Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Adrian Dyer, Associate Professor, Department of Physiology, Monash University

Colourful flowers, and the insects and birds that fly among their dazzling displays, are a joy of nature. But how did early relationships between flower colour and animal pollinators emerge?

In a study published in Proceedings of the Royal Society, we have unravelled this mystery by analysing the visual environments in which the ancestors of today’s bees foraged from flowers.

We measured and analysed the light reflected from today’s flowers, as well as the rocks, soil, sticks, bark and leaves that form their natural backgrounds.

From this data we built computer simulations that recreate the ancient visual environment when the first flowers emerged.

Insect colour vision came before flowers

Today, bees are prolific pollinators of flowering plants, including food crops. Bees use colour vision based on ultraviolet, blue and green sensitive photoreceptors (light-sensing cells) to detect and discriminate the most rewarding flowers. In comparison, most humans perceive colour using blue, green and red sensitive photoreceptors.

When the first flowers evolved during the Mesozoic era, between 252 million and 66 million years ago, the ancestors of bees had to orientate themselves, maintain stable flight, avoid collisions, and find food among natural backgrounds. We suspect their visual systems may have been influenced by evolution to efficiently operate in that environment.

By the time the first flowering plants appeared, bees’ ancestors had already evolved colour vision – and we know it has stuck around throughout the evolutionary history of bees.

So, while bees weren’t initially around, their ancestors were. Flower colours likely evolved the vivid colours we see today to suit this ancient visual system. At the same time, the first bees emerged as the most efficient pollinators.

What colour were flower backgrounds on the ancient Earth?

Australia is an ideal place to collect data on natural background materials that early insects would have seen, as it is a geologically ancient continent.

We collected background samples from across Australia and measured their reflective properties using a tool called a spectrophotometer.

We used this data to create a database of materials that would have been present in the visual environment of flying insects more than 100 million years ago – when the first flowers appeared.

Flower colour evolved in response to bee colour vision

For our collection of natural backgrounds, insect and bird pollinated flowers, we calculated marker points – rapid changes in the intensity of light reflected from a surface, within a small wavelength band.

These marker points identify the key visual features of coloured surfaces, and we can use them for statistical testing of the evolutionary process.

Read more:
Explainer: what is the electromagnetic spectrum?

We then wrote computer simulations to generate possible flower backgrounds. By analysing their marker points, we tested the visibility of today’s flowers against the simulated backgrounds.

Interestingly, we showed that the distribution of marker points on petals from plants pollinated by bees clearly indicates these flowers are “salient” – that is, they stand out as stronger signals from natural backgrounds.

This finding matches with previous studies suggesting that in the Northern Hemisphere and Australia, flowering plants evolved colour signals to facilitate colour perception by bees.

The very first flowers were likely a dull greenish-yellow colour and initially pollinated by flies. However, as the first bees – with their tuned vision systems – started pollinating flowers, the flowers likely evolved new colours to match the bees’ visual capabilities.

The process of natural selection seems to have driven flower colours to stand out from their backgrounds in the eyes of pollinators.

Birds were involved, too

Birds became established as flower visitors millions of years after insect pollination evolved. Bird vision uses four types of colour photoreceptors, and they can see long-wavelength red colours that bees cannot easily process against natural backgrounds.

Our analysis confirmed that bird-pollinated flowers evolved marker points towards longer wavelengths than bee-pollinated flowers. Our new discovery also showed that these flowers systematically differ from natural backgrounds.

As Earth’s climate changes, it is important to consider what might happen to ecosystems and our food production systems in a world without bees. It is vital that we understand how pollination and plant reproduction may be altered.

Our research shows that bees are a major driver of floral evolution. Unless we protect these insects and their habitat, we will lose fundamental and beautiful aspects of life we all enjoy and need.

Read more:
Bees can do so much more than you think – from dancing to being little art critics

Adrian Dyer receives funding from the Alexander von Humboldt Foundation, the Air Force Office of Scientific Research and the Australian Research Council.

Alan Dorin receives or has received funding and/or support from the Australian Research Council, Microsoft, National Geographic Society, AgriFutures Australia, Costa Group, Australian Blueberry Grower’s Association, Sunny Ridge Berries.

Mani Shrestha worked under the German Federal Ministry of Education (BMBF) funded project, Professor Anke Jentsch, Disturbance Ecology Lab, University of Bayreuth, Germany and also wok in the Department of Life Science, National Taiwan University, Taipei, Taiwan

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

– ref. The first flowers evolved before bees – so how did they become so dazzling? – https://theconversation.com/the-first-flowers-evolved-before-bees-so-how-did-they-become-so-dazzling-221218

Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Angelique Nadia Sweetman McInnes, Academic in Financial Planning, CQUniversity Australia

Exchange-traded funds (ETFs) are tradeable units that have different types of investments all bundled by a professional fund manager into a single investment. In the “bundle” you might have shares, bonds, property investment and other types of investments.

That means people who hold ETFs are investing in a diverse collection of assets across various sectors, markets, companies and regions. With a single ETF you can own a piece of multiple companies or bonds.

They are issued by financial services companies, such as Blackrock, Vanguard, and State Street, and managed by professional fund managers. You can buy and sell units in an ETF fund through a stockbroker; many people use an online broker such as CommSec, CMC Markets, eToro or others.

ETFs can be traded on the Australian Securities Exchange (ASX), or another exchange. The market price of an ETF, which is disclosed daily, will typically follow other benchmarks in the market such as the ASX200 or the S&P500.

ETFs have grown very popular over the last two decades, especially among younger investors. But what are the potential benefits and risks of ETFs?

Read more:
What is an ETF? And why is it driving Bitcoin back to record high prices?

What are the potential benefits?

In traditional shares investing, you might research one company and if you believe it will do better, you buy shares in it in the hope its share price rises.

With ETFs, you buy a “bundle” (a number of units) of shares and other securities, that is put together and managed by a professional fund manager. If the market goes up, the value of the ETF should too.

This means investing in ETFs can allow you to spread your risk across a lot of different regions and different markets (such as shares, bonds, property, companies and so on). You aren’t putting all your eggs in one basket. And you can let a professional fund manager worry about selecting the various investments and managing them. You don’t need to be an expert on one particular company or industry.

ETFs also offer flexibility to respond to market trends. They are usually easier to sell quickly than many other types of investments, such as property. This offers freedom to adjust your investment portfolio often and as you like.

Many ETFs that distribute dividends allow the investor to reinvest these dividends automatically to benefit from compound growth over time.

ETFs can also be cost-effective, because the administration is handled by the exchange (such as the ASX).

What are the risks?

Like any investment, ETFs carry risk.

A lot depends on the type of ETF and underlying assets in the “bundle”.

If you aren’t careful, you can end up buying a higher-risk ETF without realising it. So it pays to know what types of investments and in what proportions are in your “bundle” (which is known as your asset allocation).

Asset allocation should be aligned with your risk tolerance. Investors have different tolerances for risk depending on their age, financial goals, investment time horizon, preferences and personal comfort with market volatility. Knowing your risk tolerance helps you manage your emotional reactions during market downturns.

A retiree with a likely low tolerance to taking risks might choose an asset allocation that exposes them to low-risk assets. Someone saving for retirement might have more riskier share investments as they aim to grow their nest egg.

Just like shares, ETFs are subject to market fluctuations. If the market experiences a downturn, then the value of the ETF may decline too (depending on what’s in your ETF). Much of the risk depends on what type of assets the ETFs hold.

And in times of market stress, ETFs may not be as easy as they normally are to convert into cash.

Some financial products bought and sold every day on the market include debts or derivatives (futures and options investments). If your ETFs contain in the “bundle” some debts or derivatives, there is always the risk the party on the other side of a financial transaction may default on their debt obligations.

Growth in Australian exchange-traded funds under the management of a professional ETF manager has been robust in recent years. Market capitalisation stood at A$145.83 billion in October 2023, up 13.55% since October 2022.

But before you dive in, remember that ETFs come with their own risks.

Carefully research and select ETFs that are aligned with your investment goals, preferences, time horizon and risk tolerance or see a professional for advice.

Read more:
FinTok and ‘finfluencers’ are on the rise: 3 tips to assess if their advice has value

Angelique Nadia Sweetman McInnes has received funding from the Accounting and Finance Association of Australia and New Zealand, Central Queensland University. She is a member of Accounting and Finance Association of Australia and New Zealand, the Financial Advice Association of Australia, the Society for Trusts and Estate Planning, the Financial Planning Academic Forum, Cooperative Research Australia, the Association of Computing Machinery, the Health Informatics Knowledge Management Steering Committee, and the Australasian Society for Computers in Learning in Tertiary Education.

– ref. What do I need to know before investing in ETFs and what are the risks? – https://theconversation.com/what-do-i-need-to-know-before-investing-in-etfs-and-what-are-the-risks-218114

Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By David Lowe, Chair in Contemporary History, Deakin University

The decision by several major retailers to stop stocking Australia Day merchandise has become the latest flashpoint in an ongoing debate over whether the nation should be celebrated on January 26.

In response to this decision, Opposition Leader Peter Dutton has called for a boycott of Woolworths and criticised those who oppose Australia Day as “woke CEOs” and “whingers”. But what do the Australian public actually think about January 26?

In 2021, we conducted a study that showed while 60% of Australians continued to support the celebration of Australia Day on January 26, these figures were significantly lower among younger Australians. We predicted support for the day would continue to decline.

We tested this prediction as part of the latest wave of the Deakin Contemporary History survey, undertaken 20 months after our initial survey. In June 2023, we polled a representative, random sample of more than 3,500 Australians.

Given that other, smaller polls, less representative of the Australian population, grab media attention on this question, it is important to note that, as with our earlier survey, data were carefully gathered to represent a cross-section of Australian society. Participants from all Australian states and territories were randomly selected and data were weighted to ensure they reflected the broader Australian adult population. In short, it is the biggest and best data set we have.

In November 2021, we posed the same proposition: we should not celebrate Australia Day on January 26. We also asked other questions about respondents’ attitudes to Australian and world history.

We thought Australians might change their opinions within a 20-month period, given this question was a dynamic one shaped partly by factors such as the looming Voice referendum and public reporting of the destruction of Indigenous heritage.

Read more:
60% of Australians want to keep Australia Day on January 26, but those under 35 disagree

Our findings supported this thinking. In 2021, 60% of those surveyed stated they strongly disagreed or disagreed with the statement. In 2023, 56% of those surveyed strongly disagreed or disagreed with the statement.

The one other survey undertaken in the same manner as ours was in 2019, when 70% of Australians favoured retaining January 26 as Australia Day. The shift in support from 70% in 2019 to 56% in 2023 is very pronounced.

Read more:
New research reveals our complex attitudes to Australia Day

We can conclude that while a small majority of Australians continue to support the celebration of Australia Day on January 26, support for this position is declining.

When we break down the responses by age, it is clear there are significant differences between cohorts on this question. In both surveys, the majority of respondents under 35 agreed we should not celebrate Australia Day on January 26. In 2021, 53% of those under 35 did not want to celebrate on 26 January. In 2023, this figure rose to 57%.

However, agreement that we should not celebrate Australia Day on January 26 increased in every age group. The most significant shift occurred in the 35-54 age group, where agreement with the statement increased from 35% to 42%. Given the short time between surveys, this is a statistically significant shift in public opinion.

Notably, while younger Australians might be leading the push for change, there is a shift towards change in all age groups.

Of course, agreement with this statement may reflect a variety of attitudes to Australia Day. Within the broader debates around January 26, there are those who believe the nation should be celebrated on a different day (represented by the slogan “Change the Date”) and those who believe it is not appropriate to celebrate the nation on any day (reflected in the slogan “Change the Date, We Still Won’t Celebrate”).

Our survey provides evidence that many of those who oppose celebrations on the 26 January are not opposed to national pride or celebration. When we asked respondents whether history should celebrate the nation’s past, 74% of respondents agreed. This suggests a strong desire among many Australians to promote a positive view of Australia.

As with the Australia Day question, however, there were significant differences between the age groups. While 65% of those aged 18-34 answered that history should celebrate the nation, this view increased by age, with 84% of those over 75 agreeing.

These surveys suggest that at this time, only a small – and declining – majority of Australians still support the celebration of Australia Day on January 26. Certainly, it is already inaccurate to argue that this is only the province of the “elite”, the “entitled” or the “woke”.

Further, given that the majority of those under 35 already support changing or abolishing the date, it is highly likely that within the next five to ten years a majority of Australians will hold this view.

There might not be clarity on what we celebrate and when we do it, but the momentum shift away from January 26 is clear. Younger Australians may be leading the push for change but – contrary to what some suggest – there is also a broader and growing discomfort around this much-debated date.

David Lowe receives funding from the Australian Research Council and the Australian Department of Veterans’ Affairs.

Andrew Singleton receives funding from the Australian Research Council.

Joanna Cruickshank receives funding from the Australian Research Council.

– ref. Support for Australia Day celebration on January 26 drops: new research – https://theconversation.com/support-for-australia-day-celebration-on-january-26-drops-new-research-221612

Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Samara Hand, PhD Candidate, UNSW Sydney

In Australia, more than a dozen independent, community-controlled First Nations schools were set up in the 1970s and ‘80s. These schools, some still in operation, offered culturally and linguistically relevant education to First Nations students reflecting Indigenous ways of knowing, being and doing.

Our research projects have explored self-determination in Indigenous community-controlled schools in Australia. We found First Nations-led schools can support self-determination and improve education outcomes for Indigenous young people.

This is also the lesson of a new children’s book In My Blood It Runs by Arrernte and Garuwa man Dujuan Hoosan. The new book shares Dujuan’s experience of navigating an educational system not designed for him, and the benefits of First Nations-controlled education.

Read more:
Albanese is promising ‘truth-telling’ in our Australian education system. Here’s what needs to happen

First Nations controlled schools

Our research found many First Nations-led schools were set up in the 1970s and 1980s, as communities began to fight for appropriate education. This emerged after a long history of insufficient government-mandated education, forced exclusion from school, or forced attendance at missionary and reserve schools.

These included the community-controlled Yipirinya School in Mparntwe. The school was set up by families in the town camps and their European allies. The school developed curriculum in Arrernte, Pitjantjatjara, Western Arrarnte (also known as Western Aranda), Lurijta and Warlpiri, as well as in English and Aboriginal English. Classes were initially taught in the town camps.

Others included the Black Community School in Townsville. The school was set up by Torres Strait Islander land rights campaigners Eddie “Kioki” Mabo, Bonita Mabo and Woiworrung and Yorta Yorta author and activist Burnum Burnum. Another example is the Northland College for Koori kids in Richmond.

The Hughes Report, published in 1988, became the basis of Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander policy for the next decade. It recognised First Nations-controlled schools as an important step in overcoming a long history of educational exclusion. The report called for self-determination in education, the training of First Nations teachers, and developing suitable curricula that embedded Indigenous languages and knowledges.

Bilingual and multilingual schooling began from community-led initatives in First Nations communities. They demonstrated how schools controlled by local communities provide safe and sustaining places for First Nations young people. It was around this time the numbers of First Nations people participating in education increased most dramatically. Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander enrolments in universities increased by 50% in the 1980s, and primary school enrolments increased by 40% in the 1990s.

However, policy began to shift away from this focus in the late 1990s and onwards. Education debates began to emphasise attendance as the key issue, and measuring English-only literacy and numeracy data as a way to gauge the success of education.

Read more:
‘Unreasonable, unjust, oppressive’: how a police program targeted Indigenous kids

Recent developments

Released last year, Dujuan’s story In My Blood it Runs, coauthored with his grandmothers Margaret Anderson and Carol Turner, illustrates how Indigenous children balance their existence in two distinct worlds.

After many years of struggling at school, Dujuan left Mparntwe (Alice Springs) to attend an Indigenous-led Garuwa homeland school on his father’s country in Borroloola, about 1,200km north of Mparntwe. Here, he was able to learn on Country, from Aboriginal teachers, in a nourishing and rewarding environment. He became excited to attend school and his learning journey took off.

First Nations-led non-profit organisation Children’s Ground recently released a report responding to ongoing policy failures in First Nations education. This includes the dismantling of bilingual education.

The report calls for a First Nations-controlled education system and the establishment of an independent governing body to oversee it. The recommendations in the report align with the United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples. This includes a key focus on self-determination in education.

In particular, Article 14 of the Declaration recognises the right of Indigenous peoples to establish and control their own educational systems. This would ensure education is culturally and linguistically relevant to Indigenous peoples.

And the recent release of a report from the Joint Standing Committee on Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Affairs into whether Australia should implement the UN declaration has renewed attention on self-determination.

Similar discussions have been had in Canada for many years. Recent treaties have included provisions to transfer control of education of First Nations students to First Nations groups. Graduation rates have been positively impacted for groups who have obtained authority over education. When First Nations group Mi’kmaq from northeastern Canada initially took control of their education system in 1998 only 30% of their students were graduating from secondary school. According to the most recent annual report, 83% are now graduating.

Where to from here?

We can look to successful examples in Australia, such as Yipirinya School in Mparntwe, the Black Community School, and recent education reforms in Canada, as important lessons on how to support First Nations-controlled education in line with the UN Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples.

We can also look to Dujuan’s story. His book is a call to action to reform education, juvenile justice, child welfare and racist practices.

Dujuan’s story invites us to imagine how we can make school work for First Nations children.

Samara is a co-founder and director at the National Indigenous Youth Education Coalition who partnered with the In My Blood it Runs production team to launch the Learn Our Truth campaign.

Archie Thomas has provided research material to the National Indigenous Youth Education Coalition (NIYEC) and the In My Blood it Runs production team. Archie is a member of the National Tertiary Education Union.

– ref. Community-controlled schools create better education outcomes for First Nations students – https://theconversation.com/community-controlled-schools-create-better-education-outcomes-for-first-nations-students-218594

Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Suman Majumdar, Associate Professor and Chief Health Officer – COVID and Health Emergencies, Burnet Institute

Since it was detected in August 2023, the JN.1 variant of COVID has spread widely. It has become dominant in Australia and around the world, driving the biggest COVID wave seen in many jurisdictions for at least the past year.

The World Health Organization (WHO) classified JN.1 as a “variant of interest” in December 2023 and in January strongly stated COVID was a continuing global health threat causing “far too much” preventable disease with worrying potential for long-term health consequences.

JN.1 is significant. First as a pathogen – it’s a surprisingly new-look version of SARS-CoV-2 (the virus that causes COVID) and is rapidly displacing other circulating strains (omicron XBB).

It’s also significant because of what it says about COVID’s evolution. Normally, SARS-CoV-2 variants look quite similar to what was there before, accumulating just a few mutations at a time that give the virus a meaningful advantage over its parent.

However, occasionally, as was the case when omicron (B.1.1.529) arose two years ago, variants emerge seemingly out of the blue that have markedly different characteristics to what was there before. This has significant implications for disease and transmission.

Until now, it wasn’t clear this “step-change” evolution would happen again, especially given the ongoing success of the steadily evolving omicron variants.

JN.1 is so distinct and causing such a wave of new infections that many are wondering whether the WHO will recognise JN.1 as the next variant of concern with its own Greek letter. In any case, with JN.1 we’ve entered a new phase of the pandemic.

Where did JN.1 come from?

The JN.1 (or BA.2.86.1.1) story begins with the emergence of its parent lineage BA.2.86 around mid 2023, which originated from a much earlier (2022) omicron sub-variant BA.2.

Chronic infections that may linger unresolved for months (if not years, in some people) likely play a role in the emergence of these step-change variants.

In chronically infected people, the virus silently tests and eventually retains many mutations that help it avoid immunity and survive in that person. For BA.2.86, this resulted in more than 30 mutations of the spike protein (a protein on the surface of SARS-CoV-2 that allows it to attach to our cells).

Read more:
COVID is surging in Australia – and only 1 in 5 older adults are up to date with their boosters

The sheer volume of infections occurring globally sets the scene for major viral evolution. SARS-CoV-2 continues to have a very high rate of mutation. Accordingly, JN.1 itself is already mutating and evolving quickly.

How is JN.1 different to other variants?

BA.2.86 and now JN.1 are behaving in a manner that looks unique in laboratory studies in two ways.

The first relates to how the virus evades immunity. JN.1 has inherited more than 30 mutations in its spike protein. It also acquired a new mutation, L455S, which further decreases the ability of antibodies (one part of the immune system’s protective response) to bind to the virus and prevent infection.

The second involves changes to the way JN.1 enters and replicates in our cells. Without delving in to the molecular details, recent high-profile lab-based research from the United States and Europe observed BA.2.86 to enter cells from the lung in a similar way to pre-omicron variants like delta. However, in contrast, preliminary work by Australia’s Kirby Institute using different techniques finds replication characteristics that are aligned better with omicron lineages.

Further research to resolve these different cell entry findings is important because it has implications for where the virus may prefer to replicate in the body, which could affect disease severity and transmission.

Whatever the case, these findings show JN.1 (and SARS-CoV-2 in general) can not only navigate its way around our immune system, but is finding new ways to infect cells and transmit effectively. We need to further study how this plays out in people and how it affects clinical outcomes.

Is JN.1 more severe?

The step-change evolution of BA.2.86, combined with the immune-evading features in JN.1, has given the virus a global growth advantage well beyond the XBB.1-based lineages we faced in 2023.

Despite these features, evidence suggests our adaptive immune system could still recognise and respond to BA.286 and JN.1 effectively. Updated monovalent vaccines, tests and treatments remain effective against JN.1.

There are two elements to “severity”: first if it is more “intrinsically” severe (worse illness with an infection in the absence of any immunity) and second if the virus has greater transmission, causing greater illness and deaths, simply because it infects more people. The latter is certainly the case with JN.1.

Read more:
How long does immunity last after a COVID infection?

What next?

We simply don’t know if this virus is on an evolutionary track to becoming the “next common cold” or not, nor have any idea of what that timeframe might be. While examining the trajectories of four historic coronaviruses could give us a glimpse of where we may be heading, this should be considered as just one possible path. The emergence of JN.1 underlines that we are experiencing a continuing epidemic with COVID and that looks like the way forward for the foreseeable future.

We are now in a new pandemic phase: post-emergency. Yet COVID remains the major infectious disease causing harm globally, from both acute infections and long COVID. At a societal and an individual level we need to re-think the risks of accepting wave after wave of infection.

Altogether, this underscores the importance of comprehensive strategies to reduce COVID transmission and impacts, with the least imposition (such as clean indoor air interventions).

People are advised to continue to take active steps to protect themselves and those around them.

For better pandemic preparedness for emerging threats and an improved response to the current one it is crucial we continue global surveillance. The low representation of low- and middle- income countries is a concerning blind-spot. Intensified research is also crucial.

Suman Majumdar, through the Burnet Institute receives grant funding from the Australian Government via the National Health & Medical Research Council of Australia, the Medical Research Future Fund and DFAT’s Centre for Health Security.

Brendan Crabb and the Institute he leads receives research grant funding from the National Health & Medical Research Council of Australia, the Medical Research Future Fund, DFAT’s Centre for Health Security and other Australian federal and Victorian State Government bodies. He is the Chair of The Australian Global Health Alliance and the Pacific Friends of Global Health, both in an honorary capacity. And he serves on the Board of the Telethon Kids Institute, on advisory committees of mRNA Victoria, the Sanger Institute (UK), the Institute for Health Transformation (at Deakin University), The Brain Cancer Centre (Australia), the WHO Malaria Vaccine Advisory Committee; MALVAC, and is a member of OzSAGE and The John Snow Project, all honorary positions.

Stuart Turville receives funding from NHMRC through an Ideas Grant and MRFF grant related to SARS CoV-2 immunology.

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

– ref. The emergence of JN.1 is an evolutionary ‘step change’ in the COVID pandemic. Why is this significant? – https://theconversation.com/the-emergence-of-jn-1-is-an-evolutionary-step-change-in-the-covid-pandemic-why-is-this-significant-220285

Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Noel D. Preece, Adjunct Asssociate Professor, James Cook University

Flying foxes. Megabats. Fruit bats. Whatever name you choose, these fox-faced creatures are remarkable. Our four species help pollinate eucalyptus trees in eastern Australia, spread the seeds of rainforest trees, and make our summer skies spectacular. They’re some of the largest bats in the world.

The endangered spectacled flying fox (Pteropus conspicillatus), for instance, evolved alongside northern Queensland’s tropical rainforests in the Wet Tropics. They carry rainforest fruits further than any other species – even cassowaries –  and fly up to 100 kilometres a night. Many trees produce fresh pollen and lots of nectar at night to attract our only nocturnal pollinators.

Sadly, flying foxes can evoke fear and loathing. Elsewhere in the Asia-Pacific, six species of flying fox link text have already gone extinct, due to hunting and other human pressure. If Australia’s species go extinct, some of our trees may well go with them.

But as my research shows, we can learn to live alongside these gentle creatures of the night. Here’s how.

Why are flying foxes feared?

Flying foxes are considered a “conflict species”, alongside crocodiles, dingoes, snakes and sharks. That is, our fear of these species can push us to take lethal action against them.

Bats can be an easy target. Consider this headline: “23 bat attacks as warning issued”, which ran in the Cairns Post in October. The story was exaggerated – bats weren’t deliberately attacking people. They were being handled and got spooked. But headlines like this are common.

Our perceptions shape reality. That means it takes some work to overcome ancient fear, even if irrational, such as blood-sucking vampire bats. But there are other concerns: fear of disease or annoyance at bat poo splattering clothes on the line or falling into swimming pools. Then there’s the noise of a thousand squabbling flying foxes in a roost.

In the 1930s, Sir Francis Ratcliffe was contracted by the Commonwealth government to sort out “the problem” of flying foxes – essentially, culling them. This response is, sadly, common. For the past century, we have seen these large bats as pests. We drive them off or kill them en masse.

Electric wires were used to kill many spectacled flying foxes to prevent them eating lychees in the 1990s, until it became illegal. In one infamous case, 18,000 were killed at an orchard south of Cairns. This killing led to a court victory, making it illegal to electrocute flying foxes.

Even now, killing of some species can be permitted under Queensland law, though all culls will become illegal from 2026.

Read more:
Not in my backyard? How to live alongside flying-foxes in urban Australia

The spectacled flying fox is not doing well. The population fell sharply from around 320,000 in 2004 to only 78,000 in 2018. Another 23,000 animals died in Cairns in 2018 during an extreme heat event linked to global warming.

Scientists know how to help the species recover by protecting their camps and food resources, and improving the survival rates of babies.

Unfortunately, there is constant pressure from their human neighbours to “do something” about flying foxes in backyards and parks. This push-back makes it harder for us to help the species recover. Even now, some politicians want them eliminated.

So what can we do?

For many years, authorities attempted to move flying fox camps away from, say, a suburb out to other areas. But dispersal techniques rarely work, cost a lot of money, and usually just move the problem to other backyards.

We now know there are better ways of reducing conflicts between humans and these megabats. One way is to trim back trees near the camps, removing overhanging branches so the bats do not roost over backyards.

If these actions don’t solve the issue, planting shrubs or erecting barrier fences as buffers between flying fox roosts and residents can help.

Lastly, if buffers don’t work, councils or wildlife authorities may attempt to move the camps.

In some areas, state governments and councils provide subsidies to cover swimming pools, pressure-clean paths, and cover crops with nets – which are still cheaper than trying to move the bats away from camps. These types of actions can go a long way towards changing public attitudes.

Of bats and disease

Stories about the value of flying foxes to all of us and our natural environment can help. American conservation scientist Anne Toomey has observed how important it is for scientists to use narratives to help protect species.

Let’s take disease. This crops up a lot. Flying foxes, like other bats, have remarkable immune systems. They can live perfectly happily with viruses which would lay us out for weeks – or worse.

This is a fact. But we often attach a narrative to it – namely, that bats are dangerous. We don’t attach the same narrative to cats, even though these beloved pets often carry toxoplasmosis, a protozoan parasite which can cause disease.

If you are not an experienced bat handler or carer, the story should be this: don’t touch bats you find. Instead, contact bat and wildlife carers such as the Wildlife Rescue Service or, if you’re in Far North Queensland, places like the Tolga Bat Hospital.

Fear of bats intensified 12 years ago, when the Hendra virus infected and killed several vets treating horses with the virus. While bats can carry the virus, they cannot transmit it directly to humans. And better still, we now have a vaccine preventing Hendra virus in horses.

Avoiding other pathogens such as Australian bat lyssavirus is easy – people who have to handle bats get vaccinated against lyssavirus. Wearing protective equipment such as gloves also prevents transmission of diseases.

If we know more about the importance of these majestic night-fliers – and if we find better ways of reducing human-wildlife conflicts – we can still save these creatures. After all, their biggest threat is us.

Read more:
Our laws failed these endangered flying-foxes at every turn. On Saturday, Cairns council will put another nail in the coffin

Noel D. Preece is lead scientist for the national recovery team for the endangered spectacled flying fox, and a non-executive director of Terrain NRM Ltd. He is also a director of a specialist environmental consulting firm, Biome5 Pty Ltd.

– ref. Flying foxes pollinate forests and spread seeds. Here’s how we can make peace with our noisy neighbours – https://theconversation.com/flying-foxes-pollinate-forests-and-spread-seeds-heres-how-we-can-make-peace-with-our-noisy-neighbours-215811

Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Garritt C. Van Dyk, Lecturer in History, University of Newcastle

Locally grown produce fills Australian shops, but almost all of these species were imported, as native as cane toads. Icons of Australian agriculture, like the Big Banana and Big Pineapple, proudly display the regions’ crops, but these are newcomers to the continent.

British ships carrying plants and seeds from around the world arrived in Botany Bay on January 20 1788. This story is overshadowed by convict ships and Royal Navy vessels, but the cargo on board also had a lasting impact. Colonists, convicts and Indigenous Australians were all affected when new species transformed the landscape.

British colonists introduced plants as foreign as the people who carried them. Some of these plants, ranging from bananas to wheat, were food sources, promoting self-sufficiency. Others were attempts to expand the British Empire. Could the new territory be exploited as a tropical plantation?

Botanical imperialism

In the parliamentary debate over destinations for convict transportation, Sir Joseph Banks and James Matra, both members of James Cook’s 1770 expedition, spruiked the potential of the new colony as an extension of the empire.

Matra claimed the colony was “fitted for production” of “sugar-cane, tea, coffee, silk, cotton, indigo and tobacco”.

Banks claimed Botany Bay was an “advantageous” site, with fertile soil – and virtually no inhabitants.

Two plants carried by the First Fleet stand out as examples of botanical imperialism: prickly pear cactus (Opuntia) and sugarcane. Banks, as head of the Royal Society of London, selected these species as experiments to compete with European trade rivals.

His goal was to break a Spanish monopoly in producing fabric dye and to expand British cultivation of sugar outside the West Indies.

Read more:
From Captain Cook to the First Fleet: how Botany Bay was chosen over Africa as a new British penal colony

The secret of the colour scarlet

Prickly pear cactus was imported because it is the preferred food of the cochineal insect. Dried cochineal were crushed to make a vibrant, colourfast scarlet dye for textiles. Discovered in the New World by Spanish colonists, cochineal replaced kermes, another insect that had provided red dye since antiquity.

Cochineal dye was ten times stronger than kermes or vegetable dyes. From cardinals’ capes to British officers’ red coats, cochineal was a product for elite consumers signifying power, wealth and prestige.

New Spain, based in Mexico, had a monopoly on cochineal. Banks wanted to break the stranglehold on the scarlet dye by establishing production in New South Wales. Plants infested with the precious insects were imported from Brazil in 1788.

The project soon failed when the cochineal died, but the cacti survived. Colonists used cacti as natural fences and drought-resistant animal fodder. Without insects to feed on them the plants spread, uncontrolled, to cover more than 60 million acres of eastern Australia by the 1920s. Poison, crushing and fire failed to stop the cactus.

In 1926, a moth species from Argentina was introduced to eradicate the plants, but Opuntia cacti remain an environmental hazard. Trade in the plants, classified as weeds of national significance, is banned in most states.

Read more:
Exposing Australia’s online trade in pest plants – we’ve found thousands of illegal advertisements

The first sugar grown in Australia

Sugarcane was imported from the Cape Colony, now South Africa. Before sugar was planted in Queensland, or even Port Macquarie, in the 19th century, sugar was grown in a small garden plot in Sydney and as an experimental crop on Norfolk Island in 1788.

The Royal Navy targeted Norfolk Island as a source of flax and timber, but it also served as an agricultural laboratory, testing tropical crops like sugar and coffee for Banks.

Philip Gidley King, lieutenant-governor of Norfolk Island, reported in his correspondence with Banks in 1790 that his four canes had multiplied into more than 100 plants. Within a few years he sent samples of sugar, rum and molasses to Sydney. By 1798, the cane was declared “prolific” and Norfolk Island was in “a state of cultivation equal to the West Indies”.

This favourable comparison with the West Indies ignores the use of convict labour in producing sugar, and foreshadows the advent of “blackbirding”, a euphemism for the abduction or coercion of Melanesian workers. Blackbirding was introduced in Queensland canefields in 1863 as penal transportation ended and cheap convict labour became unavailable.

Once essential to the sugar industry, in 1901 Pacific Islanders in Australia were deemed undesirable, competing unfairly with white workers. As part of the White Australia Policy, many were deported under the Pacific Island Labourers Act 1901.

Read more:
From the Caribbean to Queensland: re-examining Australia’s ‘blackbirding’ past and its roots in the global slave trade

The fruits of empire

Reconsidering the impact of alien plant species on Australia gives us additional insight into the process of colonisation.

Transplanting species from around the world to create a new environment was a major endeavour in the 18th century, and a manifestation of imperial power and control.

Indigenous connections with Country were disrupted when foreign botanical landscapes displaced native species. The roots of these early imperial projects are deeply embedded in Australian culture and history, with an enduring legacy.

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

– ref. The botanical imperialism of weeds and crops: how alien plant species on the First Fleet changed Australia – https://theconversation.com/the-botanical-imperialism-of-weeds-and-crops-how-alien-plant-species-on-the-first-fleet-changed-australia-220653

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

The Labor government’s replacement of the Stage 3 tax cuts with its own new package has turned the March 2 Dunkley byelection into a referendum on tax.

And that could become more difficult for the opposition than for Labor, despite Peter Dutton being handed the ammunition of Anthony Albanese breaking his much-repeated promise to deliver the Morrison government’s (already legislated) version.

The vast majority of taxpayers in Dunkley – 87% – will be better off under the government’s tax cuts than they would have been under the Coalition’s Stage 3. This is a strong campaign line for Labor.

That’s the first problem for Dutton. But then, there is the question of the opposition’s response.

The government will move quickly to legislate its package, which is due to start July 1. Does the Coalition vote against that legislation? It wouldn’t be a good look.

And what does it say it would do in the longer term? On Wednesday Deputy Liberal leader Sussan Ley suggested the Coalition would roll back the Labor policy. She later claimed she was verballed – she wasn’t – and retreated from her position. (Ley, who is always anxious to be out in the media, is a loose cannon for the Liberals, often making statements and claims that are counter-productive.)

The opposition presumably will have to reassure voters in Dunkley that it would keep the new tax cuts, which will soon be in people’s pockets.

But what does it say about those taxpayers who will be disadvantaged by the changes, compared to Stage 3? It would be hugely expensive to promise to look after them as well.

The opposition’s most viable position would be to say it would not undo the government’s package, while leaving for later whatever further tax policy it would take to the 2025 election.

Dutton said on Thursday he wanted to look at the detail of the government’s package before announcing the Coalition’s position, while maintaining “the Liberal Party is the party of lower taxes”.

He said Albanese wanted to “try and wedge the Coalition” in Dunkley with its tax package. If Dutton’s not careful, that’s what could happen.

Given the byelection and the fact the parliamentary year starts the week after next, the opposition doesn’t have a lot of time to settle its position. Dutton is pushing hard on the Albanese-is-a-liar line, but how much mileage there is in this for the byelection is uncertain.

Amid all the political noise, what voters take in is limited and selective. Labor is reckoning on the prospect of the tax relief having more cut-through than the row about the PM’s honesty. Some Dunkley voters could think less of Albanese for breaking his word while endorsing his new position because it leaves them better off.

Nevertheless Albanese knows a blow to his integrity is damaging. Selling his tax package at the National Press Club on Thursday, he was cautious with language. The term “broken promise” is ugly. Rather, he’d prefer to say the government has changed its position – given altered economic circumstances and for the greater good.

The opposition argues that people will mark down the tax relief because it is months away, when they need more cost-of-living help now. The government is aware it has to stay on the issue. Albanese on Thursday announced an Australian Competition and Consumer Commission inquiry into supermarket prices. Among other things the inquiry will examine “the difference between the price paid at the farm gate and the prices people pay at the check-out”.

The government asked Treasury around Christmas for advice on cost-of-living relief. With the tax model in hand, it acted quickly this week: the policy went to the expenditure review committee on Monday, then on Tuesday to cabinet, followed by the full ministry, and to caucus on Wednesday.

According to Albanese, decisions were unanimous all through this process. Most caucus members will be positive, given the number of beneficiaries in their seats. At Wednesday’s meeting, there was some questioning about how to sell the message and avoid “them and us” warfare. But those MPs with concerns about the reaction of wealthier workers in their electorates are likely to stay quiet.

The government is using to the hilt the authority of the Treasury to back its case for its recalibrated package, releasing a Treasury paper outlining the department’s advice. The paper argues the new model has broad benefits.

“A redesign of the Stage 3 tax cuts presents other opportunities, including enhancing the participation benefits of the tax cuts, especially for women, and distributing the future impact of bracket creep more evenly. This can be achieved with the same budgetary cost as the Stage 3 tax cuts, ” the paper says.

“The redesign of the Stage 3 tax cuts outlined in this document is estimated to provide cost-of-living relief to 13.6 million taxpayers. This option is broadly revenue neutral, will not add to inflationary pressures and will support labour supply.”

Treasury maintains, for a combination of reasons, that there won’t be an inflationary impact despite acknowledging the redesign “shifts some of the tax cuts to those on lower incomes, who tend to spend more of their additional income than high-income households”, to whom the original model was skewed.

Some economists argue the government’s changes could be inflationary, although likely only marginally.

Despite the broken promise issue, some in Labor believe the tax policy has given the government back the political initiative, after it was on the back foot late last year following the referendum defeat and amid poor polls.

For his part, Dutton is hyping the rhetoric. “I think [Albanese] should call an election and put the changed position to the Australian people and let them be a judge of his character,” he declared on Thursday.

We have that election, in microcosm and in the heart of middle Australia, on March 2. The stakes are high for Albanese, but Dutton is raising them for himself.

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

– ref. Grattan on Friday: Tax debate tricky for Dutton, despite issue of Albanese breaking his word – https://theconversation.com/grattan-on-friday-tax-debate-tricky-for-dutton-despite-issue-of-albanese-breaking-his-word-221982

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

Pioneers in melanoma treatment, professors Georgina Long and Richard Scolyer, are the joint 2024 Australians of the Year.

The Sydney-based professors are the co-directors of Melanoma Institute Australia, and their partnership is credited with saving thousands of lives.

Their work on immunotherapy, which activates the patient’s own immune system to fight the cancer, advanced melanoma from a fatal disease to one that is curable.

Around 18,000 Australians are diagnosed with melanoma each year, with the cancer killing 1,300 people a year. However the chance of death from melanoma has declined rapidly over the past decade.

Scolyer, 57, was diagnosed last year with incurable, stage four brain cancer. He made himself a guinea pig for high-risk treatment for brain cancer and, using the team’s melanoma breakthroughs, became the world’s first brain cancer patient to have combination immunotherapy before surgery.

Scolyer has now exceeded the median time for recurrence. “Still no recurrence of my supposedly incurable #glioblastoma!,” he wrote this week on his Facebook page, My Uncertain Path, where he publicly documents his cancer journey. “Median time to recurrence for all patients is 6 months; I’m now out to 8 months!”

Sculler told ABC’s Australian Story program, “Brain cancer doctors were so worried this would kill me quicker or result in terrible side effects. But so far so good.”

He said for him the medical decision was “not a hard decision to make when you’re faced with certain death. I’m more than happy to be the guinea pig to do this.”

Long told the program, “We’ve taken everything, absolutely every bit of knowledge … that we’ve pioneered in melanoma and we’ve thrown it at Richard’s tumour.”

The pair hope the lessons they’ve learnt from Scolyer’s treatment journey can inform future treatments for melanoma. Their goal is to eventually see the melanoma death toll fall to zero and to impact other cancers as well.

Long and Scolyer have also highlighted the need to design better clinical trials and ensure patient have greater access, as well as embedding more research into clinical care.

The 2024 Senior Australian of the Year, Yalmay Yunupiŋu, is a teacher, linguist and community leader from Yirrkala, Northern Territory.

Young Australian of the Year is Emma Mckeon, described as “the most successful Australian Olympian of all time”. At the 2020 Summer Olympics, she became the first female swimmer and 2nd woman in history to win seven medals in a single Olympics.

The Local Hero of the Year, David Elliott, is the co-founder of the Australian Age of Dinosaurs Museum in Queensland. His discovery of a dinosaur fossil while mustering sheep in 1999 led to the revival of Australia’s palaeontology field and “the creation of a palaeo-tourism industry that put outback Queensland on the map.”

Michelle Grattan ne travaille pas, ne conseille pas, ne possède pas de parts, ne reçoit pas de fonds d’une organisation qui pourrait tirer profit de cet article, et n’a déclaré aucune autre affiliation que son organisme de recherche.

– ref. Melanoma treatment pioneers joint Australians Of The Year – https://theconversation.com/melanoma-treatment-pioneers-joint-australians-of-the-year-221981

Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Steven Sherwood, Professor of Atmospheric Sciences, Climate Change Research Centre, UNSW Sydney

Has Sydney felt more like Cairns lately? You’re not imagining it – millions of Australians up and down the east coast have sweltered through exceptionally high humidity in recent weeks.

It’s due to normal weather patterns combined with a boost from global warming. Right now, the temperature of the sea surface is 1–3°C above normal for this time of year up and down the east coast. It’s particularly hot around the Queensland-New South Wales border and Tasmania’s east coast.

When we have high ocean temperatures, we get more water evaporating. This is taken up by the air, which can hold more moisture when the air is hotter. This moist air is then carried to us by winds, and the sweating begins.

Where does humidity come from?

Humidity is just gaseous water held in the air after evaporating from liquid water or ice. It is called a vapour because it condenses into rain — the more humid, the more likely rain is.

Higher humidity makes us feel hotter in warm weather, and slows the drying of laundry on a clothesline or of plants in the garden.

How do we measure it? Two common ways are the “dew point” and “relative humidity”.

At any given air temperature, there’s a limit to how much vapour the air will retain. Any vapour above this limit will just condense out. But the limit roughly doubles with every 10°C of warming; the dew point is the temperature where the vapour would hit the limit. The less vapour there is in the air, the colder the dew point.

Relative humidity is the ratio of how much vapour the air has compared to the maximum it would retain.

If you’re in Tasmania and see that relative humidity is at 100%, you might be confused. But this measure essentially tracks how “full” the air is. At 100% relative humidity, the dew point matches the actual temperature and no more vapour can be added. If the dew point is 10°C below the actual temperature, relative humidity is about 50%.

How do we measure it? The dew point can be measured directly using a chilled mirror and a laser to detect condensation. More often it’s calculated from measurements of relative humidity and temperature.

Relative humidity determines whether material exposed to the air will moisten or dry out. That’s why relative-humidity sensors use cheap water-absorbing materials (early ones used a strand of human hair!).

What does a changing climate mean for humidity?

The world’s higher ocean temperatures are unambiguously attributable to global warming, largely from the greenhouse gases we have added by burning fossil fuels. To date, more than 90% of all the extra heat thereby trapped has gone into the oceans.

The amount of water vapour over the oceans has increased by roughly 5% since the industrial era began, in lockstep with global warming.

Global warming will continue until we stop it. That means the atmosphere will keep getting more humid.

If the world manages to keep global warming below 2°C, we should avoid the worst health outcomes from more humidity. But even then, we would expect up to another 5% increase in peak water vapour.

Read more:
Two trillion tonnes of greenhouse gases, 25 billion nukes of heat: are we pushing Earth out of the Goldilocks zone?

Right now, we are seeing higher-than-normal temperatures in most of our surrounding oceans, with only a few exceptions. The areas hit hardest by rising humidity are mostly those that are already humid, like Queensland and the Northern Territory.

Although peak dew points are rising, you may be confused to hear average relative humidity is actually falling over land. That’s because the land is warming so fast the average dew points aren’t quite keeping up with temperature, lowering the ratio.

That means, alas, that Australia faces a double whammy: increasing water stress and bushfire risk as well as sweatier summers.

Read more:
Fire regimes around Australia shifted abruptly 20 years ago – and falling humidity is why

Humidity can be very dangerous

Our natural cooling system in hot weather is evaporation of sweat. Sweat forms on your skin, and the air evaporates it, taking the heat with it.

But this only works to a point. When the dew point is higher, our self-cooling methods get less and less effective. How important this is depends on how hot you feel. On a moderate but muggy day, you might feel fine until you need to climb four flights of stairs and end up sweaty and exhausted. On a hotter but less muggy day you’d feel the heat at the outset, but would more easily handle the stairs.

The Bureau of Meteorology uses something called “apparent temperature” to capture the combined effect of temperature and humidity, although this assumes you’re not exerting yourself.

How you feel with more exertion can be captured by other measures, such as the “wet bulb globe temperature” now being used at sporting events such as the Australian Open.

The Bureau has recently begun providing humidity and apparent temperature forecasts as a beta product, which is great for activity planning.

This type of information will become more important as the heat builds. As humidity increases during peak humid heat episodes, it makes heat stress worse and moves us toward our body’s physical limits.

Recent research has shown the combination of humidity and heat could make parts of the planet unlivable if Paris Agreement targets are not met, beginning in India and spreading elsewhere in the tropics – including the Top End of Australia.

We need to prepare now for increasing heat, while doing everything we can to stop the routine burning of fossil fuels as soon as possible to maintain a margin of safety for humanity.

Read more:
How 2023’s record heat worsened droughts, floods and bushfires around the world

Steven Sherwood receives funding from the Australian Research Council

– ref. Yes, it’s getting more humid in summer. Here’s why – https://theconversation.com/yes-its-getting-more-humid-in-summer-heres-why-221748

Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Olivia Evans, Indigenous Research Fellow, Australian National University

There have been calls to change the date of Australia Day/Invasion Day since as far back as 1938.

January 26 marks the day in 1788 when the First Fleet landed in Australia to establish the colony of New South Wales. This is a day of mourning for most Aboriginal people and is seen by many as an inappropriate and offensive day to celebrate as a nation.

This year’s debate around the date has added context of the recent Voice to Parliament referendum. The failure of the Voice referendum demonstrated the reluctance of many Australians to support Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander peoples’ aspirations for social and political change.

Changing the date of Australia Day and the proposed Voice to Parliament have both been calls for Australia to acknowledge Australia’s history and the enduring legacy of colonisation.

Many explanations have been offered for the resounding No vote from non-Indigenous people in the referendum. Our new research to be published later this year, suggests community ignorance and apathy towards Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander issues may lie at the core of the No vote. This could also drive reluctance to change the date of Australia Day.

Read more:
‘Change the date’ debates about January 26 distract from the truth telling Australia needs to do

Our research findings

Following the Voice to Parliament referendum, our team of Indigenous and non-Indigenous researchers conducted a survey with a representative sample of around 2,500 non-Indigenous Australians. This survey addressed how they felt about issues including changing the date of Australia Day, displaying Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander flags in official and public places, and Acknowledgement of Country and Welcome to Country ceremonies.

More than two-thirds (68.6%) of No voters were opposed to changing the date of Australia Day (compared with only 21.6% of Yes voters). No voters were more likely to support the removal of Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander flags and were less supportive of Welcome to and Acknowledgement of Country ceremonies.

Our survey also explored how people’s views on the lasting impacts of colonisation and their knowledge of Australian history, particularly regarding Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander people, shape their support of these issues.

In an initial survey two weeks before the Voice vote, we asked our representative sample of non-Indigenous Australians about their views on a range of issues and perspectives relating to Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander peoples. We also gave them a short quiz on their knowledge of Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander history. This included questions about Australia’s colonial history (such as self-determination policies, native title, and the 1967 referendum).

We found that on average Australians fared poorly on our quiz – with almost three-quarters (72.9%) of our sample failing to correctly answer more than half of our multiple-choice questions correctly.

Interestingly, there was a clear pattern whereby Yes voters had a better knowledge of colonial history.

Knowledge is a large factor in attitudes towards First Nations people

Our research found the more historical knowledge people have, the more strongly they support changing the date of Australia Day, implementing the rest of the Uluru Statement from the Heart, and rejecting calls to remove Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander flags or to ban Acknowledgement of and Welcome to Country.

People who knew more of the nation’s history also tended to agree that colonisation has an ongoing impact on Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander people, and that reparations are needed to address these impacts. Research has also shown people who participate in Invasion Day rallies to protest Australia Day are more likely to acknowledge the ongoing impact of colonisation.

These results suggest knowledge of Australia’s history influenced how people voted in the Voice referendum, and people’s support for changing the date of Australia Day.

Research in the United States has shown that ignorance of racial oppression throughout history is linked to present-day denial of racism. Our research suggests a similar pattern may be evident here in Australia.

So what now?

The Uluru Statement from the Heart calls for a Makarrata Commission to begin the process of Truth Telling about Australia’s history at a national level. Our findings highlight how the establishment of formal truth telling will be vital to the process of education, reconciliation and healing in Australia.

It’s widely acknowledged that school curricula often fall short in addressing historical narratives and experiences of Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander peoples. Many students graduate with a limited understanding of the ongoing impacts of colonisation on Indigenous communities. Efforts to incorporate Indigenous knowledge in education curricula are continuing. However progress is often slow and politically fraught.

Ignorance of the past is not only a product of failed school curricula though, as suggested in historian Henry Reynolds’ old question “why weren’t we told?”. The history is now more available than ever, so there is no excuse for Australians to remain unaware of the past.

Public support to change the date has been steadily growing. Some changes in national celebrations have happened at the local government level. The City of Fremantle was the first in the country not to celebrate Australia Day, and in 2024 is instead focusing on a year-long program of Truth Telling.

Some public institutions have made similar changes, such as radio station Triple J moving its annual Hottest 100 to the fourth weekend of January each year instead of January 26. Federal and state governments, though, have shown little appetite for change.

As Australians come together to protest or celebrate Australia Day this year, it will be a clear reminder that we remain divided over how to commemorate the past.

This country’s colonial history needs to be understood and acknowledged by all Australians if we are to move forward together as a nation.

The authors acknowledge their fellow research team members Michael Platow and Aseel Sahib for their invaluable contributions.

Olivia Evans receives funding from Australian Research Council.

Iain Walker has received funding from the Australian Research Council and the Medical Research Future Fund.

Kate Reynolds receives funding from the Australian Research Council and ACT Government.

Tegan Cruwys receives research funding from the National Health and Medical Research Council and the Australian Research Council

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

– ref. The more you know: people with better understanding of Australia’s colonial history more likely to support moving Australia Day – https://theconversation.com/the-more-you-know-people-with-better-understanding-of-australias-colonial-history-more-likely-to-support-moving-australia-day-220288

Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Steven Hamilton, Visiting Fellow, Tax and Transfer Policy Institute, Crawford School of Public Policy, Australian National University

As debate over the Stage 3 tax cuts has raged, I’ve encountered two common defences of the package as it was, before Anthony Albanese rejigged it.

First, that this is merely the third stage of a program of tax cuts, coming after the earlier two stages that went to low and middle earners.

Former treasurer Peter Costello made that argument this week, saying Stage 3 was

part of a package, and stage one and two have already been delivered – one and two were the parts of the tax cuts directed at low and middle-income earners, and this is the final part.

I, too, have made a version of this point in the past. But it turns out to be completely wrong.

To see why it’s wrong, it’s necessary to go back six years to the 2018-19 budget, when Scott Morrison as treasurer and Malcolm Turnbull as prime minister first announced the three stages, and the 2019-20 budget when Scott Morrison as prime minister and Josh Frydenberg as treasurer refined them.

Doing so reveals some crucial facts. The first is that Stage 1, the so-called low- and middle-income tax offset, was to be merely temporary and would disappear once the other stages were in place.

Read more:
Why do I suddenly owe tax this year? It could be because the Low and Middle Income Tax offset is gone, forever

Stage 2, which took place over a number of years, raised the threshold at which the 19% rate kicks in from A$37,000 to $45,000; raised the threshold at which the 37% rate kicks in from $87,000 to $120,000; and increased a separate so-called low-income tax offset from $445 to $700.

Stage 3, the one scheduled for July 1, consisted of: lowering the 32.5% rate to 30%; eliminating the 37% tax bracket entirely; and raising the threshold at which the 45% rate kicks in from $180,000 to $200,000.

Stage 2 wasn’t progressive, stage 1 didn’t last

How should we assess the fairness of the first two stages? Economists describe a tax system as “progressive” if the share of income paid in tax rises with income.

We then describe a change to a tax system as progressive if it delivers a proportionally greater cut to lower-income recipients, increasing the progressivity of the system.

It works the other way for a regressive tax cut. And we call a change that doesn’t alter the progressivity of a tax system “flat”, meaning it gives the same proportion of income in relief to all taxpayers.

In the below figure, I’ve taken the original Stage 2 and Stage 3 together and plotted the total tax cut as a share of each taxable income, and then done the same thing for Stage 2 and Albanese’s rejigged Stage 3 taken together.

The results are revealing.

Below is the same graph, but for Stage 2 only.

It shows that Stage 2 did not, as Costello and others have claimed, go mostly to low and middle earners. Rather, it went to everyone earning more than $37,000 per year as a roughly equal proportion of their income.

In other words, it was roughly flat. It didn’t alter the progressivity of the tax system much at all.

The original Stage 3 was extremely regressive, as can be seen in the first graph. When combined with Stage 2 it gave the biggest benefits as a share of income to Australians earning $200,000. It gave much less as a share of income to Australians earning $87,000 or less.

The main reason it’s so regressive is the elimination of the 37% tax bracket, which by itself delivers a tax cut of more than $4,000 a year to every person earning more than $180,000 per year.

Read more:
Albanese tax plan will give average earner $1500 tax cut – more than double Morrison’s Stage 3

As it happens, the government’s redesigned package, while not regressive, isn’t particularly progressive. My first graph shows that when combined with Stage 2, it’s broadly flat, which is how it ought to be if the government wanted to leave the progressivity of the tax system unchanged.

It is certainly not a Robin Hood package. It doesn’t take from the rich and give to the poor (except by taking tax cuts high earners thought they were going to get).

Bracket creep doesn’t only hurt high earners

The second common defence of Stage 3 is a vague reference to “bracket creep”, suggesting that if the top threshold had been indexed to inflation since it was last lifted in 2008, it would be more than $250,000 today.

Well, bracket creep (not a helpful term in my view) applies to every taxpayer. And it happens whether or not we move into a higher bracket. That’s because as income climbs, a greater chunk of it gets taxed at at the highest applicable bracket.

There are many ways of addressing bracket creep. The most obvious is to index the thresholds (including the tax-free threshold) so they climb over time in line with incomes.

Yes, it is technically true that had the top threshold been lifted in line with incomes since 2008, it would now exceed $250,000 per year. Yet, relative to the average wage, the top tax bracket doesn’t cut in at a historically low rate. You can see that in the figure below.

2008 turns out to have been a high point for where the top rate cut in. It has fallen since, but it is still nowhere near as low as it was in the decade before the peak.

That doesn’t mean the top threshold isn’t low by international standards or that it wouldn’t be a good idea to raise it.

It’s just that even 16 years of bracket creep hasn’t pushed the top threshold to a historic low. It would probably take another 16 years of bracket creep to do that, and in any event, Albanese’s decision to lift the top threshold from $180,000 to $190,000 will push that time-frame out.

So there you have it: the two most common economic criticisms of the Stage 3 redesign are wrong. Make of it what you will, but it might give you some ammunition to use against your argumentative uncle at the next family barbecue.

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

– ref. The 2 main arguments against redesigning the Stage 3 tax cuts are wrong: here’s why – https://theconversation.com/the-2-main-arguments-against-redesigning-the-stage-3-tax-cuts-are-wrong-heres-why-221975

Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Ben Rich, Senior Lecturer in History and International Relations, Curtin University

The United States is once again enmeshing itself in a rapidly escalating and unpredictable conflict in the Middle East with no clear off ramps.

On numerous occasions in the past two weeks, the US and UK (in a lesser role) have struck Yemeni Houthi militants who have been targeting shipping in the Red Sea and Gulf of Aden in protest at Israeli actions in the current Gaza war.

The Houthis, also known as Ansar Allah (or “supporters of God”), are a militia group that has been at war with the Saudis and the central Yemeni government for most of the last decade. The group emerged in the 1990s from the indigenous Zaydi Shi’a sect of northern Yemen, motivated by grievances about their community’s second-class status in Yemeni society.

They gained particular prominence in the wake of the Arab Spring, which weakened the already-fragile Yemeni state and provided them with an opportunity to seize the majority of the country before the Saudi-led intervention in 2015 attempted to push them back.

Read more:
Why US strikes will only embolden the Houthis, not stop their attacks on ships in the Red Sea

In recent months, the Houthis have positioned themselves as an external champion for the besieged Palestinian population, declaring:

We will continue to prevent Israeli ships or those heading to the occupied Palestinian ports until the aggression and siege on Gaza stops.

It is clear the Houthis’ broader goal is to create uncertainty and risk in global trade. Disrupting business as usual in this way ensures the ongoing war is felt globally, making it impossible for the major players to ignore or downplay, as has been the case in the past.

The depressing history of genocides, massacres and episodes of ethnic cleansing shows us that human rights violations on their own rarely motivate serious collective action. However, hit the international community where it hurts – in the wallet – and it is far more likely to pay attention and seek a negotiated resolution.

In essence, through economic warfare, the Houthis are seeking to elevate a moral crisis to a level that can’t be ignored.

Why the US is intervening

At a tactical level, the US reprisals against the Houthis are predictable and make sense. As the pre-eminent global naval power and guarantor of freedom of navigation, the US has long sought to ensure the free flow of oceanic trade.

Indeed, it has gained much experience protecting shipping in the region against a variety of state and non-state threats during times of international crisis and instability over the years.

As such, the US sees itself as obligated to respond against Houthi militancy threatening global shipping. To do anything else would be seen as abdicating its fundamental function in the liberal economic order, creating even further risk and uncertainty and threatening economic prosperity.

But as much as the US would like portray itself as an impartial force for stability in its response to the Houthi attacks, its overt commitment to effectively unlimited, no-strings-attached support for Israel’s war in Gaza has only emboldened the Israeli Defence Forces in their actions.

Such support goes far beyond running diplomatic cover for Israel in the United Nations. According to a Bloomberg News report, the Pentagon is actively restocking the munitions Israel is using against Palestinians in the war.

Given the Houthis’ stated aims, one cannot separate Gaza from the Red Sea. The latter cannot be truly addressed without resolving the former, and a major component of resolving the war requires far stronger US pressure on Israel.

Read more:
Where do Israel and Hamas get their weapons?

Why US pressure on Israel would have more impact

In this regard, US claims it is powerless to rein in Israel seem far from convincing when one examines the power dynamics between the two countries.

As a middle power in the wider US-centric liberal international order, Israel certainly exercises more autonomy and agency than a simple client state.

At the same time, however, history has shown us assertive US presidents are more than capable of reining in the excesses of Tel Aviv in short order.

What is lacking at this moment is not influence, but willpower, especially on the part of the current president, Joe Biden. Biden has a demonstrated history of exceptional support for Israel beyond that of his own party. This includes in his former role as vice president under Barack Obama.

For their part, the Houthis are battle-hardened by nearly a decade of war with the Saudis. They have made something of an art of withstanding precision strikes using US-made munitions and guided by US-supplied intelligence.

As such, it is unlikely the current US strikes will halt the Houthis’ attacks on shipping vessels. The Houthis are also highly likely to continue to evolve their own tactics to account for US weapon superiority. Given this, they have significant incentive to escalate their attacks in defiance of US actions.

Read more:
Why US strikes will only embolden the Houthis, not stop their attacks on ships in the Red Sea

The Gaza war has already claimed the lives of more than 25,000 Palestinians – primarily civilians. The bombing has been more destructive in its first 100 days than the razing of the Syrian city of Aleppo by the Assad regime from 2012–16, according to experts in mapping wartime damage.

As the conflict continues unabated and outrage continues to grow, it is likely the Houthis or other militant actors or even states will ramp up efforts to intervene, especially through unconventional methods.

In such a context, the US and UK strikes against the Houthis increasingly risk producing unintended consequences and spiralling out of control towards an even more complex and broader regional crisis.

Ben Rich receives funding from the US State Department for work around preventing violent extremism available at https://www.curtincern.com/educational-resources

– ref. The US is getting embroiled in yet another Middle East conflict. It should increase pressure on Israel instead – https://theconversation.com/the-us-is-getting-embroiled-in-yet-another-middle-east-conflict-it-should-increase-pressure-on-israel-instead-221222

Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Richard Baka, Honorary Professor, School of Kinesiology, Western University, London, Canada; Adjunct Fellow, Olympic Scholar and Co-Director of the Olympic and Paralympic Research Centre, Institute for Health and Sport, Victoria University

2024 is a leap year, and in the world of international sport it means something very exciting: it’s an Olympic year. For Australians, there is growing excitement about the 2032 games to be held in Brisbane. And between those four-yearly stints, there is also the winter Olympics to keep us entertained.

So let’s take a look at what’s coming up, and what it might mean for Australian athletes and audiences.

The 2024 Paris Olympics

A good example of the growing excitement around this year’s games is the new Australian Olympic television broadcaster, Channel 9, bombarding us with promotional commercials.

With Australia finishing sixth overall at the 2020/21 Tokyo Olympics with 46 medals, there is optimism for another top 10 finish in Paris this year.

2032 Brisbane summer Olympics

Organising a global sporting event such as the Olympics is a massive logistical exercise, so it’s no surprise the organising committee for the Brisbane games has already been set up, despite the games being more than eight years away.

There is growing reluctance for countries to take on the huge financial burden of hosting events like the Olympics. As a result, the planning for 2032 is in full swing with a goal that these games not “break the bank” with expensive facilities, staying within budget and also delivering key legacy goals well after the games finish.

However, some recent disagreement within the infrastructure planning process has led the Queensland state government to instigate a review of the master plan and what it says are the “over the top costs”. These are estimated at $2.7 billion to refurbish the ‘Gabba as the main Olympic stadium, and a new $2.5 billion Brisbane Arena.

With plenty of time to sort out this and other issues, there is confidence that Brisbane will continue the Australian tradition of being a great Olympic host.

2024 Youth Winter Olympics

Starting in 2010, the Youth Olympic Games (summer and winter) for athletes aged from 15 to 18 were added to the Olympic schedule. The fourth Youth Winter Olympics are being held in Gangwon, South Korea, from January 19 to February 1 2024. With over 70 nations, 81 events and 1,900 athletes participating, this youth-based event is growing in stature and popularity.

Australia has its largest representation ever, with a record 47 athletes competing in eight disciplines, including the first all-Australian ice hockey team. In the previous three youth games, Australia has won seven medals. We can expect more in Korea.

Interestingly, there will be significant media coverage on 9Now, Stan Sport and the AOC website as well as Australian Olympic team social channels, highlighting how this multi-sport event has grown in popularity.

100th anniversary of the first Winter Olympics

Of special Olympic significance is that January 25 marks the 100th anniversary of the Winter Olympics. The first Winter Olympics were held in Chamonix, France, in 1924. This rather modest event, held over 11 days, had 258 athletes from six participating nations competing in 16 different events in five sports.

While initially a poor cousin of the summer games, the winter edition gradually expanded and improved its profile. At the 2022 Beijing games, the numbers expanded to 2,092 athletes, seven sports, 15 disciplines, 109 events and 91 nations, including those with little or no history in winter sports.

This growth resulted for several reasons: adding in lots of new sports and events, pressure from the X Games and its appeal to a youth audience, adding sports that are television-friendly, promoting gender balance, increased corporate and sponsorship funding and, starting in 1994, putting the winter games on a new cycle of even years between the summer games.

Read more:
Everyone’s a winner with new events at the Winter Games

Australia’s Winter Olympics journey

Australia is not the first nation that springs to mind when considering the Winter Olympics due to its warm climate. We always perform extremely well at the summer games, ranking 14th with 566 medals in 2021. While we will likely never replicate this placing in the winter games, there has been significant improvement.

Australia was not represented at the 1924 Winter Olympics 100 years ago. In 1936, it participated in its first Winter Olympics in Garmisch-Partenkirchen, Germany, with just one competitor, speed skater Kenneth Kennedy.

However, after a sluggish and inconsistent history in the winter games, we won our first medal in 1994. Since then, we have won medals at every games and our world rank has risen to 25th with 19 medals.

Our winter Olympians have produced a number of exciting performances, with several athletes winning two medals. These include Alisa Camplin and Lydia Lassila in aerial skiing, Dale Begg-Smith in mogul skiing, Torah Bright in the half-pipe and Scotty James in snowboarding.

Read more:
Better late than never: Australia’s Winter Olympic medallists

By far our most famous medallist is Steven Bradbury, who won a bronze medal in team speed skating in 1994 and then our first ever gold medal in the same sport at the 2002 Salt Lake City games. He won in unconventional fashion, shooting forward from the back of the pack to win after all the leaders collided and fell.

His triumph, dubbed the “accidental gold”, became legendary and part of Olympic lore. It also entered the vernacular: “to do a Bradbury” means to win in an unusual and unexpected circumstance. Bradbury’s achievements have been recognised with an ice rink named after him at the O’Brien Icehouse in Melbourne.

To support its athletes, Australia has made investments in winter sports infrastructure and athlete development.

The Olympic Winter Institute of Australia was set up in 1998, funded by the Australian Olympic Committee and the Australian Sports Commission. It has been a major reason for our increased Olympic success. The purpose of this investment is to develop talent and increase the nation’s ability to compete in the Winter Olympics.

In addition, the media, the corporate sector and the public are now also on board the winter Olympic bandwagon.

Read more:
Advance Australia: five steps to Winter Games success

The next winter games in Milan and Cortina d’Ampezzo in 2026 represent a good chance for our best-ever medal haul.

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

– ref. 2024 is a huge year for the Olympics – and it’s not just about the Paris games – https://theconversation.com/2024-is-a-huge-year-for-the-olympics-and-its-not-just-about-the-paris-games-221405

Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Adrienne Gordon, Neonatal Staff Specialist, NHMRC Early Career Research Fellow, University of Sydney

As we face the continued effects of climate change, the frequency and intensity of heatwaves is increasing. We’ve recently learnt 2023 was the hottest year on record.

Extreme heat presents a major public health threat. It can be especially dangerous for people who are socioeconomically disadvantaged, and people who have reduced physiological ability to adapt, such as older adults and those with certain medical conditions.

Pregnant people are also more vulnerable, with evidence showing exposure to extreme heat is associated with increased risks for the baby.

Read more:
Health Check: can stress during pregnancy harm my baby?

What are the risks?

Globally one stillbirth occurs every 16 seconds and 15 million babies are born preterm (before 37 complete weeks of pregnancy) every year. Complications of preterm birth are the leading cause of death and disability for children aged under five years old.

A systematic review which included studies from 27 countries showed that for every 1˚C increase in ambient (environmental) temperature, the risk for preterm birth and stillbirth increased by 5%.

The risk of stillbirth and preterm birth attributed to heat is greater in lower- and middle-income countries where women are often employed in agriculture or other manual labour positions, and their work continues until the end of their pregnancy.

Within high-income countries the risk is greater in disadvantaged populations.

Recent Australian research has also suggested a mother’s exposure to extreme temperatures may influence a baby’s birth weight.

Read more:
5 expert tips on how to look after your baby in a heatwave

Pregnant people are thought to be at increased risk of heat stress due to changes in their body’s capacity to regulate temperature. These changes include:

• increased body mass and body fat which reduces a pregnant women’s ability to dissipate heat to the environment

• decreased ratio of surface area to body mass can make sweating less effective

• additional energy produced from the baby increases the mother’s core body temperature.

The effects on the body and baby

When the ambient environment is hotter than the pregnant woman’s core body temperature (that is when the air temperature reaches around 38 degrees or above) blood flow is diverted to the skin to allow sweating. This can decrease blood flow to the placenta, meaning less nutrition and oxygen to the baby.

If dehydration occurs, hormonal changes can include the release of prostaglandin and oxytocin, potentially triggering labour prematurely.

Heat exposure can also release heat-shock protein (a family of proteins produced by cells secondary to stressful conditions) which can damage placental cells and placental function. This can contribute to poor fetal nutrition, leading to low birth weight.

However, actual thermo-physiological data from pregnant women during heat exposure is sparse. Our recent review showed no study has assessed thermoregulatory function in pregnant women at temperatures higher than 25˚C.

Our subsequent climate chamber study with pregnant women showed their bodies regulate temperature up to 32˚C as well as non-pregnant women.

Read more:
Don’t like drinking plain water? 10 healthy ideas for staying hydrated this summer

5 ways to beat the heat while pregnant

Evidence of the effectiveness of interventions that address acute heat exposure during pregnancy specifically are limited. Air-conditioning is exceptionally protective, however it is unaffordable for many in Australia and globally.

More evidence of the effect of extreme heat on pregnancy outcomes at a population level in both low and high income countries will help us develop ways to protect pregnant people and the community.

In the meantime, with the threat of more very hot summer days, simple strategies to beat the heat when pregnant include:

1) Drink enough water – take a water bottle with you when out and about

2) Plan your day – avoid the hottest part of the day if you can. Take a hat or umbrella with you for shade

3) Stay cool – use fans or air-conditioning if possible, close blinds and curtains, visit a cooled public environment

4) Dress down – wear lightweight, long-sleeved, light-coloured, loose-fitting clothes made from natural fibres, such as cotton or linen

5) Go to sleep on your side – at night and for daytime naps to allow the best blood flow to the baby.

These strategies need to be adapted to personal circumstances, and of course seek medical advice if you feel unwell. Signs of heat exhaustion that can lead to heat stroke if not treated early include:

• sweating and pale, cool, damp skin
• dizziness and weakness
• a headache
• nausea or vomiting
• a rapid pulse and fast, shallow breathing
• muscle cramps
• fainting
• feeling restless and anxious
• heat rash.

Read more:
It’s extremely hot and I’m feeling weak and dizzy. Could I have heat stroke?

If you have these symptoms, find a cool place to rest, drink cool water or a rehydration drink, remove excess clothing, have a cool shower or bath, or sit for a while with your feet in cool water.

More severe symptoms indicating heatstroke include intense thirst, slurred speech, lack of coordination or confusion, and aggressive or strange behaviour. Heatstroke is a medical emergency, so call triple 0.

Read more:
Five ways to reduce the risk of stillbirth

Adrienne Gordon receives funding from MRFF, NHMRC and Wellcome Trust. She is affiliated with the International Stillbirth Alliance, the NHMRC Stillbirth Centre of Research Excellence, The Perinatal Society of Australia and New Zealand, The Sydney Institute for Women, Children and their Families, Womens Healthcare Australasia and RedNose Australia.

Camille Raynes-Greenow receives funding from NHMRC, Wellcome Trust, ERLA, UK.

Ollie Jay receives funding from National Health and Medical Research Council, Wellcome Trust, NSW Health, NSW Dept of Planning, Industry and Environment, and the NSW Reconstruction Authority (formerly Resilience NSW), Tennis Australia.

– ref. Extreme heat can be risky during pregnancy. How to you look after yourself and your baby – https://theconversation.com/extreme-heat-can-be-risky-during-pregnancy-how-to-you-look-after-yourself-and-your-baby-217368

Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Rumtin Sepasspour, Visiting Fellow, School of Regulation and Global Governance, Australian National University

Once every year, a select group of nuclear, climate and technology experts assemble to determine where to place the hands of the Doomsday Clock.

Presented by the Bulletin of the Atomic Scientists, the Doomsday Clock is a visual metaphor for humanity’s proximity to catastrophe. It measures our collective peril in minutes and seconds to midnight, and we don’t want to strike 12.

In 2023, the expert group brought the clock the closest it has ever been to midnight: 90 seconds. On January 23 2024, the Doomsday Clock was unveiled again, revealing that the hands remain in the same precarious position.

No change might bring a sigh of relief. But it also points to the continued risk of catastrophe. The question is, how close are we to catastrophe? And if so, why?

Destroyer of worlds

The invention of the atomic bomb in 1945 ushered in a new era: the first time humanity had the capability to kill itself.

Later that year, Albert Einstein, along with J. Robert Oppenheimer and other Manhattan Project scientists, established the Bulletin of the Atomic Scientists, in the hope of communicating to the public about the new nuclear age and the threat it posed.

Two years on, the Bulletin, as it came to be known, published its first magazine. And on the cover: a clock, with the minute hand suspended eerily only seven minutes from midnight.

The artist Martyl Langsdorf sought to communicate the sense of urgency she had felt from scientists who had worked on the bomb, including her physicist husband, Alexander. The placement was, to her, an aesthetic choice: “It seemed the right time on the page … it suited my eye.”

Thereafter, Bulletin editor Eugene Rabinowitch was the gears behind the clock’s hands until his passing in 1973, when the board of experts took over.

The clock has been moved 25 times since, particularly in response to the ebb and flow of military buildups, technological advancement and geopolitical dynamics during the Cold War.

Nuclear risk did not abate after the collapse of the Soviet Union, even as the total number of nuclear weapons shrank. And new threats have emerged that pose catastrophic risk to humanity. The latest setting of the clock attempts to gauge this level of risk.

A precarious world

In the words of Bulletin president and chief executive Rachel Bronson:

Make no mistake: resetting the Clock at 90 seconds to midnight is not an indication that the world is stable. Quite the opposite.

The Bulletin cited four key sources of risk: nuclear weapons, climate change, biological threats, and advances in artificial intelligence (AI).

Two ongoing conflicts – Russia and Ukraine, and Israel and Palestine – involve nuclear-weapon states. Longstanding bulwarks of nuclear stability, such as the New Strategic Arms Reduction Treaty between the United States and Russia, are barely functional. North Korea and Iran retain their nuclear ambitions. And China is quickly growing and modernising its nuclear arsenal.

The impacts of climate change are worsening, as the world suffers through its hottest years on record. Six of nine planetary boundaries are beyond their safe levels. And we are likely to fall short of the goal set by the Paris climate agreement – keeping temperature increase to no more than 1.5°C above pre-industrial levels. Dramatic climatic disruptions are a real possibility.

The COVID pandemic revealed the global impacts of a biological threat. Engineered pandemics, created using synthetic bioengineering (and perhaps soon aided by AI tools), could be more viral and lethal than any natural disease. Add to the challenge the continued presence of biological weapons programs around the world, and the shifting disease risk due to the effects of climate change, and biothreats will be a regular battlefront for many countries.

Finally, the Bulletin recognised the risk that comes with advances in AI. While some AI experts have raised the prospect of AI itself being an existential threat, AI is also a threat multiplier for nuclear or biological weapons. And AI could be a vulnerability multiplier. Through AI-enabled disinformation, democracies might struggle to function, especially when dealing with other catastrophic threats.

Subjective and imprecise, but does that matter?

The Doomsday Clock has its detractors. Critics argue that the setting of the clock is based on subjective judgements, not a quantitative or transparent methodology. What’s more, it is not a precise measurement. What does “90 seconds to midnight” actually mean?

With the clock now set at its highest ever level, it naturally brings into question why we face greater risk than, say, during the Cuban Missile Crisis. What would it take to get closer than 90 seconds to midnight?

Read more:
Doomsday Clock moves closer to midnight, but can we really predict the end of the world?

Fundamentally, these criticisms are accurate. And there are plenty of ways the clock could be technically improved. The Bulletin should consider them. But the critics also miss the point.

The Doomsday Clock is not a risk assessment. It’s a metaphor. It’s a symbol. It is, for lack of a better term, a vibe.

A powerful image of nebulous threats

From the very beginning, when seven minutes to midnight “suited the eye”, the Doomsday Clock was an emotional and visceral response to the nuclear moment. Which is why it has become a powerful image, drawing the eyes of the world every year.

Global catastrophic threats are nebulous and complex and overwhelming. With just four dots and two hands, the Doomsday Clock captures the sense of urgency like few images can.

There are better and more actionable ways to assess risk. A handful of countries, for example, conduct national risk assessments. These are formal and regular processes by which governments assess a range of threats to the country, prioritising them on a quantitative scale and building response plans for the highest risk vectors. More countries should conduct these assessments, and be sure to catalogue global catastrophic threats.

Or take the World Economic Forum’s annual Global Risk Report. Based on a survey of around 1,500 experts from across academia, business, government and civil society, it captures the greatest perceived threats over the following two and ten years. Following a similar method, the United Nations is currently conducting its own survey of global risk.

The Doomsday Clock does not replace efforts to understand and assess the greatest threats we face. If anything, it should inspire them.

Rumtin Sepasspour works for Global Shield, a non-profit advocacy organization dedicated to reducing global catastrophic risk. He has previously written for the Bulletin of Atomic Scientists.

– ref. The Doomsday Clock is still at 90 seconds to midnight. But what does that mean? – https://theconversation.com/the-doomsday-clock-is-still-at-90-seconds-to-midnight-but-what-does-that-mean-221871

Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Timothy Duignan, Lecturer, Griffith University

The Australian government is going all in on quantum computing. After investing more than $100 million on “quantum technology” in 2021, it is now reportedly considering spending up to $200 million on purchasing a “quantum computer” from a US company.

Is this a sensible decision? You might think so, if you read reports from media, industry and government predicting that quantum computers will revolutionise many fields of science. Two common examples given are drastically accelerating the design of better batteries and drug discovery.

Given the scale of investment, from governments around the world and also private companies, you might think quantum computers are a sure bet to reach these amazing goals. Unfortunately, in the words of US quantum computing theorist Scott Aaronson, the reality is “much iffier”.

What’s so iffy about quantum computing?

In a recent perspective article in the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, French physicist Xavier Waintal warned of weaknesses in “the quantum house of cards”. Waintal notes that “a simple task such as multiplying 3 by 5 is beyond existing quantum hardware” and that a useful quantum computer might “require an improvement by a factor of one billion” on the error rate of current devices.

Skeptical voices such as Waintal’s are growing louder as success still seems a long way off, despite huge investments of time and effort. While companies like IBM and Google are still spending on quantum computing, China’s tech giants are dumping their own quantum computing labs.

It’s possible that a chain of breakthroughs could occur over the next few years, leading to useful quantum computers. We have seen other technologies, such as traditional computing chips, make huge improvements in short amounts of time.

However, improvements in traditional computing have resulted from massive investment over many decades. Before we can decide whether such a large investment is worth it for quantum computers, we need a clear understanding of their applications.

What would quantum computers really be good for?

One application that first drew attention to the idea of quantum computers (in the 1990s) is their ability to break some kinds of encryption commonly used to store and transmit data. However, new encryption methods have since been developed that would be safe from quantum computers.

Now attention has moved to the potential ability of quantum computers to solve problems in biology and chemistry, such as drug discovery and battery design. The idea is that biology and chemistry are governed by the same laws of quantum mechanics that control the workings of quantum computers.

Read more:
Explainer: quantum computation and communication technology

This argument seems plausible, but it has some problems. One is that, although chemistry and biology do follow the laws of quantum mechanics, in many cases their behaviours are almost indistinguishable from non-quantum ones.

In fact, there is no guarantee that quantum computers will be able to outperform current computers when applied to problems in biology and chemistry.

It’s possible that once we have built a quantum computer we will be able to find ways to make it solve problems in biology and chemistry faster than a normal computer, but it’s far from guaranteed.

Can AI outdo quantum computers?

Quantum computing advocates are not alone in wanting to better simulate chemistry and biology. Many other scientists are working on this problem as well.

For example, quantum chemistry and molecular simulation are two very active research fields. These scientists are making rapid progress on solving many of the problems that supposedly justify the development of quantum computers.

Most excitingly, these fields are taking advantage of recent developments in artificial intelligence to massively improve the scale and accuracy with which they can simulate biology and chemistry. In one recent example, researchers trained an AI algorithm on a huge dataset and used it to study a large range of chemical and biological systems with impressive accuracy and speed.

Quantum alternatives

“Useful” quantum computers are still some distance away, if they ever eventuate. And even if they are built, they may not be as useful as their advocates hope.

So while it’s reasonable for our government to invest in quantum computing research, we should be realistic about what we hope to get out of it. And we shouldn’t neglect other avenues in the quest to understand chemistry and biology at the most fundamental levels.

Read more:
Australia has a National Quantum Strategy. What does that mean?

Just as a smart investment strategy is to diversity, we should do the same with our research funding, backing many different potentially exciting technologies. We should be humble about our ability to know which research directions are the most promising, as the future is incredibly hard to predict. If it wasn’t, we wouldn’t need a quantum computer in the first place.

Timothy Duignan receives funding from Australian Research Council.

– ref. Australia may spend hundreds of millions of dollars on quantum computing research. Are we chasing a mirage? – https://theconversation.com/australia-may-spend-hundreds-of-millions-of-dollars-on-quantum-computing-research-are-we-chasing-a-mirage-218595

Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Deborah Lupton, SHARP Professor, Vitalities Lab, Centre for Social Research in Health and Social Policy Centre, and the ARC Centre of Excellence for Automated Decision-Making and Society, UNSW Sydney

It might be hard to believe, but four years have now passed since the first COVID case was confirmed in Australia on January 25 2020. Five days later, the World Health Organization (WHO) declared a “public health emergency of international concern”, as the novel coronavirus (later named SARS-CoV-2) began to spread worldwide.

On March 11 the WHO would declare COVID a pandemic, while around the same time Australian federal and state governments hastily introduced measures to “stop the spread” of the virus. These included shutting Australia’s international borders, closing non-essential businesses, schools and universities, and limiting people’s movements outside their homes.

I began my project, Australians’ Experiences of COVID-19, in May 2020. This research has continued each year to date, allowing me to track how Australians’ attitudes around COVID have changed over the course of the pandemic.

Read more:
Life, death, intimacy and privilege: 4 works of COVID fiction – and what they say about us

Evolving pandemic experiences

We recruited participants from across Australia, including people living in regional cities and towns. Participants range in age from early adulthood to people in their 80s.

The first three stages of the project each involved 40 interviews with separate groups of participants (so 120 people in total). These interviews were done in May to July 2020 (stage 1), September to October 2021 (stage 2), and September 2022 (stage 3). Stage 4 was an online survey with 1,000 respondents, conducted in September 2023.

Limitations of this project include the small sample sizes for the first three stages (as is common with qualitative interview-based research). This means the findings from those phases are not generalisable, but they do provide rich insights into the experiences of the interviewees. The quantitative stage 4 survey, however, is representative of the Australian population.

The findings show that as the conditions of the pandemic and government management have changed across these years, so have Australians’ experiences.

In the early months of the pandemic, some people reported becoming confused, distressed and overwhelmed by the plethora of information sources and the fast-changing news environment. On the other hand, seeking out information provided reassurance and comfort in response to their anxiety and uncertainty about this new disease.

Australians continued to rely heavily on news reports and government announcements in the first two years of the pandemic. Regular briefings from premiers and chief health officers in particular were highly important for how they learned what was happening, as were updates in the media on case numbers, hospitalisations, deaths and progress towards vaccination targets.

Trust has eroded

Australians appear to have lost a lot of trust in COVID information sources such as news media reports, health agencies and government leaders. Early strong support of federal, state and territory governments’ pandemic management in 2020 and 2021 has given way to much lower support more recently.

My 2023 survey (this is published as a report, not peer-reviewed) found doctors were considered the most trustworthy sources of COVID information, but even they were trusted by only 60% of respondents.

After doctors, participants trusted other experts in the field (53%), Australian government health agencies (52%), global health agencies (49%), scientists (45%) and community health organisations (35%). Australian government leaders were towards the lower end of the spectrum (31%).

Read more:
COVID remains a global emergency, the World Health Organization says, but we’re at a transition point. What does this mean?

In 2021, Australians responded positively to the vaccine targets and “road maps” set by governments. These clear guidelines, and especially the promise that the initial doses would remove the need for lockdowns and border closures, were strong incentives to get vaccinated in 2021.

Unfortunately, the prospect that vaccines would control COVID was shown to be largely unfounded. While COVID vaccines were and continue to be very effective at protecting against severe disease and death, they’re less effective at stopping people becoming infected.

Once very high numbers of eligible Australians became vaccinated against the delta variant, omicron reached Australia, resulting in Australia’s first big wave of infection. This led to disillusionment about vaccines’ value for many participants.

In the 2023 survey, respondents reported a high uptake of the first three COVID shots. But when asked whether they planned to get another vaccine in the next 12 months, almost two-thirds said they did not, or they were unsure.

Enter complacency

Complacency now seems to have set in for many Australians. This can be linked to the progressive withdrawal of strong public health measures such as quarantine, mandatory isolation when infected, and testing and tracing regimens.

Meanwhile, the media, government leaders and health agencies have played less of an active public role in conveying COVID information. This has led to uncertainty about the extent to which COVID is still a risk and lack of incentive to take protective actions such as mask wearing.

In 2023, after mandates had ended, only 9% of respondents said they always wore a mask in indoor public places. Only a narrow majority of respondents even supported compulsory masking for workers in health-care facilities.

The 2023 survey confirmed many Australians no longer feel at risk from COVID. Some 17% of respondents said COVID was definitely still posing a risk to Australians, while a further 42% saw COVID as somewhat of a risk. This left 28% who did not view COVID as much of a continuing risk, and 13% who thought it was not a risk at all.

COVID is still a risk

Whether or not people feel at continuing risk from COVID, the pandemic is still significantly affecting Australians. The 2023 survey found more than two-thirds of respondents (68%) reported having had at least one COVID infection to their knowledge, including 13% who had experienced three or more. Of those who’d had COVID, 40% said they experienced ongoing symptoms, or long COVID.

If the pandemic loses visibility in public forums, people have no way of knowing the risk of infection continues, and are therefore unlikely to take steps to protect themselves and others.

Updated case, hospitalisation, death and vaccination numbers should be communicated regularly, as used to be the case. To combat confusion, complacency and misinformation, all health advice should be based on the latest robust science.

Australians are operating in a vacuum of information from trusted sources. They need much better and more frequent public health campaigns and risk communication from their leaders.

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

– ref. It’s 4 years since the first COVID case in Australia. Here’s how our pandemic experiences have changed over time – https://theconversation.com/its-4-years-since-the-first-covid-case-in-australia-heres-how-our-pandemic-experiences-have-changed-over-time-220336

Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Sai Praneeth Jasti, Researcher, Deakin University

As a new school year approaches, many families will be heading to the shops or to their school’s uniform store to buy backpacks.

While children can have firm ideas about how their school bags look – and schools have practical requirements about what students need to carry – it is vitally important bags are also safe and healthy.

What does the research evidence tell us about school bags?

Why school bags matter

Students are often not just carrying books to and from school, but technology, sports and musical equipment as well. Studies have noted problems occur when students carry bags that weigh more than 20% of their body weight.

This excessive weight can cause students to adopt a forward-leaning posture to compensate, leading to chronic back pain and other postural deformities.

But it’s not just the weight alone, how students carry their bags is also important.

Slinging the bag over one shoulder can lead to an uneven distribution of weight, causing muscle imbalances and spinal misalignment. Some studies (such as this one from Brazil and and this one from Malta) suggest this is more common in female students, who are more likely to carry their bags this way.

If school bags do not have ergonomic features, this exacerbates the problem. Poorly designed straps, lack of adequate back support and improper weight distribution within the bag itself all contribute to the strain on a student’s back and shoulders.

A 2021 study conducted in Karachi on primary school-aged students also showed heavy backpacks can lead to increased fatigue, harming the concentration of children in school.

So we need backpacks based on ergonomic principles, that cater to different body types and carrying habits.

What should you look for in a backpack?

Here are some research-based tips for choosing a backpack for your child:

• choose backpacks with wide, padded straps to distribute weight evenly across the shoulders, minimising the risk of strain and discomfort

• look for other ergonomic features such as adjustable shoulder, hip and chest straps, along with back padding

• ensure the backpack can be positioned high on the back, with the bottom aligned at waist level.

How should your children be carrying things to school?

Studies have shown education about the right way to wear a backpack can reduce pain in school students. Once you have the right bag, also make sure your child is using it correctly:

• check the backpack’s weight is no more than 10-15% of the child’s body weight (you may need to monitor this as they take different things to and from school)

• for heavy items such as musical instruments or sports equipment, choose alternative carrying options such as wheelie bags

• try to ensure your child uses both shoulder straps to maintain balance and symmetrical posture (and do not carry bags on one shoulder or in one hand)

• pack heavy items close to the body, as this helps maintain better posture by aligning the load with the body’s centre of gravity.

Read more:
Back-to-school blues are normal, so how can you tell if it’s something more serious?

Schools can also help

Schools can also help this issue, by considering what students are required to take to and from school each day.

Perhaps this means more locker space at school or digital resources, so students aren’t having to carry textbooks around.

Parents and schools can also educate students about the proper way to pack and carry their bags.

Read more:
Having ‘good’ posture doesn’t prevent back pain, and ‘bad’ posture doesn’t cause it

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

– ref. How do I make sure my child’s school backpack is safe and healthy? – https://theconversation.com/how-do-i-make-sure-my-childs-school-backpack-is-safe-and-healthy-220654

Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Felix Cehak, PhD Candidate, UNSW Sydney

Influential ornithologist John James Audubon’s historical ownership of slaves has spurred a debate about bird names in the United States. As a result, the American Ornithological Society will change not only birds’ common names referring to him, but all 152 eponymous bird names in North America, regardless of good or bad perceptions of their namesakes.

The cultural conversation has arrived in Australia where dozens of species are named after people. Some Australian scientists and birdwatchers (including one from the peak ornithological body Birdlife Australia) have proposed a review, particularly of names with colonial associations.

One Australian species has already been renamed. Birdlife Australia now prefers Pink Cockatoo to Major Mitchell’s Cockatoo as the common name.

Thomas Mitchell led a massacre of Aboriginal people in western New South Wales in 1836, condemned for its senselessness even at the time. Birdlife Australia provides a clear argument why the bird should not bear his name. The change has sparked a conversation in online birding communities.

The Albert’s Lyrebird, the topic of my PhD research, also bears a name with colonial overtones, though without the direct violent connotations of Mitchell. Should it, and other Australian species named after people, be renamed? I’m not sure, but I do know this reclusive rainforest bird has a fascinating and surprisingly complex etymology.

Read more:
Why dozens of North American bird species are getting new names: Every name tells a story

Why is a lyrebird named after Prince Albert?

When English ornithologist John Gould suggested the lyrebird as Australia’s bird emblem, he was recommending the Superb Lyrebird (Menura novaehollandiae) found throughout south-east Australia. Fewer people know of the Albert’s Lyrebird (Menura alberti), restricted to a tiny area on the Queensland-New South Wales border.

Fewer still know the story behind its naming. The Albert’s Lyrebird bears the moniker of Prince Albert, both in its scientific (Latin) name and current common (English) name, bestowed by Gould himself.

This species was still unknown to colonial scientists when Gould’s landmark Birds of Australia was first published in 1848. This was in part due to its remote, humid forest habitat.

Under taxonomic convention – the rules for classifying species – the credit for describing the species and assigning its scientific name would normally have gone to Gould when his 1850 supplement introduced the new species. Every listing of a species provides a scientific name, the name of the person who first described it and the date they did so. So we might have expected to see the Albert’s Lyrebird listed as Menura alberti, Gould, 1850.

Instead, next to Menura alberti we see a different surname – Bonaparte. Not Napoleon, but his nephew Charles, a naturalist who referred to Gould’s description of the new species. However, Bonaparte’s reference predated Gould’s actual publication, a technicality that means Bonaparte is listed as the scientific describer.

This quirk of taxonomy has tied this bird to two names deeply associated with empires.

Read more:
Listen to the Albert’s lyrebird: the best performer you’ve never heard of

How do birds get their names?

Scientific names change only when species are reclassified. The naming is more akin to record keeping – though honouring people can be a secondary purpose. In the lyrebird’s case, Gould cited the prince’s “liberal support” and “personal virtues”.

Birdlife Australia has an English Names Committee, which deals with such changes. Prince Albert is not directly linked to historical violence in Australia, but he was Queen Victoria’s spouse during its colonisation.

If Menura alberti requires the Pink Cockatoo treatment, some other common names have been used in the past.

“Northern Lyrebird” is used in G. Matthews’ Birds of Australia. The volume is of the same name as Gould’s, by a self-funded author, who was controversial for his own taxonomic renaming.

More informally, “Small Lyrebird” has been used in relation to A.A. Leycester, the naturalist who shot the first specimen in 1844.

These are both obscure, albeit more descriptive, alternatives. “Albert’s” is much more common. Leycester himself added an even more royal connotation with “Prince Albert’s Lyrebird”, but sometimes also “Richmond River Lyrebird”.

Read more:
There are over 7,000 English names for birds – here’s what they teach us about our changing relationship with nature

The bird had earlier names

As for the bird being “discovered”, naturally earlier Indigenous names survive.

The bird has recently been described as a bird of the Bunjalung language area. This is true but it is also a Yugambeh and Githabul bird. Its habitat on the Great Dividing Range might include Jagera Country too.

Archibald Meston inexplicably recorded a Kabi Kabi language name from the “head of the Mary River” – no lyrebird is known to occur this far north.

The Yugambeh Museum has provided “kalbun” for national park signage in my home town, Tamborine Mountain. One Bundjalung dictionary provides “galbuny” or “galwuny” with an outlying possibility of “wonglepong”, “kalwun” or “kulwin” in the Tweed as meanings for “lyrebird” (with no clarification between the two species). Indigenous health service Kalwun uses the name in reference to the “rainforest lyrebird” but uses an image of a Superb Lyrebird as its logo.

The Superb Lyrebird is also found within Bundjalung Country, such as in Washpool National Park. This variance and confusion between lyrebird species and language groups is before we even consider the Githabul area to the west, a sometimes contested distinction.

The Yugambeh Museum allows for the variance by providing a different language resource for each location. You will find, for example, a different Indigenous name on the national park sign at Tamborine to the one at Lamington.

As many language groups give the bird many names (only some of which are listed here), there isn’t one obvious Indigenous option if the bird were to be renamed. Beyond these names, the cultural significance of the bird, which lives in rarely visited wet and leech-infested places, seems to have been lost.

Read more:
What makes a good bird name?

If a new name is needed, who decides it?

Over many hours of conversation about this species, I have found the link to Prince Albert is always known. I have rarely heard anything more about why the lyrebird bears his name. Besides his irrelevance to Australian ornithology, I cannot gauge a specific reason the Prince Albert moniker is inappropriate, unlike Thomas Mitchell.

If a change is required to a bird’s name, the decision must be made with the relevant communities. If they wish to counter a history of imperial naming by renaming, the new name should not spring from a similar desire for ownership.

It would also be wise to maintain broadness in this conversation. In the Albert’s Lyrebird case, that includes the birdwatchers, ecologists and conservationists who have contributed to our understanding of this little-known species.

We are about to see what happens in the United States. It would be wise to watch carefully what happens next.

Felix Cehak receives funding from UNSW in the form of a current PhD student stipend.

– ref. Prince Albert had nothing to do with the lyrebird bearing his name. Should our birds be named after people? – https://theconversation.com/prince-albert-had-nothing-to-do-with-the-lyrebird-bearing-his-name-should-our-birds-be-named-after-people-217792

Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Amanda Spry, Senior Lecturer of Marketing, RMIT University

Earlier this month, Woolworths announced it would no longer stock merchandise promoting Australia Day on January 26, a date surrounded by controversy.

While observed as a national public holiday for more than 90 years, a 2021 ABC social survey found 55% of Australians supported changing the date.

January 26 marks the beginning of the colonisation of Australia, bringing violence, theft and oppression to the First Nations peoples who had lived on the land for more than 50,000 years. It is also called Invasion Day, Survival Day or Day of Mourning.

Many workplaces including ANZ, Telstra and Woodside have encouraged the shift away from celebrating the date as Australia Day by offering employees an alternative day off.

Read more:
Why we should celebrate Australia Day on March 3 – the day we became a fully independent country

Woolworths is not the only retailer to distance itself from the date this year with Aldi announcing it will not stock Australia-themed products under its Special Buys promotion. Kmart has not sold items specific to January 26 since last year.

The message the retailers are trying to send the community

When corporations wade into sociopolitical activism, they commonly overplay social motivations and underplay expected gains to the bottom line. What is unusual about Woolworths’ position is that the company has defended this as a business decision first and foremost.

This raises questions about big retailers shying away from Australia Day merchandise for business rather than social reasons.

Why pursue a business-first, activism-second strategy? Does this appease shareholders? How does the public interpret “activism without activism” and is it authentic? Is this just a move to deflect away from exorbitant prices?

A business case for activism

Opposition leader Peter Dutton quickly labelled this as “peddling woke agendas”. But a Woolworths Group spokesperson cited a “gradual decline” in demand for Australia Day-themed products. They also acknowledged the broader discussion of January 26th’s significance to different communities.

A key reason to make a business case for corporate activism lies with shareholders. They typically oppose companies taking a stand on social justice issues believing businesses should “stay in their lane”.

Indeed, when Woolworths supported the Indigenous Voice to Parliament referendum, it resulted in a backlash.

Academic research indicates a brand’s activist position can harm shareholder returns. Investors view this as a misallocation of resources that threatens profit maximisation. Perceived risk of corporate activism is heightened for businesses with large market share, like Woolworths. They have more customers to lose and fewer to gain.

In this instance, Woolworths took a business-first, activism-second approach. This likely appeases shareholders because making merchandising decisions is well within Woolworths’ remit. Also, by the retailer cloaking its activism as profit maximisation, shareholders are less likely to be concerned.

As for customers, they increasingly understand the duality of a brand’s motives. If there are perceptions of sufficient social impact, self-serving motives are also deemed acceptable. Woolworths illuminated the profit-making motive while subtly bringing to light the problematic history of Australia Day.

Activism without activism?

While Woolworths led with business reasons rather than support of First Nations peoples, it was interpreted by the public as a political act, eliciting debate and grandstanding.

A company of this stature with significant marketing intelligence could have correctly predicted this reaction and made a calculated decision to take a stand on an issue at the front of the public’s mind. Yet this looks like activism without activism. Woolworths brought a sociopolitical issue to the fore but operated behind the curtain of dollars and cents.

Read more:
‘Change the date’ debates about January 26 distract from the truth telling Australia needs to do

Consumers are discerning about corporate activism, requiring companies to move beyond marketing rhetoric and demonstrate meaningful actions. Usually activism attracts criticism when brands are perceived to be woke washing – that is, misleading consumers about prosocial corporate practices. Brand activism is therefore sometimes viewed as a “fake marketing trick” because brands are not backing up their stance on social justice issues.

Woolworths by contrast has taken concrete action – not capitalising on the “Australia Day” term and imagery in its marketing and merchandise on January 26.
This move falls short of authentic brand activism.

A deflection tactic?

Australia’s fraught socioeconomic climate has put retailers in the spotlight. Currently, brands like Woolworths are facing media and political scrutiny for price gouging. In Queensland, there is a parliamentary inquiry into the discrepancy between prices paid to suppliers and those paid at the checkout. The Australian Competition and Consumer Commission and Senate are also holding inquiries.

Aside from making room for more profitable merchandise or advancing the reconciliation agenda, is Woolworths deflecting attention from its role in these problems? Changing the conversation to something time-bound (that is, likely to die down January 27th) may be beneficial.

Research speaks to such a values-based strategy. Brands call on social initiatives to deflect from negative issues and improve future discourse about their business. In this case, directing discussion to their social responsiveness, even if secondary, enables Woolworths to divert attention away from potentially exploitative practices.

Corporate activism: an expanding and evolving strategy

Woolworths’ approach to activism warrants examination. While the company took action that ostensibly opposes the celebration of Australia Day on January 26, they communicated a profit motive fitting for the largest grocery chain in Australia by market share. They skirted full-blown corporate sociopolitical activism, an approach that was possibly more digestible for shareholders and customers (politicians less so).

However, this approach is also less authentic. Woolworths states its commitment to reconciliation through the support of the Indigenous Voice to Parliament and the Uluru Statement from the Heart. So where in this most recent decision was the marketing rhetoric that embraces and respects Indigenous Australians? This represents a lost opportunity to elevate the brand and promote the Change the Date movement.

Read more:
Welcome to May 9 – the true Australia Day

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

– ref. What’s behind Woolworths, Aldi and Kmart distancing themselves from Australia Day? – https://theconversation.com/whats-behind-woolworths-aldi-and-kmart-distancing-themselves-from-australia-day-221743

Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Professor James J Bell, Professor of Marine Biology, Te Herenga Waka — Victoria University of Wellington

Measuring the impact of different events, such as marine heatwaves, on the abundance of marine organisms is not easy. Biological communities naturally change over time and between different locations.

Scientists need to untangle these natural changes from those caused by humans and come up with a new approach to do this.

Marine biologists have traditionally monitored underwater cliffs or coral reefs by estimating population sizes in just a small area of those environments.

One traditional method involves laying a tape measure on the reef and determining what was under the tape at regular intervals. Another is to take pictures of “quadrats” – squares of a known area – and working out the area covered by different organisms later.

However, these methods only provide an estimate for a very small area of the total reef, covering a limited proportion of the animals and plants present.

They also provide limited information on the three-dimensional (3D) reef complexity and structure created by reef organisms, such as corals and sponges, which are key to supporting high biodiversity.

Read more:
Loss, decay and bleaching: why sponges may be the ‘canary in the coal mine’ for impacts of marine heatwaves

Our new research shows how modern photographic methods can be used to measure coral reef habitat complexity, and the 3D nature of reefs.

This information was then used to assess the impacts of changes from coral-dominated reefs to sponge-dominated reefs on the spaces available for fish and other organisms to live.

Here’s how it works.

An art and a science

Photogrammetry – a technique where 3D information is extracted from photographs – is both an art and science. The process involves taking a large number of images of an object or area from different angles. Using specialised algorithms we can then analyse and convert these pictures into 3D digital models.

These models can be appropriately scaled to real-world dimensions, allowing accurate measurements of organisms.

While photogrammetry is not new, its application to marine science has increased in recent years. It is completely changing the way we can monitor marine environments and measure human impacts.

However, there are many other ways broader photogrammetric tools can be used, from estimating the size of whales to developing realistic simulations or virtual reality experiences for education.

Our recently published study from Indonesia used photogrammetry to estimate the potential impacts of changes from coral-dominated to sponge-dominated tropical reefs on reef structural complexity.

Read more:
The Irish lough that offers a window into the deep sea

The study compared the structural complexity of coral and sponge-dominated areas of a coral reef. By using photogrammetry, we were able to better understand the different factors that contributed to the coral’s structural complexity in a way that would not be possible from traditional 2D photographs.

This study found sponge-dominated reefs had fewer of the smallest spaces for fish and other organisms to live, whereas coral-dominated reefs had fewer larger spaces.

This information is important. The smallest spaces on coral reefs are occupied by small fish and other species that feed animals higher up the food chain. As coral reefs lose these small refuge spaces, they also lose the ability to support biodiversity.

Going bigger

While the Indonesian study examined only small sections of the reef, the use of photogrammetry for monitoring and mapping marine ecosystems is expanding rapidly.

Thanks to modern hardware and software solutions, it is now possible to rapidly create models for much larger areas. And thanks to high-resolution photography, even the smallest animals can be identified in the models.

These models are complementing the use of traditional sampling methods that only estimate the abundances of organisms in a small area of a reef. But we also have the potential to now sample entire reefs.

As models of reefs derived from photogrammetry are 3D, there are many different new sources of information that can be collected, such as accurate surface areas and volumes of organisms.

For many organisms, like sponges and corals, surface areas and volumes are more important in measuring their ecological importance than just the amount of reef they cover.

Moreover, 3D models of large areas can be oriented and scaled or geo-referenced, essentially creating all the characteristics of a typical map. This makes finding previously surveyed areas much easier.

The overall result is better characterisation of marine communities. This makes it easier to monitor and visualise changes, and the effects of different factors, such as marine heatwaves.

Finally, scaled 3D representations can be created for complex organisms, meaning growth and shape changes can be more accurately measured. This provides a greater understanding of how environmental change affects organisms.

Visualising changes in biodiversity

Virtual reality has long been used to provide access to marine environments without getting wet. This has been done largely for education, outreach and training opportunities.

But 3D models created from photogrammetry provide new and exciting opportunities to engage the public. People can now interact with the environment, experiencing new worlds and points of view, while learning and increasing their environmental consciousness.

The application of 3D models derived from underwater photogrammetry has great potential for the monitoring of marine environments and detecting the impact of humans.

These models represent a transformative shift in the way information is gathered in marine ecosystems. As technology develops further they will support more extensive marine monitoring and more effective management.

– ref. Using photos to create 3D models is helping us understand – and protect – complex marine environments – https://theconversation.com/using-photos-to-create-3d-models-is-helping-us-understand-and-protect-complex-marine-environments-221111

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

A person on the average annual wage of $73,000 will get a tax cut of more than $1500 a year under Labor’s revamped tax policy – more than double the cut they’d have received under the Coalition’s legislated stage 3 plan.

In the government’s dramatic recalibration of stage 3, the proposed tax cut for those earning more than $200,000 will be slashed in half, from around $9000 to more than $4500.

At the other end of the income scale, all taxpayers will get a cut, rather than just those earning more than $45,000 as under the legislated stage 3.

Taxpayers earning less than $150,000 will get larger tax cuts under the government’s proposed plan compared with the Morrison one, while those earning more than $150,000 will get smaller cuts.

Amid political attacks over his broken promise – Anthony Albanese had repeatedly committed to delivering stage 3 as legislated by the Coalition – the Prime Minister will tell the National Press Club on Thursday, “When economic circumstances change, the right thing to do is change your economic policy. That’s what we are doing.”

Treasurer Jim Chalmers told the ABC on Wednesday night: “The many will benefit from this, rather than the few”.

The policy switch was endorsed at a brief caucus meeting late Wednesday.

“Our plan will more than double the benefit for Australians on the average income,” Albanese says in his Press Club speech, extracts of which were released ahead of delivery. .

“And it will look after low income earners and part-time workers as well.

“So someone working at Australia’s largest employer, Woolworths, earning $40,000 will now get a tax cut of over $650.

“Under Scott Morrison’s plan, they would have got nothing.”

Under the changes, the lowest rate of tax is reduced from 19 cents to 16 cents in the dollar. This will mean people will pay less tax on the first $45,000 they earn.

“This is a significant boost for the take-home pay of Australians on modest incomes and people working part-time,” Albanese says.

“An early educator, or an aged care worker or a cleaner earning $50,000, will receive a tax cut worth $929 a year”.

He says these tax cuts will help parents returning to work, especially women with young children. Business would also be assisted, by the boost in workforce participation.

Albanese says that with the focus “fairly and squarely […] on middle Australia”, the second tax rate, reducing from 32.5% to 30%, will now apply up to $135,000.

The government is retaining the 37% rate, which is scrapped in the Morrison stage 3 model, and that will now apply from $135,000 instead of $120,000 as at present. The top 45% rate will start from $190,000, up from the present $180,000 but down from the $200,000 legislated for stage 3.

Albanese says under the new plan a full-time worker earning $100,000 will get a cut of more than $2100 – “over $800 more for middle income earners because of our changes.”

For a family on he average household income – about $130,000 – with one partner earning $80,000 and the other $50,000, their combined tax cut will be more than $2600. This is $1600 more than under stage 3.

Albanese quotes Treasury as saying the government’s change is “broadly revenue neutral, will not add to inflationary pressures and will support labour supply”.

The proposed new rates will start from July 1, when stage 3 was due to begin. The changes will have to be legislated but the government has enough support from the crossbench in the Senate to be confident of passage.

Labor is rolling out an advertising campaign to sell the changes.

Albanese says in his speech: “This is the right decision for the right reasons – and we’ve made it the right way. It is the best way forward – because it is the best way to help Australians struggling with their cost of living without putting pressure on inflation.”

Chalmers on Thursday will release a Treasury analysis to back up the government’s case. The plan “will be better for middle Australia, better for cost-of-living pressures, better for women and workforce participation, better for nurses and teachers and truckies,” he said. The Treasury analysis would show the plan would be better for the economy, he added.

Shadow treasurer Angus Taylor said the Coalition was “absolutely locked down on supporting the stage 3 tax cut”. He called the government’s changes the “mother of all broken promises”.

Read more:
View from The Hill: Why should we still be surprised when a PM doesn’t keep his word?

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

– ref. Albanese tax plan will give average earner $1500 tax cut – more than double Morrison’s Stage 3 – https://theconversation.com/albanese-tax-plan-will-give-average-earner-1500-tax-cut-more-than-double-morrisons-stage-3-221875

Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Kelsey Chapman, Research Fellow Dignity Project, Griffith University

Australia’s former disability discrimination commissioner, Graeme Innes, has settled his dispute with Adelaide Airport. His complaint to the Human Rights Commission was lodged after being denied access to a body scanner with his assistance dog in May 2022.

Unfortunately, Innes’ experience will resonate widely with Australia’s 4.4 million people with disability.

“People with disability know how challenging air travel can be, and that experience needs to be more inclusive,” said Innes, who was disability discrimination commissioner for nine years and is on the board of the National Disability Insurance Agency.

Experiences like Innes’ have been widely reported and have happened to prominent Australians with disability. The everyday experience of air travel is likely even more shocking. Change is happening, but it is moving slowly.

Read more:
What does a building need to call itself ‘accessible’ – and is that enough?

Airport and airline ableism

The Human Rights Commission received more than 100 disability discrimination complaints against airlines in the six years to 2022, including the period in which COVID restrictions saw air travel severely limited.

Issues included:

• assistance animal refusals
• inaccessible facilities
• inaccessible ticketing arrangements for people with vision impairments
• taxis and rideshare providers not turning up, long delays or
  refusing passengers with disability aids and/or assistance animals.

These issues highlight a system underpinned by unchallenged ableism – discrimination that favours people without disability.

Freedom of movement

An important right under the United Nations Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities is freedom of movement. This right seeks to enable all people to be included in society in ways they self-determine.

Ableism in air travel is a fundamental denial of independence and freedom of movement. Discrimination can be even more blatant and offensive. People have been removed from flights or denied boarding because there are limits on the number of wheelchair users who can access an aircraft or because they require additional support to access facilities.

People with disability report the removal of, or damage to, personal mobility equipment, and lack of suitable equipment. In the most severe cases, people have been injured during travel or left stranded in dangerous circumstances.

Inconsistency can fuel ableism

Inconsistent policies and practices significantly impact travellers with disability. This is made worse by the fact that individual airlines and airports are encouraged by government to develop their own Disability Access Facilitation Plans.

So, it is not surprising when news reports highlight instances of assistance dogs being denied travel domestically and internationally, even when they’ve previously been approved by other airlines.

Lack of consistency, negative attitudes, stereotypes and prejudices in the air travel industry have resulted in reportedly aggressive eviction of passengers with disability from exit rows. Others report being told to “catheterise” (to insert a tube through the urethra to the bladder) to avoid needing toilet facilities on an overseas flight. Many people with disability experience situations like Innes’ where they are subjected to alternative, sometimes undignified, processes.

Ongoing experiences of ableism not only deny people with disability their rights to travel but can also damage their dignity. Anticipation of discrimination can increase anxiety and stress for travellers with disability or prevent them travelling altogether.

Read more:
Here’s why we need a disability rights act – not just a disability discrimination one

Slow reform

These stories and many others point to the need for urgent reform.

Stories shared by more than 60 participants in a special Disability Royal Commission session prompted its chair to write directly to the CEOs of Australian airlines and airports, urging them to work on solutions.
The review and modernisation of the 2002 Disability Standards for Accessible Public Transport along with the upcoming release of the Australian government’s Aviation White Paper could be key mechanisms to address systemic discrimination. But only if key recommendations from disability organisations and advocacy centres are adopted. They include:

1. specific standards for air travel co-designed with people with disability and representative organisations. Universal design aims to make products and environments usable by all people, without adaptation. It can play an important role in overcoming the systemic barriers in infrastructure and service design to create more seamless and inclusive transport and air travel experiences

2. reportable and enforceable standards and independent oversight, such as funding the Human Rights Commission to oversee compliance.

Read more:
A new year means new fitness goals. But options for people with disability are few and far between

Complaints are just one route

The exclusion of people with disability from seamless airline travel is a violation of their fundamental right to freedom of movement.

Decades of travel horror stories in the media, continuing legislative reviews and national enquiries should bring change. Everyone should be able to make journeys with dignity and autonomy. People with disability deserve the same travel privileges as non-disabled Australians.

Governments and the aviation industry will need to collaborate to implement comprehensive accessibility measures, ranging from wheelchair-friendly facilities to trained staff capable of providing appropriate assistance. Embracing inclusivity in air travel not only aligns with the principles of equity but also contributes to a society that celebrates diversity.

For now, there are a number of ways to raise complaints, including with the individual airline or with the Human Rights Commission. Raising complaints with the Human Rights Commission can be completed by anyone who experiences discrimination. Legal support and advice may also be sought from some state-based legal aid organisations.

While complaints are one mechanism for change, more proactive methods for change include the disability royal commission’s recommendation for the design and implementation of a Disability Rights Act, which would see human rights enshrined in legislation and facilitate barrier-free travel.

Read more:
‘I want to get bogged at a beach in my wheelchair and know people will help’. Micheline Lee on the way forward for the NDIS

Kelsey Chapman receives research funding from the Queensland Government. She is a member of the Metro South Health Disability Community Advisory Committee and Health Translation Queensland.

Elizabeth Kendall receives funding from Australian Research Council, Motor Accident Insurance Commission, National Health and Medical Research Council and Medical Research Futures Fund.

Lisa Stafford receives funding from Australian Research Council and MRRF. She is affiliated with Transport Australia society (member), Planning Institute of Australia (member) and Disability Leadership Institute (member). This article is mine and my colleagues views only, and is not representing any of these organisations.

– ref. Travellers with disability often face discrimination. What should change and how to complain – https://theconversation.com/travellers-with-disability-often-face-discrimination-what-should-change-and-how-to-complain-221740

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

All prime ministers break promises. But there are some whose breaches go into the history books – and Anthony Albanese has just joined that group.

Tony Abbott famously pledged no cuts to health, education or the ABC. That took out (unneeded) insurance before the 2013 election.

Julia Gillard said she wouldn’t introduce a carbon tax. A reassurance for a tough contest in 2010.

Who can forget John Howard’s insistence there would “never ever” be a GST. It was calming, but deceptive, in the run up to the 1996 poll.

Paul Keating’s L.A.W. tax cuts showed even promises enshrined in law can be flaky.

That’s the story of the stage 3 tax cuts. Labor reluctantly supported the Coalition legislation for them. Albanese pledged unequivocally to retain them if he won office. It was all part of the small target strategy.

Soon after the election, Treasurer Jim Chalmers tried to recalibrate stage 3. Albanese said no. He felt his integrity was on the line. He has kept reiterating ever since that the government’s policy on stage 3 hadn’t changed.

Regardless of his personal views, Chalmers has been defending those cuts and saying there are other ways to help people with the cost of living, despite the urging from economists and some interest groups for them to be reshaped.

Read more:
Why Australian workers’ true cost of living has climbed far faster than we’ve been told

Now, virtually overnight, the policy has changed, under the weight of both the cost-of-living crisis and, importantly, the shadow of a byelection in the Melbourne seat of Dunkley, held by Labor on a margin of about 6%.

The government will pare back the cuts for the high income earners and use the funds to increase the benefit for lower and middle income earners, including giving relief to those earning less than $45,000 who would have received nothing otherwise.

A special caucus meeting was called to be briefed late Wednesday, followed by drinks (stiff for a few no doubt) at The Lodge. Albanese will argue his full case at the National Press Club on Thursday. The changes will have to be legislated but the Senate numbers are there.

There are always reasons, or wriggle room, to be found when explaining broken promises. The Abbott government argued it was just cutting future projections for health and education spending. Some in Labor maintained Gillard’s carbon price scheme was not really a “tax”.

Albanese can insist circumstances have changed, that middle Australians are hurting (as they were, incidentally, last year when stage 3 was still sacrosanct).

He said on Wednesday: “There are pressures of cost of living that, according to Treasury analysis and according to common sense, have most impacted low- and middle-income earners.

“Since 2019, there has been a pandemic, there has been a recession, there has been global inflation, there has been not one war, but two wars that have had an impact.

“But I’ll be very clear in accepting responsibility for policies put forward by my government. That’s what I do.”

Commentators will say that stage 3 is unfair and bad policy, and it’s more important to get the policy right than stick to your word.

How will the public react? Some voters will say: we need the help, never mind the promise thing, politicians are like that. Others will be losers by virtue of the changes, or will think worse of the prime minister for going back on his word.

How those two camps fall out in net terms is impossible to judge at this point.

RedBridge’s Kos Samaras, judging the likely implications, maintained in a Wednesday post, “Breaking a promise to assist people with the affordability crisis is unlikely to have any significant political repercussions for the federal Labor government.

“Only a small percentage, approximately 3.4%, of Australians earn over $180,000 annually, which is primarily found in Teal, Greens, and inner urban Labor-held constituencies. Despite having high earning potential, these voters are not typically swayed by financial incentives when casting their ballots. Instead, they tend to have a broader perspective and prioritise other concerns.”

Breaking a significant economic promise does carry wider implications for a government – for instance in how the business community and investors regard its word on a range of other undertakings.

For Albanese there is a deeper question: will this broken promise damage people’s view of his integrity in the longer term? Their broken promises undoubtedly harmed Abbott and Gillard (although neither survived long enough to be judged at a subsequent election).

Certainly whatever Albanese promises in 2025, for a second term, will need to have several grains of salt added.

Last year, Albanese made much of keeping his pledge to Indigenous Australians to run a referendum on the Voice. That could have ended in triumph but turned into disaster.

This year he is trashing what was also a central promise. The stakes are high, the outcome uncertain.

Albanese’s action will reinforce people’s existing low trust in the word of the political class. Actually, the surprise in this story is that we can still be surprised when a prime minister breaks his word. How often do we forget the history? Cynical as it sounds, perhaps the real surprise is that it took this long for Albanese to do so.

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

– ref. View from The Hill: Why should we still be surprised when a PM doesn’t keep his word? – https://theconversation.com/view-from-the-hill-why-should-we-still-be-surprised-when-a-pm-doesnt-keep-his-word-221860

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

Kim Williams takes over as chair of the ABC at a moment when its preparedness to protect its journalists and the organisation’s editorial independence from external attack is under serious question.

It was the issue that came to define the tenure of the outgoing chair, Ita Buttrose. She proved at crucial moments to be a strong defender of the ABC’s independence against sustained attacks on it by the government of Scott Morrison, who appointed her to the job as a “captain’s pick”.

Unlike Buttrose, Williams comes to the job at least as a result of due process. The government chose him from a shortlist of three prepared by an independent panel, the system set up by the Gillard government but routinely ignored by its Liberal-National successors.

Read more:
Kim Williams to be new ABC chair, described by Albanese as ‘a true renaissance man’

Williams’ history indicates he brings to the job a formidable intellect, a broad understanding of the media industry and a temperament that might be cautiously described as mercurial.

He also brings some baggage. In December 2011, he was appointed CEO of Rupert Murdoch’s News Limited, which was later rebadged News Corporation Australia.

After a turbulent 20 months, during which he tried to restructure the newspapers to make them more suited to the digital age and bring about complementary cultural change, he fell victim to the brutal internal politics of News Corp, where he was resented by the editors as an outsider, and resigned.

Although he was an outsider in the newspaper business, he was no stranger to the media industry more broadly. In his ten years as CEO of Foxtel between 2001 and 2011, he was credited with bringing the company back from its deathbed.

While he spent 18 years working for Murdoch – indulging the routine attacks News Corporation makes on the ABC – writing him off as a “Murdoch man” would not do justice to the breadth he brings to the position.

He is a classically trained musician and composer, a former general manager of Musica Viva, head of the Sydney Opera House Trust and CEO of the Australian Film Commission.

Here he ran into veteran broadcaster Phillip Adams, who has described him as “a maker and a destroyer”. “Even as a success, there is something tragic about him.”

At the same time, Adams recognised Williams’ intellectual ability and they formed a formidable alliance at the commission. Adams is one of the ABC’s most treasured broadcasters, having presented Late Night Live on Radio National for 33 years.

Williams also has executive experience at the ABC. In 1991 he was appointed to lead the ABC’s pay-television initiative, Australian Information Media (AIM). But suddenly, in the midst of negotiations with Foxtel over its becoming a carrier for AIM’s content, Williams announced he was resigning from AIM to become CEO of Murdoch’s Fox Studios.

Read more:
Antoinette Lattouf sacking shows how the ABC has been damaged by successive Coalition governments

Adams likened this to a rat leaving a sinking ship. An ABC board member at the time, Rod Cameron, described it as a disgrace.

Although described as charming, Williams is also reputed to have a ferocious temper. A former News Corp executive is reported as saying:

He internalises to the point where you think his whole head is going to explode. The pressure he brings himself under, let alone the target, is truly terrifying.

Williams has also been widely criticised for lacking not just social skills but political skills. He made many enemies at News Corp but more importantly, in the context of his ABC appointment, his ability to get policy changes through the political process has been questioned.

The media analyst Margaret Simons has noted that while at Foxtel he failed to persuade governments of either side to liberalise the anti-siphoning laws, under which certain major sporting events may not be shown on pay TV until they have been shown on free to air. Getting more of these high-profile events for Foxtel was a key part of the business strategy to build the network.

She reports he also failed to advance media deregulation at the time the Gillard government commissioned the Convergence Review, which was about reviewing media policy in the light of digital technology.

This background suggests Williams’ tenure as chair of the ABC could be a mixture of dazzling successes and disastrous failures.

It may also be turbulent. The internal politics of the ABC are every bit as febrile as those of News Corp. Political adroitness will be essential not only in navigating those but in effectively representing the corporation in Canberra and fending off the depredations of politicians on both sides.

Williams has made an encouraging start by saying in an ABC interview that he will treat staff concerns seriously.

But the ultimate test is whether he will be able to stiffen the corporation’s spine when it comes to defending its journalists and their journalism from external attack.

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

– ref. As new ABC chair, one of Kim Williams’ challenges will be to stiffen the organisation’s spine – https://theconversation.com/as-new-abc-chair-one-of-kim-williams-challenges-will-be-to-stiffen-the-organisations-spine-221847

Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Jonathan Nott, Professor of Physical Geography, James Cook University

We’ve long known cyclones are heat engines, fuelled by hot water. They also pump heat from the hot tropics into cooler areas. But they’re starting to behave differently. As the world heats up, the atmosphere can hold more moisture. When cyclones form, they can transfer significantly more water from oceans to land.

We saw this in December. Most of the damage done by Cyclone Jasper when it hit far north Queensland wasn’t from the intense winds. It was when the Category 2 storm stalled over Cape York, dumping huge amounts of rain – over 2 metres in some areas – and triggering devastating floods.

It’s likely to happen again this week, as a slow-moving tropical low heads for northern Queensland, carrying huge volumes of water and threatening new floods. Authorities are warning people to prepare – not just on the coast but well inland.

The storm – likely to be named Cyclone Kirrily – will be the second to make landfall this season.

Cyclone Kirrily: Prepare for floods as well as winds

The tropical storm has taken a long time to intensify and is moving very slowly. While it hasn’t yet reached cyclone status, it is expected to make landfall as a Category 2 storm.

What it is carrying, though, is water – enough to dump up to a metre of rain in some places, and a long way into central and western Queensland.

If you live in northern Australia, you’ll know about being prepared for cyclones. When a warning arrives, people pack away or tie down loose objects, trim tree branches and fill up the bathtub in case water supplies are disrupted.

But often, we’re focused just on the damaging winds – when water can often do more damage.

If you live close to the sea, the storm surge – flooding from the sea – is often underestimated as a threat.

But the new major threat is terrestrial flooding. We are already starting to see significantly more rainfall linked to cyclones. Warmer air holds more moisture, and the world is steadily heating up.

This summer, sea surface temperatures have been unusually high off the east coast, all the way from Cape York down to Tasmania. Normally, in El Niño, we would expect lower sea surface temperatures and higher air temperatures. But this El Niño isn’t behaving as we’d normally expect. That’s one reason the east coast has had so much summer rain.

Normally, 75% of Australia’s cyclones hit the northwest of Western Australia, due to the high sea surface temperatures and the way the coast is oriented. But this year, the northwest region is sweltering in heatwaves – but no cyclones have yet made landfall.

Read more:
North Queensland’s record-breaking floods are a frightening portent of what’s to come under climate change

The future has fewer cyclones, but more intense

Climate change is expected to change tropical cyclone patterns. The overall number is expected to decrease, but their intensity will likely increase, bringing stronger wind and heavier rain.

My colleagues and I have found the change is already happening. The low levels of storm activity on the mid west and northeast coasts of Australia are unprecedented over the past 550 to 1,500 years.

More intense tropical cyclones are expected because higher sea-surface temperatures will make the atmosphere more warm and moist. Cyclones thrive in such conditions.

But the general frequency of tropical cyclones is expected to reduce under climate change in most ocean basins, including the Indian Ocean.

Tropical cyclones usually form when there’s a large difference between temperatures at Earth’s surface and the upper atmosphere. As the climate warms, this temperature difference is likely to narrow.

As the heat in the oceans intensifies, cyclones will be able to form further down the east coast. Cyclones have hit Brisbane and even northern New South Wales in the past. These tropical storms form over warm water – between 26.5 and 30°C. The water along Kirrily’s track is at the higher end – around 30°C. Warm water produces warm, moist air, which is the energy-dense feedstock of cyclones.

What should we do to prepare?

In states such as Queensland, emergency response is a finely honed art. We’re excellent at dealing with the emergency when it’s happening and the immediate aftermath.

But we’ve still got a long way to go in mitigation. Houses are still being built in the path of flooding rivers or where they can be hit by storm surge.

Read more:
Anatomy of monster storm: how Cyclone Ilsa is shaping up to devastate the WA coast

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

– ref. As another cyclone heads for Queensland, we must be ready for the new threat: torrential rain and floods – https://theconversation.com/as-another-cyclone-heads-for-queensland-we-must-be-ready-for-the-new-threat-torrential-rain-and-floods-221737

Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Rachel Loney-Howes, Senior Lecturer in Criminology, University of Wollongong

This week, the government announced the start of its promised inquiry into justice responses to sexual violence.

The terms of reference were developed from national discussions last year. Federal, state and territory ministers took part, as well as victim-survivors and advocates. For many with experience and expertise in the area, the challenges highlighted were nothing new.

There has been a significant amount of time and energy poured into sexual violence law and policy reform in Australia since the 1970s, highlighting the persistent barriers faced by victim-survivors in seeking criminal justice responses to sexual violence and harm.

It is, therefore, pleasing to see the Australian Law Reform Commission finally listening. However, we are cautious about what impact reforms like this will realistically have, given previous attempts have been routinely undermined in practice.

Read more:
Does Australia need dedicated sexual assault courts?

What do the terms of reference get right?

As much as they sound highly procedural, terms of reference are important because they determine what can and cannot be investigated.

Two important features are a step in the right direction. One is the inclusion of a lived-experience Expert Advisory Group. The second is the explicit mention of a trauma-informed approach to victim-survivor and stakeholder engagement through counselling services to those who participate in the consultation process.

The inclusion of a such a group is now a staple of many law reform inquiries and government departments (like the Victim Survivors’ Advisory Council in Victoria) to collaborate on policy. While this is welcome, there are important things for the Australian Law Reform Commission to consider.

Firstly, there are significant personal and psychological risks for victim-survivors who may contribute. The commission will need to ensure they’re supported.

Secondly, it is unclear how people will be selected to form the group. The commission needs to ensure the group is representative of diverse experiences and backgrounds.

Thirdly, power imbalances between survivors and the government can undermine victim-survivors’ contributions to reform efforts. The commission needs to consider how those with experience will be adequately listened to.

An important feature of the terms of reference is the focus on reforming the broader criminal legal system, not just laws. While more than 90% of victim-survivors never report to police, for those who do, we need to minimise the likelihood of the system being encountered as a “second rape”.

The commission’s focus on practices such as education for criminal justice personnel, access to a legal representative, and reforms to procedures and laws of evidence therefore has the potential to improve survivors’ experiences of the system.

Read more:
‘Male soldiers can’t help themselves’ is among many rape myths that need debunking

However, international research indicates these measures may have limited impact or unintended outcomes in practice. Such initiatives would require close monitoring if introduced.

Likewise, having uniform legislative definitions of sexual violence across jurisdictions could help to ensure access to (formal) justice is not contingent on where you happen to live. However, getting harmony across states could prove challenging.

It is also positive to see the commission adopt what’s called an intersectional framework. This approach recognises particular groups may be disproportionately impacted by sexual violence, and face unique or additional barriers to engaging with the criminal legal system. The needs of some groups, such as older women, are currently poorly responded to and require urgent attention.

What are the limits of the inquiry?

Many communities mentioned in the terms of reference are often unwilling or unable to engage with the formal legal system. It is unclear how the Australian Law Reform Commission intends to meaningfully engage with marginalised communities and ensure that these groups’ needs and perspectives are included.

For instance, an explicit role for Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander victim-survivors and advocates is missing from the terms of reference outside of the consultation phase. A specific First Nations advisory group could boost engagement with the commission’s process so their perspectives could be better captured.

The terms also limit the scope for alternative justice to be explored. A law reform inquiry inherently centres the criminal legal system as the main way sexual violence is dealt with. However, we know victim-survivors have a diverse range of justice needs, some of which are difficult to meet in the traditional system. Some forms of sexual violence, such as public sexual harassment, are challenging to respond to using the law.

Some scholars and activists advocate for a shift away from the criminal legal system. They argue the system is fundamentally harmful. We know, for example, sexual violence occurs within the system through practices like strip searching. It’s also perpetrated by criminal justice actors including police officers.

In addition, the terms of reference don’t include examining the persistent disbelief of victim-survivors by some within the criminal legal system.

Watch this space…

There is also the larger question about how the recommendations of the inquiry will be resourced and implemented in practice. While the commission appears to take a holistic approach, it remains to be seen whether this will have any bearing on future reforms to legislation, policy and practice.

The recent Victorian Law Reform Commission inquiry on sexual offences also included a focus on innovative justice responses. So far, more innovative recommendations have been sidelined by the government in favour of legislative reform.

Recent Australian inquiries have called for alternatives to criminal legal responses for Indigenous women’s safety. Despite a strong evidence base for community-controlled, restorative solutions, there has been little action on these recommendations to date.

Read more:
A royal commission won’t help the abuse of Aboriginal kids. Indigenous-led solutions will

While the outcomes of the inquiry are outside the immediate control of the commission, it does raise concerns about the merits of continuing to tinker with a broken system. Despite many decades of law reform in jurisdictions such as Victoria, reporting rates remain low and attrition rates remain high.

Given the limits of criminal legal reform, we need to think bigger and more boldly. The inquiry is a good start, but for a comprehensive solution, we will need to be willing to question the role of a criminal justice system that has so far failed victim-survivors.

Rachel Loney-Howes receives funding from the Commonwealth Government Attorney-General’s Department, the Victorian Government, and, previously, the Australian Institute of Criminology for research on alternative reporting options for survivors of sexual violence.

Bianca Fileborn receives funding from the Australian Research Council to undertake research on justice responses to sexual violence.

– ref. The government has announced the scope of its sexual violence inquiry. Here’s what it gets right (and what it doesn’t) – https://theconversation.com/the-government-has-announced-the-scope-of-its-sexual-violence-inquiry-heres-what-it-gets-right-and-what-it-doesnt-221733

Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Nicholas Saner, Post-doctoral researcher in sleep science, Victoria University

For many Australians, January is synonymous with late nights spent watching the Australian Open tennis tournament. These night matches are a great spectacle, and many players consider the prime time slot on centre court as a privilege and reward for their hard work.

An early highlight of this year’s tournament was the men’s third seed Daniil Medvedev playing out a five-set thriller against unseeded Emil Ruusuvuori, with the match finishing at nearly 4am. Less than 48 hours later, Medvedev followed this up by winning his next round match.

In Medvedev’s post-match interview, he discussed recovery and preparation strategies after the previous late-night finish. This included ice baths, medical treatment and physio work before finally going to bed at around 7am, managing to get five hours of sleep.

Similarly, the first round match for women’s number two seed, Aryna Sabalenka, didn’t start until almost midnight.

As sleep scientists, we know limited and disrupted sleep opportunities can impact the body. So what do these late nights and lack of sleep mean for players’ recovery and performance?

Why a lack of sleep is bad for your muscles

The function of sleep is still not well understood, despite us spending close to a third of our life asleep. While we do know that sleeping less than six hours a night is linked to the increased risk of several chronic diseases, there is still much to investigate.

Several recent studies we’ve worked on have demonstrated the importance of sleep for optimal muscle function. For example, one night of sleep deprivation (pulling an “all-nighter”) or repeated nights of short sleep actually impair the muscles’ ability to make new proteins, which is essential for repair and recovery.

Furthermore, other recent research suggests that a period of sleep loss (five nights, with four hours of sleep each night) can reduce mitochondrial function within your muscles. Mitochondria are known as the “powerhouses of the cell” and are responsible for producing the energy needed to exercise – and win a tennis match.

Therefore, the lack of sleep tennis players experience after such late-night finishes may well impact their recovery and subsequent performance.

Sleep loss directly affects athletic performance

It is well accepted that sleep loss negatively impacts cognitive function and decision making. While the data is not definitive, there are also several studies that show sleep loss impacts athletic performance.

A recent study in healthy young women accustomed to resistance exercise found that when they performed their weights session after several nights of restricted sleep, the quality and volume of their performance was reduced. The effort it took to complete the session increased, too.

Losing sleep is also detrimental to anaerobic power and skill execution – both of which are critical for Australian Open hopefuls. One study found a decline in tennis serving accuracy with only five hours of sleep, while another found a decline in maximal power output.

Exercise can help you sleep – but it depends

It is a widely held belief that exercise improves sleep. However, falling asleep shortly after completing an adrenaline-fuelled, high-intensity tennis match is not always easy.

Indeed, a recent study investigated the impact of high-intensity exercise on sleep quality. When the high-intensity exercise was performed in the early afternoon, deep sleep was improved. But when participants exercised shortly before bed, their sleep quality diminished.

However, this effect also depended on whether the person was a morning lark or evening owl (scientists call this a chronotype). The sleep quality of evening types was unaffected by exercise in the evening.

When it comes to tennis stars, a late-night finish can also affect their circadian rhythm. By the time Medvedev or Sabalenka would have got to bed, their natural, tightly regulated internal clock would have been readying them to wake up. Such a misalignment between the body’s circadian rhythm and the body’s drive for sleep tend to result in disrupted, insufficient sleep.

Read more:
Jetlag hits differently depending on your travel direction. Here are 6 tips to get over it

Can players prepare to handle late-night matches?

Some players have voiced their concerns regarding late-night matches. But other players suggest it’s just part of the game. So what can a player do to prepare for the sleep disruption?

Professional athletes have a number of strategies available. For example, napping has myriad benefits for both cognitive function and physical performance.

A popular supplement, caffeine, has consistently been shown to improve physical performance and alertness. While endurance exercise has shown the largest performance benefits from caffeine, small to moderate improvements have been shown in muscle strength, sprinting, jumping and throwing performance.

However, caffeine can be detrimental to subsequent sleep. While athletes preparing for late matches might have an evening caffeine hit, the average Australian should avoid drinking coffee after 3pm.

Increasing sleep duration in the week leading up to late-night matches can also help. Studies have shown that sleep extension increases tennis serving and basketball free throw accuracy almost 10%. Increasing sleep duration could really be the difference between hitting a winner or an unforced error.

It remains to be seen if athletes like Medvedev and Sabalenka will overcome their disrupted sleep and prevail at this year’s Australian Open. But there’s certainly an advantage to having a good night’s shut eye.

Nicholas Saner receives funding from the Victorian Medical Research Acceleration Fund.

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

– ref. Some Australian Open matches run extremely late. How would that impact player sleep and recovery? – https://theconversation.com/some-australian-open-matches-run-extremely-late-how-would-that-impact-player-sleep-and-recovery-221591

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

Each year, more and more Victorians become sick with a flesh-eating bacteria known as Buruli ulcer. Last year, 363 people presented with the infection, the highest number since 2004.

But it has been unclear exactly how it spreads, until now. New research shows mosquitoes are infected from biting possums that carry the bacteria. Mozzies spread it to humans through their bite.

What is Buruli ulcer?

Buruli ulcer, also known as Bairnsdale ulcer, is a skin infection caused by the bacterium Mycobacterium ulcerans.

It starts off like a small mosquito bite and over many months, slowly develops into an ulcer, with extensive destruction of the underlying tissue.

While often painless initially, the infection can become very serious. If left untreated, the ulcer can continue to enlarge. This is where it gets its “flesh-eating” name.

Thankfully, it’s treatable. A six to eight week course of specific antibiotics is an effective treatment, sometimes supported with surgery to remove the infected tissue.

Where can you catch it?

The World Health Organization considers Buruli ulcer a neglected tropical skin disease. Cases have been reported across 33 countries, primarily in west and central Africa.

However, since the early 2000s, Buruli ulcer has also been increasingly recorded in coastal Victoria, including suburbs around Melbourne and Geelong.

Scientists have long known Australian native possums were partly responsible for its spread, and suspected mosquitoes also played a role in the increase in cases. New research confirms this.

Our efforts to ‘beat Buruli’

Confirming the role of insects in outbreaks of an infectious disease is achieved by building up corroborating, independent evidence.

In this new research, published in Nature Microbiology, the team (including co-authors Tim Stinear, Stacey Lynch and Peter Mee) conducted extensive surveys across a 350 km² area of Victoria.

We collected mosquitoes and analysed the specimens to determine whether they were carrying the pathogen, and links to infected possums and people. It was like contact tracing for mosquitoes.

Molecular testing of the mosquito specimens showed that of the two most abundant mosquito species, only Aedes notoscriptus (a widespread species commonly known as the Australian backyard mosquito) was positive for Mycobacterium ulcerans.

We then used genomic tests to show the bacteria found on these mosquitoes matched the bacteria in possum poo and humans with Buruli ulcer.

We further analysed mosquito specimens that contained blood to show Aedes notoscriptus was feeding on both possums and humans.

To then link everything together, geospatial analysis revealed the areas where human Buruli ulcer cases occur overlap with areas where both mosquitoes and possums that harbour Mycobacterium ulcerans are active.

Stop its spread by stopping mozzies breeding

The mosquito in this study primarily responsible for the bacteria’s spread is Aedes notoscriptus, a mosquito that lays its eggs around water in containers in backyard habitats.

Controlling “backyard” mosquitoes is a critical part of reducing the risk of many global mosquito-borne disease, especially dengue and now Buruli ulcer.

Read more:
It’s warming up and mozzies are coming. Here’s how to mosquito-proof your backyard

You can reduce places where water collects after rainfall, such as potted plant saucers, blocked gutters and drains, unscreened rainwater tanks, and a wide range of plastic buckets and other containers. These should all be either emptied at least weekly or, better yet, thrown away or placed under cover.

There is a role for insecticides too. While residual insecticides applied to surfaces around the house and garden will reduce mosquito populations, they can also impact other, beneficial, insects. Judicious use of such sprays is recommended. But there are ecological safe insecticides that can be applied to water-filled containers (such as ornamental ponds, fountains, stormwater pits and so on).

Recent research also indicates new mosquito-control approaches that use mosquitoes themselves to spread insecticides may soon be available.

Read more:
Stickers and wristbands aren’t a reliable way to prevent mosquito bites. Here’s why

How to protect yourself from bites

The first line of defence will remain personal protection measures against mosquito bites.

Covering up with loose fitted long sleeved shirts, long pants, and covered shoes will provide physical protection from mosquitoes.

Applying topical insect repellent to all exposed areas of skin has been proven to provide safe and effective protection from mosquito bites. Repellents should include diethytolumide (DEET), picaridin or oil of lemon eucalyptus.

While the rise in Buruli ulcer is a significant health concern, so too are many other mosquito-borne diseases. The steps to avoid mosquito bites and exposure to Mycobacteriam ulcerans will also protect against viruses such as Ross River, Barmah Forest, Japanese encephalitis, and Murray Valley encephalitis.

Read more:
How can the bite of a backyard mozzie in Australia make you sick?

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

Peter Mee receives funding from the National Health and Medical Research Council.

Stacey Lynch receives funding from the National Health and Medical Research Council of Australia. The work on this subject was undertaken while employed in a former role at Agriculture Victoria.

Tim Stinear receives funding from the National Health and Medical Research Council of Australia.

– ref. Mosquitoes can spread the flesh-eating Buruli ulcer. Here’s how you can protect yourself – https://theconversation.com/mosquitoes-can-spread-the-flesh-eating-buruli-ulcer-heres-how-you-can-protect-yourself-221738

Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Zena Assaad, Senior Lecturer, School of Engineering, Australian National University

Following a lengthy investigation, the United States Justice Department is set to file a lawsuit against Apple for potentially breaching antitrust laws.

The department alleges Apple is using hardware and software limitations that make it harder for rival companies to compete with iPhones and iPads.

If the filing goes ahead, it will mean each of the “big four” tech companies – Amazon, Meta, Google and Apple – will have been sued by the US federal government within the past five years for monopolistic business practices.

As the digital market continues to grow, many countries including the European Union, Japan, the United Kingdom, the US, China, South Korea, India and Australia have all either introduced, or plan to introduce, competition legislation specific to tech firms.

But what are antitrust laws? And how are the tech giants breaching them?

What are antitrust laws?

Antitrust laws originated with the US Sherman Antitrust Act of 1890. This law banned business arrangements which restrained trade, and prohibited attempts to monopolise.

Over time, the Sherman Antitrust Act evolved into what are today’s antitrust laws, adopted in countries all over the world.

Antitrust laws are enforced at domestic levels and allegations of breaches of these laws pertain to domestic markets. These laws – also known as competition laws – prohibit business practices that promote unfair monopolies, stifle competition and reinforce dominance or power.

In recent years, technology products – whether apps or physical products like phones and computers – have been under an enormous amount of scrutiny. Calls for regulating the development and use of technology have a dominant focus on artificial intelligence.

Meanwhile, the business practices of tech giants are garnering less public attention. So it’s noteworthy that the antitrust lawsuits filed against the big four focus on the companies, not just their products.

The allegation is these companies are concentrating the market and therefore charging higher markups for their goods and services, while having less incentive to innovate in ways that benefit consumers.

How are tech giants breaching antitrust laws?

Of the big four, Apple is not the first to be accused of breaching antitrust laws.

In the past decade, the European Union has fined Google a total of €8.25 billion (A$13.6 billion) for three separate breaches of EU’s antitrust laws.

These related to misuse of Google Shopping to disadvantage competitors in 2017, unfair dominance of the Android operating system market in 2018, and abusive practices in online advertising in 2019. The advertising business accounts for 80% of Google’s income.

While Google and its parent company Alphabet did enact some changes to their practices following these EU rulings, to date Google has not paid these fines and continues to appeal them in various instances.

In 2020, the US Justice Department also filed an antitrust lawsuit against Google for monopolising multiple digital advertising technology products.

The ongoing lawsuit claims Google monopolised the “ad tech stack” – the key technologies publishers and advertisers use to sell and buy ads. It is alleged Google neutralised or eliminated ad tech competitors through acquisitions, which forced publishers and advertisers to use its products.

Read more:
The US is taking on Google in a huge antitrust case. It could change the face of online search

In 2021, the US Federal Trade Commission and more than 40 US states sued Meta, claiming the tech company eliminated competition by buying up its rivals.

The two biggest purchases under scrutiny are Instagram, which was purchased for US$1 billion in 2013, and WhatsApp, which was purchased for US$19 billion in 2015. The lawsuit alleges these purchases eliminated competition which had the potential to challenge Meta’s dominance.

In 2023, the US Federal Trade Commission and 17 state attorneys general sued Amazon, claiming the tech company used anticompetitive and unfair strategies to maintain a position of dominance in the market.

The US lawsuits against Google, Meta and Amazon are ongoing, with no decisions handed down as yet.

What is Australia doing to protect consumers?

The Australian federal government has also been investigating global tech giants. Since 2021, the government has investigated legislative methods for protecting Australian consumers.

One example is the Australian Competition and Consumer Commission (ACCC) news media bargaining code. The code requires digital platforms operating in Australia to compensate domestic news publishers for the use of their content.

Read more:
How 2021 was the year governments really started to wise up against big tech

Despite these advancements, Chandni Gupta, Deputy CEO and Digital Policy Director at the Consumer Policy Research Centre, points out:

There are gaps in both Australia’s privacy laws and the consumer law, which can leave Australians with far fewer protections online than consumers in the US and other countries.

The ACCC released its second Digital Platform Services Inquiry interim report in 2021. The report’s findings indicate Google’s Play Store and Apple’s App Store have significant market power in the distribution of mobile apps in Australia, and measures are needed to address this. Examples of measures the ACCC proposed include increasing transparency and providing greater choice of default apps for consumers.

In 2023, ACCC chair Gina Cass-Gottlieb publicly addressed the dangers of the big four. The commissioner referred to the tech giants as “serial acquirers” and raised concerns about their measures for extending and protecting their market power.

Antitrust laws exist to maintain fair competition among businesses. Breaches of these laws mean companies are influencing the market to the detriment of other, usually smaller companies.

If governments are successful in holding tech giants to account, this could drastically redefine the tech market, making way for more equitable competition and more ethical business practices.

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

– ref. Why are Apple, Amazon, Google and Meta facing antitrust lawsuits and huge fines? And will it protect consumers? – https://theconversation.com/why-are-apple-amazon-google-and-meta-facing-antitrust-lawsuits-and-huge-fines-and-will-it-protect-consumers-221501

Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Benjamin T. Jones, Senior Lecturer in History, CQUniversity Australia

Every year, there are debates over the appropriateness of January 26 for a national holiday.

Australia Day has been celebrated on different dates since its inception as a fundraiser for the war effort in 1915. The choice of January 26, the day in 1788 when the British flag was raised in New South Wales, attracted significant protest from First Nations, especially at the sesquicentenary in 1938 and bicentenary in 1988.

In recent years, January 26 has become a date that divides Australians. More than 80 local councils have chosen not to have it as a day of celebration, and Triple J stopped using the date to hold its Hottest 100 competition in 2018. This year, Woolworths’ commercial decision not to stock Australia Day merchandise was met with calls to protest the supermarket giant.

If the purpose of Australia Day is to unite Australians and celebrate our achievements as a nation, then would our Independence Day – March 3 1986 – be a better choice?

Read more:
Australia Day wasn’t always January 26, but it was always an issue

Wasn’t Australia independent before the 1980s?

You might be thinking, hang on, surely Australia was already independent in the 1980s?

To give a typical historian’s answer, yes, but it’s more complex than that.

In 1901, Australia federated and became a nation, but not an independent one. Its initial status was a Dominion of the British empire, self-governing but with its foreign affairs dictated from Westminster.

The Imperial Conference of 1923 gave majority-white Dominions such as Australia control over foreign affairs, while the 1926 Balfour Declaration asserted that Dominions were “autonomous Communities within the British Empire, equal in status”.

The passage of the 1931 Statute of Westminster confirmed that the Dominions were not subordinate to Britain. While this might seem like the independence moment, Australia saw no need for the change and did not ratify it until 1942.

The second world war convinced the Australian government it needed its own diplomats and embassies in foreign nations. Then, in the 1960s, Britain’s attempts to join the European common market and its decision to remove its military from South-East Asia (known as East of Suez) prompted Australia to show greater independence in its trade and security policies.

Even if the Commonwealth government was independent from 1931 (or 1942, technically), colonial anomalies remained and would not be addressed until 1986.

Read more:
Welcome to May 9 – the true Australia Day

Wait, so Australia wasn’t fully independent?

When the Hawke government took office in 1983, the state governments retained their colonial constitutions and were still answerable to the British government.

Further, those unhappy with a ruling in their state supreme court could challenge it in Britain’s Privy Council. These colonial hangovers were not harmless relics, but had real consequences.

While protocol dictates that the monarch must accept the prime minister’s advice when appointing the governor general, at state level, British ministers felt free to reject the advice of premiers.

This was seen in 1975 when Queensland premier Joh Bjelke-Petersen had his attempts to extend the term of governor Sir Colin Hannah blocked.

Similarly, the Privy Council continued to hear cases from Australia. In 1984, 14 appeals from Australia were received, with a further ten in 1985. One of these was instigated by West Indies cricket captain Clive Lloyd, who was awarded damages after an article in The Age implied his team deliberately lost a match. The NSW Court of Appeal overturned the verdict but Lloyd successfully challenged the decision in the Privy Council, undermining the power of the state legal system.

The Australia Acts are twin legislation passed in the UK and Australian parliaments (hence Acts not Act), matched by consenting legislation from each state parliament.

They were the result of years of complex negotiations but were aided by political goodwill from both major parties and the UK government. The Australia Acts ended all remaining powers of the UK parliament over Australian states and confirmed that the High Court of Australia is the final court of appeal.

Australian independence did not come as a result of a dramatic struggle or revolutionary war. Instead, it was a gradual evolution. Queen Elizabeth II commented that “surely no two independent countries could bring to an end their constitutional relationship in a more civilised way” (though, we would continue to share the same head of state).

Despite the significance of the occasion, the passage of the Australia Acts had only limited public interest. The various developments were noted in newspapers in Australia and Britain but usually in the back pages.

For example, when the British legislation passed the House of Lords in December 1985, The Age informed its readers that “the sun sets today on the shreds of colonial bondage” on page 24, next to the daily crossword and a cartoon.

When the Acts came into effect on March 3 1986, the Australian media presented it as a mundane piece of constitutional upkeep, which perhaps explains why the date is not well known today.

A better choice for Australia Day?

Australia does not have a single independence moment. It has no equivalent to the War of Independence in the United States or the storming of the Bastille in France.

Nevertheless, as legal expert Anne Twomey has concluded, it is indisputable that full legal independence was achieved through the Australia Acts.

While historians have been more opaque, Deborah Gare argues convincingly that despite the increased freedoms after 1931, a nation can hardly be called independent without sovereignty over its own judiciary.

January 26 is engulfed in a culture war. It does not satisfy those who want it to be a day of contemplation or those who want it to be a day of united celebration.

Read more:
‘Change the date’ debates about January 26 distract from the truth telling Australia needs to do

For all the commentary, however, few Australians really care what day it is held. Most simply want an opportunity to take a day off work and celebrate the achievements of the country, individually and collectively.

January 26 will always be a significant historical date, but its meaning is contested. By contrast, few would dispute that Australia achieving its full legal independence was a positive development, worthy of celebration.

There is no requirement that Australia Day be celebrated on a historically significant date. The last Friday in January is sometimes suggested to ensure a long weekend.

But for those who do want history to guide the national celebrations, the Australia Acts provide an uncontroversial alternative.

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

– ref. Why we should celebrate Australia Day on March 3 – the day we became a fully independent country – https://theconversation.com/why-we-should-celebrate-australia-day-on-march-3-the-day-we-became-a-fully-independent-country-221015

Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Dominic O’Sullivan, Adjunct Professor, Faculty of Health and Environmental Sciences, Auckland University of Technology, and Professor of Political Science, Charles Sturt University

The ACT Party’s election promise of a referendum to redefine and enshrine the “principles” of the Treaty of Waitangi is likely to dominate debate at this year’s Rātana and Waitangi Day events.

ACT’s coalition agreement with the National Party commits the government to supporting a Treaty Principles Bill for select committee consideration. The bill may not make it into law, but the idea is raising considerable alarm.

Leaked draft advice to Cabinet from the Ministry of Justice says the principles should be defined in legislation because “their importance requires there be certainty and clarity about their meaning”. The advice also says ACT’s proposal will:

change the nature of the principles from reflecting a relationship akin to a partnership between the Crown and Māori to reflecting the relationship the Crown has was with all citizens of New Zealand. This is not supported by either the spirit of the Treaty or the text of the Treaty.

Setting aside arguments that the notion of “partnership” diminishes self-determination, the 10,000 people attending a meeting last weekend called by King Tūheitia were motivated by the prospect of the Treaty being diminished.

Do we need Treaty principles?

The Treaty principles were developed and elaborated by parliaments, courts and the Waitangi Tribunal over more than 50 years to guide policy implementation and mediate tensions between the Māori and English texts of the document.

The Māori text, which more than 500 rangatira (chiefs) signed, conferred the right to establish government on the British Crown. The English text conferred absolute sovereignty; 39 rangatira signed this text after having it explained in Māori, a language that has no concept of sovereignty as a political and legal authority to be given away.

Because the English text wasn’t widely signed, there is a view that it holds no influential standing, and that perhaps there isn’t a tension to mediate. Former chief justice Sian Elias has said “it can’t be disputed that the Treaty is actually the Māori text”.

On Saturday, Tūheitia said: “There’s no principles, the Treaty is written, that’s it.” This view is supported by arguments that the principles are reductionist and take attention away from the substance of Te Tiriti’s articles: the Crown may establish government; Māori may retain authority over their own affairs and enjoy citizenship of the state in ways that reflect equal tikanga (cultural values).

Read more:
Why redefining the Treaty principles would undermine real political equality in NZ

Democratic or undemocratic?

The ACT Party says this is undemocratic because it gives Māori a privileged voice in public decision making. Of the previous government, ACT has said:

Labour is trying to make New Zealand an unequal society on purpose. It believes there are two types of New Zealanders. Tangata Whenua, who are here by right, and Tangata Tiriti who are lucky to be here.

Liberal democracy was not the form of government Britain established in 1840. There’s even an argument that state government doesn’t concern Māori. The Crown exercises government only over “its people” – settlers and their descendants. Māori political authority is found in tino rangatiratanga and through shared decision making on matters of common interest.

Tino rangatiratanga has been defined as “the exercise of ultimate and paramount power and authority”. In practice, like all power, this is relative and relational to the power of others, and constrained by circumstances beyond human control.

But the power of others has to be fair and reasonable, and rangatiratanga requires freedom from arbitrary interference by the state. That way, authority and responsibility may be exercised, and independence upheld, in relation to Māori people’s own affairs and resources.

Assertions of rangatiratanga

Social integration – especially through intermarriage, economic interdependence and economies of scale – makes a rigid “them and us” binary an unlikely path to a better life for anybody.

However, rangatiratanga might be found in Tūheitia’s advice about the best form of protest against rewriting the Treaty principles to diminish the Treaty itself:

Be who we are, live our values, speak our reo (language), care for our mokopuna (children), our awa (rivers), our maunga (mountains), just be Māori. Māori all day, every day.

Read more:
The kīngitanga movement: 160 years of Māori monarchy

As the government introduces measures to reduce the use of te reo Māori in public life, repeal child care and protection legislation that promotes Māori leadership and responsibility, and repeal water management legislation that ensures Māori participation, Tuheitia’s words are all assertions of rangatiratanga.

Those government policies sit alongside the proposed Treaty Principles Bill to diminish Māori opportunities to be Māori in public life. For the ACT Party, this is necessary to protect democratic equality.

In effect, the proposed bill says that to be equal, Māori people can’t contribute to public decisions with reference to their own culture. As anthropologist Anne Salmond has written, this means the state cannot admit there are “reasonable people who reason differently”.

Read more:
Putting te Tiriti at the centre of Aotearoa New Zealand’s public policy can strengthen democracy – here’s how

Liberal democracy and freedom

Equality through sameness is a false equality that liberal democracy is well-equipped to contest. Liberal democracy did not emerge to suppress difference. It is concerned with much more than counting votes to see who wins on election day.

Liberal democracy is a political system intended to manage fair and reasonable differences in an orderly way. This means it doesn’t concentrate power in one place. It’s not a select few exercising sovereignty as the absolute and indivisible power to tell everybody else what to do.

This is because one of its ultimate purposes is to protect people’s freedom – the freedom to be Māori as much as the freedom to be Pakeha. If we want it to, democracy may help all and not just some of us to protect our freedom through our different ways of reasoning.

Read more:
Three parties, two deals, one government: the stress points within New Zealand’s ‘coalition of many colours’

Freedom is protected by checks and balances on power. Parliament checks the powers of government. Citizens, including Māori citizens with equality of tikanga, check the powers of parliament.

One of the ways this happens is through the distribution of power from the centre – to local governments, school boards and non-governmental providers of public services. This includes Māori health providers whose work was intended to be supported by the Māori Health Authority, which the government also intends to disestablish.

The rights of hapu (kinship groups), as the political communities whose representatives signed Te Tiriti, mean that rangatiratanga, too, checks and balances the concentration of power in the hands of a few.

Checking and balancing the powers of government requires the contribution of all and not just some citizens. When they do so in their own ways, and according to their own modes of reasoning, citizens contribute to democratic contest – not as a divisive activity, but to protect the common good from the accumulation of power for some people’s use in the domination of others.

Te Tiriti supports this democratic process.

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

– ref. Waitangi 2024: how the Treaty strengthens democracy and provides a check on unbridled power – https://theconversation.com/waitangi-2024-how-the-treaty-strengthens-democracy-and-provides-a-check-on-unbridled-power-221723