long wait to see it put into practice. The timeline to “fully fund” all Australian public schools is still set for 2029.
To date, only public schools in the ACT have had full funding allocations under this model. No other state or territory funds their public schools to the full level required.
What looms large over this announcement, though, is the question of what outcomes could be expected from investing the money and how they will be achieved.
It’s only 12 months since the Productivity Commission delivered a damning assessment of Australian education. The report noted a lack of transparency over funding agreements, as well as poor educational outcomes for the money. It also repudiated onerous “low value” administrative burdens on school leaders and teachers.
If steps are not taken to address these criticisms, the money risks being accompanied by additional bureaucratic burden.
It’s hard to ignore the timing of this announcement at the beginning of a year when the next National School Reform Agreement will be determined.
This is a joint agreement between the Commonwealth, states and territories. It sets out national policy initiatives all governments agree to implement over a five-year period.
Later this year, we can expect each jurisdiction to sign individual agreements with the federal government. This will include what they will do to improve student outcomes (in line with the reform agreement), as well as the funding states and territories will contribute as a condition of receiving federal funding.
At the outset of this process, the WA announcement indicates some players at least are considering bold reform.
But the scale of the political challenge is already evident. Only hours after the announcement, education ministers across the nation were refusing to signal their hearty agreement. Instead, they called on the federal government to increase its contribution from 20% of the school resourcing standard up to 25%.
It is also important to note that WA has only signed a “statement of intent” so far. This is not a final deal. As Clare’s media release noted, this “provides a basis for the negotiation of the next National School Reform Agreement and associated bilateral agreement”.
There is a lot more work to go in this very important year for Australian schools. But this first announcement is is a positive step. Further, concrete agreements can hopefully be reached and bring forward the day when all schools receive what they need.
Paul Kidson 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.
Spinifex hopping mouse, or Tarkawarra from the Pitjantjatjara language. Mike Gillam
The common names of Australian animals often originate in Aboriginal languages, and beneficially so. Continuing use of names such as kangaroo and kookaburra helps to honour the wealth of knowledge possessed by First Nations peoples, to appreciate the natural heritage of a place more deeply, and to naturalise English to this continent.
Some 30 years ago, I and colleagues published a paper calling for this naming practice to extend to native rodents. This group of animals contains many handsome and fascinating animals among its many species.
But sadly, native rats and mice don’t usually evoke sympathy among the Australian public. The unappealing common names for the species – such as swamp rat or long-haired rat – do little to help the problem.
Public sentiment towards an animal matters. It can affect whether their habitat is protected, if they are prioritised for research and conservation, and the amount of funding devoted to protecting them. So among the many other good reasons to ascribe Aboriginal common names to our species, it might mean the difference between their survival and extinction.
Names of species can influence their public standing. Pictured: the unfortunately named Australian swamp rat. Shutterstock
What’s in a name?
Of the 60 Australian rodent species, nearly 20 are extinct or greatly diminished in range.
As with other threatened mammals, desert-dwelling rodents have suffered most. For example among hopping mice, five of ten species are extinct. Those still remaining could do with our attention – and naming them may help.
Research has shown common names of species are an important tool when seeking to increase community support for conservation.
One study by Australian researchers analysed the common names of almost 27,000 animals from the IUCN Red List of threatened species. It found frequent words in animal common names that produced strong positive or negative sentiment.
Common words driving positive sentiment included “golden” and “great”. Words driving negative sentiment included “rat”, “lesser” and “blind”.
The research found many words were also associated with human emotions. For example, “dove” was associated with joy, anticipation and trust. “Rat” was associated with fear and disgust, probably due to its associations with disease, uncleanliness and deceitfulness, the study found.
The researchers said strategic name changes may improve public engagement and support for species and therefore provide effective, low-cost conservation benefits.
How about ‘pakooma’ and ‘palyoora’?
So where might we find new, more appealing monikers for our maligned rodents? Our 1995 paper suggested selecting common names from relevant Aboriginal words that might readily be pronounced by English speakers.
At the time, we checked our document before publication with offices of the then-current Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Commission. Should Aboriginal words be used to rename species today, agreement should be sought from the relevant language group.
The brush-tailed rabbit-rat, Conilurus penicillatus, is an example of a rodent ripe for renaming. It’s a striking and vigorous animal of northern Australia, which became extinct in Kakadu National Park in the 2000s and now persists in only a handful of isolated regions. How unfair it is that this splendid creature should be thought of as a mere rat – as well as bearing the nomenclatural burden of Australia’s worst vertebrate pest? Perhaps it could be renamed pakooma, from the East Arnhem languages.
Another sad example is provided by Xeromys myoides, an inhabitant of coastal swamps and mangroves. It is known as the false water rat, a name which could barely be improved upon if the aim is to demean. The animal could well be called yirrkoo, from the Kunwinjku/Mayali language.
And consider the graceful Pseudomys australis, an animal of the outback Channel Country in Queensland and South Australia. The species is of conservation concern, but public attention is hardly likely when the animal is called a plains rat. It deserves better – perhaps the lovely name palyoora, from the Wangkangurru language.
Back in the 1990s, our rodent-renaming initiative sank almost without trace. Only one Aboriginal name – rakali, from Murray River languages – took something of a hold, replacing the common name water rat (Hydromys chrysogaster). In the intervening years, two authors of the paper, Dick Braithwaite and John Calaby, have passed away. Time has moved on.
But there have been flickers of encouragement. Western Australia’s 1997 recovery plan for the Shark Bay mouse, Pseudomys fieldi, used the name djoongari (Luritja/Pintubi). When Tim Bonyhady in 2019 published his unusual and matchless book, The Enchantment of the Long-haired Rat: A Rodent History of Australia, he used the name mayaroo throughout (Rattus villosissimus, from Wangkangurru).
And now interest may be resurgent. In the Threatened Species Action Plan 2022–2032, federal environment authorities adopted names of Aboriginal origin wherever possible. This included antina (Zyzomys pedunculatus, central rock-rat, Arrernte), pookila (Pseudomys novaehollandiae, New Holland mouse, Bugila/Ngarigu), and woorrentinta (Notomys aquilo, northern hopping-mouse, from Lardil, the language of Mornington Island).
Rattus villosissimus, or the long-haired rat, would be better named as mayaroo. Angus Emmott
A timely, much-needed change
Zoologists are rightly conservative about scientific naming conventions, in line with commitment to the principles of biological nomenclature. However, we are free to modify common names – and should, if there are good reasons to do so.
And so, 30 years after my colleagues and I first issued the call, Indigenous names for Australian rodents are commended to you once more. It is timely that the extensive Aboriginal knowledge of our continent be so honoured, that the wider culture be enriched – even if in such a tiny way – and that mayaroo and pookila should live in the English language.
The 1995 paper referred to in this article, Australian Names for Australian Rodents, was authored by R.W. Braithwaite, S.R. Morton, A.A. Burbidge and J.H. Calaby. It was published by the Australian Nature Conservation Agency, Canberra. With thanks to Andrew Burbidge, one of the original authors, for giving his blessing to this article.
Steve Morton does not work for, consult, own shares in or receive funding from any company or organisation that would benefit from this article, and has disclosed no relevant affiliations beyond their academic appointment.
New Zealand’s commitment to the rule of law means it must also go beyond the UN court’s genocide case findings on Gaza, writes the University of Auckland’s Treasa Dunworth.
ANALYSIS:By Treasa Dunworth
As Newsroom has reported, 15 aid agencies have joined forces to call on the Aotearoa New Zealand government to do more to encourage an immediate and sustainable ceasefire in Gaza, in the wake of the International Court of Justice (ICJ) decision.
Those 15 agencies are joining an international and increasingly loud chorus of calls for an immediate ceasefire.
I would go further, and remind the government that whatever it thinks of last month’s ICJ ruling, New Zealand has a number of international legal obligations to inform its response to Israel’s military attack on Gaza.
As most international commentary has highlighted, even fixated on, the ICJ did not order a ceasefire as South Africa requested. But the fact that it didn’t is a manifestation of how constrained the court was.
Despite its lofty title, the ICJ (sometimes referred to as the “World Court”) isn’t a “world” court in any meaningful sense of the word. It only has jurisdiction to consider issues in cases where countries have explicitly agreed to the court’s authority over them.
In this current litigation, the court was able to consider the case only on the basis that both South Africa and Israel are States Parties to the Genocide Convention. That meant South Africa had to frame its application through a “genocide lens”, and that the court had no power to go beyond the obligations arising out of that treaty. This jurisdictional conundrum partly explains why the court did not order a ceasefire — it didn’t have the authority to do so.
It also partly explains why the court could not order Hamas to release the remaining Israeli hostages. Hamas was not a party to the proceedings (the court can only hear proceedings on disputes between states), and despite the claim by Israel in its oral pleadings, the hostage taking by Hamas and their subsequent mistreatment and killing didn’t “plausibly”, according to the court, meet the threshold of genocide.
But the court did order Israel to take all measures in its power to prevent genocide, and ordered Israel to enable the provision of urgently needed basic services and humanitarian assistance to address the adverse conditions faced by Palestinians in Gaza.
Orders fall within ‘genocide jurisdiction’ These orders fall within the “genocide jurisdiction” because the treaty defines genocide as not only direct killing, but also “deliberately inflicting on the group conditions of life calculated to bring about its physical destruction in whole or in part”.
An immediate ceasefire would go a long way toward Israel complying with these orders so the calls for a ceasefire are well made, despite the court not having the power to order one.
What is New Zealand’s role in all this? What are the moral and legal responsibilities it has and should fulfil?
In its decision, the court (re)confirmed that all states parties to the Genocide Convention have a “common interest” in ensuring the prevention, suppression, and punishment of genocide. That includes New Zealand, which has a legal obligation to do what it can to ensure that Israel complies with the court’s orders.
This is not a question of New Zealand’s choice of foreign policy, but a legal obligation.
The second relevant international obligation for New Zealand arises from international humanitarian law (IHL) — the body of law which governs the conduct of war, and which includes prohibitions against the direct targeting of civilians, causing superfluous injury and unnecessary suffering, the taking of hostages, the use of “human shields” and engaging in indiscriminate attacks on civilians and civilian infrastructure.
These rules don’t just apply to the parties directly involved in any given conflict — in this instance, Israel and Hamas. The relevant treaties stipulate all states have a shared responsibility “to ensure respect” for these rules. That responsibility exists independently of the lack of ICJ jurisdiction to consider these matters.
Must act in good faith There is a third legal obligation for New Zealand in the wake of these orders. Although decisions of the court are only binding as between the parties to a case (here South Africa and Israel), as a member of the United Nations, New Zealand has a legal obligation to act in good faith towards the court, being one of the organs of the UN and its principal legal body.
This obligation aligns with New Zealand’s self-professed commitment to the international rule of law.
Thus, regardless of political preferences and whether the current government agrees or disagrees with the court’s findings, the findings have been made and New Zealand ought not undermine the court or the international rule of law.
Governments of all political persuasions repeatedly pronounce that a small nation such as ours depends on the international rule of law and a rules-based international order.
Now is the time for New Zealand to step up and defend that order, even if it feels uncomfortable, even if it annoys some of our “friends” (such as the US). We are legally obliged to step up and speak out.
Dr Treasa Dunworth is an associate professor, Faculty of Law, at the University of Auckland. First published by Newsroom and republished by Asia Pacific Report with the author’s permission.
The new hit Japanese film Godzilla Minus One – an homage to Honda Ishirō’s original 1954 film Gojira (more commonly known to English speakers as Godzilla) – centres on the human costs of war.
Released in Japan in November and internationally in December, Takashi Yamazaki’s film is still breaking records, surpassing US$100 million at the global box office.
Much like the iconic Gojira transformed the war into an allegorical nuclear monster bent on destroying Tokyo, Godzilla Minus One offers insights into early post-war Japan and the complexity of the nation’s war memories.
Japan has never forgotten its wartime past, and its population has had to deal with its own trauma. For those interested in Japanese history, Godzilla Minus One provides a new way to read the complexity of Japan’s war memories.
Living despite despair
During the second world war, Navy Tokko (Kamikaze) pilot Koichi Shikishima (Ryunosuke Kamiki) fails to follow through on a suicide mission and lands on Odo Island.
Godzilla appears, and Shikishima freezes in fear instead of shooting. All but he and the head mechanic are killed. Upon his return to Japan, Shikishima experiences post-traumatic stress disorder, torturous guilt and the contempt of his neighbours.
Shikishima’s return references a common experience of veterans of Pacific battlefields in Japan. Guilt and an ambivalent reception at home prevented many veterans from being able to make a life in post-war Japan.
In Godzilla Minus One, it is only when the monster of war – Godzilla – is defeated that the central hero can overcome his trauma and get the girl.
The film critiques the inhumanity visited upon soldiers who served within a wartime imperial army and navy paradigm in which honour was predicated on their willingness to die in service to the emperor, and thus the nation.
In Godzilla Minus One, survival, life and love become the basis of post-war nation-building. The film emphasises this when Shikishima visits the Ministry of Demobilisation to find another Odo Island survivor, only to learn it is nigh impossible to trace anyone’s whereabouts when so many have been sent to their deaths.
If Godzilla (or war) is to be defeated, the movie says, the government can be of no hope. This can be read as a commentary on the ongoing debates in Japan on how the second world war should be taught and interpreted.
Textbooks often acknowledge the country’s role in the war, but avoid “uncomfortable evaluation”. The role of the government in these debates is also a key area of contention. Article 9 of the Japanese constitution promotes pacifism even while the country increases its defence budget, and the removal of the article is debated in current Japanese politics.
In the film, those who collaborate to fight Godzilla must do so through their own ingenuity and volition – unlike the wartime sailors and Tokko pilots who had no choice in their deployment.
While the heroes of both Gojira and Godzilla Minus One exercise choice, their choices take them in drastically different directions: death in the former and life in the latter. This perhaps illustrates a shift in values among today’s younger Japanese generations that privileges surviving the war rather than dying in it.
Godzilla Minus One idealises the disappearance of a troublesome rift in post-war Japan, which, since 1945, has pitted the wartime generation’s view of the war against those of younger Japanese. This rift became especially stark around the death of Emperor Showa (Hirohito), who ruled from 1926 until his death in 1989.
The film also references an important shift in post-war Japan: the war destroyed previously unbreachable class divides. The country’s defeat flattened social differences, impoverishing everyone equally. Here, Godzilla is defeated by an exalted scientist and his best friend, a sea captain of humble origins.
In the film, the endeavour to fight Godzilla is a masculine one. The film depicts women as the monster’s victims, not participants in its destruction. The men in the movie are motivated by the protection of those at home, symbolised by the central character’s adopted female child: a reflection of the gendering of pacifism as female in post-war Japan, which renders the creation of – and the fight against – war as masculine.
Godzilla Minus One demonstrates how Japan’s relationship to its wartime past is constantly being reframed. The film iterates that this allegorical monster of war and destruction is one created by humans – not just the result of some natural disaster divorced from the politics and active decision-making of war.
The only way to kill the monster, or subdue it temporarily, is by a coalition of people who pursue pacifism, ever vigilant against systems and ideologies that seek old glories in new wars, reawakening monsters that should have remained at the bottom of the sea.
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.
Earlier this week, Channel Nine published an altered image of Victorian MP Georgie Purcell that showed her in a midriff-exposing tank top. The outfit was actually a dress.
Purcell chastised the channel for the image manipulation and accused it of being sexist. Nine apologised for the edit and blamed it on an artificial intelligence (AI) tool in Adobe Photoshop.
Generative AI has become increasingly prevalent over the past six months, as popular image editing and design tools like Photoshop and Canva have started integrating AI features into their programs.
But what are they capable of, exactly? Can they be blamed for doctored images? As these tools become more widespread, learning more about them and their dangers – alongside opportunities – is increasingly important.
Typically, making AI-generated or AI-augmented images involves “prompting” – using text commands to describe what you want to see or edit.
But late last year, Photoshop unveiled a new feature, generative fill. Among its options is an “expand” tool that can add content to images, even without text prompts.
For example, to expand an image beyond its original borders, a user can simply extend the canvas and Photoshop will “imagine” content that could go beyond the frame. This ability is powered by Firefly, Adobe’s own generative AI tool.
Nine resized the image to better fit its television composition but, in doing so, also generated new parts of the image that weren’t there originally.
The source material – and if it’s cropped – are of critical importance here.
In the above example where the frame of the photo stops around Purcell’s hips, Photoshop just extends the dress as might be expected. But if you use generative expand with a more tightly cropped or composed photo, Photoshop has to “imagine” more of what is going on in the image, with variable results.
Is it legal to alter someone’s image like this? It’s ultimately up to the courts to decide. It depends on the jurisdiction and, among other aspects, the risk of reputational harm. If a party can argue that publication of an altered image has caused or could cause them “serious harm”, they might have a defamation case.
Generative fill is just one way news organisations are using AI. Some are also using it to make or publish images, including photorealistic ones, depicting current events. An example of this is the ongoing Israel-Hamas conflict.
Others use it in place of stock photography or to create illustrations for hard-to-visualise topics, like AI itself.
Many adhere to institutional or industry-wide codes of conduct, such as the Journalist Code of Ethics from the Media, Entertainment & Arts Alliance of Australia. This states journalists should “present pictures and sound which are true and accurate” and disclose “any manipulation likely to mislead.”
Some outlets do not use AI-generated or augmented images at all, or only when reporting on such images if they go viral.
Newsrooms can also benefit from generative AI tools. An example includes uploading a spreadsheet to a service like ChatGPT-4 and receiving suggestions on how to visualise the data. Or using it to help create a three-dimensional model that illustrates how a process works or how an event unfolded.
What safeguards should media have for responsible generative AI use?
I’ve spent the last year interviewing photo editors and people in related roles about how they use generative AI and what policies they have in place to do so safely.
I’ve learned that some media outlets bar their staff from using AI to generate any content. Others allow it only for non-realistic illustrations, such as using AI to create a bitcoin symbol or illustrate a story about finance.
News outlets, according to editors I spoke to, want to be transparent with their audiences about the content they create and how it is edited.
In 2019, Adobe started the Content Authenticity Initiative, which now includes major media organisations, image libraries and multimedia companies. This has led to the rollout of content credentials, a digital history of what equipment was used to make an image and what edits have been done to it.
This has been touted as a way to be more transparent with AI-generated or augmented content. But content credentials are not widely used yet. Besides, audiences shouldn’t outsource their critical thinking to a third party.
In addition to transparency, news editors I spoke to were sensitive to AI potentially displacing human labour. Many outlets strive to use only AI generators that have been trained with proprietary content. This is because of the ongoing cases in jurisdictions around the world over AI training data and whether resulting generations breach copyright.
Lastly, news editors said they are aware of the potential for bias in AI generations, given the unrepresentative data AI models are trained on.
This year, the World Economic Forum has named AI-fuelled misinformation and disinformation as the world’s greatest short-term risk. It placed this above even disasters like extreme weather events, inflation and armed conflict.
Because of this risk and the elections happening in the United States and around the world this year, engaging in healthy scepticism about what you see online is a must.
As is being thoughtful about where you get your news and information from. Doing so makes you better equipped to participate in a democracy, and less likely to fall for scams.
T.J. Thomson receives funding from the Australian Research Council.
That’s what one visitor to a prison told us about their experience. It can be a traumatic and stressful event. Family members of first-time prisoners are most often left in a state of uncertainty about what happens next. This is coupled with the feelings of loss, devastation, and disbelief, as explained by one participant in our research:
It was a smack in the face. I was not expecting it at all […] I was pretty devastated and felt pretty alone and vulnerable. I had no idea what went wrong.
We found misinformation and limited information of visitation rules and processes help create such negative experiences for visitors. Some stopped going altogether.
This is important to address because visitation is a crucial factor in helping prevent reoffending, but also to maintaining good mental health for those behind bars.
Visits crucial for prisoners
In 2021 and 2022, our research team conducted in-depth interviews with 21 participants from across Australia about the barriers to prison visitation and what their visiting experiences were like.
We wanted to investigate this because of the high rates of recidivism among Australian prisoners. Visitation has been shown to help with this.
We also know that prison visitation has been found to reduce prisoners’ risk of reincarceration by 26%. Despite this, most prisoners never get any visitors.
We wanted to understand why prison visits might be prevented or delayed. As such, we looked at how people new to prison visitation learn to navigate the system.
We found visitation rules and procedures can differ between jurisdictions and within jurisdictions. They can also be different between low, medium, and maximum prisons, and even between public and private prisons.
Furthermore, prisoners are transferred between prisons an average of three times during their sentence. Therefore, visitors may need to learn new rules each transfer.
Being new to the visitation process, most participants expressed feeling lost, overwhelmed, mentally fatigued, helpless and alone, desperate for any information. One participant told us:
I’ve never had anything to do with any of this before [he] went to prison. I knew nothing about police, courts, prisons or anything. When [he] went in I was a mess because no one told me anything […] I think it was maybe day three or four of him being in there and I had the worst nightmare I’ve ever had about stuff, you know, happening to him in there and him being killed. Yeah, after that it was a downward spiral for me pretty fast […]
Even before visitors needed to learn the rules and procedures, participants suffered stress from social isolation, financial hardship, the loss of their loved one and media coverage due to the court case.
Chronic stress can lead to structural changes in the part of the brain responsible for memory and decision making. Additionally, chronic stress can impair a person’s cognitive flexibility, hindering their ability to adapt to change and find information. This is a normal response when people find themselves in uncertain situations.
Furthermore, chronic stress can precipitate or exacerbate mental health problems, as well as increase feelings of helplessness and/or hopelessness. This can negatively impact a person’s ability to concentrate and learn new information.
A large portion of prisoners in Australia reoffend after being released. Shutterstock
Most participants described their efforts to get the right information as confusing. Important details that had a direct impact on whether their visit was approved, cancellations, or traumatic visitation experience were omitted from the website or the phone conversations they had with corrections officers. A participant said:
There was no information about him needing to put me on the approved visitor list and that I would not be approved until he did this.
Another was deterred from visiting altogether:
I quickly learned not to bother […] you get in trouble when you go visit because you don’t have something you need, or you have worn inappropriate clothing because you got wrong information from them.
Almost all participants expressed distrust in the available information from prisons due to their negative experiences. Instead, they rely on advice provided by strangers on social media support groups specifically set-up for families of prisoners.
Small changes for a big difference
To improve prison visitors’ access to reliable and correct information, and ensure they are adequately supported during this stressful period, our participants made these recommendations:
a visitation liaison person in the court to provide advice and support after sentencing
a visitation information support pack that can be provided to family members immediately after sentencing (if in court) or by post
a short demonstration video of the visitation procedure online
corrections/prisons to share information with the online support groups to allow them to quickly communicate changes to visitation rules and procedures, as well as any unplanned changes to visitation hours.
These recommendations have merit and could help to increase the number and frequency of prisoners being visited, as well as help to reduce stress among visitors.
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.
The potential for alternative foods to displace and disrupt conventional agricultural production has been discussed and debated for some time. While it may still be too early to make firm predictions, the trends are clear.
In 2021, Catherine Tubb and Tony Seba predicted alternative foods were poised to cause major disruption. They drew attention to the advantages of these new technologies: quality and cost, lower carbon footprint, decentralised production close to markets, and freeing up agricultural land for ecological restoration and carbon sequestration.
This echoed a 2019 report from global consultancy firm Kearney, which concluded “novel vegan meat replacements and cultured meat” have serious disruptive potential.
The major threat comes not from vegan markets, which were recently reported to be levelling out or even declining in the UK, but from substitution of commodity products in manufactured foods. This has clear implications for economies such as New Zealand’s.
Evolving new technologies
Key alternative food technologies include precision fermentation, electro-refining to produce fats and oils, and cultured meat production. Many are developing rapidly.
Finnish start-up Solar Foods is completing a full-scale factory where a precision fermentation process will produce a nutritious, high-protein, low-fat powder suitable for use as a food ingredient.
The product has a greenhouse gas footprint of about 1 kilogram of CO₂ equivalent per kilogram (under Finnish conditions) – about 11% of that for whole milk powder produced in New Zealand. The product has already been approved for use in Singapore, which has also approved cultured chicken meat.
Algal oils are available and scalable. Plant-based leather substitutes such as cactus leather are also on the market. The electro-refinery production of fats and oils using green hydrogen is in the early stages of development.
The European Union recently allocated €50 million to support precision fermentation start-ups. Research into cow milk production using green hydrogen is proceeding there under the title “Project Hydrocow”. In New Zealand, Daisy Lab is developing a microbial-based milk protein product.
Pressure to reduce emissions
With the recent announcement that average temperatures in many parts of the world reached nearly 1.5°C above pre-industrial levels in 2023, there is increased urgency to reduce methane emissions, which would reduce global warming.
Under New Zealand’s new government, however, agriculture will likely not pay for emissions until 2030.
Nestlé, a major customer of dairy co-operative Fonterra, has announced a policy to pursue net zero emissions by 2050 across all operations, including its supply chain (which accounts for 95% of overall emissions).
Fonterra’s response has been to focus on emissions intensity (per kilo of product) rather than absolute emissions. This risks increasing New Zealand’s greenhouse gas emissions if gains are negated by increases in total production.
A factor commonly overlooked in these analyses is the renewable energy required to manufacture alternative foods. For example, replacing 25% of the milk protein produced in New Zealand during the 2019-2020 season with a precision fermentation product would require about 13% of typical New Zealand annual electricity production.
This could be generated by a 4.4 giga-watt (GW) solar photovoltaic farm, 1.7GW of onshore wind capacity, or a 1.3GW offshore wind farm. The production of cultivated meat would need a further 0.4GW of offshore wind.
Fortunately, all these options are within the scope of planned and potential new generation in New Zealand. However, the demand would be offset by the parallel downsizing of conventional animal-based food processing.
Downsizing the dairy industry by 25% would reduce New Zealand’s emissions by 4.5 megatonnes of CO₂ eqivalent per year (MT-CO₂e/y). There would also be a 60-year average of 2 MT-CO2e/y from carbon sinks created by rewilding freed-up farmland.
Allowing for emissions associated with replacement technologies, a conservative net removal of 5.3 MT-CO₂e/y is possible – or 6.7% of 2020 gross emissions.
Any opportunity for New Zealand to pursue alternative food production methods and get ahead of global trends would depend on how much other countries chose to locate alternative food production within their own borders, or at least closer to major markets.
It would also depend on their ability to access substantial quantities of renewable electricity. For example, should a proposed submarine electricity link between Australia and Singapore eventuate, large-scale production of alternative foods could be enabled in South-East Asia.
An integrated plan
New Zealand has, of course, experienced significant agricultural disruptions in the past, including the major downsizing of the sheep industry following the removal of subsidies and the introduction of synthetic carpets. Presently, carbon farming is causing a further decline in sheep numbers as pasture is converted to forest.
The challenge will be to assess the extent to which the predicted disruption of alternative foods threatens traditional food production systems.
Funds generated by the Emissions Trading Scheme would be well spent on transition options for farmers in animal agriculture. This could involve paying them to downsize and move into alternative careers, including food production, rewilding or eco-education.
While not everyone agrees about their scale or speed, the direction of developments seems clear. Combined with increasing concern over climate change and consumer preferences for low-footprint foods, developing an integrated climate, energy and alternative food plan for New Zealand seems eminently timely.
The author thanks Paul Callister for his helpful comments and suggestions on this article.
Ian Mason is affiliated with the NZ Offshore Wind Working Group.
COVID-19 showed us how useful monitoring wastewater can be. But the genetic material in our wastewater, namely DNA and RNA, is a treasure trove of other useful information. It reveals the presence of thousands of different types of weird and wonderful wastewater microbes.
The diversity of these microbes can “talk” to us and tell us how to get more renewable energy out of our wastes. If only we could listen to them. Soon we can.
How will that work? It all starts with our poo. These types of microbes have been used since the 19th century to treat and reduce the ever-increasing volumes of sewage sludge arriving at our wastewater treatment plants, especially in urban areas. Two-thirds of the world’s people are expected to live in urban areas by 2050, hence sewage treatment will be in high demand.
Yet most people today have little idea how vital microbes are for sustainable growth of cities. We need them to treat our waste.
We also need sources of renewable energy. Thanks to naturally occurring microbes, our water utilities can produce renewable biogas from human waste. By reducing our reliance on fossil fuels, their poo biogas can help to mitigate climate change.
So we need to learn more about these microbes to ensure they are doing the best possible job of processing our waste. One way of doing that is by monitoring DNA in human waste sludge.
A living sludge mass
First of all, this promising waste-to-energy technology, which fully relies on microbes, is called anaerobic digestion.
Operating anaerobic digesters is expensive. It requires intense monitoring strategies and frequent interventions. That is because microbes can be unpredictable.
On the face of it, the process is really simple. Wastewater sludge is pumped into large vessels without oxygen, where microbes are left alone for a few days to practically eat the sludge and breathe out biogas. Sludge goes in, treated sludge plus gas goes out.
The process reduces overall sludge mass and the number of pathogens. This ultimately makes it a safer material, while also generating renewable energy. Brilliant, right?
Using anaerobic digesters to treat human waste has multiple benefits, but depends on keeping a community of microbes healthy.
But there is a catch. This process is only effective if these living, breathing treatment vessels behave. Unfortunately, sometimes they get out of control without warning, making them difficult to manage.
So microbial happiness is not only important for our own health, it is crucial for the health of the large digester vessels managed by wastewater treatment plants. To make it cheaper to run these facilities, we urgently need to learn more about life in our sludge.
The huge amounts of human waste we create support an extraordinarily rich variety of microbial life. Geermy/Shutterstock
DNA, a window on an invisible world
At the ARC Biosolids Training Centre we want to make anaerobic digestion easier for water utilities by developing routine DNA-based monitoring tools. Essentially, we are looking for a way to predict the process to manage it better.
DNA tells the story of thousands of different types of microbes that work together to treat our sludge. To optimise the wastewater treatment process we need to identify them, the troublemakers and the do-gooders.
But sludge life is complex. Before it can tell us its story, we require empirical studies. We have to be able to relate microbial DNA to the process.
To show how that works we produced a review of the role of microbes for monitoring anaerobic digestion. This includes some of the diversity metrics that ecologists use to assess the health of the whole system based on the composition of microbes.
Compound microscope images of just a few of the thousands of different types of microbes in wastewater sludge. Helen Stratton and Melody Christie, Stratton Microbial Ecology Lab at Griffith University
The weird and the wonderful
The microbes that are used to treat sludge consist of a diverse range of ancient, weird, at times alien-like bacteria and archaea (another form of single-celled organisms). They can metabolise materials that no other lifeform can.
And sludge life is a very active community of microbes: some are bullies, some collaborators. Through their DNA, we count them to learn how many different types of microbes there are and how often they appear. This counted diversity can then tell us if a system is healthy or not.
For a healthy, productive system, we need diversity – as many different microbes as possible – to provide stability. If a particular organism somehow starts to grow faster or slower, it means something is getting out of control.
We can exploit that knowledge to develop risk scores for the operators of treatment facilities. And that is what we try to do.
We will keep working so that someday we can properly listen to our sludge-eating microbes and get more value out of our poo.
Christian Krohn’s reseach receives funding from an Australian Research Council Industrial Transformation Training Centre Grant (IC190100033).
Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Prudence Flowers, Senior Lecturer in US History, College of Humanities, Arts, and Social Sciences, Flinders University
Abortion is shaping up to be a central issue for both parties in the 2024 US presidential and Congressional elections.
Nearly two years ago, the US Supreme Court overturned the landmark Roe v. Wade decision, finding there was no constitutional right to abortion and returning regulation to the states.
Since that decision (a case known as Dobbs v. Jackson), 14 states now ban abortion in almost all circumstances and ten have imposed restrictions, some of which have been blocked by the courts. One in three women of reproductive age now live in states that have either banned or restricted abortion.
Abortion remains legal and protected in 26 states, plus the District of Columbia.
For decades, abortion has been central to partisan politics in the United States. Republicans made opposition to abortion a core part of their identity and voter mobilisation strategies. They pumped out so-called “messaging bills” (dramatic legislation with little chance of passing or being upheld, such as the Life At Conception bill), while pledging to end Roe v Wade.
Yet, abortion was not a make-or-break electoral cause. In 2018, sociologist Ziad Munson concluded
[…] for the vast majority of the public, abortion is simply not a key issue they consider when deciding their vote.
Most Americans still support abortion rights
Dobbs v. Jackson, however, transformed the political landscape. Support for abortion is now at a record high among Americans, with 69% believing abortion should be legal in the first three months of pregnancy and 61% believing that overturning Roe v. Wade was a “bad thing”.
Women and young people have rushed to register as new voters. And 21% of registered voters describe abortion as the issue they would be unwilling to compromise on, a sentiment most pronounced among Democrats and independents.
In the 2022 midterm elections in the US, voter anger over Dobbs v. Jackson was widelycredited with stopping the expected “red wave” in Congress and state races, even as President Joe Biden’s approval rating hovered around 40%.
Abortion was also central to Democrats gaining control of the Virginia state legislature in 2023.
Seven states have voted on abortion referendums since the Dobbs v. Jackson decision. All were decisive victories for reproductive rights, including in traditionally red states such as Kansas, Kentucky and Ohio. In Ohio, one in five Republicans voted to constitutionally protect abortion access in the state.
Democrats have an issue to rally support
All of this points to abortion being a major issue in the presidential election later this year.
Biden, a practising Catholic, is an unlikely pro-choice ally. In 1973, he believed the Supreme Court went “too far” in the Roe v. Wade decision. During his decades in the Senate, his views evolved and he now believes Roe v. Wade “got it right.”
Initially, the Biden administration was slow to respond to the palpable threat to reproductive rights in the lead-up to Dobbs v. Jackson. It took Biden 468 days to publicly say the word abortion as president, and he still rarely uses the term.
After Dobbs v. Jackson, however, both Biden and Vice President Kamala Harris became assertive in defence of abortion rights. Legislatively hamstrung, the administration used the Food and Drug Administration, the Justice Department, and executive orders to try to protect and expand access to abortion and contraception across the country.
And abortion will be “front and centre” for Democrats in the 2024 elections.
To drive home the point, the Biden-Harris team made their first joint campaign appearance of the year in late January at a reproductive rights rally in Virginia, a day after what would have been the 51st anniversary of the Roe v. Wade decision.
For Republicans, it’s complicated
Dobbs v. Jackson was the fulfilment of a Republican promise decades in the making. Publicly, Republicans celebrated. Privately, some believed the party was “the dog that caught the car”.
Anti-abortionists have always viewed overturning Roe v. Wade as merely a first step, with the ultimate goal being an end to legal abortion nationwide. Since Dobbs v. Jackson, anti-abortion groups have pushed for:
“foetal personhood” laws that would extend legal rights to foetuses or embryos from the moment of fertilisation, with likely consequences for in vitro fertilisation and some forms of contraception.
Most presidential aspirants have preferred to talk generically about “protecting life.” Nikki Haley, the only candidate remaining to challenge frontrunner Donald Trump, has spoken vaguely of the need for “consensus” on abortion at the federal level.
As for Trump, he ran Facebook advertisements before the Iowa caucuses last month calling himself “THE MOST Pro-Life President in history.” Yet, simultaneously, Trump is positioning himself as an abortion moderate.
Trump’s cynical about-face should come as no surprise. In 1999, Trump claimed to be “very pro-choice.” By the 2016 Republican primaries, he had become much more extreme and controversial in his rhetorical opposition to abortion.
Trump has repeatedly dodged questions about whether he supports a federal law, refusing to support the idea of a 15-week ban championed by his former vice president, Mike Pence.
In September, he described Florida Governor Ron DeSantis’ signing of a six-week abortion ban in his state as “a terrible thing and a terrible mistake.” Then, in January, Trump told a Fox News town hall audience that on abortion, “there has to be a little bit of a concession.”
Initially, anti-abortion activists condemned Trump, even picketing one of his Miami rallies with signs declaring “Make Trump Pro-Life Again”. However, with Trump widely expected to be the Republican candidate, these groups are now falling in line. Ultimately, they need him far more than he needs them.
The new Republican timidity about abortion does not mean that conservatives have had a fundamental change of heart. As Trump put it, “you got to win elections.” If they win the presidency and majorities in both houses of Congress in November, Republicans will most likely continue their assault on abortion and reproductive rights.
In January, Biden’s job approval rating hit record lows at a time of historic inflation levels. Even though abortion has been political poison for Republicans, it may not be enough to help Democrats hold onto the White House.
Prudence Flowers has received funding from the South Australian Department of Human Services. She is a member of the South Australian Abortion Action Coalition.
VR provides entry into computer-generated 3D worlds and games with different environments and interactions. Sometimes this is loosely referred to as the “metaverse”.
But VR is increasingly used by young children, even of preschool age. These immersive technologies make it difficult to monitor children’s physical and emotional experiences and with whom they interact. So what are the dangers, and what can we do to keep the kids safe?
VR allows children to dive into a digital world where they can immerse themselves into different characters (avatars). Thanks to the richness of the stimuli, VR can give the illusion of actually being in the virtual location – this is called “virtual presence”.
If children then interact with other people in the virtual world, the psychological realism is enhanced. These experiences can be fun and rewarding.
However, they can also have negative impacts. Children tend to have difficulty distinguishing between what occurs within VR and in the real world.
Children can even develop traumatic memories when playing in virtual worlds. Due to the immersive nature of VR, the sense of presence makes it feel as if the child’s avatar is actually “real”.
Research is still emerging, but it is known children can form memories from virtual experiences, which means sexual abuse that occurs virtually could turn into a real-world traumatic memory.
The rise of ‘cyber grooming’
Research has found that online predators use different grooming strategies to manipulate children into sexual interactions. This sometimes leads to offline encounters without the knowledge of parents.
Non-threatening grooming strategies that build relationships are common. Perpetrators may use friendship strategies to develop a relationship with children and to build trust. The child then views the person as a trusted friend rather than a stranger. As a result, the prevention messages about strangers learned through education programs are ineffective in protecting children.
A recent meta-analysis found that online sex offenders are usually acquaintances. Unsurprisingly, a proportion of adult predators pretend to be peers (that is, other children or teens).
Sexual approaches by adults occur more commonly on platforms that are widely used by children. “Sexual communication with a child” offences, according to police statistics from the United Kingdom, increased by 84% between 2017–18 and 2021–22.
Due to the hidden nature of cyber grooming, it is difficult to know the true prevalence of this issue. Some police reports in Europe indicate that approximately 20% of children have experienced online sexual solicitation, and up to 25% of children reported sexual interaction with an adult online.
Such encounters have the potential to create memories as if the virtual experience had happened in real life.
For parents it is important to know that cyber groomers are well versed in the use of extremely popular virtual worlds. These provide predators with anonymity and easy access to children, where they can lure them into sexual engagement.
Children can immerse themselves into virtual words, where interacting with others is fun, but potentially confusing. Frame Stock Footage/Shutterstock
Parents must try VR themselves
A recent report from the Internet Watch Foundation charity reports that a record number of young children have been manipulated into performing sexual acts online.
Through the metaverse, a sexual offender can be virtually brought into a child’s bedroom and engage in sexual behaviours through the child’s VR device. As VR worlds become more immersive, the danger for children only increases.
Grooming occurs where parents least expect it to happen. To mitigate this danger, parents need to be aware of online grooming patterns – such as isolating the child, developing their trust and asking them to hide a relationship.
Recognising the signs early can prevent the abuse from happening. But this can be difficult if parents aren’t familiar with the technology their child is using.
To help them understand what their children experience in extended reality environments, parents must familiarise themselves with VR and the metaverse.
If parents experience and experiment with the VR technology themselves, they can have conversations with their children about their experiences and understand with whom the child might interact with.
This will allow parents to make informed decisions and put tailored safeguarding measures in place. These safeguards include reviewing the parental controls and safety features on each platform, and actively learning what their children are playing and whom they are interacting with.
With such safeguards in place, parents can allow their children to have fun with VR headsets while keeping them protected.
If you believe your child is targeted by grooming or exploitation, or you come across exploitation material, you can report it via ThinkuKnow or contact your local police.
If you are a child, teen or young adult who needs help and support, call the Kids Helpline on 1800 55 1800.
If you are an adult who experienced abuse as a child, call the Blue Knot Helpline on 1300 657 380 or visit their website.
Marika Guggisberg 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.
The Victorian government has announced an inquiry into women’s pain. Given women are disproportionately affected by pain, such a thorough investigation is long overdue.
The inquiry, the first of its kind in Australia and the first we’re aware of internationally, is expected to take a year. It aims to improve care and services for Victorian girls and women experiencing pain in the future.
These statistics are seen across the lifespan, with higher rates of chronic pain being reported in females as young as two years old. This discrepancy increases with age, with 28% of Australian women aged over 85 experiencing chronic pain compared to 18% of men.
Women also experience pain differently to men. There is some evidence to suggest that when diagnosed with the same condition, women are more likely to report higher pain scores than men.
Similarly, there is some evidence to suggest women are also more likely to report higher pain scores during experimental trials where the same painful pressure stimulus is applied to both women and men.
Women in pain are viewed and treated differently to men. Women are more likely to be told their pain is psychological and dismissed as not being real or “all in their head”.
Hollywood actor Selma Blair recently shared her experience of having her symptoms repeatedly dismissed by doctors and put down to “menstrual issues”, before being diagnosed with multiple sclerosis in 2018.
It’s an experience familiar to many women in Australia, where medical misogyny still runs deep. Our research has repeatedly shown Australian women with pelvic pain are similarly dismissed, leading to lengthy diagnostic delays and serious impacts on their quality of life.
Misogyny exists in research too
Historically, misogyny has also run deep in medical research, including pain research. Women have been viewed as smaller bodied men with different reproductive functions. As a result, most pre-clinical pain research has used male rodents as the default research subject. Some researchers say the menstrual cycle in female rodents adds additional variability and therefore uncertainty to experiments. And while variability due to the menstrual cycle may be true, it may be no greater than male-specific sources of variability (such as within-cage aggression and dominance) that can also influence research findings.
The exclusion of female subjects in pre-clinical studies has hindered our understanding of sex differences in pain and of response to treatment. Only recently have we begun to understand various genetic, neurochemical, and neuroimmune factors contribute to sex differences in pain prevalence and sensitivity. And sex differences exist in pain processing itself. For instance, in the spinal cord, male and female rodents process potentially painful stimuli through entirely different immune cells.
These differences have relevance for how pain should be treated in women, yet many of the existing pharmacological treatments for pain, including opioids, are largely or solely based upon research completed on male rodents.
So, women are disproportionately affected by pain in terms of how common it is and sensitivity, but also in how their pain is viewed, treated, and even researched. Women continue to be excluded, dismissed, and receive sub-optimal care, and the recently announced inquiry aims to improve this.
What will the inquiry involve?
Consumers, health-care professionals and health-care organisations will be invited to share their experiences of treatment services for women’s pain in Victoria as part of the year-long inquiry. These experiences will be used to describe the current service delivery system available to Victorian women with pain, and to plan more appropriate services to be delivered in the future.
Inquiry submissions are now open until March 12 2024. If you are a Victorian woman living with pain, or provide care to Victorian women with pain, we encourage you to submit.
The state has an excellent track record of improving women’s health in many areas, including heart, sexual, and reproductive health, but clearly, we have a way to go with women’s pain. We wait with bated breath to see the results of this much-needed investigation, and encourage other states and territories to take note of the findings.
Jane Chalmers receives funding from The Hospital Research Foundation.
Amelia Mardon 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.
Associate Health Minister Casey Costello recently said she was concerned about the financial burden on people who smoke. She has requested advice on freezing the Consumers Price Index (CPI) adjustment applied annually to tobacco products, according to a leaked Ministry of Health document.
But is this really the best option to reduce the cost of smoking?
Costello’s proposal attracted considerable criticism, not least because the rising price of tobacco is well established as the most effective tool currently used to reduce tobacco use.
There is strong evidence, both international and from within New Zealand, that demonstrates changes in consumer behaviour as a result of the tax increases –reducing uptake, cutting down consumption and increasing quit attempts, with spikes in quit attempts around January each year in New Zealand.
The minister is right to be concerned about people who smoke and the enormous drain smoking imposes on their health, wellbeing and finances. But freezing the excise tax on tobacco products won’t ease those costs.
If the minister is serious about reducing the financial and other costs of smoking, here are three tips that will help her achieve her goal.
Leave the CPI adjustment alone
For people who smoke a pack a day, freezing the CPI adjustment means they will save around NZ$12 a week or $730 a year.
But if those people quit smoking, they would save $35-$50 a day, or around $13,000 to $15,000 each year. The most important thing that will ease the financial cost for people who smoke is to help them stop smoking – freezing the tobacco excise tax will actually make quitting less likely.
Examine what makes it so hard to quit
We know most people who smoke regret having started and want to quit. Our study of more than a thousand people who smoke found 74% regret having started, 84% would like to stop smoking, and 81% have tried to stop smoking.
Given this very strong desire not to smoke, what’s preventing people from realising their goal? The answer is simple: addiction. Nearly 90% of people who smoke said they are somewhat or very addicted to smoking.
Research shows people who smoke very low-nicotine cigarettes cannot smoke enough to get a satisfying dose of nicotine, so they lose interest in smoking and smoke fewer cigarettes.
A recent review found low-nicotine cigarettes increased the likelihood of smoking cessation among all population groups. This includes people with psychiatric comorbidities or low socioeconomic status – the group Minister Costello is particularly keen to assist. It will also minimise the likelihood of young people starting smoking.
Aotearoa New Zealand is ready to implement denicotinisation (reducing the levels of nicotine in tobacco products). A modelling study predicted this move would bring profound, rapid and equitable reductions in smoking prevalence. However, the new government has announced plans to repeal the smokefree law that mandated denicotinisation.
Use tax revenue for community support
Because smoking is a social practice, many people may find quitting support helpful, even when only low-nicotine cigarettes are available.
Minister Costello has an opportunity to use the tax revenue generated by tobacco sales to support smoking cessation. For example, allocating funds generated by tobacco sales would enable her to increase funding for services that support people who smoke to quit.
Additional targeted support could be particularly helpful to groups that bear a disproportionate portion of the harms caused by smoking.
Community support has a crucial role to play, as people with local knowledge understand the needs of fellow community members and can respond with tailored advice.
The minister doesn’t have to reinvent the wheel or replace the current evidence-based approach. Several measures that would minimise the enormous burden smoking imposes on thousands of people are ready for implementation – starting with the Smokefree Aotearoa 2025 Action Plan.
The government should also abandon its plans to repeal New Zealand’s smokefree legislation. The measures this law introduces could profoundly reduce the many costs smoking imposes on those who do it. Furthermore, it would benefit the very people whose plight troubles the minister.
Janet Hoek currently receives research funding from the Health Research Council of New Zealand, the Cancer Society of New Zealand, the University of Queensland (Australia) and the National Health and Medical Research Council (Australia). Her affiliations include the Society for Nicotine and Tobacco Research, Health Coalition Aotearoa’s Smokefree Expert Advisory Group, Aukati Tupeka Kore Group, Project Sunset (International and Oceania), the Australian Government Department of Health and Aged Care, the NZ Cancer Society Research Collaboration, and the Australasian Tobacco Issues Group.
Andrew Waa receives funding from the Health Research Coincil of New Zealand. He is a member of the Health Coalition Aotearoa and a member of Te Ropu Tupeka Kore.
Richard Edwards receives research funding from the Health Research Council of New Zealand, the Cancer Society of New Zealand, the University of Queensland (Australia) and the National Institute of Health (US). His affiliations include the Society for Nicotine and Tobacco Research, the Public Health Communication Centre Briefing, Smokefree Expert Advisory Group, Health Coalition Aotearoa and the National Tobacco Control Advocacy Service Advisory Group.
Dune Part Two is eagerly awaited, even if all the best actors were killed off in part one.Courtesy Warner Bros. Pictures
Last year was the worst for Hollywood cinema in my memory. The few excellent films such as May December and The Equalizer 3 couldn’t combat the Barbies, Napoleons and Saltburns. It means 2024, bolstered by a slew of films being released post-strike, cannot but look up.
Currently Mean Girls – a musical reimagining of the stage musical based on the excellent 2004 film – is leading the year’s box office (it looks about as enthralling as an old sock), but Self Reliance, The Beekeeper and sci-fi space thriller I.S.S. are in cinemas now and may be worth a look.
Though 2024 once again proffers a mind-numbing number of sequels, along with the now commonplace attempts to capitalise on old properties by “freshening up” material, thankfully there seem to be fewer superhero films than usual on the cards.
Denis Villeneuve is no David Lynch, but Dune Part One was an impressively immersive, stately epic, engagingly cinematic spectacle. It was overblown and pretentious, but commanded attention. Dune Part Two is eagerly awaited, even if all the best actors were killed off in part one.
Guy Ritchie has a knack for making films that just work, regardless of how often they recycle the same schtick (the gangster comedy and the serious existential thriller). Though it boasts perhaps the worst title of the year, we’ll see if, in The Ministry of Ungentlemanly Warfare, Ritchie is once again able to infuse incredibly hackneyed material with his signature restless energy.
Other big budget genre films include the Matthew Vaughan-directed hitman caper Argylle; Imaginary, a new Blumhouse horror film about a coercive teddy bear directed by Jeff Wadlow; and Ballerina, an action movie starring the exceptional Ana de Armas as an assassin.
Civil War, the new film from Alex Garland, has a compelling premise – in a dystopian future, journalists travel across a war-torn United States – but Garland is sure to murder it with his Statue of Liberty-sized heavy hand.
Luca Guadagnino, one of the great auteurs of the 21st century, brings us Challengers, the film I am most anticipating. While it doesn’t exactly sound thrilling – a romantic drama set in the world of tennis – his approach to multiple genres has been inventive and idiosyncratic, stylish without suffocating the resonances of the performers and medium.
Another excellent film-maker, though his works are almost diametrically opposed to Guadagnino in affect and tone, Eli Roth’s version of the video game Borderlands (starring Cate Blanchett) promises to be a cinematic sci-fi romp.
As usual, there’s a bunch of American “indie” films coming out. Some may be worth checking out – such as Scrambled, a comedy about a broke, single woman who decides to freeze her eggs, and Lisa Frankenstein, a Diablo Cody-penned horror comedy about a teenage goth who reanimates a handsome corpse from the Victorian era.
The new estranged father-daughter drama Bleeding Love looks genuinely moving, starring father/daughter duo Ewan and Clara McGregor. Richard Linklater’s Hit Man, a wacky action comedy, seems like a departure from his usual stomping ground, but Linklater’s films usually display enough of a reverence for cinema that it should at least be mildly arresting.
More minor genre films include Lights Out, about an ex-soldier turned underground fighter pitted against corrupt cops (!), an absurd premise suggesting a potentially immensely satisfying film; Spaceman, a sci-fi film pairing Adam Sandler and Carey Mulligan (a combination of such little sense it might make for some interesting onscreen weirdness); and Sleeping Dogs, a mystery starring Russell Crowe about an ex-detective with Alzheimer’s forced to come out of retirement to solve an old case – a dynamite premise for a thriller.
How they will turn a feature film out of the exceptional kids book of 1955 Harold and the Purple Crayon is anyone’s guess, but I am looking forward to seeing what they do. Arthur the King, a dog adventure film starring Mark Wahlberg, looks like a sweet-natured adventure yarn.
Kevin Costner returns to directing with the western epic, Horizon: An American Saga, his first film as a director since 2003’s Open Range. Costner has acted and directed in some good (if easily lampoonable) films in his career, and this one boasts an excellent supporting cast, including Jena Malone and Michael Rooker, so may be worth the effort.
Sequels, sequels, sequels!
There’s nothing wrong with a sequel in principle. Sometimes it’s delightful to return to the same scenes and characters. But many sequels are pumped out with little aesthetic merit.
Do we really need another Saw? 2024 says yes with Saw XI, in a franchise that churns out sequels as efficiently as one of Jigsaw’s horrific torture machines.
Sequels that may warrant splurging on a popcorn and choc-top include Kingdom of the Planet of the Apes, following War for the Planet of the Apes, a standout film of 2017. Bad Boys for Life of 2020 rejuvenated the series and, on the back of this, I am keen for the wittily named Bad Boys 4.
The other major sequel sure to print money is Joker: Folie a Deux, a musical sequel to Joker. Why is this a musical? So it can co-star Lady Gaga? Joaquin Phoenix returns as the gauntly hilarious title character, and it’s directed again by Todd Phillips. The producers must have been so impressed by Phoenix’s dancing throughout the first they decided to give him more opportunities.
If, like me, you loathed the smarmy tone of the first two Deadpools, and think Ryan Reynolds has about as much screen presence as a brick wall, you are unlikely to race out to see Deadpool 3. But if you’re a fan, then the prospect will surely thrill you.
There’s a new Alien film, Kung Fu Panda 4, a new Godzilla vs. Kong, Despicable Me 4, a new A Quiet Place, a new Lord of the Rings, a new Lion King, Sonic the Hedgehog 3, a new Inside Out and a new Mad Max.
Smile 2 is the sequel to one of the more genuinely disquieting horror schlockers of recent years, and Damien Leone’s Terrifier 3 will probably prove popular in the ghoulishly violent horror series featuring one of the most compelling boogeymen since Freddy Kruger.
By far the two weirdest sequels to be released are Beetlejuice 2 and Gladiator 2. If Napoleon provided irrefutable proof Ridley Scott is past his prime, turning an epic story into what felt like a tedious telemovie (or an overlong Saturday Night Live sketch), then it would be hard to argue the uncalled for Gladiator 2 holds much promise. In any case, it will probably make truckloads of money – everyone who saw Gladiator will go and see it – and I’m just a snooty critic.
Tim Burton’s Beetlejuice similarly hardly cried out for a sequel. The original starred Geena Davis and Alec Baldwin at the top of their game, and Michael Keaton at his scene-stealing best, and cemented Burton’s reputation as Hollywood’s master of wacky and whimsical fairy tales. But there’s nothing in the narrative that suggests the need for the return to these characters – they should have been allowed to lie dead in the graveyard.
Nostalgia trip
Beetlejuice 2, of course, continues the Hollywood push to capitalise on old property by appealing to new generations while retaining original fans.
The same can be said of Beverly Hills Cop: Axel F, the fourth in the series starring Eddie Murphy as Axel Foley, and the first since the underwhelming third film of 1994. Ghostbusters: Frozen Empire is coming out in 2024, yet another new Ghostbusters film (apparently two in the 1980s weren’t enough).
The minor TV show from the 1980s, The Fall Guy, has been turned into a feature film starring Ryan Gosling and Emily Blunt – it looks like it could be fun. The Transformers series is returning to its roots with Transformers One, an animated film that won’t have the distinction of being Orson Welles’ final screen credit. There’s a new Karate Kid film, and Twisters, a stand-alone sequel to the 1996 blockbuster hit Twister.
Perhaps the strangest “reboot” is a remake of the bone-crunching cult masterpiece of the 1980s, Rowdy Herrington’s Road House, with Jake Gyllenhaal starring in a role definitive of Patrick Swayze’s career. Directed by Doug Liman, who has a flair for visually arresting sequences, it might work, but why on earth such an acterly-actor as Gyllenhaal would take on this role is anyone’s guess. A joke? A dare? In memoriam for his relationship with Swayze during the shooting of Donnie Darko?
Nostalgia for the 1990s perhaps explains why several new romcoms are coming out, most of which look pretty low rent – Beautiful Wedding, Players, Upgraded, Musica, The Idea of You and Project Artemis, starring Scarlet Johansson and Channing Tatum, a return to the genre that defined the period.
A prequel to one of the horror masterpieces of the 1970s, The Omen, The First Omen looks like it’ll be about as necessary as the World Book encyclopaedia in 2024. Ricky Stanicky boasts an awful name, typical of a Peter Farrelly comedy. There’s a third film in the Strangers slasher film series, The Strangers: Chapter One, directed by Renny Harlin (who has fallen far from his glory days when he was directing films such as Die Hard 2 and Cliffhanger).
For a similar reason, it might be interesting to watch Peter Five Eight – notable because it stars Kevin Spacey, who only a handful of years ago was one of the biggest actors in Hollywood and is now struggling to get roles in this kind of tripe.
We don’t need a (super)hero
After the glut of the last decade and a half, few superhero films are being released (the SAG strike may have something to do with it).
Madame Web, following the Spiderman-adjacent heroine, looks like much other pretentious superhero nonsense, but it does star two strong actors – the appealingly low-key Sydney Sweeney and the mesmerising Dakota Johnson. Kraven the Hunter looks like it might be worth watching, and, if you’re a fan of the Venom films (I am), then Venom 3 is one to look out for.
If you’re feeling subversive, it may be worth checking out The People’s Joker, which, following its premiere at Toronto, had its screenings cancelled because of problems with copyright – understandable for a film pitting a transgender Joker against a fascist Batman.
Other notable non-superhero films include M. Night Shyamalan’s Trap; Wolfs, a new thriller starring George Clooney and Brad Pitt; and the Barry Levinson gangster film Alto Knights starring Robert De Niro playing dual roles as competing mob bosses (what else is there for De Niro to do?), floating around Hollywood since the 1970s.
If you’re a fan of low-budget cinema, you can look forward to Mea Culpa, the new Tyler Perry legal thriller starring Kelly Rowland.
I’m intrigued by the ludicrous and delightful sounding Red One, a Christmas action film starring The Rock, keen to see new vampire film Abigail, and Leigh Whannell’s Wolf Man, following from his classic monster movie The Invisible Man. People who love music biopics (not me) might be interested in Back to Black, about Amy Winehouse, and the imaginatively named Bob Marley: One Love.
Lots of people are excited by the prospect of Robert Eggers making a new version of Nosferatu – so much so it’s set to be released on Christmas Day. Given his previous films, I am quietly confident Eggers will drain any potential joy – and terror – from the material.
There are a lot of Hollywood movies coming out, some of which might be worth watching. Luckily for cinephiles, there are certain to be plenty of non-Hollywood films on our screens in 2024.
Ari Mattes 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.
Several democratic, progressive and socialist organisations in Indonesia and in the Melanesian region of West Papua have come together in solidarity with Palestine and formed an alliance called the People’s Movement for Palestinian Independence (GERAK Palestine).
In a statement released by GERAK Palestine, the group declared full support for the Palestinian people to resist oppression and for their right to the return to their land, reports Arah Juang.
GERAK Palestine has also demanded an end to all aggression and an end to Israel’s war on Gaza that has killed more than 26,000 people so far — mainly women and children — and attacks on the West Bank with the arrest and imprisonment of Palestinian people.
The movement also wants the Indonesian government to cut all indirect diplomatic, economic and political ties with Israel and Zionist entities. It has also called for a “secular, democratic, just and independent Palestine”.
The alliance has held many actions in several Indonesian cities, but only gave details on those in November in its statement.
On Sunday, November 19, in Bojonegoro, East Java, the Socialist Youth League (LPS) joined GERAK Palestine to organise a campaign in solidarity with the Palestinian people.
A stall was opened in front of the Bojonegoro regency government offices on Car Free Day and leaflets and stickers were distributed with banners being displayed demanding “One State and an Independent Palestine”.
Papuan students In the South Sulawesi provincial capital of Makassar, the Student Struggle Center for National Liberation (PPMPN), the Indonesian Student Union (SMI), the Papua Student Alliance (AMP) and other organisations joined GERAK Palestine to hold an action with political speeches and poetry readings.
Earlier on November 16, the alliance held actions in the form of public discussions and a consolidation.
In Balikpapan, East Kalimantan, the Communal League joined with GERAK Palestine in a social media campaign and setup information stall providing readings on Palestine. The activists also handed out leaflets and issued a statement.
On Monday, November 13, in Jayapura, Papua, several different organisations joined GERAK Palestine to hold a consolidation and discussion on Palestine at the Green Papua Secretariat.
Following this, on November 15, alliance activists held a discussion around the theme “Update on the Palestinian Situation, Against Imperialism”.
On November 17, activists held a second more detailed discussion on the same theme and heading off for an action.
On Sunday, November 19, a free speech forum was held in the afternoon at the Sinak Student Dormitory featuring political speeches, songs of struggle and poems.
Police crackdown In Sorong, South-West Papua, on November 21, several organisations joined an action with GERAK Palestine to launch an action. A police crackdown also claimed that the action was not in the context of solidarity with Palestine but was part of a pro-independence action for the Free Papua Movement (OPM).
In the Central Java city of Yogyakarta, several different organisations joined GERAK Palestine to hold a demonstration demanding full independence for Palestine. The action began with a long-march from the Abu Bakar Ali parking area through the Malioboro shopping district to the zero kilometre point in front of the Central Post Office.
The protesters carried posters and held speeches condemning Israel’s brutal actions in Palestine.
In Ternate, North Maluku, several organisations and students groups from a number of different campuses joined GERAK Palestine to hold a solidarity action and support Palestinian independence.
In Semarang, Central Java, activists from the Semarang XR Youth Resistance and IDPAL joined together to demand Palestinian independence during an action at the Semarang Water Fountain.
In Jakarta, a Palestine solidarity action was attended by around 100 people from different organisations. The police however prevented protesters from displaying banners and posters as symbols of solidarity.
At the end of the rally, the protesters read out a statement in solidarity with Palestine and demanded that the Indonesian government cut all diplomatic, economic and political ties with Israel.
On November 21 the Bali Committee of the Democratic National Student Secretariat (SDMN) and the Women’s Studio (Sanggar Puan) held online and offline discussions under the theme “Palestinian Genocide and the Feminist Response” focusing on the history of settler-colonialism carried out by Israel, the international politics surrounding the War on Gaza, the genocide committed by Israel against Palestine and gender-based violence in war and conflict.
New Zealand has fallen slightly in the latest Corruption Perception Index – which measures the least corrupt countries in the world. New Zealand has gone from number two in the world, to number three. The annual index is produced each year by the global anti-corruption NGO, Transparency International. The country’s score out-of-100 has also dropped, from 87 to 85 (in which, zero is considered highly corrupt and 100 is very clean).
While hardly a dramatic drop, it should still be something of a wake-up call, because if you look at the trajectory over a longer period, the 2024 drop is part of a steady downward trend, especially since 2020. See the trendline below – NZ is the dark line:
Transparency International – CPI Country Trends.
Politicians may feel vindicated by our ranking as one of the least corrupt countries, but they should not be complacent. Anyone who follows politics in New Zealand closely will be well aware that there are all sorts of integrity deficits in our political system. These range from a laxness about ethical standards amongst Cabinet ministers, through to the willingness of politicians to get close to financial donors, and lobbyists coming in and out the revolving door of the Beehive.Business leaders are particularly sensitive to the growing potential for corruption in New Zealand, and it was the changing perceptions of this group that has led to the latest drop in New Zealand’s integrity score. The global “Executive Opinion Survey” is a component of generating the Corruption Perception Index (CPI). New Zealand business leaders have responded to the 2023 survey indicating that they have, according to Transparency International, reduced “confidence in government integrity systems” in this country.
The survey asked business leaders: “how common it was for businesses to make undocumented extra payments or bribes connected with trade, public utilities, tax payments or awarding of public contracts. It also asked how common it was for public funds to be diverted to companies, individuals or groups due to corruption.”
The graph below, with the red line representing New Zealand, shows the resulting dramatic decline in the perception by business leaders that this country has low corruption:
Transparency International – CPI Values.
Arguably, such problems became much worse during the last Labour Government. But now these democratic problems – which can lead to corruption, cronyism, and a dysfunctional society – are at the office door of new prime minister Christopher Luxon. He needs to decide whether to continue as a “business as usual” leader, allowing sloppy behaviour and low ethical standards in government, or else stamp out creeping corruption and generally raise the standards in politics.
The Integrity problems of the last government
The last government was probably one of the least democratic and transparent for a long time. It had continued integrity problems, many of which contributed significantly to Labour’s demise in 2023.
It’s worth restating some of these. In just their last year in power, Labour lost three Cabinet ministers over their low standards of ethical behaviour. Michael Wood failed to resolve a conflict of interest pertaining to owning transport company shares while serving as Transport Minister, despite repeatedly assuring officials he would do so. Stuart Nash broke numerous ethical standards and had to finally go when he was found to have shared confidential Cabinet discussions with Labour financial donors. Kiri Allan was also sloppy on political donations, transgressed Cabinet rules several times, and then departed as Minister of Justice when she was arrested by the Police after a drink driving crash.
These controversial breaches were a key part of Labour’s popular decline. They made the Government look sleazy and lacking in adequate ethics. Although other issues contributed to Labour’s loss of nearly half its electoral support – such as the lack of delivery over the six years – it is clear that once the scandals involving Nash, Wood and Allan occurred, the party was electoral toast.
Other ethical lapses tarnished Labour’s reputation over its six years in power. One is particularly worth mentioning – it’s the billions of dollars that they spent on infrastructure and Covid era economy-saving efforts that have recently been criticized by the Auditor General. In a report that didn’t get enough media coverage in the lead-up to Christmas, the Auditor General published his findings into an investigation of spending since 2020, which was damning of the lack of process in the Beehive when it decided how to quickly spend $15bn on new projects.
There was a lack of records kept by ministers about how they decided on many of the projects, and a lack of concern for conflicts of interest according to the Auditor General. This means that the public still doesn’t know where a lot of the money went, nor whether it was good value for money. Massive projects were announced and launched without proper process, and often against the advice of officials.
The damning assessment suggested something was rotten in the Beehive political process. As the Auditor General John Ryan states in the report, “In a country that prides itself on the integrity of its public sector, this is something we should all be concerned about.”
This all occurred despite claims that the Labour Government would be the most transparent in history. Good intentions are clearly not enough. The problem is that each subsequent government in livable memory has been worse than the one before them. And yet each new government seems to get into office after campaigning from Opposition about the lack of transparency and integrity of incumbents. Certainly, in 2023 National, Act and NZ First leveraged Labour’s integrity shortcomings to help them win office.
Luxon should declare war on corruption, cronyism and low standards
If past patterns are any guide, then the new administration might be expected to rest on its laurels, be overly complacent, and eventually turn out to be worse than even the Labour was in terms of integrity issues. Creeping corruption and declining transparency can be expected to carry on.
It doesn’t have to be this way. Prime Minister Luxon could instead declare a war on corruption, cronyism, and low standards. And he could genuinely start dealing to lobbyists and vested interests, and spurn any advances from the financial donors that helped the three conservative parties get into power.
This month, the leader of the British Labour Party, Keir Starmer, has declared something similar – a promised “crackdown on cronyism” when he gets into government, which is likely to be this year when a general election is held. Labour is 18 points ahead of the Conservatives in the polls.
Starmer gave an agenda-setting speech for the year that highlighted the need to clean up politics, including on his own side: “I say to all my fellow politicians – Labour and Tory – to change Britain, we must change ourselves. We need to clean up politics. No more VIP fast lanes. No more kickbacks for colleagues. No more revolving doors between government and the companies they regulate. I will restore standards in public life with a total crackdown on cronyism. I’ve put expense cheat politicians in jail before and I didn’t care if they were Labour or Tory. And I grew up working class, so spare me the self-serving excuses, they just won’t wash. This ends now. Nobody will be above the law in a Britain I lead.”
Now that Luxon embarks on leading his new government, could he make a similar speech, tailored for the New Zealand Parliament?
More than just speeches, New Zealand politics also needs to be cleaned up with real changes to rules and laws. Starmer’s Labour Party is proposing some tough laws on lobbying, with the Guardian reporting that they want to shut the “revolving door” for top politicians by banning “ministers from taking lobbying, advisory or portfolio-related jobs for at least five years after they leave government.” And there will be consequences rather than just a telling-off: “Former government ministers will be fined or have their pensions docked if they breach tough new rules on lobbying”.
As well as fines for rule breakers from the political class, British Labour says it will set up a new integrity and ethics commission to monitor “ministers moving to the private sector, to judge if their new posts involved any potential conflict of interest”.
Luxon could also look to Australia where the new Labor Government is reforming public-sector whistle-blower protections and has recently established the National Anti-Corruption Commission in response to an increase in politician and public service scandals.
Standards of Beehive behaviour
The last government had more than its fair share of integrity scandals. And all too often the Prime Minister – Jacinda Ardern, and then Chris Hipkins – appeared weak in dealing with errant ministers, often allowing them second and third chances, which they usually then abused. Luxon shouldn’t make the same mistake – he should be clear from the outset that when ministers violate the rules and standards they’ll be out. And then he needs to enforce these high standards.
Signs are encouraging because Luxon chose not to give a ministerial role to MP Barbara Kuriger. In October 2022 the National MP was implicated in a conflict of interest scandal. While serving as the party’s Agriculture spokesperson, Kuriger pursued complaints against Ministry for Primary Industries staff who had brought animal mistreatment charges against her husband and son. Much of the correspondence came from her Parliamentary email address or used National Party letterhead. Kuriger was stripped of her Agriculture portfolio by Luxon.
Despite the demotion, Luxon has allowed Kuriger to continue in the National caucus. As PM he is going to have to be much tougher than that. More integrity scandals will inevitably afflict ministers as well as backbench MPs in his administration. He will be judged harshly, and his government tarnished if he’s too soft on such violations.
And if National is anything like Labour, we will see government department contracts being given to the families of Cabinet ministers. So, Luxon would be advised to warn his ministers not to get tangled in such family contracts that could look like nepotism or cronyism.
Expect more focus on MP and ministerial financial interests
All around the world, there is now greater scrutiny of politicians and any personal linkages they have with vested interests that might colour the decision-making process. The most significant trend is to look closely at what politicians own – especially any commercial companies.
Luxon would be wise to run a very tight ship in this regard. Too often in New Zealand, Cabinet Office protocols and the Registrar of Pecuniary Interests are seen as just a bureaucratic box-ticking exercise without any real enforcement or scrutiny. That’s all changed now – and conflicts of interest, sloppiness, and irregularities will be much more closely scrutinised by media and political opponents than ever before.
The Minister of Commerce and Consumer Affairs, Andrew Bayly, will be dealing with the potential regulation of some major companies and sectors. Bayly himself will need to be squeaky clean in terms of any conflicts of interest. He successfully pursued former Labour minister Michael Wood over his Auckland Airport shares, but then late last year Bayly was found to have failed to declare a conflict of his own to Parliament: he owned about $92,000 in shares of a company that contracts to government agencies. Bayly claimed because the shares were in his family trust, disclosure wasn’t required. But the rules don’t back him up about this, and Registrar of Pecuniary Interests, Sir Maarten Wevers, indicated that such ownership should indeed be declared.
Subsequently, the now-Commerce Minister has expressed unhappiness about the idea of disclosure for ministers. He told Newsroom last year that his preferred way of dealing with conflicts of interest over companies he owns would be to simply disclose this in Cabinet meetings.
There are plenty of other new ministers who have owned companies that might produce conflicts of interest if not handled properly – for example, Health Minister Shane Reti has his own medical consulting company, the Minister of Māori Development Tama Potaka has been a director in various Māori investment and farming businesses, the Minister for Courts and Associate Minister of Justice (Firearms), Nicole McKee has been involved in consultancy Firearms Safety Specialists NZ Ltd, and senior ministers Winston Peters and Shane Jones are owners and directors of business consultancy firms. These and all other ministers will need to ensure divestment or other appropriate resolution of potential conflicts of interest in their portfolios have been addressed.
Lobbying – a test case for Luxon
There are many areas of reform that the new government could progress to prove that they are on the side of increased integrity. Fixing the Official Information Act would be a good start, but it seems unlikely that any government will ever do this. For example, the last government continually made promises to improve the OIA but never got close to delivering. Furthermore, the politicisation and operating ethics of the public service desperately need to be addressed, but we are only likely to see spending cuts.
Instead, it’s the issue of corporate lobbying that democrats might have some hope for progress on. This issue has exploded onto the political agenda both globally and locally. Hence even though the last government was conflicted by links to lobbyists, last year the then prime minister Chris Hipkins instructed the Ministry of Justice to start a project reforming the sector. This was the best thing that the Labour Government did in terms of integrity issues.
Commendably, National also got on board this reform process – with Nicola Willis being reported last year as promising her government “would impose a 12-month stand down period for former ministers and introduce a compulsory register of lobbyists, rather than a voluntary code of conduct.” She also promised to introduce “a transparent, publicly accountable register of who’s doing the lobbying and who they’re lobbying for”.
However, Max Rashbrooke reports this week that the Health Coalition Aotearoa, which he is working for, received a letter from Justice Minister Paul Goldsmith saying that officials were now only working on a “voluntary” code of conduct for lobbyists. In terms of the Ministry of Justice’s project on lobbying reform, Goldsmith stated it was just “one of many priorities the Government must consider, and specifically in the Justice portfolio where it has a heavy work programme”. Rashbrooke warns: “Such language often presages abandonment”.
The conservative parties in government have made much of the fact that the country is broken and needs to be put back on track, and surely, they’re right. But in fixing the huge problems in New Zealand, you also need to fix the integrity problems in the political system, which are often the very source of these other problems occurring. Much of what goes wrong in this country begins in the Beehive, and if Luxon isn’t willing to raise the standards there, then there can’t be much hope of improvement elsewhere. The question the Prime Minister needs to answer is: “If we don’t fix the politics in the country, how are we going to fix the country?”
*******
Dr Bryce Edwards is the Political Analyst in Residence at Victoria University of Wellington. He is the director of the Democracy Project (https://democracyproject.nz)
Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By John Hawkins, Senior Lecturer, Canberra School of Politics, Economics and Society, University of Canberra
Inflation has fallen for the fourth successive quarter.
Australia’s annual inflation rate fell to 4.1% in the December quarter 2023, down from 7.8% in the December quarter 2022.
The new rate is the lowest in two years and the closest in two years to the Reserve Bank’s target band of 2–3%.
The decline in inflation exceeded market expectations. Even the Reserve Bank was expecting an inflation rate of 4.5% in the year to December.
This quarterly result is consistent with the more experimental and volatile monthly measure which also shows annual inflation trending down from a high of 8.4% in the year to December 2022 to just 3.4% in the year to December 2023.
The fresh low is within spitting distance of the Reserve Bank’s target.
Price falls for clothing, household appliances, furniture, and fruit and vegetables have helped bring down inflation recently.
The government has helped by providing subsidies and rebates and other measures that have lowered or slowed the prices of electricity, rent, pharmaceuticals and childcare.
But making the task harder has been sharp rises in insurance charges (up 16.2% during 2023 following natural disasters) and tobacco prices (up 10% in part because of legislated increases in the tobacco excise).
Even after the government assistance, electricity prices still rose by 6.9%.
With vacancy rates low, and immigration adding to demand, home rents paid continue to rise. They climbed 7.3% over 2023, a figure that was moderated by an increase in the maximum rate of Commonwealth Rent Assistance.
Bureau of Statistics analysis suggests that without the increase in rent assistance, rents paid would have climbed 8.9%
Even underlying inflation is sliding
To get a better idea of what would be happening to overall prices were it not for some unusual and outsized moves, the bureau calculates what it calls a trimmed mean measure of underlying inflation.
This excludes the 15% of prices that climbed the most during each quarter and the 15% that climbed the least or fell. Watched closely by the Reserve Bank, it also shows inflation falling, down to 4.2%.
Australia gets a US inflation rate
Inflation also fell during 2023 in other Western nations including the United States, Canada and the United Kingdom.
Australian inflation took a bit longer to fall. Australia’s Reserve Bank, anxious to preserve as much employment as possible, was less aggressive with its interest rate increases.
Nevertheless, Australia’s inflation rate of 4.3% now matches the rates in the US and Canada.
Haircut inflation, dentistry inflation coming down
A pattern observed across all of these countries is that inflation in the price of goods has come down faster than inflation in the price of services.
Inflation in service prices, driven largely by wages, was slower to climb, but when it did climb took longer to fall, encouraging Reserve Bank Governor Michele Bullock to identify the prices charged by hairdressers and dentists, as well as restaurants as those that were climbing strongly.
Inflation in the price of services turns out to have been coming down sharply at the time the governor made those comments, falling from 5.8% in the year to September to 4.6% in the year to December.
Inflation in the price of dental services fell from 4.9% to 4%, inflation in the price of hairdressing services fell from 6.7% to 6.4%, and inflation in the price of restaurant meals fell from 6.1% to 4.6%
What will matter now is the ‘last mile’
Some forecasters have suggested that despite the rapid fall in inflation, the “last mile” back to the inflation target may take longer.
The International Monetary Fund doesn’t expect inflation to get back to the 2–3% range until early 2026. The Reserve Bank expects it in late 2025.
Mitigating against an early return to target might be the rejigging of the Stage 3 tax cuts to direct more to those on lower incomes who are more likely to spend them, although the treasury and private forecasters expect this effect to be minor.
Accelerating an early return to target is likely to be retail electricity prices which are set to fall in the year ahead driven by what the Australian Energy Market Operator says was a 24% fall in wholesale prices during 2022 driven by a record uptake in renewable generation.
Also contributing to an early return to target is likely to be a fall in inflationary expectations, evident in the Melbourne Institute’s expectations survey and
a decline in the number of Australians searching for the word “inflation” on Google.
Steady ahead for interest rates
As recently as November, the Reserve Bank forecast an inflation rate of 4.5% for the year to December, and it said after its December board meeting things were developing “broadly in line with expectations”.
It is now clear that wasn’t the case, and that services inflation in particular was falling faster than it thought.
This means it is most unlikely to raise interest rates when it holds its first meeting for the year on Monday and Tuesday, and unlikely to increase them again.
But any cut is likely to be some way off. An awful lot will depend on inflation from here on.
Many of us wish we could get a better night’s sleep. Wouldn’t it be great if it was as easy as a mocktail before bed?
That’s what the latest viral trend might have us believe. The “Sleepy Girl Mocktail” is a mix of tart cherry juice, powdered magnesium supplement and soda water. TikTok videos featuring the concoction have garnered hundreds of thousands of views. But, what does the science say? Do these ingredients actually help us sleep?
There is research to show including tart cherry juice in your diet improves overall sleep. Clinical trials show tart cherry juice increases sleep quality and quantity, as well as a lessening insomnia symptoms (compared to a placebo). This could be due to the presence of melatonin, a sleep-promoting hormone, in cherries.
Tart cherry varieties such as Jerte Valley or Montmorency have the highest concentration of melatonin (approximately 0.135 micrograms of melatonin per 100g of cherry juice). Over the counter melatonin supplements can range from 0.5 milligram to over 100 milligrams, with research suggesting those beginning to take melatonin start with a dose of 0.5–2 milligrams to see an improvement in sleep.
Melatonin naturally occurs in our bodies. Our body clock promotes the release of melatonin in the evening to help us sleep, specifically in the two hours before our natural bedtime.
If we want to increase our melatonin intake with external sources, such as cherries, then we should be timing our intake with our natural increase in melatonin. Supplementing melatonin too close to bed will mean we may not get the sleep-promoting benefits in time to get off to sleep easily. Taking melatonin too late may even harm our long-term sleep health by sending the message to our body clock to delay the release of melatonin until later in the evening.
We do know magnesium plays a vital role in energy production and bone development, making it an important daily nutrient for our diets. Foods rich in magnesium include wheat cereal or bread, almonds, cashews, pumpkin seeds, spinach, artichokes, green beans, soy milk and dark chocolate.
Bubbly water
Soda water serves as the base of the drink, rather than a pathway to better sleep. And bubbly water may make the mix more palatable. It is important to keep in mind that drinking fluids close to bedtime can be disruptive to our sleep as it might lead to waking during the night to urinate.
Overall, there is evidence to support trying out the Sleepy Girl Mocktail to see if it improves sleep, however there are some key things to remember:
timing: to get the benefits of this drink, avoid having it too close to bed. Aim to have it two hours before your usual bedtime and avoid fluids after this time
consistency: no drink is going to be an immediate cure for poor sleep. However, this recipe could help promote sleep if used strategically (at the right time) and consistently as part of a balanced diet. It may also introduce a calming evening routine that helps your brain relax and signals it’s time for bed
maximum magnesium: be mindful of the amount of magnesium you are consuming. While there are many health benefits to magnesium, the recommended daily maximum amounts are 420mg for adult males and 320mg for adult females. Exceeding the maximum can lead to low blood pressure, respiratory distress, stomach problems, muscle weakness and mood problems
sugar: in some of the TikTok recipes sugar (as flavoured sodas, syrups or lollies) is added to the drink. While this may help hide the taste of the tart cherry juice, the consumption of sugar too close to bed may make it more difficult to get to sleep. And sugar in the evening raises blood sugar levels at a time when our body is not primed to be processing sugar. Long term, this can increase our risk of diabetes
sleep environment: follow good sleep hygiene practices including keeping a consistent bedtime and wake time, a wind-down routine before bed, avoiding electronic device use like phones or laptops in bed, and avoiding bright light in the evening. Bright light works to suppress our melatonin levels in the evening and make us more alert.
Other common evening beverages include herbal tisanes or teas, hot chocolate, or warm milk.
Milk can be especially beneficial for sleep, as it contains the amino acid tryptophan, which can promote melatonin production. Again, it is important to also consider the timing of these drinks and to avoid any caffeine in tea and too much chocolate too close to bedtime, as this can make us more alert rather than sleepy.
Getting enough sleep is crucial to our health and wellbeing. If you have tried multiple strategies to improve your sleep and things are not getting better, it may be time to seek professional advice, such as from a GP.
Charlotte Gupta 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 Jaya Dantas, Deputy Chair, Academic Board; Dean International, Faculty of Health Sciences and Professor of International Health, Curtin University
In recent weeks a series of measles alerts have been issued around Australia, including in New South Wales, Victoria and Queensland, after the identification of a small number of cases in travellers returning from overseas.
Meanwhile, places such as the United States and the United Kingdom have been contending with larger measles outbreaks.
In fact, the World Health Organization reported a 45-fold increase in measles cases in Europe last year, with 42,200 cases recorded in 2023 compared to 941 in 2022.
In South Asia, India and Pakistan have also recently reported outbreaks.
So what’s the risk of a larger outbreak in Australia? Fortunately it’s likely to be quite low – but ensuring we continue to have high rates of vaccination coverage is crucial.
Remind me – what is measles?
Measles is a highly infectious viral disease. It spreads through tiny droplets when an infected person coughs or sneezes. Measles is so contagious that if one infected person comes into contact with ten unvaccinated people, they can infect nine of them.
It can take around ten to 12 days for symptoms to appear after a person has been exposed to the virus. Although measles is characterised by a rash, symptoms are generally cold-like to begin with, including a fever, runny nose, fatigue, and sore or red eyes. The rash, which is not itchy, emerges two or three days later and spreads from the face down the body.
Sometimes measles can lead to secondary infections such as an ear infection, diarrhoea or pneumonia. In rare cases measles can cause encephalitis (inflammation of the brain).
In severe cases measles can lead to hospitalisation and death. We saw this in 2019 in the Pacific Island nation of Samoa. Out of 5,667 infections in a four-month period, 81 died, mostly young children.
Vaccination works
Vaccination is the most effective strategy to protect against measles. Two doses of the MMR vaccine (given to children at 12 months and 18 months in Australia) provide protection against measles, mumps and rubella.
Babies under one year have natural protection from their mums that wears off gradually. Infants six to 11 months can be vaccinated if they will be travelling internationally, but will still need to take a further two doses.
Once vaccinated, the chance of getting measles is very low and you are considered protected for life.
However, about one in 100 people who are vaccinated may still contract measles if they’re exposed to the virus. Although it’s not entirely clear why this happens, the infection in a vaccinated person is generally mild.
Vaccination rates are faltering
Globally, there has been a drop in childhood vaccinations over the course of the COVID pandemic. This is likely due to a range of factors including declining trust in vaccines, misinformation and disruptions to access.
In Europe, the proportion of children who received a first dose of the MMR vaccine dropped from 96% in 2019 to 93% in 2022, and from 93% to 91% for the second dose. This is important because about 95% vaccination coverage is needed to achieve herd immunity against measles. Under this scenario, those who are not vaccinated will be protected because the virus won’t spread.
In the UK, health authorities have expressed alarm at the number of children who have not been vaccinated, with reports up to almost half of children in parts of London have not received both shots.
As of September 2023, the Australian government reported immunisation rates across all childhood vaccinations of 93.26% for one-year-olds, 91.22% for two-year-olds, and 94.04% for five-year-olds. There are slight disparities between different states and territories and among some population groups.
Boosting vaccination coverage
While we appear to be quite close to the herd immunity threshold for measles and not in immediate danger of an outbreak, we still need to be vigilant.
Australia has an excellent outbreak surveillance in place in all states for infectious diseases including measles. But outbreaks are occurring globally, and are liable to take hold when people are unvaccinated or under-vaccinated. So we need to be alert in all states, increase surveillance at international transit points, and continue to increase immunisation coverage, especially among young children. Educating parents and the wider community about the importance of MMR vaccines is key.
It’s never too late to be vaccinated against measles if you missed out as a child, or are unsure if you’ve had two doses. As a single infected traveller can cause an outbreak, vaccination is particularly important if you travel frequently. If you’re unsure of your vaccination status, you can ask your GP or check your own or your children’s record through the Australian Immunisation Register.
If you suspect you or someone in your family is infected it’s important to stay isolated and contact your doctor. They will confirm the infection by referring you for a blood test and possibly a RT-PCR test.
The Australian department of health in collaboration with the Australian Academy of Science has developed a set of useful resources on measles which can assist travellers, the general public and health professionals.
Jaya Dantas is Professor of International Health in the Curtin School of Population Health and leads a program of research in refugee and migrant health. She is currently lead CI on grants funded by Healthway and Lotterwest and CI on a DISER grant. Jaya is the International Health SIG Convenor of the Public Health Association of Australia, has been appointed to the Committee of Women in Global Health, Australia and is on the Editorial Advisory Group of the Medical Journal of Australia. She has lived experience of infectious disease in India and Africa.
A new trend taking over TikTok is targeting vulnerable young men. The “looksmaxxing” phenomenon – to maximise one’s looks – is aimed at young men and boys who want to change their appearance to become more attractive and gain social acceptance.
Unhappy with their appearance, teenage boys and young men scrolling the app are directed to chat rooms where they’re instructed to upload photos in exchange for advice.
It begins with “softmaxxing”. This includes basic hygiene such as teeth brushing and whitening, removal of face and body hair, and “mewing” (tongue exercises that supposedly help tone facial muscles).
This progresses to “hardmaxxing”, which is to improve one’s appearance by any means necessary. More extreme measures include:
steroid use
hair transplants and plastic surgery
using pumps for penis stretching
removing ribs for a sculpted waist
“bone-smashing”, which involves using hammers to break bones in the face to look more masculine
“starvemaxxing”, which encourages extreme dieting and eating disorders
“whitemaxxing”, which involves using creams to present as more White
and “edgemaxxing”, which is described as “withholding climaxing in order to boost testosterone to improve appearance”.
Looksmaxxing may appear harmless, encouraging self-care, exercise and healthy eating. But at its core it has ties to violence, suicide and incels (involuntary celibates) – men who blame women for their struggles with establishing romantic or sexual relationships.
A click away from the incel rabbit hole
Looksmaxxing videos on TikTok have amassed many millions of views.
They pull young boys and men into a dark subculture of incels. Incel and extremist content is suggested to users on multiple platforms including TikTok Instagram and Youtube.
Within minutes, TikTok users may be bombarded with videos that promote suicide and gendered hate speech. One 2021 research report found young YouTube users will sometimes be suggested incel-related videos by YouTube’s algorithm within just five hops when starting from a non incel-related video.
‘Hunter’ versus ‘prey’ eyes
Male model Jordan Barrett has become an envied idol for men and boys following the looksmaxxing trend.
Many looksmaxxers believe having his “hunter eyes” with a positive canthal tilt (the canthal is the angle between the inner and outer corner of the eye), along with pursed lips and hollow cheeks, translates to a dominating stare women can’t possibly resist.
On anonymous incel forums, young men are trained to calculate their “sexual market value”. If they’re deemed below average, they’re bullied, accused of being “bitches who are feminine, weak and submissive, too ugly to live” and told to take their own lives.
The Bateman effect
At the apex of the incel beauty tower is the character Patrick Bateman from the 2000 satire-thriller American Psycho. Bateman is known by incels as a superior “sigma” male: a lone wolf and capitalist hustler who attracts money-hungry women.
In fact, he is shallow, manipulative, misogynistic and extremely violent. This sociopathic ideal resonates with many incels. Other characters idolised by incels include Tyler Durden from Fight Club and Joaquin Phoenix’s Joker.
Incels who feel they are misunderstood and demoralised by women also look to self-proclaimed powerful male influencers with perceived “social status”, such as Andrew Tate, for solace. Alongside messages about fitness, financial gain and self-improvement, Tate is openly misogynistic and suggests it’s socially acceptable to indulge in violent desires against women.
Bateman and incel ideology influenced self-proclaimed incel and mass shooter Elliot Rodger. In 2014, Rodger carried out a deadly mass shooting and stabbing spree in Isla Vista, California, killing six people. He blamed women for his celibacy and wanted to seek revenge by killing them.
Many misogynist incels now hail him as a hero. Some men use his initials claiming they want to “go ER” or “be a hERo”, implying they’re ready to commit mass murder.
A 2023 report from the Australia Strategic Policy Centre highlights concerning incel content online. One user says “women should be stripped of their rights because they still have primitive minds that need to be tamed”. Another says “I might start a political movement. ‘BRING BACK RAPE’ […] ‘WANNA STOP BEING INCEL, TIME TO START RAPING’.”
Researchers point to a link between trends such as looksmaxxing and the broader cultural pressures young people face. They’re growing up in an increasingly precarious world with war, post-pandemic anxiety, environmental degradation, unaffordable living and unstable employment. This is juxtaposed with neoliberal hyper-individualism, hypersexuality and consumer capitalism.
Where young people feel like they can’t control their environment, they may turn to trends such as looksmaxxing as something they can control.
In recent years, former members of the manosphere have started producing their own counter-forums that challenge the beliefs they once held.
Studies highlight young men and boys are beginning to recognise misogynistic ideology and restrictive performances of masculinity. These studies also argue these forums can offer alternative perspectives, with information that emphasises the importance of healthy socialising, consent and respectful relationships.
In the age of TikTok algorithms, schools and communities must do more to educate on masculinity, what it means to be a “man” and the dangers of incel culture, extremism, gendered hate speech and sexual violence.
Celebrities and influencers also have a role to play. Actors such as Mark Ruffalo and Ryan Gosling have helped foster positive ideas about what it means to be a man. Real, positive change can come from instilling the belief that collectively we can create a more equal and empathetic world.
Jamilla Rosdahl 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.
Koalas are one of the world’s most beloved animal species. They serve as symbols for everything from bushfire destruction to Australian tourism to caramel chocolate bars. These tree-dwelling marsupials get far more attention than many other endangered native species. But Australians haven’t always felt this way about our seemingly cuddly teddy-bear lookalikes. Far from it.
Almost a century ago, Queensland announced open season on koalas. Over the next month, well over 600,000 koalas were shot, trapped or poisoned in what has been dubbed “Black August”.
These numbers seem shocking. That figure is about the same as the total number of koalas alive today, using the most generous estimate. Today, the koala is endangered in New South Wales, Queensland and the Australian Capital Territory.
Why did it happen? Back then, koalas were far more plentiful in Queensland. And there was an established tradition of killing Australian marsupials for their pelts, which could be sold on the lucrative international fur market. At least a million koala pelts were sold in the previous 1919 open season.
As attachment to native wildlife has grown and the koala’s numbers have dwindled, we have come to think very differently about this creature.
Even in 1927, the koala kill was a gamble. Other koala-inhabited states had stopped licensed koala kills, alarmed by plummeting numbers caused by the fur trade, deforestation, bushfire, and disease. As early as the 1880s, worried locals shipped koalas to French Island near Melbourne as an insurance policy against fire and disease. Today, as historian Danielle Clode has written, koalas in South Australia and Victoria are largely descended from these island refugees.
So why did Queensland launch its kill? The economy was not doing well, and the Labor government hoped the open season would tackle high unemployment rates, raise revenue and win votes. Warm, waterproof koala fur was prized in Europe and the United States, where it was put to use in coats, gloves and even sleeping bags.
But the open season came as a shock to many. Scientists knew koala populations were already plummeting at the beginning of the twentieth century. And among the public, affection was growing for the koala.
The backlash was swift – and intense. Brisbane’s Anglican Archbishop Gerald Sharp called for protest, and a remarkable range of organisations responded, from city and shire councils to religious groups, women’s organisations, universities, scientific bodies, returned soldiers and children’s scouts groups.
The Brisbane Courier newspaper ran a “Spare the Bear” campaign, publishing hundreds of protests from indignant readers. Angry constituents deluged the acting premier, William Forgan Smith, with letters. Some deplored the cruelty of hunters who left baby koalas attempting to suckle from their dead, skinless mothers. Others focused their anger on the government. One caustic letter writer suggested an “open season for Cabinet Ministers” might be more appropriate.
Critics were united in their disgust at the mass killing of such a “lovable, non-destructive and quite unique little native animal” which posed no threat to human interests. Koala trappers had their masculinity questioned – no “true Bushman” would kill a defenceless animal.
We should be sceptical about one letter writer’s claim that “99% of Queenslanders” opposed the killings. But opposition was powerful and widespread.
The government tried to blame the furious response on out-of-touch city dwellers who did not live in Queensland. In fact, locals dominated the protests. At the time, many rural families kept koalas as beloved pets, which made the thought of killing them even more outrageous.
The backlash against the koala cull was fast – and intense. Garnet Agnew, The Queenslander, September 22nd 1927/State Library of Queensland, CC BY-ND
A question of national identity
When British colonists first came to Australia, many found the native animals freakish and backward. One unimpressed naturalist called koalas “torpid and senseless” and doubted their place in “God’s plan”.
But by the early 1900s, koalas, emus and kangaroos were becoming national symbols. They seemed to represent Australia’s new status as a federated nation, and helped settlers feel connected to the land. There was also a growing awareness that native species needed protection from environmental threats.
Books such as Norman Lindsay’s Magic Pudding (1918) encouraged readers to care for native animals. In 1925, James Barrett published a book begging for the “right use of our flora and fauna” and stressing their endangered state. He titled it Save Australia.
Perhaps because of their baby-like features, koalas were often depicted by authors and illustrators as good-natured and childlike friends. (In reality, they can be quite grumpy and their screams at night startle many campers). This might explain why fewer people protested to protect possums, the furs of which were also sought during open seasons.
The 1927 koala open season would be Australia’s last. After the backlash, the koala was finally afforded lasting protection in Queensland. The acting premier promised to restock areas stripped of native animals. Even so, the government lost the election it had been trying to salvage.
Hundreds of thousands of koalas were killed before the government reversed course. Newspapers reported an estimated 600,000 koalas died due to the “massacre”, but this doesn’t account for koalas whose skins were not sold to dealers or young koalas killed with their parents or who starved without them. The total is likely close to 800,000.
The movement against koala-killing was perhaps the first organised conservationist campaign in Australia. It fostered the creation of wildlife societies, campaigns for national parks and nature studies for school students.
You can see the evidence even today. Sydney man Noel Burnett was so appalled by the killing that he opened his own sanctuary, Koala Park, which is still operating.
And whenever news breaks about koala deaths in blue gum plantations, we respond with outrage.
New threats, old choices
Today, koalas are safe from hunters. They’re so well known we use them as cuddly diplomats, similar to China’s panda diplomacy. But they face new threats – increasingly severe bushfires, disease, and habitat destruction.
Even as we have grown to love koalas, we have not yet been able to save them. It is now entirely possible these beloved national symbols could be facing a preventable extinction.
Ruby Ekkel 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.
China’s football dreams have again suffered a huge blow, with the men’s national team exiting the 2024 Asian Cup in the group stage without scoring a goal.
It’s just the latest embarrassment on the international stage for a team that last qualified for the World Cup more than 20 years ago.
After China’s top leader Xi Jinping declared a decade ago that he wanted the country to become a football superpower, billions of dollars were spent to lure top talent from abroad to China’s domestic football league and to build schools and football fields around the country.
How did the Chinese men’s football team reach this dismal state, and where does it go from here?
Economic short-termism leads to mismanagement and corruption
In response to former leader Deng Xiaoping’s famous 1992 “Southern Tour”, which reinvigorated the country’s economic reform agenda, the Chinese Football Association (CFA) decided to detach from the National Sports Committee and embrace market forces.
Before that, Chinese football operated under the so-called “whole nation system”, relying on the government to allocate resources to teams, including athlete training and funding. Although player salaries weren’t high, the system helped produce the the so-called “golden generation” of Chinese football stars and made China a major contender in Asia.
The establishment of the Chinese Professional Football League in 1994 led local football associations and teams to break away from the central government administration and source their own funding.
This, in turn, ignited the passions of Chinese football fans, who rallied behind local clubs. Football players became celebrities overnight. For instance, among fans of the team Sichuan Quanxing, a saying about two players became popular: “Girls should aspire to marry a hero like Wei Qun and aim to raise a son who follows in the footsteps of Yao Xia.” (嫁人要嫁魏大侠，生儿要生小姚夏).
A Chinese football crowd in Sichuan province in the late 1990s. Ye Xue
Generous investments and sponsorships led to a significant increase in players’ incomes. By 1998, top-division players were earning a minimum annual income of 100,000 yuan (A$18,000), a staggering 20 times more than the average citizen. Some star players earned more than 1 million yuan (A$180,000).
Amid this flourishing environment, from 1996 to 2000, the number of registered youth football players in China surged beyond 600,000. Chinese fans believed the dynamic domestic football scene would propel their national team to greater heights internationally.
However, beneath the surface, the relationship between capital and clubs was unhealthy, as the teams became heavily reliant on funding from parent companies. This laid the groundwork for the eventual downfall of Chinese professional football.
The focus on short-term gains led to much mismanagement and corruption. By the early 2000s, the Super League faced issues such as match-fixing, biased refereeing, waning public interest and a constant reshuffling of club ownership. This pushed some clubs to the brink of dissolution and left players grappling with unemployment.
The aftermath was swift – registered youth football players in China reportedly dropped to a mere 180,000 in 2005 and reached just 7,000 by 2010.
Political opportunism foils another reform attempt
After the Evergrande Group, a massive real estate company, took over the Guangzhou Football Club in 2010, numerous companies entered the football market and spent lavishly on internationally renowned players.
This renewed enthusiasm was believed to be fuelled by the eagerness of local governments and businesses to align with Xi’s personal interest in the sport and his aspirations for the advancement of Chinese football.
In 2015, a key agenda-setting commission in the Communist Party sanctioned a central reform plan to boost the development of football in China. This approval underscored the belief that the “Chinese dream” of achieving the great rejuvenation of the nation was closely tied to the development of football.
This new government attention on football encouraged financial investment (again) to revitalise the Chinese football industry, resulting in a significant surge in salaries and benefits for players.
In 2018, the average annual income for men’s football players reached more than US$1 million per year (A$1.5 million), exceeding the average wage in China by more than 160 times.
While the professional league’s revival didn’t immediately elevate the men’s national team’s performance, it improved the perception of the sport among parents. In 2016, the number of registered youth players under the CFA surged to more than 40,000. The organisation set a target of reaching one million young players by 2020.
However, this prosperity, rooted in political opportunism, proved to be delicate and unsustainable. The economic downturn in China, the introduction of transfer cap, the COVID pandemic and the CFA’s decision to remove corporate references from club names significantly subdued investors’ enthusiasm for football.
Consequently, the Chinese professional league once again faces intractable obstacles. Since 2020, professional clubs have been disbanding annually as investors have withdrawn their funding. The former CFA chairman, Chen Xuyuan, has been charged with bribery, while former national team coach Li Tie has admitted to paying bribes and match-fixing.
All of this will only further undermine the public’s confidence in Chinese football. Parents are again questioning whether to encourage their children to play the sport. There are many signs that youth participation has declined sharply over the past three years.
Chinese football authorities should know now what doesn’t work. The marketisation of football and rampant financial investment driven by political opportunism didn’t work. Flooding the league with foreign stars didn’t work, either.
Perhaps it’s time for the state to take a more prominent role again, possibly even revisiting the “whole-nation system”. Transforming football into a stable and visible career pathway could, at the very least, inspire more Chinese youth to actively engage in the sport.
And this, in turn, could one day create a winning men’s national team, as well.
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.
Young workers under 18 years of age occupy a unique and poorly understood position in Australia’s labour market.
They contribute to crucial industries and the economy, but are uniquely vulnerable. Compared to adults, child workers experience high rates of workplace injuries, bullying and sexual harassment, wage theft and unpredictable hours.
In Victoria alone, franchises currently face hundreds of criminal charges over alleged breaches of child employment laws, including shift lengths, break times and employing children after 9pm.
Protective regulations are insufficient and highly inconsistent across states and territories. Compounding this, few resources are directed to agencies responsible for monitoring the safety and quality of children’s work.
Different types of children’s work
In industrialised countries such as Australia, we use the term “children’s work” rather than “child labour”, which refers to work outside international legal frameworks that is harmful to physical or mental health.
Positive workplace experiences can help develop young people’s identities, career aspirations, financial skills and sense of responsibility.
The most visible child workers are employed in cafes, retail stores and fast-food outlets as apprentices or trainees.
Children also often do paid, informal jobs such as babysitting, dog walking or lawn mowing or work in family businesses such as farms and family-owned restaurants. This work is largely unmonitored, and in many states, is exempt from child employment legislation.
Another emerging form of work is content creation, where children and adolescents with large social media followings earn money by posting sponsored content, or feature on a parent-controlled platform.
The work of “kidfluencers” is not protected under Australian law, and there is no oversight of working hours or of content created, despite potential online harassment, abuse and body-shaming.
Children’s participation in elite sport can also be considered work because training can be extreme and young athletes may be subject to commercial contracts similar to professional athletes. There are currently no Australian or international legal provisions related to the duration and intensity of training regimes.
Finally, children can be self-employed. A child can acquire an ABN on their own behalf from the age of 13. However, a lack of negotiating experience may make them vulnerable to coercion into unfair contracts with brands and talent agencies.
Patterns of work undertaken by children
It is unclear how many children are employed in Australia at any given time.
The Australian Bureau of Statistics (ABS) collects data on employed people aged 15 and over but only reports occupation by the aggregated category of 15-24 years. The last ABS survey on employed children aged 5-14 years was completed almost two decades ago in 2006.
Other Australian surveys estimate labour force status only for people aged 18 to 64, or place limited focus on child employment. Indeed, the International Labour Organisation has lamented the lack of data on child employment in industrialised countries.
What is clear however, is most young Australians do not transition from education or training to work, but instead, combine part-time work and study, often for many years before reaching adulthood and working full-time.
Research suggests children are more likely to work if they are girls and from English-speaking backgrounds and from higher socioeconomic groups.
This may be explained by the gendered and classed preferences of the service industry which includes positions in fashion, retail and cafes where deferential, well-presented and engaging young employees are preferred.
Although there are some regulations restricting work in hazardous jobs, child workers in cafés and restaurants may still be expected to use dangerous equipment such as knives, hot ovens or deep fryers. Even when young people are aware of their health and safety rights, their capacity to redress violations may be limited.
Children want to work to gain skills and experience, enjoy social contact and earn money for discretionary spending. However, an estimated 10% work out of financial necessity, making vital contributions to low-income households.
However, while Australia’s Fair Work Act contains clauses such as ensuring minimum wages for junior employees, it has an express exemption for children under 18, allowing states and territories to self-regulate.
Other laws relevant to children’s work prevent children being employed during school hours or restrict hazardous work such as scaffolding or crane and forklift operation. There are also restrictions on very young children participating in some forms of public entertainment and measures deterring underpayments.
What changes are needed?
Currently, Australian regulation and policies governing work for minors are not fit for purpose, a problem compounded by children’s limited knowledge of relevant rights and obligations.
There is an urgent need to develop new protections and where possible, make the current patchwork of Australian laws relevant to children’s work more uniform. Particular attention should be given to minimum starting ages, participation in risky occupations, working hours relating to age or schooling, and requirements for employers such as working with children checks.
Government and non-government agencies also have a role to protect young workers by setting responsive guidelines, codes and industry standards and implementing strategies to respond to problems.
There is no doubt children in some parts of the world are subjected to dangerous and exploitative practices that would rarely be seen in Australia.
However, our current understanding of the diversity and quality of work experiences of children and adolescents in Australia and other industrialised countries is severely limited by longstanding data deficits. Addressing this problem can establish a platform from which Australia can call on all nations to end hazardous child labour.
The significance and urgency of reforming policy and practice is amplified by profound changes impacting the world of work in which young people participate including the deregulation of trading hours, growth in franchises and work that is increasingly managed via automated technologies.
Child and adolescent labour is integral to the economy, yet their work experiences are complex. Comprehensive reforms will help safeguard the current generation of young workers and ensure a future where their dignity, rights and well-being are respected and protected.
Paula McDonald receives funding from the Australian Research Council.
Call them pet peeves, call them petty grievances, one thing is certain – complaining about everyday irritations feels cathartic. It’s also the premise of American comedy podcast I’ve Had It.
Hosts Jennifer Welch and Angie “Pumps” Sullivan state, tongue in cheek, that their goal is to compartmentalise complaining and be nicer in their day-to-day life. Their complaints range from pedestrian (cordless vacuums, people who clap when a plane lands, long Instagram captions) to political (the state of the education system). Eyebrow-raising complaints include, simply, “pregnant people”.
Since launching in late 2022, I’ve Had It has topped Apple’s podcast charts, become viral on both TikTok and X several times, and has led the hosts to guest-star on programs such as The Today Show. This podcast’s popularity across platforms signals a cultural shift from “toxic positivity” to indulgent pettiness – but a shift away from positivity into fully embracing complaints is not without risk.
Toxic positivity and emotional influencers
As community-minded creatures who want deeply to belong we often mirror others, including on social media, where we adopt phrasing, tone and expressions of emotion.
In the past few years, social media has had a focus on hyper-positivity (think cheery emojis and motivational quotes plastered over sunsets). Some put this “good vibes only” trend down to the pandemic and a desire to avoid painful feelings when ruminating on difficult realities.
However, attempting to convey constant happiness is not only difficult but impossible. Research suggests prescriptive positivity can make us react poorly to unfavourable emotions and is a “goal that backfires” when people view themselves as a failure for feeling unhappy, struggle to handle their feelings, or actively avoid processing them.
The I’ve Had It hosts are in a new wave of content creators we can consider “emotional influencers”, in this case contributing to a new media landscape where complaining is not only embraced but encouraged.
This community aspect of complaining suits podcasting, which fosters intimacy through sharing deeply personal stories “directly into our ear” and “chosen just for you”.
Listening to hosts who feel like our friends, who are friends themselves, having a chat and sharing laughter can make us feel socially fulfilled in a similar way to a video chat or virtual message with a real-life friend.
In I’ve Had It, the hosts and their guests share personal complaints and unfiltered stories in a curated approach for bond-forming. We know, for example, that Jennifer’s husband Josh (a regular guest) has struggled with addiction and that Jennifer has “had it” with family week at his rehab centre. We also know Pumps once tried to relieve constipation with a teaspoon.
Executive producer Kiley has become a regular feature, laughing at the hosts’ antics and acting as an audience surrogate. Fans are involved in the show via voice messages, reviews and as guests themselves.
These elements combine to provide a sense there is potential to become “real life” friends with Jennifer and Pumps: the promotional tagline for their live shows is “make your parasocial friendship real”.
While complaining brings people together, it can also push us apart through ostracisation or rejection. Although the goal of I’ve Had It is to compartmentalise pettiness, this may be easier for the hosts than the listeners.
Jennifer and Pumps are two undeniably affluent, well-connected women who have leveraged their privilege to build a platform about complaining. They also amp-up their on-air personas, with Jennifer admitting, “I’m not as cold-hearted as I play on the podcast”.
Just like prescriptive positivity can become “toxic” when it comes at the expense of other emotions, an overemphasis on grievances can breed negativity, or lead to passsive-aggressive and indirect communication styles.
Some commenters are critical of Jennifer and Pumps’ promotion of negativity. The hosts see this as fodder. They read critical reviews, double-down on complaints and laugh together, cleverly disarming the criticism.
Jennifer and Pumps are even more eager to mock those who take issue with their political views. In response to a reviewer accusation that they’re “both a couple of leftist idiots” the pair laugh. Jennifer states, “I could not agree more […] I say thank you, we are leftist, we are idiots”.
Ultimately, I’ve Had It concedes there is a kind of “idiocy” to pettiness, but there is joy and charm too.
Research suggests happy people can be complainers, as long as they have a good grasp of mindfulness and know when to stop.
If you, admittedly like me, enjoy a good bout of complaining now and again, but want to keep your emotions balanced and your relationships intact, there are a few things the experts recommend. It is important to differentiate when you need to enact “expressive complaining” to blow off steam or when you should complain “instrumentally” with a goal in mind. Talk about how something makes you feel, so others can emphasise with you. And ask your loved ones’ permission to complain before revving up a rant.
What about those who aren’t keen on complaining at all? Well, as far as the hosts and fans of I’ve Had It are concerned, you need not tune in. And, if you do decide to leave a comment decrying their pettiness, be warned it will make for some great content in the next episode.
Marina Deller 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 Julia Powles, Associate Professor of Law and Technology; Director, UWA Tech & Policy Lab, Law School, The University of Western Australia
Parking, and the enormous amount of space we cede to it, is undergoing two revolutions. The first is the rise of parking apps. The second is a reckoning with whether we really need so much parking, and what else we could do with all that space.
In the middle of both revolutions sit drivers. Apps like EasyPark, CellOPark and PayStay promise efficiency through pay-as-you-go parking, adjusted to the minute and location via a smartphone app.
Drivers avoid the fuss of meters and overpaid or overrun tickets, and parking operators get easy-to-monitor databases. Meanwhile, app providers take a handsome per-session fee in the order of 5–12%, depending on the provider.
Councils and campuses have been sold the trick, festooning parking signs with QR codes, “parking is changing” declarations, and discreet signals of outsourced responsibility.
But who is behind these apps? Are we getting a good bargain? And what does it mean for us and our cities?
Rise of the parking apps
Parking apps have been around since the 2000s, with the Australian market picking up strongly in the last five years. Three of the most common apps are EasyPark, CellOPark and PayStay. In New South Wales, there is also a government-backed app, Park’nPay.
EasyPark is a Scandinavian export, now owned by private equity firm Vitruvian Partners. Tactically, EasyPark Australia’s spread through a city can feel like a stack of dominoes. In Perth, the app popped up in a string of outer councils before closing in on the prized centres of Stirling and Perth.
EasyPark is one of several parking app providers in Australia. The Conversation
Encircled by EasyPark’s magenta signs, the service’s most recent adoptee is the University of Western Australia (the author’s home institution). Their competitor CellOPark didn’t get a look in, despite operating in the state for over a decade, including just down the road at Curtin University.
Australian-headquartered CellOPark services over 75% of Australian universities offering a parking app. Its service fee is 6% to EasyPark’s 11.5%, and it integrates directly with university authentication systems.
Terms of the bargain
App providers deserve payment as much as the next business. But parking apps strike deals that go beyond convenience, so we need to assess them fully and transparently.
There are several key considerations. The first – parking apps generate honeypots of detailed information on people and their movements. This presents new privacy costs and risks, as experienced by EasyPark’s European customers when home addresses, phone numbers, emails, scrambled passwords and partial financial information were stolen in a December 2023 hack. (The company claims no parking data was accessed in the breach.)
Those wanting to offer parking apps must determine precisely what data the apps collect, where it goes and what is done with it. They should conduct thorough risk assessments on potential data misuse. Preferably apps should maintain customer and location information encrypted and on-device, reducing the risk of improper third-party access.
Second, we need proper “value for money” assessments to address how parking apps cut into public revenue without significantly reducing costs (parking inspectors still patrol, and digital meters still need maintenance). Councils and campuses must publicly justify the trade-off – money paid to app providers reduces budgets for building public amenities or supporting core business.
In sum, there should be complete, public assessment of the financial, privacy, access and inclusion implications of adopting parking apps. To prevent underhanded dealing, councils and campuses should also enable open competition between apps, as Mosman Council has done in Sydney.
Parking is primal and paradoxical
Beyond data privacy and revenue implications, there is a more fundamental matter. Parking apps have a vested interest in an abundance of parking, it’s their core business.
But one of the most significant economic and environmental revolutions underway in cities is a radical reassessment of what we’ve sacrificed in pursuit of parking.
If we want long-term thinking about how to rescue and reimagine cities, we need to think beyond the apps.
Every driver feels they deserve “rockstar” parking, ideally right at their destination, secure and free – and they’re aggrieved if they can’t have it. Behind the wheel, we assume a universal impatience, intolerance and entitlement. It simmers above the unspoken anxiety of not being able to park.
A quiet street tightly lined with parked cars, like this one in Footscray, Melbourne, is a common sight in many Australian suburbs. doublelee/Shutterstock
Since the 1950s, cities have been defined by their valiant efforts to cater to these base instincts.
We have paved them with carparks, relinquishing wetlands, parklands and foreshores. We have foregone housing and public amenities, all to ensure optimal storage of high-emissions private property.
Superficially, better managing the supply of parking presents a perfect union with parking apps. Real-time management is just the kind of technocratic petri dish where apps love to breed.
Yet scratch the surface and you’ll find the apps are locking in the status quo. They further subordinate people and places to the primacy of parking.
The great paradox is that while parking is both objectively abundant and an exorbitant tax on everyone, no driver is satisfied. So we build more parking, and download more apps, and our cities become less liveable.
Julia Powles’ research centre, the UWA Tech & Policy Lab, receives support from nationally competitive research grants. She was not involved in her employer’s engagement of EasyPark as the University’s parking provider.
Democracy faces challenges around the globe in 2024: at least 64 countries will ask their citizens to elect a government this year.
One of the most keenly observed will be the United Kingdom general election, likely to be held in November. The British Labour party has not won an election since 2010, and has lost the last four elections. At the last election in 2019, it was beaten handsomely.
The 2019 result saw the Conservatives win 365 seats of the 650 seats in the House of Commons, while Labour limped in with 202 seats. At that point, Boris Johnson was an immensely popular political leader, single-handedly delivering the Conservatives a historic win.
Famously, Johnson broke down part of Labour’s “red wall” seats – historically safe Labour seats in parts of Northern England. With Johnson’s emphatic win, and Brexit “done”, one writer predicted a further “decade of conservative dominance”.
Yet, the decade of conservative dominance did not arrive, and on current reading the Conservatives look destined for opposition. The most recent poll confirms Labour’s long-standing 20-point lead over the Conservatives (45%-25%). Since the Brexit Referendum, there has been unprecedented volatility in British politics – not dissimilar to the leadership churn in Australia.
Since the 2016 referendum, the Conservatives have chewed through five different leaders from David Cameron to Rishi Sunak. Each successive leader has been ensnared in a range of crises, from Theresa May’s record common defeats over Brexit, Johnson’s handling of COVID, Sunak’s problems with inflation, and of course, the blitzkrieg politics of shock and incompetence of Liz Truss. The Conservative party has fragmented and factionalised, with the hardline right pushing to veto key policies.
The volatility has led to wider governing instability. Since 2019, there have been five home secretaries, and a remarkable six chancellors (the role of federal treasurer in Australia). This turmoil takes an incalculable toll on effective government, as policy settings continuously change, and the public service are left reeling in the aftermath. For the Johnson government in particular, personal loyalty and factional support trumped appointing competent ministers.
The case of Priti Patel is instructive. She was forced to resign as minister for international development in the May government in 2017 after it emerged she had not been candid about unofficial meetings with Israeli ministers, businesspeople and a lobbyist.
Despite breaching the Ministerial Code of Conduct for allegations of bullying staff, she later became home secretary in Johnson’s government.
The political in-fighting and instability in the Conservative party fuelled volatility, which in turn has lead to voter disaffection. Suella Braverman is the other striking example, initially appointed home secretary under Truss, she also breached the ministerial code by sharing an official document from her personal email address. Sunak later appointed her home secretary, in part to appease the hard right of the party. However, in office, she proved to be a political liability, and was dismissed by Sunak.
The turbulence has been highly damaging for Sunak. Any political leader needs clean air to reset the agenda, but his government has been mired. He aimed to shape his agenda around five key priorities. One year on, one report card suggests he had only achieved one of these goals, and the critical ones (especially on immigration) are “off track”.
Immigration is the political battlefield the Conservatives will hope will help them, along with an improving economy, to help them retain office. The resonances here with Australian politics are all too familiar, and Sunak will be hoping for a repeat of the Liberals’ emphatic “dark victory” at the 2004 election. However, Sunak is widely seen as out of touch with the wider public – his and his wife’s vast wealth has been the subject of much commentary.
This year’s election, then, looks increasingly like one Conservatives will lose – but it remains to be seen how well Keir Starmer’s Labour can win it. For some time, Labour has held a solid 20-point lead over the Tories in the polls, yet to take office, Starmer will need a record 12.7% swing. Starmer’s team will take inspiration from Anthony Albanese’s 2022 win in Australia, a solid election result off the back of a crumbling centre-right government, but hardly an emphatic victory. The lesson there is that you need to win seats, not necessarily the vote share.
The dilemma for Starmer is that he was elected leader in 2020 promising to fulfil much of Jeremy Corbyn’s agenda. However, since that time, he has been seeking to recalibrate and reduce the range of his policy agenda.
Much of his energy has also been used to diminish the influence of the Corbyn-ite left in the party. While there is much long-term ambition in his five “missions”, some are light on detail, and others rely on luck.
Long-term Labour politician and scholar Jon Cruddas’ lament is that Starmer’s vision is detached from Labour’s history. Labour looks set to take office, but it could be off the back of a large scale disaffection from the wider public, with voter turnout likely to decrease for the third election running.
Rob Manwaring 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.
It’s a shock when we realise our parents aren’t managing well at home.
Perhaps the house and garden are looking more chaotic, and Mum or Dad are relying more on snacks than nutritious meals. Maybe their grooming or hygiene has declined markedly, they are socially isolated or not doing the things they used to enjoy. They may be losing weight, have had a fall, aren’t managing their medications correctly, and are at risk of getting scammed.
You’re worried and you want them to be safe and healthy. You’ve tried to talk to them about aged care but been met with swift refusal and an indignant declaration “I don’t need help – everything is fine!” Now what?
Getting help and support at home can help keep Mum or Dad well and comfortable without them needing to move.
Consider drawing up a roster of family and friends visiting to help with shopping, cleaning and outings. You can also use home aged care services – or a combination of both.
Government subsidised home care services provide from one to 13 hours of care a week. You can get more help if you are a veteran or are able to pay privately. You can take advantage of things like rehabilitation, fall risk-reduction programs, personal alarms, stove automatic switch-offs and other technology aimed at increasing safety.
Getting Mum or Dad to accept paid help can be tricky. Many families often have multiple conversations around aged care before a decision is made.
Ideally, the older person feels supported rather than attacked during these conversations.
Some families have a meeting, so everyone is coming together to help. In other families, certain family members or friends might be better placed to have these conversations – perhaps the daughter with the health background, or the auntie or GP who Mum trusts more to provide good advice.
Mum or Dad’s main emotional support person should try to maintain their relationship. It’s OK to get someone else (like the GP, the hospital or an adult child) to play “bad cop”, while a different person (such as the older person’s spouse, or a different adult child) plays “good cop”.
3. Understand the options when help at home isn’t enough
If you have maximised home support and it’s not enough, or if the hospital won’t discharge Mum or Dad without extensive supports, then you may be considering a nursing home (also known as residential aged care in Australia).
Every person has a legal right to choose where we live (unless they have lost capacity to make that decision).
This means families can’t put Mum or Dad into residential aged care against their will. Every person also has the right to choose to take risks. People can choose to continue to live at home, even if it means they might not get help immediately if they fall, or eat poorly. We should respect Mum or Dad’s decisions, even if we disagree with them. Researchers call this “dignity of risk”.
It’s important to understand Mum or Dad’s point of view. Listen to them. Try to figure out what they are feeling, and what they are worried might happen (which might not be rational).
Try to understand what’s really important to their quality of life. Is it the dog, having privacy in their safe space, seeing grandchildren and friends, or something else?
Older people are often understandably concerned about losing independence, losing control, and having strangers in their personal space.
Sometimes families prioritise physical health over psychological wellbeing. But we need to consider both when considering nursing home admission.
Research suggests going into a nursing home temporarily increases loneliness, risk of depression and anxiety, and sense of losing control.
Mum and Dad should be involved in the decision-making process about where they live, and when they might move.
Some families start looking “just in case” as it often takes some time to find the right nursing home and there can be a wait.
After you have your top two or three choices, take Mum or Dad to visit them. If this is not possible, take pictures of the rooms, the public areas in the nursing home, the menu and the activities schedule.
We should give Mum or Dad information about their options and risks so they can make informed (and hopefully better) decisions.
For instance, if they visit a nursing home and the manager says they can go on outings whenever they want, this might dispel a belief they are “locked up”.
Having one or two weeks “respite” in a home may let them try it out before making the big decision about staying permanently. And if they find the place unacceptable, they can try another nursing home instead.
You might need to have multiple conversations about aged care. CGN089/Shutterstock
4. Understand the options if a parent has lost capacity to make decisions
If Mum or Dad have lost capacity to choose where they live, family may be able to make that decision in their best interests.
If it’s not clear whether a person has capacity to make a particular decision, a medical practitioner can assess for that capacity.
Mum or Dad may have appointed an enduring guardian to make decisions about their health and lifestyle decisions when they are not able to.
An enduring guardian can make the decision that the person should live in residential aged care, if the person no longer has the capacity to make that decision themselves.
If Mum or Dad didn’t appoint an enduring guardian, and have lost capacity, then a court or tribunal can appoint that person a private guardian (usually a family member, close friend or unpaid carer).
If no such person is available to act as private guardian, a public official may be appointed as public guardian.
Deal with your own feelings
Families often feel guilt and grief during the decision-making and transition process.
Families need to act in the best interest of Mum or Dad, but also balance other caring responsibilities, financial priorities and their own wellbeing.
Lee-Fay Low has received funding from aged care providers HammondCare, and The Whiddon Group, and collaborated with HammondCare, The Whiddon Group, BaptistCare, Catholic Heatlhcare, Scalabrini Aged Care, Montefiore Aged Care, Chinese Association of Social Services, Multicultural Care, Australian Nursing Home Foundation, Summitcare and Silverchain.
She has also received funding from the NHMRC, MRFF, Dementia Australia, NSW and federal governments.
How long does it take to build a solar or wind farm? It’s a simple question with wide implications. To reach our ambitious 82% renewable energy target by 2030, we have to build many new projects – and start them soon.
In 2022, renewables hit a new high of 36% of Australia’s total electricity production, double that of 2017. That’s good – but there’s a long way to go.
Hitting the national target will require building about 40 wind turbines (7 megawatts) every month, and 22,000 solar panels (500 watt) every day.
At the start of the year, climate minister Chris Bowen called on all levels of Australian government to speed up planning decisions for renewable energy projects.
Reaching our target depends on one little-researched factor: completion time.
Solar and wind projects are built much faster than large fossil-energy plants. But the pre-construction approval process can be complex and slow projects down. In new research, my colleague and I found completion times have fallen significantly in recent years. But we need to go even faster to achieve the 2030 target.
How long does it take to complete renewable energy projects?
Very few studies have explored renewable energy lead times across a group of renewable projects in Australia or elsewhere. We investigated completion times for 170 onshore wind and solar projects completed in Australia between 2000 and 2023.
Using a data set we built, we found welcome news: Australian renewable projects are being built significantly faster.
Taking an onshore wind farm from idea to reality now takes about 53 months. This is substantially faster than wind farms started before 2016, which took more than 88 months. Obtaining pre-construction approvals and planning took up most of that time.
Solar projects now take about 41 months. It used to be double that, at up to 83 months before 2011.
Overall, there has been a decrease in solar lead times. Due to recent regulatory changes, the time taken for the construction and final stages has increased from 18 months to 21 months.
What does it take to build a solar or wind farm?
We break project lead times down into three stages:
1. Pre-construction – the developer designs the project and seeks approvals
2. Building and connecting – the time between starting construction and connecting to the grid to supply energy for the first time
3. Getting commissioned – this final stage involves obtaining a performance standard from the Australian Energy Market Operator. Essentially, a new renewable plant has to be able to perform as expected and pass a series of tests. In our study, this stage starts at the time of first generation and finishes when a site generates at least 80% of its total capacity.
Why can lead times differ?
Passing through all three stages can be smooth – or fraught. While build times are improving, some projects can get stuck in development for years, making it seem harder than it is.
Delays can come from seeking approvals from multiple authorities and difficulties in accessing and connecting to the grid.
As lead times are rarely tracked across a large number of projects, outliers can skew how long we expect things take to complete. These outliers can get a lot of publicity.
Even when lead times are monitored and compared, the raw data isn’t made public. A renewable energy pipeline database should be public and provide historical examples for comparison. It could learn from the Australia and New Zealand Infrastructure Pipeline and should track and compare lead times.
It wasn’t a single policy or process change that drove these faster build times. But the improvements in lead times were driven by faster pre-construction planning and approval stages.
We found clear evidence some states are faster than others. South Australia – Australia’s top renewable state – had notably lower pre-construction lead times for both wind and solar, likely due to streamlined approvals. We found some evidence of fast approvals for solar in Victoria.
Changes in project ownership occurred often (38% of projects) but this had little impact on how long they took to complete.
One issue that has increased lead times in Australia was a 2017 change to how renewables are tested, introduced as a response to the South Australia statewide blackout of 2016. One aspect of this – the controversial “do no harm” system strength assessment – has since been removed.
These changes added an average of three months of delay for projects commencing construction after 2017.
We can go faster still
Even though Australian renewable lead times have shortened significantly since 2010, we should do more. After all, there are now only 71 months until 2030, when Australia’s renewables targets must be met.
Government approvals could be sped up if renewable developers can clearly see the steps to follow and deal with one central agency. All authorities involved should have maximum response times for key stages of the approval process.
Suitable projects located close to existing projects could also be assessed as expansions and not new developments. This would notably streamline the process. Authorities are already allowing developers to do this when approving grid-scale batteries to be installed near solar farms.
Why do we need this data?
If you’re a renewable energy developer, it’s vitally important to know how long it normally takes to get a project up and running. It’s also a key piece of data for investors and policymakers.
That’s why we have provided clear detail of our data collection technique so it can be used by researchers, consultants, and government employees. Our data set is also available for download.
Is it still possible to hit 82% renewable energy by 2030? Yes – but based on our lead-time estimates, only if most projects start their planning phase in the next couple of years.
Thomas Longden receives funding from James Martin Institute for Public Policy. He is the Secretary of the NSW branch of the Economic Society of Australia and a Visiting Fellow at the Institute for Climate, Energy & Disaster Solutions (ICEDS), Australian National University (ANU).
Along with making moaning noises, students might play pornographic audio in class. These behaviours can make students and adults feel uncomfortable, embarrassed, intimidated or humiliated. But it might not always be immediately obvious how it has affected those involved.
For teachers and parents, it can be hard to know what to do.
How often do teens harass other teens in Australia?
Recent findings from the Australian Child Maltreatment Study found adolescents make up a substantial proportion of perpetrators of child sexual abuse and this has increased over time.
Our soon-to-be-published results (as part of the child maltreatment study) suggest rates of peer sexual harassment are also on the rise. Although the maltreatment study did not specifically measure “moaning”, it paints a picture of how common issues like peer harassment and harmful sexual behaviour are in Australia.
This kind of behaviour can sometimes be dismissed as a “joke”. But normal sexual behaviour in children and adolescents only includes behaviours that involve shared decision making and are consensual, mutual, reciprocal and enjoyable.
Sexual behaviours may become problematic when they are developmentally unusual or socially unexpected. Behaviour may be considered normal in some contexts but not others.
Sexual behaviours where there are imbalances of power, a lack of informed consent, use of force or coercion, or even violence, can be considered harmful or abusive.
Moaning at other students or teachers may be either problematic or harmful, depending on the context and circumstances.
Specifically, moaning can be considered a form of sexual harassment, which the Australian Human Rights Commission describes as:
“any unwanted or unwelcome sexual behaviour” that makes someone “feel offended, humiliated or intimidated”.
How do I manage my own reactions?
As a teacher or parent you might experience a range of reactions to observing or hearing about a child moaning at their peers. Some may feel overwhelmed and distressed, while others may brush it off as “no big deal” or kids “not really knowing what they are doing”.
It is important to not overlook these behaviours. Equally, don’t normalise them with comments like “boys will be boys”. Remain calm and try not to demonise children.
So, take a big breath before you react.
If children are making sexual noises at school, do not dismiss it as ‘no big deal’. Katerina Holmes/Pexels, CC BY
What can I do?
Research shows most children and adolescents who engage in offensive, harmful or abusive sexual behaviours, will not go on to be adult sex offenders. With the right support and balanced responses we can prevent it from happening or escalating to more serious behaviours.
Regardless of if you are supporting a child or adolescent who is engaging in or experienced these behaviours, it is important for teachers and parents to:
1. take it seriously: children and adolescents benefit from adults holding them accountable for their actions while also meeting them with care and support. By finding this balance, we safeguard both the child or adolescent engaging in the behaviour, as well as those who are affected
2. understand the problem: these behaviours might happen for a range of reasons. It could be due to a lack of understanding, exposure to pornography, a desire to be accepted by peers, or experiences of abuse and adversity. Each child might need a different response
3. seek support: don’t try and deal with this on your own. Parents can ask their school counsellor or wellbeing unit for help. They can also look at wider resources around young people and sexual behaviour. If teachers are dealing with this in their classrooms, they can seek supervision and guidance from other colleagues. They should also be aware of their obligations to report to police and child protection in cases of child abuse and neglect. Training can also be helpful to learn how to cope with these kinds of behaviours
5. get specialist help: you can also contact an organisation providing specific services for children or adolescents experiencing or displaying sexualised behaviours. Bravehearts in Queensland has national information and a support line. There are also specialised sexual assault services in each state or territory
5. talk to your kids about healthy relationships:research shows comprehensive sex education works to prevent harm to children by teaching healthy relationships. This includes helping them to understand boundaries, the importance of informed consent and addressing “boys will be boys” attitudes
6. prioritise self-care: dealing with these issues can be incredibly confronting and even triggering. Look after yourself. This will help you respond calmly using the support of experts to help children and young people stop offensive, harmful or abusive sexual behaviours. This helps keep everyone safe.
Daryl Higgins receives funding from the Australian Research Council, the National Health and Medical Research Council and a range of government departments, agencies, and service providers, including Bravehearts. He is a Chief Investigator on the Australian Child Maltreatment Study.
Gabrielle works with the Australian Child Maltreatment Study (ACMS) team as part of her PhD Candidature. She has also previously worked for Bravehearts in various roles, including for the Turning Corners program, which provides support to young people who have displayed harmful sexual behaviours.
The coalition government’s approach to Te Tiriti o Waitangi (Treaty of Waitangi) will inevitably set the scene for Waitangi Day next week, with the ACT Party’s Treaty Principles Bill already generating protest and ill will.
But ACT’s initiative, even if ill-conceived, could still open up a widened debate that is long overdue.
The current Treaty “principles” were devised by the Waitangi Tribunal and the courts, and are based on interpretations of both English and Māori texts. ACT’s draft bill would rewrite the principles according to the English text only – or, at best, on a shallow reading of the Māori.
On the other far side of the debate, Māori “decolonialists” would simply abandon the principles, and advocate a return to their interpretation of the Māori text of Te Tiriti.
The decolonialists are correct on two key points: the Māori text is the original text and has the standing in international law; and the principles derived from both texts are problematic.
However, the decolonialists say Māori did not cede sovereignty in Te Tiriti, only the right for the Crown to govern non-Māori. They then revert back to a poorly defined Treaty principle in calling for an “equal partnership” that would constitutionally entrench a Māori parliament deep in the political process.
I argue against such a major constitutional change. If Māori did not explicitly cede sovereignty in 1840, neither did they fully retain it. Sovereignty is already being shared.
Because te Tiriti was between the Crown and iwi and hapū, demands for their greater self-determination can and are being addressed within our current constitution.
Complete government forever
Like ACT’s bill, the decolonial interpretation of Te Tiriti is both shallow and partial. It relies on a narrow legalistic interpretation of the concept of sovereignty, albeit one that is shared by Crown Law and much of the legal establishment.
The alleged lack of cession of sovereignty has been widely recognised by historians and legal experts for many years. Yet the late Hugh Kawharu’s authoritative translation of the key text of Te Tiriti says:
The chiefs […] give absolutely to the Queen of England for ever the complete government over their land.
To a commonsense reader, “complete government for ever” might seem to mean “sovereignty”. However, as Kawhuru pointed out, at the time Māori had no experience or cultural understanding of the concept.
Nonetheless, “complete government” was not without meaning to Māori. Many had knowledge of the government of New South Wales, and some had even visited Britain. Māori accepted the Crown would govern settlers under British law.
Māori also accepted the Crown would “protect” them. In Kawhuru’s translation, that protection was for “the unqualified exercise of their chieftainship over their lands, villages, and treasures”, and over “all ordinary people of New Zealand”, who would have “the same rights and duties of citizenship as the people of England”.
Kawharu also noted that “chieftainship” was based on limited authority and is best understood as “trusteeship”. By implication, then, chieftainship did not mean sovereignty. This idea was simply not in the Māori conceptual toolbox at the time.
An Indigenous people had agreed that an immigrant people could come to their land and be governed, not by Indigenous authorities, but by an immigrant government.
The Indigenous people also agreed that the immigrant government had a duty of protection over them: not just over the authority of their chiefs, but also over the “ordinary people”.
Such protection would require action to prevent tribal warfare and end slavery. It stretches credibility to interpret these agreements as meaning Māori signatories of Te Tiriti retained “absolute sovereignty”.
Why is interpretation of Te Tiriti so subject to debate? One answer is that we are confused by misunderstanding of the concept of “sovereignty”.
It is a word and idea with big connotations. Traditionally it was drawn from the power of monarchies, the authority of which was said to be derived from God. The Crown was held by a single person.
In Māori terms it has been retrospectively interpreted as “mana”, another concept with big emotional resonance. In 2013, when arguing the Ngāpui claim at the Waitangi Tribunal, Crown Law defined sovereignty as meaning “absolute and undivided power to make law”.
But this legal interpretation is incomplete. Making law is but one part of sovereignty, and not necessarily the most important one.
Secular understanding of the concept of sovereignty emerged after disastrous civil wars in England and France, and devastating wars throughout Europe.
In England, a king was executed and a republic temporarily established. There was much fear, uncertainty and insecurity. Secular sovereignty is rooted in a belief in the need for a government that can preserve peace and order and thus protect its citizens.
That government must also be able to defend its borders and protect against foreign incursion. There can be little doubt Māori ceded those protective aspects of sovereignty to the Crown in 1840.
However, in Article Two of Te Tiriti, Māori retained the continuation of chiefly authority over their peoples.
A fragment of Te Tiriti signed at Waitangi in 1840. Wikimedia Commons
Sovereignty of the people
Some legal historians now argue that at the time of the signing of Te Tiriti in 1840, the British Colonial Office understood British sovereignty to be consistent with a pluralistic recognition of persisting Indigenous political and legal authorities. In other words, sovereignty could be shared.
But an abstract, absolute and undivided legal understanding of sovereignty was soon imposed, and Te Tiriti ignored.
Yet during the 20th century the tide turned. Changes in the meaning of sovereignty under democratic government have recovered its pluralist interpretation. Meanwhile, governments’ protective powers have also grown. They have acquired responsibilities to protect people’s health and welfare in ways few would have anticipated in 1840.
Lawyers continue to describe parliament as sovereign or “supreme” and to speak of “the Crown” as a legal entity. In political terms, the Crown is a useful fiction that sums up a much more complex set of phenomena. It is a symbol of sovereignty, not its reality.
In a democracy, sovereignty is sourced in “the people”. Like everyone else, Māori vote in elections and elect MPs and are therefore part of the Crown: the sovereign people.
The authority of “the people” is transferred to representatives who make decisions for them. Those representatives transfer authority to a cabinet and prime minister. Further authority is transferred into the public service – and beyond it.
The key to understanding sovereignty is simply this: there is no one consistent “particular place” where decisions with the force of sovereignty are always made.
Between elections, parliament may be supreme in terms of lawmaking, but parliament is subject to election every three years. In a democracy the people are the source of sovereignty but delegate its power to others. And the extent of popular sovereignty may be limited in particular ways by constitutions or treaties – like Te Tiriti o Waitangi.
Sovereignty is effective where, at any one place or time, a binding decision is made within an entire system of government. Sovereignty cannot be divided, because such division would inevitably result in conflict that would often fail to be resolved.
However, sovereignty can be passed around and shared. Sovereignty is not only found in a prime minister’s office or in cabinet. Sovereignty is found in many places, at different times: or at the same time in many places, when multiple choices are being made by different actors about various different things.
So long as those choices are recognised as decisive at that time, and on that matter, there is no paralysis or divided authority. Although, of course, they may be challenged later by other arms of government, such as in the courts.
Sovereignty is found in the legislation passed by parliament, but also in the way the courts interpret that legislation. It is found in the decisions made by the police to prosecute or not prosecute, and in the ways the police choose to use their powers, because the police are not subject to direct ministerial control.
It is found in the policy and administrative decisions made throughout the machinery of government within the framework of legislation, and in non-governmental organisations that have been delegated to run government programmes.
It is found where any private individual or organisation can use powers made effective by legislation and delegations of authority, such as the ability of a private company to issue a parking fine.
Sovereignty lies behind the ways in which individuals and groups can claim ownership and control of resources, as it is “the Crown” that recognises and protects property rights.
Some claim that elections based on popular sovereignty and majority rule ignore the rights of minorities. But others argue that in a representative democracy minority rule is a bigger problem than majority rule.
Majority votes in elections are modified and constrained by deliberation in parliament, including public submissions that can bring minority concerns to the table, as well as the influential lobbying of special interests.
The interpretation and application of law may be challenged in the courts, where interpretations of Te Tiriti o Waitangi may also be brought to bear.
The institutions of government in Aotearoa New Zealand have evolved since 1840 and in the process have been fundamentally transformed. Because we do not have a formal constitution, our institutions have adapted to changing needs and demands.
If we can more clearly accept, define and clarify its constraints on popular sovereignty, Te Tiriti’s promise that Māori iwi and hapū should govern themselves as much as is possible can be addressed under our existing constitution, and can be accommodated within its liberal democratic principles.
Jack Vowles 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.
Speaking after today’s announcement, co-leader Marama Davidson refused to guarantee she too would not step down before the election but said she would stay on for at least the next 12 months.
Numbering 15 MPs, the team is its largest ever but also largely inexperienced. Among the mix in the co-leadership possibilities is the party’s first MP with a Pasifika whakapapa — Teanau Tuiono.
“It has been the privilege of my lifetime to serve as New Zealand’s Climate Change Minister for the last six years and as Green Party co-leader for nearly nine,” Shaw said in a statement.
“I’m very proud of what the Green Party has achieved over the last eight years.”
He said he would remain in Parliament to support his Members Bill, which would insert a new clause into the Bill of Rights Act stating that everyone has a right to a clean, healthy and sustainable environment.
The bill was introduced to Parliament in December and is yet to have its first reading.
He said the Greens had become party of government, with ministers, for the first time and had made political history by increasing its support at the end of each of our two terms — “a feat no other government support partner had achieved”.
Following Shaw’s exit from Parliament, two-thirds will be fresh-faced first-timers and just Davidson and Julie Anne Genter will have any experience of sitting in opposition.
So who are some potential contenders for the leadership?
Top Green Party leadership contenders . . . Chlöe Swarbrick (from left), Teanau Tuiono and Julie Anne Genter. Images: RNZ/Angus Dreaver, Samuel Rillstone, VNP/Johnny Blades
Chlöe Swarbrick (Auckland Central MP): Ranked third on the party list, the Auckland Central MP appears to be the popular choice.
After losing the mayoral race in 2016, she joined the Green Party.
Winning the Auckland Central seat in 2020 and becoming the country’s youngest MP in 42 years, she has proven her popularity from early on.
She is the first Green MP ever to hold on to a seat for more than one term after winning again in the 2023 elections.
Swarbrick denied leadership ambitions in 2022, when more than 25 percent of delegates at the party’s annual general meeting voted to reopen Shaw’s position.
Still, she commands the highest profile of all Green MPs, regularly registering in preferred prime minister polls ahead of the party’s co-leaders.
If selected for the co-leadership, the 29-year-old would also become the youngest to co-lead the party.
Teanau Tuiono (List MP): Teanau Tuiono (Ngāpuhi and Ngāi Takoto) moved to the fifth ranking on the party’s list after Jan Logie and Eugenie Sage retired in the 2023 elections.
As the party’s candidate Palmerston North, he became a list Member of Parliament — the party’s first MP with Pasifika whakapapa – in the 2020 general elections. And again was re-elected as a list MP in 2023.
Last year, his Restoring Citizenship Removed By Citizenship (Western Samoa) Act 1982 Bill was introduced in Parliament. The bill would restore the right to New Zealand citizenship for people from Western Samoa who were born between 1924 and 1949 — a right promised to them and found owed them by New Zealand’s then highest court.
In December, Tuiono was appointed as the third assistant speaker — the first Green Party MP to become a member on the speaker team.
He recently expressed concern over the lack of Pasifika voices in the government.
Julie Anne Genter (Rongotai MP): The MP for Rongotai currently stands in the fourth rank on the list. Since 2011, she has been elected to each Parliament while on the party’s list.
In 2017, Genter put her name forward for the Mount Albert byelection, but she came in second after Jacinda Ardern.
Genter served as the minister for women, associate minister for health and associate minister for transport from 2017 to 2020.
The Ombudsman twice investigated a letter she sent to then Transport Minister Phil Twyford during pre-consultation on the Let’s Get Wellington Moving indicative package draft Cabinet paper.
National had accused her of convincing Twyford to push back construction of a second Mount Victoria tunnel for at least a decade.
After the next transport minister released the letter in full, Genter said she stood by her comments and that the contents clearly reflected the Green party’s position.
Rules and voting Nominations will open on 31 January and close on 14 February.
Members will attend local meetings and vote, with a new co-leader to be announced on March 10.
Each branch is entitled to a certain number of votes proportionate to the number of members who live in that electorate.
The party’s rules were changed in 2022, removing the requirement for a male co-leader. Instead, members voted to mandate one female leader and one leader of any gender. One leader must also be Māori.
As Davidson meets both the female and Māori criteria, the vacancy can be filled by any Green member, in or out of Parliament.
Green Party co-leaders Marama Davidson and James Shaw . . . . political history in Aotearoa New Zealand. Image: Niva Chittock/RNZ News
Successfully tackling corruption is more than catching greedy public servants and politicians, miscreants and manipulators. It involves government at the highest level advancing a culture of integrity and setting up institutions that celebrate and facilitate good governance – in addition to catching the bad guys.
The latest Corruption Perceptions Index – an annual survey from Transparency International that tracks how corrupt governments are perceived to be – shows Australia still has a way to go on this front.
Denmark, Finland, New Zealand, Norway and Singapore came out on top in the latest survey of 180 countries, while South Sudan, Venezuela, Syria and Somalia were at the bottom.
Australia came in at 14th place with a score of 75 out of 100, which is the same score as last year. Zero is considered highly corrupt, while 100 is very clean.
In 2012, Australia had ranked an impressive seventh in the world with a score of 85. By 2021, however, we had fallen to 18th with a score of 73.
The election of the Albanese government with its commitment to establish a National Anti-Corruption Commission brought a boost to our anti-corruption reputation last year, vaulting us back up to 13th position. But we’ve levelled off in this year’s report.
While Australia is still ranked ahead of countries like Japan, Iceland, the UK, France and the US, it appears those who assess our anti-corruption efforts are still waiting to ensure we are truly turning the corner.
The anti-corruption commission is just the first step
The Corruption Perceptions Index is not a measure of corruption, but is a perceptions index. It is globally used and respected. Using rigorous methodology, the index compiles independent assessments of a country’s efforts to prevent and control corruption by business leaders and experts. It then scores and ranks countries.
Twenty-five years ago, when I was director of the Australian Institute of Criminology, I was berated by a senior official who said, “You have been director of the AIC for five years and crime is still a serious problem in our community. What a hopeless performance. You have failed miserably!”
Turning around a long-term trend is not something that occurs overnight, and of course, there are many factors that contribute to a country’s corruption score.
The National Anti-Corruption Commission, for example, is not the magic bullet that alone will restore Australia’s good standing on the global stage. Its establishment sends a signal that the government is serious about stamping out corruption, but it will take time to see results.
While it’s important to investigate these allegations of wrongdoing, the National Anti-Corruption Commission cannot stop every bad policy or practice. The real challenge is how to make sure those in government do the right thing – not because they are told to, but because they want to, and see it as a mark of ethical and responsive government.
Promoting integrity is bigger than the National Anti-Corruption Commission. It is part of the job of every political and public service leader and manager, and it trickles down to the lowest levels of government. This is where the Australian Public Service Commission can be effective – it has taken on board the challenge of creating a framework to better promote integrity within government.
Some sectors are more prone to corruption than others, such as those that engage in significant procurements, extend discretionary benefits to clients, or issue licences and permits. A mapping exercise could better identify these sectors, along with the associated red flags and risks.
We also need to look at the bigger picture beyond government services. I wrote last year about a blueprint for action emanating from a research team led by A J Brown, an anti-corruption and whistleblowing expert.
The Australian Electoral Commission was listed in the latest Australian Public Service Commission survey as the nation’s most trusted public service. However, there is more the commission should be able to do if the government makes the appropriate policy decisions on election reform.
If trust in the electoral system is eroded, then our democracy is in real trouble and integrity will fly out of the window.
Three areas need attention:
1) We need limits on campaign financing and better regulation of political donations. It is essential for our government’s integrity that a campaign donation is a donation, not a transaction.
2) Donations need to be disclosed in real time. We need to know who is cosying up to the parties as it happens, not months later.
3) We need stronger regulations to monitor truth in political advertising, in particular on social media.
Ranking 14th on the latest Corruption Perceptions Index is pretty good, but it should absolutely not be a reason to be complacent. Australia can do better.
Adam Graycar has received funding from the Australian Research Council. He is a member of Transparency International.
The Victorian government has confirmed duck and quail hunting will continue in the state, albeit with changes which would purportedly ensure the practice “remains safe, sustainable and responsible”.
I, along with my Elder Anthony McKnight, made a submission to the inquiry. To us as Yuin men, Yumburra (black duck) – one of the species being hunted – is a culturally significant species and our tribal totem. Yumburra is Country, we are Country. Harm to Yumburra is harm to us.
Our submission argued against recreational hunting of native birds based on concerns for the ongoing health of duck populations and questions over the ethics of the sport. We acknowledge that not all Traditional Custodians share the same position, but this is ours.
Yumburra the black duck is a Yuin tribal totem. Lyn Harwood
Duck hunting has long been contentious in Victoria. The issue emerges every autumn when the responsible minister is set to announce the details of the shooting season. Each year the same groups come out to wade through the muddy water and thrash out the same bloody arguments.
Advocates of the sport argue it brings money into regional communities and that it has become a tradition (albeit one with a short history in the context of this old land).
But the fact remains that waterfowl populations are in long-term decline. The inquiry heard that habitat destruction is the major contributor to this trend but that hunting was likely to be a small contributing factor.
Duck hunting also causes avoidable injuries to birds. The inquiry heard non-lethal wounding rates of ducks could be as high 6-40%, or 15,700 to 105,000 based on the 2022 season.
I cannot accept such high rates of injury to a significant totem. I hunt for feral deer, species that cause great damage to Country, but I only shoot when I’m confident of a humane kill. And I fish, but I only take fish when I’m comfortable that crayfish and abalone numbers are strong on the reefs where I have swum all of my life.
Legislative Council Select Committee Chair Ryan Batchelor talks about the report’s findings and recommendations.
In allowing duck hunting to continue, the Victorian government is ignoring the main recommendation of the committee.
The government says it will accept the other seven recommendations “in full or in principle”, by changing the rules from 2025. This includes:
making education and training for hunters mandatory
improving compliance and toughening penalties
reducing the risk of wounding
increasing recognition of Traditional Owners’ knowledge of hunting and land management.
In theory this addresses many of the problems. But in practice these measures will be resource-intensive and challenging to implement effectively. Education and compliance activities will need to be well funded and staffed. And hunting-related harm to individual ducks and populations can only be reduced, when it could have been eliminated.
Finally, these measures fail to address the issues that have been driving waterbird populations down over decades.
A disturbing pattern of behaviour
The Victorian government has form in ignoring evidence of the declining health of our environment.
That inquiry found threatened native species are suffering severe declines and are not being holistically protected. It also recommended the Victorian government consider revoking the “unprotection order” that allows dingoes, a threatened native species, to be killed over vast areas of Victorian private and public land.
Three weeks afterward as part of the Independent Expert Panel reviewing the Wildlife Act, I submitted our report to the state government. The government commissioned the review because it was concerned about limitations of the laws following two high-profile cases, including the deliberate mass killing of wedge-tailed eagles, a species acknowledged by many Indigenous Victorians as the Creator.
In the two years since we submitted our report, the Victorian government has not responded nor released our report publicly.
In September last year, the Barengi Gadjin Land Council called for an end to indiscriminate killing of dingoes, a species Indigenous Australians consider kin. Just weeks later, the Victorian government extended the unprotection order for dingoes.
In October 2022 the Victorian Auditor General’s Office released a report titled Protecting Victoria’s Biodiversity. It highlighted flaws in the state environment department’s threatened species protection and the data that informed decision-making.
That report also noted the department received less than half of the funding it requested to meet its own targets. What’s more, the most recent state budget decreased spending on the environment.
So where does this get us? Late last year the Victorian State of the Environment report was quietly tabled in parliament. Among the grim findings were that biodiversity continues to decline. Most biodiversity indicators assessed had deteriorated since 2018. These declines included “waterbird species in the Murray–Darling Basin” and “distribution and abundance of waterbirds in the Murray–Darling Basin”.
Demand more from the Victorian government
The Victorian government’s support for recreational duck hunting is just one in a litany of failures to respond adequately to environment decline and to support the views of Indigenous Victorians.
The world is achingly beautiful, but that beauty is fading. It’s not fading in a faraway place, it’s happening on your doorstep, within your sphere of influence.
We, as Victorians, must accept our responsibility to care for this place that sustains us both physically and spiritually. We must demand that governments acknowledge the environment is being devastated and prioritise policies to reverse the trend. We cannot abdicate this responsibility to Country any longer.
Keith Rankin, trained as an economic historian, is a retired lecturer in Economics and Statistics. He lives in Auckland, New Zealand.
Analysis by Keith Rankin.
Keith Rankin, trained as an economic historian, is a retired lecturer in Economics and Statistics. He lives in Auckland, New Zealand.
Peter Turchin, author of End Times, has spent many years researching cliodynamics. His works in the 2000s include Secular Cycles (2009) and War and Peace and War (2007). A central concept in communicating his research is that of asabiyya, a word gifted to us from the renowned North African philosopher and polymath Ibn Khaldun (1332-1406).
Asabiyya very loosely translates as ‘social capital’, especially in the context of Robert Putnam’s seminal book Bowling Alone (2000). More completely, asabiyya is a concept of collective cohesiveness, which can be used to explain why some national (and often sectarian) groups prevail against the odds in inter-‘national’ conflicts. Turchin’s research context is that of the agrarian empires whose rises and falls represent much of the drama of pre-industrial history; though it is a concept that can be carried over into modern times. Turchin, as a Russian-born American, is able to infuse his writing with many of the great historical dramas which are little-known to anglo-biased readers.
Asabiyya should never be confused with virtue. It represents a kind of collective spirit through which individuals are willing to die for a collective cause. Turchin’s hypothesis is that geopolitical success requires unusually high levels of asabiyya, at least in the earlier stages of empire-building. And he finds that, at least in pre-industrial history, asabiyya is generated on the frontiers; on the meta-ethnicfrontiers where very different cultures meet and collide. Additionally, long-running historical empires display consistent centuries-long patterns of rising and falling asabiyya; patterns which Turchin calls ‘secular cycles’.
On meta-ethnic frontiers, the cultural divide is as much – maybe more – linked to culture (especially religion) than to ethnicity or race. Asabiyya typically develops on both sides of such a frontier, and will be displayed by both attackers and defenders in escalating frontier conflicts. When an offensive (as opposed to defensive; but often also ‘offensive’ in the sense of being brutal) collective prevails, it moves into the non-frontier regions (with lower asabiyya; with more internal division and more inequality) of its meta-ethic adversary. Military life becomes easier for the attacking force, unless those internal divisions in the defending ‘nation’ can be resolved quickly.
The best-known exemplar, at least to western readers, is the rise and fall (and rise and fall, and rise and fall) of the Roman empire (using ’empire’ in a more general sense of regional hegemony rather than the more formal political concept of ‘Empire’). Indeed the disconcerting divisive cracks opening up in our western empire today seem to be leading to a renewed interest in the dynamics of the Roman Empire. Other examples of asabiyya familiar to English-speaking military history buffs will be the Scottish rebuffing of England in the 14th century (think Robert Bruce at Bannockburn), and the English military success in France in the first two-thirds of the Hundred Years War (think the Battle of Agincourt in 1415).
In more recent times, epic struggles include the Napoleonic Wars, the United States Civil War, and the wars of German expansion of the twentieth century. These struggles were epic precisely because both sides had high levels of asabiyya, although asabiyya fluctuations on each side contributed to the many reversals of fortune. Overall, at least in the latter two conflicts, the losers (the Confederacy, and the German military) lost despite having (for the most part of each struggle) higher asabiyya. For the victors of these struggles, asabiyya was lower, but high enough.
The biggest eroders of ‘national’ (using the term loosely, and generally) asabiyya are internal division; especially elitism (and the inequality it provokes) and cultural division. An excellent 1970s’ book which raised these issues of corroding social capital – a book ahead of its time – was The Social Limits to Growth (1976) by Fred Hirsch.
Asabiyya is a concept which can help us to make predictions about the future of the world in (and beyond) the second quarter of the twenty-first century. Too many of the predictions we make (and make policy on) are simple extrapolations; projections which cannot incorporate ‘out-of-left-field’ events, black swans or even grey rhinos. Yet we all know that the next 25 years will include a multiplicity of these.
In War and Peace and War, Peter Turchin notes the low levels of Asabiyya in Palestine in the wake of the dissolution of the Ottoman Empire (after WW1). And we note the much higher levels of asabiyya amongst the Jewish settlers in Palestine from the 1920s; the eventual result being a revolutionary war of terror; a foundational war which brought about the end of the British Mandate and the creation of the nation state of Israel.
We also note now that asabiyya has declined substantially in the west, and is declining in Israel too. And, as Turchin noted even in 2007, asabiyya has become much more potent in Palestine than it was from the 1920s to 1940s. Indeed we see that Palestinians in the West Bank and especially Gaza are facing an existential crisis from the offensive behaviour of their occupying meta-ethnic foe; and that they are not shrinking from it. Palestinians are documenting their own existential struggle – not clamouring at the Philadelphi Corridor to leave as refugees – and will do so to the last man or woman, or until they prevail. I wouldn’t bet against them.
(We may note that the victims of genocide in Rwanda in 1994 prevailed with minimal outside help – except from Rwandan expatriates – and have created one of the most modern nation states in Africa. Asabiyya must surely be a factor in this remarkable but underappreciated outcome.)
Secular Cycles
On the matter of secular cycles, these long cycles work as follows in Peter Turchin’s model. Expansion and/or economic development take place when inequality and division is low, when a nation or sovereign territory has low inequality and a sense of common purpose (thanks in part to a diminished elite); that is when asabiyya is high. The second stage of each cycle is characterised by the creation and expansion of new elites, in the wake of a resurgence of more familiar elites; the struggle between elites and non-elites. The third and final stage is the contraction of elite-space, the struggle for supremacy in a context of economic decline; in this stage of the cycle, non-elites quietly rebuild.
In a ‘typical empire’, the cycle can be expected to repeat perhaps twice; asabiyya reestablishes with the absolute fall of some of the elites and the relative fall of those elites which survive, and a new consolidation and growth phase takes place. During the final set of phases, asabiyya builds up outside the empire which has prevailed for centuries.
We can clearly see that asabiyya was high in the post-war western world, for a mixture of reasons; especially: the need for construction of institutions and infrastructure, the acceptance of decolonisation, and the rivalry of the Cold War (including the ‘space race’). Asabiyya took a substantial hit from the 1960s but especially in the 1980s, with the Vietnam War, the neoliberal coup, the untimely reawakening of the Cold War from the late 1970s, the dissolution of the ‘Communist’ enemy (the so-called ‘end of history’) around 1990, and the primacy of global finance.
One interpretation is that the modern world, at least since the 17th century, has been characterised by an Anglo/American empire. (Before that was a ‘Mediterranean empire’, which had three cycles with different overlapping loci: a Byzantine period, an Islamic period, and a Catholic period culminating in the Spanish and Portuguese global empires.) The first dissolution stage of the Anglo/American empire took place in the years from 1776 to 1848; an ‘age of revolutions’. The second dissolution stage took place in the 1930s and 1940s. The third cycle is proving shorter; the expansionary phase from 1948 until 1974, the elitification phase from 1975 (but not until 1985 in Aotearoa New Zealand, with Rob Muldoon holding back the tide) and what could be the beginnings of a dissolution phase – possibly a final dissolution phase (a black swansong, if you will) – from the 2020s.
*******
Keith Rankin (keith at rankin dot nz), trained as an economic historian, is a retired lecturer in Economics and Statistics. He lives in Auckland, New Zealand.
