Global stock markets are tanking on fears of recessions in the US, the UK and Europe, and the OECD is actually forecasting recessions in Europe.
So is recession now inevitable in Australia? Not at all.
The good news is there are several reasons to think Australia might be able to escape a global slide into recession – though it will need careful management.
What could push Australia into recession?
Here’s the worst case scenario. The United States keeps pushing up interest rates until it brings on a recession, and Australia gets pressured to do the same.
Here’s how it’s playing out at the moment. The US Federal Reserve has lifted rates at each of its past five meetings. The past three hikes have been massive by Australian and US standards – 0.75 percentage points each, enough to slow already-forecast US economic growth to a trickle, which is what the Fed wants to fight inflation.
But the Fed is planning to go further. Its chair, Jerome Powell says he expects ongoing increases, and last week countenanced the possibility they would throw the country into recession:
We don’t know, no one knows, whether this process will lead to a recession or if so, how significant that recession would be. That’s going to depend on how quickly wage and price inflation pressures come down, whether expectations remain anchored, and whether also we get more labour supply.
Powell is saying he is prepared to risk a recession to get inflation down.
The UK’s top banker already expects a recession
Powell’s not alone. His UK equivalent, Bank of England governor Andrew Bailey, has lifted rates seven times since December. Bailey says he is prepared to do more to fight inflation – “forcefully, as necessary” – and is actually forecasting a recession, which he says has probably started.
So alarmed is the new UK government headed by Liz Truss that on Friday it unveiled a £45 billion (A$75 billion) “growth plan” made up of tax cuts and infrastructure spending, on top of spending of £60 billion (A$100 billion) to cap household and business energy bills.
Given what’s now happening overseas, you might expect Australia’s Reserve Bank to take note and behave differently to central banks overseas.
Except that it’s not that quite easy.
Pressure to follow the US
Whenever the US hikes interest rates (it’s hiked them seven times since March), investors buy US dollars to take advantage of the higher rates. This forces up the price of the US dollar in relation to currencies of countries that didn’t hike.
This means unless countries such as Australia hike in line with the US, the values of their currencies are likely to fall in relation to the US dollar – meaning their values are likely to fall in relation to the currency in which most trade takes place.
This means more expensive imports, which means more inflation.
And Australia’s Reserve Bank is trying to contain inflation.
The upshot is whenever the US pushes up rates (no matter how recklessly) there’s pressure on Australia to do the same, simply to stop inflation getting worse.
The risk of ‘a gratuitously severe recession’
Since March, when the US began pushing up interest rates more aggressively than Australia, the value of the Australian dollar has slid from US0.73 to less than $US0.65, putting upward pressure on goods traded in US dollars of about 11%.
Prime Minister Liz Truss. The British pound has hit an all-time low. Neil Hall/EPA
With Australian inflation already forecast to hit 7.75% this year, way above the Reserve Bank’s 2-3% target, still more inflation is what the bank doesn’t want.
This locks countries such as Britain (whose currency has fallen to an all-time low against the US in the wake of the tax cuts) and Japan (whose government has intervened to try to stop its currency falling) into a semi-dependent relationship with the US.
Failing to follow its lead makes inflation worse.
It is why US economist Paul Krugman says there is serious risk the Fed’s actions “will push America and the world into a gratuitously severe recession”.
Going your own way can hurt your dollar
The risk isn’t merely that the US will go too far. The risk is that other countries, including ours, will ape the US in pushing up rates to maintain the value of their currencies, amplifying the effect of a US recession and making it global.
It’s often said that central banks hunt in packs. What’s less often noted is the pressure they are under to follow each other.
In Australia, AMP chief economist Shane Oliver puts it starkly: if the Reserve Bank doesn’t follow the US Fed, the Australian dollar might crash.
But here’s the good news. We know Australia can avoid the worst of global economic downturns, because we’ve done it before.
How Australia has avoided past recessions – and can again
In part, this has been due to excellent judgement. Our Reserve Bank was able to take clear-eyed decisions about when to follow the US on rates and when not to.
At times it was helped by high commodity prices, which are high again following Russia’s invasion of Ukraine and which are supporting our currency, even though we are increasing rates less aggressively than the United States.
At the right moment, Australia’s Reserve Bank would be wise to decouple from the US. If the Fed pushes up rates to the point where it is about to bring on a US recession, Australia would be well advised to stand back and not lift rates, letting the collapse of the US economy bring down inflation by itself.
If Australia’s Reserve Bank thinks that moment is approaching, it should consider shrinking the size of its rate rises (the last four have been 0.5 percentage points).
Its next meeting is next Tuesday. Because of its importance, the Bureau of Statistics is bringing forward the publication of its new monthly measure of inflation to this Thursday, publishing the results for both July and August at once.
But the bank will need more than information. It’ll need the intuition and common sense that has kept us out of trouble in the past.
Peter Martin does not work for, consult, own shares in or receive funding from any company or organisation that would benefit from this article, and has disclosed no relevant affiliations beyond their academic appointment.
The first rental electric scooters quietly appeared on the streets of Brisbane in late 2018. Four years later, distinctively coloured e-scooters are seemingly everywhere, with trial schemes popping up in Melbourne, Sydney, Adelaide, Darwin and Perth.
Outside Australia, scooter share schemes are now operating in dozens of cities worldwide, and growth is expected to continue.
E-scooters offer commuters and tourists a way to cover shorter distances quickly – and without breaking a sweat. It’s for this reason Australian cities are trialling these schemes as part of broader interest in micromobility – small, light and often electric ways of getting around, such as bikes, e-bikes and e-scooters.
But one question previously unanswered is: what about the weather? If the skies open, do e-scooter users switch to cars or public transport? What about intense summer heat?
Our new research on the Brisbane e-scooter trial found trips actually increase as the heat rises, compared to human-powered bikes which see declining use in hotter weather.
When it’s wet, e-scooters remain more popular than bike share schemes – but not by much. We found around 32% of e-scooter trips take place in wet weather – compared to around 28% of bikesharing trips
What else did we find?
We looked at how e-scooter trips, destinations, and patterns of use vary based on weather. A large dataset of trips (more than 800,000) was provided to us by Neuron, one of the two scooter-sharing companies active in Brisbane.
We found e-scooter trips rise alongside the heat index, which measures the combined feeling of heat and humidity. People are likely to turn to them to avoid sweating up one of Brisbane’s many hills on foot.
Overall, and perhaps as expected, e-scooters are more appealing to people in Brisbane when it’s warm but lose appeal in wet conditions. Even so, it seems weather might matter less for e-scooters compared to bikesharing.
We found people tend to use scooters for recreation or to get somewhere fun, more than using them for utilitarian reasons such as going to work. But interestingly, utilitarian trips are becoming more common as people become more used to having scooters around.
As you might expect, e-scooter use is concentrated around the inner city, and trip lengths are mostly under 15 minutes. Users are typically younger, male and more educated – perhaps reflecting scooter locations where university students tend to live.
In Singapore, researchers have found e-scooter ridership actually falls as daytime temperatures rise. By contrast, in the Texas city of Austin, ridership falls when daytime temperatures get cooler and as wind rises.
Most people take e-scooters along dedicated bike paths, such as the popular path along the Brisbane River. In fact, the riverfront bike path which runs through Brisbane is far and away the most popular location to scoot. The bike path is car-free, and connects the CBD to popular restaurant and nightlife strips.
During wet weather, scooter riders show an even greater preference for bike paths – potentially to avoid perceived heightened risk on slippery roads and footpaths.
Where are people going to? We found the overwhelming majority of places people start and end their trips are parks, strips of shops and suburbs, regardless of weather. Around one fifth of all trips are used to go from one residential suburb to another.
Weather plays a part here too. Wet weather trips tend to be shorter and more concentrated around the CBD and the river, possibly because most of Brisbane’s dedicated cycling infrastructure is here.
Bikesharing schemes have daily spikes in use for the morning and afternoon commutes as well as during lunchtime. By contrast, e-scooters see more use during the afternoon and evening. This indicates scooters are being used more as part of a night out or to get to dinner.
Brisbane’s riverside bike paths are the most popular places to scoot. Shutterstock
Why does this matter?
Though you might not think it – especially if you commute by car – weather plays a huge role in our daily decisions about how to get where we want to go. If heavy rain sets in, more people switch from bikes or public transport to cars.
The weather outside your front door influences where, when and how you travel. Scaled up, this means the weather can affect congestion, pollution and the experience of travel.
Weather has the most effect on transport modes where we’re not sheltered from the elements, such as walking and running, as well as micromobility modes such as shared e-scooters, e-bikes, bicycles and skateboards. Importantly, these modes are a vital part of making transport in cities sustainable.
Very few cities are trying to encourage more car traffic. By contrast, many are trying to create the conditions where walking, scooting and other non-polluting, space-minimal transport modes can flourish. Weather plays an important part in this. With climate breakdown looming, understanding weather impacts on travel has become crucial.
Anthony Kimpton has received funding from the Australian Research Infrastructure Netowrk (AURIN), and has been employed on multiple projects funded by the Australian Research Council (ARC).
Dorina Pojani has received research funding from the Australian Research Council (ARC) and the Australian Urban Research Infrastructure Network (AURIN)
Jonathan Corcoran receives funding from the Australian Research Council and the Australian Urban Research Infrastructure Network (AURIN).
Thomas Sigler receives funding from the Australian Research Council.
Julia Loginova and Richard Bean 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.
Once again, Iran is in the midst of political upheaval and civil unrest. The latest protests, triggered by the death of 22-year-old Mahsa Amini after her arrest by the morality police, follow several other protests that have occurred in Iran over recent years.
So what is new about this latest round of demonstrations? Here are three key ways these protests are different.
1. Public support for these protests appears higher and more widespread
At the crux of the latest demonstrations is Iran’s morality police, which is tasked with enforcing strict codes around dress and behaviour.
The morality police arrested Mahsa Amini earlier this month, saying she was wearing her hijab too loosely. She subsequently died. Her family say she was beaten (a claim rejected by the government and police).
Whatever transpired, the Amini case has triggered a groundswelling of public anger around the behaviour of the morality police, with protesters demanding women be given the right to choose what to wear.
The anger this diverse group feels over government interference in people’s personal decisions has found a fitting platform in the present protests.
Since the early 1980s, when the ruling clergy consolidated power by eliminating opposition groups, social regulation and strict rules around lifestyle have formed the crux of their policies.
Government meddling in the private lives of its citizens was once far more pervasive, extensive, and stringent. For example, homes were searched for VCRs and satellite dishes.
In time, such restrictions were relaxed (to some degree). For women, however, the rules remain highly discriminatory. Government dos and don’ts are still heavily enforced. The Iranian government persists in denying women their fundamental rights; the debate over the headscarf and women’s dress is just one visible manifestation of this.
Apart from being demeaning and degrading, these regulations make day-to-day living extremely difficult for a great number of women who do not agree with the clergy.
Today, it’s hard to find someone in Iran who hasn’t been harassed at least once by the ruling clergy in some way.
That is why, compared to previous demonstrations in Iran, the number of people who support the current protests appears quite high and widespread. Protests are underway in cities large and small, neighbourhoods rich and poor.
Women’s rights are at the centre of these protests, while previous protests have focused more on economic or broader political issues.
The government’s intrusion into citizens – especially women citizen’s – private lives is the source of the demonstrations this time around. It has proved difficult so far, for the government to explain their policies in a way that is convincing for many people.
3. The courage shown during these demonstrations is unprecedented
All protest comes at enormous personal risk in Iran. But these latest protesters have done some unusually brave things. The courage shown by protesters is unprecedented.
Some women have removed their headscarves in the street or set them on fire. Some have cut their hair in public.
Many videos appear to show anti-riot police failing to disperse the crowd, and even protesters occasionally pushing back police.
The scale of the demonstrations and the degree of anger among these latest protestors is unusual.
Will these protests bring lasting change?
It is too early to say. Iran’s leaders have shown time and time again they are not interested in yielding to popular demands.
The Iranian leadership may fear appeasing protesters would just encourage further demands and may even trigger their downfall.
And while the latest demonstrations are widespread, they are also dispersed.
There is no guarantee the different demonstrations underway in various cities will be able to coalesce around a single, coherent movement.
The demonstrations are also hampered by the absence of a cohesive leadership and, it would seem, any kind of methodical organisation.
Whether or not these demonstrations result in significant change, they have undoubtedly come at a cost to Iran’s ruling clergy.
Perhaps the most significant of these costs is the effect these protests have had on the already dwindling legitimacy of the Islamic Republic, both domestically and internationally.
Naser Ghobadzadeh does not work for, consult, own shares in or receive funding from any company or organisation that would benefit from this article, and has disclosed no relevant affiliations beyond their academic appointment.
The changes in our work preferences have highlighted how vulnerable our cities are to economic shocks. Moves to entice (or compel) workers back to the office may be just a short-term fix for precincts now struggling with low levels of foot traffic.
Historic zoning practices created separate areas of residential, commercial and industrial activity in our cities. This practice created whole precincts like the CBD and residential suburbs dedicated to a single use.
The lack of diversity arising from this pattern of development ultimately reduces resilience when conditions change. It is arguably one of urban planning’s greatest failures.
Proposed zoning in 1952, dividing Brisbane into residential, commercial, industrial and recreation zones. Brisbane City Council
The most resilient places during COVID-19 lockdowns were those that had a diverse industrial employment mix. It meant they did not rely on a single sector for jobs – and the lockdown impacts varied from sector to sector.
For example, Melbourne’s last remaining inner-city industrial zone, Port Melbourne, provides a diverse mix of production as well as commercial services. It was among the most resilient places of employment in Australia to COVID impacts. This example offers valuable insight into a truly “mixed use” precinct.
Areas with diverse land uses became the goal of new planning policies that emerged in the 1980s. By introducing zoning changes, policymakers hoped to replicate the vibrant, dense and localised environments of older cities that predated the rise of cars.
However, our research shows policies that aimed to increase land-use mix do the opposite in practice.
Streets of Amsterdam in the Netherlands. vonderauvisuals/flickr
Our research tracked changes in land use and zoning for over 10,000 parcels of land in Brisbane from 1951 to 2021. We selected six precincts 1-10km from the city centre. These precincts are now zoned as mixed-use and high-density, with more diverse land use as the goal.
We created a comprehensive data set by digitising historic land use (1951) and zoning maps (1952 and 1987) and integrating this with data from 2021.
Brisbane City Council’s 1951 Land Use Survey. Brisbane City Council
Our research found a large increase in commercially zoned land across all study areas. Rezoning former industrial precincts accounted for most of this increase. While residential use remained the dominant land use across all study areas, commercial use grew from 2.3% of combined land area in 1951 to 28.9% in 2021.
As a result, by 2021, commercial services provided almost all the jobs in these areas. Most of the land zoned as mixed use, which allows low-impact industry (such as vehicle repairers, shop fitters and printers), was used for housing, shops, gyms or offices.
By allowing open competition between commercial, residential and industrial uses, policy aiming to diversify land uses has the opposite effect of sidelining industrial use. One reason is that centrally located industrial sites are often large and under single ownership, which makes them a prime target for developers.
A riverfront milk factory in Brisbane, one of the last inner-city manufacturers. Rachel Gallagher
Policymakers have sought to minimise the connection between industrial decline and an economic growth model centred on property development. Instead, they often attribute this decline to globalisation or the changing economy.
Yet our research shows industrial zoning does protect industrial land. Areas that were zoned for heavier industrial uses in 1987 retain some kind of industrial use in 2021.
What sort of industry are we talking about?
Industry today, particularly manufacturing, is no longer characterised by large-scale industrial production with heavy machinery. Most Australian manufacturers are small businesses, ranging from micro breweries to clothing and textile producers and custom bike shops.
And inner-city locations attract manufacturers for the same reasons they attract services sector firms. These areas offer access to large markets, skilled labour and specialised suppliers.
A local manufacturer in Brisbane’s West End. Rachel Gallagher
Yet the remaining centrally located, industrially zoned sites, suitable for industrial equipment and containing loading docks and other supporting infrastructure, are vulnerable to displacement by residential and commercial development.
The idea that land should be put to its “highest and best use”, in an economy that values residential and commercial development above all else, undermines the city’s resilience.
If the role of planning authorities is to regulate land use in the community’s interest, it is questionable whether simply giving priority to its most lucrative use does that. Policymakers should reconsider planning that creates open competition between industrial and residential or commercial uses.
Our research contributes to the growing evidence that zoning can be used to protect diverse land use, rather than simply enable land-use conversions. More active planning is required to deliver the goals of truly mixed-use urban precincts.
Rachel Gallagher has worked as a Senior Planner in Queensland’s Department of State Development, Infrastructure, Local Government and Planning.
Thomas Sigler and Yan Liu do not work for, consult, own shares in or receive funding from any company or organisation that would benefit from this article, and have disclosed no relevant affiliations beyond their academic appointment.
The New South Wales state election will be held in six months, in March 2023. A Newspoll, conducted September 19-22 from a sample of 1,006, gave Labor a 54-46 lead (it was 52.0-48.0 to the Coalition at the March 2019 election). Primary votes were 40% Labor (33.3% at the last election), 35% Coalition (41.6%), 12% Greens (9.6%) and 13% for all others (15.5%).
NSW Liberal Premier Dominic Perrottet had ratings of 47% satisfied, 41% dissatisfied, while Labor leader Chris Minns was at 42% satisfied, 27% dissatisfied. Perrottet led by 39-35 as better premier. Newspoll figures are from The Poll Bludger.
A NSW Resolve poll for The Sydney Morning Herald, conducted with the federal August and September Resolve polls from a sample of 1,170, gave Labor 43% of the primary vote (up nine since February), the Coalition 30% (down seven), the Greens 10% (up two), the Shooters 2% (steady), independents 10% (down three) and others 5% (down one).
Two party estimates aren’t given by Resolve until near elections, but with a 13-point primary vote lead over the Coalition and 10% for the Greens, Labor is in a dominant position in this poll. The Poll Bludger estimated a 60-40 Labor two party margin.
Despite the blowout lead for Labor, the preferred premier measure was tied at 28% each between Perrottet and Minns (32-29 to Minns in February).
Independent support was at 10% in the NSW poll and 12% in the Victorian Resolve poll below. These figures are very likely to be too high, as Resolve is currently asking for an independent in all seats. Once candidate nominations for the election close, Resolve will only ask for independents in seats where a viable independent is contesting.
These two polls are the best results for NSW Labor since they won the 2007 state election. There has been a large swing to Labor since the previous Resolve poll in February, probably somewhat owing to the scandals around former Nationals leader John Barilaro.
The Resolve poll is likely to be a Labor-favouring outlier, but Newspoll also has Labor well ahead. Labor has made large gains in NSW polls since early this year.
I would expect the federal Labor government to drag down state Labor parties, but this isn’t happening so far. Federal Labor is still at “honeymoon” poll ratings, while the NSW Coalition government is nearly 12 years old.
Victorian Resolve poll: Labor way ahead
The Victorian election is on November 26. Primary votes in a state Resolve poll for The Age were 42% Labor (up five since April), 28% Coalition (down five), 12% Greens (up two), 12% independents (up one) and 6% others (down three).
Two party estimates aren’t given by Resolve until closer to elections, but with a 14-point primary vote lead over the Coalition and 12% for the Greens, Labor is in a dominant position in this poll. The Poll Bludger’s estimated two party was 60-40 to Labor.
Incumbent Labor Premier Daniel Andrews led the Liberals’ Matthew Guy by 46-28 as preferred premier (48-31 in April). This poll would have been conducted with the federal August and September Resolve polls from a sample of about 1,100.
The Poll Bludger said Labor was down one point on the 2018 lower house result on primary votes in this Resolve poll, while the Coalition was down seven. If this result were to be applied to the upper house, it would likely be a disaster for the Coalition under group voting tickets, as they would win few seats on filled quotas, and be vulnerable to preference snowballs.
Republic support slumps in federal Resolve poll, but Indigenous Voice has 64% support
In the federal Resolve poll for Nine newspapers that I covered previously, support for Australia becoming a republic slumped from 54-46 in favour in January, to 54-46 opposed. This was a forced choice question.
On whether to hold a referendum on becoming a republic, 32% wanted to wait until after further consideration of King Charles III, 30% didn’t want a vote at all, and 21% wanted a vote as soon as possible.
Queen Elizabeth II was rated good by 75% and poor by just 5%.
For his three years as governor-general, David Hurley was rated good by 30% and poor by 13%. About 45% thought Charles III would perform well, and 14% badly.
In a proposed referendum on establishing an Indigenous Voice to parliament, voters would support it by a 64-36 margin nationally. This result was based on both the August and September Resolve polls for a combined sample of 3,618.
This was done to have sizeable samples for each state, since a successful referendum requires majorities in four of the six states as well as overall. Support for the Voice was lowest in Queensland (59-41 in favour).
About 45% thought the Voice should take priority over the republic, while 27% thought the republic should be prioritised. And 24% said the Voice should only be about issues relating to Indigenous Australians, 26% about all issues and policy areas, and 22% didn’t support a Voice.
Around 75% said they were aware of the campaign for an Indigenous Voice. By 43-33, voters thought it unlikely the Voice would close the gap on issues such as health.
Morgan poll: federal Labor leads by 54.5-45.5
In last week’s Morgan weekly update video, federal Labor led by 54.5-45.5 from polling conducted September 12-18, a one point gain for Labor since the previous week.
This is Labor’s biggest lead in Morgan since the federal election.
Far-right wins Italian election
I covered Sunday’s Italian election for The Poll Bludger. The right coalition easily won majorities in both houses of the Italian parliament. Within that coalition, two far-right parties dominated. Giorgia Meloni, the leader of the Brothers of Italy, will be Italy’s first woman prime minister and first far-right leader since Benito Mussolini.
The article also covers next Sunday’s first round of the Brazilian presidential election, which the far-right incumbent Jair Bolsonaro is expected to lose to former leftist president Luiz Inácio Lula da Silva, or “Lula”. If nobody wins at least 50% next Sunday, there will be an October 30 runoff.
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.
Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Jeanine Young, Professor of Nursing & Deputy Head of School – Research, University of the Sunshine Coast, University of the Sunshine Coast
Carrying babies in a soft fabric sling or carrier close to their parent or caregiver has been practised throughout the world for centuries. However, the recent inquest into the death of a three-week old baby boy in New South Wales has highlighted the potential risks of this valued aspect of infant care.
Although rare, these tragic deaths may have been preventable. There are protective strategies parents and caregivers can use to reduce the risk of accidents and fatalities.
‘Wearing’ your baby
Baby slings and carriers allow parents to “wear” their baby. First used in traditional societies, baby-wearing has increased in western societies in recent decades.
As with almost all infant care practices, there are benefits and risks.
However, adverse outcomes from incorrect use include hip dysplasia, falls, burns and suffocation.
Commonly used but not well-understood
In Australia, baby-wearing is very common. A study conducted in Queensland with over 3,300 parents with babies aged 3–4 months, found 87% of parents had used a sling or baby carrier in the first three months of their baby’s life. Over one third had used a sling or carrier for baby to sleep in.
But while 65% of parents said they had read about how to use slings, less than one in five had heard of about internationally agreed upon sling safety advice, known as the TICKS rules.
A variety of designs were being used by those studied, including front fabric wrap or structured baby carrier styles, over the shoulder styles, ring slings, and traditional slings. Several of these styles are not recommended for babies under four months.
These findings highlighted that many parents may not be aware of potential dangers from use of infant products that do not match their baby’s growth and development.
Suffocation is the likely cause in most deaths associated with slings and baby carriers. To understand the risks, we need to understand babies’ bodies and how they usually develop.
In particular, we need to know how babies breathe and how the environment they are in can make breathing difficult. Typically, this interaction is dynamic – it changes as a baby grows and develops.
It’s important to note babies can have difficulty with breathing without making any noise or movement.
Compared to older children, babies have smaller and more easily compressed airways. And they have a large, heavy head relative to their body size, with a protruding occiput (that bony bump on the back of their head) that tips the head forward even when lying on their back.
Babies prefer to breathe through their noses. They have less respiratory stamina (their ability to respond to reduced oxygen) and less ability to control their temperature, particularly if their head is covered.
The anatomy and physiology of babies younger than 12 months means they are vulnerable to suffocation in several specific ways.
4 ways a baby’s airway can be at risk
We need to think about the baby’s airway as a tube. It needs to remain open for oxygen to get to the lungs. Everyone who cares for young babies needs to be aware this tube may be
covered
pinched off
bent
pressed on.
Any of these actions increase the risk of suffocation.
Babies under four months of age often lack the strength to move their heads to keep their airways clear. So if baby’s face is covered or pinched off by fabric or the wearer’s body, rapid suffocation can occur.
If baby is lying with a curved back in a C-position – such as in a baby capsule, sling or carrier – and the head is able to tip forward to chin-on-chest, their airway may bend. This too can result in reduced oxygen and slow suffocation.
Finally, if there is pressure on baby’s chest, such as when a carrier or sling is too tight around baby’s body, the infant might not be able to expand their chest to take deep enough breaths.
Babies born preterm, of low birth weight or those who are unwell need extra consideration and support to maintain a clear airway, compared to full term babies.
The 5-point checklist: TICKS
The TICKS checklist extends the idea of the airway as a tube that needs protecting. It is applicable to various circumstances such as infant car seats, bouncers and rockers, as well as slings and baby carriers. The five points promote safe baby-wearing by emphasising caregiver observation and optimal infant positioning to reduce suffocation risk. The baby should be positioned in a way that is
tight (firm enough to position baby high and upright with head support)
Currently there are no Australian standards for the manufacture of baby carriers and slings, despite slings developed in other countries being available for purchase in Australia.
Raising public awareness about safety and the TICKS checklist, together with recommendations for selecting and using slings and carriers appropriate for baby’s age and development, will help parents harness the benefits of using slings and carriers to keep their babies close and safe.
Jeanine Young is affiliated with the Queensland Child Death Review Board. Jeanine is also a volunteer Board Member. for Little Sparklers, a parent consumer and advocacy group. Jeanine was an active member of the Red Nose National Scientifid Advisory Group from 2004- June 2021 and the author of the Red Nose Information Statement: Slings, Baby Carriers and Backpacks.
Political Roundup: Jacinda Ardern’s tilt towards the West continues at the UN
Analysis by Geoffrey Miller
Jacinda Ardern intends to continue a more pro-Western foreign policy strategy, if her agenda from a hectic week of diplomacy is anything to go by.
New Zealand’s Prime Minister met with four G7 leaders – Liz Truss, Joe Biden, Justin Trudeau and Emmanuel Macron – in various settings while she was at the Queen’s funeral in London and at the United Nations in New York.
While at the UN, Ardern fitted in a meeting with Ukrainian Prime Minister Denys Shmyhal and spoke with Olena Zelenska, the wife of Ukrainian president Volodymyr Zelensky.
Ardern also met with the Chilean president, Gabriel Boric, and with the UN Secretary-General, António Guterres. There were also shorter, more fleeting meet-and-greet opportunities on the UN floor – such as with Iceland’s Prime Minister Katrín Jakobsdóttir – and at a US-hosted reception for world leaders, where Ardern talked to Pakistani Prime Minister Shehbaz Sharif.
Ardern addressed Pacific Islands Forum leaders at the launch of the 2050 Strategy for the Blue Pacific Continent plan. And the expansion of a new US-led grouping, the Partners in the Blue Pacific, also took place while Ardern was in New York. The group previously included Australia, Japan and New Zealand, but it has now been widened to bring in Germany and Canada.
The PM’s ability to attract the attention of top world leaders is well-known and is a measure of her international standing. It was certainly not a one-off: this was her third meeting this year with Joe Biden. And it was her second with Trudeau and Macron, after she was an invited guest at the North Atlantic Treaty Organization (NATO) summit in Madrid in June.
Indeed, the common denominator for many of Ardern’s interlocutors seemed to be their commitment to supporting the Western-led coalition that has emerged from Russia’s war on Ukraine.
In a week in which Vladimir Putin mobilised 300,000 reservists and indirectly threatened to use nuclear weapons, it is probably no surprise that Ardern sought to show her solidarity through the company she kept.
The Prime Minister’s speech to the UN General Assembly was also very much in keeping with this theme: Ardern called Russia’s war ‘illegal’ and ‘immoral’, before highlighting New Zealand’s opposition to nuclear weapons.
A notable omission from Ardern’s speech was any mention of the word ‘food’, which stood out as a major theme in addresses from many countries in the Global South.
India’s foreign minister, S. Jaishankar, said that his country was ‘on the side of those struggling to make ends meet, even as they stare at the escalating costs of food, of fuel and fertilizers’, while Philippines president Ferdinand Marcos called food ‘an existential imperative, and a moral one. It is the very basis of human security’.
Indeed, a dedicated food security summit co-hosted by the US, European Union, African Union and Spain was held during UN leaders’ week. Ardern did not appear to attend the event, which was held on the same day as a ‘Christchurch Call’ leaders’ summit she co-hosted with Emmanuel Macron.
Food security did make it into the UN statement made by Australian foreign minister Penny Wong, however, who said the crisis amounted to a ‘growing scale of human suffering that threatens untold global instability’.
Wong also seemed to meet with counterparts from a more diverse range of countries than Ardern did – the Australian foreign minister’s agenda in New York included meetings with counterparts from India, Indonesia, China, Mexico and Turkey.
While many leaders choose to attend the UN personally, such as Ardern, it is also common for foreign ministers such as Wong to attend in their place. China and Russia were two other countries that dispatched their foreign ministers to New York.
A third strategy is to use both figures – an approach the UK pursued by sending both its new Prime Minister Liz Truss and foreign secretary James Cleverly. If New Zealand’s aim had been to maximise meeting opportunities after the Covid-19 pandemic, this tactic might have been considered. But Ardern decided to keep Nanaia Mahuta back in Wellington, where she welcomed new heads of mission and faced questions over domestic issues.
Back in New York, a key difference between the Global North and Global South at the UN unfolded over the approach to the war in Ukraine. Western countries largely pointed fingers at Russia. Joe Biden said ‘it’s Russia’s war that is worsening food insecurity, and only Russia can end it’, while Liz Truss told her audience that ‘we will not rest until Ukraine prevails’.
By contrast, non-Western countries such as India, Turkey and Qatar were keener to contemplate the idea of a negotiated settlement simply to end the war.
The Turkish president, Recep Tayyip Erdoğan, pointed to his country’s success in brokering the recent Black Sea grain export deal and called for a ‘reasonable, just and viable diplomatic solution’ to the war that would ‘provide both sides the opportunity of an “honourable exit”‘.
Qatar’s Emir, Sheikh Tamim bin Hamad Al-Thani, even called for an immediate ceasefire – a word rarely used in current discussions about the war in Ukraine.
For his part, the Indian foreign minister, S. Jaishankar, argued his country was ‘on the side of peace’ and wanted an ‘early resolution’ to the conflict. He also noted that the global focus on Ukraine meant less attention was being paid to other crises in India’s immediate neighbourhood, such as Afghanistan, Myanmar and Sri Lanka.
These calls may fall on deaf ears.
With both sides keen on maximising their positions, a resolution to the war in Ukraine appears further away than ever.
As Jacinda Ardern inches New Zealand’s foreign policy towards the West, it is understandable that she might want to spend more time with like-minded counterparts.
It is natural to stand alongside those who we agree with.
But as the UN General Assembly showed this year, it is worth remembering that there are many other points of view.
Geoffrey Miller is the Democracy Project’s international analyst and writes on current New Zealand foreign policy and related geopolitical issues. He has lived in Germany and the Middle East and is a learner of Arabic and Russian.
South Australia’s Naracoorte Caves is one of the world’s best fossil sites, containing a record spanning more than half a million years. Among the remains preserved in layers of sand are the bones of many iconic Australian megafauna species that became extinct between 48,000 and 37,000 years ago.
The reasons for the demise of these megafauna species are intensely debated. But the older the fossils we can find, the better we can understand the species’ evolution and extinction.
To date, determining the precise age of the caves has been difficult. However our research demonstrates, for the first time, how old Naracoorte’s caves really are – and the answer is up to 500,000 years older than previously thought.
Our findings shed new light on the antiquity of this important place. We hope this will aid understanding of how biodiversity responds to a changing climate over time.
Artist’s impression of extinct Pleistocene megafauna in Australia by Julian Hume. Lower left: enormous short-faced kangaroos. Lower right: Thylacoleo carnifex and Wonambi naracoortensis. Centre left and right: Diprotodon optatum and Zygomaturus trilobus. Author provided
A moment in geologic time
Caves can be extraordinary time capsules, often preserving the remains of long extinct plants and animals in exquisite detail. The Naracoorte Caves in South Australia is one such example.
The cave complex is South Australia’s only World Heritage site. Among the remarkably diverse and complete fossil record are the remains of iconic megafauna such as:
Palaeontologists have excavated and dated many of these fossil deposits and reconstructed the skeletons of a number of megafauna species.
The caves formed when groundwater percolated through cracks in limestone rocks, dissolving them and forming cavities. They were previously dated at between 0.8 and 1.1 million years old – an estimate generated by dating a fossil dune ridge that lies over the cave complex.
But the methods used to date the dune ridge were notentirely suitable for the task. As such, a precise age of the caves had not been obtained, until now.
This intricate work involved in our study has taken five years, but it was worth the wait.
Layers of flowstones overlying sandy layers with fossil bone material in Specimen Cave, Naracoorte. Jon Woodhead, Author provided
What we did
The dating method we used involved examining the beautiful calcite formations inside the caves. Collectively, these are called “speleothems” and they include stalagmites, stalactites and flowstones.
When speleothems form, tiny amounts of uranium – a radioactive element – are locked inside them. Over time, uranium slowly decays into the element lead. This occurs at a known, constant rate – which means we can use uranium in speleothems as a natural clock to date them.
Doing so involved extracting uranium and lead from the speleothem in a laboratory. We then measured each element and calculate the sample’s age very precisely.
Whale Bone Cave, one of the oldest caves at Naracoorte. Steve Bourne, Author provided
Because speleothems only start to grow once a subterranean cavity is formed and above the groundwater table, the oldest speleothem age reveals the minimum age of the cave itself.
From this, we found the caves began to form at least 1.34 million years ago – making them 250,000 to 500,000 years older than previous estimates.
The second part of our study sought to determine when the caves first opened to the surface, allowing both air and animals in. We did this by examining microscopic particles of charcoal and pollen captured in the calcite formations as they grew.
We found charcoal and pollen first appeared in the caves around 600,000 years ago. This suggests the caves may harbour exciting new vertebrate fossil material up to 600,000 years old – more than 100,000 years older than the oldest known fossil deposits at the complex.
Lead author Rieneke Weij descending into a cave at Naracoorte. Liz Reed, Author provided
Why this matters
There’s heated debate about whether the extinction of Australia’s megafauna was the result of humans or the climate.
A good chronology is key to understanding when and how quickly natural processes occurred over time. Without precise ages, we cannot know the rate of change to landscapes, climate or biodiversity.
So while the Naracoorte Caves formed at least 1.34 million years ago, they did not open to the surface until 600,000 years ago. This sheds new light on the vast separation in time between landforms evolving and fossils accumulating.
Our findings will also help palaeontologists target new excavation sites to find older fossils – hopefully providing valuable further evidence of how our continent’s unique biodiversity has changed.
Our new approach can help to unravel how old fossil deposits at other cave complexes in Australia and around the world where both speleothems and vertebrate fossils are found.
Australia’s richness of plant and animal species faces an uncertain future, due to climate change and other human impacts. Studying important sites such as the Naracoorte Caves helps us understand not just how climate change influenced biodiversity in the past, but what might happen in future.
Among Picasso’s partners were two formidable female artists: Dora Maar (1907–97) and Françoise Gilot (1921-).
For a long time, these women were known primarily as his muse or lover, but further scrutiny of their extensive careers reveals that they were also his collaborators and innovative artists in their own right.
Both women profoundly influenced Picasso, and both were exceptional talents.
The Picasso Century, currently at the National Gallery of Victoria, offers a rare opportunity to see their work in Australia.
In Dora Maar, with and without Picasso: a biography (2000), Mary Ann Caws writes that Picasso first saw Dora Maar in Cafe les Deux Magots. Sitting alone, she was using a penknife to stab the tabletop between her gloved fingers, staining the white flowers of her gloves with blood.
The pair were later introduced when Maar worked as the set photographer on Jean Renoir’s The Crime of Monsieur Lange (1936). They soon began a relationship.
By all accounts, Maar was intelligent, charismatic and unconventional. When she met Picasso she had a successful and established career as a photographer.
Surrealists had been dismissive of photography until Maar demonstrated its potential, creating some of the movement’s most powerful and important works.
According to NGV’s Meg Slater, Gilot’s centrality to Surrealism arose through experimentation in her commercial photography, as well as her commitment to radical left-wing politics. She was remarkable for a woman at that time.
Dora Maar Untitled (Hand – shell) 1934 Tireur Tirage de Daniel Valet Epreuve gélatino – argentique 56,6 x 38 cm / 23,4 x 17,5 cm (hors marge) Centre Pompidou, Paris, Musée national d’art moderne – Centre de création industrielle Acquisition
Maar has been identified with the nine “Weeping Woman” canvases, which depict how Picasso saw her, profoundly impacted by Guernica’s bombing during the Spanish Civil War.
But these portraits have reductively characterised her as a volatile and emotional woman. Maar said “all [of Picasso’s] portraits of me are lies”.
Maar often photographed Picasso during their relationship, most notably in creating his 1937 anti-war work Guernica. She was represented within the painting as a figure holding a light.
According to Musée Picasso-Paris’ curator Emilie Bouvard, Maar “did not simply document Picasso painting the great mural. In fact, her Surrealist photography influenced the work itself”.
Renowned for moving from one lover to another, Picasso left Maar for Françoise Gilot – notoriously the only woman to leave him.
Critically reflective Françoise Gilot
Gilot had an extraordinary life. Before 25 she had lived through the Nazi occupation of Paris, studied dance under Isadora Duncan’s protégée and taken “morning walks with Gertrude Stein”.
She achieved expertise in ceramics well before she met Picasso. It was during their almost 10-year relationship that he took an interest in ceramics, eventually producing 3,500 works.
Gilot was physically and psychologically abused by Picasso and lived with very little autonomy throughout their relationship. Many of her works testify to this.
In 1953 she left with their children, Claude and Paloma. Outraged, Picasso began to sabotage her artistic career. In 1964 she published a memoir, Life with Picasso, following his three legal challenges to stop it.
She is unusual for writing critically reflective pieces on her own work, situating her as well ahead of her time.
The female gaze
The “female gaze” refers to the way female artists express their own unique experience of living in the world as women. Gendered experiences are only one influence among many, but they profoundly impact any creative work.
My first impression of Gilot’s female gaze is that she takes a micro view of the world around her.
Her 1940s still life works take the domestic and emphasise her seclusion at that time (Picasso had isolated her from family and friends).
She finds inspiration in the small things, the domestic, rather than racing to the monumental or heroic.
Françoise Gilot Plat de cerises et couteau espagnol 1948 gouache, pencil, charcoal and coloured pencil on cardboard 49.5 x 67.0 cm , 63.5 x 78.6 cm (framed) Centre Pompidou, Paris, Musée national d’art moderne – Centre de création industrielle
According to Gilot in an interview in Vogue, she met Picasso in 1943 when he brought a bowl of cherries to her table.
This may be referenced in Plate of cherries and a Spanish knife (1948). Gilot described this painting as “the most ordinary, mundane and non-poetic of things” and offers that she chose the domestic deliberately in an act of resistance to expectations that she be a housewife.
From this painting we can glimpse her her feminism and her female perspective.
Françoise Gilot Sink and tomatoes ( Evier et tomates ) 1951 Oil on plywood 91.8 x 72.8 cm. Acquired by the French State in 1952; accessioned in 1953 Centre Pompidou, Paris Musée national d’art moderne / Centre de création industrielle
Maar’s portraits and advertising images resist objectifying the female figure, directing viewers with the subject’s gaze to something just out of sight.
While often erotic, they don’t present women as objects. The shadow in Assia (1934) emphasises and celebrates both her form and power.
Maar’s iconography emphasises the female. She incorporates wavy locks of hair, spiders and manicured nails in hair oil advertising images such as Publicity Study (Pétrole Hahn) (1934-1935), face cream advertisement Les années vous guettent (The Years are Waiting for You) (1932) and surrealist images such as Untitled (Hand-Shell) (1934).
Maar and Gilot were creative collaborators, not just muses of Picasso.
Before and after him, their artistic achievements – and exceptional volumes of creative work – locate them as important artists. These include Maar’s retrospective at the Tate (2019-20), and Gilot’s many exhibitions.
Across their long careers their output straddled a variety of media and styles, each with her own female gaze.
The Picasso Century is at the NGV until October 9.
This article was based on a discussion as part of the National Gallery of Victoria’s public program ‘Perspectives on Picasso’, an event that ran as part of The Picasso Century exhibition. This discussion was between Meg Slater, Assistant Curator, International Exhibition Projects, and academic Lisa French, who has recently written a book about the ‘female gaze’.
Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Nicholas Davis, Industry Professor of Emerging Technology and Co-Director, Human Technology Institute, University of Technology Sydney
The human face is special. It is simultaneously public and personal. Our faces reveal sensitive information about us: who we are, of course, but also our gender, emotions, health status and more.
Lawmakers in Australia, like those around the world, never anticipated our face data would be harvested on an industrial scale, then used in everything from our smartphones to police CCTV cameras. So we shouldn’t be surprised that our laws have not kept pace with the extraordinary rise of facial recognition technology.
But what kind of laws do we need? The technology can be used for both good and ill, so neither banning it nor the current free-for-all seem ideal.
However, regulatory failure has left our community vulnerable to harmful uses of facial recognition. To fill the legal gap, we propose a “model law”: an outline of legislation that governments around Australia could adopt or adapt to regulate risky uses of facial recognition while allowing safe ones.
The challenge of facial recognition technologies
The use cases for facial recognition technologies seem limited only by our imagination. Many of us think nothing of using facial recognition to unlock our electronic devices. Yet the technology has also been trialled or implemented throughout Australia in a wide range of situations, including schools, airports, retail stores, clubs and gambling venues, and law enforcement.
As the use of facial recognition grows at an estimated 20% annually, so too does the risk to humans – especially in high-risk contexts like policing.
In the US, reliance on error-prone facial recognition tech has resulted in numerous instances of injustice, especially involving Black people. These include the wrongful arrest and detention of Robert Williams, and the wrongful exclusion of a young Black girl from a roller rink in Detroit.
Many of the world’s biggest tech companies – including Meta, Amazon and Microsoft – have reduced or discontinued their facial recognition-related services. They have cited concerns about consumer safety and a lack of effective regulation.
This is laudable, but it has also prompted a kind of “regulatory-market failure”. While those companies have pulled back, other companies with fewer scruples have taken a bigger share of the facial recognition market.
Take the American company Clearview AI. It scraped billions of face images from social media and other websites without the consent of the affected individuals, then created a face-matching service that it sold to the Australian Federal Police and other law enforcement bodies around the world.
In 2021, the Australian Information & Privacy Commissioner found that both Clearview AI and the AFP had breached Australia’s privacy law, but enforcement actions like this are rare.
However, Australians want better regulation of facial recognition. This has been shown in the Australian Human Rights Commission’s 2021 report, the 2022 CHOICE investigation into the use of facial recognition technology by major retailers, and in research we at the Human Technology Institute have commissioned as part of our model law.
Options for facial recognition reform
What options does Australia have? The first is to do nothing. But this would mean accepting we will be unprotected from harmful use of facial recognition technologies, and keep us on our current trajectory towards mass surveillance.
Another option would be to ban facial recognition tech altogether. Some jurisdictions have indeed instituted moratoriums on the technology, but they contain many exceptions (for positive uses), and are at best a temporary solution.
In our view, the better reform option is a law to regulate facial recognition technologies according to how risky they are. Such a law would encourage facial recognition with clear public benefit, while protecting against harmful uses of the technology.
A risk-based law for facial recognition technology regulation
Our model law would require anyone developing or deploying facial recognition systems in Australia to conduct a rigorous impact assessment to evaluate the human rights risk.
As the risk level increases, so too would the legal requirements or restrictions. Developers would also be required to comply with a technical standard for facial recognition, aligned with international standards for AI performance and good data management.
The model law contains a general prohibition on high-risk uses of facial recognition applications. For example, a “facial analysis” application that purported to assess individuals’ sexual orientation and then make decisions about them would be prohibited. (Sadly, this is not a far-fetched hypothetical.)
The ‘model law’ for facial recognition would assess the risk of various applications and apply controls accordingly. Bernard Hermant / Unsplash
The model law also provides three exceptions to the prohibition on high-risk facial recognition technology:
the regulator could permit a high-risk application if it considers the application to be justified under international human rights law
there would be a specific legal regime for law enforcement agencies, including a “face warrant” scheme that would provide independent oversight as with other such warrants
high-risk applications may be used in academic research, with appropriate oversight.
Review by the regulator and affected individuals
Any law would need to be enforced by a regulator with appropriate powers and resources. Who should this be?
The majority of the stakeholders we consulted – including business users, technology firms and civil society representatives – proposed the Office of the Australian Information Commissioner (OAIC) would be well suited to be the regulator of facial regulation. For certain, sensitive users – such as the military and certain security agencies – there may also need to be a specialised oversight regime.
The moment for reform is now
Never have we seen so many groups and individuals from across civil society, industry and government so engaged and aligned on the need for facial recognition technology reform. This is reflected in support for the model law from both the Technology Council of Australia and CHOICE.
Given the extraordinary rise of uses of facial recognition, and an emerging consensus among stakeholders, the federal attorney-general should seize this moment and lead national reform. The first priority is to introduce a federal bill – which could easily be based on the our model law. The attorney-general should also collaborates with the states and territories to harmonise Australian law on facial recognition.
This proposed reform is important on its own terms: we cannot allow facial recognition technologies to remain effectively unregulated. It would also demonstrate how Australia can use law to protect against harmful uses of new technology, while simultaneously incentivising innovation for public benefit.
Nicholas Davis is employed by the Human Technology Institute (HTI), which is part of the University of Technology Sydney (UTS). The Facial Recognition Model Law Project, to which this article refers, was undertaken by HTI, with funding from UTS and support from the UTS Centre for Social Justice & Inclusion. UTS has received donations from, among others, Microsoft, which provided a donation to the UTS Technology for Social Good program to advance work on responsible technology.
Edward Santow is employed by the Human Technology Institute (HTI), which is part of the University of Technology Sydney (UTS). The Facial Recognition Model Law Project, to which this article refers, was undertaken by HTI, with funding from UTS and support from the UTS Centre for Social Justice & Inclusion. UTS has received donations from, among others, Microsoft, which provided a donation to the UTS Technology for Social Good program to advance work on responsible technology.
From 2016-2021, Edward Santow served as the Human Rights Commissioner at the Australian Human Rights Commission (AHRC). As noted in this article, the AHRC undertook a major project on human rights and technology, which he led. It included consideration of facial recognition and other biometric technology.
Lauren Perry is employed by the Human Technology Institute (HTI), which is part of the University of Technology Sydney (UTS). The Facial Recognition Model Law Project, to which this article refers, was undertaken by HTI, with funding from UTS and support from the UTS Centre for Social Justice & Inclusion. UTS has received donations from, among others, Microsoft, which provided a donation to the UTS Technology for Social Good program to advance work on responsible technology.
She also previously worked at the Australian Human Rights Commission on the Human Rights and Technology Project.
As a Four Corners documentary on ABC TV earlier this year showed, parents and schools are struggling to manage this swift rise in vaping, with fears children are addicted and harming their health.
In contrast, very limited research about Australian teen vaping has been published, until today.
We have published in the Australian and New Zealand Journal of Public Health the first results from the Generation Vape study. The study aims to to track teenagers’ knowledge, attitudes, beliefs and behaviours about using vapes (e-cigarettes).
Here’s what we found about where teenagers were accessing vapes and what types of products they use.
We surveyed more than 700 teenagers 14-17 years old from New South Wales. The sample was closely representative of the population, with key characteristics such as age, gender, location and education monitored throughout data collection.
We found teenagers are readily accessing and using illegal, flavoured, disposable vaping products that contain nicotine.
Among the teens surveyed, 32% had ever vaped, at least a few puffs. Of these, more than half (54%) had never previously smoked.
We found most teens (70%) didn’t directly buy the last vape they used. The vast majority (80%) of these got it from their friends.
However, for the 30% who did buy their own vape, close to half (49%) bought it from a friend or another individual, and 31% bought it from a retailer such as a petrol station, tobacconist or convenience store.
Teens also said they bought vapes through social media, at vape stores and via websites.
Of the teens who had ever vaped and reported the type of device they used, 86% had used a disposable vape. This confirms anecdotal reports.
These devices appeal to young people and are easy to use. They do not require refilling (unlike tank-style vaping products) and are activated by inhaling on the mouthpiece.
Disposable vapes can contain hundreds, or even thousands of puffs, and are inexpensive, with illicit vapes from retail stores costing between $20-$30, or as little as $5 online.
This ‘Juicy Fruity’ disposable vape resembles Juicy Fruit chewing gum. Author provided
There is an enormous range of vape flavours likely to appeal to children – from chewing gum to fruit and soft drink, even desserts. So it is unsurprising teens rated “flavourings and taste” as the most important characteristic of vapes they used.
Disposable vapes often contain very high concentrations of nicotine, even those claiming to be nicotine-free. The way these products are made (using nicotine salts rather than the free-base nicotine you’d find in cigarettes) allows manufacturers to increase the nicotine concentration without causing throat irritation.
In our study, over half (53%) of the teens who had ever vaped said they had used a vape containing nicotine. Many, however, were unsure whether they had used a vape containing nicotine (27%).
All vaping products, irrespective of nicotine content, are illegal to sell to under 18s in Australia.
Today, disposable vapes containing nicotine can only be legally sold in Australia by pharmacies to adult users with a valid prescription.
Our results emphasise that teen vaping is increasingly normalised, and the most popular devices are designed to be highly appealing to young people. This is despite product manufacturers and proponents claiming they are smoking cessation aids only for adult smokers who are struggling to quit.
Turning the tide on teen vaping requires strong and immediate policy action, including ending the illicit importation and sale of vaping products.
Education is often the default first action to address unhealthy behaviours in young people. However, unless this is coupled with strong, supportive policy action, this approach is unlikely to have any measurable impact. Education campaigns cannot protect young people from an industry that so freely disregards laws meant to protect health.
We have strong evidence that vaping leads to harms such as poisoning, injuries, burns, toxicity, addiction and lung injury. The odds of becoming a smoker is more than three times higher for never-smokers who vape than for never-smokers who don’t vape.
This study uses data from the first wave of the Generation Vape research project, a three-year study with Australian teenagers, young adults, parents and guardians of teenagers, and secondary school teachers.
It is funded by the Cancer Council NSW, federal Department of Health and Ageing, NSW Ministry of Health, Cancer Institute NSW and the Minderoo Foundation.
Future waves of this repeat cross-sectional study, coupled with in-depth interviews, will allow us to track and monitor changes to adolescent, young adult, teacher, and parent attitudes, perceptions, and knowledge of vaping over time.
Vaping is a rapidly evolving public health crisis in Australia. Our research provides evidence for concerted policy action to prevent young people from accessing harmful and addictive products.
Failure to act will see a whole new generation of Australians addicted to dangerous products.
Christina Watts has received funding from the Australian Government Department of Health and Aged Care, NSW Ministry of Health, Cancer Council NSW, Cancer Institute NSW and the Minderoo Foundation.
Becky Freeman has received funding from Healthway WA, NSW Health, Australian Government of Health, Cancer Institute NSW, Ian Potter Foundation, Mindaroo Foundation, NHMRC, WHO, Cancer Council, Cancer Council NSW, Cancer Council WA, and Heart Foundation NSW. She was an expert member of the NHMRC Electronic Cigarettes Working Committee (2020-2022). She is an expert advisor to the National Tobacco Issues Committee.
Sam Egger has received funding from the Australian Government Department of Health and Aged Care, NSW Ministry of Health, Cancer Council NSW, Cancer Institute NSW and the Minderoo Foundation.
After decades of foot-dragging on climate change, Australia has finally put significant commitments in national legislation. It joins other countries such as Canada and the United States that also recently took big new legal steps.
The new laws may still not be enough, but they mark real progress. Yet, will such progress last or be short-lived?
As we saw with Australia’s carbon price law, which passed in 2011, a change of government can lead to a change in direction. And that direction may be broadly backwards.
For this reason I have, in recent research, called for a new kind of commitment to climate change mitigation: a set of clear numeric targets entrenched in our highest laws, namely our constitutions. Constitutions spell out our most sacrosanct commitments. They are hard to budge once enacted.
At the moment, the focus of constitutional change in Australia is on the recognition of Indigenous people in the First Nations Voice to Parliament – as it should be.
But we must also look over the horizon to the next challenges. After the Voice, climate change commitments should be the next urgent constitutional reform. The republic can wait; climate change cannot.
What would it look like?
An ongoing emergency like climate change calls for an unwavering set of policy solutions well into the future. But a long-term policy – such as a target year for net-zero emissions – may struggle in a democratic system that can promise only occasional and precarious environmental protection.
Entrenching such policies in our national, state or territorial constitutions may help firm up our commitments to resolute action. But that depends on what constitutional climate action looks like.
Ideally it should specify a carbon emissions reduction target – as a minimum or “floor” – and a process for ratcheting up the target over time (similar to the international Paris Agreement). There should also be new enforcement bodies to review the carbon budgets of Australian governments.
On the one hand, if we took these constitutional steps we would be in good company. A majority of national constitutions already protect the environment. On the other, what I suggest here goes beyond most past examples. Most have been decidedly vague.
South Africa’s Bill of Rights, for instance, guarantees everyone the “right (a) to an environment that is not harmful to their health or well-being; and (b) to have the environment protected”.
Elsewhere, we see rights to a “healthy” environment, or obligations to “protect and improve” the environment.
Unfortunately, these constitutional laws reflect only broad aspirations. They don’t always lead to meaningful environmental protection. This is largely because short-term, myopic economic concerns often act as counterweights blocking effective environmental action. South Africa itself provides one example where courts balance environmental ideals in the constitution against economic factors.
What I call “fixed constitutional commitments” are precise constitutional guarantees, like carbon reduction targets. Since they fix a specific quantity of commitment, they can be resistant to the judicial balancing that usually neuters environmental constitutional clauses.
Precedents abroad, and even in Australia
While this idea is largely novel, it has some precedents. Bhutan, Kenya and New York State each specify a minimum amount of forest coverage. On this, New York was the trailblazer: the state’s constitutional protections for forests date back to 1894.
Just last year in Australia, Victoria constitutionally entrenched a ban on fracking. To do this Victoria used a simple legislative process for constitutional entrenchment available to each state under the Australia Act 1986.
This makes Victoria one of a handful of jurisdictions that have also set precise environmental targets in constitutional law. In this case, a commitment to zero fracking.
After the Victorian constitutional reform, one opposition member raised an important objection: that putting environmental policy in the constitution takes it out of the democratic sphere.
This is true to an extent. But there are important responses.
First, fixed constitutional commitments may correct failures of democracy. Elected representatives often represent the preferences of citizens on the environment weakly, at best.
And despite overwhelming popular support for a strong response to the climate emergency, many politicians worldwide oppose such responses – and not because they know better. Many believe their real constituents to be the businesses and other interests that underwrite electoral campaigns.
Moreover, the “climate wars” have long held Australia in legal limbo. We can’t take significant action on the climate as long as politicians can’t agree for long about what actions to take.
Before a community can begin to hash out new policy, it has to settle its basic policy priorities – such as net-zero carbon emissions by a given year. A democracy that’s stuck at the priority-setting stage can’t go on to work out the details of policy. And deliberation about policy details is where most of our democratic activity generally lies.
Fixing democratic failures on the environment
There has been much talk in recent years about whether the world’s remaining democracies are too prone to division, and too weak to take action against long-term problems.
Can democratic systems still adequately address challenges – such as climate change – almost tailor-made for disinformation, political polarisation and gridlock? Or do we need new tools to avoid the policymaking quagmires that have so often kept democracies from tackling complex problems?
The best solutions will invent new ways of getting things done while preserving, and even improving, democracy. Fixed constitutional commitments on climate change may demonstrate a democratic society can indeed remain responsive to our most complex and urgent problems.
Employers will have duty “to take reasonable and proportionate measures” to eliminate sex discrimination, sexual harassment and victimisation as far as possible in workplaces, under legislation to be introduced on Tuesday.
The Albanese government is moving to implement seven legislative changes recommended by Sex Discrimination Commissioner Kate Jenkins in her Respect@Work report which were not undertaken by the Morrison government in its response.
The former government was particularly reluctant to impose the positive obligation on employers.
Labor’s bill will charge the Australian Human Rights Commission with assessing and enforcing compliance with this new requirement. The commission will be able to give employers compliance notices if they are not meeting their obligations.
The legislation will expressly prohibit conduct that results in a hostile workplace environment on the basis of sex.
Commonwealth public sector organisations must also report to the Workplace Gender Equality Agency on gender equality indicators.
The Jenkins report said a commission survey in 2018 “showed that sexual harassment in Australian workplaces is widespread and pervasive. One in three people experienced sexual harassment at work in the past five years”.
The survey found “almost two in five women (39%) and just over one in four men (26%) have experienced sexual harassment in the workplace in the past five years.
“Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander people were more likely to have experienced workplace sexual harassment than people who are non-Indigenous (53% and 32% respectively).”
In her report, Jenkins called on employers to create “safe, gender-equal and inclusive workplaces”. She said this would need “a shift from the current reactive model, that requires complaints from individuals, to a proactive model, which will require positive actions from employers”.
The government said in a statement that its bill was part of its broader work to promote gender equality, “recognising that achieving women’s economic equality includes making sure women are safe at work.”
Separately, Workplace Relations Minister Tony Burke is having a prohibition of sexual harassment put in the Fair Work Act.
On the eve of the US Pacific Islands Summit in Washington, a key ally in the region called off a scheduled negotiating session for a treaty Washington views as an essential hedge against China in the region.
The Marshall Islands and the United States negotiators were scheduled for the third round of talks this weekend to renew some expiring provisions of a Compact of Free Association when leaders in Majuro called it off, saying the lack of response from Washington on the country’s US nuclear weapons testing legacy meant there was no reason to meet.
Marshall Islands leaders have repeatedly said the continuing legacy of health, environmental and economic problems from 67 US nuclear tests from 1946-1958 must be satisfactorily addressed before they will agree to a new economic package with the US.
Washington sees the Compact treaties with the Marshall Islands, Federated States of Micronesia, and Palau, which stretch across an ocean area larger than the continental US, as key to countering the expansion of China in the region.
“The unique security relationships established by the Compacts of Free Association have magnified the US power projection in the Indo-Pacific region, structured US defense planning and force posture, and contributed to essential defense capabilities,” said a new study released September 20 in Washington, DC by the United States Institute of Peace, “China’s Influence on the Freely Associated States of the Northern Pacific.”
China’s naval expansion is increasing the value of the US relationship with the freely associated states (FAS).
The freely associated states stretch across an ocean area in the north Pacific that is larger than the continental United States and are seen by Washington as a key strategic asset. Image: United States Institute of Peace/RNZ
China’s blue water ambitions China’s naval expansion is increasing the value of the US relationship with the freely associated states (FAS).
“The value of the buffer created by US strategic denial over FAS territorial seas is poised to increase as China seeks to make good on its blue water navy ambitions and to deepen its security relationships with Pacific nations,” said the report whose primary authors were Admiral (Ret.) Philip Davidson, Brigadier-General (Ret.) and David Stilwell, former US Congressman from Guam Dr Robert Underwood.
The Runit Dome was constructed on Marshall Islands Enewetak Atoll in 1979 to temporarily store radioactive waste produced from nuclear testing by the US military during the 1950s and 1960s. Image: RNZ
“As Washington seeks to limit the scope of Beijing’s influence in the Indo-Pacific in concert with regional partners, the US-FAS relationship functions as a key vehicle for reinforcing regional norms and democratic values.”
US and Marshall Islands negotiators have both said they hope for a speedy conclusion to the talks as the existing 20-year funding package expires on September 30, 2023. But the nuclear test legacy is the line in the sand for the Marshall Islands.
“The entire Compact Negotiation Committee agreed — don’t go,” said Parliament Speaker Kenneth Kedi, who represents Rongelap Atoll, which was contaminated with nuclear test fallout by the 1954 Bravo hydrogen bomb test at Bikini Atoll and other weapons tests.
“It is not prudent to spend over $100,000 for our delegation to travel to Washington with no written response to our proposal. We are negotiating in good faith. We submitted our proposal in writing.” But he said on Friday, “there has been no answer or counter proposal from the US.”
US and Marshall Islands officials had been aiming to sign a “memorandum of understanding” at the summit as an indication of progress in the discussions, but that now appears off the table.
US Pacific summit Marshall Islands President David Kabua, who is currently in the US following a speech to the United Nations General Assembly Tuesday last week, is scheduled to participate in the White House-sponsored US Pacific Islands Summit on September 28-29.
Kabua, while affirming in his speech at the UN that the Marshall Islands has a “strong partnership” with the US, added: “It is vital that the legacy and contemporary challenges of nuclear testing be better addressed” (during negotiations on the Compact of Free Association). “The exposure of our people and land has created impacts that have lasted – and will last – for generations.”
The Marshall Islands submitted a proposed nuclear settlement agreement to US negotiators during the second round of talks in July. The US has not responded, Kedi and other negotiating committee members said Friday in Majuro.
In response to questions about the postponement of the planned negotiating session, the State Department released a brief statement through its embassy in Majuro.
“With respect to the Compact Negotiations, which are ongoing, both sides continue to work diligently towards an agreement,” the statement said. “Special Presidential Envoy for Compact Negotiations, Ambassador Joe Yun, is expected to meet with President Kabua while he is in Washington to continue to advance the discussions.”
While the Marshall Islands decision to cancel its negotiating group’s attendance at a scheduled session in Washington is a blow to the Biden administration’s efforts to fast-track approval of the security and economic agreement for this strategic North Pacific area, island leaders continue to describe themselves as part of the “US family.”
“The cancellation of the talks indicates the seriousness of this issue for the Marshall Islands,” said National Nuclear Commission Chairman Alson Kelen. “This is the best time for us to stand up for our rights.”
‘Fair and just’ nuclear settlement For decades, the Pacific Island Forum countries that will be represented at this week’s leader’s summit in Washington have stood behind the Marshall Islands in its quest for a fair and just nuclear settlement, said Kelen, who helped negotiators develop their plan submitted recently to the US government for addressing lingering problems of the 67 nuclear tests.
“We live with the problem (from the nuclear tests),” said Kelen, a displaced Bikini Islander. “We know the big picture: bombs tested, people relocated from their islands, people exposed to nuclear fallout, and people studied. We can’t change that. What we can do now is work on the details for this today for the funding needed to mitigate the problems from the nuclear legacy.”
Kedi said he was tired of US attempts to argue over legal issues from the original Compact of Free Association’s nuclear test settlement that was approved 40 years ago before the Marshall Islands was an independent nation.
That agreement, which provided a now-exhausted $150 million nuclear compensation fund, was called “manifestly inadequate” by the country’s Nuclear Claims Tribunal, which over a two-decade period determined the value of claims to be over $3 billion.
“Bottom line, the nuclear issue needs to be addressed,” Kedi said.
“We need to come up with a dignified solution as family members. I’ve made it clear, once these key issues are addressed, we are ready to sign the Compact tomorrow.”
President Kabua is scheduled to participate in the White House-sponsored US Pacific Islands Summit on September 28-29.
Meanwhile, the members of his Compact negotiating team are in Majuro waiting for a response from the US government to their proposal to address the nuclear legacy.
This article is republished under a community partnership agreement with RNZ.
A Wellington tauira (scholar) has launched a petition calling for Aotearoa New Zealand’s Reserve Bank to replace the monarch in the next redesign of coins and notes, with images that better represent the country.
Rangatahi Māori, Te Matahiapo Safari Hynes (Rangitāne, Ngāti Kahungunu) said it was a chance for New Zealand to think about the role of the monarchy, and the currency was a good start.
“I think these are the sorts of things we should start thinking about — what are the different things that colonisation and the Crown has entrenched over the years that we can perhaps start to pick at, and that we can perhaps start to peel back on?”
Hynes said although these kinds of conversations had already been happening for a long time, the accession of King Charles III had provided an opportunity.
“There are times where [these conversations] will come into the public eye for a short span, and they’ll dominate the headlines for a little time, and then they’ll go back, and they’ll come back eventually when something else happens,” he said.
The #ourownmoney campaign asks the Reserve Bank “to reconsider ensuring our money represents us as a country, that the people and the symbols on our money are people that are from here, that come from these places, have been in this country, even at a minimum have lived in this country.”
Hynes hoped to honour the people who had contributed to New Zealand, and showcase more New Zealand symbols.
Historical figures, blossoms “We have so many people in our country’s history that have paved the way for us to be where we are today and how we will be in the future. This is an opportunity to acknowledge and recognise their hard work,” the petition says.
He suggested using figures like Dame Whina Cooper, Eva Rickard or Meri Te Tai Mangakāhia on the $20 note. He also proposes putting native plants like kōwhai blossom, harakeke, or kawakawa on the coins.
A constitutional scholar who has participated in the Māori Constitutional Convention, Hynes waited until after the Queen’s funeral to launch his petition, out of respect.
He said the currency conversation is one New Zealand could have without going into the immediate and impulsive calls for a republic, which he believed was a much bigger and more nuanced conversation.
“I’m sceptical of people who are attempting to push a kind of republic-based agenda because they perhaps think in some technical way Māori rights can be extinguished.”
The Reserve Bank has already signalled the next redesign will feature King Charles III, but the change is still a long way off. It will take several years before coins featuring Queen Elizabeth II are replaced, and even longer for the $20 note to change.
“We manufacture these notes infrequently and do not plan to destroy stock or shorten the life of existing banknotes just because they show the Queen. This would be wasteful and poor environmental practice,” the Reserve Bank said.
This article is republished under a community partnership agreement with RNZ.
“Una vittoria storica” – a historic victory. That’s how the website of one of Italy’s major newspapers, the Corriere della Sera, reacted to the exit polls released after voting closed in Italy’s general election on Sunday night.
With a predicted vote share of between 40-45%, the right-wing coalition led by Giorgia Meloni looks on course to secure at least 230 of the 400 seats in the Lower House, giving it a clear majority.
Meloni’s party, Brothers of Italy, was the big winner on the right, with various agencies estimating it at around 25% of the vote. This was more than the combined total of her two main allies, as Matteo Salvini’s League was tipped to receive approximately 8-9%, with former prime minister Silvio Berlusconi’s Forza Italia just below that.
In just four years, Brothers of Italy has gone from minor to major player on the right. In 2018, they took 4.4% compared to the League’s 17.4% and Forza Italia’s 14%. And, if we look further back, Italy’s right-wing coalition has moved from having been dominated for over 20 years by a centre-right populist party (Forza Italia), to being dominated now by a far-right populist one (Brothers of Italy).
Brothers of Italy’s victory represents several firsts. Italy will have its first woman prime minister. And both Italy and Western Europe will have their first far-right majority government since the fall of Mussolini and the end of the Second World War.
Who is Giorgia Meloni?
Meloni’s trajectory owes much to that history. Beginning as an activist of the post-fascist Italian Social Movement in the Roman working-class district of Garbatella in the early 1990s, Meloni rose to prominence in a political milieu that didn’t deny its heritage.
She stated in an interview with French TV in 1996 that Mussolini was a “good politician” and “all that he did, he did for Italy”.
While Meloni now says Italy has consigned fascism to history, vestiges of her party’s political roots remain. For example, the flame in the party’s symbol is taken from the post-fascist Italian Social Movement, and there have been recent instances of its politicians and supporters performing fascist salutes.
Meloni and her party’s success can be traced back to Berlusconi’s entry into politics in 1994. His centre-right Forza Italia movement legitimised two smaller radical right parties (the northern regionalist League and the National Alliance) by bringing them into a coalition that easily won that year’s general election.
The coalition that will soon take power almost 30 years later contains the same three ingredients, but their internal balances have now drastically changed.
While some commentators focus on the continuity the new government will represent, there’s a historic change here. The pendulum on the right has shifted from Berlusconi’s centre-right populist governments with a far-right edge in the 1990s and 2000s, to Meloni’s far-right populist government with a centre-right edge in 2022.
What do these results mean for Italian politics?
Within the overall success of the right, there are winners and losers. Meloni is obviously the former, and Salvini is the latter.
Salvini is the politician who, having revitalised his party between 2013 and 2019, has now overseen a huge fall in its support from over 35% in the polls in July 2019 to under 10% today. Only the lack of an obvious successor may save Salvini from losing his party’s leadership.
For the main party on the Left, the Democratic Party, it’s yet another bad day. Having dropped to under 20% in the 2018 general election, they look unlikely to do much better than that this time. Their failure to find a campaign narrative beyond “stop the far right” and to create a broader coalition underlined the strategic ineptitude that has long undermined the Italian left.
Another “first” of this election is the turnout, which has slipped below two-thirds for the first time in Italian post-war history, declining from 73% in 2018 to 64% in 2022. This speaks to the image of a country in which large swathes of the population, especially in the South, are disillusioned with decades of politicians who have promised the earth and delivered little.
In economic and foreign policy terms, Italy may not change much in the short-term. Meloni will be keen to show Italian and international elites that she’s a responsible leader. Powerful domestic interest groups, such as the employers’ federation “Confindustria”, must be kept onside. As must the European Union which supports Italy through its post-COVID recovery plan.
But much could change for the far-right’s “enemies of the people”: ethnic, religious and sexual minorities; immigrants; and those judges, intellectuals, and journalists who dare to criticise the new regime.
Things will also change for those far-right Italians who, as Meloni recently put it, have had to “keep their head down for so many years and not say what they believed”. So, while the Brothers of Italy’s conservation of the post-fascist flame may be more smoke than fire for some groups, for others it will be incendiary.
Duncan McDonnell receives funding from the Australian Research Council.
Sofia Ammassari 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.
Russian President Vladimir Putin’s recent announcement of a “partial mobilisation” of 300,000 Russian personnel to fight in Ukraine sounded decisive. It isn’t.
The official position, fleshed out by Defence Minister Sergei Shoigu, was that the new Russian conscripts would be drawn from those with past military experience and individuals with special skills.
But the reality is that this is policy on the fly. It will result in a flood of untrained, often elderly and infirm Russians to the front lines. At best it will buy Putin time over another cold Ukrainian winter. At worst it will result in battlefield chaos and potentially mass slaughter.
Either way, the decision means that still more Russians, as well as Ukrainian military personnel and civilians, will be sacrificed on the altar of Putin’s hubris.
Putin’s haphazard call-up
Paradoxically, Putin’s call-up is at once both highly selective and seemingly random.
Russia’s ethnic minorities – many of whom live far from the main power centres of Moscow and St Petersburg – remain primary objects of Russian mobilisation efforts. In particular, Buryats from Russia’s Far East and Dagestanis from the Caucasus have been disproportionately targeted.
Meanwhile, Putin continues to insulate urban elites, who might cause him the most problems if they become radically opposed to the war. Those studying at Russia’s state universities, typically the privileged children of Putin’s “nomenklatura” who will go on to become the next generation of bureaucrats, are exempt from mobilisation.
But those in the second rank of private education institutions, frequently from Russia’s regions, are eligible to be conscripted into private military companies such as the infamous Wagner group, led by “Putin’s chef” Yevgenyi Progozhin.
So much for arguments, then, from domestic nationalists that Russia is the “Third Rome”, peacefully uniting people from different ethnicities and creeds. In fact, as has been the case repeatedly in Russian history, the nation’s minorities continue to be regarded as objects of suspicion and potential dissent, and used as replaceable labour or cannon fodder in Russia’s wars.
There are also signs little thought has gone into who gets called up, and why. Some local districts appear to be operating under a quota system, with police roaming public places and issuing call-ups to passers-by, including people over 60 and those with chronic health problems.
Elsewhere, anti-war demonstrators – as well as innocent bystanders – have been arrested and immediately drafted into the military.
Some 261,000 Russian males are estimated to have fled the country. Draftees have been presented with ancient and poorly kept old military equipment, including rusty assault rifles.
Others called up in the Russian-occupied Donetsk province of Ukraine have been issued Mosin rifles, which were developed in the late 19th century and are no longer in production.
Why mobilisation?
All this is a recipe for military disaster. But there are clear reasons why Putin decided to agree to the mobilisation he had long resisted.
First, Russian hardliners have been calling for him to do more to support the armed forces and bring the campaign to a close. Having expended a large quantity of its precision-guided munitions, and failing to establish air superiority, it’s difficult for Russian forces to accurately strike Ukrainian command-and-control centres, as well as key infrastructure such as power generation.
Mobilising a huge force (which some claim will ultimately reach over a million people) is one way to show his hard-line domestic critics Putin is listening.
Second, a large portion of Russia’s armed forces (some 60-70% of its total conventional capacity) has already been committed to Ukraine, and is nearing exhaustion after seven months without respite. Sending new recruits to the theatre will allow Russian front-line forces to rest and regroup for a fresh effort in the European spring.
All this means Russian offensive operations in Ukraine are effectively on hold. The best that Putin’s conscript army can achieve is to act as a blocking force while Moscow tests European patience and willingness to bear the cost of diminished energy supplies.
At the same time, the Kremlin has upped the ante on its nuclear threats, strongly hinting it would consider using tactical nuclear weapons if the territory it holds in Ukraine’s East (which will be formally annexed by Russia after the sham referenda in four provinces) is attacked by Ukrainian forces.
But Putin’s statement that he is “not bluffing” on the nuclear question should hardly inspire confidence about the power of his position.
Increasingly his are the actions of a damaged leader seeking to convey strength.
A weakened Putin
That in itself raises a conundrum for both Ukraine and the West: might a weakened Putin decide to lash out, and at what point?
As Caitlin Talmadge, a senior expert on nuclear strategy in the United States has recently suggested, leaders faced with certain defeat can decide to take courses of action that might otherwise be irrational.
While using tactical nuclear weapons against Ukrainian (and even NATO) targets might be viewed by Putin as a bad option, he may come to view it as his least-worst one if the strategic situation continues to deteriorate, or if his own domestic power base comes under significant threat.
However, we should also be mindful that Western capitulation is precisely what Putin wants. That would starve Ukraine of vitally needed military supplies, as well as heavy weapons to push its advantage after the impressive gains from its counteroffensive around Kharkiv.
Putin has been consistent throughout the crisis in pursuing a strategy of compellence: to demonstrate to Ukraine and its Western backers that he has a higher appetite for risk.
Under those circumstances, and given both Ukrainian sovereignty and Western credibility are both on the line, it’s absolutely crucial Putin’s adversaries show him who actually occupies the position of strength.
Matthew Sussex has received funding from the Australian Research Council, the Fulbright Commission, the Carnegie Foundation and various Australian government agencies.
Optus, Australia’s second largest telecommunications company, announced on September 22 that identifying details of up to 9.8 million customers were stolen from their customer database.
The details, dating back to 2017, include names, birth dates, phone numbers, email addresses, and – for some customers – addresses and driver’s licence or passport numbers.
According to the Australian law, telecommunications providers are required to hold your data while you are their customer and for an additional two years, but may keep the data for longer for their own business purposes.
This means that if you are a previous customer of Optus, your data may also be involved – although it remains unclear how long the details of past customers have been held.
Optus has been contacting former and current customers to notify them of the data breach. The Conversation
The stolen data constitutes an almost complete suite of identity information about a significant number of Australians. Optus states they have notified those affected, but there are plenty of questions remaining.
What happens with your data next, and what can the average Australian do to protect against the threats caused by this unprecedented data breach?
Late last week, an anonymous poster on a dark web forum posted a sample of data ostensibly from the breach, with an offer not to sell the data if Optus pays a US$1 million ransom. While its legitimacy has not yet been verified, it is unlikely the attackers will delete the data and move on.
More likely, the data will be distributed across the dark net (sold at first, but eventually available for free). Cyber criminals use these data to commit identity theft and fraudulent credit applications, or use the personal information to gain your trust in phishing attacks.
Below, we outline several steps you can take to proactively defend yourself, and how to detect and respond to malicious uses of your data and identity.
What should I do if I’ve been affected?
Step 1: Identify your most vulnerable accounts and secure them
Make a list of your most vulnerable accounts. What bank accounts do you hold? What about superannuation or brokerage accounts? Do you have important medical information on any services that thieves may use against you? What accounts are your credit card details saved to? Amazon and eBay are common targets as people often keep credit card details saved to those accounts.
Next, check how a password reset is done on these accounts. Does it merely require access to your text messages or email account? If so, you need to protect those accounts as well. Consider updating your password to a new – never before used – password for each account as a precaution.
Many accounts allow multi-factor authentication. This adds an extra layer for criminals to break through, for example by requesting an additional code to type in. Activate multi-factor authentication on your sensitive accounts, such as banks, superannuation and brokerage accounts.
Ideally, use an application like Google Authenticator or Microsoft Authenticator if the service allows, or an email that is not listed with Optus. Avoid having codes sent to your Optus phone number, as it’s at higher risk of being stolen.
Step 2: Lock your SIM card and credit card if possible
One of the most immediate concerns will be using the leaked data to compromise your phone number, which is what many people use for their multi-factor authentication. SIM jacking – getting a mobile phone provider to give access to a phone number they don’t own – will be a serious threat.
Most carriers allow you to add a verbal PIN as the second verification step, to prevent SIM jacking. While Optus has locked SIM cards temporarily, that lock is unlikely to last. Call your provider and ask for a verbal PIN to be added to your account. If you suddenly lose all mobile service in unusual circumstances, contact your provider to make sure you haven’t been SIM jacked.
To prevent identity theft, you can place a short-term freeze (or credit ban) on your credit checks. These can help stop criminals taking out credit in your name, but it makes applying for credit yourself difficult during the freeze. The three major credit report companies, Experian, Illion, and Equifax offer this service.
If you can’t freeze your credit because you need access yourself, Equifax offers a paid credit alert service to notify you of credit checks on your identity. If you get a suspicious credit alert, you can halt the process quickly by contacting the service that requested the report.
Safeguarding your data online involves looking after your passwords properly. Vitalii Vodolazskyi/Shutterstock
Step 3: Improve your cyber hygiene
These breaches don’t exist in a vacuum. The personal information stolen from Optus may be used with other information cyber criminals find about you online; social media, your employer’s website, discussion forums and previous breaches provide additional information.
Many people have unknowingly been victims of cyber breaches in the past. You should check what information about you is available to cyber criminals by checking HaveIBeenPwned. HaveIBeenPwned is operated by Australian security professional Troy Hunt, who maintains a database of known leaked data.
You can search your email accounts on the site to get a list of what breaches they have been involved in. Consider what passwords those accounts used. Are you using those passwords anywhere else?
Take extra care in verifying emails and text messages. Scammers use leaked information to make phishing attempts more credible and targeted. Never click links sent via text or email. Don’t assume someone calling from a company is legitimate, get the customer support number from their website, and call them on that number.
Creating unique and secure passwords for every service is the best defence you have. It is made easier using a password manager – many free apps are available – to manage your passwords. Don’t reuse passwords across multiple services, since they can be used to access other accounts.
If you aren’t using a password manager, you should at least keep unique passwords on your most vulnerable accounts, and avoid keeping digital records of them in email or in computer files while keeping any written passwords in a safe, secure, location.
I’ve been hacked, now what?
Sometimes you can do everything right, and still become a victim of a breach, so how do you know if you’ve been hacked and what can you do about it?
If you receive phone calls, emails or letters from financial institutions regarding a loan or service you know nothing about, call the institution and clarify the situation.
You should also contact IDCare, a not-for-profit organisation designed to assist victims of cyber-attacks and identity theft, for further guidance. You can also report cyber crimes – including identity theft – through CyberReport.
The authors do not work for, consult, own shares in or receive funding from any company or organization that would benefit from this article, and have disclosed no relevant affiliations beyond their academic appointment.
When the National Disability Insurance Scheme (NDIS) was established almost a decade ago, it was envisaged people with disability would be empowered consumers. It was hoped their customer insights would shape new services designed to meet their specific needs and preferences.
But today’s market-based reality is that the National Disability Insurance Agency and its support providers are mostly still in control. In the worst examples, this has been linked to devastating abuse and alleged neglect of participants by support workers. Providers frequently see NDIS participants as a business “commodity”.
The disability sector has not prioritised obtaining and using data about what NDIS participants need and want, though there are notable exceptions like the Housing Seeker snapshot.
For our research, we conducted in-depth interviews with 12 people with acquired neurological disability, such as traumatic brain injury, spinal cord injury, stroke, or multiple sclerosis. When they spoke about what makes a good support worker, it wasn’t necessarily formal qualifications they were interested in – but rather how they were treated as people.
Disability support workers are the key frontline staff who assist people with daily living, employment, housing and community participation, and achieving their goals. Support work looks different depending on the complexity of the person’s needs, with some people requiring general daily supports but others needing high intensity supports.
Australia spends more than A$20 billion each year on disability support workers. The new Labor government has promised an NDIS reset to bring it closer to its original vision.
However, without an evidence-based approach, the government may be investing in poor quality services that do not meet the needs of participants. Investment in quality support will maximise independence and social and economic participation and reduce the long term liability of the scheme.
They told us that, first and foremost people with disability want support workers to recognise them as an individual, treat them as a person, and see them as the expert in their own support needs and preferences.
Charlie*, spoke to us after moving from poor quality support to good support and said
They didn’t know your name, treat you like you’re just a body in a bed […] Here they treat you like a person, they ask you what you want.
Participants stressed they want to choose and direct their support workers. While participants want support workers to have basic competencies, most importantly they value support workers’ attitude and willingness to listen and learn. Alex* said
Even if the rules seem ridiculous and over-exacting, if I say something’s important, just trust me that it’s important. Respect my perspective.
What participants want most, might not be what you think.
Participants wanted support workers they were compatible with, as compatibility fosters comfortable and respectful working relationships. Some participants valued this connection above and beyond formal qualifications or experience. Sarah* said
Never once have I asked to see her resume or her qualifications. I really don’t care what she’s got, I care about how we gelled.
Managing disability support was a job in itself, said participants. But systemic issues might mean participants feel “stuck” with support workers they don’t want to work with. Alex* expressed the common fear of not being able to find a better match.
You never know what the quality of the next person is going to be […] the energy required to train up and get used to a new person, is quite high. So, it has to get quite bad before I fire someone.
Participants we spoke to said service providers sometimes limited their opportunities to choose their own support workers.
However, the introduction of online matching platforms such as HireUp and Mable provide new avenues for people with disability to build support teams that work for them.
Having new options signifies growth in the disability sector, but we need to ensure there are sufficient options to reflect the diversity of people with disability, and ensure people are supported to make informed decisions within traditional services.
Having real choice over support arrangements and daily living is key to quality support.
But theoretical choice and control are useless if people are not supported and empowered. Solutions need to be led, co-designed and implemented by people with disability.
One recent example is Participant Led Videos. This initiative featured tools co-designed with NDIS participants to help them create personalised videos to direct their support. Further independent evaluation showed they were well-received and considered achievable by people with disabilities and support workers.
NDIS participant Terry provides insights into how support workers can help him.
Every participant is different
Rather than a one-size-fits-all approach, our research identifies the need for support workers to get training specific to each person’s needs. Given the value of lived experience, it is imperative people with disability are part of the design and delivery of training for support workers.
With the new government, we have an exciting opportunity to put people with disability front and centre of the NDIS. In the words of Isabella*, people with disability should be
the one[s] calling all the shots. It’s my life – why the hell would anybody else call the shots.
*Names have been changed to protect participants’ identities.
Megan Topping’s doctoral research is supported by a postgraduate award through the Summer Foundation, Melbourne, Australia.
The Participant Led Video research was funded by the Innovative Workforce Fund (National Disability Services – https://workforce.nds.org.au/)
Jacinta Douglas is affiliated with the Summer Foundation through her Professorial role within the La Trobe University, Living with Disability, Summer Foundation Research Partnership.
In a landmark decision, a United Nations committee on Friday found Australia’s former Coalition government violated the human rights of Torres Strait Islanders by failing to adequately respond to the climate crisis.
The Torres Strait Islanders ‘Group of Eight’ claimed Australia failed to take measures such as reducing greenhouse gas emissions and upgrading seawalls on the islands. The UN upheld the complaint and said the claimants should be compensated.
This decision is a breakthrough in Indigenous rights and climate justice, including by opening up new pathways for Indigenous communities – who are often on the frontline of the climate crisis – to defend their rights.
The Albanese government, which has stated its commitment to work with the Torres Strait on climate change, must now meet this moment of possibility and challenge.
The decision is a win for the Torres Strait Islanders who lodged the complaint with the UN – but it has far wider implications. Shutterstock
Why is this so significant?
Eight Torres Strait Islanders and six of their children lodged the complaint with the UN in 2019, saying climate change was damaging their way of life, culture and livelihoods.
It was the first time people from a low-lying island exposed to rising sea levels had taken action against a government.
The Torres Strait Islanders hailed from four islands – Boigu, Poruma, Warraber and Masig. In their complaint, they described how heavy rain and storms associated with climate change had devastated their homes and food crops. Rising seas had also flooded family grave sites.
Significantly, deep Indigenous cultural and ecological knowledge, rather than Western climate science, proved key to this UN decision. This marks a departure from broad international climate politics where Indigenous laws, cultures, knowledges and practices are often sidelined or underrepresented.
Major legal breakthrough for Indigenous rights
The UN human rights committee found Australia had failed to protect Torres Strait Islanders against the impacts of climate change and violated their right to enjoy their culture, and to be free from arbitrary interference to privacy, family and home.
These rights respectively form Article 27 and 17 of the UN Universal Declaration of Human Rights. The complaint also argued on grounds of Article 6, the right to life, but this was not upheld.
In its decision, the UN considered Torres Strait Islanders’ close connection to traditional lands and the central place of healthy ecosystems for the maintenance of cultural practices. Connection to healthy country across land and seas as well as to culture, and the ability to maintain these, were determined to be human rights.
The committee said despite some action from Australia, such as new seawalls for the four islands by next year, additional measures were required to prevent potential loss of life.
Responding to the outcome, Yessie Mosby, one of the Group of Eight and a Traditional Owner of Masig said:
I know that our ancestors are rejoicing knowing that Torres Strait Islander voices are being heard throughout the world through this landmark case […] This win gives us hope that we can protect our island homes, culture and traditions for our kids and future generations to come.
ClientEarth lawyer Sophie Marjanac, who acted for the claimants, said the outcome set a number of precedents. Specifically, it’s the first time an international tribunal has found:
a country has violated human rights law through inadequate climate policy
a nation state is responsible for their greenhouse gas emissions under international human rights law
peoples’ right to culture is at risk from climate impacts.
The decision comes just months before this year’s COP27 climate talks in Egypt, and will add weight to growing international demands for loss and damages to be meaningfully included in international climate negotiations.
Among these are calls to include recognition of and compensation for kinds of loss and damage other than economic, such as health and wellbeing, ways of being, cultural sites and sacred places.
The decision is the first time an international tribunal has found peoples’ right to culture is at risk from climate impacts. Gabrielle Dunlevy/AAP
The rise of Indigenous rights climate litigation
The Torres Strait Islands claim is part of a rapidly growing climate litigation space. Globally, climate change-related cases doubled between 2015 and 2022.
National governments are a key target of legal action. This latest decision is likely to spark more such cases in Australia and elsewhere. As UN Committee member Hélène Tigroudja said when explaining the decision:
States that fail to protect individuals under their jurisdiction from the adverse effects of climate change may be violating their human rights under international law.
The Group of Eight’s win joins similar Australian cases involving Indigenous rights. In the Tiwi Islands, for example, Indigenous people succeeded in stopping a proposal by energy giant Santos to drill for gas offshore from their islands.
Meanwhile, Youth Verdict’s success in the Queensland Land Court ensured First Nations evidence of the impacts of climate change would be heard on Country in their case against Clive Palmer’s Waratah Coal mine.
How will the new Australian government respond?
The UN committee said the Australian government should compensate Torres Strait Islanders for the harms already suffered. They called for meaningful consultation with Torres Strait communities and measures to secure their safety, such as building seawalls.
So will the UN’s decision advance an Indigenous rights agenda in Australia as the climate crisis grows?
Attorney General Mark Dreyfus said the government will consider the decision and respond in due course.
The development puts the onus on the Albanese government to ensure Indigenous rights are upheld as part of climate policy and planning.
It also sends a clear signal that governments must act on climate change. This means not just reducing emissions, but helping more vulnerable regions to adapt to the damage already done.
Parents and students are currently making big decisions about next year.
Some will have just received or be about to receive offers of a selective school place for 2023. Other parents need to decide soon if they will apply for their children to sit selective schools tests next year for entry in 2024. Or if they should be looking at other high school options.
These decisions can seem overwhelming for families. What are some of the issues to consider?
What is selective school?
Selective schools are public high schools where students sit a competitive test to be accepted the year before entry.
They are mostly found in New South Wales, where there are about 50 schools. But there are small number in other states, including Queensland (years 7 to 12), Victoria (years 9 to 12) and Western Australia (7 to 12).
The success rate varies, but is is very competitive. For example, in NSW this. year, there were 15,660 applications for 4,248 places.
The pros and cons
Selective school places are highly sought-after – these schools feature prominently in the top schools for year 12 results. But they don’t have the fees of elite private schools.
Some students feel energised by the “best of the best” atmosphere in which they can focus and find similarly capable peers.
But there is an ongoing debate about whether they should exist in the first place. There is also an obvious focus on test performance, rather than the modern skills students need to learn such as collaboration, tech literacy and creativity.
And while academic streaming does seem to improve the performance of high achievers, it can harm the confidence of those who get in (as well as those who don’t). As Australian Catholic University education scholar Associate Professor Philip Parker has explained, selective schools can create a “big fish little pond” effect where students lose a realistic sense of where they fall within the full student achievement spectrum.
Even if students gain a place at selective school, they can find the competition counter-productive. Australian selective school students are increasingly speaking out about the mental health impacts of studying in a stressful, competitive environment.
Don’t forget tutoring
The Australian tutoring industry is huge, not just for parents seeking to improve their child’s performance in class, but in preparation for selective entry exams.
While the entry tests measure general literacy, maths and logic skills – and do not require study – many students undergo months or even years of expensive and often stressful tutoring to prepare.
A 2010 US study suggested tutoring and coaching for selective entry exams only had a moderate effect on student’s results, but this is far from conclusive. Given the competition to gain entry to these schools, students and their parents may be more confident knowing they’ve had tutoring. That confidence alone may improve their performance.
What should parents think about?
It’s understandable that parents might be confused. How do you know if the selective school is right for your child? Here are some issues to consider:
school culture: are the schools you are considering particularly competitive? Do they have an emphasis on other activities, away from exam marks? Do they encourage sport, music or creative arts? Do they emphasise mental health? Do they have programs to support students from diverse backgrounds and with diverse identities?
location: if your child is successful, will it mean a very long commute for them?
your child’s strengths: does your child enjoy school work and sitting tests? Or do their strengths lie in other, less traditionally academic areas?
your child’s temperament: does your child become anxious in testing situations, or do they enjoy the “performance” aspect of them?
your child’s opinion: is your child self-motivated to go to a selective school, or are you trying to convince them it’s “good” for them? If they are keen, giving them a chance – with the appropriate support – might help them decide.
tutoring: does your child want to do tutoring or exam preparation? Can you afford the fees and time if they do?
your child’s teacher: have you had conversations with your child’s teachers? Do they believe your child has the academic aptitude and emotional capacity to thrive in a selective school environment?
Daniel X. Harris receives funding from the Australian Research Council Future Fellowship scheme.
Illustration of DART before impact.NASA/Johns Hopkins APL/Steve Gribben
On September 26 at 11.15pm UTC, NASA’s DART mission (Double Asteroid Redirection Test) will be the first to deliberately and measurably change the motion of a significant body in our Solar System. In other words, it will smash into an asteroid.
The mission will provide the first test of a technique that could be used in the future – to redirect any asteroids we detect on a collision course with Earth.
A binary pair of space rocks
DART was launched on November 24, 2021, its destination a pair of asteroids in orbit around each other, 11 million kilometres from Earth.
The larger asteroid in the pair is called Didymos and is 780 metres in diameter. The smaller asteroid, just 160 metres wide, is called Dimorphos. The two orbit each other at a distance of 1.18 kilometres, and one orbit takes close to 12 hours.
DART is expected to alter the orbit of the smaller asteroid. NASA/Johns Hopkins APL
These asteroids pose no risk to Earth and have been chosen as the target for DART partly due to that fact. But also, importantly, because the asteroids form a binary pair, it will be possible for astronomers on Earth to assess the results of the impact.
As the asteroids orbit each other, the sunlight reflected off them increases and decreases, varying systematically over the 12-hour cycle of the orbit. Astronomers using powerful telescopes from Earth can monitor this variation and see how it changes, from before to after the collision.
The physics sounds simple, and it is. Hit one thing with another thing to change its motion. But the mission execution is very complicated. When DART reaches the asteroids, it will be 11 million kilometres from Earth after a 10 month journey. The spacecraft has to use autonomous targeting, using images of the asteroids it acquires as it approaches.
DART needs to recognise the asteroids by itself, automatically lock onto Dimorphos, and adjust its trajectory to hit it. This is all while moving at a speed of nearly 24,000 kilometres per hour!
The results of the impact, while reasonably straightforward to measure, are difficult to predict. The size, shape, and composition of Dimorphos, and exactly where DART hits and how hard, will affect the outcome.
All these factors are uncertain to some degree. Comprehensive computer simulations of the impact have been undertaken, and the comparisons of the simulations, predictions, and measured results will be the main outcomes of the DART mission.
As well as the measurements from telescopes on Earth, an up-close view of the impact itself will be possible, from an Italian Space Agency CubeSat (a small type of satellite) called LICIACube that was deployed from a spring-loaded box aboard the craft on 11 September. LICIACube will follow along and photograph the collision and its aftermath.
The Lowell Discovery Telescope, located in northern Arizona, one of the facilities that will measure the impact of the DART collision. Lowell Observatory
The results will tell us a lot about the nature of asteroids and our ability to change their motions. In the future, this knowledge could be used to plan planetary defence missions that seek to redirect asteroids deemed to be a threat to the Earth.
An asteroid as small as 25 metres in diameter could produce injuries from an airburst explosion if it hit the atmosphere over a populated area. It is estimated that 5 million such objects exist in our Solar System and that we have discovered approximately 0.4% of them. Such a hit is estimated to occur once every 100 years. While quite frequent, the overall risk is low and the impact risk is relatively low too.
However, it is predicted there are 25,000 objects in the Solar System the size of Dimorphos, 39% of which are known, that hit Earth every 20,000 years. Such an object would cause mass casualties if it hit a populated area.
Asteroid statistics and the threats posed by asteroids of different sizes. NASA
Asteroids that could challenge the existence of human civilisation are in the 1 km plus size category, of which there are less than a thousand in the Solar System; they might hit Earth only every 500,000 years. We have already found 95% of these objects.
So, potential asteroid collisions with Earth range from the frequent but benign to the very rare but catastrophic. The DART tests are being undertaken in a very relevant and interesting size range for asteroids: those greater than 100 metres.
If DART is successful, it may set the scene for future missions that target asteroids, to nudge them out of the way of collisions with Earth. When an asteroid is a long way from Earth, only a small nudge is required to get it out of our way, so the earlier we can identify asteroids that are a potential threat, the better.
Are women as successful as men in securing a patent for their invention?
We set out to investigate gender bias in patent outcomes at IP Australia – the government agency responsible for administering intellectual property rights.
To do so, we analysed 309,544 patent applications from across a 15-year period (2001-2015), and categorised close to one million inventors’ names based on whether they sounded male or female.
We found that having a male-sounding first name increases the odds of securing a patent. This gender bias can have serious implications for women’s health, female career progression and equity policies in STEM. But what’s causing it?
Women are increasingly applying for patents
Patents provide a 20-year monopoly over a new invention and are a well-known measure of the output from STEM-based industries.
Global studies show the number of patent applications from female inventors (while still lower than the number from men) has grown significantly over the past 20 years. What has been less clear is whether these applications convert to granted patents.
The proportion of female inventors associated with patent applications worldwide has grown from 1915 to 2017. Intellectual Property Office UK, Gender Profiles in Worldwide Patenting: An Analysis of Female Inventorship (2019 edition)
Studies of data from the United States Patent and Trademark Office unfortunately reveal inventors with a female-sounding first name are less successful at having their patent granted than those with a male-sounding first name.
This is irrespective of the technical field and the gender of the patent examiner, and despite evidence that female inventor patents are just as good as male inventor patents.
We wanted to investigate whether a similar gender bias exists for patents filed at IP Australia, where most applications come from non-residents. Inventors who plan to operate internationally will often file in multiple jurisdictions, including filing in Australia.
So unlike studies of the US Patent and Trademark Office, where the majority of patents come from US residents, a study of patents at IP Australia reflects more worldwide applications.
A profile of 2020 patent applications to IP Australia. IP Australia
A gender gap persists
Our analysis of 309,544 patent applications submitted over 15 years found 90% of applications had at least one male inventor. Just 24% had at least one female inventor (typically as part of a mixed-gender team).
The percentage of applications per year, per team composition (male, female, ambiguous, unidentified).
We then examined whether these applications converted into a successful patent grant. We found inventors with a female-sounding first name had slightly lower odds of having their patent granted.
Also, as the number of males on a team increased, so did the odds of the team being granted a patent – whereas adding a female had a negligible impact. In other words, bigger teams of inventors had more patent success, unless the additional inventors had female-sounding names.
This graph shows the pattern that emerges when you vary the composition of a single-gender team. You can see more men increases chances of success, whereas more women does not. Author provided
But why is it like this?
One question for us was whether this gender disparity could be explained by the types of fields patents were being granted in, and whether women simply work in less “patentable” fields such as life sciences.
We found more than 60% of female inventors were clustered in just four of 35 technical fields (the 35 science categories recognised in patents). These were all in the life sciences: chemistry, biotechnology, pharmaceuticals and medical technology.
We also found patents in three of these fields had a lower-than-average success rate. In other words, it’s generally harder to get a patent in these fields, regardless of whether you’re a woman or man.
Nevertheless, even after we statistically controlled for the effect of participating in a less successful field, we still found a gender disparity – male-named inventors did better than female-named inventors.
Women are responsible for some of the greatest inventions, yet inventorship remains a male-dominated field. We’ll have to fight historical biases against women if this is to change. Shutterstock
Women in STEM must be supported
The implications of women falling out of the patent system are significant for a number of reasons. For one, patents with female inventors are more likely to focus on female diseases.
Also, getting a patent can be important for career progression and for securing investment capital. And research has shown a lack of female inventors today impacts the rate at which girls aspire to be the inventors of tomorrow.
The next step in our research is to find out why there is a gender gap in successful patent applications.
We don’t believe it’s a simple case of gender bias at the patent office. We suspect the issues are complex, and related to the systemic and institutional biases that hold back women’s progress in STEM more generally.
Country and cultural differences may also be at play, particularly since more than 90% of patent applications received by IP Australia come from non-Australian inventors (and overwhelmingly from the United States).
We want to look deeper into our results to figure out what’s driving the gender disparity, and what we can do to support female inventors.
The first step in fixing a problem is acknowledging it exists. We hope our research starts a conversation that prompts people to reflect on their own biases.
The authors do not work for, consult, own shares in or receive funding from any company or organization that would benefit from this article, and have disclosed no relevant affiliations beyond their academic appointment.
Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Nathan Bartlett, Associate Professor, School of Biomedical Sciences and Pharmacy, University of Newcastle
Vaccines (predominantly mRNA vaccines) have been our front-line defence against COVID and have saved millions of lives.
Despite the emergence of genetically distinct COVID variants throughout the pandemic, we’ve relied on vaccines that target the spike protein from the virus originally detected in Wuhan, China. While still providing excellent protection, mRNA vaccines are less effective against newer variants with immunity waning within months of immunisation.
Australia’s Omicron bivalent (two-strain) COVID vaccine has been approved for use and will be rolled out as stocks of the original vaccines need replacing.
While we hope they will provide better protection than existing vaccines, the little data we have so far suggests they only provide slightly better protection.
So, if you’re eligible for your fourth dose, it makes sense to get boosted with whichever COVID vaccine you’re offered now – rather than waiting until the Omicron-specific boosters enter circulation.
One key technological advance with mRNA vaccines is the ability to modify the mRNA sequence that encodes the spike protein in SARS-CoV-2 (the virus that causes COVID). This means scientists can target the viral spike protein and respond to the viral variants currently circulating.
But it still takes time to manufacture a recalibrated mRNA vaccine, then test it, distribute it and get it into people’s arms.
Earlier in the pandemic, Moderna produced a bivalent vaccine that also targeted the Beta variant. Initial lab tests showed boosting with this variant-specific vaccine increased antibodies against Beta approximately two times better than the boost provided by the original vaccine.
However development was discontinued because Beta was replaced by other COVID variants.
As long as SARS-CoV-2 evolves, keeping up with it is going to remain a challenge for variant-specific vaccines.
So how do scientists determine if bivalent vaccines work better than existing vaccines?
The gold standard is a clinical trial that assesses protection from disease. Early in the pandemic when few people had immunity to SARS-CoV-2, this was relatively straight forward. Starting with a baseline of no immunity makes it easier to design a trial to assess the protection provided by vaccines.
The situation is a lot more complicated now, with much of the world’s population vaccinated, previously infected or both – often multiple times.
Measuring relative effectiveness in a clinical trial comparing two vaccines in such a diverse population exposed to unpredictable waves of infection requires large numbers of study participants – and lots of time and money.
As an alternative, we can examine indicators of protection. Antibodies are generated by the immune system when we’re exposed to the SARS-CoV-2 spike protein, either via vaccination or infection. The aim is to generate lots of antibodies that bind to the surface of the spike protein and stop the virus infecting cells.
Scientists can recruit study participants who know their vaccination and infection history and take their baseline antibody levels. Then they can be boosted with either the standard mRNA vaccine or the variant-modified bivalent vaccine. The level of virus-neutralising antibodies in the blood can then be assessed in the lab after boosting.
How effective is the Omicron booster?
The Moderna COVID bivalent booster targets the ancestral virus and Omicron BA.1 subvariant. It has been approved for use in Australia and will be rolled out when our stocks of existing Moderna boosters have been exhausted.
The bivalent vaccine will then be offered to adults who are due to have their third or fourth doses.
Lab-based studies assessing antibody responses suggest the bivalent vaccine offers 1.5 to 2 times improved immunity over the boost provided by the original vaccine.
However, it’s unclear how much better they will be than existing boosters at protecting people from disease, particularly given BA.1 has been replaced by Omicron sub-variants. These have several mutations that distinguish them from BA.1 and so the bivalent Omicron vaccine is no longer a perfect match.
To try and understand vaccine effectiveness in the absence of a dedicated clinical trial, researchers can model the relationship between lab-based antibody studies and previous clinical trials to predict how well new vaccines will protect from disease.
This type of analysis shows the original vaccine is quite good at restoring protection against disease caused by different variants when given as a booster.
Variant-modified vaccines such as the newly approved Omicron booster are predicted to improve that by 5–10%, depending on the variant and level of existing immunity. This might seem like a small improvement but it could mean additional lives saved.
That said, you are at much greater risk of disease if it has been several months since your last booster. That’s why it’s best to get boosted as soon as you’re eligible, rather than waiting for an Omicron-specific booster.
The government has accepted the Australian Technical Advisory Group on Immunisation (ATAGI) advice to wait until current Moderna booster stocks run out before putting the bivalent Omicron boosters into circulation.
This seems like the right call, given the Omicron boosters probably offer only a modest improvement in protection against the Omcicron sub-variants currently circulating.
In the future we might see annual COVID boosters adapted to the currently circulating strains or predicted strains, like season flu shots. There appears to be a desire to do this in the United States with the Federal Drug Administration fast-tracking authorisation of booster mRNA vaccines that target the Omicron BA.4/BA.5 subvariants, before data is available on how well they work.
Rather than constantly updating COVID vaccines, an alternative approach is to develop a “variant-proof” vaccine that targets multiple SARS-CoV-2 variants. We could combine this with treatments like nose sprays that stimulate immunity against a range of viruses.
For now, bivalent vaccines work as well, if not a little better, than the original vaccines so transitioning to them makes sense.
Nathan Bartlett 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.
Spring has arrived in Australia’s Snowy Mountains. The snow is starting to melt. Wildflowers are emerging in a variety of colours: blues, yellows, whites … hang on. Those aren’t white flowers. They’re scrunched up bits of toilet paper left behind by skiers, boarders and snow-shoers.
When you think of backcountry snow adventures, you think of pristine wilderness. But unfortunately, there’s a problem: what to do with your poo. Many backcountry adventurers just squat, drop and don’t stop. The result, as we saw ourselves on an overnight ski trip, is a surprisingly large amount of poo and toilet paper. It’s become a bigger problem in recent years, as backcountry trips have boomed in places like the Main Range section of the Snowy Mountains.
Our new research explores this issue to find out how to better protect these wild areas. We surveyed backcountry visitors to Kosciuszko National Park in New South Wales and found a minority of visitors were carrying out their waste from overnight trips, as recommended. To combat the alpine poo scourge, we recommend building more toilets in strategic locations, making their location readily known, and giving out poo transport bags at entry points and gear shops.
If you’re sceptical, take heart – it wasn’t so long ago many people believed dog owners would never agree to scoop up their pet’s poo and bin it. But for the most part, they did.
As the snow melts, it can carry poo down to watercourses or lakes like Blue Lake in the popular Main Range section of the Snowy Mountains. Shutterstock
So what are you meant to do with snow poo?
You might wonder why this matters. After all, aren’t our snow-covered mountains full of possums, wombats and wallabies, all of which poo? And can’t you bury your poo, like you can in other parts of Australia? The problem here is the snow. Human poo deposited in winter won’t decompose until spring. In popular areas, poo and toilet paper can pile up, which is an unpleasant visual for other visitors. And as the snow melts, it can carry poo into creeks, depositing cold-resistant viruses, bacteria like E. coli, and parasites such as giardia. If another skier eats contaminated snow or drinks the stream water, they can be infected.
That’s why backcountry visitors to Kosciuszko National Park are urged to carry out their poo in biodegradable bags or a home made poo tube (basically a sealable plastic pipe).
This, our survey of 258 visitors found, is not hugely popular. Only a third of highly experienced skiers on multi-day trips carry their poo out, while only a fifth of less experienced visitors did the same.
The options our multi-day skiers preferred were using a toilet at a hut, if available, or burying poo in the snow. This is not ideal – if you can’t carry it out, it’s preferable to bury it in exposed soil (ideally, at least 50 metres away from any water courses). Some visitors reported covering their waste with rocks.
Day visitors largely used toilets at the entry and exit points or at a resort, though around 10% reported burying their poo in the snow or using toilets at huts.
This means overall compliance with the carry-it-out policy is low.
But as one longtime backcountry visitor points out, it’s not actually hard – or disgusting – to carry it out:
It was easy. It was the most satisfying experience I have had, knowing that I had left no trace for the entire journey; the view, the ground, the creeks, the plants had been left unspoilt. No-one would have ever known I had been there. Carrying and taking it out went without mishap and finally disposing of my waste was not a problem.
People prefer toilets as a tried and true method of removing poo. Installing new toilets is the most effective way to prevent open defecation. The problem is where to put them. Installing toilets in remote areas is a delicate matter, as many visitors may see them as taking away from the natural experience which is the major drawcard for backcountry visitors. It’s also expensive to maintain toilets in the snow, as they require helicopters or trucks to pump out the waste.
Other options include digging pit latrines, disposing of it into crevasses, burying in soil, snow or rocks, leaving it on the ground, burning it, or carrying it out in poo tubes or biodegradable bags. You can see why park authorities prefer carrying it out.
Toilets are the gold standard – but they’re hard to come by in remote areas of Kosciuszko National Park. Shutterstock
So how can we make it more inviting for visitors to pack their poo? Clearly, the present messaging isn’t fully effective. It’s time for a new approach, especially given the numbers of people heading to the backcountry is growing.
We recommend a two-pronged approach: better communication and targeted infrastructure at entry points.
Friends, websites and outdoor recreation clubs are important sources of information about how to undertake a backcountry trip. To harness these sources, parks authorities could work with the wider backcountry community on the issue, with simple, targeted messages.
By itself, messaging won’t be enough. That’s why we need more and improved toilets – and bins – at key locations, to make it as easy as possible for visitors to do the right thing with their poo.
Authorities should also make these locations clearly known on visitor maps and online, as well as making biodegradable bags or poo tubes available at entry points, information centres and gear shops.
If we get this right, backcountry skiers will once again be able to enjoy the wildflowers. Let’s aim for spring has sprung – not spring has dung.
Pascal Scherrer has conducted research that has received funding from the New South Wales National Parks and Wildlife Service (NPWS) and has served on Regional Advisory Boards of the NPWS.
Isabelle Wolf has conducted research that has received funding from the University of Wollongong and the New South Wales National Parks and Wildlife Service (NPWS)
Jen Smart conducts research that receives funding from New South Wales National Parks and Wildlife Service (NPWS) Hawkweed Eradication Program and the University of Wollongong.
Parents and students are currently making big decisions about next year.
Some will have just received or be about to receive offers of a selective school place for 2023. Other parents need to decide soon if they will apply for their children to sit selective schools tests next year for entry in 2024. Or if they should be looking at other high school options.
These decisions can seem overwhelming for families. What are some of the issues to consider?
What is selective school?
Selective schools are public high schools where students sit a competitive test to be accepted the year before entry.
They are mostly found in New South Wales, where there are about 50 schools. But there are small number in other states, including Queensland (years 7 to 12), Victoria (years 9 to 12) and Western Australia (7 to 12).
The success rate varies, but is is very competitive. For example, in NSW this. year, there were 15,660 applications for 4,248 places.
The pros and cons
Selective school places are highly sought-after – these schools feature prominently in the top schools for year 12 results. But they don’t have the fees of elite private schools.
Some students feel energised by the “best of the best” atmosphere in which they can focus and find similarly capable peers.
But there is an ongoing debate about whether they should exist in the first place. There is also an obvious focus on test performance, rather than the modern skills students need to learn such as collaboration, tech literacy and creativity.
And while academic streaming does seem to improve the performance of high achievers, it can harm the confidence of those who get in (as well as those who don’t). As Australian Catholic University education scholar Associate Professor Philip Parker has explained, selective schools can create a “big fish little pond” effect where students lose a realistic sense of where they fall within the full student achievement spectrum.
Even if students gain a place at selective school, they can find the competition counter-productive. Australian selective school students are increasingly speaking out about the mental health impacts of studying in a stressful, competitive environment.
Don’t forget tutoring
The Australian tutoring industry is huge, not just for parents seeking to improve their child’s performance in class, but in preparation for selective entry exams.
While the entry tests measure general literacy, maths and logic skills – and do not require study – many students undergo months or even years of expensive and often stressful tutoring to prepare.
A 2010 US study suggested tutoring and coaching for selective entry exams only had a moderate effect on student’s results, but this is far from conclusive. Given the competition to gain entry to these schools, students and their parents may be more confident knowing they’ve had tutoring. That confidence alone may improve their performance.
What should parents think about?
It’s understandable that parents might be confused. How do you know if the selective school is right for your child? Here are some issues to consider:
school culture: are the schools you are considering particularly competitive? Do they have an emphasis on other activities, away from exam marks? Do they encourage sport, music or creative arts? Do they emphasise mental health? Do they have programs to support students from diverse backgrounds and with diverse identities?
location: if your child is successful, will it mean a very long commute for them?
your child’s strengths: does your child enjoy school work and sitting tests? Or do their strengths lie in other, less traditionally academic areas?
your child’s temperament: does your child become anxious in testing situations, or do they enjoy the “performance” aspect of them?
your child’s opinion: is your child self-motivated to go to a selective school, or are you trying to convince them it’s “good” for them? If they are keen, giving them a chance – with the appropriate support – might help them decide.
tutoring: does your child want to do tutoring or exam preparation? Can you afford the fees and time if they do?
your child’s teacher: have you had conversations with your child’s teachers? Do they believe your child has the academic aptitude and emotional capacity to thrive in a selective school environment?
Daniel X. Harris receives funding from the Australian Research Council Future Fellowship scheme.
The Reserve Bank has just reported a loss of A$37 billion, the biggest in its history, and it says it will be unable to pay the government dividends for some time.
The announcement followed a review of its bond-buying program, one of the most important ways it supported the economy during the first two years of the pandemic.
In order to borrow to fund programs such as JobKeeper, the government borrowed on the bond market, issuing bonds on the money market that the Reserve Bank later bought with newly created money. That meant the Reserve Bank was, indirectly, the largest financier of the expanded budget deficit.
The review concluded the bond-buying program worked relatively well. By aggressively buying $281 billion of bonds, the Reserve Bank was able to not only make sure government programs were funded, but also lower the general level of interest rates in the bond market, supporting the economy.
How did buying bonds help?
The review found buying bonds on the money market
encouraged traders to put their money into other parts of economy, such as investing in Australian firms
sent a signal to the market that interest rates would be low for a long time, encouraging firms to invest, confident they will be able to borrow cheaply for years to come
gave investors confidence that, if they bought bonds, they could sell them later to the bank if needed.
The report suggests the $281 billion dollars of bond purchases lowered long-term bond rates by around 0.3 percentage points.
This in turn helped lower the value of the Australian dollar by 1-2%, supported business investment, and encouraged consumers to spend, and boosted gross domestic product by a cumulative $25 billion.
What about the downsides?
The report found the Reserve Bank made a substantial loss on the bond-buying program, estimated to be as high as $54 billion. Its overall loss this financial year will approach $37 billion.
During the crisis investors fled to the safety of the Australian bond market, wanting to put their money somewhere safe: Australian government bonds.
This meant the bank bought bonds at high prices. As the economy recovered and investors ploughed their money back into the stock market and other more risky places, bond prices dropped, giving the bank an accounting loss on the bonds.
While the Reserve Bank doesn’t plan to sell the bonds (it’ll hold them until they mature), if it did, it would have to sell them for much less.
Bankrupt? Not really
The bank is still perfectly capable of operating even if it loses money on investments. Being able to print money at will means it can’t go broke.
But it is unlikely to provide the government with a dividend from its profits for several years. Usually the bank makes a profit from printing money. The notes cost about 32 cents each to print and it offloads them for as much as $50 and $100.
It will use this income to soak up the losses from its bond-buying program, and won’t need to ask the government for more.
This review confirms that bond-buying will remain an important part of the bank’s toolkit. While inflation today is soaring and interest rates are being increased at a breakneck pace, it is highly likely that at some point in the future the economy will go through a rough patch and need lower rates.
When the bank has cut its short-term cash rate to near-zero, as it did in 2020, it’ll need to do something else to bring down other longer-term rates.
It says it will buy bonds only “in extreme circumstances, when the usual monetary policy tool – the cash rate target – has been employed to the full extent possible”, but it concedes it may have to, and it believes what it did was worthwhile.`
Isaac Gross 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.
Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Joanna Mendelssohn, Honorary (Senior Fellow) School of Culture and Communication University of Melbourne. Editor in Chief, Design and Art of Australia Online, The University of Melbourne
In 1972, when the Art Gallery of New South Wales opened its first modern building, it was rightly praised for its innovative design.
Architect Andrew Andersons incorporated the latest aspects of museum architecture. The egg crate ceilings were designed to reduce noise for people walking on its marble floors. There were moveable screens that looked like walls and adjustable light levels for fragile art.
But where the building faced Sydney Harbour, Andersons placed a giant window. The intrusion of reality into art connected visitors to the world outside.
It was revolutionary for the time, a marked contrast to the giant granite box of the National Gallery of Victoria, opening in 1968. The Melbourne building had followed the standard model of museum design of eliminating windows to maximise hanging space.
Just over 50 years later, the Sydney Modern expansion under architecture firm SANAA could be described as putting Andersons’ approach on steroids. It will open in December but in recent weeks small groups of visitors have been given preview tours, while installation crews make the finishing touches.
The relationship of Sydney Modern to the older building echoes Andersons’ uncompromising but sympathetic linking of his 1972 construction to the original Grand Courts designed by Walter Liberty Vernon.
The new link between the two buildings includes an installation honouring the history of Country by Wiradjuri and Kamilaroi artist Jonathan Jones.
This new building is very aware of its physical and spiritual location. It is dominated by the light from its soaring glass walls. The ground floor entrance feels like walking into a crystal.
In a nod to Andersons’ first glorious window, the Yiribana gallery of Indigenous art has a window facing the harbour so visitors can see where the Gadigal ancestors first witnessed the arrival of convicts in 1788.
The relocation of Yiribana from the basement of the older building is a physical manifestation of the significant shift in Australia’s understanding of its culture.
In 1958, the gallery’s deputy director Tony Tuckson facilitated collector and surgeon Stuart Scougall’s gift of Tiwi Pukumani grave posts. For the first time Indigenous work was shown as art and not anthropological artefact.
In 1972 there was a temporary exhibit of Yirrkala bark paintings and figures, but this was soon replaced with another temporary exhibition.
In late 1973, funding from the arts programs associated with the opening of the Sydney Opera House enabled a permanent installation of Melanesian art, another gift from Scougall. It was accompanied by what the trustees thought would be a temporary exhibition of Aboriginal art.
Tuckson died while the exhibition was being installed and it remained on view, in a dark little space at the bottom of the gallery’s marble stairs, until about 1980.
In 1983, Djon Mundine curated a temporary exhibition of bark paintings and the following year was appointed as part-time curator, but there was little official interest in Aboriginal art by the gallery.
The big shift came in 1991 when Hetti Perkins curated another temporary exhibition, this time of previously little-known Aboriginal women artists.
Perkins’ achievement was especially appreciated by Mollie Gowing, one of the volunteer guides.
Starting in 1992, Gowing collaborated with Perkins to privately fund the gallery’s major collection of contemporary Indigenous art.
In 1994, on the initiative of then NSW Minister for the Arts Peter Collins, the gallery opened Yiribana, its first permanent dedicated exhibition space for Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander art.
This basement had previously been the offices and working area for the public programs department and was not an especially sympathetic space for art. It was well over a decade before Indigenous art began to be integrated into other exhibits of Australian art.
The relocation of Yiribana to Sydney Modern can be seen as the gallery’s affirmation of the importance of Indigenous cultures to any understanding of what Australia may be.
Cultural exchange
In 1972 when the newly opened gallery wanted to show its best art to the world, the main gallery was dominated by art from the United States. All eyes were drawn to Morris Louis’ Ayin.
The integration of Australian art with art from the rest of the world is a reflection of historic reality. Last century was a time of mass travel and cultural exchange, when many national barriers were breached, especially in the arts.
Sydney Modern, combined with the reconfiguring of the 20th century exhibits in the older building, is a quiet repudiation of that cultural cringe which persists in seeing Australian culture as some kind of backwater.
Although most of Sydney Modern is filled with light, its most surprising space is buried in dark.
During the second world war, when the navy fleet needed to refuel at Garden Island, the Australian government secretly built a giant underground fuel storage tank, its true depth hidden below the water line.
Now a spiral staircase leads the visitor to the Tank, a magical space of oil-stained columns and echoing sounds. Right now it is empty, but within weeks the Argentine-Peruvian artist, Adrián Villar Rojas will begin to create a new work, The End of Imagination.
There are two meanings to the title. One suggests imagination is now dead. However, by being placed at the core of such an inspirational space it seems Rojas may be suggesting a culmination of imagination, a questioning of what imagination may be in these days of the Anthropocene.
The work is not yet made. As with the rest of the art that will fill this magical space, we will have to wait and see.
Joanna Mendelssohn began her professional career at the Art Gallery of NSW and has been a reader for some of its publications. She has in the past received funding from the Australian Research Council.
Crossbenchers have issued a list of demands on the anti-corruption commission and say they “won’t be rushed” to a vote, ahead of the much-anticipated legislation being introduced into parliament this week.
The government aims to have the commission – one of its signature election policies – approved by parliament by the end of the year. There will be a brief parliamentary inquiry.
It will go to caucus on Tuesday and be introduced by the Attorney-General Mark Dreyfus on Wednesday. Anthony Albanese aims to arrive back from the funeral of the former Japanese prime minister Shinzo Abe in time to be present for the introduction.
While Labor has the numbers in the lower house, it would need one additional vote beyond the Greens if the opposition opposed the legislation in the Senate.
What position the Coalition will adopt is not yet known. Opposition leader Peter Dutton last week reiterated his support for an anti-corruption commission and said the opposition would continue discussions with the government, while also warning about the risks of “show trials” and false allegations damaging people.
Opposition finance spokeswoman Jane Hume said on Sunday there were unanswered questions about the government’s model. “If you get an ICAC wrong it will actually deter good people from entering public life. That would be a disaster,” she told the ABC.
In their statement the 15 crossbenchers from both houses urge a range of features to ensure the body has sharp enough teeth and that there are adequate protections for it.
They want
…a whistleblower protection commissioner to safeguard those calling out corruption
.. statutory oversight mechanisms to protect the commission’s independence
… budgetary protection, independence and funding transparency
.. the ability for “own-motion” investigations into so-called “grey corruption” (where the commission would be able to undertake inquiries into dubious Commonwealth processes such as discretionary grants programs)
…funding for pro-integrity measures including prevention and education
.. jurisdiction over third parties who seek to improperly influence government decisions and funding.
The signatories from the House of Representatives include Greens leader Adam Bandt, the six newly-elected teals, Bob Katter, Dai Le, Zali Steggall, Rebekha Sharkie, Andrew Wilkie and Helen Haines.
Haines, the member for Indi, has been a leading figure in the push for an integrity commission, bringing forward a private member’s bill during the last term.
Two senators signed the statement – Greens David Shoebridge and independent David Pocock.
While the bill will not contain the whistleblower protections, Dreyfus is expected to give an assurance in his speech that this will be addressed in separate legislation.
The crossbenchers said: “We have worked constructively with the government in consultations on the bill and intend to continue in that manner.
“We won’t delay the process for political games or point scoring, but won’t be rushed to vote in favour of a bill that doesn’t make the grade.
“We want to ensure the commission is properly set up to do the job it needs to do, and is given the supporting infrastructure necessary to ensure its success in the future.”
They said the points in their list had already been raised with the government. “They are not minor issues, but based on the lessons from integrity bodies in other states and territories, and from experts who have worked on these issues for many years.”
Michelle Grattan does not work for, consult, own shares in or receive funding from any company or organisation that would benefit from this article, and has disclosed no relevant affiliations beyond their academic appointment.
The ABC recently reported on the “infiltration” of Liberal Party branches in regional Victoria by Pentecostals, on a mission to influence Liberal Party positions on so-called morality issues such as abortion and LGBTIQ+ rights.
This isn’t a new development. In the middle of 2021, the Liberal Party memberships of hundreds of people linked to Pentecostal churches in South Australia created significant controversy and led to an internal investigation.
And in 2018, concerns were being raised about the growing influence of the Christian Right in the WA Liberal Party.
Perhaps Scott Morrison’s federal party leadership and the election win of 2019 has served to embolden like-minded Christians to become more involved in political parties.
There’s no doubt Morrison’s religion and his government’s disastrous attempt to legislate a religious discrimination bill have stirred up renewed public debate about the relationship between religion and politics.
Much of this debate has centred on the interests and influence of conservative and fringe Christian organisations and lobby groups.
The unnecessarily divisive debate on religious freedom has taken a harsh toll on LGBTIQ+ people, trans people especially.
It has also drawn attention away from the religious freedom abuses perpetrated against First Nations peoples and the prejudice and discrimination being experienced by people of other religious groups, including Muslims, Jews, Hindus and Sikhs.
Debates about the appropriate place and influence of religion in this secular state have flared up at various times over the last 200 years or so. The Constitutional debates ahead of federation in 1901 included the question of whether the (Christian) God should rate a mention in the new Constitution and, if so, where.
In 1973, then Labor Attorney-General Lionel Murphy attempted to legislate a human rights bill but faced strong opposition from almost all churches arguing against the inclusion of protection for religious freedom.
his speech at an Australian Christian Churches conference on the Gold Coast in April 2021 where he called misuse of social media the work of the devil and told the audience that he practised the “laying on of hands” while he was meeting people in his role as prime minister.
So, after three years of focused attention, did the Morrison government, or Morrison himself, change the relationship between religion and politics in our increasingly non-religious and religiously diverse nation?
While it’s too early to be sure, there will be clues. Here are some things to watch out for.
No religious discrimination bill
If the Albanese government doesn’t move to legislate a religious discrimination act, it will be a sign the Morrison government has made it diabolically difficult to address religious freedom in a way that doesn’t pit people against each other and undermine the rights of the LGBTIQ+ people. Legislating a human rights act or charter would be more fruitful.
A minimalist bill
If, on the other hand, the government tables a more modest religious discrimination bill then, regardless of any ongoing political mobilisation of the Christian Right, we may settle back into the pattern of occasional confusion about where to draw the line in our not-quite entirely secular nation.
It’s worth noting here that, as University of Sydney academic David Smith has written for The Conversation, the Christian Right is not good at winning policy battles, even when it wins elections.
The culture warriors
The Morrison government set in public consciousness the idea that religious freedom and equality rights are irreconcilable. This gave the culture warriors (religious and irreligious) both permission and an excuse to continue their ongoing persecution of transgender people.
If the Morrison government’s approach to religious freedom has stuck, “religious freedom” will continue to provide the culture warriors with cover for any number of pet causes.
How we talk about religion
The “statements of belief” clause in the failed religious discrimination bill represented a white, western, Protestant understanding of religion as individual and autonomous consent to a series of “beliefs”, especially about “moral” issues.
The alternative is to reframe religion in a way that reflects the diversity, richness and complexity of religion in the lives of people and communities.
If we fail to do this, then the Morrison government will have indeed made a lasting, and damaging, impact on the relationship between religion and politics in Australia.
Elenie Poulos is an ordained minister in the Uniting Church in Australia. She has worked on an Australian Research Council funded project to investigate Religious Freedom, LGBT+ Employees, and the Right to Discriminate (DP200100395).
University of Canberra Professorial Fellow Michelle Grattan and University of Canberra Vice-Chancellor Paddy Nixon discuss the week in politics.
While the funeral of Queen Elizabeth II and a memorial service in Canberra dominated the news this week, Vladamir Putin’s partial military mobilisation and his latest threat to use nuclear weapons escalated the Ukraine conflict and added to the insecurity in Europe.
Anthony Albanese will be away again next week at another funeral, this time that of Japan’s former prime minister Shinzo Abe, who was killed by an assassin. At home, parliament will be meeting, with the legislation for a national integrity body the most anticipated item on its agenda.
Michelle Grattan does not work for, consult, own shares in or receive funding from any company or organisation that would benefit from this article, and has disclosed no relevant affiliations beyond their academic appointment.
Alleged corruption involving Governor Lukas Enembe has dominated both Papuan and Indonesian media outlets and social media groups over the past two weeks.
The Indonesian media is rife with allegations and accusations against the governor who is suspected of spending of billions in rupiahs.
These media storms are sparked by allegations against him of receiving gratification worth Rp 1 million (NZ$112,000).
Governor Enembe was named a suspect by the Indonesian Corruption Eradication Commission (KPK) last week and summoned on Monday, September 19, by Police Mobile Brigade Corps (BRIMOB) headquarters in Kota Raja, Jayapura Papua.
Due to illness, the governor was unable to attend the summons. Only his lawyers and Papuan protesters attended, who then condemned KPK of being unprofessional in handling the case.
Papuans (governor’s supporters) take this case as another attempt by the state to “criminalise” their leader motivated by other political agendas, while Jakarta continues to push the narrative of the case, being a serious crime with legal implications.
According to Dr Roy Rening, a member of governor’s legal team, the governor’s designation as a suspect was prematurely determined. This is due to the lack of two crucial pieces of evidence necessary to establish the legitimacy of the charge within the existing framework of Indonesia’s legal procedural code.
Unaware he was a suspect Dr Rening also argued that the KPK’s behaviour in executing their warrant turned on a dime. The Governor was unaware that he was a suspect, and he was already under investigation by the KPK when he was summoned to appear.
In his letter, Dr Rening explained that Governor Enembe had never been invited to clarify and/or appear as a witness pursuant to the Criminal Procedure Code. The KPK instead declared the Governor a suspect based on the warrant letters, which had also changed dates and intent.
The manner in which the KPK and the state are handling the case involving Papua’s number one man in Indonesia’s settler colonial province has sparked a mass demonstration with the slogan “Save Lukas Enembe” from criminalisation.
The Governor’s case has generated a flurry of news stories with all kinds of new allegations by the nation’s most prominent figures.
Mohammad Mahfud Mahmodin, commonly known as Mahfud MD, Coordinating Minister for Political, Legal, and Security Affairs, accused Governor Enembe of corruption, amounting to billions of rupiahs during a public media conference held at the Coordinating Ministry Office, Jakarta, on Monday.
His allegations have sparked a backlash from the Governor and his lawyers, as well as from the Papuan people.
Governor’s lawyer Dr Rening said Mahfud MD should not be included in the technical part of the investigation, particularly when in relation to those financial figures. Dr Rening said any confidential information was already protected by the constitution and it was inappropriate for Mahfud MD to make such announcement.
He asked which case the minister Mahfud MD was referring to in his allegation because the actual case involving the KPK investigation only related to a gratuity of 1 billion Rp.
‘Massive campaign to undermine Governor Enembe’ Dr Rening asked how Mahfud MD could explain the other charges that were not included in the dispute of this case, adding that “we are still of the opinion, as I have mentioned in my articles, that ‘This is what we call a systematic, structured, and massive campaign to undermine the honour and reputation of Papuan leader Lukas Enembe’.
“Governor Enembe himself has also rejected the allegations involving the spending of billions of rupiah, accusing Mahfud MD of making false allegations against him.”
Reverend Dr Socratez Sofyan Yoman … the KPK has lost its integrity and legitimacy as an independent institution. Image: Tabloid Jubi
Reverend Dr Sofyan Yoman, president of the Papuan Baptist Church Alliance, stated on the same day as Mahfud MD’s press conference that it would be remembered as the day the KPK lost its integrity and legitimacy as an independent institution for the protection of the nation’s morale.
He said it would be recorded that 19 September 2022 was the day of the “death” of the Corruption Eradication Commission (KPK).
“Therefore, I express my condolences for the passing of the KPK. So, the history of the KPK is over,” reported Tabloid Jubi.
At the press conference, Mahfud MD was accompanied by Alexander Marwata (KPK), Ivan Yustiavandana, director of the Financial Transaction Reports and Analysis Centre (PPATK), and other representatives from the State Intelligence Agency (BIN), National Police, and the Armed Forces were also present.
By engaging in this collaboration, the KPK lacked an independent voice, and its integrity and legitimacy were shattered by state intervention.
Jakarta’s ‘state of panic’ Reverend Yoman’s “condolence” statement about the KPK was the result of the state intervention in suffocating KPK’s ability to stand independently.
Reverend Yoman added: “Jakarta is in a state of panic right now because gross human rights violations in the land of Papua are already being recognised by international institutions such as the UN, European Union, Pacific Island forums (PIF) and Africa Caribbean Pacific nation states (ACP).
“Governor Lukas Enembe’s case is not the real issue,” he said.
In reality, this was “merely a façade designed by Jakarta” to distract the public from paying attention to the real issue, which was the state’s crimes against West Papuans, reported Papua.tribunnews.com.
Natalius Pigai, a prominent Indigenous Papuan figure in Indonesia and former human rights commissioner, wrote on Twitter: “There is no single law that authorises Mahfud MD to lead a state auxiliary body. The coordinating minister can only lead police and prosecutors as part of the cabinet, he cannot act as Head of State. It was a silly intervention that weakened the KPK, and strengthened accusations of political motivations toward Lukas Enembe.”
Despite this condemnation and rejection from the governor’s camp, Governor Lukas Enembe remains a suspect waiting to be investigated by the KPK. The KPK’s Deputy Chair, Alexander Marwata said KPK examined a number of witnesses before establishing Enembe as a suspect.
“Several witnesses have clarified, and documents have been obtained that give us reason to believe there is enough evidence to establish a suspect” reported Kompas.com.
Papuans protect residence Meanwhile, the Governor’s private residence in Papua is being protected by Papuans, triggering more security personnel being deployed in a region that is already one of the most highly militarised in the Asia Pacific.
Papua’s people have been shaken by the news of this corruption allegation against their Governor.
According to Paskalis Kosay, Papua is worried about the loss of Lukas Enembe, a unifying figure among the Papuan people.
He added: “Papua’s political situation has become increasingly unhealthy since Mahfud MD’s statement. The internet — particularly social media platforms like Twitter, Facebook, and WhatsApp — are full of both positive and false information. Also, its contents may be used to slander, humiliate, or discredit the good name, honour, or dignity of a certain person, figure, or group.
“We should be vigilant when paying attention to the different information spread on social media and other mass lines. It is imperative that Papuans filter all news content very carefully. You must then respond wisely, intelligently, and proportionally so as not to be accused of being a member of a group of disseminators of misleading information”.
Meanwhile, as Governor Enembe awaits the outcome of the case against him, he has already missed his medical appointments in Singapore. This could unleash unprecedented protests throughout West Papua if or when his health fails him due to him being blocked by Jakarta from leaving the country.
A failure to protect the Governor while he is caught up in the limbo of the Indonesian legal system, would have catastrophic consequences for Jakarta. Papuans have already warned Jakarta “don’t try [to detain him] during the protests.”
As of today, the Governor’s and his family’s bank accounts remain blocked, a decision made by the state without their knowledge a few months ago, that has led to the current crisis.
Who is Governor Lukas Enembe? Governor Lukas Enembe is a symbol of pride and an icon for the sons and daughters of the Koteka people of the highlands of Papua. He is often referred to as “Anak Koteka” (son of Koteka).
Governor Lukas Enembe … a bold style of leadership and deeds indicate a deep longing in his heart for justice for Papuans. Image: West Papua Today
Koteka as a horim, or penis gourd or sheath, traditionally worn by males in Papua’s Highlands, where Governor Enembe comes from.
When he is called “Anak Koteka” it means that he is a son of cultural groups that wear this traditional attire. Knowing this is critical to understanding how and why this man became such a central figure in West Papua.
Before he became Governor of Papua in 2013, the Koteka people of the Highlands faced many kinds of racial prejudice and discrimination. Wearing the koteka was seen as a symbol of primitiveness, backwardness, and stupidity.
Lukas Enembe turned the symbol of the koteka into hope, pride, courage, leadership, and power when he became governor for two consecutive terms. He broke barriers no one else had crossed, exposed cultural taboos, and used his ancestral wisdom to unite people from every walk of life.
As the Highland’s first Papua Governor (2013 -2023), he upended stereotypes associated with his cultural heritage.
Governor Enembe was born in Timo Ramo Village, Kembu District, Tolikara Regency of Papua’s Highlands on 27 July 1977. His biography A Statesman from Honai, by Sendius Wonda, states that Lukas grew up in a simple family.
He attended elementary school in Mamit (1974-1980) and junior high school in Sentani (1980-1983). He then attended senior high school in Sentani from 1983-86.
Sacred building for sharing wisdom In Highlands Papua, honai is a traditional hut, but it is more than just a hut; it is a sacred building where ancient teachings and wisdoms are discussed and preserved.
Honai shaped him into the person he is today. In the 1980s, he was one of only a handful of Papuan Highlands village children to study in urbanised coastal regions.
His determination to continue his studies was already noted by his peers. In 1986, he took the selection examination for admission to Indonesia’s State Universities and was accepted as a student at Sam Ratulangi University (Unsrat) Manado Indonesia.
As a fourth-semester student at the FKIP Campus, Enembe majored in political science at the Faculty of Social and Political Sciences in Manado. After completing his studies in Manado in 1995, Lukas returned to Papua.
As he waited for acceptance of his Civil Service Candidates (CPNS) he lived in Doyo Sabron, Jayapura Regency with his wife, Yulce Wenda, and his family. The following year, he was accepted as a civil servant (PNS).
He aspired to become a lecturer at Cenderawasih University, Jayapura, where he earned 22 citations for local government lectures. The promise of being a lecturer ran aground during the pre-service announcement, and Enembe was assigned a position as a civil servant at the Merauke Regency Socio-Political Affair’s Office instead.
During 1998-2001, Enembe was sent by a missionary agency to continue his studies for two years at the Cornerstone Christian college in Australia (Dubbo, NSW). Upon returning from Australia in 2001, he participated in the Puncak Jaya regional election, but his dream of becoming a regent was dashed.
‘Papua rising’ From 2001-2006, he served as Deputy Regent of Puncak Jaya alongside Elieser Renmaur. In 2006, Enembe was elected chair of the DPD of the Papua Province Democratic Party. In that year he also attempted to run for Governor of Papua by collaborating with a Muslim couple, Ahmad Arobi Aituarauw.
He lost the vote, however, and Bas Suebu-Alex Hasegem won. Last but not least, he participated in the 2007 Puncak Jaya regional election and was elected Regent of Puncak Jaya along with Henock Ibo.
In 2013, Enembe and Klemen Tinal ran as candidates for Governor of Papua in the 2013 Papuan Gubernatorial Election.
The General Elections Commission (KPU) appointed Lukas Enembe and Klemen Tinal to lead Papua between 2013 and 2018. In 2018, he was re-elected along with Klemen Tinal to serve as Governor of Papua for the period 2018-2023.
“Papua rising, independent, and prosperous” was Lukas’s vision for leading Papua through the landslide victory.
As Governor he gave 80 percent of the special autonomy funds to regional and city areas, and 20 percent to the provinces. In his view, 80 percent of the special autonomy funds are managed by districts or cities which is where most people in Papua live.
Papua has undergone a lot of development during Enembe’s governorship, including the construction of a world-class sports stadium that has been named after him, as well as other major projects like the iconic Youtefa Bridge in Jayapura city.
Papua has undergone a lot of development during Enembe’s governorship, including the construction of a world-class sports stadium that has been named after him, as well as other major projects like the iconic Youtefa Bridge in Jayapura city. Image: APR
Papuans ‘need to live’ Many Papuans opposing Jakarta’s activities in West Papua consider him to be a father figure. When asked about the conditions his people face on national television, Governor Enembe responded by saying “Papuans do not need development, they need to live.”
Such bold statements, along with others he made directly challenge Indonesia’s mainstream narrative, since Jakarta and Indonesians at large regard “development” as a panacea for West Papua’s problem.
Jakarta is also suspicious about the hundreds of Papuan students sent abroad under the scholarship scheme he designed using Special Autonomy Funds.
His boldness, style of leadership and deeds indicate that there is a deep longing in his heart for justice and for better treatment of his fellow humans. His accomplishments distinguish him as a pioneer, a dreamer, a fighter, a survivor, and a practical man with deep compassion for others.
It is this spirit that keeps him alive and strong despite the physical and psychological intimidation, threats, as well as clinical sickness he has endured for years.
The rest of his term (2022-2023) is one of the most critical times for him. After more than 20 years as Indonesia’s top public servant, the strong man of the people is facing his greatest challenge as he enters his final year in his career.
How that final chapter of his career ends will be determined by the outcome of this corruption allegations case, which could have significant consequences for Papua and Indonesia as well as for Governor Enembe.
Jakarta must think carefully in how they handle the governor, son of Koteka.
Yamin Kogoya is a West Papuan academic who has a Master of Applied Anthropology and Participatory Development from the Australian National University and who contributes to Asia Pacific Report. From the Lani tribe in the Papuan Highlands, he is currently living in Brisbane, Queensland, Australia.
Papua New Guinea police have arrested five men in Goroka over their alleged involvement in the killing of PNG Ports managing director Fego Kiniafa.
Provincial Police Commander Chief Superintendent Michael Welly said the men were in police custody and were now being questioned over the slaying of Kiniafa on the morning of September 17 — last Saturday — near Nagamiufa village outside Goroka town.
Kiniafa and his driver were reportedly slashed with machetes after the CEO shot a Nagamiufa villager.
Welly said investigations were continuing into the killing which sparked a tribal fight.
In the early hours of last Saturday between 1am and 4am, it was alleged that Kiniafa, who had turned 43 on September 16 — PNG Independence Day — was with a few men near Nagamiufa village when a confrontation occurred.
Kiniafa, from Korofeigu village in Lower Bena, is alleged to have discharged a weapon.
The bullet hit another man.
Several tribesmen incited The shooting incited several tribesmen of the injured man to attack Kiniafa, slashing him several times before leaving him.
Details about what happened next has not been mentioned by police. However, it is believed Kiniafa was rushed to Goroka General Hospital where he was pronounced dead on arrival.
Two days later on Monday, a 4am dawn raid was conducted at Nagamiufa village by men allegedly from Korofeigu village, Lower Bena.
The raid on Nagamiufa caused about 400 plus women, girls and the elderly to seek refuge within the gates of the Bihute Correctional Services prison.
Goroka Airport also shut its gates, causing several 100 passengers made up of tourists and locals to be stranded inside the terminal.
Throughout Goroka town, businesses closed their doors, the hospital tightened its security, and schools were shut for the day as police tried to calm the situation.
Assistant Commissioner of Police (Northern Command) Peter Guinness has confirmed with the PNG Post-Courier that two mobile squads from Mt Hagen, Western Highlands and a mobile squad from Lae, Morobe province, had been deployed in Goroka, Eastern Highlands province.
Since Monday the situation has returned to some sort of normalcy with police continuing to keep watch.
Investigations were ongoing.
Miriam Zarriga is a PNG Post-Courier reporter. Republished with permission.
The Taupulega, or council, on the Tokelau atoll of Nukunonu, has lifted a house arrest order on a family which had refused to get vaccinated against covid-19.
The family was placed under tunoa in August 2021.
A council meeting on Wednesday told family member Mahelino Patelesio that the tunoa was being lifted. However, the family would be updated on restrictions that might apply when a cargo ship drops off supplies.
At the meeting, Patelesio sought forgiveness from the community for any hurt arising from the family’s refusal to be vaccinated and the resulting social media dispute.
He also said he felt sorry about what he claimed was a lack of information that the Taupulega and atolls had about the Pfizer vaccine and felt worse about the children in the community who had had to get the vaccine, again citing claims of lack of information.
RNZ Pacific’s correspondent on Nukunonu said members of the public and Taupulega expressed sadness and disappointment at the meeting over how the family handled this situation on such a public platform — social media — where the depth of the culture was not taken into consideration and was instead damaged.
The general manager for the office of the council of Nukunonu, Asi Pasilio, explained to RNZ Pacific in July why the council of 36 heads of extended families who serve the atoll’s community had decided to impose tunoa.
Decision of local council “This is a village rule, this is the decision of the local council which runs the island and the community. We have the laws of Tokelau but we also have the local council which has the authority over their village,” Pasilio said.
Nukunonu Council general manager Asi Pasilio … “This is a village rule.” Image: RNZ Pacific
She said there were no jails in Tokelau, but when there was a serious offence the council could just ask people to stay at home.
Tunoa took the place of jail.
While under tunoa, family members provided shopping for them.
The New Zealand dependency with a population of about 1500 has had no cases of covid-19 since the global pandemic began in early 2020, according to the World Health Organisation.
New Zealand’s Ministry of Foreign Affairs and Trade (MFAT) said in July the former Administrator, Ross Ardern, had no say in the implementation of tunoa, and that mandatory vaccination was a decision taken by Tokelau’s village leaders.
At the time about 99 percent of Tokelau’s eligible population aged 12 and over were fully vaccinated.
Tokelau is a New Zealand dependency.
This article is republished under a community partnership agreement with RNZ.
Just the other day a robot guard came along a corridor in a special digital prison, consulted his flatscreen embedded on its wrist and then pressed his thumb on a door, which sprang open.
For the fourth time, I was being released from Facebook prison having served a term of imprisonment imposed upon me by Great Algorithm Machine which we lags shorten to GAM.
Self-sustaining and completely devoid of any human intervention, GAM has deemed me to be a serial hate speech offender. I am absolutely not, but my protests were not only pointless, there was no one listening or reading them.
Again, with no human hand involved at any point, I was hauled off to solitary inside the Mark Zuckerberg Institution for Global Speech Control.
Now, living in Aotearoa and having our Prime Minister Jacinda Ardern create the Paris Call, a powerful new weapon to end online hate speech, it is my patriotic duty to support it.
But lately I have become collateral damage to her Paris Call, and a nagging thought is growing that there may be many other casualties too. Stopping the nutters, the terrorists, the bad guys might additionally include GAM wiping out any one expressing any kind of opinion.
Especially opinions that a human reader — rather than a machine — would immediately recognise as arguments opposed to opinions advanced by bad guys.
Silence save the banal Algorithms will silence all, except the banal, the bland, the boring and the pointless.
As GAM will run all my words through its system, I am going to avoid using the commonly accepted abbreviation for the National Socialist German Workers Party. Nor will I mention its leader; that’s a fast ticket back to a Menlo Park prison.
After some trepidation, I present a summary of my rap sheet:
October 11, 2021: I made a small posting based on a clipping from New Zealand Paper’s Past, a significant historical online collection of the nation’s newspapers. I posted a little story from the Bay of Plenty Times in 1941 which reported that people in Fiji, Tonga and Samoa were raising money to buy Spitfires in order to defeat the previously mentioned German Workers Party and its leader. I was prevented from any posting or commenting for three weeks.
February 18, 2022: As an anti-covid “freedom convoy” rattled around the country, I posted a meme showing the Workers Party leader in front of the Eiffel Tower, saying he was on a freedom convoy. Locked up again.
May 26, 2022: I posted a link to US CBS News on some new arms non-control measure and commented: “The continued stupidity of (Redacted, insert nationality of a people between Canada and Mexico) bewilders the world.” This got me a big “Hate Speech” stamp, a ban and a declaration that my future posts would be lower in people’s news feeds.
September 13, 2022: I asked why accused woman beater Meli Banimarama and convicted killer Francis Kean were using the “ratu” title. Banned again.
No human review It was immediately apparent from the formatted notice issue to me, that while GAM had processed the thing, no human in Facebook had. Generously they tell the victim that there is a review system and to fill out a submission.
Dutifully, this gullible fellow did, pressed send and got an instant message back from GAM which said, in effect, that due to covid there were no available humans to read my submission. So, the sentence, imposed entirely by machine, stands every time.
It doesn’t matter what you say; no one is listening.
Facebook’s GAM is lying at this point: Covid has nothing to do with the removal of their humans. They are deliberately sacking them, due to Wall Street demands for more profit.
At one stage I discovered email addresses for assorted Facebook functionaries in Australia and New Zealand. That did no good. They ignored me, if they even existed.
Despite all this, I have been something of a Facebook fan. With Sue Ahearn, I co-manage The Pacific Newsroom with its 60,000 plus followers. The fact that I was in the digital slammer meant that group did not get serviced in the way they normally would.
Facebook plainly does not care.
My worry now is what is all this doing to free speech. At first blush, yes it’s a good idea that something like Mein Kampf cannot be trotted out on Facebook. But wouldn’t it be a good idea for some one or ten to read it and warn us all of what is in it?
Digital trip wires Currently GAM is looking you up, digitally speaking if certain trip wires are touched in the algorithm.
Paris Call’s GAM model has no space, or ability, to deal with satire, cynicism or sarcasm. Many would say that is, of course, a good thing. Ban them. But they have long been part of human discourse, indeed vital.
And it will silence Paper’s Past! A national treasure now defined by GAM as a gathering of hate speech.
What else do we have to give up to keep evil from exploiting public conversation?
How will we learn the new rules, other than with a spell in the digital penitentiary? Perhaps there will soon be an app, in which The Machine checks each sentence, prior to use, for social acceptability.
Is social media creating a world in which speech can only be made, after The Machine has deemed it acceptable?
Michael Field is an independent journalist and author, and co-manager of The Pacific Newsroom. This article is republished with his permission.
A new $100 million apartment complex is coming to Manukau — Auckland’s heart of Pacific communities.
But you’ll have to be aged at least 55 to get in.
Kāinga Ora is expected to start construction of the 123 apartments in Osterley Way in March. The 16-storey tower will include 94 one-bedroom and 29 two-bedroom apartments.
The government said it was necessary to target targeting specific age groups to match an increasing demand from “older customers”.
“Kāinga Ora recognises our older customers have specific housing needs, which we are addressing through senior housing developments such as the proposed project in Manukau,” regional director for Counties Manukau Angela Pearce said.
Pearce said one in five of the agency’s homes in Counties-Manukau had someone over 65 living in it, while 670 of its homes in the area were occupied by sole tenants in the same age group.
“With an aging population, Kāinga Ora recognises the importance of dedicated senior housing where our older tenants can live well, feel safe and secure, both in their homes and the community.”
Two years on state house list Maureen O’Meara, 75, spent two years on the state house waiting list and was renting a two-bedroom unit in Pakuranga for $420 a week until earlier this year.
“I had $17 left a week after paying the rent,” O’Meara said. “Being on a pension and paying market rent meant I didn’t have a lot of money left to live on.”
O’Meara managed to find somewhere more affordable in May after she was put in touch with Haumaru Housing, a joint venture between Auckland Council and the Selwyn Foundation.
But O’Meara said the Manukau development reflects an increasing number of people reaching retirement without a home.
“And I think there’s going to be a need for more places like it,” she said.
Age Concern Auckland chief executive Kevin Lamb said it’s important the development was close to public transport and community facilities.
“We think it’s high time older people had accommodation that is new and more appropriate for their needs.”
Big part of pension on housing Recently-released research by Te Ara Ahunga Ora Retirement Commission showed superannuitants still paying rent were more likely to be spending 40 percent or more of their pension on housing.
While long-term trends suggest more older New Zealanders are likely to still be renting in their retirement.
Te Ara Ahunga Ora director of policy Dr Suzy Morrissey said with declining home ownership rates there was a growing need for public housing and accommodation for those aged 55 and over.
“When NZ Super was introduced, it was with the underlying assumption that those accessing it would be mortgage-free homeowners,” she said.
“Today, the reality is very different. There are declining home ownership rates, more people needing to continue working longer because they still have mortgages to pay, are paying rent, or haven’t been able to save enough to retire.”
Auckland is currently in the middle of the local body elections with a Pacific candidate, Fa’anānā Efeso Collins, one of the two top contenders for mayor of the super city.
Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Edwina Luck, Senior Lecturer QUT Business School, Advertising, Marketing and Public Relations, Queensland University of Technology
Optus fears data on up to 9.8 million of its customers has been accessed in a sophisticated cyberattack – including, for some customers, passport and drivers licence details, as well as phone numbers, dates of birth and email addresses.
It made the announcement through the media, in the middle of Thursday’s national day of mourning public holiday, and during the four-day long weekend in Melbourne in the lead-up to the AFL grand final.
At first, it didn’t text or email its customers. Instead, it issued a press release in the belief this was
the quickest and most effective way to alert as many current and former customers as possible, so they could be vigilant and monitor for any suspicious activity.
Trust in the media is at an all-time low. Communications authority Edelman reports that globally, only 50% of people trust the media, down from 62% a decade ago. Far more people (61%) trust businesses.
Tweets rather than texts
It has been conventional wisdom that brands should take an integrated approach to marketing communications. Many channels are better than one, increasingly so as audiences for traditional channels continue to fragment.
An integrated marketing approach need not mean communicating through every available channel, but it should mean strategically selecting channels that are trusted and consumed by the brand’s customers.
One of the best channels Optus has is its own phone network, and it is experienced in using it to contact its customers.
Customers are likely to expect this where Optus has something important to say, and they are likely to trust a direct message from Optus more than one filtered through the media.
They are even likely to spread it via word of mouth through friends who also use Optus, giving the company a continuing role in shaping the message.
Instead, Optus backed up its press release with tweets.
Optus has around 5.8 million active users, around 21% of the Australian population. They are a cross-section of the population, having little in common other than the fact they use Optus for communications.
Some of Optus’ customers, especially those in Gen Z, might not use traditional news media. They wouldn’t have received the message through that channel.
Former customers dating back to 2017 are also likely to be affected by the breach, taking the total affected to around 9.8 million, about one third of the population.
Twitter is used by about only about 18% of the population, and the overlap with Optus customers might not be large.
What can brands learn from Optus?
As marketing and branding experts, we’ve distilled three lessons, each well known before the data breach.
When you have news affecting your customers, tell them before anyone else, in a personalised, one-to-one approach.
Use channels that are trusted and consumed by your customers.
Encourage word of mouth through your relationships with your brand community and loyal customers.
Nicholas used to work for Edelman.
Edwina Luck 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.
University of Canberra Professorial Fellow Michelle Grattan and University of Canberra Vice-Chancellor Paddy Nixon discuss the week in politics.
While the funeral of Queen Elizabeth II and a memorial service in Canberra dominated the news this week, Vladamir Putin’s partial military mobilisation and his latest threat to use nuclear weapons escalated the Ukraine conflict and added to the insecurity in Europe.
Anthony Albanese will be away again next week at another funeral, this time that of Japan’s former prime minister Shinzo Abe, who was killed by an assassin. At home, parliament will be meeting, with the legislation for a national integrity body the most anticipated item on its agenda.
Michelle Grattan does not work for, consult, own shares in or receive funding from any company or organisation that would benefit from this article, and has disclosed no relevant affiliations beyond their academic appointment.
Political Roundup: The Political mood of the business elite
Political scientist, Dr Bryce Edwards.
The New Zealand Herald has released the results of its annual “Mood of the Boardroom” survey today. Should we care what businesses think of politics, the economy and society? There’s a good argument that we should be more concerned with the “Mood of the Foodbank” or “Mood of the workers”.
Nonetheless, it’s always interesting to see what the Establishment thinks, and what issues businesses are likely to pressure government decision-makers on in future. Readers can also take into account the obvious business bias when interpreting what the results mean.
The business love affair with the PM and Government is over
The business community has generally been very happy with Jacinda Ardern’s Labour Government. In the first few years, and particularly during the Covid pandemic, business were extremely positive about the administration and especially the Prime Minister and Minister of Finance.
For example, back in 2020 the Mood of Business survey rated Ardern’s performance as nearly 4/5. And business generally rated Labour’s management of the economy and various crises very highly.
This year their judgement of Ardern and Labour has plummeted. Ardern’s own rating out of 5 has dropped to only 2.3. So, there’s been something of a decline: 3 in 2018, 2.9 in 2019, 3.91 in 2020, 3.03 in 2021, and now 2.3.
Ardern is ranked as only the 12th best performer in Cabinet. Grant Robertson is doing better – with the second highest score of 2.98/5. But that is well down from the 4.18/5 he got from business in 2020.
Business leaders regard Climate Change minister and Green co-leader James Shaw as the Government’s strongest performer, obviously on the basis of his climate change initiatives. He even gets kind words from one oil and gas CEO who describes him as a “rationalist”. Various CEOs point to the fact that he has lost the support of his own party, and is in fact “in the wrong party”.
What are business marking the Government well on?
Business isn’t entirely critical of the Labour Government, and the survey results do show that business leaders give them credit in some areas. For example, according to Fran O’Sullivan, “The PM’s scorecard shows CEOs accorded her a top rating of 3.56/5 for how she leveraged her personal brand for NZ business’s advantage internationally.” And she is also applauded by business for her handling of national security and international relations.
In terms of the Government as a whole, there are a number of things they are doing well according to business. Here’s the list of areas that business rated them highly on:
• Supporting Māori and Pasifika aspirations. 3.49/5
• Maintaining strong international relationships 3.32/5
• Progress on international trade agreements 3.16/5
• Maintaining an independent foreign policy 3.01/5
• Addressing climate change challenges 2.71/5
What is business marking the Government down on?
Interestingly, business leaders have some of the same concerns about Ardern’s Government as those on the political left – especially the failure to deliver on their promises.
For example Don Braid of Mainfreight, who has in the past been quite supportive of the Government, says: “There is a lack of direction and sure-footed policy to combat the failings around health, education, housing and crime. Stop the political posturing and interference. Focus on the core fundamentals and then get out of the way.”
When asked about Ardern’s delivery of “transformative change”, business execs rated her only 1.7/5. According to the Herald, a typical comment from business was: “Lots of talk on policy but little actual impact”.
Some of the areas that business rated the Government most poorly on are also areas that Labour supporters might also feel disappointed about. Here are some of Labour’s worst marks from business:
• Addressing the housing shortage 1.81/5
• Improving children’s wellbeing 1.80/5
• Addressing transport constraints 1.80/5
• Immigration 1.36/5
But the management of the economy was also an area of strong concern. For example, when asked if they have confidence in Grant Robertson’s management of the economy, 38 per cent said yes, and 46 per cent said no.
Here are some other areas of poor performance on the economy according to business:
• Maintaining fiscal responsibility 2.14/5;
• Addressing the infrastructure deficit 1.88/5
• Execution and delivery of policies 1.63/5
• Transforming the economy 1.56/5
• Policy planning and consultation with business 1.57/5
What does business think of the opposition parties?
In recent Mood of the Boardroom surveys, CEOs have been quite scathing about the performance of the National Party, its leaders and its finance spokespeople. For example, the Herald points out today that in the past, “Judith Collins came in for a pasting”.
CEOs are warming towards National leader Christopher Luxon (who they gave a rating of 3.24/5), but they seem particularly enamoured with National’s finance spokesperson Nicola Willis. For example, “73 per cent of respondents agreed Willis has presented herself as a credible future Minister of Finance”. Some business leaders also talked about Willis as a future leader and prime minister.
On the topic of the Government’s co-governance agenda, CEOs seem quite split. They were asked if co-governance is either “right for the times” or “anti-democratic”, with 37 per cent opting for the former, and 41 per cent for the latter.
Finally, here are the CEO scores for Government ministers:
1. James Shaw (Climate change) 3.27/5
2. Grant Robertson (Finance) 2.98/5
3. Chris Hipkins (Education) 2.95/5
4. Damien O’Connor (Trade) 2.92/5
5. Kiri Allan (Justice) 2.83/5
6. Ayesha Verrall (Covid-19 response) 2.49/5
7. Stuart Nash (Tourism) 2.43/5
8. Megan Woods Energy 2.42
9. Peeni Henare (Defence) 2/39/5
10. Andrew Little (Health) 2.37/5
11. Jan Tinetti (Internal Affairs) 2.34/5
12. Jacinda Ardern (PM, National Security & Intelligence) 2.30/5
13. Kieran McAnulty (Emergency Management) 2.25/5
14. Michael Wood (Immigration) 2.19/5
15. Carmel Sepuloni (Social Dev & Employment) 2.13/5
16. Aupito Sio (Pacific Peoples) 2.12/5
17. Meka Whaitiri (Customs) 2.03/5
18. David Parker (Environment) 2.00/5
19. Priyanca Radhaskrishnan (Ethnic communities) 2.00/5
20. David Clark (Commerce & Consumer Affairs) 1.96/5
21. Marama Davidson (Prevention family violence) 1.94/5
22. Nanaia Mahuta (Foreign Affairs) 1.93/5
23. Willie Jackson (Broadcasting) 1.89/5
24. Phil Twyford (Disarmament) 1.78/5
25. Kelvin Davis (Maori Crown relations) 1.66/5
26. Poto Williams Conservation 1.62/5
Further reading on the Herald’s Mood of the Boardroom
The New South Wales government is set to introduce new “no body, no parole” laws, which will deny parole for homicide offenders who refuse to provide information or assistance to locate their victim’s remains.
This follows Chris Dawson’s murder conviction of Lynette Dawson, whose remains have yet to be found.
Such laws offer prisoners an incentive to give up information about the location of their victims’ remains. Similar laws have already been introduced in Northern Territory, Queensland, South Australia, Victoria and Western Australia.
In general, “no body, no parole” laws mandate that parole authorities should deny parole unless they are satisfied about the level of cooperation provided by the prisoner to identify remains, including how early the information was provided.
These laws are designed to provide closure to friends and families of homicide victims, allowing them to bury their loved ones. However, there’s scant evidence they are effective. And they could prove disastrous for people in Australian prisons who have been wrongfully convicted.
Parole is the conditional early release of prisoners, allowing them to serve a part of their sentence in the community.
When given a prison sentence, a judge will determine how long an offender must remain in custody (a non-parole period) and at what point they can become eligible to serve the rest of their sentence in the community.
Parole recognises that aims of rehabilitation may be best served by providing opportunities for prisoners to transition back into the community. The courts decide whether a person is eligible for parole, but state parole authorities decide whether or not to release them when the time comes.
Evidence suggests offenders who complete some period of parole before the end of their sentence are less likely to re-offend.
While completing their sentence in the community, parolees also must comply with parole conditions. This can include reporting conditions and mandatory behavioural programs that reduce the risk of re-offending.
Tightening parole exacerbates the issue of overcrowded prisons
with offenders capable of being managed in the community being housed at the public expense in correctional facilities.
There is considerable concern in Australia over prisoners “maxing out” their custodial sentence, either by choosing not to apply for parole to avoid conditions upon release, or because of restrictions on parole eligibility such as “no body, no parole” laws.
The effectiveness of ‘no body’ laws
We recently looked into the effectiveness of Queensland’s “no body, no parole” laws, which were passed in 2017.
As our work with RMIT University’s Bridge of Hope Innocence Initiative often involves working with people serving terms of imprisonment while claiming their innocence, evaluating the effectiveness of such laws and their risk for the wrongfully convicted is of considerable interest.
Most Australian jurisdictions don’t publish their parole decisions. However Queensland does – specifically for “no body” law outcomes.
Our analysis showed that of the ten cases that came before the parole board during our collection period, six involved cooperation by the applicant but none resulted in remains being found.
The Queensland case of Graeme Evans, who was convicted of manslaughter over the death of his former partner Leeann Lapham in 2018, has been cited in the media as an example of “no body” laws working effectively.
However, Evans pleaded guilty to the offence and was not eligible for parole at the time when he helped investigators find Lapham’s remains.
This example is only related to “no body” laws because the detective in charge of the case has claimed he used the threat of those laws to convince Evans to cooperate.
We believe “no body” laws lack evidence to support their use and may offer false hope to victims’ families if remains cannot be found. They rely on many assumptions about how crimes occur, how offenders may cooperate, and effective policing investigations post-disclosure.
They may also prove disastrous for the wrongfully convicted.
What about the wrongfully convicted?
We have no idea how many people have been wrongfully convicted in Australia. An estimate based on research from the United States indicates up to 3% of all convictions may be wrongful. But the reality is we have no way of finding out.
A person can be found guilty of a crime they didn’t commit for a variety of reasons, including eyewitness misidentification, improper forensic evidence, coerced or otherwise false confessions, or police misconduct.
Wrongful convictions remain a persistent risk within our criminal justice system, even when high standards of procedural justice are upheld.
Wrongfully convicted prisoners face what is referred to as “the innocent prisoner’s dilemma” when they become eligible for parole. If they maintain their innocence and refuse to admit responsibility or express remorse, they may be denied parole. If they do accept responsibility for a crime they did not commit, they may limit options in the future of having their conviction overturned.
“No body” laws add a further complication for the wrongfully convicted. The factually innocent are clearly unable to provide information to authorities about the location of the victim as they did not commit the crime and would not know where the body is.
A well known example is Lindy Chamberlain-Creighton, who was wrongfully convicted in 1982 for murdering her daughter Azaria.
Chamberlain was demonised publicly for not admitting guilt and for not leading investigators to Azaria’s body. A 2012 inquest later found Azaria was killed by a dingo.
“No body” laws may at first appear to be acting in the public interest in ensuring families can bury their loved ones. But the lack of evidence of real outcomes and the very real risk it may disproportionately penalise the wrongfully convicted should give us pause before expanding this policy further.
Jarryd Bartle works for RMIT University’s Bridge of Hope Innocence Initiative which examines cases of wrongful conviction that may be subject to no body, no parole laws.
Greg Stratton works for RMIT University’s Bridge of Hope Innocence Initiative which examines cases of wrongful conviction that may be subject to no body, no parole laws.
Michele Ruyters works for RMIT University’s Bridge of Hope Innocence Initiative which examines cases of wrongful conviction that may be subject to no body, no parole laws.
Monique Moffa works for RMIT University’s Bridge of Hope Innocence Initiative which examines cases of wrongful conviction that may be subject to no body, no parole laws.
