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

The rules by which politics are conducted have changed dramatically, especially since the rise of Trumpism. Yet the professional mass media continue to cover politics in ways that are no longer fit for purpose.

This has created distortions in the way the public discourse unfolds – distortions that have been on full display during the Voice referendum debate.

It presents a complex challenge to journalists and editors about how to simultaneously meet their obligations to truth-telling and impartiality, because there is now an unresolved tension between these two professional standards.

Truth-telling requires that lies and misrepresentations are either not published or refuted; impartiality requires that voices on all sides of a debate be heard, especially if they are the voices of people in positions of influence.

What happens, then, when influential voices on one side of a debate engage in obvious falsehoods?

Take two examples from the Voice debate: Opposition Leader Peter Dutton’s allegation that the Australian Electoral Commission had rigged the referendum outcome by accepting ticks but not crosses as indicative of voting intention, and Senator Jacinta Nampijinpa Price’s claim that colonialisation has had a positive impact on First Nations Australians.

In the pre-Trump era, journalists could have counted on the self-righting process of politics to kick in, governed by conventions that repudiated gross falsehoods and imposed consequences.

A completely baseless allegation by a leader of the opposition that the voting system was rigged would probably have finished his career on the grounds that he had undermined public confidence in the electoral process.

And an outlandish claim of the kind made by Price would have been quickly rebutted by other public voices referring to the facts from Closing the Gap, the findings of various royal commissions and countless other sources of reputable data on Aboriginal disadvantage.

Instead, Dutton sails on as leader of a party that seems to think his conduct unremarkable, perhaps even politically advantageous, while Price begins to be spoken about in certain circles as a potential prime minister.

So the pre-Trumpian self-righting process can no longer be relied on. The old expectation that by exposing misrepresentations of this kind, the media will be holding these public figures to account is dead. Instead, it just gives them publicity.

At the same time, the responsible elements of the professional mass media try to adhere to established standards of truth-telling and impartiality by publishing rebuttals or condemnations.

In the Dutton case, The Australian published a sharp response from the constitutional lawyer George Williams, calling out Dutton’s “irresponsible and harmful” conduct. In the Price case, her comments provoked a backlash published in many newspapers, including the Canberra Times, where her remarks were condemned as “offensive” by the Minister for Indigenous Australians Linda Burney.

This is all very well, but these responses appear days after the initial misrepresentations. In that time, the damage is done, the social media beast has devoured and regurgitated them in almost unrecognisable form, and public attention has long ago been diverted to some newer excitement. By then, to quote Winston Churchill, the lie has gone halfway around the world before truth has got its boots on.

There is no easy and conclusive answer to this dilemma. But there are some steps the media could take to make it less acute.

First, it requires a commitment from the media not to indulge in disinformation of its own. During the Voice debate, for example, several News Corporation mastheads – though not all – published an article claiming the Uluru Statement from the Heart was not one page but 20-plus pages, and included references to treaties and reparations, none of which formed part of the statement or the proposed Voice.

Read more:
Journalists reporting on the Voice to Parliament do voters a disservice with ‘he said, she said’ approach

This was too much even for some other News Corp journalists, who pointed out that the document referred to was not the statement itself but a record of meetings and discussions leading up to it.

The second step the media could take requires the application of a few filters. The first is: does this need to be run at all? If the answer is yes, then how can a neutralising antidote be delivered at the same time? Or can this wait until the speaker can be challenged on it?

The third – and some in the media are already doing this – is to confront the threat disinformation poses by drawing attention to examples and calling them out. During the Voice debate, articles of this kind appeared in the Canberra Times and The Age, as well as in the George Williams article in The Australian referred to earlier.

So much for truth-telling: now for impartiality.

Impartiality does not oblige a broadcaster or publisher to ventilate lies, fantasies or misrepresentations as if they are true.

It is not a failure of impartiality to call Dutton’s utterance a baseless allegation at the time of reporting it. It is accurate and it is fair, two vital elements in impartiality.

It is not a failure of impartiality to report Price’s remarks and in the next paragraph point out that this view is refutable by reference to whatever data seem most apt.

Another element in the impartiality equation is balance. Balance is not about giving equal time, space or prominence to each or every side of a story. Balance follows the weight of evidence.

In the context of the referendum, it is false balance to give equal weight to the claim that the proposed Constitutional amendment would import a divisive race-based element into the Constitution, and to the constitutional lawyers’ opinion that it does no such thing.

Read more:
An Indigenous Voice to Parliament will not give ‘special rights’ or create a veto

The fact is that the Constitution already contains two race-based clauses: 25 and 51, the latter known specifically as the “race power”. Reporting the claim of racial divisiveness without the contradicting facts is a failure of balance.

Giving effect to these remedies requires close scrutiny of potential content and rigorous editorial decision-making.

The alternative – still widely used – is to fall back on that discredited and outdated approach called “he said/she said” journalism. This is where the damaging content is presented as a plausible point of view, someone else is quoted as opposing it, and the public is left to figure out the truth for itself.

This is against the public interest. Lies and misrepresentations are not just another set of truths – what Trump’s one-time press assistant Kellyanne Conway called “alternative facts”. They corrode trust. No one knows where to turn for reliable information, and the ground is prepared for yet more conspiracy theories to take root.

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. How did the media perform on the Voice referendum? Let’s talk about truth-telling and impartiality – https://theconversation.com/how-did-the-media-perform-on-the-voice-referendum-lets-talk-about-truth-telling-and-impartiality-214961

Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Frank Bongiorno, Professor of History, ANU College of Arts and Social Sciences, Australian National University

The result of the Voice referendum on Saturday was unexceptional if considered in light of the constitutional history of this country.

With a “yes”/“no” split likely to be about 40/60%, the defeat was no more or less resounding than several other proposals since Federation that became buried in contention, partisanship and opportunism. The “no” side’s clean sweep of the states has also occurred before – on a quarter of all referendum votes, in fact.

There will now be many a post-mortem, and many a “what if?” There will be an abundance of wisdom after the event. What if Opposition Leader Peter Dutton had offered bipartisan support? What if there had been a constitutional convention? What if the government had negotiated with the opposition over the detail? What if it had released a draft bill? What if the referendum were held next year? What if “yes” had run a different campaign? What if there had not been a cost-of-living crisis? What if there had been less lying?

In truth, it is hard to imagine a counterfactual scenario that would have produced a different result. Even if Dutton had said “yes”, the Nationals would still have said “no”. Even if the Liberals and Nationals had both said “yes”, other elements on the political right would have said “no”, and both parties would have split. Indigenous opinion was clearly divided, whatever the proportion on each side.

The “no” side – and even the odd Liberal on the “yes” side – complains to whoever will listen about process, but there is no reason to believe some other pathway would have led to a better result. Dutton never indicated what alternative formulation would have satisfied him.

The “yes” case will have its critics, but it was never going to be easy to craft a message with broad appeal. The more than 96% of Australians who are not Indigenous were being asked to offer a concession to the fewer than 4% that the latter do not presently have. It was never going to be easy to make that case.

Settler Australians have often tended to equate equality with sameness. This sentiment is what they call egalitarianism and understand as democracy. For many, to create an Indigenous Voice was to foster inequality and promote division where they believe there should be unity. The “no” case’s claim that the Voice would create disunity was likely devastating in its effects. What many “no” voters want is unity on their own terms.

A referendum proposal begins as the diagnosis of a problem, an argument that the Constitution – drafted in the 1890s – can be made to work better. Governments don’t go to the people with a referendum for opportunistic reasons: it’s just too difficult. So, they tend to be genuine efforts to solve a problem. To get a “yes” vote, you need to get acceptance of both the authorised diagnosis of the problem and the solution being offered.

What was the problem to be solved here, and how was the Voice to help solve it? The “yes” leaflet I received as I went to vote identified three things the Voice would do. “Yes” would provide Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander people with constitutional recognition through a Voice. It would offer the means by which advice from Indigenous people would be listened to, leading to better government decision-making. And it would get better results for First Nations people in health, education, employment and housing, leading to a better life.

In other words, the Voice would provide Indigenous people with formal constitutional recognition and an opportunity to speak for themselves, and it would provide practical benefits to help “close the gap”. It seems like a simple message, but it also demands that voters accept several propositions. Let us take just two of them.

First, do Indigenous people need a further opportunity to speak for themselves? I believe so, but “no” voters might have taken the view that there were already Indigenous members of the federal parliament able to speak for Indigenous people.

And if they believed as much, the prominence of two of those members on the “no” side, Jacinta Nampijinpa Price and Lidia Thorpe, would have done little to persuade them that a Voice was needed. Price and Warren Mundine, a former Liberal candidate for parliament, were the de facto leaders of the “no” campaign. The prominent role of a few high-profile Indigenous people was, in my view, devastating to the moral and political authority of the “yes” case.

Second, while there are some white Australians still prepared to deny the existence of Aboriginal disadvantage, even those who acknowledge the truth of it needed to accept that the Voice would be effective in helping to close the gap.

Given the long history of policy failure in this area, that was a hard argument to make. The Voice, moreover, was to be advisory – a point that Prime Minister Anthony Albanese, among others, repeatedly underlined in an effort to reassure non-Indigenous voters it would do little to change the existing political arrangements. People were being asked to support something important enough to call them to the polls, at the same time as they were told it was too modest a proposal for them to need to worry over.

Read more:
‘We should be listening’: the long history of Liberal innovation – and failure – on Indigenous policy

The “no” result will be deeply disappointing to many Australians, and most of all to those Indigenous people who have worked patiently for years to achieve constitutional change. There will be many broken hearts. These people have had to endure some of the very worst impulses at work in this country, and some of the nastiest instincts that disfigure its public life. That, too, is unexceptional in the history of this country.

If there is to be any healing, it will be a long journey.

Frank Bongiorno 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. If there is to be any healing after the Voice referendum, it will be a long journey – https://theconversation.com/if-there-is-to-be-any-healing-after-the-voice-referendum-it-will-be-a-long-journey-214370

Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Rebecca Strating, Director, La Trobe Asia and Associate Professor, La Trobe University, La Trobe University

In recent days, news organisations around the world have sought to explain to global audiences both the Voice to Parliament referendum campaign and the result. The picture they have painted of Australia is not exactly flattering. The BBC, for example, described the win for the “no” side coming after a “fraught and often acrid campaign”.

The Washington Post declared it a “crushing blow” for Australia’s First Nations people who “saw the referendum as an opportunity for Australia to turn the page on its colonial and racist past”.

Even the play-it-straight Associated Press declared the rejection of the Voice as a “major setback to the country’s efforts for reconciliation with its First Peoples”. Similarly, Reuters reported on fears the result “could set back reconciliation efforts by years”.

Australia’s own media warned a “no” vote could be seen as evidence that Australia was a “racial rogue nation”. A crucial question, then, is whether this result will affect the way the world views Australia and potentially have an impact on Australia’s international relations.

‘Uncomfortable fault lines’

Much of the world’s attention over the past week has been focused on the Israel-Hamas conflict. Yet, the data we’ve been analysing from Meltwater, a global media monitoring company, showed a 30% increase in mentions of the Voice to Parliament in the mainstream news and social media in the week leading up to the vote. There were 297,000 mentions this past week, compared with 228,000 mentions the preceding week.

Much of this content was generated within Australia, but just before the referendum, there was an uptick in the number of “explainers” produced by global news organisations.

The BBC, for instance, reported the historic vote had

exposed uncomfortable fault lines, and raised questions over Australia’s ability to reckon with its past.

The New York Times wrote the referendum had

surfaced uncomfortable, unsettled questions about Australia’s past, present and future.

A number of pieces compared Australia unfavourably with other settler-colonial nations in terms of the legal recognition of First Nations people, including New Zealand and Canada.

Japan-based Nikkei Asia reported:

Australia is the only developed nation with a colonial history that doesn’t recognise the existence of its Indigenous people in the constitution.

An explainer by Reuters similarly pointed out:

First Nations people in other former British colonies continue to face marginalisation, but some countries have done better in ensuring their rights.

And in an interview with Reuters, the UN’s special rapporteur on the right to development, Surya Deva, said the Voice debate had “exposed the hidden discriminatory attitude” in Australia towards Indigenous peoples.

Misinformation grabs headlines

Some international media also pointed to the large amount of misinformation that had surfaced during the campaign.

The New York Times, which had extensive coverage of the campaign, reported the country had become “ensnared in a bitter culture war” based on “Trump-style misinformation” and “election conspiracy theories”.

One blunt BBC headline explicitly linked misinformation to racism: “Voice referendum: Lies fuel racism ahead of Australia’s Indigenous vote”.

A Reuters explainer similarly reported on concerns that “racist and false narratives” had sparked fears the Voice would be a “third chamber of parliament”.

Many outlets had compared the Voice to Parliament referendum to the 2016 presidential election of Donald Trump in the United States and the Brexit referendum in the United Kingdom. This referendum result, however, was less surprising and generally reflected the polls.

How will this affect Australia’s relations?

In a previous analysis piece, we wrote that most mentions of the Voice in the international mainstream media and social media had been generated by the United States, followed by the United Kingdom. In the last week of the campaign, there was a 30% increase in number of media mentions of the Voice (9,100) from US traditional news and social media accounts, compared to the preceding week (7,000).

Yet, despite the negative tone of the coverage, it seems unlikely the result will substantially affect Australia’s relations with either country. Concerns about the shifting geopolitics of the Asia-Pacific region have brought the three countries much closer in recent years. This was cemented further by the AUKUS pact.

Read more:
How might the First Nations Voice to Parliament referendum affect Australia’s international reputation?

In the Asia-Pacific region, however, leaders have no doubt been watching the referendum, even if they will not immediately comment on the result.

China’s representatives might be quiet now, but there is little doubt the “no” vote will contribute to the strategic narratives that Beijing uses to blunt Australia’s criticisms of its human rights abuses on the international stage.

A measured interview with Indigenous academic and poet Jeanine Leane in China’s Global Times newspaper, for example, carried the headline “Colonialism, white supremacy loom over Australia’s aboriginal referendum”. This is, however, not entirely out of step with some of the other coverage emerging from Australia’s allies and partners.

Indian security expert Ambika Vishwanath argued in a piece for the Lowy Institute:

it seems extraordinary that a country such as Australia, one that largely aligns itself with ‘Western’ norms and values of freedom and democracy and a liberal outlook on life, has yet to recognise the people that originally inhabited the continent for close to 60,000 years.

New Delhi now has another avenue for pushback if Australia raises concerns about India’s domestic politics.

For some in the Pacific, the result will not come as a surprise. It may entrench views of Australia as a settler-colonial state unwilling to grapple with its past, including colonialism in the Pacific.

As the referendum is a domestic issue, it is unsurprising other governments’ leaders have not immediately commented publicly on the result. But this does not mean they’re not watching. The Australian government must now explain to the international community the “substantive policy steps” it is taking to close the gap in Indigenous disadvantage – a tough ask.

Rebecca Strating receives funding from a La Trobe University Synergy grant for this project. She is a recipient of external grant funding, including from the governments of Australia, United States, United Kingdom, the Philippines and Taiwan.

Andrea Carson receives funding from La Trobe University Synergy grant pogram to undertake this research.

– ref. ‘Lies fuel racism’: how the global media covered Australia’s Voice to Parliament referendum – https://theconversation.com/lies-fuel-racism-how-the-global-media-covered-australias-voice-to-parliament-referendum-215665

Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Richard Shaw, Professor of Politics, Massey University

Close, but so far no “baubles of office” for Winston Peters and NZ First. “We have done the impossible,” he told supporters on election night. But as the old saying goes, politics is the art of the possible.

For the past two weeks, as the polls showed NZ First climbing towards and then past the 5% threshold for securing seats in parliament, all the talk was about how Peters – the great survivor of New Zealand politics – might exercise the balance of power.

In the event, many things now hang in the balance. New Zealanders will have to wait until the variables and peculiarities of the MMP electoral system shake down once special votes are included in the final results.

But there’s no denying the laurels on the night went to Christopher Luxon’s National Party. It outperformed recent polling to secure 38.9% of the vote and 50 seats in the new parliament. All that, plus an All Blacks victory the next morning too.

The ACT Party will reflect on a night which, if not quite as good as earlier polling might have delivered, still resulted in 8.9% of the vote and 11 seats.

For Chris Hipkins and the Labour Party, however, it was a terrible evening. Labour’s 26.9% of the vote is barely half what it achieved just three years ago, and its second worst performance since 1969.

Labour lost a slew of electorates – including seats such as Rongotai, Wellington Central and Mt Roskill – which have rarely not been red. The road back for Labour will be a long one, and it begins with a much-diminished caucus.

End of an era

Ironies abound in this election. Under MMP, the party vote determines the overall outcome, but the votes cast in constituencies have shaped the size of the next parliament.

The unfortunate death of an ACT candidate means NZ First’s leader may yet be kingmaker. Parties hostile to the very existence of Māori seats may have to work together because of what happened in those electorates.

Read more:
It’s National on the night as New Zealand turns right: 2023 election results at a glance

But beyond those minutiae, something else happened last night. Three years ago, Jacinda Ardern’s Labour Party won the largest share of the popular vote since 1951, largely on the basis of the trust voters placed in her political leadership and her government’s response to the COVID-19 pandemic.

Last night, a New Zealand that no longer wishes to be reminded of those dark times closed the door on the government that led the country through them.

Not so ‘minor’ parties

Behind the raw numbers lies another story. The combined two-party vote for National and Labour was just 65.9%, the lowest since 2002. It may soon be time to retire the “minor” shorthand used to refer to the other parties now embedded in the political landscape.

The Greens have real cause for celebration, adding four seats to the ten they secured in 2020. The party held the key urban seat of Auckland Central and also picked up Wellington Central, comfortably winning the party vote in that electorate too.

Te Pāti Māori’s performance in doubling the number of its parliamentary seats to four was striking: reward for confident, assertive leadership from Rawiri Waititi (the incumbent for the seat of Waiariki) and Debbie Ngarewa-Packer (the new MP for Te Tai Hauāuru).

At just 20 years of age, new Waikato-Tainui MP Hana-Rawhiti Maipi-Clarke – who toppled foreign affairs minister Nania Mahuta – becomes the youngest representative ever elected in Aotearoa New Zealand.

NZ First, on the other hand, will be feeling frustrated. Yes, it is back in parliament with eight seats, after three years on the sidelines. But Winston Peters is not (yet) in the kingmaker position most major polls were predicting just days ago.

The maths of MMP

Te Pāti Māori’s strong showing means the 54th Parliament will probably have 122 MPs, including the additional seat that will be added following the Port Waikato by-election to be held on November 25.

Crucially, this means at least 62 seats will be needed to form a government. National and ACT currently control 61. Assuming National holds Port Waikato, between them they will be able to cobble together a bare majority.

However, if either National or ACT lose seats when the official results are announced on November 3, Port Waikato would become irrelevant: if he hasn’t already done so by then, Christopher Luxon would have to pick up the phone and speak with Winston Peters.

And it’s worth pointing out National has routinely dropped seats once special votes have been counted at each of the past six elections: two in 2017 and 2020, and one in every election between 2005 and 2014.

Read more:
NZ Election 2023: polls understated the right, but National-ACT may struggle for a final majority

Forming the next government

It is possible, therefore, that the business of stitching together the next government will not be entirely straightforward.

That process is unusually permissive under New Zealand’s election rules. Parliament must meet within six weeks of the return of the writs (November 9), but there is no formal requirement that a government be in place at that point.

Moreover, the shape, substance and duration of the process is for the political parties to determine. The Governor-General steers clear of proceedings, and some of the arrangements that apply elsewhere – the appointment of a “formateur” to oversee the process, for instance, or the requirement that the largest party is included in the government – do not apply in New Zealand.

Read more:
From ‘pebble in the shoe’ to future power broker – the rise and rise of te Pāti Māori

It’s all a little freestyle, which explains why the country has had such different government formation processes and outcomes since the first MMP election in 1996.

If National and ACT maintain the number of seats they won on election night, the only barriers they face to the formation of a government are internal ones.

Negotiations will likely have been concluded by December 22, the day the Governor-General will deliver the Speech from the Throne containing the incoming government’s policy priorities.

But any slippage and all bets will be off. NZ First’s support will be required to form a government. And if Winston Peter’s chequered history with the National Party is any guide, negotiations could quickly turn difficult. But for now, NZ First – and New Zealand itself – must wait.

Richard Shaw 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. From a red tide in 2020 to blood on the floor in 2023 – NZ slams the door on Labour – https://theconversation.com/from-a-red-tide-in-2020-to-blood-on-the-floor-in-2023-nz-slams-the-door-on-labour-215430

Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Amy Maguire, Associate Professor in Human Rights and International Law, University of Newcastle

A majority of Australian voters have rejected the proposal to establish an Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Voice to Parliament, with the final results likely to be about 40% voting “yes” and 60% voting “no”.

What was the referendum about?

In this referendum, Australians were asked to vote on whether to establish an Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Voice to Parliament. The Voice was proposed as a means of recognising Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander peoples as the First Peoples of Australia in the Constitution.

The Voice proposal was a modest one. It was to be an advisory body for the national parliament and government. Had the referendum succeeded, Australia’s Constitution would have been amended with a new section 129:

In recognition of Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander peoples as the First Peoples of Australia:

i. there shall be a body, to be called the Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Voice

ii. the Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Voice may make representations to the Parliament and the Executive Government of the Commonwealth on matters relating to Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander peoples

iii. the Parliament shall, subject to this Constitution, have power to make laws with respect to matters relating to the Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Voice, including its composition, functions, powers and procedures.

This proposal was drawn from the Uluru Statement from the Heart from 250 Indigenous leaders, which called for three phases of reform – Voice, followed by Treaty and Truth -telling about Australia’s colonial history. The proposal was for constitutional change to ensure the Voice would not be abolished by government in future, as previous Indigenous bodies have been.

Read more:
Voice to Parliament referendum defeated: results at-a-glance

How did Australians vote?

Voting is compulsory in Australia. Every eligible Australian citizen over 18 years of age is obliged to vote in elections and referendums. Australia has one of the highest rates of voter turn out in the world – over 90% of those eligible have voted in every national election since compulsory voting was introduced in 1924.

Australia has a written Constitution. A successful referendum vote is required to change the Constitution in any way.

To succeed, a referendum proposition requires a double majority. This means it must be agreed to by a majority of voters, and a majority of states. Australia has six states, so at least four must have a majority of voters in favour for a referendum to succeed.

Australia also has two territories – individuals in the territories contribute to the overall vote, but the territories do not count towards the majority of states.

It’s very difficult to achieve constitutional change in Australia. Since federation in 1901, 45 questions have been put to Australian voters in referendums. Only eight of those have succeeded.

In the Voice referendum, only the Australian Capital Territory voted “yes” by majority. A clear majority of the national electorate voted “no”. All states returned majority “no” results.

Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander people constitute 3.8% of Australia’s population. Government members claimed on ABC TV in the referendum coverage that polling booths including high proportions of Indigenous voters, for example Palm Island in Queensland, returned high “yes” votes. However, in a majoritarian democracy like Australia, such a small proportion of the national population cannot dictate the outcome of a national poll.

Importantly, the Voice referendum did not have unanimous support across the two main political parties in Australia. The Labor government announced and has campaigned for “yes”. The leader of the opposition, Liberal Queensland MP Peter Dutton, campaigned strongly against the referendum proposal.

What happens now?

The government is bound to abide by the referendum result. Prime Minister Anthony Albanese has confirmed that his government will not seek to legislate a Voice as an alternative to the constitutional model.

Albanese, conceding the failure of the referendum, said: “Tomorrow we must seek a new way forward”. He called for a renewed focus on doing better for First Peoples in Australia.

Read more:
View from The Hill: Anthony Albanese promises to continue to ‘advance reconciliation’ despite sweeping defeat of referendum

The referendum outcome represents a major loss for the government. But much more important than that will be the negative impacts of the campaign and loss on Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander people.

On ABC TV, Arrernte/Luritja woman Catherine Liddle called for a renewed focus on truth-telling and building understanding of Australia’s history across the population. She said the failure of the referendum reflected a lack of understanding about the lives and experiences of Indigenous people in Australia.

“Yes” campaign advocates reported devastation at the outcome. Sana Nakata, writing here, said: “now we are where we have always been, left to build our better futures on our own”.

Some First Nations advocates, including Victorian independent Senator Lidia Thorpe – a Gunnai, Gunditjmara and Djab Wurrung woman – argued the Voice proposal lacked substance and that the referendum should not have been held. Advocates of a “progressive no” vote (who felt the Voice didn’t go far enough) will continue to call for recognition of continuing First Nations sovereignty and self-determination through processes of treaty and truth-telling.

The information landscape for Australian voters leading up to this referendum was murky and difficult to navigate. The Australian Electoral Commission published a disinformation register. Misinformation and lies, many circulated through social media, have influenced the decision-making of a proportion of voters.

It’s open to question whether constitutional change of any kind can be achieved while voters remain so exposed to multiple versions of “truth”.

For many First Nations people, the proliferation of lies and misinformation driven by racism throughout the Voice debate have been traumatising and brutal.

Indigenous Australians’ Minister, Wiradjuri woman Linda Burney, spoke to Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander people after the result: “Be proud of your identity. Be proud of the 65,000 years of history and culture that you are part of”. Her pain was patently obvious as she responded to the referendum outcome.

Amy Maguire is a board member of Reconciliation NSW and a volunteer for the Yes23 campaign.

– ref. Explainer: Australia has voted against an Indigenous Voice to Parliament. Here’s what happened – https://theconversation.com/explainer-australia-has-voted-against-an-indigenous-voice-to-parliament-heres-what-happened-215155

Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Adrian Beaumont, Election Analyst (Psephologist) at The Conversation; and Honorary Associate, School of Mathematics and Statistics, The University of Melbourne

While the tide well and truly went out on Labour on election night, there are still several factors complicating the formation of a National and ACT coalition government. Special votes are yet to be counted, with the official final result still two weeks away.

In past elections special votes have boosted the left parties. If that is the case this year, we won’t know by how much until November 3. Consequently, the preliminary results may be slightly skewed against the left.

On these figures, National won 50 seats (up 17 since the 2020 election), Labour 34 (down 31), the Greens 14 (up four), ACT 11 (up one), NZ First eight (returning to parliament), and Te Pāti Māori/the Māori party four (up two). There are 121 seats overall (up one from the last parliament).

While National and ACT currently have 61 combined seats, enough for a right majority, if past patterns hold they will lose one or two seats when the special votes are counted – and thus their majority.

Several variables in play

There are two other complications. First, there will be a November 25 by-election in Port Waikato after the death last Monday of an ACT candidate. The winner of that by-election will be added as an additional seat. National is almost certain to win the by-election.

Second, Te Pāti Māori won four of the seven Māori-roll electorates and Labour one. In the other two, Labour is leading by under 500 votes. If Te Pāti Māori wins both these seats after special votes are counted, it would win six single-member seats, three above its proportional entitlement of three.

The new parliament already has one overhang seat due to Te Pāti Māori’s electorate success. If it wins six, the new parliament will have 124 members (including the Port Waikato by-election winner). That would mean 63 seats would be needed for a majority.

Read more:
It’s National on the night as New Zealand turns right: 2023 election results at a glance

National, though, would be assisted if Te Pāti Māori’s party vote increases from the provisional 2.6% to around 3% after special votes are counted, but it wins no more single-member seats. That would increase Te Pāti Māori’s seat entitlement to four and eliminate the overhang.

Then, if the right drops only one seat after special votes and National wins the by-election, National and ACT would have a majority.

While National performed better than anticipated given the late trend to the left in the polls, National and ACT are unlikely to have a combined majority once all votes are counted, and National will likely depend on NZ First in some way.

Polls understated the right

Party vote shares on the night were 39.0% National (up 13.4%), 26.9% Labour (down 23.1%), 10.8% Greens (up 2.9%), 9.0% ACT (up 1.4%), 6.5% NZ First (up 3.9%) and 2.6% Te Pāti Māori (up 1.4%).

For the purposes of this analysis, the right coalition is defined as National and ACT, and the left as Labour, the Greens and Te Pāti Māori. NZ First has sided with both left and right in the past, and supported the left from 2017 to 2020, so it is not counted with either left or right.

Read more:
NZ Election 2023: from one-way polls to threats of coalition ‘chaos’, it’s been a campaign of two halves

On the preliminary results, the right coalition won this election by 7.7 percentage points, enough for a majority despite NZ First’s 6.5%. In 2020, left parties defeated the right by a combined 25.9 points. But it’s likely the right’s lead will drop on special votes.

The two poll graphs below include a late poll release from Morgan conducted between September 4 and October 8. I have used September 22 as the midpoint. This poll gave the left parties a two-point lead over the right, a reversal of an 8.5-point right lead in Morgan’s August poll.

The current result is comparable to the polling up to late September and early October when there was a late movement to the left.

Overall, it looks as if the polls overstated the Greens and understated National. The polls that came closest to the provisional result were the 1News-Verian poll and the Curia poll for the Taxpayers’ Union.

In 2020, polls greatly understated the left; this time the right was understated.

It’s possible media coverage of the possibility of NZ First being the kingmaker drove voters back to National in the final days. By 48% to 26%, respondents in the Guardian Essential poll thought NZ First holding the balance of power would be bad for New Zealand rather than good. For now, any such concerns are on hold.

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

– ref. NZ Election 2023: polls understated the right, but National-ACT may struggle for a final majority – https://theconversation.com/nz-election-2023-polls-understated-the-right-but-national-act-may-struggle-for-a-final-majority-215528

Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Veronika Meduna, Science, Health + Environment New Zealand Editor, The Conversation

From winning a single-party majority in 2020, Labour’s vote has virtually halved in 2023. Pre-election polls appear to have under-estimated support for National, which on the provisional results can form a government with ACT and won’t need NZ First, despite those same polls pointing to a three-way split.

While the Greens and Te Pāti Māori both saw big gains, taking crucial electorate seats, it has been at the expense of Labour. Special votes are yet to be counted, and Te Pāti Māori winning so many electorate seats will cause an “overhang”, increasing the size of parliament and requiring a larger majority to govern.

There will also be a by-election in the Port Waikato electorate on November 25, which National is expected to win. So the picture may change between now and November 3 when the official result is revealed. But on tonight’s count, the left bloc is out of power and the right is back.

Big shift in the Māori electorates

Te Pāti Māori has performed better than expected in the Māori electorates – taking down some titans of the Labour Party and winning four of the seven seats.

The party vote remained at 2.5% – consistent with 2020.

One of the biggest upsets was 21-year-old Hana-Rawhiti Maipi-Clarke’s win over Labour stalwart Nanaia Mahuta in the Hauraki-Waikato electorate. Mahuta has represented the electorate since 2008 and has been in parliament since 1996.

This was a must-win race for Mahuta, the current foreign affairs minister, after she announced she would not be running on the Labour party list.

Labour won all seven Māori seats in 2017 and six in 2020.

Advance voting

In 2017, 1.24 million votes were cast before election day, more than the previous two elections combined.

In 2020, this rose to 1.97 million people – an extremely high early vote figure attributable to the impact of the COVID-19 pandemic.

This year, more than 1.3 million New Zealanders cast advance votes before election day – higher than 2017 but significantly lower than 2020.

The comeback kid

After a dismal showing at the 2020 election, NZ First’s Winston Peters has yet again shown himself to be the comeback kid of New Zealand politics. Peters and his party have provisionally gained nearly 6.5% of the vote, giving them eight seats in parliament.

On the current numbers, the National Party will not need NZ First to help form the government. But the result is still a massive reversal of fortune for Peters, who failed to meet the 5% threshold or win an electorate seat in 2020.

The heart of Wellington goes Green

Urban electorates in Wellington have resoundingly shifted left, with wins for the Green Party’s Tamatha Paul in Wellington Central and Julie Anne Genter in Rangotai. Chlöe Swarbrick has retained her seat in Auckland Central.

The Wellington electorates had previously been Labour strongholds. But the decision by Grant Robertson to compete as a list-only MP opened Wellington Central to Paul, currently a city councillor.

Genter takes the seat from outgoing Labour MP Paul Eagle.

Both Wellington electorates have also seen sizeable chunks of the party vote – 30% in Rangotai and almost 36% in Wellington Central – go to the Greens.

– ref. It’s National on the night as New Zealand turns right: 2023 election results at a glance – https://theconversation.com/its-national-on-the-night-as-new-zealand-turns-right-2023-election-results-at-a-glance-214560

Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Bhiamie Williamson, Research Fellow, Monash University

October 14, 2023 will be remembered by many as the day reconciliation died.

The defeat of the referendum may not have surprised many of us, Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander people. After all, we have become accustomed to disappointment. Nonetheless, it is a devastating and demoralising blow.

We must take stock of this political disaster and consider where it leaves us as a nation and a society of people and in what direction we walk from here.

A political disaster

I have published extensively on the impacts of disasters on Indigenous peoples, such as fires and floods.

When a disaster strikes, people’s experiences are varied and complicated. Some people escape relatively unscathed, perhaps even better off, while others are heavily and negatively impacted. It is common for those negatively impacted to experience shock and trauma.

There is much to be learned by viewing the referendum defeat as a political disaster.

The first thing to acknowledge is the impact the result will have on many of our peoples and allies. We must validate these feelings of hurt, distress and anger.

Yet the opportunities after a disaster lay in the rebuild, in learning and adapting, and in recognising systemic features of our society that produce vulnerabilities.

Formalising the informal

Many Indigenous people have maintained Australia is a racist country.

This is not to say every person who voted “no” on October 14 is a racist.

Motivations driving individual voting preferences are complicated, contested, perhaps even contradictory. We must be careful to not equate an individual “no” vote as a marker of individual racism. But ignoring patterns of racism and the relentless racist dialogue from some in the “no” campaign is to be wilfully, and knowingly, indifferent.

Racism is a drug, and Australia has an addiction.

Our insistence on this has elicited strong rejections from mainstream Australians who have preferred to see racist events – the Northern Territory Intervention, the 2005 Cronulla riots, the booing of AFL player Adam Goodes – as isolated instances.

For us, these instances are never isolated. They join together in a chain of prejudice which began with the arrival of the First Fleet.

We could say Australia has always been casually, or informally, racist. The resounding “no” written by the majority of Australians across a majority of states, then, formalises the informal.

Finally recognising this fundamental truth about our society will allow us to take generational steps to address it.

October 14 will be remembered by many of us as a spectacular own-goal, rivalling perhaps the Whitlam dismissal.

It was a day when rather than step towards a more kind and equitable future, Australia chose to retreat to a deeply problematic past.

Where to from here?

Within the disappointment of defeat there remain opportunities for those brave enough and willing to embrace it.

We have been denied a place within the Constitution, but it is within our collective power to reconstitute ourselves and create a self-determined Voice. We don’t even need to look far to see how this might work.

Established in 2009, The National Congress of Australia’s First Peoples was perhaps the most complete expression of what an organised and unified Voice might be.

The decline of Congress was not because it wasn’t an effective model of representation. Rather, it was disbanded in 2019 because of the withdrawal of funding by a Coalition government.

If funding is holding back a self-determined Voice such as a Congress, the “yes” campaign has shown Indigenous peoples are far from friendless or penniless.

Other opportunities may exist in plain sight. I have previously written about the sleeping electoral power of Indigenous peoples. Could Indigenous votes be mobilised beyond the Northern Territory for targeted political impact?

For those wanting more direct and tangible opportunities, perhaps now is a time to become a donor to charities working with our communities. The Australian Indigenous Governance Institute, Aurora Foundation, and Country Needs People are three that immediately come to mind.

Learning and adapting

The largest learning from the referendum is that we require new political strategies for Indigenous advancement.

The politics of asking must cease.

Many activists will want to hit the streets once again, but this is not the 1970s. The Sorry Day rally in 2000 and the Students for Climate Action rally in 2021, each of which brought many thousands of people to the street, failed to move government. And the treatment of asylum seekers demonstrates Australia cares little for its international reputation.

What we require is a different kind of political action. This action will require support, membership, funding, and clear communication, but never asking for permission.

We need innovation and imagination for this, and our allies must be brave and willing to step into these more radical spaces with us.

Perhaps most importantly, this renewed political action requires new leadership.

Passing the baton

The generations of Indigenous leaders who have steered our communities, and the campaign for Constitutional recognition, deserve our deepest gratitude.

It takes a certain type of person to take the hits and keep standing up and moving forward.

To our leaders who have offered us strength and shone light on a righteous path, we will forever look up to you.

October 14 will not be your legacy.

A new generation of leaders has followed in your footsteps and grown up in your shadow.

Now is the time to pass the baton of leadership.

That new generation is already here – and we are hungry for the opportunity.

Hand us not the baton of defeat, but strength in the struggle.

May each “yes” vote cast at the referendum be a drop of rain that nourishes the land as it seeks to heal itself.

With concerted effort, and sympathetic yet radical activism, October 14 may be remembered as the firestorm that tore through our nation, but from which green shoots of opportunity sprung.

Bhiamie Williamson is a Director of Country Needs People

– ref. The failed referendum is a political disaster, but opportunity exists for those brave and willing to embrace it – https://theconversation.com/the-failed-referendum-is-a-political-disaster-but-opportunity-exists-for-those-brave-and-willing-to-embrace-it-213755

Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Sana Nakata, Principal Research Fellow, James Cook University

There has never been a decade without a significant Indigenous-led movement in Australia. These movements have centred on the reinstatement of Indigenous peoples’ rights as self-determining peoples, and demands for justice arising from our brutal dispossession and its contemporary fingerprints.

There has never been a successful referendum without bipartisan support. Success for the Voice to Parliament was always going to be against the odds. Tonight, we saw results track recent polls with an overall Yes vote expected in the mid 40s nationally. With New South Wales, Tasmania and South Australia called by 7:25pm, the referendum has failed.

On May 27, 2017, more than 250 community delegates from across the continent stood together and provided an invitation to the Australian people through the Uluṟu Statement from the Heart.

The statement proposed a path forward for the nation: Voice, Treaty and Truth. Today, Australia voted on the first step and in delivering a No outcome, has revealed the heart of this nation.

Let’s acknowledge the significance of the work it took to get here.

The journey here

Megan Davis and George Williams’ Everything You Need to Know About the Uluṟu Statement from the Heart, offers a heartbreaking timeline of the many forms of political claim-making First Nations’ people have engaged in since at least 1846.

These include petitions to kings and queens, petitions to governors requesting land grants, demands for freedom, for autonomy over reserve areas, to demands for representation in the parliament, labour strikes, and calls for treaty and land rights.

In the 13 years since the 2010 Expert Panel on Constitutional Recognition, there have been seven separate processes and ten reports. In the middle of these, the sixth report was the Final Report of the Referendum Council, shortly after the delivery of the Uluṟu Statement from the Heart.

The Final Report’s recommendations focused on constitutional recognition in the form of a Voice to Parliament, because this was the most strongly endorsed option from the five options considered by the 12 regional deliberative dialogues. The Uluṟu Statement from the Heart also called for Treaty, the second most strongly endorsed form of recognition, and for Truth, out of respect for the truth-telling that was given at each and every dialogue.

Where it all went wrong

Years of bipartisan support was maintained right until the early months of this year. By February it was becoming clear Opposition Leader Peter Dutton would be unlikely to support the Voice to Parliament referendum.

In doing this, Dutton actively ignored the advice of those around him in the Liberal party. By April 5, 2023, it was announced Australia would head to its 45th referendum without bipartisan support for the proposal, knowing no referendum had never succeeded without it.

In August 2023, the Australian Financial Review’s Phillip Coorey reported a leaked text message from a coalition MP:

We can’t win the election unless we defeat the Voice solidly. i.e. we need to defeat it to get to the election starting line.

The opposition made their bet: defeat the Voice and give themselves a chance at the next federal election.

This transformed a people-driven proposal into a partisan political debate. It has made for a campaign characterised by lies, misinformation, disinformation, and outright conspiracies circulated on social media platforms. This sometimes occurred with complicit mainstream media that have either failed to fact-check basic claims or given misinformation equal weight in their presentation of “both sides”.

The “no” campaign’s decision to position two prominent Aboriginal faces as their spokespeople enabled a doubly effective claim to division: arguing the Voice would create racial division between Indigenous and non-Indigenous peoples, and that Indigenous people also couldn’t agree.

The small levels of disagreement within Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander community were, so often, treated as media spectacle and not treated with the seriousness our diverse political views deserve, in the context of so much shared experience.

What now?

We have heard numerous thought bubbles along the way about what happens next, if not a Voice. These have included Dutton’s suggestion of a second referendum on symbolic recognition. This proposal will not have any support from First Nations’ people, and there’s likely to be little appetite from the wider Australian population. That lack of support also no doubt informs the prime minister’s decision not to pursue a legislated Voice.

Senator Lidia Thorpe is likely to call for truth-telling and Treaty making, though those involved in the Victorian processes have thrown their weight behind the necessity of the Voice to give strongest effect to treaty and truth. Whatever comes next, we now know it will happen without a protected representative connection between community and the Commonwealth parliament.

There will no doubt be a lot of commentary and analysis about the relative successes and failures of the “no” and “yes” campaigns, their strategy, and their arguments over future weeks and months. For most Aboriginal peoples and Torres Strait Islanders, however, this will be of little interest or use.

The political subjugation and further marginalisation of First Nations’ peoples is no longer historical legacy but a contemporary decision reinscribing centuries of paternalism: that we are not peoples deserving of a protected right to be heard on matters that affect us.

We asked for change. We asked to be heard. We asked the Australian people to walk with us.

And so now we are where we have always been, left to build our better futures on our own.

Sana Nakata has contributed to the Uluru Dialogues during the campaign period on an unpaid basis. She receives funding from the Australian Research Council.

– ref. The political subjugation of First Nations’ peoples is no longer historical legacy – https://theconversation.com/the-political-subjugation-of-first-nations-peoples-is-no-longer-historical-legacy-213752

Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Matt Garrow, Editorial Web Developer

The referendum has been defeated, with a “no” majority called by the ABC in at least four states.

The Constitution can only be changed if there is a double majority, meaning there must be a national majority of voters across all states and territories and a majority of voters in a majority of the states (at least four of the six states). The Northern Territory and ACT counts are not included in the majority of states, but do contribute to the overall national count.

– ref. Voice to Parliament referendum defeated: results at-a-glance – https://theconversation.com/voice-to-parliament-referendum-defeated-results-at-a-glance-215366

Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Steven Tingay, John Curtin Distinguished Professor (Radio Astronomy), Curtin University

When I was a child in the 1970s, seeing a satellite pass overhead in the night sky was a rare event. Now it is commonplace: sit outside for a few minutes after dark, and you can’t miss them.

Thousands of satellites have been launched into Earth orbit over the past decade or so, with tens of thousands more planned in coming years. Many of these will be in “mega-constellations” such as Starlink, which aim to cover the entire globe.

These bright, shiny satellites are putting at risk our connection to the cosmos, which has been important to humans for countless millennia and has already been greatly diminished by the growth of cities and artificial lighting. They are also posing a problem for astronomers – and hence for our understanding of the universe.

In new research accepted for publication in Astronomy and Astrophysics Letters, we discovered Starlink satellites are also “leaking” radio signals that interfere with radio astronomy. Even in a “radio quiet zone” in outback Western Australia, we found the satellite emissions were far brighter than any natural source in the sky.

A problem for our understanding of the universe

Our team at Curtin University used radio telescopes in Western Australia to examine the radio signals coming from satellites.

We found expected radio transmissions at designated and licensed radio frequencies, used for communication with Earth.

However, we also found signals at unexpected and unintended frequencies.

We found these signals coming from many Starlink satellites. It appears the signals may originate from electronics on board the spacecraft.

Why is this an issue? Radio telescopes are incredibly sensitive, to pick up faint signals from countless light-years away.

Even an extremely weak radio transmitter hundreds or thousands of kilometres away from the telescope appears as bright as the most powerful cosmic radio sources we see in the sky. So these signals represent a serious source of interference.

And specifically, the signals are an issue at the location where we tested them: the site in WA where construction has already begun for part of the biggest radio observatory ever conceived, the Square Kilometre Array (SKA). This project involves 16 countries, has been in progress for 30 years, and will cost billions of dollars over the next decade.

Huge effort and expense has been invested in locating the SKA and other astronomy facilities a long way away from humans. But satellites present a new threat in space, which can’t be dodged.

What can we do about this?

It’s important to note satellite operators do not appear to be breaking any rules. The regulations around use of the radio spectrum are governed by the International Telecommunications Union, and they are complex. At this point there is no evidence Starlink operators are doing anything wrong.

The radio spectrum is crucial for big business and modern life. Think mobile phones, wifi, GPS and aircraft navigation, and communications between Earth and space.

However, the undoubted benefits of space-based communications – such as for globally accessible fast internet connections – are coming into conflict with our ability to see and explore the universe. (There is some irony here, as wifi in part owes its origins to radio astronomy.)

Regulations evolve slowly, while the technologies driving satellite constellations like Starlink are developing at lightning speed. So regulations are not likely to protect astronomy in the near term.

Read more:
How many satellites are orbiting Earth?

But in the course of our research, we have had a very positive engagement with SpaceX engineers who work on the Starlink satellites. It is likely that the goodwill of satellite operators, and their willingness to mitigate the generation of these signals, is the key to solving the issue.

In response to earlier criticisms, SpaceX has made improvements to the amount of sunlight Starlink satellites reflect, making them one-twelfth as bright in visible light as they used to be.

We estimate emissions in radio wavelengths will need to be reduced by a factor of a thousand or more to avoid significant interference with radio astronomy. We hope these improvements can be made, in order to preserve humanity’s future view of the universe, the fundamental discoveries we will make, and the future society-changing technologies (like wifi) that will emerge from those discoveries.

Steven Tingay is affiliated with the Australian Labor Party.

– ref. Starlink satellites are ‘leaking’ signals that interfere with our most sensitive radio telescopes – https://theconversation.com/starlink-satellites-are-leaking-signals-that-interfere-with-our-most-sensitive-radio-telescopes-215250

Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Katharine Kemp, Associate Professor, Faculty of Law & Justice, and Deputy Director, Allens Hub for Technology, Law & Innovation, UNSW Sydney

Cars with internet-connected features are fast becoming all-seeing data-harvesting machines – a so-called “privacy nightmare on wheels”, according to US-based research conducted by the Mozilla Foundation.

The researchers looked at the privacy terms of 25 car brands, which were found to collect a range of customer data, from facial expressions, to sexual activity, to when, where and how people drive.

They also found terms that allowed this information to be passed on to third parties. Cars were “the official worst category of products for privacy” they had ever reviewed, they concluded.

Australia’s privacy laws aren’t up to the task of protecting the vast amount of personal information collected and shared by car companies. And since our privacy laws don’t demand the specific disclosures required by some US states, we have much less information about what car companies are doing with our data.

Australia’s privacy laws need urgent reform. We also need international cooperation on enforcing privacy regulation for car manufacturers.

How do cars collect sensitive data?

Apart from data entered directly into a car’s “infotainment” system, many cars can collect data in the background via cameras, microphones, sensors and connected phones and apps.

These data include:

• speed
• steering, brake and accelerator pedal use
• seat belt use
• infotainment settings
• phone contacts
• navigation destinations
• voice data
• your location and surroundings
• and even footage of you and your family outside your car. (Between 2019 and 2022, Tesla employees internally circulated intimate footage collected from people’s private cars for their own amusement, according to reports.)

A lot of these data are used, at least in part, for legitimate purposes such as making driving more enjoyable and safer for the driver, passengers and pedestrians.

But they can also be supplemented with data collected from other sources and used for other purposes. For instance, data may be collected from your website visit, your test drive at a dealership, or from third parties including “marketing agencies” and “providers of data-collecting devices, products or systems that you use”.

The latter is very broad since our TVs, fridges and even our baby monitors can collect data about us.

Mozilla points out these combined data can be used “to develop inferences about a driver’s intelligence, abilities, characteristics, preferences and more”.

Connected cars transmit data in real time

While cars have been collecting large amounts of information since they became “computers on wheels”, this information has generally been stored in modules in the vehicle and accessed only when the car is physically connected to diagnostic equipment.

Now, however, vehicles are being sold with connected features “in the sense that they can exchange information wirelessly with the vehicle manufacturer, third party service providers, users, infrastructure operators and other vehicles”.

This means your connected car can transmit data about you and your activities, generally via the internet, to various other companies as you go about your life.

Where do the data go?

In Australia, we have little information about how our information can be used and by whom.

In its US-based study, Mozilla found data from consumers’ cars was being disclosed to other companies for marketing and targeted advertising purposes. It was also sold to data brokers.

Mozilla was able to uncover highly detailed information, largely because the laws of California and Virginia require specific disclosures about who personal data is disclosed to and for what purposes (among other higher privacy standards).

Australian privacy law doesn’t require such specific disclosures. This is one reason car brands often have separate privacy policies for Australia.

A look at the privacy policies of various companies supplying connected cars in Australia reveals several vague, broad statements. Aside from using your data to provide you with connected services, these companies will:

• disclose it to others for “customer research”
• use it to “profile” the type of person interested in their products
• use it, along with “related companies” around the world, for vague “data analysis” and “research and development purposes” or
• provide the data to unspecified “third parties in connection with” developing new “marketing strategies”.

Some may disclose your information to law enforcement or the government even when not required by law, such as when they believe “the use or disclosure is reasonably necessary to assist a law enforcement agency”.

Trust us – we invented a ‘voluntary code’

It’s safe to say car manufacturers generally don’t want privacy laws tightened. The Federal Chamber of Automotive Industries (FCAI) represents companies distributing 68 brands of various types of vehicles in Australia.

During the recent review of our privacy legislation, the FCAI made a submission to the Attorney General’s department arguing against many of the privacy law reforms under consideration.

Instead, it promoted its own Voluntary Code of Conduct for Automotive Data and Privacy Protection. This weak document seems designed to comfort consumers without adding any privacy protections beyond existing legal obligations.

For example, signatories don’t say they’re bound by the code. Nor do they promise to follow its terms. They only say its principles will “drive their approach to treatment of vehicle-generated data and associated personal information”. There are no penalties for ignoring the code.

It even states signatories will “voluntarily notify” consumers of certain matters when the Privacy Act already requires this as a matter of law.

The code also notes third parties are increasingly interested in accessing and using consumers’ data to provide services, including insurance companies, parking garage operators, entertainment providers, social networks and search engine operators.

It says companies making data available to such third parties “will strive to inform you” about this.

We need privacy law reform

The government recently proposed important and wide-ranging privacy law reforms, following the Privacy Act Review which began in 2020. These changes are long overdue.

Proposals such as an updated definition of “personal information” and higher standards for “consent” could help protect consumers from intrusive and manipulative data practices.

The proposed “fair and reasonable test” would also assess whether a practice is substantively fair. This would help avoid claims data practices are lawful just because consumers had to provide consent.

The FCAI points out many cars aren’t specifically designed for Australia’s relatively small market, so increased privacy standards might result in some vehicles not being released here. But this isn’t a reason to carve out vehicles from privacy law reform.

Privacy laws are also being upgraded in numerous jurisdictions overseas. Australia’s government agencies should coordinate with their international counterparts to protect drivers’ privacy.

Read more:
To steal today’s computerized cars, thieves go high-tech

Katharine Kemp receives funding from the UNSW Allens Hub for Technology, Law and Innovation. She is a Member of the Expert Panel of the Consumer Policy Research Centre, and the Australian Privacy Foundation.

– ref. Cars are a ‘privacy nightmare on wheels’. Here’s how they get away with collecting and sharing your data – https://theconversation.com/cars-are-a-privacy-nightmare-on-wheels-heres-how-they-get-away-with-collecting-and-sharing-your-data-214386

Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Adrian Beaumont, Election Analyst (Psephologist) at The Conversation; and Honorary Associate, School of Mathematics and Statistics, The University of Melbourne

The referendum on the Indigenous Voice to parliament will be held on Saturday. Polls close at 6pm AEDT in the south-eastern states, 6:30pm in South Australia, 7pm in Queensland, 7:30pm in the Northern Territory and 9pm in Western Australia.

For a referendum to succeed, it requires a majority in at least four of the six states as well as a national majority. Polling suggests there is no realistic chance of a national “yes” majority, so the double majority is a moot point.

The graph below has been updated with the inclusion of national Voice polls from YouGov, Morgan and Focaldata (see below).

The Voice polls range from a six and seven point “no” lead in Essential and Morgan to a 22 and 24-point “no” lead in Focaldata and Newspoll. So the most optimistic case for “yes” is a loss by high single digits, but the actual loss is likely to be higher.

Labor’s lead widens in federal Resolve poll

I previously covered the 56–44 lead for “no” in the national Resolve poll for Nine newspapers that was conducted September 22 to October 4 from a very large sample of 4,728.

Primary votes in this poll were 37% Labor (up one since early September), 31% Coalition (down three), 12% Greens (steady), 7% One Nation (up two), 2% UAP (steady), 9% independents (steady) and 2% others (steady).

Resolve does not give a two party estimate until near elections, but applying 2022 election preference flows to this poll gives Labor a 57–43 lead, a 1.5-point gain for Labor since September. During this term, Resolve has easily been Labor’s most favourable pollster.

Anthony Albanese’s net approval improved seven points to net zero, with 43% saying he had done a good job and 43% a poor job. Peter Dutton’s net approval fell seven points to -15. Albanese led Dutton by 47–25 as preferred PM, out from 43–28 in September.

The Liberals retained a narrow 35–33 lead over Labor on economic management, in from 36–30 in September. On keeping the cost of living low, Labor led by 31–27, reversing a Liberal lead of 28–27 in September.

Federal questions other than voting intention and the Voice referendum were based on the normal sample of 1,600 respondents. Additional Voice questions below are based on a sample of over 3,100.

Further Resolve Voice questions

Among “no” voters, 33% cited dividing the country by race as the most persuasive “no” argument, while 16% selected not enough detail. Among “yes” voters, 19% cited a practical way to recognise Indigenous people in our Constitution as the most persuasive “yes” argument.

By 49–20, voters thought the Voice would create waste and inefficiency rather than reduce it. By 38–23, they thought colonisation had had a positive rather than negative impact on Indigenous Australians.

Based on a subsample of 420 Indigenous respondents from the full sample of 4,728, “yes” led by 59–41 among Indigenous people. This is down from 80% support for “yes” among Indigenous respondents in surveys by other pollsters conducted early this year.

In other demographic breakdowns, “no” led with religious voters by 64–36, while “yes” led with the non-religious by 53–47.

Full results of this Voice poll can be downloaded from the Resolve website. Self-identified progressives supported “yes” by 75–25, while conservatives supported “no” 78–22. The killer for “yes” is that those who took neither view supported “no” by 66–34. There are similar findings in a Focaldata poll.

YouGov poll: ‘no’ leads by 56–38

A YouGov national poll, conducted October 6–10 from a sample of 1,519, gave “no” to the Voice a 56–38 lead, out from 53–38 in the previous YouGov poll in late September. YouGov used to conduct Newspoll, but is now producing its own polls.

On voting intentions, Labor led by an unchanged 53–47, from primary votes of 36% Coalition (up one), 33% Labor (steady), 14% Greens (up one), 6% One Nation (not listed in September) and 11% for all Others.

Albanese’s net approval was steady at -3, while Dutton’s was up five points to -12. Albanese led Dutton by 50–34 as preferred PM (50–33 previously). By 41–39, respondents said they would support a constitutional change to make Qantas a publicly owned company.

Morgan poll: ‘no’ leads by 51–44

A national Morgan Voice poll, conducted October 2–12 from a sample of 1,419, gave “no” to the Voice a 51–44 lead (a 46–37 “no” lead in late September). Initial preferences were 46% “no” (steady), 40% “yes” (up three) and 14% undecided (down three). Undecided were then asked how they were leaning. Morgan predicts a 54–46 “no” vote by allocating two-thirds of remaining undecided to “no”.

Morgan’s weekly federal poll this week gave Labor a 53–47 lead, a one-point gain for Labor since last week. Primary votes were 34% Coalition, 33% Labor, 13.5% Greens and 19.5% for all Others. This was taken October 2–8 from a sample of 1,378.

Focaldata poll: ‘no’ leads by 61–39

A poll by British pollster Focaldata had “no” leading by 61–39. Focaldata used multi-level regression with post-stratification (MRP) to predict that 22 of the 151 electorates would support “yes”; these “yes” seats are inner city seats. This poll was conducted September 18 to October 2 from a sample of 4,608.

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

– ref. Final Voice polls have ‘no’ leading by sizeable to landslide margins – https://theconversation.com/final-voice-polls-have-no-leading-by-sizeable-to-landslide-margins-215264

Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Sasha Grishin, Adjunct Professor of Art History, Australian National University

Photography is almost 200 years old and Photography: Real and Imagined at the National Gallery of Victoria (NGV) can be interpreted as an attempt to make sense of its history.

A huge and dazzling exhibition containing 311 photographs, the basic thesis of this exhibition is that some photographs record an actuality, others are purely a product of the photographer’s imagination, while many are a mixture of the two.

The parameters of the exhibition are determined, in part, by the holdings of the NGV collection and, in part, by the perspective adopted by the curator, the erudite and long-serving senior curator of photography at the NGV, Susan Van Wyk.

Mercifully, the curator has not opted for a linear chronological approach from daguerreotypes to digital, although both are included in the exhibition, but has devised 21 diverse thematic categories, for example light, environment, death, conflict, work, play and consumption.

Australian artists, international context

The categories have porous boundaries. Even with the assistance of the 420-page book catalogue, it is difficult to determine why Michael Riley’s profoundly moving photograph of a dead galah shown against the cracked earth belongs to the environment theme instead of death; why Rosemary Laing’s Welcome to Australia image of a detention camp belongs to movement, instead of being in community, conflict or narrative.

I felt that there was a perceived need to somehow organise the material, and the broad thematic structure allows the viewer to develop some sort of mega-narrative for the show.

There is also evident a desire to create an international context within which to display the work of Australian photographers.

It is indeed a very rich cross-section of Australian photographers assembled in this exhibition. This is not an Anglo-American construct of the history of photography; Australian photographers are presented together with New Zealanders and their Asian contemporaries.

Although the NGV boasts of having the first curatorial department of photography in any gallery in Australia, in the department’s 55-year history there remain serious lacunae in the collection.

For example, Russian constructivist photographers, including Aleksandr Rodchenko, who, as far as I am aware, in the NGV collection is represented by a single small booklet, but looms large in any account of the history of photography as presented by the British, European and American museums. Eastern European photographers are also generally underrepresented.

À lire aussi :
Friday essay: 10 photography exhibitions that defined Australia

Key moments, and surprises

This exhibition combines the iconic with the new and the unexpected.

The expected key moments in the history of photography are generally all present with the roll-call of names including Dora Maar, Man Ray, André Kertész, Henri Cartier-Bresson, Dorothea Lange, Eadweard Muybridge, Bill Brandt, Lee Miller and László Moholy-Nagy.

They are all included in the exhibition and are represented through their iconic pieces.

Henri Cartier Bresson’s Juvisy (1938), colloquially known as Sunday on the banks of the Marne, is an intentionally subversive image by this left-wing radical photographer.

This image, made at the height of the Great Depression, shows a victory by France’s popular left-wing government that legislated in 1936 the entitlement for French workers to have two weeks of paid vacation. Here the working class is enjoying a picnic at Juvisy, just to the south of Paris.

At about the same time, Dorothea Lange’s Towards Los Angeles, California (1936) contrasts the anguish of the unemployed trekking in search of work and a billboard advertising the comforts of train travel. An aphorism ascribed to her sums us much of her work:

Bad as it is, the world is potentially full of good photographs. But to be good, photographs have to be full of the world.

Man Ray’s Kiki with African mask (1926) is one of the most famous photographs in the world, also known as Noire et blanche (Black and White). The surrealist artist juxtaposes the elongated face of his Muse and mistress, Kiki (Alice Prin), with her eyes closed with that of a black African ceremonial mask.

The photograph was controversial when it was first published and continues to be controversial to the present day.

There are also numerous modern classics in the exhibition, including Pat Brassington’s Rosa (2014), Polly Borlan’s Untitled (2018), from MORPH series 2018 and Robyn Stacey’s Nothing to see here (2019), that can all be viewed as edging into the realm of the uncanny. Beyond the façade of the familiar, we are invited to enter an unexpected world.

Reinterpreting our world

Photography’s reputation of creating a trustworthy facsimile of the real had long been eroded, even before the creation of digital software. There is an old adage, “paintings sometimes deceive, but photographs always lie” – precisely because there was a perception that they could not lie.

One of the most intriguing works in the exhibition is by the New Zealand-born photographer Patrick Pound, titled Pictures of people who look dead, but (probably) aren’t (2011–14). It is a sprawling installation of mainly found photographs where the audience is invited to create a life and death narrative.

Photography: Real and Imagined reexamines our thinking about the art of photography and explores photography’s ability to recreate and reinterpret our world.

Photography: Real and Imagined is at the Ian Potter Centre, National Gallery of Victoria, Melbourne, until February 4 2024.

À lire aussi :
Can a photograph change the world?

Sasha Grishin 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. Photography: Real and Imagined at the NGV – a huge and dazzling exhibition that reexamines our thinking – https://theconversation.com/photography-real-and-imagined-at-the-ngv-a-huge-and-dazzling-exhibition-that-reexamines-our-thinking-214551

Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Alexander Gillespie, Professor of Law, University of Waikato

It was perhaps inevitable that the shock Hamas attack on Israel would become a minor election sideshow in New Zealand. Less than a week from the polls, a crisis in the Middle East offered opposition parties a brief chance to criticise the foreign minister’s initial reaction.

But if it was a fleeting and fairly trivial moment in the heat of a campaign, the crisis itself is far from it – and it will test the foreign policy positions of whichever parties manage to form a government after Saturday.

It can be tempting to see the latest eruption of violence in Gaza and Israel as somehow “normal”, given the history of the region. But this is far from normal.

What appear to be intentional war crimes and crimes against humanity, involving the use of terror against citizens and guests of Israel, will provoke what will probably be an unprecedented response.

Israel’s declaration of war and formation of an emergency war cabinet – backed by threats to “wipe this thing called Hamas off the face of the Earth” – were the start. The bombardment and “complete siege” of Gaza, and preparation for a possible ground invasion, have catastrophic potential.

Hundreds of thousands may be forced towards Egypt or into the Mediterranean, with the fate of the hostages held by Hamas looking dire. Israel has now said there will be no humanitarian aid until the hostages are free.

There is a risk the war will spread over Israel’s northern border with Lebanon, with Hezbollah (backed by Iran) now involved. US President Joe Biden’s warning to Iran to “be careful”, and the deployment of a US carrier fleet to the Eastern Mediterranean, only ups the ante.

Rules of war

Given the suspension of some commercial flights to and from Israel, New Zealand’s most meaningful first response has been practical: arranging a special flight from Tel Aviv for citizens and their families currently in Israel or the Palestinian territories who wish to leave.

Beyond these immediate concerns, however, the world is divided. Outrage in the West is matched by support in Arab countries for Palestinian “resistance”. Despite US efforts to get a global consensus condemning the attack, the United Nations Security Council could not agree on a unified statement.

Read more:
The Gaza Strip − why the history of the densely populated enclave is key to understanding the current conflict

With no global consensus, New Zealand can do little more than assert and defend the established rules-based international order. This includes stating clearly that international humanitarian law and the rules of war are universal and must be applied impartially.

That’s akin to New Zealand’s position on the Russian invasion of Ukraine: the rules of war apply to all, both state and non-state forces (irrespective of whether those parties agree to them). War crimes are to be investigated, with accountability and consequences applied through the relevant international bodies.

This applies to crimes of terror, murder, hostage-taking and indiscriminate rocket attacks carried out by Hamas. But the government needs also to emphasise that war crimes do not justify further retaliatory war crimes.

Read more:
Israel has no good options for dealing with Hamas’ hostage-taking in Gaza

Specifically, unless civilians take a direct part in the conflict, the distinction between them and combatants must be observed. Military action should be proportionate, with all feasible precautions taken to minimise incidental loss of civilian life.

International law prohibits collective punishments, and access for humanitarian relief should be permitted. To hold an entire population captive – as a siege of Gaza involves – for the crimes of a military organisation is not acceptable.

The two-state solution

It is also important that New Zealand carefully considers definitions of terrorism and legitimate force. Terrorists do not enjoy the political and legal legitimacy afforded by international law.

Unlike other members of the Five Eyes security network, New Zealand designates only the military wing of Hamas, not its political wing, as a prohibited “terrorist entity” under the Terrorism Suppression Act.

Whether this distinction is anything more than a fiction needs to be reviewed. If this were to change, it would mean the financing, participation in or recruitment to any branch of Hamas would be illegal. This might have implications for any future peace process, should Hamas be involved.

Read more:
Israel-Gaza conflict: how could it change the Middle East’s political landscape? Expert Q&A

At some point, most people surely hope, the cycle of violence will end. The likeliest route to that will be the so-called “two-state solution”, requiring security guarantees for Israel, negotiated land swaps and careful management of Jerusalem’s holy sites.

New Zealand has long supported this initiative, despite its apparent diplomatic near-death status. An emergency meeting of the Arab League in Cairo this week urged Israel to resume talks to establish a viable Palestinian state, and China has also reiterated support such a solution.

New Zealand cannot stay silent when extreme, indiscriminate violence is committed by any group or nation. But joining any movement of like-minded nations to continue pushing for the two-state solution is still its best long-term strategy.

Alexander Gillespie 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. Israel-Gaza crisis: NZ must condemn atrocities but keep pushing for a two-state solution – https://theconversation.com/israel-gaza-crisis-nz-must-condemn-atrocities-but-keep-pushing-for-a-two-state-solution-215586

Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Alexandra Sims, Associate Professor in Commericial Law, University of Auckland

The use of artificial intelligence (AI) by New Zealand police is putting the spotlight on policing tactics in the 21st century.

A recent Official Information Act request by Radio New Zealand revealed the use of SearchX, an AI tool that can draw connections between suspects and their wider networks.

SearchX works by instantly finding connections between people, locations, criminal charges and other factors likely to increase the risk of harm to officers.

Police say SearchX is at the heart of a NZ$200 million front-line safety programme, primarily developed after the death of police constable Matthew Hunt in West Auckland in 2020, as well as other recent gun violence.

But the use of SearchX and other AI programmes raises questions about the invasive nature of the technology, inherent biases and whether New Zealand’s current legal framework will be enough to protect the rights of everyone.

Controversial technologies

At this stage, New Zealanders only have a limited view of the AI programmes being used by the police. While some the programmes are public, others are being kept under wraps.

Police have acknowledged using Cellebrite, a controversial phone hacker technology. This programme extracts personal data from iPhones and Android mobiles and can access more than 50 social media platforms, including Instagram and Facebook.

Read more:
AI profiling: the social and moral hazards of ‘predictive’ policing

The police have also acknowledged using BriefCam, which aggregates video footage, including facial recognition and vehicle licence plates.

Briefcam allows police to focus on and track a person or vehicle of interest. Police claim Briefcam can reduce the time analysing CCTV footage from three months to two hours.

Other AI tools such as Clearview AI – which takes photographs from publicly accessible social media sites to identify a person – were tested by police before being abandoned.

The use of Clearview was particularly controversial as it was trialled without the clearance of the police leadership team or the Privacy Commissioner.

Eroding privacy?

The promise of AI is that it can predict and prevent crime. But there are also concerns over the use of these tools by police.

Cellebrite and Briefcam are highly intrusive programmes. They enable law enforcement to access and analyse personal data without people realising, much less providing consent.

But under current legislation, the use of both programmes by police is legal.

The Privacy Act 2020 allows government agencies – including police – to collect, withhold, use or disclose personal information in a way that would otherwise breach the act, where necessary for the “maintenance of the law”.

AI’s biased decisions

Privacy is not the only issue being raised by the use of these programmes. There is a tendency to assume decisions made by AI are more accurate than humans – particularly as tasks become more difficult.

This bias in favour of AI decisions means investigations may harden towards the AI-identified perpetrator rather than other suspects.

Some of the mistakes can be tied to biases in the algorithms. In the past decade, scholars have begun to document the negative impacts of AI on people with low incomes and the working class, particularly in the justice system.

Read more:
Australian police are using the Clearview AI facial recognition system with no accountability

Research has shown ethnic minorities are more likely to be misidentified by facial recognition software.

AI’s use in predictive policing is also an issue as AI can be fed data from over-policed neighbourhoods, which fails to record crime occurring in other neighbourhoods.

The bias is compounded further as AI increasingly directs police patrols and other surveillance onto these already over-policed neighbourhoods.

This is not just a problem overseas. Analyses of the New Zealand government’s use of AI have raised a number of concerns, such as the issue of transparency and privacy, as well as how to manage “dirty data” – data with human biases already baked in before it is entered into AI programmes.

We need updated laws

There is no legal framework for the use of AI in New Zealand, much less for the police use of it. This lack of regulation is not unique, though. Europe’s long awaited AI law still hasn’t been implemented.

That said, New Zealand Police is a signatory to the Australia New Zealand Police Artificial Intelligence Principles. These establish guidelines around transparency, proportionality and justifiability, human oversight, explainability, fairness, reliability, accountability, privacy and security.

The Algorithm Charter for Aotearoa New Zealand covers the ethical and responsible use of AI by government agencies.

Read more:
AI could be a force for good – but we’re currently heading for a darker future

Under the principles, police are meant to continuously monitor, test and develop AI systems and ensure data are relevant and contemporary. Under the charter, police must have a point of contact for public inquiries and a channel for challenging or appealing decisions made by AI.

But these are both voluntary codes, leaving significant gaps for legal accountability and police antipathy.

And it’s not looking good so far. Police have failed to implement one of the first – and most basic – steps of the charter: to establish a point of inquiry for people who are concerned by the use of AI.

There is no special page on the police website dealing with the use of AI, nor is there anything on the main feedback page specifically mentioning the topic.

In the absence of a clear legal framework, with an independent body monitoring the police’s actions and enforcing the law, New Zealanders are left relying on police to monitor themselves.

AI is barely on the radar ahead of the 2023 election. But as it becomes more pervasive across government agencies, New Zealand must follow Europe’s lead and enact AI regulation to ensure police use of AI doesn’t cause more problems than it solves.

Alexandra Sims 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. NZ police are using AI to catch criminals – but the law urgently needs to catch up too – https://theconversation.com/nz-police-are-using-ai-to-catch-criminals-but-the-law-urgently-needs-to-catch-up-too-214833

Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Rebecca Bentley, Professor of Social Epidemiology and Director of the Centre of Research Excellence in Healthy Housing at the Melbourne School of Population and Global Health, The University of Melbourne

Although most Australian states require homes be free of mould before they are rented out, seasoned renters know that’s not always the case. In fact, an alarming number of tenants report discovering mould after they’ve moved into a rental property.

But how can you tell? Based on our research and practical experience in the field, these are 12 questions worth considering before you sign a residential tenancy agreement.

Read more:
Breaking the mould: why rental properties are more likely to be mouldy and what’s needed to stop people getting sick

1. Have you asked the agent or landlord directly?

Enquire upfront if there’s a history of mould in the property. Tell the agent or landlord if a household member has a chronic condition, such as asthma or an allergy, which could be exacerbated by mould exposure. It’s worth a shot.

2. Can you see any mould?

This sounds obvious but there’s an art to spotting the clues. Carpets retain a history of mould damage. If you’re allowed and without causing damage, carefully inspect under carpet in a corner in areas that could be prone to water coming in (such as near a bathroom, external wall or window).

Single-glazed windows often experience condensation, so check windows closely. Mould problems tend to show up most significantly on the south-facing side of the house, and can sometimes be spotted on fly screens or the exterior face of blinds and curtains.

3. Are there damp smells in any room?

Check if the agent or landlord has attempted to mask odours with air fresheners or incense.

4. Has the place been recently repainted, re-carpeted or given a new floor?

If so, ask the agent why and if any mould was found in the process.

5. Do exhaust fans in the kitchen and bathroom work well?

Make sure you understand where these fans release the ventilated air and moisture. You don’t want this to be the roof space (above the ceiling but below the roof) unless there are roof vents.

6. Do the gutters leak?

Look at the roof and try to find the valley gutters (these are the things between two planes of the roof and help direct rainwater down to the normal gutters).

If a downpipe is not located near a valley, there is a risk the gutter could overflow. Look for water damage to roofs and eaves or sagging gutters.

7. Are there water stains on the walls, floor, windows or ceiling?

Check the frames and around the windows closely. Look under the kitchen and bathroom sinks for stains, blistering melamine or swelling particle board.

See if there’s swelling or peeling on the walls and skirting board on the shared wall between the shower and the adjoining room. Peeling or swelling could indicate a failed waterproofing membrane.

External walls in contact with the ground have the highest risk of rising damp, and south-facing walls tend to get the least sunlight.

8. Is the property well ventilated?

Are there fly screens so you can leave windows open? Is there anything making it hard to get fresh air? For example, do windows face a noisy main road? This means they are likely to remain closed.

9. Is the home humid?

Find out as much as you can about glazing, insulation and orientation. Is the home humid? You can find out with a thermo-hygrometer, a device often sold in hardware stores that reads temperature and relative humidity. In older houses with poor insulation, you can usually try to maintain the interior at 65% relative humidity with the help of a dehumidifier.

Are there any evaporative coolers in the home? These machines keep the room cool by evaporating water, but they add moisture to the air. Ask the agent if they can switch on any evaporative coolers to see if your sinuses feel irritated when you are near a vent.

10. Are tiles cracked, lifted, uneven or loose?

This can suggest water damage underneath, especially in the shower (or areas near the shower).

11. Have you checked behind any furniture pushed up against walls?

Having furniture pushed up like this can prevent walls from drying out. Look behind furniture for evidence of mould.

12. Is there water pooling under the house?

Are there garden beds or plants positioned right up against the walls? If the house is on a slope, does rain run off down the hill and pool under the house? See if you can go under the house to look and smell for mould.

Rebecca Bentley receives funding from the National Health and Medical Research Council and the Australian Research Council.

Tim Law is the Technical Lead for Building Sciences at Restoration Industry Consultants (RIC). He receives funding from the National Health and Medical Research Council, the Australian Building Codes Board, the Victorian Building Authority, Consumer Building and Occupation Services (Tasmania) and Commercialisation Australia.

– ref. How do I know if a rental house is mouldy before I sign the lease? 12 things to check – https://theconversation.com/how-do-i-know-if-a-rental-house-is-mouldy-before-i-sign-the-lease-12-things-to-check-214571

Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Tania Aspland, Emeritus Professor (ACU) and Vice President (Kaplan ANZ), Australian Catholic University

The Royal Commission into Violence, Abuse, Neglect and Exploitation of People with Disability has shared its final report. In this series, we unpack what the commission’s 222 recommendations could mean for a more inclusive Australia.

On Wednesday, the chair of the National Disability Insurance Agency (NDIA), Kurt Fearnley, spoke passionately about the need to end segregation of Australians with disabilities, particularly in schools. “This is the way we build an entire country,” he said of the education system.

The disability royal commission was split over the issue of special schools.

When it handed down its report last week, three commissioners recommended special or segregated schools should be phased out by 2051. Another three said we should maintain special schools but, where practical, locate them close to mainstream schools so students can do some things together.

This feeds into a longstanding debate about the role of special schools.

Some disability groups say inclusive education is the only way to fulfil the human rights of all Australians and students with disability should be funded and supported to attend mainstream schools.

Others say students with disability need the facilities and supports of a special setting.

But what is often missing from these debates is the voices of families. In our research, we spoke to parents who have children at special schools about what they think.

Read more:
Disability royal commissioners disagreed over phasing out ‘special schools’ – that leaves segregation on the table

What are special schools?

Special schools – sometimes called specialist schools – are for students with moderate to high learning and support needs. This includes students with intellectual disability and complex learning needs.

In Australia, special schools are run by state and territory education systems. Special schools are not homogeneous, but respond to the diverse needs of students.

Our research

Our research, recently published in the journal Support and Learning, was based on a survey of 390 parents and guardians that was initially released by the Australian Special Education Principals’ Association in 2021.

Their children attended special schools all around Australia and ranged from the first year of school to Year 12. The students had one or more disabilities, including cognitive, sensory neurological, physical and language disabilities.

Most parents are satisfied

The study found parents had high levels of satisfaction with special schools:

• 91% of those surveyed were “extremely satisfied” or “slightly satisfied” with the educational support their child received

• 90% said there were “extremely satisfied” or “slightly satisfied” with the school’s overall understanding of their child’s strengths and needs.

Teachers, supports and individual attention

We also asked open-ended questions to gain more understanding of parents’ views.

One of the key themes was how much parents valued the teachers’ experience and expertise at their special school. One parents told us:

The amount of experience the teachers have with teaching kids with special needs is obvious to us, as we have noticed a remarkable improvement in our child’s behaviour and learning […] They really know how to manage these kids and modify their teaching to get them to learn and participate.

Parents also spoke about the individual attention and support given to their children. They noted there was “no attempt to try a one-size-fits-all method”:

Our son’s schooling is very tailored to his learning style, from equipment to the amazing staff and their personal knowledge of our son.

Our survey respondents spoke about how their children could access physiotherapy at school, had pool sessions on site and had sensory needs catered for. They also emphasised the benefits of small classes.

Our daughter’s disability is very complex. The small classroom setting with a teacher and support team provide her with the correct level of support and attention. Our daughter would not be able to follow the ‘mainstream’ curriculum and the school supports her well with her adapted curriculum.

Safety and friends

Families also told us how their children were safe and supported socially at their special school.

[My son] is supported by behaviour intervention methods by support staff who understand his needs. He is given literacy and numeracy support as well as social support in the playground.

Another parent similarly said:

My child is safe, [she] has friends which she may not have in a mainstream school. She is cared for and feels that she belongs in her special school setting.

Read more:
70% of Australian students with a disability are excluded at school – the next round of education reforms can fix this

Parents value special schools

This study was not designed to challenge the concept of inclusive education – if parents decide a mainstream school is the best learning environment for their child, they should be able to attend their local school and be supported to do so.

But parents’ responses in our research show their strong satisfaction with special schools because they provide teaching expertise, tailored support and safe learning environments.

It is important to keep providing choice for families to enrol their child in a school that fits their needs and values.

In that way, the option to enrol your child in a special school is no different from a parent wishing to enrol their child in an independent or religious school.

Fiona Forbes, principal of Peel Language Development School WA, coauthored the journal article and survey research on which this article is based.

Tania Aspland and Fiona Forbes received funding from the Association of Special Education Principals’ Association to fund this research. No funds were taken personally but provided for the costs of research assistants associated with the project.
Tania Aspland is currently Vice President (Academic) Kaplan Higher Education, Australia-New Zealand.

– ref. ‘She is cared for and feels that she belongs’: what parents think of special schools – https://theconversation.com/she-is-cared-for-and-feels-that-she-belongs-what-parents-think-of-special-schools-215443

Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Sarah Vivienne Bentley, Research Scientist, Responsible Innovation, Data61, CSIRO

Information is a valuable commodity. And thanks to technology, there are millions of terabytes of it online.

Artificial intelligence (AI) tools such as ChatGPT are now managing this information on our behalf – collating it, summarising it, and presenting it back to us.

But this “outsourcing” of information management to AI – convenient as it is – comes with consequences. It can influence not only what we think, but potentially also how we think.

What happens in a world where AI algorithms decide what information is perpetuated, and what is left by the wayside?

The rise of personalised AI

Generative AI tools are built on models trained on hundreds of gigabytes of preexisting data. From these data they learn how to autonomously create text, images, audio and video content, and can respond to user queries by patching together the “most likely” answer.

ChatGPT is used by millions of people, despite having been publicly released less than a year ago. In June, the addition of custom responses made the already-impressive chatbot even more useful. This feature lets users save customised instructions explaining what they are using the bot for and how they would like it to respond.

This is one of several examples of “personalised AI”: a category of AI tools that generate content to suit the specific needs and preferences of the user.

Another example is Meta’s recently launched virtual assistant, Meta AI. This chatbot can have conversations, generate images and perform tasks across Meta’s platforms including WhatsApp, Messenger and Instagram.

Artificial intelligence researcher and co-founder of DeepMind, Mustafa Suleyman, describes personalised AI as being more of a relationship than a technology:

It’s a friend. […] It’s really going to be ever present and alongside you, living with you – basically on your team. I like to think of it as like having a great coach in your corner.

But these technologies are also controversial, with concerns raised over data ownership, bias and misinformation.

Tech companies are trying to find ways to combat these issues. For instance, Google has added source links to AI-generated search summaries produced by its Search Generative Experience (SGE) tool, which came under fire earlier this year for offering up inaccurate and problematic responses.

Technology has already changed our thinking

How will generative AI tools – and especially those personalised to us – change how we think?

To understand this, let’s revisit the early 1990s when the internet first came into our lives. People could suddenly access information about pretty much anything, whether that was banking, baking, teaching or travelling.

Nearly 30 years on, studies have shown how being connected to this global “hive mind” has changed our cognition, memory and creativity.

For instance, having instantaneous access to the equivalent of 305.5 billion pages of information has increased people’s meta-knowledge – that is, their knowledge about knowledge. One impact of this is the “Google effect”: a phenomenon in which online search increases our ability to find information, but reduces our memory of what that information was.

On one hand, offloading our thinking to search engines has been shown to free up our mental reserves for problem solving and creative thinking. On the other, online information retrieval has been associated with increased distractibility and dependency.

Research also shows online searching – regardless of the quantity or quality of information retrieved – increases our cognitive self-esteem. In other words, it increases our belief in our own “smarts”.

Couple this with the fact that questioning information is effortful – and that the more we trust our search engine, the less we critically engage with its results – and you can see why having access to unprecedented amounts of information is not necessarily making us wiser.

Read more:
Both humans and AI hallucinate — but not in the same way

Should we be ‘outsourcing’ our thinking?

Today’s generative AI tools go a lot further than just presenting us with search results. They locate the information for us, evaluate it, synthesise it and present it back to us.

What might the implications of this be? Without pushing for human-led quality control, the outlook isn’t promising.

Generative AI’s ability to produce responses that feel familiar, objective and engaging means it leaves us more vulnerable to cognitive biases.

The automation bias, for instance, is the human tendency to overestimate the integrity of machine-sourced information. And the mere exposure effect is when we’re more likely to trust information that is presented as familiar or personal.

Research on social media can help us understand the impact of such biases. In one 2016 study, Facebook users reported feeling more “in the know” based on the quantity of news content posted online – and not how much of it they actually read.

We also know that “filter bubbles” created by social media algorithms – wherein our feeds are filtered according to our interests — limit the diversity of the content we’re exposed to.

This process of information narrowing has been shown to increase ideological polarisation by reducing people’s propensity to consider alternative perspectives. It’s also been shown to increase our likelihood of being exposed to fake news.

Using AI to wise up, and not dumb down

Generative AI is, without a doubt, a revolutionary force with the potential to do great things for society. It could reshape our education system by providing personalised content, change our work practices by expediting writing and information analysis, and push the frontiers of scientific discovery.

It even has the potential to positively alter our relationships by helping us communicate and connect with others and can, at times, function as a form of synthetic companionship.

But if our only way to judge the future is by looking to the past, maybe now is the time to reflect on how both the internet and social media have changed our cognition, and apply some precautionary measures. Developing AI literacy is a good place to start, as is designing AI tools that encourage human autonomy and critical thinking.

Ultimately, we’ll need to understand both our own and AI’s strengths and weaknesses to ensure these “thinking” companions help us create the future we want – and not the one that happens to be at the top of the list.

Sarah Vivienne Bentley works for CSIRO, which receives funding from the Australian Government.

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

– ref. Dumbing down or wising up: how will generative AI change the way we think? – https://theconversation.com/dumbing-down-or-wising-up-how-will-generative-ai-change-the-way-we-think-214561

Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Heidi Norman, Professor, Faculty of Arts and Social Sciences, University of Technology Sydney

This Saturday is the final day of voting in the Voice to Parliament referendum, which asks Australians to support recognition of First Peoples in the Constitution and enable First Peoples’ representation on relevant policies and programs.

Over the last several weeks, I have attended many events supporting and advocating for the Voice referendum. In these forums, my fellow Australians talk about the Constitution, the role of government and how power is exercised in modern democracy. Some have never read or thought about the Constitution before.

I’ve seen young First Nations lawyers explaining to a mixed crowd how the Constitution works, what is included in it and what a constitutionally enshrined Voice would mean. I have been invigorated by such sincere participation in understanding how our democracy works, and could work better.

This serious contemplation was getting underway at the Referendum Council’s Aboriginal regional dialogues I attended in 2017. With other Aboriginal people, we discussed what change could look like. I have supported the implementation of the Uluru Statement from the Heart and played my small part supporting the “yes” vote at my university and with my family and community.

Read more:
Your questions answered on the Voice to Parliament

How opinions have differed

Debates around the Voice have presented three competing narratives to the Australian public.

The “yes” position addresses the outstanding business of the place of First Peoples in the life of the nation. This position is an offer of peace, to walk together towards settlement. It also believes that if First Peoples are able to work with and through government – with power devolved to local-level decision-making – the everyday experiences of the disadvantaged will be changed.

The Voice proposal is a modest, middle path. It’s a compromise position that was believed to have the greatest chance of gaining support from progressives, liberals and conservatives.

The “no” position refuses to acknowledge the unique place of First Peoples in the life of the nation and rejects any perceived “special treatment” based on either disadvantage or cultural difference.

A third, minority group is the so-called “progressive no” vote, which rejects the Voice referendum as an unacceptable compromise with limited utility as a mechanism to advance First Peoples’ rights. It argues Voice is not enough, and it’s time instead for recognition of sovereignty.

Each of these narratives draws from competing versions of the story of the nation’s past and future. We can see that understanding our history is more important than ever in addressing the politics of disruption and disinformation and the toxic social and political discourse that has dominated the campaign.

Right-wing tactics of division

Debate over the referendum has played out in a different way to other referendums and general election campaigns. The debate has often been discourteous, relying on a swarm of cruel, derogatory and racist social media posts. Some leading “no” campaigners have presented increasingly extremist and sensational views intended to dominate the news cycle and social media.

In many ways, the “no” campaign has followed patterns of right-wing campaigning from overseas, which is intended to destabilise the social relations, trust and confidence we have in one another and seed division.

Read more:
What are ‘Advance’ and ‘Fair Australia’, and why are they spearheading the ‘no’ campaign on the Voice?

Consider the Brexit debate in the UK, and or US Capitol insurrection and claims of a stolen election by former President Donald Trump. Each provided a platform for people to express white nationalist sentiments and their deep distrust in the institutions of democratic government.

The “no” campaign’s tactics have also sought to link a host of disparate themes to the referendum, from climate change denial to anti-vaccination beliefs. The common theme is grievance against the perceived extension of the distrusted government into people’s lives. Disinformation has played a key role.

Other concerns have also been publicly raised about the Voice, such as that it would be a risk to people’s private land. These concerns are sincerely feared, but totally unfounded.

Difficulties confronting our history

What sits beneath this right-wing rhetoric in Australia is the highly charged debate over the nation’s past and its future.

Contesting views about Australia’s history should not come as a surprise. Since historians became more interested in the telling of Australian history “from the other side” and writing First Peoples back into the nation’s story, it has been met with an equal measure of resistance and shock.

The ongoing difficulty of “coming to terms” with colonial histories can be attributed to a number of things:

• historical amnesia, disbelief or cultural differences over what counts as historical knowledge

• the strategic use of “forgetting” to protect a social group’s self-image

• and the belief that engaging in these difficult histories is somebody else’s responsibility rather than our own.

The Voice Referendum and Uluru Statement introduce a new nationalism underpinned by a different origin story: the process of a settlement between First Nations and non-Indigenous Australians with a recognition of how our continent’s much deeper history can be a gift, or inheritance, to all Australians.

In this vision for the future, the worlds of Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islanders narrate the story of the country over much longer timeframes through an entirely different archive and knowledge system.

The idea of inheritance of a much deeper and longer history of country is less concerned with colonial settler-Indigenous relations. Rather, it is a transformed sense of history that extends over thousands of generations and speaks to place.

Playing a role in the future of the nation

The aim of the Voice is to strengthen democracy by meaningfully engaging with those who have the knowledge and expertise, in local conditions and contexts, to improve government decisions in Indigenous policy and programs.

The Voice proposal eschews a rights framework in favour of providing

the impetus for a profound paradigmatic shift between Indigenous peoples and the state. While this “power of influence” on one hand seeks to improve policy and programs and services on the ground, it also seeks to shape a new and meaningful relationship between Indigenous Peoples and political institutions.

There is a legitimate and important role for government to play in First Peoples’ lives, but this role can be improved by greater participation and local-level input in the design and implementation of policy and programs.

For too long, First Peoples have experienced the worst excesses of government and its various instruments – namely the police and judiciary. There’s a reason why many people hold a deep and abiding fear and suspicion of government. It has been responsible for many traumas:

• the brutal dislodging of kinship connections

• the taking of land without any legal basis or compensation

• the violent dispersal of people from their land, which has rendered many destitute and without means to care for their families

• the removal of people’s children, denial of basic services and assistance, and management of people’s lives by a cruel and underfunded protection board

• the empowering of police and military to seize people’s community assets.

And yet, the Voice referendum, supported by the overwhelming majority of First Peoples, seeks to improve the relationship with governments to achieve greater efficiency and effectiveness of policies intended to improve lives.

At one Sydney “yes” rally, we walked from Redfern Park along Cleveland Street to Victoria Park. It was a massive turnout that far exceeded expectations. The mood was serious, yet joyous. People came from all over Sydney and brought their place with them – the crew from “The Shire” got a big cheer from the crowd.

This gathering was not looking for division, but rather a heart-filled yearning to come together as a community of people and play a role in the future of a nation that’s accepting of the fact it’s our country, too.

Heidi Norman 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. Coming to terms with the past is more important than ever. The Voice referendum is a vital first step – https://theconversation.com/coming-to-terms-with-the-past-is-more-important-than-ever-the-voice-referendum-is-a-vital-first-step-215152

Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Lauren Ball, Professor of Community Health and Wellbeing, The University of Queensland

Coffee is well recognised as having a positive impact on long-term health. Drinking the equivalent of three to four cups of instant coffee a day reduces the risk of many health conditions including heart disease, type 2 diabetes and some cancers.

Most people gain small amounts of weight each year as they age. But can coffee help prevent this gradual weight gain?

A group of researchers examined whether drinking an extra cup of coffee a day – or adding sugar, cream or a non-dairy alternative – resulted in more or less weight gain than those who didn’t adjust their intake.

Their research (currently a pre-proof, which means it has been peer reviewed but is yet to undergo the final formatting and copyediting) found a modest link between coffee and gaining less weight than expected.

People who drank an extra cup of coffee a day gained 0.12 kg less weight than expected over four years. Adding sugar resulted in a fraction more (0.09 kg) weight gain than expected over four years.

Read more:
Health Check: four reasons to have another cup of coffee

How was the study conducted? What did it find?

Researchers combined data from three large studies from the United States: two Nurses’ Health Studies from 1986 to 2010, and from 1991 to 2015, and a Health Professional Follow-up study from 1991 to 2014.

The Nurses’ Health Studies are two of the largest cohort studies, with more 230,000 participants, and investigates chronic disease risks for women. The Health Professional Follow-up study involves more than 50,000 male health professionals and investigates the relationship between diet and health outcomes.

Participants in all three studies completed a baseline questionnaire, and another questionnaire every four years to assess their food and drink intake. Using the combined datasets, researchers analysed changes in coffee intake and changes in the participants’ self-reported weight at four-year intervals.

The average four year weight-gains for the nurses’ studies were 1.2kg and 1.7kg, while participants in the health professionals study gained an average of 0.8kg.

The researchers found that increasing unsweetened caffeinated or decaffeinated coffee intake by one cup a day was associated with a weight gain that was 0.12 kg less than expected over four years.

Adding creamer (milk) or a non-dairy alternative did not significantly affect this weight change.

However, adding sugar (one teaspoon) to coffee was associated with a weight gain that was 0.09 kg more than expected over four years.

These associations were stronger in participants who were younger and had a higher body mass index at the beginning of the studies.

What are the pros and cons of the study?

This study is unique in two ways. It had a very large sample size and followed participants for many years. This adds confidence that the associations were real and can likely be applied to other populations.

However, there are three reasons to be cautious.

First, the findings represent an association, not causation. This means the study does not prove that coffee intake is the true reason for the weight change. Rather, it shows the two changes were observed together over time.

Read more:
Clearing up confusion between correlation and causation

Second, the findings around weight were very modest. The average four-year weight gain averted, based on one cup of coffee, was 0.12 kilograms, which is about 30 grams per year. This amount may not be a meaningful change for most people looking to manage weight.

Finally, this analysis did not consider the variability in the amount of caffeine in coffee (which we know can be high), it just assumed a standard amount of caffeine per cup.

How could coffee help with weight management?

Caffeine is a natural stimulant which has been shown to temporarily reduce appetite and increase alertness. This may help to feel less hungry for a short period, potentially leading to reduced energy intake.

Some people consume coffee before exercise as a stimulant to improve their workout performance – if a workout is more effective, more energy may be expended. However, the benefit is largely thought to be short-lived, rather than long-term.

Caffeine has also been shown to speed up our metabolism, causing more energy to be burned while resting. However, this effect is relatively small and is not a suitable substitute for regular physical activity and a healthy diet.

Finally, coffee has a mild diuretic effect, which can lead to temporary water weight loss. This is water loss, not fat loss, and the weight is quickly regained when you re-hydrate.

Is it worth trying coffee for weight loss?

Losing weight can be influenced by various factors, so don’t get too enthusiastic about the coffee-weight link highlighted in this new study, or increase your coffee intake to unreasonable levels.

Most adults can safely consume around 400mg of caffeine a day. That’s the equivalent of two espressos or four cups of instant coffee or eight cups of tea.

If you are pregnant or breastfeeding, it is important to talk to your doctor before increasing your caffeine intake, because caffeine can be passed through to your growing baby.

If you need individualised weight guidance, talk to your GP or visit an accredited practising dietitian.

Read more:
What can you do to speed up your metabolism?

Lauren Ball works for The University of Queensland and receives funding from the National Health and Medical Research Council, Queensland Health and Mater Misericordia. She is a Director of Dietitians Australia, a Director of the Darling Downs and West Moreton Primary Health Network and an Associate Member of the Australian Academy of Health and Medical Sciences.

Emily Burch works for Southern Cross University.

– ref. Can coffee help you avoid weight gain? Here’s what the science says – https://theconversation.com/can-coffee-help-you-avoid-weight-gain-heres-what-the-science-says-214954

Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Trang Nguyen, Postdoctoral Fellow, University of Adelaide

Each year, Australian households discard about 2.5 million tonnes of food. Most (73%) of this food waste ends up in landfill.

This is costly and contributes to escalating greenhouse gas emissions, because food waste rotting in landfill produces methane. So reducing household food waste and diverting it from landfill saves money, improves food security and benefits the environment.

To address the problem, we need to understand how people generate and dispose of food waste. In our new study, we found households fell into three categories – based on the amount of food wasted, how much of that waste was avoidable and how it was sorted. These insights into consumer behaviour point to where the most worthwhile improvements can be made.

Read more:
The case for compost: why recycling food waste is so much better than sending it to landfill

Three types of households

We conducted an online survey of 939 households in metropolitan Adelaide between April and May 2021.

The sample closely matched the national Australian population in terms of gender, age and income.

We asked about the types of food waste produced, the amount of food waste typically discarded in a week and motivations towards reducing and sorting food waste.

We identified three distinct types of households:

Warriors are typically older and highly motivated to reduce and sort food waste. They generate minimal waste (9.6 litres per week), such as bones and vegetable peels, that is mostly unavoidable. This group comprised 39.6% of the sample.

Strugglers mainly consist of families with children who produce the largest amount of food waste (33.1 litres per week). They produce the highest proportion of avoidable food waste, such as uneaten fruits and vegetables, bread and cereals. They are moderately motivated to reduce and sort food waste, but more than half of their food waste still ends up in landfill. This group made up 19.6% of the sample.

Slackers are generally younger. They show little concern about reducing or sorting food waste. Slackers produce the smallest amount of food waste overall (9 litres a week), but the proportion of avoidable food waste (such as mixed leftovers) is significantly higher (38.9%) compared to warriors (24.5%). They are more than twice as likely to live in units, with 17.2% doing so, compared to just 7.8% of warriors. This group was 40.8% of the sample.

Read more:
We can’t keep putting apartment residents’ waste in the too hard basket

What can households do about their food waste?

Reducing household food waste involves changing behaviours in both food management (“upstream”) and waste management (“downstream”).

Upstream measures aim to prevent food waste in the first place. For example, households can avoid buying or cooking too much food. Supporting households to plan and buy just the right amount of food is a great starting point.

Once food waste has been produced, downstream measures come into play. The focus shifts to how we handle and dispose of this waste.

When households engage in food waste recycling they start thinking more about their behaviour including purchasing and cooking.

In Australia, food waste management is mainly the responsibility of local councils.

There are three ways to target household food waste management and drive behavioural change:

• providing kerbside collection of food organics and garden organics, also known as “FOGO”

• changing social norms around food waste

• offering economic incentives and disincentives.

1. Providing a FOGO system

Councils should provide this option at a minimum. This ensures sufficient infrastructure is available to support motivated households to sort food waste.

Unfortunately fewer than half of Australian councils provide a garden organics system and only a quarter of councils provide a FOGO system.

You can explore the FOGO interactive map to see how your area stacks up.

Most councils in metropolitan Adelaide provide access to food waste recycling through the FOGO bin. But our research indicates more than half of household food waste still ends up in landfill. So we need additional programs to promote more sustainable behaviours.

2. Changing social norms

Social norms, the unspoken rules about what behaviours are deemed appropriate, can drive behavioural change.

Examples of promoting social norms around food waste reduction include a nationwide consumer campaign on stopping food waste and the kitchen caddy for benches to increase convenience for collecting food waste.

But our research suggests some groups, like slackers, remain unmotivated without additional incentives. Economic incentives might motivate this group to engage in more sustainable behaviours.

3. Economic incentives

Currently, Australians pay for waste management through their council rates. This is a “pay-as-you-own” system.

The cost is determined by the property’s value, regardless of the amount of waste generated. Renters indirectly contribute to this cost by paying rent.

Neither owner-occupiers nor renters have any incentive to reduce waste generation when the cost is levied on property value rather than the amount of waste.

An alternative approach gaining momentum in other parts of the world is the “pay-as-you-throw” approach, such as Stockholm and Taipei. This system charges households based on the weight of their waste, usually the general waste that needs to be discarded in landfill, while the collection of food waste and other recyclables remains free to encourage waste sorting.

Recent research in Italy shows pay-as-you-throw schemes result in significant reductions in both the quantity of waste and costs associated with waste disposal in many Italian municipalities.

The reduced costs flow on to savings for councils that could potentially reduce waste management fees passed on to homeowners and renters through council rates. Giving households incentives to reduce waste and find alternatives to disposal encourages residents to place a higher value on food that may otherwise be sent to landfill.

Read more:
Want to reduce your food waste at home? Here are the 6 best evidence-based ways to do it

Reducing food waste is a win-win

Tackling food waste is a win-win for people and the planet. It’s worth using various approaches to encourage people to change their behaviour.

Our findings can help inform the design of interventions aimed at reducing and sorting food waste in specific segments of the Australian population.

Trang Nguyen has received funding and is affiliated with the Fight Food Waste Cooperative Research Centre.

Patrick O’Connor has received funding from the Australian Research Council, the South Australian, Victorian, New South Wales and Australian governments. He is a board director of the Nature Conservation Society of SA, a committee member of the Restoration Decade Alliance and a councillor of the Biodiversity Council.

– ref. We found 3 types of food wasters, which one are you? – https://theconversation.com/we-found-3-types-of-food-wasters-which-one-are-you-214482

Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Jamie Cross, Assistant Professor of Econometrics & Statistics, Melbourne Business School

Global oil prices jumped after Israel declared war on Hamas in response to its unexpected attack on Israel on Saturday, the eve of the 50th anniversary of the 1973 Arab-Israeli War.

Back then, between late 1973 and early 1974, the world oil price almost quadrupled after the United States offered financial support to Israel in the Arab–Israeli War. The Organisation of Arab Petroleum Exporting Countries cut off oil exports to nations including the US, the United Kingdom, Canada and Japan.

Could it happen again? Although it has been said that history doesn’t repeat, but it rhymes, the answer is almost certainly no.

While there are uncanny similarities between the events of 1973 and today, there are more important differences.

This time it’s different

The 1973 war pitted Israel against two oil-producing nations: Egypt and Syria.

When the US offered support to Israel, the Organisation of Arab Petroleum Exporting Countries instituted an oil embargo, followed by a series of production cuts that pushed up world price of oil.

This 2023 war pits Israel against Hamas, the Islamist group that controls the tiny Gaza Strip, hemmed in by Israel, Egypt and the Mediterranean Sea.

Neither Gaza nor Israel produces much oil.

The price increase has been short-lived

It is possible that the oil-rich nation of Iran could become involved in the conflict. It is rumoured to have helped plan the Hamas attack, although its Supreme Leader, Ayatollah Ali Khamenei has denied Iran’s involvement.

It is also possible that petroleum-exporting nations might cut supplies in a show of support for Hamas.

But there is no current reason to believe this will happen, and there has been relatively little movement in the petroleum price.

When Russia invaded Ukraine in 2022, the price of Brent crude jumped 15% from around US$95 per barrel to US$110.

Russia had been the world’s third-biggest oil producer, pumping out about 10% of the world’s supply.

In contrast, the Brent crude price closed on Friday (before the Hamas attack) at around US$84. It climbed to US$88 on Monday, then fell back to US$86 – well below even last month’s peak of US$94.

Why was there an increase at all?

Not every spike in oil prices is due to a shortage of supply.

My research shows how jumps in demand can also play a role. These can be further categorised as “precautionary demand” and “speculative demand”.

Precautionary demand is the demand for extra oil to hold in reserve, in case supply tightens. Speculative demand comes from investors expecting to profit from further price rises. Both push up the oil price.

The good news is that both effects should be relatively short-lived, unless the unexpected happens. In this case, the effects so far have been small.

Read more:
No hike yet, but what happens on Melbourne Cup Day depends on petrol

What would happen if prices did take off?

As a relatively small and open economy, Australia would suffer from higher import prices if the price of oil surged.

But research suggests the type of price hikes we’ve seen so far would have only a small impact, even if the price rises were sustained.

The Hamas-Israel war pushed up oil prices by less than 5%, for about a day.

If the 5% increase had been sustained, the research suggests Australia’s inflation rate would have been (at most) 0.3 percentage points higher, Australia’s GDP would have been about 1% lower and Australia’s real exchange rate would have been 2% lower.

This means Australia’s Reserve Bank will be watching oil prices closely, but if the price remains stable (or at least no more unstable than it has been) the war is unlikely to prompt the bank to move interest rates.

Jamie Cross 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. 50 years ago when the Middle East was at war, oil prices skyrocketed. But it probably won’t happen this time. – https://theconversation.com/50-years-ago-when-the-middle-east-was-at-war-oil-prices-skyrocketed-but-it-probably-wont-happen-this-time-215523

Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Samuel Cairnduff, PhD candidate in cultural leadership, Deakin University

When the date of the referendum was announced, the Tasmanian Symphony Orchestra (TSO) quietly cancelled its Last Night of the Proms concert scheduled for the night before.

The reason, given by the orchestra to the media some weeks after the decision to cancel, was that:

to press ahead with a musical celebration of British pageantry on this night felt insensitive given its proximity to the Voice referendum the following day.

Yet, at the time of the decision there was no public statement. The orchestra informed ticket buyers individually. The fact that the cancellation was effected quietly raises questions about why the orchestra did not make any meaningful statement with the cancellation.

The Tasmanian Symphony Orchestra states it aspires to “serve our sector as cultural leaders”.

Indeed, many Australian arts organisations say they want to be “cultural leaders” – but they must be careful to match their words and actions.

Read more:
The Voice to Parliament explained

A case of cultural leadership

The expectation of cultural institutions to go beyond their primary function of creating art, and take an active role in important social conversations has become widespread.

The upcoming Voice referendum has prompted many arts organisations to publicly declare their support for a “yes” vote.

But engaging in social discourse and understanding and enacting a leadership role can be challenging.

The term “cultural leadership” has been used frequently by arts organisations and their funding bodies since the 1990s, linked to an increased expectation that subsidised organisations should contribute to society by creating public value.

When outlining goals and articulating purpose, arts organisations today regularly commit to contributing to their communities by providing cultural leadership. This commitment is usually linked to activities such as outreach, education and collaboration.

The notion of cultural leadership has been subjected to scrutiny. In 2014 theatre maker and festival director Wesley Enoch questioned whether true cultural leadership existed in our major institutions.

He highlighted a lack of willingness for both individuals and their organisations to stand for something – to be bold and courageous, particularly when it came to challenging or divisive issues of social change.

Enoch called on cultural organisations to engage with burning social issues, embrace diversity of thought and contribute to the national conversation through their art-making and public engagement.

The TSO’s cancellation of a problematic program without including its stakeholders in discussion, context or explanation does not represent the vision of cultural leadership Enoch evokes.

Post-colonial reckoning

There is another important conversation in classical music around decolonisation and the canon.

The core programs of Australia’s orchestras are drawn from works by deceased European composers. These works can seem culturally remote and irrelevant in our relatively young country.

It is the role of orchestras to reinforce not just the transformational enrichment classical music can bring, but its relevance in our lives.

Today’s audiences are demanding examination of the origins and contemporary meaning of the works regularly performed in our concert halls. At the same time, questions of diversity, privilege and access are reshaping the organisations that make and present classical music.

In Australia, debates around cultural appropriation and representation have arisen around events like Opera Australia’s accusations of “yellowface” in its production of Turandot, and a cancelled event at Dark Mofo where a British flag would have been soaked in Aboriginal blood.

Read more:
Dark Mofo doesn’t deserve our blood. Australia must invest in First Nations curators and artists

How institutions engage with these discussions is at the heart of their cultural leadership role.

Orchestras are the custodians of the canon, responsible for pushing their art forms forward and vibrant hubs of collective talent, knowledge and experience.

They can choose to harness these resources, positioning themselves at the forefront of difficult conversations – rather than backing away from them without properly developing or communicating their rationales.

Cultural paternalism

The Tasmanian Symphony Orchestra made a decision based on the moral judgement it would be insensitive to perform the Last Night of the Proms the night before the referendum, given the overtly British patriotism associated with the program.

This may be a worthy contention. But by just cancelling the concert, the orchestra took away the opportunity for important conversations.

This is reflected in the ambiguous statement by the orchestra:

The TSO believes strongly that art and music should transcend political debate, but we also strive to be sensitive and mindful of community expectations.

As an alternative to the cancellation, the orchestra could have managed this series of events. They could have hosted a discussion about the history of the proms, exploring the tension between the themes of the concert and current conversations.

The program could have been reshaped, reflecting a dialogue with the orchestra’s community.

Instead, the cancellation raises questions. Will the Tasmanian Symphony Orchestra ever perform the Last Night of the Proms program again? Were the themes considered when it was originally scheduled? What decision-making processes guided the call to cancel, and who was involved?

State orchestras were divested from the ABC in the late 1990s and left to redefine their purpose and place in society. The tension between artistic and non-artistic endeavours remains a source of friction.

In evolving a leadership role, orchestras and other cultural institutions could recognise that discourse brings us together as a society, and engage with difficult conversations – rather than backing away.

This could be the key to espousing a type of cultural leadership that adds real value to society, on and off stage.

Read more:
Behind the scenes of the Voice referendum, Australia’s museums are already collecting the history of tomorrow

Samuel Cairnduff worked for the Tasmanian Symphony Orchestra from 2017 to 2022.

– ref. Arts organisations say they want to be ‘cultural leaders’ – but are they living up to their goals? – https://theconversation.com/arts-organisations-say-they-want-to-be-cultural-leaders-but-are-they-living-up-to-their-goals-215445

Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Kirk Dodd, Lecturer in English and Writing, University of Sydney

Shakespeare wrote his famous narrative poem Venus and Adonis in a lockdown era when, in 1593, the bubonic plague closed the theatres in London for 18 months.

In Shakespeare’s poem Venus, the Roman goddess of love, continuously tries to seduce the human Adonis, who would rather go hunting with the lads than be caught kissing a goddess.

Shakespeare’s poem liberates female desire by having Venus lament that Adonis won’t gratify her sexually. Shakespeare makes Venus physically larger than Adonis, who struggles to defuse her lust. At one stage, Venus rips Adonis off his horse to carry him under her arm.

Although Adonis resists Venus, the sensuous eros in the verse of Shakespeare’s clever treatment certainly helped to drive its popularity:

“Fondling,” she saith, “since I have hemmed thee here
Within the circuit of this ivory pale,
I’ll be a park, and thou shalt be my deer;
Feed where thou wilt, on mountain or in dale:
Graze on my lips, and if those hills be dry,
Stray lower, where the pleasant fountains lie.

Shakespeare’s poem has been called the Fifty Shades of Grey of its day – a trite comparison in literary terms, but a fair comparison for its commercial popularity and erotic content.

Educated young men – and Queen Elizabeth I, according to Damien Ryan’s new play – kept a copy of the narrative poem under their pillow.

Ryan touts his Venus and Adonis as a “play within a plague”, yet it is more daring and ambitious than a mere adaptation of the poem. Here we have a speculative history play that culminates in Shakespeare (Anthony Gooley) and his actors performing his famous erotic poem before the queen (Belinda Giblin).

Ryan’s company Sport for Jove was initially forced to shoot the play as a film during COVID-19 lockdowns in 2020, so a “play within a plague” seems very apt.

À lire aussi :
Friday essay: 50 shades of Shakespeare – how the Bard sexed things up

Tragical-comical-historical-pastoral

With super-dynamic set design and costumes by Damien Ryan and Bernadette Ryan, Venus and Adonis is largely comical, but also tragic; wildly romantic, yet erotic and colourful.

We jump from the rooms of an Elizabethan doctor, who earns his bread-and-butter treating sexually transmitted diseases, to Shakespeare’s bedroom in London and his entanglements with his mistress Aemilia Lanyer (Adele Querol), a proto-feminist poet who became the first English woman to publish her own poetry in her own name in 1611.

Shakespeare helps Lanyer with her quest to publish (at the same time stealing her ideas for his own verse), but tragedy strikes home in Stratford with the loss of Shakespeare’s only son Hamnet. But soon Shakespeare’s company is called to perform his popular poem before the queen.

The editors of the First Folio might ask if this play is a comedy, history or tragedy. Perhaps Ryan would call on Hamlet’s Polonius to declare this play a very fine “tragical-comical-historical-pastoral”.

Ryan’s bawdy realism renders Shakespeare with many endearing quirks: his syphilis, his nakedness, his sexual affairs, his bi-curiosity, his laconic demeanour, his bewilderment at his own abilities, and the neglect of his family in Stratford.

But Ryan also consciously aims to liberate three women who influenced Shakespeare, often eclipsed by the shadow of Shakespeare’s monolithic achievements.

Clearly attracted to verse, Aemilia Lanyer is construed as the “Dark Lady” mistress of Shakespeare’s sonnets, and Querol drives the energy of the play to become its co-protagonist.

Bernadette Ryan plays a searing Agnes Hathaway, Shakespeare’s neglected wife, too jaded by his absence to relish the sweetness of their romantic youth.

Giblin’s Queen Elizabeth is a cantankerous, yet savvy, f-Bomb-dropping patron of the arts. In one breath she pontificates as an elderly virgin queen; in the next she orders two athletic performers to her bedroom.

A vivid telling

The second act, concerning the rehearsal and performance of Shakespeare’s poem before the queen, rollicks forward like a rollercoaster that has, until then, climbed incrementally through the first act.

The second half intertwines multiple strands of drama and intrigue. The queen sits amid the audience and comments on the action (hilariously) in ways we wouldn’t dare. Her attending ladies swoon for handsome Adonis, who wishes he was Venus kissing the boys.

The performance goes off the rails, but the poetry shines, and the queen compares it to the brilliant work of a female poet she has just read – not realising the poet, Lanyer, has been playing Venus. Then enters the ghost of young Hamnet…

The action is admirably supported by Shakespeare’s leading man, Richard Burbage (Christopher Tomkinson), his leading clown Robert Armin (Kevin MacIsaac) and Shakespeare’s grown up “boy player” Nathaniel Field (Jerome Meyer), utterly appalled he must play the male Adonis instead of Venus.

Ryan capably navigates the diverse space of the cross-dressing rehearsal room and the queered space of poetic patronage and sonnet sequence circulation.

If Polonius never quite envisioned what he meant by a “tragical-comical-historical-pastoral”, Ryan’s Venus and Adonis delivers this hybrid form vividly in spades.

Venus and Adonis from Sport for Jove is at the Seymour Centre, Sydney, until October 21.

À lire aussi :
Hamlet: a play that speaks to pandemics past and present

Kirk Dodd 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. Venus and Adonis: this ‘play within a plague’ about Shakespeare is wildly romantic, erotic and colourful – https://theconversation.com/venus-and-adonis-this-play-within-a-plague-about-shakespeare-is-wildly-romantic-erotic-and-colourful-212705

Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Jenny Graves, Distinguished Professor of Genetics and Vice Chancellor’s Fellow, La Trobe University

Since gay couples have fewer children, the high frequency of same-sex relationships in humans is puzzling from an evolutionary point of view. Perhaps there are social advantages such relationships confer on a group, or perhaps “gay genes” are selected for other reasons.

A group of Spanish researchers have studied same-sex sexual behaviour and social relationships in more than 250 species of mammals – and in a recent paper in Nature Communications, they conclude it arose independently many times, and is related to other kinds of social behaviour.

Darwin’s paradox

Research has shown the basis of male homosexuality in humans is at least partially genetic. I know of no work on a genetic basis for female–female sexual behaviour.

Why then is male–male sexual behaviour so common? You’d think, because gay couples have fewer children, these gene variants would be passed on rarely, and their frequency would decline over time.

Geneticists, sociologists and psychologists have advanced many possible explanations for this conundrum.

One is that gay genes are really “male-loving genes”. In this case, though gay males have fewer children, their female relatives who share these gene variants may be more inclined to mate earlier and have more children, making up the deficit.

Read more:
Born this way? An evolutionary view of ‘gay genes’

Other hypotheses referenced in the new paper propose that same-sex behaviour has beneficial effects for human groups. One idea is that same-sex relationships are important for forming and maintaining bonds and alliances within the group. This predicts same-sex behaviour should be more frequent in social species than in non-social species.

Alternatively, same-sex behaviour may help to diminish conflict between members of the same sex, and contribute to establishing social hierarchies. If this is so, we would expect same-sex behaviour to be more common in species where aggression and killing among members is also common.

The big picture of same-sex relationships

Human aren’t the only mammals to show a high frequency of same-sex relationships. There are reports of same-sex behaviour (courtship, mounting, genital contact and copulation, pair bonding) in 261 (out of 5,747) mammal species.

Mostly this behaviour is frequent and overt, occurs in the wild, and in half the species is displayed by both sexes. It is very widespread. These species represent about half of all mammal families.

Primates are strongly represented. Fifty-one species, from lemurs to great apes, show same-sex sexual behaviour.

The even bigger picture is given by studies on many other animals, which reveal same-sex behaviour in birds, reptiles, frogs and fish, as well as many invertebrates.

Most studies of same-sex relationships focus on a particular species, which makes it hard to test these competing hypotheses.

The new research explores same-sex relationships across a wide range of mammals. It asks whether this behaviour was ancestral to all mammals, or whether it evolved independently in response to the establishment of different social systems.

Same-sex sexual behaviour evolved many times and quite recently

It has been proposed that the common ancestor of mammals indulged in indiscriminate sexual behaviour, which manifested as a mix of same-sex and heterosexual relationships. The new study contradicts this.

Using a tree of relationships of mammals to each other – confirmed with DNA sequence comparisons – the patterns of same-sex sexual behaviour were mapped onto the relationships between species. The distribution of same-sex behaviour over all mammals didn’t fit the pattern we would expect if it were present in the common ancestor of all mammals, and was retained in some lineages but not others.

Read more:
Homosexuality may have evolved for social, not sexual reasons

A better explanation for the evidence is that same-sex sexual behaviour was rare in mammalian ancestors overall, but evolved independently many times in many different families. Species exhibiting same-sex sexual behaviour had shared ancestors much more recently than species not showing the behaviour. This suggests same-sex sexual behaviour has been gained and lost many times, and quite recently, during mammalian evolution.

Different lineages showed different times at which same-sex sexual behaviour evolved. It became more frequent in Old World monkeys (those found in Africa and Asia today) and increased again during the evolution of the great apes.

Same-sex sexual behaviour and social organisation

Next, the researchers examined the correlation of same-sex sexual behaviour to different measures of social organisation in different mammal species. They compiled information about sociality (how the animals live together) and aggression between members of the same species, and tested for correlations with male or female same-sex sexual behaviour.

The study found same-sex sexual behaviour, both male and female, was more common in more social species. This suggests same-sex sexual behaviour was selected for in social species.

The frequency of male, but not female, same-sex sexual behaviour was also correlated with the frequency with which animals of the same sex attacked and killed each other. This supports the hypothesis that homosexuality evolved to mitigate male–male aggression in mammals.

We conclude from this study that same-sex sexual behaviour in both males and females evolved as species shifted from solitary living to sociality. It helps to establish and maintain social relationships and alliances, resolve conflicts and avoid aggression.

The high frequency of same-sex sexual behaviour in ape and monkey species suggests it was present in a social great ape ancestor, and maintained in present day social species, including humans.

Everybody might be right

Establishing that homosexuality confers selective advantages in social species such as humans and other great apes does not rule out other explanations.

There may still be fertility advantages accruing to the other sex who inherit “male-loving” or “female-loving” gene variants, for example. These benefits are not necessarily the same in different mammal lineages, and may include others that have not yet been investigated.

In any case, the ubiquity and frequency of same-sex sexual behaviour in mammals means homosexuality cannot be considered aberrant or maladaptive in humans, or any other species. It was selected because it confers different and overlapping social and fertility benefits.

Jenny Graves receives funding from the Australian Research Council.

– ref. How – and why – did homosexual behaviour evolve in humans and other animals? – https://theconversation.com/how-and-why-did-homosexual-behaviour-evolve-in-humans-and-other-animals-215331

Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Lewis Ingram, Lecturer in Physiotherapy, University of South Australia

Cardio, short for cardiovascular exercise, refers to any form of rhythmic physical activity that increases your heart rate and breathing so the heart and lungs can deliver oxygen to the working muscles. Essentially, it’s the type of exercise that gets you huffing and puffing – and fills many people with dread.

People often do cardio to lose weight, but it’s associated with a variety of health benefits including reducing the risk of heart disease, stroke and falls. Research shows cardio also improves cognitive function and mental health.

The World Health Organization recommends a minimum of 150 minutes of moderate-intensity or 75 minutes of vigorous-intensity cardio per week.

There are many ways to do cardio, from playing a team sport, to riding your bike to work, to going for a jog. If you’re willing and able to invest in a piece of equipment, you can also do cardio at home.

The treadmill, stationary bike and rowing machine are the most popular pieces of cardio equipment you’ll find in a typical gym, and you can buy any of these for your home too. Here’s how to know which one is best for you.

The treadmill

In terms of effectiveness of exercise, it’s hard to look past the treadmill. Running uses most of your major muscle groups and therefore leads to greater increases in heart rate and energy expenditure compared to other activities, such as cycling.

As a bonus, since running on a treadmill requires you to support your own body weight, it also helps to build and maintain your bones, keeping them strong. This becomes even more important as you get older as the risk of developing medical conditions such as osteopenia and osteoporosis – where the density of your bones is reduced – increases.

But the treadmill may not be for everyone. The weight-bearing nature of running may exacerbate pain and cause swelling in people with common joint conditions such as osteoarthritis.

Also, a treadmill is likely to require greater maintenance (since most treadmills are motorised), and can take up a lot of space.

Stationary bike

The stationary bike provides another convenient means to hit your cardio goals. Setting the bike up correctly is crucial to ensure you are comfortable and to reduce the risk of injury. A general rule of thumb is that you want a slight bend in your knee, as in the picture below, when your leg is at the bottom of the pedal stroke.

While cycling has significant benefits for cardiovascular and metabolic health, since it’s non-weight-bearing it doesn’t benefit your bones to the same extent as walking and running. On the flipside, it offers a great cardio workout without stressing your joints.

Read more:
Can’t afford a gym membership or fitness class? 3 things to include in a DIY exercise program

Rowing machine

If you’re looking to the get the best cardio workout in the least amount of time, the rowing machine might be for you. Because rowing requires you to use all of your major muscle groups including the upper body, your heart and lungs have to work even harder than they do when running and cycling to deliver oxygen to those working muscles. This means the energy expended while rowing is comparable to running and greater than cycling.

But before you rush off to buy a new rower, there are two issues to consider. First, the technical challenge of rowing is arguably greater than that of running or cycling, as the skill of rowing is often less familiar to the average person. While a coach or trainer can help with this, just remember a good rowing technique should be felt primarily in your legs, not your arms and back.

Second, the non-weight-bearing nature of rowing means it misses out on the same bone health benefits offered by the treadmill – although there is some evidence it still can increase bone density to a smaller degree. Nevertheless, like cycling, this drawback of rowing may be negated by offering a more joint-friendly option, providing a great alternative for those with joint pain who still want to keep their heart and lungs healthy.

Read more:
How often should you change up your exercise routine?

So, what’s the best option?

It depends on your goals, what your current health status is, and, most importantly, what you enjoy the most. The best exercise is the one that gets done. So, choose whichever piece of equipment you find the most enjoyable, as this will increase the likelihood you’ll stick to it in the long term.

Saravana Kumar Is a member of Australian Physiotherapy Association, Services for Australian Rural and Remote Allied Health and Health Services Research Association of Australia & New Zealand.

Hunter Bennett and Lewis Ingram 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. Treadmill, exercise bike, rowing machine: what’s the best option for cardio at home? – https://theconversation.com/treadmill-exercise-bike-rowing-machine-whats-the-best-option-for-cardio-at-home-213352

Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Kirk Dodd, Lecturer in English and Writing, University of Sydney

Shakespeare wrote his famous narrative poem Venus and Adonis in a lockdown era when, in 1593, the bubonic plague closed the theatres in London for 18 months.

In Shakespeare’s poem Venus, the Roman goddess of love, continuously tries to seduce the human Adonis, who would rather go hunting with the lads than be caught kissing a goddess.

Shakespeare’s poem liberates female desire by having Venus lament that Adonis won’t gratify her sexually. Shakespeare makes Venus physically larger than Adonis, who struggles to defuse her lust. At one stage, Venus rips Adonis off his horse to carry him under her arm.

Although Adonis resists Venus, the sensuous eros in the verse of Shakespeare’s clever treatment certainly helped to drive its popularity:

“Fondling,” she saith, “since I have hemmed thee here
Within the circuit of this ivory pale,
I’ll be a park, and thou shalt be my deer;
Feed where thou wilt, on mountain or in dale:
Graze on my lips, and if those hills be dry,
Stray lower, where the pleasant fountains lie.

Shakespeare’s poem has been called the Fifty Shades of Grey of its day – a trite comparison in literary terms, but a fair comparison for its commercial popularity and erotic content.

Educated young men – and Queen Elizabeth I, according to Damien Ryan’s new play – kept a copy of the narrative poem under their pillow.

Ryan touts his Venus and Adonis as a “play within a plague”, yet it is more daring and ambitious than a mere adaptation of the poem. Here we have a speculative history play that culminates in Shakespeare (Anthony Gooley) and his actors performing his famous erotic poem before the queen (Belinda Giblin).

Ryan’s company Sport for Jove was initially forced to shoot the play as a film during COVID-19 lockdowns in 2020, so a “play within a plague” seems very apt.

Read more:
Friday essay: 50 shades of Shakespeare – how the Bard sexed things up

Tragical-comical-historical-pastoral

With super-dynamic set design and costumes by Damien Ryan and Bernadette Ryan, Venus and Adonis is largely comical, but also tragic; wildly romantic, yet erotic and colourful.

We jump from the rooms of an Elizabethan doctor, who earns his bread-and-butter treating sexually transmitted diseases, to Shakespeare’s bedroom in London and his entanglements with his mistress Aemilia Lanyer (Adele Querol), a proto-feminist poet who became the first English woman to publish her own poetry in her own name in 1611.

Shakespeare helps Lanyer with her quest to publish (at the same time stealing her ideas for his own verse), but tragedy strikes home in Stratford with the loss of Shakespeare’s only son Hamnet. But soon Shakespeare’s company is called to perform his popular poem before the queen.

The editors of the First Folio might ask if this play is a comedy, history or tragedy. Perhaps Ryan would call on Hamlet’s Polonius to declare this play a very fine “tragical-comical-historical-pastoral”.

Ryan’s bawdy realism renders Shakespeare with many endearing quirks: his syphilis, his nakedness, his sexual affairs, his bi-curiosity, his laconic demeanour, his bewilderment at his own abilities, and the neglect of his family in Stratford.

But Ryan also consciously aims to liberate three women who influenced Shakespeare, often eclipsed by the shadow of Shakespeare’s monolithic achievements.

Clearly attracted to verse, Aemilia Lanyer is construed as the “Dark Lady” mistress of Shakespeare’s sonnets, and Querol drives the energy of the play to become its co-protagonist.

Bernadette Ryan plays a searing Agnes Hathaway, Shakespeare’s neglected wife, too jaded by his absence to relish the sweetness of their romantic youth.

Giblin’s Queen Elizabeth is a cantankerous, yet savvy, f-Bomb-dropping patron of the arts. In one breath she pontificates as an elderly virgin queen; in the next she orders two athletic performers to her bedroom.

A vivid telling

The second act, concerning the rehearsal and performance of Shakespeare’s poem before the queen, rollicks forward like a rollercoaster that has, until then, climbed incrementally through the first act.

The second half intertwines multiple strands of drama and intrigue. The queen sits amid the audience and comments on the action (hilariously) in ways we wouldn’t dare. Her attending ladies swoon for handsome Adonis, who wishes he was Venus kissing the boys.

The performance goes off the rails, but the poetry shines, and the queen compares it to the brilliant work of a female poet she has just read – not realising the poet, Lanyer, has been playing Venus. Then enters the ghost of young Hamnet…

The action is admirably supported by Shakespeare’s leading man, Richard Burbage (Christopher Tomkinson), his leading clown Robert Armin (Kevin MacIsaac) and Shakespeare’s grown up “boy player” Nathaniel Field (Jerome Meyer), utterly appalled he must play the male Adonis instead of Venus.

Ryan capably navigates the diverse space of the cross-dressing rehearsal room and the queered space of poetic patronage and sonnet sequence circulation.

If Polonius never quite envisioned what he meant by a “tragical-comical-historical-pastoral”, Ryan’s Venus and Adonis delivers this hybrid form vividly in spades.

Venus and Adonis from Sport for Jove is at the Seymour Centre, Sydney, until October 21.

Read more:
Hamlet: a play that speaks to pandemics past and present

Kirk Dodd 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. Venus and Adonis: this ‘plague within a play’ about Shakespeare is wildly romantic, erotic and colourful – https://theconversation.com/venus-and-adonis-this-plague-within-a-play-about-shakespeare-is-wildly-romantic-erotic-and-colourful-212705

Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Isabella Reeves, PhD Candidate, Flinders University

For generations, the Thaua people worked with killer whales to hunt large whales in the water of Twofold Bay, on the southern coast of New South Wales. Killer whales – commonly known as orcas – would herd their giant prey into shallower waters where hunters could spear them. Humans would get the meat, but the killer whales wanted a delicacy – the tongue.

After colonists dispossessed the Thaua, Europeans began capitalising on this longstanding partnership. From around 1844, commercial whalers worked with employed Thaua and killer whales to hunt these giants. The pods of killer whales would find a prized baleen whale, herd it closer to shore and signal the whalers, who lived in the town of Eden.

The partnership has no parallel anywhere in the world: the top predator of the oceans working with the top predator on land.

One killer whale, Old Tom, became legendary due to his active role in the hunts for at least three decades. He was seven metres long and weighed six tonnes.

In 1930, he was found dead at a local beach – the last of his group in Eden. You can see his body preserved in Eden’s Killer Whale Museum. But questions have lingered. Do Old Tom’s descendants still roam the oceans, or did they die out?

Our new research suggests these famous killer whales are likely to be extinct.

Old Tom’s origins

Adaptability, cultural traditions and female-led societies have made killer whales the ultimate ocean predator. These intelligent marine mammals are the world’s largest dolphin, and the only species known to successfully hunt adult great white sharks and the world’s largest living animal – blue whales.

But different groups can live very different lives. Some are constantly on the move, while others stay living in a particular region. Some feed exclusively on one type of prey, while others feed on many. Across the globe, killer whale vocalisations differ greatly, with different dialects and languages unique to families and regions.

To find out where these killer whales of Eden came from, we drilled into one of Old Tom’s teeth and analysed the resulting powder to sequence his DNA. We used the same methods used to extract DNA from Neanderthal remains and million-year-old mammoths.

When we compared Old Tom’s DNA to a global data set of killer whales, his genome was most similar to those of modern New Zealand killer whales. He shared a most recent common ancestor with killer whales from the northern Pacific, northern Atlantic, and Australasia.

But there was no sign of any recent descendants in our modern killer whales data set. Old Tom’s DNA is mostly distinct from modern populations. That suggests the famous killers of Eden may have died out.

Whale brothers

The ancestors of Steven Holmes, a Thaua Traditional Owner, had close ties to both the killer whales and to the colonist whalers. Steven has worked with us to give the Thaua perspective. His advocacy helped change the name of Eden’s Ben Boyd National Park to Beowa, which is Thaua for killer whale. Ben Boyd was a whaler as well as a notorious slaver, forcing Pacific people onto boats and into indentured labour.

Steven told us:

In Twofold Bay, the coastal Thaua people, part of the Yuin nation, had a connection with the killer whales through the Dreaming. Their long relationship was highly valued by the Thaua, who depended on the ocean for food and other resources. They considered the killer whales their brothers. When a Thaua died, they were believed to be reincarnated as killer whales. That way, the Thaua always remained one mob – whether whale or man.

Thaua people used specialised hunting strategies that encouraged killer whales to herd baleen whales, such as humpbacks, closer to shore for them to kill. After a successful kill, the killer whales were rewarded with the tongue while the Thaua got the rest of the carcass. This became known as the “Law of the Tongue”.

After colonisation, white whalers capitalised on this relationship. They hired many skilled First Nations whalers.

When killer whales found a whale, some would slap their tails in front of the whaling station to alert the whalers. Some killer whales would herd the target into shallower water, while others would harry and tire it out. Eventually, the whalers would harpoon the exhausted whale, following it with the killing lance to pierce vital organs.

Old Tom was active in these hunts, reported to grab the lines of the boat to pull the whalers out faster, or tug on the line to drive the harpoon deeper and speed up the whale’s death.

The whalers left the carcass on a buoy for up to two days to allow the killer whales to eat the tongue and lips.

Where did they go?

Eden’s whaling station did not process any whales after 1928, as whale numbers had plummeted. The killer whales had already begun to vanish.

Why did they leave? We don’t know for sure, but hypotheses include a lack of other food or even a breach of the Law of the Tongue by whalers.

What we do know is the group has never returned, and our new DNA evidence suggests, that Old Tom’s group does not have any descendants in our oceans today.

Since they left, there have been only a handful of killer whale sightings off Eden.

While they are gone, they are not forgotten. The legacy of the killer whales of Eden lives on among Thaua people and local communities.

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

– ref. For generations, killer whales and First Nations hunted whales together. Now we suspect the orca group has gone extinct – https://theconversation.com/for-generations-killer-whales-and-first-nations-hunted-whales-together-now-we-suspect-the-orca-group-has-gone-extinct-213556

Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Mati Keynes, McKenzie Postdoctoral Research Fellow, The University of Melbourne

I never learned about this in school!

This is an all-too familiar response from those learning Indigenous histories in Australia.

The recent take-up of false claims – such as that a Voice to Parliament would result in “special privileges” — suggests large gaps in public understanding of the Indigenous political movements that preceded the Voice.

Considering what children have learnt in our schools in the past, this should not surprise us.

Our research, soon to be published in the Nordic Journal of Educational History, shows that for over 100 years, the Victorian school curriculum has failed to give generations of students the chance to learn about Indigenous political movements.

What we did

Given Australia didn’t have a national curriculum until 2010, we looked at Victorian curriculum documents from the past 120 years to get a sense of what children have been taught over this time. We compared this with what Indigenous political campaigns were expressing at the time.

We found Indigenous political movements were largely missing from Victorian curriculum materials.

When they were included, it was in very limited ways that did not accurately reflect the diversity and depth of Indigenous standpoints, methods, and objectives.

We found the Victorian curriculum had routinely failed to grapple with Indigenous sovereignty.

In particular, we noticed there were three key moments in Indigenous political history that were missing.

Read more:
The 1881 Maloga petition: a call for self-determination and a key moment on the path to the Voice

1. 1880s Coranderrk Campaign

Coranderrk was an Aboriginal reserve established by the colony of Port Philip in 1863 on Wurundjeri land.

The Wurundjeri community at Coranderrk, which also included people from other Kulin nations, cultivated a highly successful farm. Because this farm was coveted by settlers, they pressured the colonial government to shut down the reserve and sell the land.

The Coranderrk community staged a sustained public campaign to protect their land. They wrote letters and petitions to ministers and newspapers and sent deputations to Melbourne.

Their efforts culminated in the 1881 Parliamentary Coranderrk Inquiry.

The inquiry drew sustained attention to Aboriginal peoples’ aspirations for land and for the end of policies of “protection”. While ultimately unsuccessful, the inquiry and campaign created a lasting public record of Aboriginal activism and testimony. The Coranderrk campaign is crucial for understanding Aboriginal experiences of political processes.

Yet we found the Coranderrk campaign was not included at all in the historical Victorian curriculum documents we examined.

Instead, curriculum documents from this period tended to depict Aboriginal people as a “dying race”. They tended to justify settler violence as a “natural” response to adverse conditions on the colonial frontier.

2. 1960s-ending assimilation

The momentum of Aboriginal political movements grew in the post-war era.

There was the 1965 Freedom Ride (modelled on those in the US) through New South Wales, and the fight to retain the sole remaining Aboriginal reserve at Lake Tyers in Victoria in the same year. These exposed how assimilation legislation that claimed to enable Aboriginal people’s access to economic and social “equality” in fact only denied them those rights.

The modern land rights movement was born when in 1966, Vincent Lingiari – a Gurindji man upon whose lands the Wave Hill cattle station was located – led a strike in protest of the poor working conditions the Gurindji people endured. This came to be known as the Wave Hill Walkoff.

It became a struggle for control over the land. The Gurindji people who were strikers remained for seven years as illegal “occupiers” of their own Country.

We found these growing aspirations for rights and land were not reflected in the curriculum. Through the mid-20th century until the late 1960s, the curriculum focused mainly on British history.

We found celebratory narratives of figures like Captain Cook, William Dampier and Major Mitchell, and the growth of industry and the Australian “nation”.

Where Indigenous people were present in the curriculum, they were presented as relics of the past rather than political agents in their own right.

3. 1988 Treaty campaign

On January 26 1988, as Australia celebrated the 200th anniversary of the arrival of the first fleet into Kamay (now Botany Bay), over 40,000 people marched through the streets of Sydney with red, black and yellow protest banners and chants of “White Australia has a black history”.

A few months later, on Jawoyn country east of Katherine in the Northern Territory, the Northern and Central Land Councils presented the Barunga Statement to then-prime minister Bob Hawke. It called for a treaty between the Commonwealth and Indigenous nations, and for the recognition of sovereignty.

Hawke committed to work towards a treaty, but recognising prior Indigenous sovereignty proved a major stumbling block.

A later Senate Standing Committee tasked with investigating the feasibility of a treaty recommended focusing on education and attitudinal change first.

Unfortunately this history was not well represented in the curriculum material we studied. This history is crucial for understanding how national representation and treaty have long been a part of Indigenous demands for political change. After the bicentenary protests, curriculum shifted to include more Indigenous perspectives, but this was followed by backlash known as the “history wars” (a divisive public debate about whether or not acknowledging past violence against Aboriginal people represented a “black armband view” of history).

Is Australia’s curriculum changing?

A new version of the Australian curriculum (which is used by the states to guide their own curricula), was released in 2022 and will be implemented in coming years.

It includes a focus on “truth-telling” within the broader history of Australia. This could signal an important shift from past practices. (Unfortunately, this shift will occur after the Voice referendum).

But it may address some of the failings our research identified.

The new Year 10 course in the national curriculum suggests class discussion of the Day of Mourning, the Pilbara strike, the Wave Hill walk off, the 1972 Tent Embassy, and more.

The revised content also lists for discussion key historical individuals, organisations, and the methods used to campaign for change.

While highlighting Indigenous political movements can help build understanding of Indigenous aspirations, the curriculum still does not directly grapple with Indigenous sovereignty as a concept.

This is why organisations such as the National Indigenous Youth Education Coalition, through the Learn Our Truth campaign, have called for schools to reflect on what Indigenous sovereignty means and to teach the history of colonisation.

Mati Keynes receives funding from the Australian Centre.

Archie Thomas receives funding from the Australian Centre.

Beth Marsden receives funding from the Australian Centre.

Samara Hand receives funding from the Australian Centre and is also a co-founder and director at the National Indigenous Youth Education Coalition.

– ref. 3 key moments in Indigenous political history Victorian school students didn’t learn about – https://theconversation.com/3-key-moments-in-indigenous-political-history-victorian-school-students-didnt-learn-about-213756