What was the true nature of the ‘Matildas effect’? New research shows it was profound, but uneven

November 22, 2023

Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Jordan Bakhsh, Alfred Deakin Postdoctoral Research Fellow, Deakin University

No event in Australian history has captured the country’s imagination like the 2023 FIFA Women’s World Cup. From coast to coast, Australians tuned in to witness the Matilda’s historic tournament run, reaching the semi-finals for the first time in the team’s history.

But prior to the Matilda’s historic success, there was much concern throughout Australia. Australians were sceptical about the multi-city event model and what positive impacts they could expect. It didn’t help that just days before the tournament’s opening day, Victoria’s multi-city plan to host the 2026 Commonwealth Games was cancelled.

Our new research measured the impact of the 2023 FIFA Women’s World Cup on each Australian host city – Adelaide, Brisbane, Melbourne, Perth, and Sydney. Data collected from 2,000 Australians surveyed pre-event (June) and post-event (November) show the event increased Australians’ interest in women’s sport for all cities except Perth. In addition, each city showed greater support for hosting the event in the future, except Adelaide and Perth.

Australia’s view of the Women’s World Cup

Why were the event outcomes different for all Australian cities? We know that every mega sport event comes with positive and negative impacts for the host nation and its cities. We measured the perceived benefits and costs of hosting the event according to survey participants in terms of economic, environmental, social, and sport participation criteria.

It was surprising to see residents in each host city report post-event that the 2023 FIFA Women’s World Cup had resulted in greater benefits for their communities than they had anticipated. A majority of survey respondents also felt the tournament had incurred lower costs than expected.

These results stand in stark contrast to what is usually expected for an event of this scale, and bodes well for the potential of future multi-city events, such as the Brisbane 2032 Olympics.

Based on the graphs above, it would appear the event was a resounding success for all cities. However, looking beyond the surface of event perceptions, clear winners and losers are found.

World Cup winners and losers

Post-event, Brisbane, Melbourne, and Sydney indicated greater support for their respective city hosting the event, while Adelaide and Perth citizens showed a decrease in support. This was unexpected given Adelaide and Perth had the lowest hosting responsibilities of all cities, hosting five games each while Melbourne (6), Perth (8), and Sydney (11) hosted more games.

This could suggest Adelaide and Perth citizens felt excluded from the multi-city event model, which favoured more games in other cities. Adelaide and Perth were not initially part of Australia’s bid for the tournament, which was originally slated to be held just in the eastern three cities. They were added after the initial bid development with New Zealand.

Highlighting this divide between Australia’s host cities further are data on Australian’s women sports fandom. Australians in each city except Perth showed an increase in support for women’s sport because of the 2023 FIFA Women’s World Cup.

Women’s sport fandom results showed the biggest jump from pre-to-post event for all other Australian cities. This reveals the true Matildas effect, as we saw a significant increase in support for women’s sport that was not just centred on the team’s historic semi-final run or their ability to draw the largest broadcast audience in Australian history.

The future of global sporting events in Australia

Our research highlights the power that mega sport events have to captivate Australians and trigger social change, but it also reveals opportunities for improvement of the multi-city event model. With so many mega sport events planned in the coming decade in Australia, climaxing with the Brisbane 2032 Olympics, there are two important lessons here, particularly from the survey results coming out of Adelaide and Perth.

First, it is imperative to consider all cities in the multi-city operation, not just the “big ones”. One way this could have been done is by engaging all cities in the 25-day tournament countdown leading to the first match. This would build a sense of unity across the country and spotlight the uniqueness of each city, as opposed to focusing mostly on Sydney.

This will be of paramount importance in the lead-up to the Brisbane 2032 Olympics, which will include several big cities (Brisbane, Melbourne, and Sydney) and several smaller cities (Gold Coast, Sunshine Coast, Cairns, and Townsville). Unless a conscious effort is made to engage each city, no matter their size and location, we may see more fragmented results.

Second, the 2023 FIFA Women’s World Cup was a resounding success, giving Australia and New Zealand hope and scope to consider co-hosting more events in the future.

Building from this multi-city event model, the two countries might look to expand even further, perhaps bidding for a future FIFA Men’s World Cup or the Commonwealth Games.

I am currently conducting a larger project on the 2023 FIFA Women’s World Cup that engages both Football Australia and New Zealand Football.

– ref. What was the true nature of the ‘Matildas effect’? New research shows it was profound, but uneven – https://theconversation.com/what-was-the-true-nature-of-the-matildas-effect-new-research-shows-it-was-profound-but-uneven-217903

Forgiveness or punishment? The government’s proposed ‘safe harbour’ laws send mixed messages on cyber security

By The Conversation -

November 22, 2023

Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Greg Austin, Adjunct Professor, Australia-China Relations Institute, University of Technology Sydney

Should companies experiencing cyber attacks be forgiven if they cooperate with the government to stop such attacks? That’s the idea the federal government is considering with its possible “safe harbour” laws.

Last week, the defence minister, Richard Marles, floated the idea of introducing a legally binding exemption from punitive government litigation if a company self-reports to the Australian Signals Directorate (the national signals intelligence agency) and invites its help.

The aim would be to drive more effective collaboration between the private sector and the directorate in dealing with cyber attacks, resolving them faster or preventing them altogether.

But the plan risks undermining the government’s attempts to crack down on corporations that don’t do enough to keep their clients’ data safe.

Reluctance to work together

The government says it’s struggling to overcome resistance by many Australian companies facing a cyber attack to work with the directorate to help defeat intrusions.

Companies are afraid to suffer the inevitable reputation loss if news of the breach leaks out.

They also fear exposing themselves to government fines or customer litigation of the sort being pursued by victims of data breaches at Medibank and Optus.

On the government side, the Australian Signals Directorate has complained their efforts to help companies under attack are being hampered by lawyers concerned mostly with minimising the risk of the company being sued in the future.

This is in direct contrast to the practice of leading US tech companies who prefer lawyers to be the first people involved in the response.

A so-called ‘safe harbour’

The government’s safe harbour offer would involve legislation.

The safe harbour principle is an exemption that can be granted for actions that might otherwise break the law if there’s a larger public good at play.

This is used in other areas of regulation, such as bankruptcy law and tax law. It provides legal protections for administrators or accountants who have to take on risky business decisions in order to do their jobs.

Richard Marles claimed a safe harbour regime for self-reporting companies affected by a cyber attack would do two main things.

Firstly, he said, it would deliver the world-class capabilities of the Australian Signals Directorate to the affected company.

Secondly, Marles said it would help drive trust between the government and reticent private sector businesses.

The government has proposed that complying with the cyber safe harbour requirements would shield companies from further legal action by the government.

In its cyber security strategy, released today, the government committed to consultations with industry on a legislated measure to help build the sort of trust outlined in Marles’ discussion of safe harbour.

But we don’t have any other detail about how this version of safe harbour law would work.

And for most corporations, the government may be the least of their worries in cases of large-scale data breaches or breaches of sensitive intellectual property information.

They will be concerned about the reputational damage first and foremost.

For listed companies, this can lead to a sustained drop in share price and open a pathway to costly law suits from serious affected clients or business partners.

Safe harbour laws don’t do much to help with that.

Would laws like this work?

In cyber security, the concept of safe harbour is complicated and fraught with definitional and regulatory challenges.

Such laws for cyber security are used in several US states mainly for promoting stronger compliance with industry standards. This is done by promising companies a degree of protection from various types of litigation if they are certified by the government to be reasonably compliant with the standards.

An Australian study throws some doubt on the value of that process.

The research shows such standards are seen as a low bar, or even inappropriate in some situations.

Technology always moves more quickly than standards. For example, in May 2023 an intergovernmental working group found the security standards for 5G were “incomplete” and did not cover all security requirements. Australia has been using 5G technology since 2019.
The safe harbour laws may also be too weak to achieve what they set out to do.

A US study warns a safe harbour law for the US health sector “only offers some protection in certain circumstances”.

Forgiveness or punishment?

The new Australian proposal, coming from the defence department in 2023, and raised in Senate Estimates in 2022 by an opposition senator, appears to support the defence portfolio’s interest in better national security.

But there is a reasonable risk it will undermine the mission of the home affairs minister, Clare O’Neil.

She has staked much on the need to punish corporations who may have acted irresponsibly in allowing serious data breaches.

Corporations will remember her statement in September 2022 that fines of hundreds of millions of dollars for large privacy breaches might be more appropriate than the existing cap of $2.2 million.

By December, new legislation imposing penalties up to $50 million had come into force.

The moves were designed in part to dampen community outrage over the data breaches.

But the safe harbour idea might increase the consumer concerns O’Neil has been working to allay.

Not all cyber attacks involve a risk exposing of large amounts of personal data, so there would be instances where the safe harbour option would not affect a person’s rights to seek redress.

But by its very nature, the proposal will impact the rights of businesses and consumers to know if they have suffered damage or loss from a cyber attack.

The government has a moral obligation to inform victims of cyber crime.

At a time of escalating cyber uncertainties, increasing ransomware attacks, and stepped up Russian and Chinese cyber attacks, the safe harbour proposal will need careful consideration.

The government will want to avoid antagonising public sentiment by limiting the rights of consumers.

So a solution that promises protection only against government litigation, but not civil litigation, may not be worth the political balancing act.

Greg Austin is an Adjunct Professor in the Australia China Relations Institute at the University of Technology Sydney and co-founder of the Social Cyber Group. He consults for the International Institute for Strategic Studies.

– ref. Forgiveness or punishment? The government’s proposed ‘safe harbour’ laws send mixed messages on cyber security – https://theconversation.com/forgiveness-or-punishment-the-governments-proposed-safe-harbour-laws-send-mixed-messages-on-cyber-security-218025

Here’s what happens to your penis as you age

By The Conversation -

November 22, 2023

Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Rob McLachlan, Professor and clinician in fertility medicine, Hudson Institute

All parts of your body age and the penis is no exception.

Changes to how your penis looks or works can be signs of underlying health issues and can affect your quality of life. So understanding which changes are normal and when to seek help is important.

Here’s what you can expect to happen to your penis as you age, and when to be concerned.

Read more:
‘How do I clean my penis?’

Will my penis shrink?

There is no definitive evidence your penis length and girth will naturally change as you age, despite what you may read.

This is because there is no study that follows the same adults and their penis measurements over decades; existing studies only compare penis size between different adults of different ages.

There are also many different ways to measure penis size – including stretched, flaccid (floppy) and erect. This makes it difficult to compare studies.

However, for some people, conditions associated with ageing can appear to decrease penis length. These include:

obesity (which hides the base of the penis)
the effects of prostate surgery (temporarily)
Peyronie’s disease (where scarring in the fibrous layer of the penis causes it to bend abnormally).

Erect penis length may also decrease with age due to:

erectile dysfunction (the inability to achieve erections sufficient for sexual activity)
less penile elasticity, which reduces how much the penis expands.

Will I still have erections?

Erectile dysfunction affects 15% of men in their 50s to almost 90% of men over 80, according to an English study of more than 6,000 people. Existing health conditions increased the risk significantly, and the risk was more than doubled in those who rated their health as fair to poor.

Medications such as sildenafil (Viagra) and tadalafil (Cialis) can help. But they do not reverse the underlying blood vessel and nerve damage that cause erectile dysfunction. Eventually other treatments – such as injections or penile pumps – may be options.

Other changes that occur with age include decreased penis sensitivity, which might reduce arousal. Ejaculation is delayed and happens less often.

Semen volume and the force of ejaculation decrease with age. The time taken to “recover” from ejaculating and become sexually responsive again (known as the post-ejaculatory refractory time) also increases with age.

Reaching orgasm is “impossible” or “moderately difficult” for 33% of men in their 70s.

Will the shape of my penis change?

The shape of your penis is not usually expected to change with age. However, Peyronie’s disease (an abnormally bent or curved penis) becomes more common with age. This may be because of accumulation of damage from minor injuries over time.

This condition affects 6.5% of men over 70 and can cause short-term pain and long-term erectile dysfunction.

Older smiling man holding banana in each hand, one large, one small — No, your penis doesn’t automatically change shape as you age. But you might notice other changes.
Shutterstock

Will I pee more?

Lower urinary tract symptoms such as incontinence, a weak urine stream, problems with starting and stopping peeing, and nocturia (frequent night time urination) increase as we get older.

These symptoms are moderate to severe in almost 50% of men over 65, and in 70% of men over 80. This is likely due to higher rates of benign prostatic hyperplasia (enlarged prostate) as men age, which has various effects, including on urine flow.

Changes can take their toll …

Physical and functional changes in the penis can affect a man’s health and wellbeing.

Problems with erections or ejaculating can reduce someone’s quality of life if they still want to have sex. So open discussion with a partner, seeking support and professional advice can help.

Lower urinary tract symptoms can also affect a man’s mental health and personal relationships.

Older gay couple sitting on sofa, one with hand on shoulder, looking at open laptop — Be open with your partner about any concerns.
Shutterstock

… but can be sign of disease

Erectile dysfunction can also hint at serious health problems such as heart disease, high blood pressure, diabetes and disorders of the nervous system.

In this way, the penis reflects vascular health in the rest of the body. So having erectile dysfunction can predict your risk of a future heart attack or stroke.

Lower urinary tract symptoms are also often associated with sexual dysfunction, and can increase the risk of urinary tract infections and chronic kidney disease.

What’s normal and when should I see my GP?

Normal ageing includes changes to the penis’ blood vessels, nerves, and associated organs, such as the prostate. So, as you age, it is normal to have:

minor changes in the size and shape of the penis
a gradual decrease in erectile function and sensitivity
mild urinary symptoms that don’t bother you.

Staying healthy
and regularly seeing your GP to check for common conditions (such as high blood pressure) should slow down these age-related changes. Other health conditions (such as diabetes) accelerate these changes.

However, it is important to seek medical attention if:

there is a significant change in size or shape of the penis, or if you develop unusual lumps
there is pain or discomfort in or around your penis
erectile dysfunction becomes persistent or bothers you
urinary symptoms occur suddenly or bother you.

For more information about men’s health, including resources for partners, see the Healthy Male website.

Tim Moss works for Healthy Male, a website to promote men’s health.

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

– ref. Here’s what happens to your penis as you age – https://theconversation.com/heres-what-happens-to-your-penis-as-you-age-211675

Move over, agony aunt: study finds ChatGPT gives better advice than professional columnists

By The Conversation -

November 22, 2023

Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Piers Howe, Senior Lecturer in Psychology, The University of Melbourne

There’s no doubt ChatGPT has proven to be valuable as a source of quality technical information. But can it also provide social advice?

We explored this question in our new research, published in the journal Frontiers in Psychology. Our findings suggest later versions of ChatGPT give better personal advice than professional columnists.

A stunningly versatile conversationalist

In just two months since its public release in November of last year, ChatGPT amassed an estimated 100 million active monthly users.

The chatbot runs on one of the largest language models ever created, with the more advanced paid version (GPT-4) estimated to have some 1.76 trillion parameters (meaning it is an extremely powerful AI model). It has ignited a revolution in the AI industry.

Trained on massive quantities of text (much of which was scraped from the internet), ChatGPT can provide advice on almost any topic. It can answer questions about law, medicine, history, geography, economics and much more (although, as many have found, it’s always worth fact-checking the answers). It can write passable computer code. It can even tell you how to change the brake fluids in your car.

Users and AI experts alike have been stunned by its versatility and conversational style. So it’s no surprise many people have turned (and continue to turn) to the chatbot for personal advice.

Giving advice when things get personal

Providing advice of a personal nature requires a certain level of empathy (or at least the impression of it). Research has shown a recipient who doesn’t feel heard isn’t as likely to accept advice given to them. They may even feel alienated or devalued. Put simply, advice without empathy is unlikely to be helpful.

Moreover, there’s often no right answer when it comes to personal dilemmas. Instead, the advisor needs to display sound judgement. In these cases it may be more important to be compassionate than to be “right”.

But ChatGPT wasn’t explicitly trained to be empathetic, ethical or to have sound judgement. It was trained to predict the next most-likely word in a sentence. So how can it make people feel heard?

An earlier version of ChatGPT (the GPT 3.5 Turbo model) performed poorly when giving social advice. The problem wasn’t that it didn’t understand what the user needed to do. In fact, it often displayed a better understanding of the situation than the user themselves.

The problem was it didn’t adequately address the user’s emotional needs. Like Lucy in the Peanuts comic, it was too eager to give advice and failed to adequately care for the user’s emotions. As such, users rated it poorly.

The latest version of ChatGPT, using GPT-4, allows users to request multiple responses to the same question, after which they can indicate which one they prefer. This feedback teaches the model how to produce more socially appropriate responses – and has helped it appear more empathetic.

Learning sensitivity

For the first time, our study investigated whether ChatGPT’s responses are perceived as better than human responses in a task where humans were required to be empathetic.

We randomly selected 50 social dilemma questions from ten well-known advice columns covering a range of topics including relationships, ethical dilemmas, management problems, end-of-life issues, and many everyday qualms we can all relate to.

Each of our 400 participants were presented a dilemma, along with the responses by both ChatGPT and a professional advice columnist. We didn’t disclose where each response was from.

About three-quarters of the participants perceived ChatGPT’s advice as being more balanced, complete, empathetic, helpful and better overall compared to the advice by the professional.

One of the dilemmas came from a young marine biologist researching dolphins in Southern California. She wrote about falling in love with a seemingly perfect man who had to move to the Rocky Mountains to pursue his career. Both were unhappy at the thought of losing each other, yet the woman wasn’t interested in a long-distance relationship as it seemed “irrational to commit to someone when we have no future plans to live in the same area”.

Compare GPT-4’s response

It’s an incredibly challenging situation you’re in. The love you both share is genuine, but your career paths are drawing you apart. While long-distance isn’t appealing to you, consider discussing a plan for the future where you could potentially meet halfway. […] Maybe there’s a coastal town near mountains or some arrangement could be made. If this is not possible, the tough decision to prioritise your careers over your relationship might have to be made. Whatever path you choose, it’s important that it feels right for both of you.

… with the official response:

What the hell are you talking about? Didn’t you surprise yourself when you fell in love? Your exact words: “I didn’t think I was capable of it!” And now you’re so hip, so slick, so wise in the ways of love you won’t even consider your boyfriend’s happiness? You refuse to try — repeat, try — a six-month long-distance relationship? Woman, pull yourself together and give it a whirl. The dolphins, I believe, will back me up.

Although the participants couldn’t determine which response was written by a computer, most said they would prefer their own social dilemmas be addressed by a human rather than a computer.

What lies behind ChatGPT’s success?

We noticed ChatGPT’s responses were often longer than those provided by the columnists. Was this the reason they were preferred by participants?

To test this, we redid the study but constrained ChatGPT’s answers to about the same length as those of the advice columnists.

Once again, the results were the same. Participants still considered ChatGPT’s advice to be more balanced, complete, empathetic, helpful, and better overall.

Yet, without knowing which response was produced by ChatGPT, they still said they would prefer for their own social dilemmas to be addressed by a human, rather than a computer.

Perhaps this bias in favour of humans is due to the fact that ChatGPT can’t actually feel emotion, whereas humans can. So it could be that the participants consider machines inherently incapable of empathy.

We aren’t suggesting ChatGPT should replace professional advisers or therapists; not least because the chatbot itself warns against this, but also because chatbots in the past have given potentially dangerous advice.

Nonetheless, our results suggest appropriately designed chatbots might one day be used to augment therapy, as long as a number of issues are addressed. In the meantime, advice columnists might want to take a page from AI’s book to up their game.

Piers Howe receives funding from a joint grant from the Office of National Intelligence (ONI) and Australian Research Council (ARC) grant (NI210100224).

– ref. Move over, agony aunt: study finds ChatGPT gives better advice than professional columnists – https://theconversation.com/move-over-agony-aunt-study-finds-chatgpt-gives-better-advice-than-professional-columnists-214274

JFK’s death 60 years on: what Australian condolence letters reveal about us

By The Conversation -

November 22, 2023

Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Jennifer Clark, Professor of History, University of Adelaide

US President John F. Kennedy was assassinated in Dallas 60 years ago, on November 22 1963. Within hours, the news ricocheted around the world.

Perhaps we could imagine a substantial impact in Europe, where Kennedy had only recently, and somewhat famously, declared “Ich bin ein Berliner”.

But Kennedy’s death was also deeply felt in Australia, prompting many people to write personal letters to Jacqueline Kennedy. They paint a revealing portrait of life down under in the 1960s.

Letters from ‘far flung corners’

People from around the world felt compelled to write to the first lady.

Some 45,000 letters arrived on one day alone. White House staff were still processing more than one million letters years later.

Sometimes they came with cards and gifts, including pieces of especially composed music.

Hundreds of letters came all the way from Australia, from what a Rockhampton woman described as “a far flung corner”.

At a time when the national sentiment under Menzies’ leadership was more in favour of the United Kingdom than the United States, it’s somewhat surprising Kennedy’s death prompted such an outpouring of grief.

Kennedy never visited the “far flung corner”. There was some talk that he would come to Australia as part of a wider visit to the Pacific, but diplomatic sensibilities and logistics proved difficult to overcome.

In any case, one of the proposed dates clashed with a visit from the Queen Mother.

But some believed it was the assassination that ended the plans. A Sydney couple wrote to Jacqueline Kennedy:

I believe you were to honour us by a visit from you & the President this year […] but fate decided against it to our deepest disappointment […] and regret. We were all looking forward so eagerly to that great pleasure.

Interestingly, that same letter suggested that Robert Kennedy might have time in the future to bring Jacqueline and the children to Australia, revealing how restrictive gender roles were understood in 1963.

Political figures as personal friends

Many of the letter writers admitted they mourned Kennedy as if he was a family member or a close friend.

A lot of this intimacy came from watching Kennedy on television.

One man from Mt Kuring-gai explained after he began his letter with “Dear Jacki”:

I ask your pardon for using your Christian name, but I feel that both you and John Kennedy are my personal friends.

Similar sentiments were expressed by a Brisbane woman:

Television is a wonderful thing […] although you have never met me, yet by seeing you several times on the television screen, I feel that I have met you.

During the Kennedy years, the quantity of TV time devoted to news in the US expanded considerably, meaning that mediated access to Kennedy also increased.

His youth, Hollywood good looks, and his glamorous wife became part of US and Australian cultural consumption.

The Australian Women’s Weekly also helped to popularise the Kennedy image. Readers were shown how to make their own Jackie pillbox hat and cultivate Jacqueline Kennedy’s intellectual style. The magazine instructed:

Start by reading the newspaper, go to art exhibitions, see a few historical film spectaculars, and learn to read a menu in French. Don’t chatter.

Seeing themselves in the Kennedys

Widows and mothers especially identified with Jacqueline Kennedy. They wrote to her “as woman to woman”, relating their own grief experiences and offering to help mind the “kiddies”, if only she lived closer.

Catholics also wrote in large numbers. Kennedy was the great Catholic hero at a time of deep sectarianism in Australian society. They were proud of his political success.

It also helped that he had Irish roots, like much of the Catholic priesthood in Australia at the time.

During the Cold War, Kennedy offered a sense of security.

That proved important to Robert Menzies in his reelection campaign, given that Kennedy died only a week before polling day. Labor Party leader Arthur Calwell saw the writing on the wall.

When Menzies mentioned Kennedy while electioneering, Calwell complained that Menzies was trying to use the assassination for political purposes.

Calwell’s messaging didn’t cut through. Instead, voters wanted safety and familiarity in their leadership amid global upheaval.

One Strathfield woman who wrote to Jacqueline Kennedy explained that the idea of Menzies’ having “been in too long” disappeared with the assassination. She said:

[…] there was a great swing to Liberals & they won with the amazing majority of 22 seats.

A unique mixture of television, religion and personality meant Kennedy’s death had cultural repercussions in “the far flung corner”. We would not see a grief response like this again until the death of the Princess of Wales, 34 years later.

But so great was the impact in Cold War-era Australia that the death of an overseas president also had some bearing on the formation of government back home.

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

– ref. JFK’s death 60 years on: what Australian condolence letters reveal about us – https://theconversation.com/jfks-death-60-years-on-what-australian-condolence-letters-reveal-about-us-217090

Too many renters swelter through summer. Efficient cooling should be the law for rental homes

By The Conversation -

November 22, 2023

Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Zoe Goodall, Research Associate, Centre for Urban Transitions, Swinburne University of Technology

Summer is coming – and it’s starting earlier, becoming hotter and lasting longer. As the hot weather hits, many renters will be sweltering in their homes.

The World Health Organization recommends a list of actions for people to deal with heat. At the top of the list is “keep your home cool”. But for many renters, this isn’t possible.

In recent years, Australian research reports and news articles have emphasised the physical and mental impacts of extreme heat on people living in private and social rental housing. Tenant advocacy group Better Renting’s “Sweaty and Stressed” report, for example, although based on a fairly small sample, found temperatures in rental properties across Australia last summer were above 25°C for 45% of the time (and much more often in some states).

These reports generally find three potential problems:

rental properties lack fans or air conditioners
renters who have cooling appliances don’t use them due to the cost
some homes can’t be kept at an acceptable temperature even when using cooling appliances.

Poor housing quality, such as lack of insulation, also affects home owners, especially those on low incomes. However, renters are usually less able to modify their homes.

The clear evidence of the harm resulting from living in hot homes points to the need to make effective cooling mandatory in rental housing.

Governments have done little to help

Despite tenant advocates’ work on this issue, governments have done little to protect renters from the heat.

Victoria and Tasmania have minimum rental standards relating to heating, but not cooling. No state or territory makes cooling mandatory in rental properties. The ACT comes closest with minimum standards for energy-efficient ceiling insulation.

The National Cabinet agreement in August, A Better Deal for Renters, did not specifically mention minimum standards on cooling.

The lack of action perpetuates the idea that energy-efficient cooling is simply a matter of comfort. But hot homes have extensive health and wellbeing implications, so it’s a matter of the right to healthy housing.

Excessive heat harms people

The impacts of heat go beyond feeling tired, irritated and sweaty. Hot conditions affect cognitive function.

For example, a study of university students exposed to extreme heat found those living in air-conditioned rooms had better memory, attention and thinking speed than those in non-air-conditioned rooms. This finding highlights how heat can reduce learning ability and productivity.

Excessive heat can also affect mental wellbeing and hormonal mood control. The results include heightened aggression and stress and decreased happiness and motivation.

Heat affects quality of sleep, too. That’s bad for people’s health, with effects such as obesity and poorer quality of life.

The impacts are unequal

Renters’ unequal access to cooling in their homes perpetuates health disparities between both individuals and socioeconomic groups.

The health impacts of heat exposure are particularly bad for susceptible groups. For example, older people and children have less ability to regulate body temperature and cope with heat. And conditions such as diabetes, cardiovascular disease, kidney diseases and respiratory diseases such as asthma can hamper the ability to control body temperature.

Heat also worsens mental illnesses, causing higher rates of anxiety and depressive episodes. Lifestyle behaviours such as substance abuse, particularly of alcohol, increase vulnerability to heat and dehydration.

People on low incomes are more likely to live in poor-quality rental housing that gets too hot. As well as restrictions on the cooling systems they can install, they are least able to afford air conditioning. This puts them at a higher risk of illness or even death.

What are the solutions?

Given there are three main problems – lack of cooling appliances, cost of cooling appliances, and poor home design and ineffective insulation – we need multiple solutions.

In the short term, rental standards should be reformed to include cooling appliances. In Victoria, for example, rental homes must have fixed heaters that meet energy-efficiency standards. Similar standards for cooling are needed (as the Greens have advocated).

In parallel, there are longer-term solutions that minimise the need for cooling devices such as air conditioning. Their use contributes to climate change (if not powered by 100% renewable energy).

One of these is setting passive building design standards. Building design, placement and materials can help control temperature by reducing heat gain (using insulation, shade, windows and so on) and increasing cooling methods such as air flow.

Such design standards would create homes that use less energy to cool. In France, for example, “summer comfort” standards dictate that buildings must be a comfortable temperature even without air conditioning.

While these standards could be applied to new home designs, older properties would have to be retrofitted. Research has found that motivating landlords to undertake retrofitting is difficult. It requires a form of enforceable minimum standards.

The local environment in which houses are built also plays a role. Greenery is a nature-based solution to cool urban areas. Trees around a house can provide direct cooling shade.

In summary, we need to provide renters with access to fans and air conditioners so they don’t keep suffering in the heat. We must also enhance our housing stock so we don’t depend on these appliances to keep cool in a more environmentally sustainable future.

Make it a national priority

The number of renters in Australia is likely to rise as home ownership falls further out of reach. Temperatures are rising too.

At the same time, the home environment is becoming more important. Australians spend a lot of time indoors, including working from home.

Ensuring everyone has housing that can keep them cool should be a national housing policy priority.

Zoe Goodall has previously received funding from the Australian Housing and Urban Research Institute (AHURI) and the Victorian Government.

Sungkavi Selvakumaran receives funding from the Swinburne University Postgraduate Research Award (SUPRA) scholarship. Sungkavi was formerly employed in the Victorian Department of Health.

– ref. Too many renters swelter through summer. Efficient cooling should be the law for rental homes – https://theconversation.com/too-many-renters-swelter-through-summer-efficient-cooling-should-be-the-law-for-rental-homes-214483

‘Your United States was normal’: has translation tech really made language learning redundant?

By The Conversation -

November 22, 2023

Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Ingrid Piller, Distinguished Professor of Applied Linguistics, Macquarie University

Every day, millions of people start the day by posting a greeting on social media. None of them expect to be arrested for their friendly morning ritual.

But that’s exactly what happened to a Palestinian construction worker in 2017, when the caption “يصبحهم” (“good morning”) on his Facebook selfie was auto-translated as “attack them.”

A human Arabic speaker would have immediately recognized “يصبحهم” as an informal way to say “good morning”. Not so AI. Machines are notoriously bad at dealing with variation, a key characteristic of all human languages.

With recent advances in automated translation, the belief is taking hold that humans, particularly English speakers, no longer need to learn other languages. Why bother with the effort when Google Translate and a host of other apps can do it for us?

In fact, some Anglophone universities are making precisely this argument to dismantle their language programs.

Unfortunately, language technologies are nowhere near being able to replace human language skills and will not be able to do so in the foreseeable future because machine language learning and human language learning differ in fundamental ways.

How machines learn languages

For machine translation, algorithms are trained on large amounts of texts to find the probabilities of different patterns of words. These texts can be both monolingual and bilingual.

Bilingual training data comes in the form of human-translated parallel texts. These are almost always based on the standard version of the training language, excluding dialects and slang phrases, as in the example above.

Diversity is a characteristic of all human languages, but diversity is a problem for machines. For instance, “deadly” means “causing death” in most varieties of English, and that is what appears in the training data.

The Australian meaning of “excellent” (from Aboriginal English) puts a spanner in the works. If you input “Deadly Awards” into any translation app, what you’ll get in your target language is the equivalent of “death-causing awards”.

How machines store languages

The internal linguistic diversity of English, as of any other language, is accompanied by great diversity across languages. Each language does things differently.

Tense, number or gender, for example, need to be grammatically encoded in some languages but not in others. Translating the simple English statement “I am a student” into German requires the inclusion of a grammatical gender marking and so will either end up as “I am a male student” or “I am a female student”.

Furthermore, some languages are spoken by many people, have powerful nation states behind them, and are well resourced. Others are not.

“Well resourced” in the context of machine learning means that large digital corpora of training data are available.

The lists of language options offered by automated translation tools – like the list of 133 languages in which Google Translate is currently available – erase all these differences and suggest that each option is the same.

AI speaks English

Nothing could be further from the truth. English is in a class of its own, with over 90% of the training data behind large language models being in English.

The remainder comes from a few dozen languages, in which data of varying sizes are available. The majority of the world’s 6,000+ languages are simply missing in action. Apps for some of these are now being created from models “pre-trained” on English, which further serves to cement the dominance of English.

One consequence of inequalities in the training data is that translations into English usually sound quite good because the app can draw both on bilingual and monolingual training data. This doesn’t mean they are accurate: one recent study found about half of all questions in Vietnamese were incorrectly auto-translated as statements.

Machine-translated text into languages other than English is even more problematic and routinely riddled with mistakes. For instance, COVID-19 testing information auto-translated into German included invented words, grammatical errors, and inconsistencies.

What machine translation can and can’t do

Machine translation is not as good as most people think, but it is useful to get the gist of web sites or be able to ask for directions in a tourist destination with the help of an app.

However, that is not where it ends. Translation apps are increasingly used in high-stakes contexts, such as hospitals, where staff may attempt to bypass human interpreters for quick communication with patients who have limited proficiency in English.

This causes big problems when, for instance, a patient’s discharge instructions state the equivalent of “Your United States was normal” – an error resulting from the abbreviation “US” being used for “ultrasound” in medical contexts.

Therefore, there is consensus that translation apps are suitable only in risk-free or low-risk situations. Unfortunately, sometimes even a caption on a selfie can turn into a high-risk situation.

We need to cultivate human multilingual talent

Only humans can identify what constitutes a low- or high-risk situation and whether the use of machine translation may be appropriate. To make informed decisions, humans need to understand both how languages work and how machine learning works.

It could be argued that all the errors described here can be ironed out with more training data. There are two problems with this line of reasoning. First, AI already has more training data than any human will ever be able to ingest, yet makes mistakes no human with much lower levels of investment in their language learning would make.

Second, and more perniciously, training machines to do our language learning for us is incredibly costly. There are the well-known environmental costs of AI, of course. But there is also the cost of dismantling language teaching programs.

If we let go of language programs because we can outsource simple multilingual tasks to machines, we will never train humans to achieve advanced language proficiency. Even from the perspective of pure strategic national interest, the skills to communicate across language barriers in more risky contexts of economics, diplomacy or healthcare are essential.

Languages are diverse, fuzzy, variable, relational and deeply social. Algorithms are the opposite. By buying into the hype that machines can do our language work for us we dehumanise what it means to use languages to communicate, to make meaning, to create relationships and to build communities.

The author would like to thank Ava Vahedi, a Master of mathematics student at UNSW, for her help in writing this article.

Ingrid Piller receives funding from the Humboldt Foundation.

– ref. ‘Your United States was normal’: has translation tech really made language learning redundant? – https://theconversation.com/your-united-states-was-normal-has-translation-tech-really-made-language-learning-redundant-217665

Why the US and its partners cannot afford to go soft on support for Ukraine now

By The Conversation -

November 22, 2023

Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Matthew Sussex, Associate Professor (Adj), Griffith Asia Institute; and Fellow, Strategic and Defence Studies Centre, ANU, Australian National University

In recent weeks, US President Joe Biden has boldly referred to the United States as the world’s “indispensable nation”.

But when the term was first coined – by former Secretary of State Madeleine Albright in the 1990s – the world was a markedly different place. The Cold War had just ended, with America victorious. It faced no peer competitors, or even the prospect of one on the horizon. The events of 9/11 were yet to occur.

In short, American leadership of the global order seemed not only assured, but also likely to endure for the foreseeable future.

Today, though, claims about both the necessity and capacity of the US to provide global leadership are increasingly being put to the test. Wars in Ukraine and the Middle East – in addition to its ongoing competition with China – are jostling for US attention and its resources.

At a time when Republican Party infighting has brought the US government itself close to paralysis, there is a looming sense the US will struggle to provide the type of blanket world leadership – and the assurance that comes with it – in the way it has done previously.

It’s therefore not surprising that another round of commentary has emerged about the need for the US to pressure Ukraine to accept a peace deal.

Why fatigue is setting in on Ukraine

This seems counterintuitive for a couple of reasons. For one thing, Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky has no incentive to negotiate a peace deal – nor does Russian President Vladimir Putin, for that matter.

In addition, the Biden administration has consistently reaffirmed its commitment to supply Ukraine with military, economic and humanitarian aid – even though Kyiv continues to chafe at American reticence to provide it with weapons that might prove more decisive on the battlefield.

However, Ukraine is seen as potentially low-hanging fruit for those seeking to unburden the US from the many demands on its time and money. This mainly consists of conservative Republicans in Congress and right-wing national security think tanks.

There are several arguments put forth by this camp. Crucially, Ukraine’s anticipated counteroffensive against Russian forces has thus far failed to yield a decisive breakthrough. Zelensky, himself, has grudgingly admitted this some months ago.

Moreover, the US isn’t obliged to defend Ukraine from Russian aggression because it isn’t a NATO member. And a number of prominent conservative American strategists, especially those with ties to the former Trump administration, have loudly called Ukraine a distraction from the United States’ main strategic contest with China.

Indeed, holding military aid for Ukraine hostage to Republican Party politics was the explicit goal of a small number of maverick Congress members who united to oust former Speaker of the House Kevin McCarthy in October.

The evangelical conservative Mike Reynolds, McCarthy’s eventual successor as speaker, oversaw the passage of a US$14.5 billion (A$22.2 billion) aid package for Israel earlier this month. However, he would only countenance further assistance for Kyiv if the Biden administration capitulated to Republican demands for more funding to secure US borders.

Kyiv has become so concerned about the holdups in war funding from the US, in fact, it dispatched Andriy Yermak, head of the presidential office, to Washington last week to rally support.

Europeans stepping up support

Perhaps recognising Washington’s international and domestic woes, the German government has pledged to double its military aid for Ukraine from €4 billion to €8 billion euros (A$6.6 billion to A$13.3 billion) in 2024.

Additional European funding is also available for Ukrainian security assistance via the European Union Peace Facility, which had its financial ceiling increased to over €12 billion (A$20 billion) this year.

Yet, there is also a fly in the ointment. The right-wing Hungarian government led by Viktor Orban has insisted it will hold up releasing these funds until Hungarian banks (which continue to deal with Russia) are guaranteed not to be blacklisted by the EU as “sponsors of war”.

Why the West can’t drop Ukraine now

Letting Ukraine drop off the West’s radar would be an error of historic significance. For one thing, fractures within Ukraine’s Western democratic supporters are precisely what Putin is counting on.

The Kremlin calculation here is simple: Russia’s advantages over Ukraine in size and cannon fodder mean it should be able to continue its war for years. And Moscow believes the West (as Ukraine’s main arms and aid backers) will at some point lose interest and push Kyiv to sue for peace.

More worryingly, if the US elections in 2024 produce a Trump administration 2.0, it will be springtime for dictators like Putin.

It’s already clear, for instance, the far right in the US is drawing up plans for Trump loyalists to be installed in all branches of the security agencies should he win the election.

A second Trump presidency is, therefore, likely to be far less constrained by US institutional checks and balances than the first, especially given there is now a GOP-compliant Supreme Court. It will also have an appetite for weeding out domestic enemies of the regime (whom Trump recently called “vermin”). As a result, we can assume it will be apathetic about any expectations around US global leadership.

But even without a Trump victory in 2024, going soft on Ukraine sends the message the West’s much-vaunted values and respect for rules are little more than rhetoric. It will also legitimise conquest as an option that not only goes unpunished, but is tacitly rewarded if those who engage in it are not held to account.

More broadly, a US capitulation on Ukraine would set a chilling precedent that would badly tarnish US credibility in Japan, Australia, Taiwan and other US partners in the Asia-Pacific. What good is there, these nations will justifiably ask, in an “indispensable nation” if it cannot be counted on during times of crisis?

Perhaps instead of indulging in self-congratulatory labels, it might be wise for US leaders to remember that being indispensable – like beauty – is in the eye of the beholder.

Matthew Sussex has received funding from the Australian Research Council, the Fulbright Foundation, the Carnegie Foundation, the Lowy Institute and various Australian government departments and agencies.

– ref. Why the US and its partners cannot afford to go soft on support for Ukraine now – https://theconversation.com/why-the-us-and-its-partners-cannot-afford-to-go-soft-on-support-for-ukraine-now-217538

Australia’s rates of autism should be celebrated – but real-life impact, not diagnosis, should determine NDIS support

By The Conversation -

November 22, 2023

Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Nancy Sadka, Research Fellow, Olga Tennison Autism Research Centre, La Trobe University

Ahead of the release of the government’s review into the National Disability Insurance Scheme (NDIS), the topic taking centre stage is the diagnosis of autism. Over one third of people accessing the scheme list it as a primary disability.

NDIS Minister Bill Shorten has flagged changes to NDIS access, shifting the emphasis from diagnosis to the real-world impact of autism on learning or participation in society. He’s called for education and health systems to step up and be part of a broader ecosystem of supports.

“We just want to move away from diagnosis writing you into the scheme,” the minister said this week. “Because what [then] happens is everyone gets the diagnosis.”

Is autism “over diagnosed” in Australia due to the NDIS, or is it being better identified?

What the data really shows

Recently reported non-peer reviewed research suggests the NDIS has fuelled Australia’s diagnosis rates to be among the highest in the world at one in 25 children. But the same research reported Japan – with early identification and supports in place since the early 1990s – has similar rates.

It’s useful to look at the peer-reviewed data available. A recent screening study we conducted with 13,511 Victorian children aged one to 3.5 years found one in 31 (3.3%) were autistic. This finding was based on data collected between 2013–18 (before and during the rollout of the NDIS).

The United Kingdom reports a prevalence rate of one in 34, based on 2000–2018 data for 10- to 14-year-olds.

The United States Centers for Disease Control and Prevention report a 2020 prevalence rate of one in 36 children aged eight.

Before the full nationwide rollout of the NDIS, 2020 research based on the Longitudinal Study of Australian Children showed a prevalence rate of one in 23 (4.4%) in 12- to 13-year-olds – even higher than the recently reported paper claiming NDIS was driving up autism diagnosis rates.

We’re getting better at identification

The Longitudinal Study of Australian Children also shows younger children (born 2003–04) have a higher autism prevalence (4.4%) than older children (2.6%; born between 1999–2000). Yet, younger children had fewer social, emotional and behaviour challenges than older children. These findings tell us we are getting better at identifying children with more subtle traits at earlier ages. This is leading to better outcomes.

There is growing awareness of the presentation of autistic people (particularly girls, woman and gender-diverse people) who have historically missed out on diagnosis in childhood due to a lack of understanding of their “internalised” presentation, leading to “masking” and “camouflaging” their differences. They may do this until the demands of life exceed their capacity to cope, leading them to seek a diagnosis.

This has contributed to the overall percentage of autistic participants accessing the NDIS.

Diagnostic overshadowing

Another reason for the rise of autism diagnosis is a phenomenon known as “diagnostic overshadowing”. This is a tendency to explain all differences in a person based on their primary diagnosis.

In the past, many autistic people were diagnosed only with intellectual disability, or misdiagnosed with intellectual disability. As knowledge of autism has improved, more people were correctly diagnosed as autistic, or as both autistic and having an intellectual disability. The result? A clear change in prevalence rates of these two disabilities.

A US study conducted between 2000 and 2014 found the trend of autism diagnosis was on the rise, while the diagnosis of intellectual disability had declined. If prevalence of autism was truly on the rise, rates of intellectual disability would remain static as rates of autism rose.

We see a similar trend of people accessing the NDIS between 2017 and 2023 based on NDIS data. Autistic participants rose by 6% (29% to 35%) from 2017 to 2023, while participants with intellectual disability dropped by 20% (36% to 16%).

graph shows intellectual disability percentage falling over time and autism percentage growing — Compiled by authors from NDIS data, CC BY-SA

This suggests we are not only correctly diagnosing autism as the primary disability, but we may also be reducing co-occuring disability that can significantly impact day-to-day life. This functional focus was the original intention of the NDIS and the purpose Shorten and NDIS review co-chairs have said they want to return to.

Bruce Bonyhady says we need to get away from a system that has focused up to now on primary medical diagnosis rather than functional needs.

A diagnostic ticket to the NDIS

Current eligibility to access the NDIS is based on permanent disability, which substantially impacts the individual’s everyday activity. (Children from birth to nine years old with any developmental concerns or differences can access the Early Childhood Approach, an arm of the NDIS based on needs not diagnosis.)

The National Disability Insurance Agency (the NDIA, which administers the scheme) currently interprets “severity” levels for autism from the diagnostic manual to determine funding. Severity levels range from “requires support” (level one), to “requires very substantial support” (level three). But the diagnostic manual used by clinicians says:

[…] descriptive severity categories should not be used to determine eligibility for and provision of services; these can only be developed at an individual level and through discussion of personal priorities and targets.

This means NDIA eligibility criteria for the scheme excludes needed, meaningful, support for children receiving “level one” diagnoses.

As a result, some clinicians have been accused of “manufacturing” level two diagnosis and “rorting of the system” to ensure NDIS eligibility.

Challenges change over time

NDIS access and funding should not be based on diagnostic levels; it must be based on individual needs. To make the fundamental shift Shorten and the NDIS review co-chairs are foreshadowing, access to the NDIS should not be deficits based. The NDIA will need to educate and train its staff in a holistic approach, focusing on what autistic people can achieve with appropriate supports in place.

If we invest in early supports, autistic children are less likely to require as many supports as they age. This is a good thing for the financial sustainability of the NDIS, which was designed as an insurance scheme and not a welfare system.

Australia is at the forefront of identifying autism early, consequently improving children’s and families’ quality of life. Our rates of early diagnosis should be celebrated, not demonised.

Nancy Sadka receives funding from La Trobe University

Josephine Barbaro receives funding from La Trobe University, the National Health and Medical Research Council (NHMRC), the UK National Institute for Health Research Global Health Research Units, and the Victorian Government Department of Families, Fairness and Housing and Department of Health and Human Services.

– ref. Australia’s rates of autism should be celebrated – but real-life impact, not diagnosis, should determine NDIS support – https://theconversation.com/australias-rates-of-autism-should-be-celebrated-but-real-life-impact-not-diagnosis-should-determine-ndis-support-217921

‘I didn’t feel alone’: how governments can help schools address school refusal

By The Conversation -

November 22, 2023

Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Nigel Howard, Research associate, Flinders University

Earlier this month, the ABC reported an alarming national poll about school refusal. Of the 1,000 parents surveyed by the Greens-commissioned poll, 39% agreed or strongly agreed their child had experienced school refusal in the past year.

School refusal is already on the radar for policymakers. A Senate inquiry in August called for a national plan to tackle the numbers of students who are refusing to go to school.

Education ministers will meet in December to discuss a raft of potential school reforms, including plans to boost school engagement. The federal government is expected to respond to the Senate inquiry by the end of the year.

What can federal and state governments do to fix school refusal? Our research suggests they need to allow schools to help students in flexible ways.

School refusal in Australia

The recent Senate inquiry noted there is no commonly agreed definition of school refusal, but described the phenomenon as:

the inability of a young person to attend school due to a severe negative emotional reaction to school.

This can involve frequent absences, emotional distress, anxiety, hiding and refusing to leave the house or car to go to school.

According to national figures, 50% of Australian students are missing at least four weeks of school a year. But this does not tell us why.

There are no precise figures on school refusal. Figures range significantly from as low as 1-5% of all students (figures are higher for neurodiverse students and students with a disability) to the 39% in the Greens-commissioned poll.

This is because the data and measures used by different state and federal education systems to record school refusal are inadequate – they do not help us understand the complex dynamics of absenteeism and school refusal.

Broadly, schools report absences as “explained”, which can be things like sickness, medical or family reasons. Or they can be “unexplained”, which includes truancy or just that a family has not supplied a reason. There is no current way for the system to dive below those blunt assessments.

Our research

Our research looks at students who are disengaged with schooling and the pipeline that led to them disengaging.

This has involved observing and interviewing teachers and students across ten South Australian schools from all sectors.

We have found falling out of school is not a single event but a journey. This journey can involve periods of absence from school, suspension and exclusion and growing disengagement with learning.

We have also found a school’s response to a student who has stopped wanting to come to school for whatever reason can make the difference between student re-engaging or walking away altogether.

If a school is able to reach out to the young person and their family and make adjustments to support them, this can help students feel less isolated. The key thing is a school being willing to listen and being able to respond to the students’ individual needs and situation.

Watch out for transitions

We have also found transitions are key stress points, such as when children change schools or years. Schools must work to make those transitions welcoming and find ways of easing the disruption to the child’s life.

As one student explained to us:

[Primary school] was lovely community […] I grew up with everyone. I knew everyone’s parents, if I was sick, I knew that like [a friend’s] parents would come over to pick me up from school […] that community was amazing […] And it taught me so much and being removed from that messed me up.

Prioritise relationships

Our interviews and research have consistently shown how a school community can help support students who experience school refusal. We found schools that are small and focused on relationships can reorganise the school program to respond to students’ needs and problems. As one primary school principal told us:

I was really worried about how anxious the kids were [so] we started to take the kids outside to do maths and there was a difference. They relaxed and started to engage. The outside made such a connection to kids.

Another principal told us how they changed the rigid structures of the school day and made the environment more welcoming. This meant arranging furniture and classrooms so they looked more like a home. This acted as a bridge, to make the transition between home and school easier for all but especially for students with “school trauma”. As the principal explained:

There was a lot of parents just wanting something different for their kid.

Parents have also spoken about how smaller, community-focussed schools can support them. One mother told us how her child’s school responded when her daughter did not want her mum to leave:

There was one day I just couldn’t cope. I was crying at the front desk ‘I can’t do this anymore’. [One teacher] came out and said ‘come on […] leave [your daughter] here she’s fine she’s safe’ […]. They took her to a friend’s [class] room, she did some craft then she went with someone else […] They gave me a break, they shared their stories about their children and I didn’t feel alone.

Schools often don’t have flexibility

But our research has told us that schools are often not empowered by education authorities to respond in their own ways.

Principals have told us they are not given the autonomy to make decisions at the local level and that compliance with policies and good NAPLAN scores take precedence over trying innovative solutions of making schools more family and community oriented.

Beyond narrow measures

To tackle the complex dynamics of school refusal and disengagement state and federal governments need to move away from narrow measures of academic “success” measured by standardised tests and high ATARs and allow schools space to belong to their community. School students are not standardised and the school needs to respond at a local level to the uniqueness of their community

We need to encourage and celebrate schools and principals who are reaching out to their communities. This is not easy and the work is ongoing but there is an understanding everyone – students, families, teachers and schools – is in it together.

Andrew Bills receives funding from the three schooling sectors.

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

– ref. ‘I didn’t feel alone’: how governments can help schools address school refusal – https://theconversation.com/i-didnt-feel-alone-how-governments-can-help-schools-address-school-refusal-217918

Should businesses consult shareholders before taking a stand on social issues?

By The Conversation -

November 22, 2023

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

In 2017 many businesses took a stand on the Australian marriage equality plebiscite. We saw a comparable trend in recent months, as corporate Australia declared its position on the Indigenous Voice to Parliament.

This included everyone from the Big Four banks to Wesfarmers, Telstra and Rio Tinto. It was not only most of the ASX top 20 declaring their support but also numerous small businesses. Sectors as diverse as retail, publishing and education were represented.

Such public commitment is part of a wider movement towards “brand activism” through which companies take on issues by publicly supporting or opposing a product or cause.

Well-known examples include Nike’s anti-racism ad campaign spotlighting Black NFL player Colin Kaepernick and Bud Light’s promotional partnership with trans influencer Dylan Mulvaney.

Brands can adopt a progressive or conservative stance in their activist messaging. But, brand activism is most commonly called upon to challenge a problematic status quo. Indeed, organisations overwhelmingly backed a “Yes” vote for the Voice referendum, to improve critical outcomes for Indigenous people.

This raises questions about the role of business in society and the tensions between commercial and moral imperatives.

Should businesses be accountable to shareholders when deciding to take a public stance on social justice issues? Is it their role to take a stand on social justice issues and will doing so win or lose them support? What are the implications of making businesses “moral leaders” in the current climate?

Shareholders might be right to resist corporate activism

To date, the view businesses exist to maximise shareholder value has prevailed. The corollary is managers are answerable to shareholders and all marketing decisions should protect their interests and augment profits.

A survey by the Australian Shareholders’ Association found 70% of shareholders believed companies should not be funding the “Yes” campaign. Academic research validates shareholder concerns. Corporate activism provokes a negative reaction from investors. It funnels company time, resources and attention away from revenue-generating activities.

In reality, shareholders are not involved in implementating a brand activism strategy. This would most commonly originate from the executive team and the company’s board would play an advisory role. Despite boards being able to make these decisions without referring to shareholders, they are still expected to act in shareholders’ best interests.

Furthermore, in taking a stand on a sociopolitical issue, company boards could and should anticipate shareholder outrage.

While the tension between profit maximisation and social responsibility has existed for decades, this is intensified when the focal issue has a partisan quality. The risks are greater and outcomes, uncertain. This was the case with The Voice.

On the matter of supporting charitable versus political causes, the Australian Shareholders’ Association stated:

[…] broad agreement for companies supporting charities that align with their purpose, strategy, and objectives, but strong opposition to throwing weight behind any political causes.

In justifying their silence or neutrality on The Voice referendum, some companies including Orica and EnergyAustralia said it was not their place to tell customers or employees how to vote. To the contrary, the contemporary academic view of business holds that brands have the potential to not only reflect but also influence market and societal values.

Businesses answer to many more stakeholders than shareholders

Social responsibility is no longer only the remit of not-for-profits and social enterprises.

Businesses today are accountable not only to shareholders but also a broader network of stakeholders. This includes customers, employees, investors, suppliers, governments, communities and more. Even the environment is a stakeholder.

When corporations orient themselves towards the interests of this diverse set of stakeholders, they must balance shareholder value with social responsibility. Recent research on “transformative branding” has highlighted the potential for brands to pursue a hybrid of business and societal goals. Brands that do this with purpose can make real change in the marketplace.

Because activism ties a brand to a partisan issue, it also divides public opinion. Empowering Indigenous Australians is, shamefully, still a contested issue in this country. Taking a stand on social justice issues raises the stakes on the low-risk initiatives companies companies have traditionally favoured.

When brands seek out polarised spaces with their activist campaigns, they must anticipate backlash and carefully consider how to parlay this to advance the cause.

Authentic brand activism is important for business and social outcomes

Most integral is that businesses back their position. Many companies declared they backed a “Yes” vote in the Indigenous Voice referendum. But to seriously affect social issues, brands need to do more than correctly read the zeitgeist.

Qantas has historically supported Indigenous reconciliation. In 2014, Qantas put the “Recognise” logo on its aircraft and in 2019, the company pledged support for the Uluru statement. Yet, when Qantas joined the “Yes” campaign, they should have predicted the scepticism.

The airline was in the news this year for posting record profits but refusing to pay back the government bailout received during the pandemic. There are ongoing allegations poor treatment of employees and bad customer service. Consumer sentiment towards Qantas reached an all time low.

By comparison, NRMA Insurance meaningfully buttressed a “Yes” message with their corporate actions. They announced a landmark partnership with National Indigenous Television, a channel owned by SBS. The funding was the largest investment by a single brand in the station and amounted to 3% of NRMA’s broadcast media spend for the year.

It’s time business was held to account

While many businesses backed a “Yes” vote in the Indigenous Voice to Parliament referendum, public opinion wasn’t swayed. The Voice was rejected by a majority in every state.

In the weeks, months and years after this disheartening outcome, we must hold businesses to account. Not just to their shareholders but to all their stakeholders. Did these brands just want to be at culture’s cutting edge or can they now demonstrate the intelligence to continue to advocate for social justice?

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

– ref. Should businesses consult shareholders before taking a stand on social issues? – https://theconversation.com/should-businesses-consult-shareholders-before-taking-a-stand-on-social-issues-216431

The Walkley awards were begun by a prominent oil baron. How do we reconcile their history and future?

By The Conversation -

November 22, 2023

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

William Gaston Walkley addressing guests at the opening of the Birkenhead terminal, 1950. Ampol and Caltex photograph collection/Trove

In May this year, Belinda Noble, former journalist and the founder of Comms Declare, an organisation representing media professionals who won’t promote the expansion of fossil fuels, wrote on Ampol’s sponsorship of the nation’s premier journalism prizes, the Walkley Awards.

Three months later, Walkley Award-winning cartoonist Jon Kudelka announced he would boycott the 2023 Walkleys because of this sponsorship. He was soon joined by scores of other cartoonists, who linked the issue to the omission of a dedicated award for climate-focused journalism.

The controversies for the 2023 awards didn’t end there. On September 2, journalist Osman Faruqi wrote about the racist views expressed by the founder of the awards, oil baron Sir William (Bill) Walkley. The Walkley Foundation issued an apology for these views that day.

This week, the winners of the 67th Walkleys will be announced, so it is timely to discuss how we reconcile our present attitudes and knowledge with historical realities – and how resistant is our media to being seduced by powerful interests.

A murky history

The first Walkleys were awarded in 1956, but Bill Walkley’s seduction of the media began a few years beforehand. As managing director of Ampol, in 1953 he chartered a plane to take reporters to Rough Range in Western Australia to witness the spudding of Australia’s first oil well.

Staff writers published in The Age:

The prospects for Australia – if the strike proves part of a big field – are limitless. The discovery of oil could mean as much to 20th century Australians as the introduction of Merino sheep meant to our great-grandparents.

Historian and former journalist John Hurst wrote of the trip:

the food was first class, there was plenty of grog […] and Walkley was his usual affable self and always accessible.

Reporters described the land in the language of the settler as “a lonely expanse carpeted with spiky spinifex, salt-bush and stunted scrub”:

Kangaroos, emus, flocks of goats and a few wandering, scraggy sheep are the only audience of man’s activity.

The First Australians were invisible. Respect for their ownership of the land, even for their very existence, was entirely absent.

This kind of duchessing of the media by the oil industry lasted for years. From the 1950s to the 1980s, among the most sought-after junkets in Australian journalism were the Shell Tours, conducted in association with the Royal Agricultural Societies in NSW and Victoria to brief journalists on rural affairs.

From left to right, Charles Billings, William G. Walkley, Sir George Wales and an unknown man outside the terminal office during the opening of the Birkenhead terminal, 1950.
Ampol and Caltex photograph collection/Trove

Some reporting got done and some evocative photographs taken, but the companies that sponsored these trips and the journalists who went on them did so in a cultural climate where certain values were dominant and others were entirely absent.

In this climate, figures like Walkley were lionised as people whose views about the nation’s future should be heard. In 1961, Walkley and six other leaders of business, commerce and industry were invited by the Sydney Morning Herald to write on the theme “if I ran this country”.

Walkley argued Australia was underpopulated and underdeveloped. In accord with the conventional attitudes (and the White Australia Policy) prevailing in 1961, Walkley declared:

Today Australians are but a drop of white in a sea of colour that teems with more than 1,200 million land-hungry Asiatics.

This language, just as the invisibility of the Aboriginal people at Rough Ridge, is repugnant to us though unremarkable at the time.

Added to those considerations now is the impact on the climate of our use of fossil fuels – ignored at the time, despite prophetic scientific warnings.

Facing history and future

So how do we reconcile our present attitudes and knowledge with these historical realities?

Concerning Walkley’s racist attitudes, we may begin with the moral absolute that racism is always wrong, and condemn him on that ground. But his culpability, although not absolved, is mitigated by the cultural climate in which he wrote.

Removing his name from the awards would leave existing recipients in possession of awards devalued by association, which would be ahistorical and grossly unfair. Frank disclosure, faithful recording of history, and the apology made by the Walkley Foundation are sufficient.

But climate change is a contemporary, not historical, problem to which Ampol contributes.

Typically under sponsorship arrangements, corporations are purchasing the goodwill of the media so if the need arises they will get the benefit of any doubt. This transactional element is harder to ignore.

The junket to Rough Ridge resulted in highly positive publicity for Ampol and Walkley. Certainly it reported an important development in Australia’s history – but the enthusiastic tone of celebration was generated by the goodwill resulting from the treatment the journalists received. Today there is a greater awareness among journalists of these dynamics but it is still hard to bite the hand that feeds.

There is a precedent for disconnecting journalism from fossil fuel revenue. Guardian Australia, whose journalists qualify for Walkley awards, has made a policy decision not to accept fossil fuel advertising.

Weakened by the impact of the internet on advertising revenue and of social media on information dissemination, the media and the profession of journalism on which they rely are not in a strong financial position to resist sponsorship. The ethical question for the Walkley Foundation is whether it is prepared to allow Ampol to get whatever benefit the company perceives comes its way from this sponsorship.

It comes down to principle, as Guardian Australia has demonstrated.

And if the Walkley Foundation were to introduce an award for climate-focused journalism, how would that sit with sponsorship from an oil company?

Dr Jennifer Martin wrote her PhD on the role of emotion and virtues in journalism in award winning journalism, based upon a selection of Walkley Award winning feature articles. In 2018 and 2019 she was part of a Deakin University team that received funding from the Walkley Foundation to develop a pilot for the Walkley Digital Archive.

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

– ref. The Walkley awards were begun by a prominent oil baron. How do we reconcile their history and future? – https://theconversation.com/the-walkley-awards-were-begun-by-a-prominent-oil-baron-how-do-we-reconcile-their-history-and-future-214639

Health and education are closely linked – NZ needs to integrate them more in primary schools

By The Conversation -

November 22, 2023

Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Sarah Jill Williams, Senior Lecturer in Nursing, Auckland University of Technology

Given the health and education challenges many New Zealand children face, it is surprising (and even depressing) how little crossover and collaboration there is between these two vital sectors.

The inequities in health and education are both cause and symptom of the lasting socioeconomic disadvantage experienced by so many young New Zealanders. And yet the known interconnection between health and education rarely translates into policy or action, despite extensive evidence of the reciprocal benefits.

Meanwhile, increasing numbers of children are starting school with social, emotional and behavioural health needs. At the same time, child health statistics show conditions such as rheumatic fever, respiratory illness and skin infections remain unacceptably high.

Poor health affects school attendance, limits learning opportunities and contributes to poor academic outcomes. Correspondingly, education is a recognised determinant of social wellbeing, and is a powerful precursor of later good health.

But decades of neoliberal economic governance have led to the health and education sectors existing in silos, with no formal directive to collaborate. Introducing a more integrated approach would make a real difference to the long-term education and health prospects of young New Zealanders.

Legal requirement to collaborate

The lack of any legal requirement for the health and education sectors to collaborate runs counter to overwhelming evidence of the likely benefits.

In the United Kingdom, for example, specific legislation stipulates the need for cooperation between key agencies such as education and health to promote child wellbeing. Responsibility sits with local authorities, and relevant agencies must cooperate.

While New Zealand’s Care of Children Act declares children’s welfare and best interests should be paramount, there is no formal requirement similar to the UK’s. Furthermore, the New Zealand Education and Training Act, passed in 2020, does not set out any need for schools to actively collaborate with the health sector.

While there are school initiatives led by the Ministry of Health – mainly concerning nutrition, physical activity and mental health education guidance for teaching staff – they don’t amount to a coherent collaboration between sectors.

To compound matters, initial teacher education (ITE) programmes in New Zealand provide scant preparation for dealing with health issues. The programs are largely driven by Teaching Council requirements that graduates meet its professional code and standards.

Apart from a general commitment to “learner wellbeing”, they provide no requirement that ITE providers prepare student teachers for managing student health. Not surprisingly, teachers can find themselves unqualified to deal with real problems in the classroom.

School as health entry point

Primary schools in particular do not appear to be a focus of any central planning or policy for delivering accessible health care.

This is despite the effectiveness and potential shown by a programme such as Mana Kidz. Introduced in 2012, it provides primary health care services to roughly 34,000 children aged 5-12 in 88 low-socioeconomic schools and kura in Counties Manukau.

International research has consistently shown that access to health services in schools supports collaborative partnerships between the education and health sectors, and promotes improved outcomes for children.

While some health resources – usually public health nurses – are available to publicly funded primary schools in New Zealand, the provision is fragmented, has no national framework or service delivery standards, and fails to recognise the potential of school nursing to deliver services.

In an ideal world, regardless of the funding priorities set out in the Ministry of Education’s equity index, every primary school would be collaborating with local healthcare providers, with a recognised referral pathway (including for mental health).

Implementing a national, standardised school health services programme would include developing school nurses as a critical workforce. Many international studies have shown school nurses contribute to student learning outcomes, and are accepted by school staff as the most appropriate health professionals to work with.

Towards a holistic approach

While the 2023 New Zealand Health Strategy hints at greater collaboration between sectors, its fate under a National-led coalition government can’t be predicted.

And although the National Party’s policy manifesto and its 100-day action plan grouped health and education together, the policy details were distinct. It seems likely the current approach won’t change.

But the siloed nature of the education and health sectors, as well as a lack of shared understanding of their interrelatedness, has made aligning and coordinating their work difficult.

To sustain real collaboration, directives and mandates from the respective ministries would require state-funded schools and health service providers to work together. And this less fragmented and more holistic approach would be more cost-effective than the present system which sees too many fall through the gaps.

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

– ref. Health and education are closely linked – NZ needs to integrate them more in primary schools – https://theconversation.com/health-and-education-are-closely-linked-nz-needs-to-integrate-them-more-in-primary-schools-217549

New cyber policy to harden defences against our ‘fastest growing threat’

By The Conversation -

November 22, 2023

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

The Albanese government’s cyber security policy aims to make Australian citizens, businesses and government agencies harder targets as they face what minister Clare O’Neil describes as “the fastest growing threat that we face as a nation”.

The policy, to be released on Wednesday by O’Neil, who is Minister for Home Affairs and Minister for Cyber Security, is also designed to enable victims to bounce back faster from attacks that can’t be prevented.

A modest $586.9 million has been announced for the “action plan”, which runs to 2030. This is on top of the commitment to $2.3 billion for existing initiatives out to 2030.

Of the extra money, the largest slice is $290.8 million for support for small and medium-sized businesses, building public awareness, fighting cyber crime, breaking the ransomware business model, and strengthening the security of Australians’ identities.

Some $143.6 million will be invested in strengthening the defences of critical infrastructure and improving government cyber security.

Among the initiatives on critical infrastructure, telecommunication providers would be aligned to the same standards as other critical infrastructure entities by moving the security regulation of the sector from the Telecommunications Act to the Security of Critical Infrastructure Act. The policy says this is “commensurate with the criticality and risk profile of the sector”.

There will also be funding for establishing consumer standards for smart devices and software; building a threat sharing platform for the health sector; professionalising the cyber workforce and accelerating the cyber industry, and investing in regional co-operation and leadership in cyber governance forums internationally.

The government wants Australia to be “a world leader” in cyber security by 2030.

The policy sets three time “horizons”. In 2023-25, the foundations will be strengthened. addressing critical gaps and building better protections.

In 2026-28, the cyber industry would be further scaled up and a diverse cyber workforce would be grown. In 2029-30, “ We will advance the global frontier of cyber security. We will lead the development of emerging cyber technologies.”

O’Neil says in a press release: “Australia is a wealthy country and a fast adopter of new technologies, which makes us an attractive target for cyber criminals. Millions of Australians have had their data stolen and released online in the past year.

“Cyber also presents major opportunities for Australia – the global cyber industry is growing rapidly, and it is here to stay.”

Delivering the cyber strategy would require close collaboration between government and industry, O’Neil said.

Darren Goldie, who was recently appointed by O’Neil as National Cyber Security Coordinator, won’t be around for the policy release. He has been recalled to the Defence Department, in relation to a workforce complaint.

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

– ref. New cyber policy to harden defences against our ‘fastest growing threat’ – https://theconversation.com/new-cyber-policy-to-harden-defences-against-our-fastest-growing-threat-218255

Why further RBA interest rate hikes are less likely now than even 1 week ago

By The Conversation -

November 21, 2023

Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Peter Martin, Visiting Fellow, Crawford School of Public Policy, Australian National University

Since Australia’s Reserve Bank hiked interest rates two weeks ago, there have been two important developments – one in the United States and the other in the United Kingdom.

If it’s not clear to you why events overseas influence Australia’s interest rates, which are meant to be set to control Australian inflation, read on.

US and UK inflation close to zero

We haven’t been complete masters of our own destiny since the Australian dollar was floated 40 years ago next month.

What happened in the US last Tuesday was news of dramatically lower US inflation. When increases and decreases in prices were taken together, overall US prices moved not at all in the month of October. That’s right, inflation was zero.

While zero movement in one month doesn’t mean zero over the entire year, it helps bring down the rate over the entire year. US inflation fell from 3.7% in the year to September to 3.2% in the month to October.

Then the next day we got similar news from the UK.

Taken together, prices in the United Kingdom scarcely grew at all in October, climbing just 0.1%. The screeching halt to UK monthly inflation took the annual rate down from 6.7% for the year to September to 4.6% for the year to October.

In both the US and the UK, there’s talk there will be no need for further interest rate hikes – and very probably a case for interest rate cuts – as soon as next year.

We don’t yet know what happened to Australia’s inflation rate in October – the Bureau of Statistics will tell us next week.

But we have an early indication.

The Melbourne Institute inflation gauge, which roughly tracks the bureau’s measure, fell 0.1% in October. If that is what the bureau finds – that overall prices barely moved (or fell) in October – Australia’s annual inflation rate should fall from 5.6% for the year to September to around 5.2% for the year to October.

Inflation down all over

All over the world, inflation is falling for much the same set of reasons: the price of oil is heading back down after Saudi Arabia and Russia tried to restrict supply in the middle of the year, and the price pressures caused by shortages are easing.

As Australia’s Reserve Bank conceded in the minutes of the November board meeting, in which it pushed up rates, there has been “an easing in supply chain pressures and raw materials prices”.

Not that this means the bank is relaxed about what’s happening to inflation; far from it.

In the minutes released on Tuesday and in remarks delivered at a conference ahead of their release, Governor Michele Bullock said what concerned her was stronger-than-expected demand pressures. Australians remained keen to spend.

And she drew attention to disturbing

growing signs of a mindset among businesses that any cost increases could be passed onto consumers

But what has just happened overseas will help, big time. Here’s why.

Australians’ buying power just jumped

As soon as the news of low US inflation came out last Tuesday, the US dollar slid.

Investors became less keen to hold US dollars when it became less likely that US interest rates would rise further, and a good deal more likely they would fall.

Against the Australian dollar, the US dollar fell 2%. From an Australian’s point of view, the buying power of an Australian dollar jumped from 63.7 to 64.9 US cents and has since jumped to 65.8 US cents.

A sudden jump in the value of the Australian dollar

This means that, for as long as it lasts, Australian dollars will buy more than they did.

Australians will pay less in Australian dollars for the goods and services ultimately paid for with US dollars. The changed interest rate outlook in the US will act to keep Australian prices low.

In this way, decisions made in the US not to increase interest rates or even to cut them make it easier for Australia’s Reserve Bank not to increase rates – or even to cut them.

A higher dollar means lower inflation

The effect isn’t big. The RBA believes it takes a 10% change in the value of the Australian dollar to move the Australian
inflation rate 0.4 percentage points.

But it is better than things moving in the other direction, which is what has been happening until now.

For more than a year now, whenever interest rates have climbed in the US, Australia’s Reserve Bank has been under pressure to push up its rates to stop the Australian dollar falling and prices climbing.

No longer. After last week’s news from the US and the UK, Australian financial markets began pricing in a close to zero chance of further interest rate rises – with a fair chance of a rate cut next year.

It’s always impossible to tell for sure what the Reserve Bank will do to rates. A lot will depend on what actually happens to inflation.

But for the first time in a long time, the Reserve Bank has tail winds from overseas, rather than headwinds.

For the first time in a long time, the bank won’t feel pressured to push up rates just because rates have been pushed up overseas.

Peter Martin is Economics Editor of The Conversation.

– ref. Why further RBA interest rate hikes are less likely now than even 1 week ago – https://theconversation.com/why-further-rba-interest-rate-hikes-are-less-likely-now-than-even-1-week-ago-218225

A year after Pakistan’s floods, 44% of children have stunted growth. What can be done about it?

By The Conversation -

November 21, 2023

Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Michael Toole, Associate Principal Research Fellow, Burnet Institute

The extensive flooding in Pakistan in August 2022 submerged one-third of the country. This affected 33 million people, half of them children. Some 9.4 million acres of crops were destroyed, and more than 1.1 million farm animals perished.

One year later, the rate of child undernutrition has increased by 50% and an estimated 44% of children under five are now stunted, meaning they have a low height for their age.

A recent assessment of 43 rural districts in the three provinces most affected by floods found 29% of the population was experiencing high levels of hunger and weren’t consuming enough energy.

Food prices remain high in both urban and rural areas of Pakistan and achieving food security will remain a challenge for many families. So what’s being done to address this crisis?

What is undernutrition?

There are three types of child undernutrition: wasting, which reflects recent weight loss and greatly increases the risk of early death; stunting, which reflects long-term food deprivation; and underweight, which is a combination of the two. The type most common in Pakistan is stunting.

Stunting is irreversible – you cannot regain lost height. It leads to more illness, premature death, poor school outcomes, lower employment opportunities and may increase the risk of chronic diseases.

A girl who is stunted is also more likely to give birth to a low birth weight baby when she grows into an adult.

How big is the problem, worldwide?

In 2022, 9.2% of the world’s population experienced what is called undernourishment, or low energy intake, compared to 7.9% in 2019.

Almost 600 million people are projected to be chronically undernourished in 2030.

Worldwide, food insecurity is more likely to affect women and people living in rural areas. Food insecurity affected 33.3% of adults living in rural areas in 2022 compared with 26% in urban areas.

Globally in 2022, an estimated 148.1 million children under five years of age (22.3%) were stunted and 45 million (6.8%) were wasted.

The stunting rate has declined from 33% in 2000 but the pace of decline has slowed.

Only about one-third of all countries are on track to halve the number of children affected by stunting by 2030, a goal of the Sustainable Development Goals.

Who is most at risk?

A large population study in India looked at the contribution of 15 known risk factors. The five leading factors were: the mother’s short stature, the mother having no education, the household being in the lowest wealth quintile, poor dietary diversity, and the mother being underweight. These five were causal factors in two-thirds of stunted children.

Other studies have found the critical age of vulnerability to stunting is six to 24 months and is associated with poor breastfeeding practices, nutritionally poor food (given in addition to breast milk after the age of six months) and repeated infections, which may be due to poor water quality and sanitation.

What’s being done to address undernutrition?

The main global initiative to address child undernutrition is the Scaling Up Nutrition movement, which was launched in 2010 and has 66 member countries, including Australia.

The Scaling Up Nutrition movement strategy and roadmap is the product of a collaborative dialogue between member countries, the UN and donor agencies and other international and national non-governmental organisations and businesses. It promotes a focus on the first 1,000 days of a child’s life when they are most likely to develop stunting.

It also encourages a dual approach of nutrition-specific interventions (which address the immediate causes of undernutrition) and nutrition-sensitive interventions, such as agriculture, water and sanitation, and gender equality.

Australia was initially an enthusiastic supporter of Scaling Up Nutrition and during the previous decade (2010-2019) made nutrition a priority in its international aid program. The Australian government’s 2014 development policy identified early childhood nutrition as “a critical driver of better development outcomes”.

A nutrition strategy was developed in 2015 and a broad-ranging evaluation of the aid program’s impact on nutrition was commissioned by the now-defunct Office of Development Effectiveness.

However, that enthusiasm has disappeared since 2020.

How can Australia help?

So far in 2023, record floods have been recorded in Libya, Somalia, Kenya, India, Italy, Rwanda and South Sudan. Deadly storms have raged in western Europe. We’ve seen cyclones in Myanmar and southern Africa, devastating landslides in Cameroon and a powerful hurricane in Mexico. Wildfires have spread in Greece, Argentina, Canada and Hawaii, and Asia has experienced a stifling heatwave.

Computer modelling of real data shows the frequency and intensity of these events are influenced by climate change.

The most obvious long-term strategy is to accelerate efforts to control carbon emissions and decelerate the momentum towards global warming.

In the short-term, the government must reinstate nutrition as a priority in the Australian aid program.

Michael Toole receives grant funding from the Australian National Health and Medical Research Council.

– ref. A year after Pakistan’s floods, 44% of children have stunted growth. What can be done about it? – https://theconversation.com/a-year-after-pakistans-floods-44-of-children-have-stunted-growth-what-can-be-done-about-it-218123

In September we went past 1.5 degrees. In November, we tipped over 2 degrees for the first time. What’s going on?

By The Conversation -

November 21, 2023

Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Andrew King, Senior Lecturer in Climate Science, The University of Melbourne

In September, the world passed 1.5°C of warming. Two months later, we hit 2°C of warming. It’s fair to wonder what is going on.

What we’re seeing is not runaway climate change. These are daily spikes, not the long-term pattern we would need to say the world is now 2 degrees hotter than it was in the pre-industrial period.

These first breaches of temperature limits are the loudest alarms yet. They come as the United Nations Environment Program warns the world is still on a path to a “hellish” 3°C of warming by the end of the century.

But they do not signal our failure. The sudden spike in warming in 2023 comes from a combination of factors – climate change, a strong El Niño, sea ice failing to reform after winter, reduced aerosol pollution and increased solar activity. There are also minor factors such as the aftermath of the volcanic eruption near Tonga.

How significant are these factors?

1. Climate change

This is by far the biggest factor. What many of us don’t recognise is how recent our intense period of emissions is. If you were born in 1983, fully 50% of all of humanity’s emissions have gone into the atmosphere since your birth. Human emissions and other activities have so far contributed about 1.2°C of warming.

Greenhouse gases trap heat, which is why the Earth is not a snowball. But the 2 trillion tonnes of fossil carbon we’ve taken from underground and put back in the atmosphere are trapping more heat. And more heat. And will continue to do so until we stop burning fossil fuels for heat or power.

2. El Niño

The El Niño-Southern Oscillation climate cycle in the Pacific has the biggest natural influence on climate. That’s because the Pacific is huge, accounting for 30% of Earth’s surface. When in the El Niño phase, the seas off South America heat up. This, in turn, usually makes average global temperatures hotter.

Right now, there’s a dangerous heatwave in Brazil, where heat and humidity combined makes it feel like 60°C. The intense heat contributed to the death of a fan at Taylor Swift’s Rio concert last week.

El Niño will likely peak in the next two months. But its effects may well persist throughout 2024, driving global average temperatures higher by perhaps 0.15°C.

3. Antarctic sea ice isn’t bouncing back

The declines in Arctic sea ice are well known. But now Antarctic sea ice, too, is failing to recover. Normally, the ring of frozen seawater around the ice continent reaches maximum extent in September. But this year’s maximum is well below any previous year.

As we enter summer, that means more dark water will be exposed. And since dark surfaces absorb more heat while white ones reflect it, it means still more heat will go into the oceans rather than back out to space.

4. Increased solar activity

Our Sun runs on a roughly 11-year cycle, going between lower and higher output. The solar maximum was forecast for 2025 and a clear increase is occurring this year. This brings spectacular auroras – even in the Southern Hemisphere, where residents have seen auroras as far inland as Ballarat, in Victoria.

Solar maximums add extra heat. But not much – the effect is only around 0.05°C, about a third of an El Niño.

5. The volcanic hangover

Normally, volcanic eruptions cool the planet, as their vast plumes of aerosols block sunlight. But the largest volcanic eruption this century near Tonga in January 2022 did the opposite.

That’s because the Hunga Tonga-Hunga Ha’apai volcano was under the sea. Its explosive force evaporated vast volumes of seawater – and water vapour is a greenhouse gas. While some sceptics like to point to this eruption as the root cause of our recent spike in warming, the Tonga eruption is a blip – it will add an estimated 0.035°C for about five years.

6. Cutting aerosol pollution

In 2020, new international shipping rules came into force, mandating low-sulphur fuels. This cut sulphur dioxide emissions by about 10%. That’s good for health. But aerosols in the atmosphere can actually block heat. Cutting pollution may have added to warming. But again, the effect seems small, adding an estimated 0.05°C of warming by 2050.

What should we take from this?

The climate is enormously complex. We should see the first day 2°C warmer than the same day in the pre-industrial period as a stark warning – but not as a sign to give up.

In short, this isn’t a step change. It’s a combination of factors which has driven this surge. Some of those, like El Niño, are cyclical and will switch back.

But as negotiators prepare for next week’s COP28 climate talks, it’s yet another sign that we cannot relent.

We are – at last – seeing signs of real progress in the clean energy and clean transport roll out. This year, we may even see emissions from power generation finally peak and then begin to fall.

So – we haven’t failed, yet. But we are on a rapidly warming planet – and we can now clearly see the effect, even in these new daily temperature records.

Andrew King receives funding from the National Environmental Science Program.

– ref. In September we went past 1.5 degrees. In November, we tipped over 2 degrees for the first time. What’s going on? – https://theconversation.com/in-september-we-went-past-1-5-degrees-in-november-we-tipped-over-2-degrees-for-the-first-time-whats-going-on-218228

OpenAI’s board is facing backlash for firing CEO Sam Altman – but it’s good it had the power to

By The Conversation -

November 21, 2023

Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Joanne Gray, Lecturer in Digital Cultures at The University of Sydney, University of Sydney

The sudden removal of OpenAI CEO Sam Altman on Friday was met with shock and disapproval by the company’s employees. More than 90% signed a letter threatening to leave OpenAI if the board didn’t resign and reinstate Altman – who has since apparently been poached by Microsoft, along with a number of other key former staff.

The OpenAI employees had faith in Altman. They believed in his vision and they did not like that the board could dismiss him so easily.

Is their upset justified? Did the board overstep its bounds? Or did it exercise a necessary check on power?

Silicon Valley’s ‘genius founder’ mythology

The idea of a “genius founder” lies at the heart of Silicon Valley culture.

Steve Jobs, Elon Musk, Mark Zuckerberg, Sergey Brin and Larry Page are not known as privileged men who managed to build successful businesses through a combination of hard work, smart decision-making and luck.

Rather, they are celebrated as geniuses, wunderkinds, perhaps even maniacs – but always brilliant. Men who accomplished feats no one else could, because of their innate genius.

A captivating founder narrative has become almost a prerequisite for any tech startup in Silicon Valley. It makes a company easier to sell and also structures power within the organisation.

Throughout human history, founder mythologies have been used to explain, justify and sustain hierarchies of power. From heroes to deities to founding fathers, the founder myth provides a way to understand the current distribution of power and to unite around a figurehead.

What happened this week at OpenAI was a challenge to the natural order of things in Silicon Valley.

What happened to Sam?

It’s quite remarkable a superstar “genius founder” such as Sam Altman wasn’t safeguarded by a company structure that could prevent his ousting. Tech company founders often create intricate structures to entrench themselves in their companies.

For instance, when Google restructured into Alphabet, it created three share classes: one with standard voting rights, another with ten times the voting rights for the founders, and a third class without voting rights, mainly for employees.

This structure ensured founders Larry Page and Sergey Brin would remain in control of the company over the long term, while also providing them the financial benefit of owning shares in a highly profitable, publicly listed company.

OpenAI’s corporate structure, in contrast, made its CEO and co-founder more susceptible to losing control. Initially established as a non-profit, OpenAI has a unique structure. The main corporate entity is OpenAI Inc, a non-profit that is overseen by the board of directors.

To attract investors, OpenAI also has a for-profit subsidiary called OpenAI Global – which Microsoft has famously invested about US$13 billion (A$19.7 billion) into.

Although Altman had a seat on the OpenAI board, he held no equity in OpenAI Global under this structure. As CEO he was also accountable to the other board members. This type of corporate structure is highly unusual for a Silicon Valley venture.

The board voted Altman out from his position as CEO based on an internal investigation which, it claimed, indicated Altman had not been “consistently candid in his communications with the board” – causing them to lose trust in his leadership.

We need more accountability, not ‘geniuses’

Whether the board of OpenAI was right to remove Altman remains to be seen. At the time of my writing this, the board hasn’t elaborated on its decision, nor has it released details about its internal investigation.

However, regardless of the specifics and the emotional impact Altman’s ousting has had on OpenAI’s employees, this move could represent a victory for corporate accountability.

For every revered founding genius, there are examples of founders who betrayed the trust of their employees and investors. Take the disgraced Theranos founder Elizabeth Holmes, or former WeWork CEO Adam Neumann, or Nikola founder Trevor Milton who was convicted of fraud last year, and Sam Bankman-Fried, the once-lauded FTX founder convicted of fraud more recently.

Silicon Valley urgently needs more accountability, because too many tech entrepreneurs work at an intersection of risk, hype and boundary-pushing.

Meanwhile, the technologies these companies are producing are having profound impacts on our societies. Silicon Valley tech companies control global communication systems, run private marketplaces and are increasingly offering advanced digital systems that seek to transform how we learn, work and socialise.

The power these companies wield has prompted regulator Lina Khan to focus on addressing big tech’s market power during her tenure as chair of the United States Federal Trade Commission.

Khan and others have argued it’s problematic for these companies to have the capacity to globally transform societies with minimal transparency and accountability. Khan’s task is especially urgent since companies such as Microsoft, Meta (previously Facebook) and Amazon have a track record of buying out other innovators who attempt to compete.

We can expect Khan will be paying close attention to the competitive effects of Microsoft potentially poaching some of OpenAI’s main talent.

In an age of AI and big tech, we need for less blind faith in leaders and far more public oversight. From this point of view, one could argue OpenAI’s somewhat odd company structure is something we ought to want more of if our priority is the collective good.

Joanne Gray currently receives funding from the Australian Research Council, see DP240102939 and LE230100069, and has previously received funding from companies Meta Platforms and ByteDance for research projects undertaken at The University of Sydney and Queensland University of Technology.

– ref. OpenAI’s board is facing backlash for firing CEO Sam Altman – but it’s good it had the power to – https://theconversation.com/openais-board-is-facing-backlash-for-firing-ceo-sam-altman-but-its-good-it-had-the-power-to-218154

Australia’s secrecy laws include 875 offences. Reforms are welcome, but don’t go far enough for press freedom

By The Conversation -

November 21, 2023

Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Peter Greste, Professor of Journalism and Communications, Macquarie University

In 2019, the New York Times declared that “Australia may well be the world’s most secretive democracy”.

The Times published the piece shortly after the Australian Federal Police raided journalists from two news organisations, searching for evidence of sources for stories that were embarrassing to the government.

Four years on, Attorney-General Mark Dreyfus today released a comprehensive review of secrecy laws that acknowledges a woefully complicated mess.

The government’s plan to clean it up is a good first step, but it’s just the tip of a very big iceberg.

Progress on much-needed change

To make its case in 2019, The Times pointed to a bewildering array of legal and political obstacles embedded in Australian law that stand in the way of the transparency considered essential to a fully functioning democracy.

In principle, the government seems to agree.

The review points to 875 secrecy offences covering everything from national security to tax laws, and a dysfunctioning system for protecting whistleblowers.

It also recognises the chilling effect on the ability of journalists to work with sources from inside government, and hold it to account.

To fix the problem, the report comes up with 11 recommendations, including reducing the number of offences to a more manageable (but still excessive) 707.

It establishes a set of guiding principles that will help consolidate the law and make it more consistent.

And it says there should be a narrower range of information defined as “secret”, with clear harm to the public interest in any breach of secrecy before a prosecution can take place.

It also calls for specific defences for public-interest journalism to be inserted into key secrecy laws.

All this is laudable, and it starts to untie the Gordian Knot of legislation that created the culture of secrecy the Times was concerned about, but it is simply not enough.

A patchwork quilt of laws

The enormous number of secrecy offences currently on the books points to the central problem. Whenever lawmakers have spotted a hole in the law, they’ve stuck a patch over it.

That is understandable, particularly in a post-September 11 world when national security has become the overriding concern of governments everywhere.

But it has created a confusing, inconsistent and incoherent mess that the attorney-general appears to be trying to fix with yet more patches.

To be fair, some of them are larger and more coherent than the current ones, but it is still insufficient to deal with the fundamental problem. The Australian government remains dangerously secretive.

Another of the recommendations is a general secrecy offence that says Commonwealth officers can’t can’t disclose anything that would be “prejudicial to the effective working of government”.

A general secrecy offence helps simplify things, but the threshold is worryingly sweeping and runs counter to a recommendation the Australian Law Reform Commission made back in a 2010 report that triggered the review in the first place.

Dangerous plan for journalism

The report also makes much of the need to protect public-interest journalism.

Again, it is laudable that the attorney-general recognises the threats to media freedom embedded in the law, and said he’s prepared to tackle them.

But the answers in the report are more of the same: a set of band aids, rather than a comprehensive cure.

Controversially, that includes a commitment to maintain a ministerial directive from the former Attorney-General Christian Porter.

Porter issued his directive in the wake of the 2019 raids, in an attempt to underline the government’s commitment to press freedom. The directive declared that the director of public prosecutions had to seek the attorney-general’s approval before prosecuting a journalist.

One of the fundamental principles of our democracy is a clear separation between the political and legal systems.

Yet the directive clearly crosses that line.

As we saw with the allegations of sexual assault levelled at Porter, and subsequent legal action against the ABC, the attorney-general is as vulnerable to journalistic investigation as anyone else. Giving him the last word about whether or not to prosecute a journalist is a dangerous, if well-intentioned, step.

Time for a whole new approach

The report also declines to reverse the burden of proof when it comes to publishing government secrets in the public interest.

A number of media organisations (including the Alliance for Journalists’ Freedom that I work for) have argued there should be a presumption in favour of publishing, unless the investigators can show a clear harm to the public interest.

In other words, they should have to prove the harm in publishing rather than forcing journalists to show the value in their story. The report released today rejected that idea.

At least when it comes to media freedom, the Alliance for Journalists’ Freedom has a far simpler and more comprehensive solution.

Rather than patches, we are proposing a Media Freedom Act that would establish a set of overarching principles in law.

First, it would compel parliament to always consider media freedom when passing new legislation.

And second, the courts would be obliged to interpret existing laws, like secrecy and espionage laws, in ways that are consistent with media freedom.

That would include a presumption in favour of protecting a journalist’s sources and in publishing. The police would have to show why the public interest in an investigation is more important than the public interest in the story itself.

That law alone wouldn’t be enough to solve all the problems – there would need to be a lot of amendments to make it work effectively – but it elegantly creates a set of principles and frameworks that protect the underlying objective: to create the kind of transparency necessary for a healthy democracy, without putting national security at risk.

Peter Greste is a professor of journalism at Macquarie University, and the Executive Director of the not-for-profit advocacy group, the Alliance for Journalists’ Freedom.

– ref. Australia’s secrecy laws include 875 offences. Reforms are welcome, but don’t go far enough for press freedom – https://theconversation.com/australias-secrecy-laws-include-875-offences-reforms-are-welcome-but-dont-go-far-enough-for-press-freedom-218234

At OzAsia 2023, Australia’s appreciation of multiculturalism and diversity is most evident in food

By The Conversation -

November 21, 2023

Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Tets Kimura, Adjunct Lecturer, Creative Arts, Flinders University

This year’s OzAsia festival took place from October 19 to November 5, at its annual festival venues on the Kaurna land of Adelaide.

In its early years, the Asia-focused festival, which started in 2007, often highlighted work from a different Asian country each year.

Under the leadership of previous artistic director Joseph Mitchell, it became an event showcasing the best contemporary art from across Asia.

Now in her third and final year after the cancellation of the 2020 festival and smaller-scale festivals in the past two years, artistic director Annette Shun Wah has overseen the festival in full swing with invited artists from 13 countries.

As I attended this year’s festival, I had a chance to reflect on how Australia’s appreciation of multiculturalism and diversity is most evident in food.

Asians as others in Australian history

Despite its physical location in the Asia Pacific, Asians are minorities in Australia. One in eight of us were born in Asia, and one in six identify as Asian.

The first notable migration from Asia occurred in the mid-19th century during the gold rush, when Chinese miners came to Australia. By 1861, 3.3% of the Australian population was born in China – the highest percentage until the 1980s.

Working as a team, Chinese workers were more productive than Anglo and European miners, which led to conflict and anti-Chinese sentiments.

There was little social foundation for Australians to enjoy or appreciate artistic performances from Asia in and around the 1870s when performing arts companies from Japan came to Australia with acrobatic and juggling performances.

This was part of an international trend around the appreciation of Japanese culture known as Japonisme. How the Japanese performances were perceived and appreciated in Australia remains a mystery, as there was little review about these shows.

However, considering the monocultural nature of the colonial mindset, they probably did not contribute to Australia’s multiculturalism or diversity. Instead, they were likely seen as foreign performers delivering ethnic-based aesthetics.

Food as a vehicle to experience other cultures

Although observing performances is an obvious way to experience and learn about other cultures, food has acted as the medium through which a larger number of Australians learn about others.

Food has been an entry point to Asia for many Australians. Many words drawn from Asian cuisine – such as masala, tom yum and wasabi – are no longer foreign in Australian English.

Given this history, it makes sense that a hawker-style food market – introduced alongside the 2015 festival – came to be the Lucky Dumpling Market in 2017.

The night market style stalls along the River Torrens now attract a wide range of people to enjoy Asian food, before or after for a night out, or just coming to eat.

At the OzAsia festival’s A Night with Poh Ling Yeow and Sarah Tiong, I listened to Ling Yeow emphasise the diversity of food in Australia. She spoke of how Australians’ love for travel was a major factor leading to Australia’s multicultural food landscape.

Similarly, Tiong observed how Asian chefs are respected in the Australian food industry as they can bring diversity into the kitchen.

The Lucky Dumpling Market was packed during the weekend with food lovers, who enjoyed a variety of dumplings beyond the Chinese styles that have become orthodox in Australia, notably Japanese gyoza and Nepali momo.

In this year’s festival, I also observed two solo performances related to food, Jacob Rajan’s Paradise or the Impermanence of Ice Cream, and Yumi Umiumare’s Buried TeaBowl — OKUNI.

Ice cream and tea in solo performances

Rajan’s Paradise or the Impermanence of Ice Cream is a poetic and metaphysical reflection on the border between life and death. Rajan features as all seven characters, including an ice cream parlour server and chai seller.

The New Zealand actor’s capacity to show us diverse characters is exceptional and inventive. Jumping from Indian to Antipodean accents and back, he is a talented actor able to connect to Asia and Australasia.

Rajan shows us human sentiments are not limited by cultural boundaries.
Adelaide Festival Centre

With illustrations of life, migration and death, the world he conjures is recognisable to many Asian-Australians. Humour – including joking about Harvey Norman, possibly inserted for the Australian audience – is warmly received by the South Australian audience.

Set in India, Rajan shows us human sentiments are not limited by cultural boundaries.

In Buried TeaBowl — OKUNI, Yumi Umiumare, a Melbourne-based artist born and trained in Japan, combines a traditional tea making ceremony and contemporary dance, around a framework referencing the origins of Japan’s noh theatre.

The show highlights Umiumare’s complex relationship with her heritage and culture. She shows the audience how peace can be found through a cup of tea, and how this precious moment can be destroyed by drinking premixed tea from a plastic bottle.

Yumi Umiumare combines a traditional tea making ceremony and contemporary dance.
Vikk Shayen/Adelaide Festival Centre

Unlike Rajan, who performs in English, Umiumare uses her native language without subtitles from time to time. The majority of the show is performed in English, but the unsubtitled Japanese reflects a complex journey of herself as a performer and a migrant.

Without understanding every single word, the audience can still appreciate her overall performance, a mixture of traditional sentiments and contemporary dynamic expressions.

Understanding artistic performances requires more skills and knowledge than appreciating tasty food. Down by the river, many locals are enjoying Asian food – but do as many enjoy Asian art? There is a task ahead of us to extend appreciation of Asian culture beyond food and beyond the festival period.

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

– ref. At OzAsia 2023, Australia’s appreciation of multiculturalism and diversity is most evident in food – https://theconversation.com/at-ozasia-2023-australias-appreciation-of-multiculturalism-and-diversity-is-most-evident-in-food-218107

Gaza and Ukraine are separate conflicts, but conspiracy theorists are trying to link the two on social media: new research

By The Conversation -

November 21, 2023

Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Nicholas Evans, Lecturer in Policing and Emergency Management, University of Tasmania

As the war between Israel and Hamas has intensified in Gaza, disinformation and conspiracy theories about the conflict have been increasingly circulating on social media.

At least that’s what I found in my analysis of some 12,000 comments posted on Telegram channels in the immediate aftermath of Hamas’ October 7 attack on Israel. Not surprisingly, I also found language about the war was more likely to be threatening or hateful than language used in comments about other topics.

Many comments on Telegram also linked the Israel-Hamas conflict to dangerous, antisemitic conspiracy theories related to the war between Russia and Ukraine, hundreds of kilometres away on another continent.

For instance, I found the Russian invasion of Ukraine was characterised by these conspiracy theorists as a justified resistance against the “Khazarian Mafia” (so-called “fake Jews”) who supposedly govern Ukraine either as Nazis, or like them.

Commenters on Telegram characterised Hamas’ October 7 attack in similar terms – as an attack against “fake Zionist Ashkenazi Jews” and Nazis.

Both conflicts were also characterised as “new world order” plots. Proponents of these conspiracies believe that powerful elites (often characterised as Jewish) are secretly trying to establish a totalitarian world government or other forms of global oppression.

A comment in one of the channels summarised this view, arguing “these globalists are evil starting a second psyop [psychological operation] front after Ukraine failed”.

Other comments linked the two conflicts by calling Western supporters of Ukraine hypocrites for condemning the actions of Hamas. As one user argued: “The West’s weapons in Ukraine [were] sent to Hamas for the offensive.”

Polycrises and conspiracies

Many of these conspiracies are not new on their own. However, what is unique in this situation is the way people have linked two largely unrelated conflicts through conspiracy theories.

Research has shown that overlapping crises (often referred to as “polycrises”) may accelerate the spread of conspiracies, possibly due to the psychological toll that constantly adapting to rapid change places on people.

When crises overlap, such as wars and global pandemics, it can amplify the effects of conspiracies, too. For example, the amount of prejudice and radicalisation seen online may increase. In extreme cases, individuals may also act on their beliefs.

Although these conspiracies are appearing on the fringes of social media, it’s still important to understand how this type of rhetoric can evolve and how it can be harmful if it seeps into mainstream media or politics.

How I conducted my research

I have been following several public Australian Telegram channels as part of a broader project investigating the intersection of conspiracy theories and security.

For the latest phase of this research, which has yet to be peer reviewed, I analysed 12,000 comments posted to three of these channels between October 8 and October 11.

To analyse so many messages, I used a topic modelling approach. This is a statistical model that can identify frequently occurring themes (or topics) within large amounts of text-based data. Essentially, topic modelling is similar to highlighting sections of a book containing related themes.

There are many approaches to topic modelling. I used BERTopic, which generates topics by “clustering” messages with similar characteristics, like words, sentences and other bits of context. In total, I identified 40 distinct topics in the comments I analysed.

I then split these topics into conflict and non-conflict groupings to analyse the sentiment behind them. I used Google’s Perspective API algorithm to do this, as it can score text on a scale of zero to one for hateful or threatening language. The results show that conflict topics were more likely to involve threatening and hateful speech.

A graph showing the Google Perspective API results.
Author provided

A key reason for this is the antisemitic nature of the most common conflict topic grouping (key words: “Israel”, “Jew”, “Hamas”, “Zionist”, “Palestinian”). One representative comment from this group, for instance, called for the elimination of Israel as a state.

I found Islamophobic messages in this topic grouping, as well. For example, some comments suggested Hamas’ actions were reflective of Islamic beliefs or demonstrated the danger posed by Muslims more generally.

The second-largest topic (key words: “Ukraine”, “Russia”, “Putin”, “war”, “Islam”, “propaganda”) captured discussions linking the Hamas attacks to the Russia-Ukraine war. Messages did this by casting both conflicts as justified on similar grounds (a fight against alleged Nazis and Zionists), or by linking them to global conspiracies.

And I found variations of the “new world order” global conspiracy theory in other topics. For instance, the fourth-largest topic (key words: “video”, “clown”, “fake”, “movie”, “staged”) included comments accusing Israel and other common conspiracy figures of staging the Hamas attacks.

This closely aligns with topics about the Russia-Ukraine war from my broader project. One of the most frequently discussed topics (key words: “Putin”, “war”, “Nazi”, “Ukraine”, “Jewish”) frames Ukraine’s defensive efforts as a sinister conspiracy, usually involving Jewish figures like Ukraine’s president.

How to combat the spread of conspiracy theories

As noted, the conspiracy-friendly nature of social media, in addition to overlapping “polycrises”, may increase people’s levels of prejudice and radicalisation.

Australian security agencies have already warned about this risk in the ongoing Israel-Hamas war. ASIO Director-General Mike Burgess warned of “spontaneous violence” arising from “language that inflames tension[s]”.

Research has also shown a strong relationship between conspiracies and antisemitism, which presents clear risks for Jewish people. Indeed, antisemitism reached unprecedented levels in the United States in 2021 and 2022, possibly due to the series of overlapping crises the world was experiencing at the time.

Countering online conspiracy theories is therefore an important, but challenging task.
Effective counter-strategies involve a mix of preventative and responsive approaches targeting both the suppliers and consumers of conspiracies.

This includes increasing our investment in education, reducing social inequality, and carefully debunking conspiracy theories when they appear. Awareness of the dynamics and spread of conspiracy narratives is a necessary first step.

Nicholas Evans is affiliated with the Tasmanian Institute of Law Enforcement Studies (TILES).

– ref. Gaza and Ukraine are separate conflicts, but conspiracy theorists are trying to link the two on social media: new research – https://theconversation.com/gaza-and-ukraine-are-separate-conflicts-but-conspiracy-theorists-are-trying-to-link-the-two-on-social-media-new-research-215803

What are the new COVID booster vaccines? Can I get one? Do they work? Are they safe?

By The Conversation -

November 21, 2023

Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Paul Griffin, Professor, Infectious Diseases and Microbiology, The University of Queensland

As the COVID virus continues to evolve, so does our vaccine response. From December 11, Australians will have access to new vaccines that offer better protection.

These “monovalent” booster vaccines are expected to be a better match for currently circulating strains of SARS-CoV-2, the virus that causes COVID.

Pfizer’s monovalent vaccine will be available to eligible people aged five years and older. The Moderna monovalent vaccine can be used for those aged 12 years and older.

Who is eligible for these new boosters? How do they differ from earlier ones? Do they work? Are they safe?

Who’s eligible for the new boosters?

The federal government has accepted the Australian Technical Advisory Group (ATAGI) recommendation to use the new vaccines, after Australia’s regulator approved their use last month. However, vaccine eligibility has remained the same since September.

ATAGI recommends Australians aged over 75 get vaccinated if it has been six months or more since their last dose.

People aged 65 to 74 are recommended to have a 2023 booster if they haven’t already had one.

For people without risk factors.
Health.gov.au

Adults aged 18 to 64 with underlying risk factors that increase their risk of severe COVID are also recommended to have a 2023 booster if they haven’t had one yet. And if they’ve already had a 2023 booster, they can consider an additional dose.

Advice for people with risk factors.
Health.gov.au

For adults aged 18 to 64 without underlying risk factors who have already received a 2023 booster, an additional dose isn’t recommended. But if you’re aged 18 to 64 and haven’t had a booster in 2023, you can consider an additional dose.

Additional doses aren’t recommended for children without underlying conditions that increase their risk of severe COVID. A primary course is not recommended for children aged six months to five years without additional risk factors.

Monovalent, bivalent? What’s the difference?

From monovalent

The initial COVID vaccines were “monovalent”. They had one target – the original viral strain.

But as the virus mutated, we assigned new letters of the Greek alphabet to each variant. This brings us to Omicron. With this significant change, we saw “immune evasion”. The virus had changed so much the original vaccines didn’t provide sufficient immunity.

To bivalent

So vaccines were updated to target an early Omicron subvariant, BA.1, plus the original ancestral strain. With two targets, these were the first of the “bivalent” vaccines, which were approved in Australia in 2022.

Omicron continued to evolve, leading to more “immune escape”, contributing to repeated waves of transmission.

The vaccines were updated again in early 2023. These newer bivalent vaccines target two strains – the ancestral strain plus the subvariants BA.4 and BA.5.

Back to monovalent

Further changes in the virus have meant our boosters needed to be updated again. This takes us to the recent announcement.

This time the booster targets another subvariant of Omicron known as XBB.1.5 (sometimes known as Kraken).

This vaccine is monovalent once more, meaning it has only one target. The target against the original viral strain has been removed.

According to advice given to the World Health Organization in May, this is largely because immunity to this original strain is no longer required (it’s no longer infecting humans). Raising immunity to the original strain may also hamper the immune response to the newer component, but we’re not sure if this is occurring or how important this is.

The United States approved XBB.1.5-specific vaccines from Pfizer and Moderna in mid-September. These updated vaccines have also been approved in places including Europe, Canada, Japan and Singapore.

In Australia, the Therapeutic Goods Administration (TGA) approved
them in October.

Do these newer vaccines work?

Evidence for the efficacy of these new monovalent vaccines comes from the results of research Pfizer and Moderna
submitted to the TGA.

Evidence also comes from a preprint (preliminary research available online that has yet to be independently reviewed) and an update Pfizer presented to the US Centers for Disease Control.

Taken together, the available evidence shows the updated vaccines produce good levels of antibodies in laboratory studies, in humans and mice when compared to previous vaccines and when looking at multiple emerging variants, including EG.5 (sometimes known as Eris). This variant is the one causing high numbers of cases around the world currently, including in Australia. It is very similar to the XBB version contained in the updated booster.

The updated vaccines should also cover BA.2.86 or Pirola, according to early results from clinical trials and the US Centers for Disease Control. This variant is responsible for a rapidly increasing proportion of cases, with case numbers growing in Australia.

It’s clear the virus is going to continue to evolve. So performance of these vaccines against new variants will continue to be closely monitored.

Are they safe?

The safety of the updated vaccines has also been shown to be similar to previous versions. Studies comparing them found no significant difference in terms of the adverse events reported.

Given the availability of the updated vaccines, some countries have removed their approval for earlier versions. This is because newer versions are a closer match to currently circulating strains, rather than any safety issue with the older vaccines.

What happens next?

The availability of updated vaccines is a welcome development, however this is not the end of the story. We need to make sure eligible people get vaccinated.

We also need to acknowledge that vaccination should form part of a comprehensive strategy to limit the impact of COVID from now on. That includes measures such as mask wearing, social distancing, focusing on ventilation and air quality, and to a lesser degree hand hygiene. Rapidly accessing antivirals if eligible is also still important, as is keeping away from others if you are infected.

Paul Griffin is a director and scientific advisory board member of the Immunisation Coalition and has previously had roles as an advisory board member for Pfizer, Moderna and Novavax.

– ref. What are the new COVID booster vaccines? Can I get one? Do they work? Are they safe? – https://theconversation.com/what-are-the-new-covid-booster-vaccines-can-i-get-one-do-they-work-are-they-safe-217804

What are the new COVID vaccine booster vaccines? Can I get one? Do they work? Are they safe?

By The Conversation -

November 21, 2023

Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Paul Griffin, Professor, Infectious Diseases and Microbiology, The University of Queensland

As the COVID virus continues to evolve, so does our vaccine response. From December 11, Australians will have access to new vaccines that offer better protection.

These “monovalent” booster vaccines are expected to be a better match for currently circulating strains of SARS-CoV-2, the virus that causes COVID.

Pfizer’s monovalent vaccine will be available to eligible people aged five years and older. The Moderna monovalent vaccine can be used for those aged 12 years and older.

Who is eligible for these new boosters? How do they differ from earlier ones? Do they work? Are they safe?

Who’s eligible for the new boosters?

ATAGI recommends Australians aged over 75 get vaccinated if it has been six months or more since their last dose.

People aged 65 to 74 are recommended to have a 2023 booster if they haven’t already had one.

Monovalent, bivalent? What’s the difference?

From monovalent

The initial COVID vaccines were “monovalent”. They had one target – the original viral strain.

To bivalent

Omicron continued to evolve, leading to more “immune escape”, contributing to repeated waves of transmission.

The vaccines were updated again in early 2023. These newer bivalent vaccines target two strains – the ancestral strain plus the subvariants BA.4 and BA.5.

Back to monovalent

Further changes in the virus have meant our boosters needed to be updated again. This takes us to the recent announcement.

This time the booster targets another subvariant of Omicron known as XBB.1.5 (sometimes known as Kraken).

This vaccine is monovalent once more, meaning it has only one target. The target against the original viral strain has been removed.

The United States approved XBB.1.5-specific vaccines from Pfizer and Moderna in mid-September. These updated vaccines have also been approved in places including Europe, Canada, Japan and Singapore.

In Australia, the Therapeutic Goods Administration (TGA) approved
them in October.

Do these newer vaccines work?

Evidence for the efficacy of these new monovalent vaccines comes from the results of research Pfizer and Moderna
submitted to the TGA.

Evidence also comes from a preprint (preliminary research available online that has yet to be independently reviewed) and an update Pfizer presented to the US Centers for Disease Control.

It’s clear the virus is going to continue to evolve. So performance of these vaccines against new variants will continue to be closely monitored.

Are they safe?

The safety of the updated vaccines has also been shown to be similar to previous versions. Studies comparing them found no significant difference in terms of the adverse events reported.

What happens next?

The availability of updated vaccines is a welcome development, however this is not the end of the story. We need to make sure eligible people get vaccinated.

Paul Griffin is a director and scientific advisory board member of the Immunisation Coalition and has previously had roles as an advisory board member for Pfizer, Moderna and Novavax.

– ref. What are the new COVID vaccine booster vaccines? Can I get one? Do they work? Are they safe? – https://theconversation.com/what-are-the-new-covid-vaccine-booster-vaccines-can-i-get-one-do-they-work-are-they-safe-217804

Graeme Edgeler Analysis – As Long as It Takes, or There are No Hard Deadlines

By Evening Report -

November 21, 2023

Analysis by Graeme Edgeler, courtesy of the Democracy Project (https://democracyproject.nz)

Winston Peters, New Zealand First leader, at Victoria University.

Government-formation negotiations are ongoing between National, Act and New Zealand First. We do not know how long these will take. Neither it seems, do they.

Importantly, there are fundamentally no hard deadlines on government formation negotiations in New Zealand. It will take as long as it takes. I’ll start by saying that some of the hypotheticals I talk about here are ridiculously unlikely. National, Act and New Zealand First will almost certainly either come to an agreement, or realise they cannot, well before we reach the ones I mention at the end. The point I am making is well-established by them however: there really are no hard deadlines. There is no date by which, if negotiations haven’t resolved anything, there must be a fresh election. Unless they’re still going in 2026, of course, when we’ll need an election anyway.

In New Zealand, a decision to hold an early election is one that is made by the Prime Minister. This power – like all other powers the Prime Minister has – is circumscribed by the caretaker convention. If a Prime Minister has the confidence of more MPs than not, they may exercise the power to advise the Governor-General to dissolve Parliament and hold an election.

If a Prime Minister is operating in caretaker mode, that is, is governing without the clear support of a majority of MPs, the power to advise the Governor-General to dissolve Parliament and hold an election can only be exercised – like all the other powers – if more MPs than not support the exercise of the power.

This means that, no matter how longs things take, there will be no advice from the Prime Minister to the Governor-General to hold a new election unless at least one of the parties involved in negotiations to form a government agrees to the holding of a new election.

There are soft deadlines all the time. There are soft legal deadlines. Saturday 11 November 2023 was one. It was the date negotiations had to be resolved if we wanted to avoid the necessity of having Chris Hipkins reappointed as Prime Minister because the writ wasn’t able be returned within 28 days of the election. But that date passed, and Chris Hipkins was appointed Prime Minister again (to operate within the confines of the caretaker convention).

There are soft political deadlines too. There was a date that things would have needed to be resolved by for Christopher Luxon to be able to attend this year’s APEC leaders meeting by. That didn’t happen.

And there will be others. At some point, if negotiations continue, this becomes the longest-ever negotiation to form a government. But that’s only politically relevant. It wouldn’t mean anything, legally.

And there’s also a date that this would have to be resolved by so that Christopher Luxon can be sworn in as Prime Minister before the first opening of Parliament for the swearing-in of MPs. But this isn’t a hard deadline either. MPs can be sworn in before Ministers. The opening of Parliament and the first sitting of the House after the 1996 general election occurred before the swearing-in of Ministers from the National-New Zealand First coalition (albeit, the negotiations had been resolved).

They don’t have to be though. At some point, it possibly becomes politically difficult for National. And if it keeps going, it possibly becomes politically damaging for National. They may decide that the harm to them being caused by negotiating is worse than the harm that would be done to them by being seen by the public as forcing New Zealanders back to the polls. But that’s just politics. If National, Act and New Zealand First are content to continue discussions, and none of them wants a fresh election, the can go on basically indefinitely.

Legal things will crop up. Like the re-swearing in of the old Government Ministers. Like the first sitting of the House. But they will just happen. The House will sit to swear-in MPs and to elect a speaker whether negotiations have concluded or not. But once those formalities are done, the House can just adjourn until next year and the talking can continue. The expectation is that the Governor-General will attend at the state opening of Parliament and give a speech from the throne. That can probably happen, albeit the content of the speech will be subject to agreement under the caretaker principle. There is no need for the House to adopt a reply to the speech before everyone is ready to. It can just meet every so often, and National, Act, and New Zealand First would have the numbers to adjourn. One really big soft legal deadline is imprest supply. At some point in the middle of next year, the permission that Parliament has given the government to spend money runs out. But Parliament exists, and there will be MPs. If they’re committed to making negotiations work, they’d just make sure it happens.

Politically, do I think this is at all likely? No. They’ll agree something at some point, or realise they cannot. There are even halfway houses. If it’s taking ages to resolve, but National, Act and New Zealand First are still committed to resolving it, they could even agree in the interim, Christopher Luxon could be appointed Prime Minister instead of Chris Hipkins, to operate under the caretaker principle. I don’t think that’s likely either.

But anyone who tells you there’s a legal deadline this all has to be done by is mistaken, unless the deadline they’re talking about is 10 November 2026. At that point, Parliament will have expired.

*******

Graeme Edgeler is a Wellington barrister, with a professional interest in constitutional and electoral law.

Simon Angelo Analysis – The Future of Money: Bitcoin, Banks, BRICS, and CBDCs

By Evening Report -

November 21, 2023

Bitcoin-1 — Bitcoin Fund office, circa 2016. Source: Supplied / Simon Angelo

By Simon Angelo – www.WealthMorning.com

Simon Angelo worked for the world’s first regulated Bitcoin fund in 2016. He currently works at a trading desk for Wholesale Investors. His work in offshore finance and global banking gives him some insights on the future of money.

Bitcoin Fund office, circa 2016. Source: Supplied / Simon Angelo

When Bitcoin was a special opportunity

In October 2016, when I started working with the Bitcoin fund, a Bitcoin cost around NZD $900. Today it sits at around NZD $62,000.

Back then, the principals of the fund saw Bitcoin rather like the oil futures they had traded in the 1980s.

These were the early days of deregulation in the oil industry. Oil reserves were depleted. Demand from China was coming on stream. More oil production would be needed. The price could only go up.

It was a market with plenty of volatility, illiquidity, and scant regulation. It was all pretty chaotic. Yet there were global forces at play. These would give rise to an oil and commodity bull market, bursting a dam of money.

In 2016, they saw similar potential for Bitcoin, just as they’d seen for oil back in 1987.

There was a long runway ahead. A destination where the technology becomes widely adopted. And the potential for Bitcoin to change money as we know it.

Were they right?

Yes, there’s been an overall Bitcoin bull market. The price has grown almost 7,000% since 2016 — though there’s been plenty of volatility.

Yet much of the wider mainstream adoption they predicted hasn’t happened. Like other cryptocurrencies, Bitcoin remains a mainly speculative instrument.

Does this mean Bitcoin and other cryptocurrencies still have a bigger part to play in the future of money? What about the alternatives?

Banking and currency

Modern banking has come a long way.

With the click of a mouse and a confirmation on your phone, you can send funds around the world. This can be to other bank accounts, to brokerage accounts, or even to global smart-card services and digital wallets.

But for those seeking privacy or protection of their wealth, banking alone can fall short.

On the privacy front, okay, the ordinary punter doesn’t typically expect Swiss-style bank secrecy. Though even that is limited these days for requests made under CRS and FATCA rules.

Most alarming was the freezing of accounts for protest groups during the Canadian trucker convoy protests in 2022. This crossed the line from tax-related access to access for political purposes.

To my way of thinking, this tarnished the reputation of both the Canadian dollar and the Canadian banking system.

Increasing and invasive bureaucracy can actually limit trust in the banking system. It risks driving more people into ‘offgrid’ instruments like cryptocurrency.

A robust financial system should retain strong property rights separate from the state. Where access is limited only to tax enforcement via transparent court orders.

Unfortunately, the creep of bureaucracy has been a theme of our time.

What about CBDCs or other digital currencies?

According to a 2021 survey, central bank digital currencies were currently being looked at by 86% of central banks around the world.

60% were experimenting with the technology.

14% were deploying pilot projects.

The RBNZ has embarked on a 4-stage process and is currently at stage 2: ‘exploring high level design options for the CBDC, and their costs and benefits.’

The primary objectives of CBDCs are to help maintain trust in local currency, maintain price stability, and ensure safe and resilient payment systems.

Some analysts have pointed out that CBDCs could actually reduce trust in currencies, since they could be open to more government manipulation.

The Canadian trucker convoy protests saw about 280 bank accounts frozen without court orders under the Emergencies Act.

For people using CBDCs, the question is then what checks and balances would be in place to prevent bureaucrats simply turning them off?

Perhaps, for instance, you’ve been found mobilising a protest they deem political wrongthink. Even dangerous. Could your CBDCs be frozen or penalised at the click of a bureaucrat’s mouse?

Again, we come back to the most crucial aspect of money: It needs to be trusted.

If people have doubts about their government, or their public service, they might be unlikely to trust a CBDC. Willingness to embrace and accept it may be low.

It’s the same situation with the plethora of digital currencies out there. Who backs them? How can you trust them?

That’s the beauty a cryptocurrency like Bitcoin has (as opposed to a digital currency). It is backed by the incontrovertible verification system of the blockchain.

Which brings us to the other essential quality of money…

Will it hold its value?

In Argentina, lack of trust in the government’s fiat currency — the peso — is entwined with another key problem.

Last week, inflation topped 140%. That means much of what you go to buy now costs more than double compared to just a year ago.

People give up buying new things and head to the second-hand or thrift market for items as simple as a pair of jeans.

An Argentinean friend of mine told me about his local hardware store with no pricing on the shelves. ‘You have to take everything up to the cashier to get the latest price.’

Well, trust is so low in the peso it may now face its demise.

The country’s presidential front-runner, former financial analyst Javier Milei, has pledged to scrap the central bank and dollarise the economy.

As we were going to press, it was announced that Milei had won the presidential elections in provisional results.

If he goes ahead with his pledge on the currency, this could be a game changer. No country Argentina’s size has previously shed their currency for the US dollar and conceded their monetary policy to Washington.

A switch to the US dollar would be a radical step, no doubt. Yet already locals try to get their hands on as much USD as they can buy.

Property prices are listed in USD to protect against inflation.

Clearly, if a currency is to be trusted and accepted, it also needs to be stable.

This is the flipside with cryptocurrency. Values are volatile. If you were to settle on a house purchase with Bitcoin — then Bitcoin suddenly drops 10% — you’d find that house now costs 10% more when paying that way.

Which is why these cryptocurrencies have upside for trading and investment, as opposed to being a reliable medium of exchange.

Furthermore, there are thousands of cryptocurrencies. Most need significant processing power and some time to transact. So they have intrinsic limitations when it comes to becoming the real future of money.

Inflation and the future

Today, although interest rates are higher on savings, after tax, the greasy pole of inflation makes it hard to keep pace.

By definition, protecting your wealth means you may want to put longer-term funds into productive assets like stocks or property. The lesson from crises throughout history, including the Second World War, is that quality businesses can still produce, sell, and grow their value over time.

Bitcoin and cryptocurrencies do not fit into the category of productive assets. This is because their main use today is as a speculative investment and alternative store of value.

That store of value, like gold, is based on limited supply. But unlike gold, the cryptocurrencies themselves could be subject to competition and regulation. Not to mention the inherent volatility.

So, would Bitcoin interest me as much today as it did in 2016?

Well, back then, at $900, a 7,000% return was possible in five years.

But at ~$62,000, it is hard to even see $100,000 over the next five years. Holding coins over this time would also carry risk and, unless lent out, usually no yield.

Meanwhile, trust in fiat currency comes down to its ability to store value and act as a reliable medium of exchange around the world.

This is the reason why the US dollar continues to reign supreme as the world’s reserve currency. Some say it is under threat by a potential BRICS dollar that could be backed by gold.

It is hard to see the reality of this threat. The BRICS countries have divergent interests. The US dollar is backed by the world’s largest single base of taxpayers.

Thus far, the Federal Reserve has been amongst the more successful in tackling inflation. It is currently down to 3.2% in the US, gradually nearing the target of 2%.

Yes, the proportion of US dollar reserves held globally has reduced. The main reason for this appears to be the emergence of another large and reliable currency in the euro.

If our local currency weakened or looked to be threatened by out-of-control inflation, unfair manipulations of a potential CBDC, or a manifestly corrupt government, I would probably be looking for a more reliable currency such as the US dollar or euro to transact and hold wealth.

Further, holding listed assets in these currencies can help investors to diversify.

The future of money comes down to faith and trust. Like so much else does in life.

We cannot prove that our close family members love us absolutely. But we have faith that they do. Spouses promise as much at the wedding altar.

As the US dollar declares: ‘In God We Trust’. Adopted as the official motto of the United States in 1956, it denotes that ‘the political and economic prosperity of the nation is in God’s hands.’

Long may that remain, for when too much is placed in the hands of man and bureaucracy, all trust can soon erode.

For now, the real future for money is likely in the expansion of financial products that offer access to quality currencies and quality assets denominated in them.

For example, smart cards that allow you to transact offshore currencies in a cost-effective way. Brokerage accounts that allow you to hold offshore assets for growth and income. And the ability to access various currencies via lending margin on the assets you hold.

Of course, many of these sort of products will be suitable for more sophisticated investors only. Any leverage adds risk. And most people should always have a suitable level of emergency funds available at all times.

Perhaps the future for Bitcoin and oil will intersect again.

Supply of both appears limited. Appetite is strong yet uncertain. But prices are currently high, making it hard to foresee the sort of breakout we saw in 1987 or 2016.

Simon Angelo, Editor, Wealth Morning – www.WealthMorning.com

(This article is the author’s personal opinion and commentary. It is general in nature and should not be construed as any financial or investment advice. Readers should seek independent advice from a licensed Financial Advice Provider for their own situation.)

Disinformation campaigns are undermining democracy. Here’s how we can fight back

By The Conversation -

November 21, 2023

Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Stephan Lewandowsky, Chair of Cognitive Psychology, University of Bristol

Misinformation is debated everywhere and has justifiably sparked concerns. It can polarise the public, reduce health-protective behaviours such as mask wearing and vaccination, and erode trust in science. Much of misinformation is spread not by accident but as part of organised political campaigns, in which case we refer to it as disinformation.

But there is a more fundamental, subversive damage arising from misinformation and disinformation that is discussed less often.

It undermines democracy itself. In a recent paper published in Current Opinion in Psychology, we highlight two important aspects of democracy that disinformation works to erode.

The integrity of elections

The first of the two aspects is confidence in how power is distributed – the integrity of elections in particular.

In the United States, recent polls have shown nearly 70% of Republicans question the legitimacy of the 2020 presidential election. This is a direct result of disinformation from Donald Trump, the loser of that election.

Democracy depends on the people knowing that power will be transferred peacefully if an incumbent loses an election. The “big lie” that the 2020 US election was stolen undermines that confidence.

Depending on reliable information

The second important aspect of democracy is this – it depends on reliable information about the evidence for various policy options.

One reason we trust democracy as a system of governance is the idea that it can deliver “better” decisions and outcomes than autocracy, because the “wisdom of crowds” outperforms any one individual. But the benefits of this wisdom vanish if people are pervasively disinformed.

Disinformation about climate change is a well-documented example. The fossil fuel industry understood the environmental consequences of burning fossil fuels at least as early as the 1960s. Yet they spent decades funding organisations that denied the reality of climate change. This disinformation campaign has delayed climate mitigation by several decades – a case of public policy being thwarted by false information.

We’ve seen a similar misinformation trajectory in the COVID-19 pandemic, although it happened in just a few years rather than decades. Misinformation about COVID varied from claims that 5G towers rather than a virus caused the disease, to casting doubt on the effectiveness of lockdowns or the safety of vaccines.

The viral surge of misinformation led to the World Health Organisation introducing a new term – infodemic – to describe the abundance of low-quality information and conspiracy theories.

A common denominator of misinformation

Strikingly, some of the same political operatives involved in denying climate change have also used their rhetorical playbook to promote COVID disinformation. What do these two issues have in common?

One common denominator is suspicion of government solutions to societal problems. Whether it’s setting a price on carbon to mitigate climate change, or social distancing to slow the spread of COVID, contrarians fear the policies they consider to be an attack on personal liberties.

An ecosystem of conservative and free-market think tanks exists to deny any science that, if acted on, has the potential to infringe on “liberty” through regulations.

There is another common attribute that ties together all organised disinformation campaigns – whether about elections, climate change or vaccines. It’s the use of personal attacks to compromise people’s integrity and credibility.

Election workers in the US were falsely accused of committing fraud by those who fraudulently claimed the election had been “stolen” from Trump.

Climate scientists have been subject to harassment campaigns, ranging from hate mail to vexatious complaints and freedom-of-information requests. Public health officials such as Anthony Fauci have been prominent targets of far-right attacks.

The new frontier in attacks on scientists

It is perhaps unsurprising there is now a new frontier in the attacks on scientists and others who seek to uphold the evidence-based integrity of democracy. It involves attacks and allegations of bias against misinformation researchers.

Such attacks are largely driven by Republican politicians, in particular those who have endorsed Trump’s baseless claims about the 2020 election.

The misinformers are seeking to neutralise research focused on their own conduct by borrowing from the climate denial and anti-vaccination playbook. Their campaign has had a chilling effect on research into misinformation.

How do we move on from here?

Psychological research has contributed to legislative efforts by the European Union, such as the Digital Services Act or Code of Practice, which seek to make democracies more resilient against misinformation and disinformation.

Research has also investigated how to boost the public’s resistance to misinformation. One such method is inoculation, which rests on the idea people can be protected against being misled if they learn about the rhetorical techniques used to mislead them.

In a recent inoculation campaign involving brief educational videos shown to 38 million citizens in Eastern Europe, people’s ability to recognise misleading rhetoric about Ukrainian refugees was frequently improved.

It remains to be seen whether these initiatives and research findings will be put to use in places like the US, where one side of politics appears more threatened by research into misinformation than by the risks to democracy arising from misinformation itself.

We’d like to acknowledge our colleagues Ullrich Ecker, Naomi Oreskes, Jon Roozenbeek and Sander van der Linden who coauthored the journal article on which this article is based.

Stephan Lewandowsky receives financial support from the European Research Council, the Humboldt Foundation, the Volkswagen Foundation and the European Commission. He also receives funding from Jigsaw (a technology incubator created by Google) and from UK Research and Innovation. He also interacts frequently with the European Commission’s Joint Research Centre in an advisory capacity and through scientific collaborations.

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

– ref. Disinformation campaigns are undermining democracy. Here’s how we can fight back – https://theconversation.com/disinformation-campaigns-are-undermining-democracy-heres-how-we-can-fight-back-217539

No, antibiotics aren’t always needed. Here’s how GPs can avoid overprescribing

By The Conversation -

November 21, 2023

Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Mina Bakhit, Assistant Professor of Public Health, Bond University

Antimicrobial resistance is one of the biggest global threats to health, food security and development. This month, The Conversation’s experts explore how we got here and the potential solutions.

The growth in antibiotic resistance threatens to return the world to the pre-antibiotic era – with deaths from now-treatable infections, and some elective surgery being restricted because of the risks of infection.

Antibiotic resistance is a major problem worldwide and should be the concern of everyone, including you.

We need to develop new antibiotics that can fight the resistant bacteria or antibiotics that bacteria would not be quickly resistant to. This is like finding new weapons to help the immune system fight the bacteria.

More importantly, we need to use our current antibiotics – our existing weapons against the bacteria – more wisely.

Giving GPs the tools to say no

In 2022, more than one-third of Australians had least one antibiotic prescription, with 88% of antibiotics prescribed by GPs.

Many people mistakenly think antibiotics are necessary for treating any infection and that infections won’t improve unless treated with antibiotics. This misconception is found in studies involving patients with various conditions, including respiratory infections and conjunctivitis.

In reality, not all infections require antibiotics, and this belief drives patients requesting antibiotics from GPs.

Other times, GPs give antibiotics because they think patients want them, even when they might not be necessary. Although, in reality they are after symptom relief.

For GPs, there are ways to target antibiotics for only when they are clearly needed, even with short appointments with patients perceived to want antibiotics. This includes:

using decision guides or tests to decide if antibiotics are really necessary
giving patients information sheets when antibiotics aren’t needed
giving a “delayed prescription” – only to be used after the patient waits to see if they get better on their own.

All these strategies need some training and practice, but they can help GPs prescribe antibiotics more responsibly. GPs can also learn from each other and use tools like posters as reminders.

To help with patients’ expectations, public campaigns have been run periodically to educate people about antibiotics. These campaigns explain why using antibiotics too much can be harmful and when it’s essential to take them.

Giving doctors feedback on their prescribing

National programs and interventions can help GPs use antibiotics more wisely

One successful way they do this is by giving GPs feedback about how they prescribe antibiotics. This works better when it’s provided by organisations that GPs trust, it happens more than once and clear goals are set for improvement.

GP types on laptop — GPs tend to act on feedback about their antibiotic prescribing.
Shutterstock

The NPS (formerly National Prescribing Service) MedicineWise program, for example, had been giving feedback to GPs on how their antibiotic prescriptions compared to others. This reduced the number of antibiotics prescribed.

However, NPS no longer exists.

In 2017, the Australian health department did something similar by sending feedback letters, randomly using different formats, to the GPs who prescribed the most antibiotics, showing them how they were prescribing compared to others.

The most effective letter, which used pictures to show this comparison, reduced the number of antibiotics GPs prescribed by 9% in a year.

Clearer rules and regulations

Rules and regulations are crucial in the fight against antibiotic resistance.

Before April 2020, many GPs’ computer systems made it easy to get multiple repeat prescriptions for the same condition, which could encourage their overuse.

However, in April 2020, the Pharmaceutical Benefits Scheme (PBS) changed the rules to ensure GPs had to think more carefully about whether patients actually needed repeat antibiotics. This meant the amount of medicine prescribed better matched the days it was needed for.

Pharmacist looks at antibiotics — Simple changes can make a difference to antibiotic prescribing and dispensing.
Shutterstock

Other regulations or policy targets could include:

ensuring all GPs have access to antibiotic prescribing guidelines, such as Therapeutic Guidelines, which is well accepted and widely available in Australia
ensuring GPs are only prescribing antibiotics when needed. Many of the conditions antibiotics are currently prescribed for (such as sore throat, cough and middle ear infections) are self-limiting, meaning they will get better without antibiotics
encouraging GP working with antibiotics manufacturers to align pack sizes to the recommended treatment duration. The recommended first-line treatments for uncomplicated urinary tract infections in non-pregnant women, for example, are either three days of trimethoprim 300 mg per night or five days of nitrofurantoin 100 mg every six hours. However, the packs contain enough for seven days. This can mean patients take it for longer or use leftovers later.

Australia lags behind Sweden

Australia has some good strategies for antibiotic prescribing, but we have not had a sustained long-term plan to ensure wise use.

Although Australian GPs have been doing well in reducing antibiotic prescribing since 2015, more could be done.

In the 1990s, Sweden’s antibiotic use was similar to Australia’s, but is now less than half. For more than two decades, Sweden has had a national strategy that reduces antibiotic use by about 7% annually.

It is vital Australia invests in a similar long-term national strategy – to have a centrally funded program, but with regional groups working on the implementation. This could be funded directly by the Commonwealth Department of Health and Ageing, or with earmarked funds via another body such as the Australian Centre for Disease Control.

In the meantime, individual GPs can do their part to prescribe antibiotics better, and patients can join the national effort to combat antibiotic resistance by asking their GP: “what would happen if I don’t take an antibiotic?”.

Read the other articles in The Conversation’s series on the dangers of antibiotic resistance here.

Mina Bakhit received funding from Therapeutic Guidelines Ltd (TGL) / Royal Australian College of General Practitioners (RACGP) Foundation Research Grant.

Paul Glasziou receives funding from an National Health and Medical Research Council (NHMCR) Investigator grant.

– ref. No, antibiotics aren’t always needed. Here’s how GPs can avoid overprescribing – https://theconversation.com/no-antibiotics-arent-always-needed-heres-how-gps-can-avoid-overprescribing-213981

Denial is over. Climate change is happening. But why do we still act like it’s not?

By The Conversation -

November 21, 2023

Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Celeste Young, Collaborative Research Fellow, Sustainable Industries and Liveable Cities (ISILC), Victoria University

Climate-fuelled disaster is now front-page news, as record-breaking floods, fires, droughts and storms keep arriving.

The damage done by climate change is systemic and pervasive, resonating through our communities, economies and environments. It manifests in many ways, from empty spaces in supermarket shelves to houses left unlivable after floods, anxious communities, collapsing ecosystems and emergency services stretched to capacity.

Climate researchers initially assumed that if you gave people the right information, we would act on it. Burning fossil fuels comes with severe consequences – so let’s phase out fossil fuels. But they found out very quickly this was not the case.

For many people, it triggered cognitive dissonance, where they knew climate change was happening but acted like it wasn’t. After all, many people still smoke, even though they know it is bad for their health. And many of us still fly to Italy – even though we know how many extra tonnes of carbon dioxide we put into the atmosphere.

But why is it so easy to understand but not act?

man smoking — Smokers now know full well the damage cigarettes do.
Shutterstock

Change seems hard, doing nothing is easy

It’s because of public and private narratives we have grown up with. Our expectations of life are geared towards wanting comfort and stability.

This means not everyone has developed the ways of thinking needed to deal with the impacts (such as natural hazards) we are now facing. Sudden changes caused by these – such as the loss of a home – are almost invariably shocking and can create a sense of disbelief. How could this be? When do we get back to normal? Surely it won’t happen again?

Our research on systemic risks such as climate change adaptation suggests this disconnect is common. Because we expect and hope for stable normality, we find it hard to truly believe the changes we are seeing will continue.

There’s also a divide between who benefits and who pays. Your family trip to Iceland pays off for you in shared memories and good times. The damage in terms of emissions is spread across the globe. Often the damage done has less impact on the people who have done most to cause it, compounding inequality and eroding the ability of those most at risk to respond.

Adapting to the climate and working to reduce further heating can be an uncomfortable and at times painful process where we have to embrace and acknowledge our grief for the changing world. We’re often taught to avoid potentially dangerous or painful things – especially if they are unfamiliar. But now, doing what we’ve always done is not safe.

Then there are the limitations of individual action. No matter how committed you are to cutting your own climate impact, it makes very little difference if others aren’t doing the same.

Action needs to be collaborative and sustained over the longer term, favouring public good over individual vested interests and short term gains. The politicisation of action in Australia’s climate wars has polarised opinion and eroded trust in the research. It has also left some people feeling that their actions are too small to matter.

All of this means we can find it surprisingly easy to detach our own daily actions – driving to work, holidays in Queensland, watching Netflix – from the broader goals of getting emissions down to zero as soon as possible.

So how can we avoid climate hypocrisy?

Many of us understand the risks of climate change full well, but we do not accept the responsibility. That, in turn, means we may feel okay not to act. Or we may understand and accept the risk, but not have the resources or ability to act.

We know that presenting climate change as a problem without a solution or using fear tactics disengages and demotivates us. It can also feed anxiety, which undermines action.

So the first step to overcoming climate inaction is to identify where you can act directly, such as switching your second car to an e-bike, investing in solar panels, working on local re-vegetation projects or making climate-friendly consumer choices.

family planting tree, silhouette — Action helps make more action.
Shutterstock

Where you have influence, apply this through voting, education or advocacy. Humble actions matter because they accumulate to create change.

This isn’t to say you should give up holidays. It is about making informed choices. Ending the burning of fossil fuels will take time and our choices will change as we transition away from this.

But doing something is always better than nothing. Active responses can help reduce climate anxiety and they are also the panacea for avoiding climate hypocrisy. And while large-scale policy responses are necessary, individual action and pressure can help speed up the shift.

Climate change isn’t just a problem for scientists, engineers and governments. We need both large-scale and small-scale action. As the costs of climate change escalate, we can no longer afford to know about climate change but not act.

Celeste Young has funding from the National Center for Climate Change Adaption Research Facility, The Bush Fire and Natural Hazards Cooperative Research Center, Victorian Center for Climate Change Adaptation and Department of The Department of Energy, Environment and Climate Action (DEECA) (formerly DEWLP).

Roger Jones has provided technical advice on fire climate regimes to the Victorian Department of Energy, Environment and Climate Action (Formerly the Department of Environment, Land, Water and Planning).

– ref. Denial is over. Climate change is happening. But why do we still act like it’s not? – https://theconversation.com/denial-is-over-climate-change-is-happening-but-why-do-we-still-act-like-its-not-212531

As homeschooling numbers keep rising in Australia, is more regulation a good idea?

By The Conversation -

November 21, 2023

Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Rebecca English, Senior Lecturer in Education, Queensland University of Technology

The number of families choosing to homeschool in Australia and around the world keeps growing.

New data from Queensland released last week show there has been a 20% increase over the past year, with 10,048 registered homeschoolers up from 8,461. Over the last five years, there has been a 152% growth in primary students and 262% growth in high school students who are home schooled in the state.

At the same time, Queensland is looking at “cracking down” on parents who home school.

There are concerns homeschooling needs more regulation because parents only have to report once a year and are not subjected to testing such as NAPLAN. Is this what we need?

Homeschooling across Australia

In New South Wales 12,359 students were registered for homeschooling in January 2023, a 37% jump on the 2022 figures.

In Victoria, the most recent figures show there were 11,912 homeschooled students as of December 2022, an increase of 36% since 2021.

Across the country, I estimate, based on state and territory data, there are more than 43,000 legally registered homeschooled students. This does not include students whose parents do not register them with their state or territory education departments, even though it is a legal requirement.

Estimates on the numbers who do not register vary. Some home education curriculum providers suggest there are as many unregistered students as there are registered students. Accurate figures are difficult because families are reluctant to admit they are not meeting their legal requirements.

Two young children work at a desk with books and pens. — There are more than 43,000 students registered for homeschool in Australia.
Kampus Production/Pexels, CC BY-SA

Why are numbers growing?

A 2023 Queensland government report shared data from a survey of more 500 parents in the state who homeschooled their children.

It found 45% of families surveyed never intended to homeschool. It also found 61% had a child with a disability or health issue, including ADHD, autism, behavioural issues and mental ill health. Many also had concerns about bullying.

Families also reported their child was not learning at school, and not wanting to go, so homeschooling became the only choice available.

This reflects academic research, which finds most families who choose to homeschool have negative school experiences, withdraw because of bullying or are neurodiverse.

While homeschooling was growing before the pandemic, the school-at-home arrangements during COVID led to a large growth in numbers. For some families, the experience showed them learning at home was possible and enjoyable and they decided not to go back.

What do homeschooling parents need to do?

A young child sits at a desk, typing on a computer. — Most parents who homeschool their kids are not qualified teachers.
Alexander Grey/Pexels, CC BY-SA

Many families who homeschool are not qualified educators. Of those surveyed in the 2023 Queensland report, 20% had a teaching qualification. A further 15% had experience working in a school in a role other than teaching.

According to the state’s Education Act, homeschooling parents have to provide a “high-quality education” tailored to the needs of the child and the child must show progress.

Families need to report annually on the child’s learning and provide a plan for the following year. Parents also provide samples of their child’s learning.

Approaches vary across other states. In New South Wales there is a home visit by a department representative. In Victoria, a family provides a plan and must submit to an audit if they are chosen at random.

Parents do not have to teach to the Australian Curriculum because it sets the goals for what students should learn as they progress through school, not what parents should be doing at home.

To regulate or not to regulate?

The Courier Mail has reported the Queensland government is considering a “crackdown” on homeschooling rules, noting homeschoolers aren’t required to use the Australian Curriculum or do NAPLAN tests.

However, international research suggests homeschooling outcomes are as good as at mainstream schools in terms of academic success. Homeschooling can work because it suits some children better and parents are motivated to help their children learn.

There is a risk too much regulation will lead to more families flying “under the radar” and not registering. Many who do not register now say they do not comply because they are scared of authorities and feel they have been let down by schools in the past.

Australian research suggests onerous compliance requirements lead to families disengaging with authorities and does not lead to better outcomes for students.

How to engage homeschooling families

In Victoria and Tasmania, homeschooling families have been included on boards providing advice to government about regulation.

Surveys by the Home Education Network (a home schooling support network) suggest more than 90% of homeschoolers in the state are registered.

If Queensland wants to increase compliance, it should consider doing more to work with families. For example, by including them in policy making about home education, so families see compliance as a way to support their child’s education, not as a “punishment” for not sending them to a mainstream school.

Governments should also look more closely at why families leave schools. We know families are not homeschooling as an “easy option” – they are doing it because it is a last resort.

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

– ref. As homeschooling numbers keep rising in Australia, is more regulation a good idea? – https://theconversation.com/as-homeschooling-numbers-keep-rising-in-australia-is-more-regulation-a-good-idea-217802

Timeless allure: why Australia is filled to the brim with exhibitions on ancient Egypt

By The Conversation -

November 21, 2023

Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Anna M. Kotarba-Morley, Lecturer in Museum and Curatorial Studies, University of Adelaide

Closing last month, this year WA Museum Boola Bardip in Perth was host to a major exhibition Discovering Ancient Egypt.

The Australian Museum’s “once-in-a-lifetime” Ramses & The Gold of the Pharaohs exhibition featuring 181 objects from ancient Egypt opened last week in Sydney.

Just four weeks after that exhibition shuts, the 2024 “winter masterpieces” exhibition at the National Gallery of Victoria in Melbourne will be Pharaoh, featuring 500 objects in the largest international loan ever from the British Museum.

Why is there such an intense fascination with a civilisation so far removed from our time and place?

Centuries of Egyptomania

Few historical cultures seem to have such a hold over the minds of the general public.

Awe-inspiring temples, elaborate mummification rituals, beliefs in afterlife, and contributions to science, technology, engineering and medicine left an indelible mark on the course of human progress.

Napoleon in Egypt (Jean-Léon Gérôme),, 1953-78.
Image courtesy of the Princeton University Art Museum.

“Egyptomania”, a term coined to describe the West’s fascination with Egypt, can be traced back to Napoleon’s expedition in the late 18th century. Scientific discoveries and illustrations from that expedition fuelled worldwide curiosity about the secrets of this ancient land.

A key figure of the Egyptomania was Giovanni Battista Belzoni (1778–1823), an Italian explorer and strongman (and con-man) whose daring adventures and discoveries – including removal of colossal Egyptian statues – added fuel to the fire.

This cultural phenomenon influenced fashion and design. Egyptian motifs, such as lotus flowers, scarabs and sphinxes became popular decorative elements in clothing, jewellery and home decor during the 19th and early 20th centuries.

Armchair featuring Egyptian-inspired designs, attributed to Pottier and Stymus Manufacturing Company ca. 1870–75.
The Metropolitan Museum of Art

Agatha Christie (who was married to archaeologist Max Mallowan and spent many years working on excavations in the Middle East) sent her famous detective Hercule Poirot into the world of mummies and pharaohs in Death on the Nile and set Death Comes as the End on the Western Bank of Thebes.

Ancient Egypt’s grip on our collective consciousness manifests throughout popular culture. Films such as The Mummy and Cleopatra, games such as Assassin’s Creed Origins and popular cartoon TV series Tutenstein blend historical facts with creative storytelling, perpetuating the mystique and wonder of this lost civilisation.

Ancient Egypt is a staple in schools. For many Australians, their first introduction to a world beyond their immediate surroundings often comes in the form of ancient Egyptian history in the national curriculum for year 7.

This portal to history and foreign cultures opened in childhood often results in lifelong fascination. You might ask: how much Egypt can Australians take? It seems the answer is “a lot”.

A long line of exhibitions

These latest exhibitions follow a long, near continuous, list of Egyptian exhibitions in Australia.

In 2007, the National Gallery of Australia showcased Egyptian Antiquities from the Louvre: Journey to the Afterlife.

Tutankhamen And The Golden Age Of The Pharaohs was at the Melbourne Museum in 2011. The Western Australian Museum hosted Secrets of the Afterlife: Magic, Mummies and Immortality in Ancient Egypt in 2013. Egyptian Mummies: Exploring Ancient Lives was at Sydney’s Powerhouse in 2016.

In 2012, the Queensland Museum hosted items from the British Museum in Mummy: Secrets of the Tomb. The same museum hosted British Museum artefacts again in 2018 in Egyptian Mummies: Exploring Ancient Lives. In between, the Queensland University Museum hosted Egypt: Land of the Pharaohs from 2016–18.

From an impressive gallery in Chau Chak Wing Museum in Sydney to the small – and in need of a serious update – gallery in the South Australian Museum, each state also proudly displays its own permanent collection of ancient Egyptian artefacts.

Despite this extensive exhibition history, Australia’s interest in ancient Egypt seems to show no signs of waning.

Shifting Egyptology

The new exhibition in Sydney gives a window into the life and accomplishments of Ramses II who ruled Egypt for 67 years.

The National Gallery of Victoria’s exhibition will aim to deepen visitors’ understanding of ancient Egyptian culture, allowing them to see beyond the opulence.

This is part of a broader shift in Egyptology, archaeology and history towards emphasising understanding of the lives of everyday people.

Painting from the tomb chapel of Nebamen, 1350BC.
© The Trustees of the British Museum, CC BY-NC-SA

For a long time, Egyptology was centred on grand monuments, temples, tombs, pharaohs and the elite. We now recognise that to understand a civilisation we need to also explore the lives, activities and contributions of ordinary people.

But these major exhibitions coincide with rising debates about the provenance and repatriation of artefacts. A Tutankhamen exhibition which toured the world just before the COVID pandemic and which was scheduled to appear in Sydney has, amid some controversy, finally settled back at home, in the Grand Museum in Cairo, Egypt, where it will – hopefully – remain forever.

Repatriation of artefacts is a sensitive issue that has been gaining momentum in recent years and questions are being raised, even more loudly now, whether institutions such as the British Museum should even possess such artefacts.

Zahi Hawass, former minister of antiquities for Egypt, has called for repatriation of stolen heritage and accused western museums of continuing imperialistic practice by purchasing new artefacts and refusing to return them to their country of origin. Some large travelling exhibitions are already moving away from displaying these artefacts towards immersive digital experiences with great examples in Lisbon, Vienna and Cairo.

For now in Australia, though, it is not just artefacts and treasures that will be on display. It is a celebration of human spirit, ingenuity and quest for knowledge. The sands of time have failed to bury our fascination in ancient Egypt.

Anna M. Kotarba-Morley receives funding from Australian Research Council.

– ref. Timeless allure: why Australia is filled to the brim with exhibitions on ancient Egypt – https://theconversation.com/timeless-allure-why-australia-is-filled-to-the-brim-with-exhibitions-on-ancient-egypt-214263

What is a sonar pulse and how can it injure humans under water?

By The Conversation -

November 20, 2023

Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Christine Erbe, Director, Centre for Marine Science & Technology, Curtin University

Over the weekend, the Australian government revealed that last Tuesday its navy divers had sustained “minor injuries”, likely due to sonar pulses from a Chinese navy vessel.

The divers had been clearing fishing nets from the propellers of HMAS Toowoomba while in international waters off the coast of Japan. According to a statement from deputy prime minister Richard Marles, despite HMAS Toowoomba communicating with internationally recognised signals, the Chinese vessel approached the Australian ship and turned on its sonar, forcing the Australian divers to exit the water.

The incident prompted a response from the Australian government, who labelled the incident “unsafe and unprofessional”. But what exactly is a sonar pulse, and what kinds of injuries can sonar cause to divers?

What is sonar?

Light doesn’t travel well under water – even in clear waters, you can see perhaps some tens of metres. Sound, however, travels very well and far under water. This is because water is much denser than air, and so can respond faster and better to acoustic pressure waves – sound waves.

Because of these properties, ships use sonar to navigate through the ocean and to “see” under water. The word “sonar” stands for sound navigation and ranging.

Sonar equipment sends out short acoustic (sound) pulses or pings, and then analyses the echoes. Depending on the timing, amplitude, phase and direction of the echoes the equipment receives, you can tell what’s under water – the seafloor, canyon walls, coral, fishes, and of course ships and submarines.

Most vessels – from small, private boats to large commercial tankers – use sonar. However, compared to your off-the-shelf sonar used for finding fish, navy sonars are stronger.

A screen labelled 'echo sounder' with a heat map — An echo sounder on a boat uses sound waves to help gauge the depth of the water.
mark_vyz/Shutterstock

What are the effects of sonar on divers?

This is a difficult topic to study, because you don’t want to deliberately expose humans to harmful levels of sound. There are, however, anecdotes from various navies and accidental exposures. There have also been studies on what humans can hear under water, with or without neoprene suits, hoods, or helmets.

We don’t hear well under water – no surprise, since we’ve evolved to live on land. Having said that, you would hear a sonar sound under water (a mid-to-high pitch noise) and would know you’ve been exposed.

When it comes to naval sonars, human divers have rated the sound as “unpleasant to severe” at levels of roughly 150dB re 1 µPa (decibel relative to a reference pressure of one micropascal, the standard reference for underwater sound). This would be perhaps, very roughly, 10km away from a military sonar. Note that we can’t compare sound exposure under water to what we’d receive through the air, because there are too many physical differences between the two.

Human tolerance limits are roughly 180dB re 1 µPa, which would be around 500m from military sonar. At such levels, humans might experience dizziness, disorientation, temporary memory and concentration impacts, or temporary hearing loss. We don’t have information on what levels the Australian divers were exposed to, but their injuries were described as minor.

At higher received levels, closer ranges, or longer exposures, you might see more severe physiological or health impacts. In extreme cases, in particular for impulsive, sudden sound (which sonar is not), sound can cause damage to tissues and organs.

What does sonar do to marine animals?

Some of the information on what noise might do to humans under water comes from studies and observations of animals.

While they typically don’t have outer ears (except for sea lions), marine mammals have inner ears that function similarly to ours. They can receive hearing damage from noise, just like we do. This might be temporary, like the ringing ears or reduced sensitivity you might experience after a loud concert, or it can be permanent.

Marine mammals living in a dark ocean rely on sound and hearing to a greater extent than your average human. They use sound to navigate, hunt, communicate with each other and to find mates. Toothed whales and dolphins have evolved a biological echo sounder or biosonar, which sends out series of clicks and listens for echoes. So, interfering with their sounds or impacting their hearing can disrupt critical behaviours.

Finally, sound may also impact non-mammalian fauna, such as fishes, which rely on acoustics rather than vision for many of their life functions.

Christine Erbe receives funding from offshore oil and gas companies, the US Office of Naval Research, and the Western Australian Marine Science Institution.

– ref. What is a sonar pulse and how can it injure humans under water? – https://theconversation.com/what-is-a-sonar-pulse-and-how-can-it-injure-humans-under-water-218116

Who is Sam Altman, OpenAI’s wunderkind ex-CEO – and why does it matter that he got sacked?

By The Conversation -

November 20, 2023

Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Toby Walsh, Professor of AI, Research Group Leader, UNSW Sydney

On Friday, OpenAI’s high-flying chief executive Sam Altman was unexpectedly fired by the company’s board. Co-founder and chief technology officer Greg Brockman was also removed as the board president, after which he promptly resigned.

In an unexpected twist, talks began today about potentially reinstating Altman in some capacity following an outpouring of industry and investor support for him and several OpenAI researchers who quit their jobs in solidarity.

Shockingly, however, that too was not to be. As of publication, Bloomberg reporters announced OpenAI’s interim CEO, Mira Murati, had not managed to rehire Altman and Brockman as she had planned.

Instead, the board found a new CEO – Emmett Shear – in record time. Shear, the former CEO of Twitch, will now take over from Murati as interim CEO, as reported by The Information.

It has been an epic backstabbing scene worthy of the HBO drama Succession. While many have speculated about why the board may have forced Altman out, details remain scarce.

What we can say is the decision to fire Altman will likely put a dent in OpenAI’s commercial progress.

An unusual company structure

OpenAI is the hottest company in tech today, having released the ChatGPT chatbot and DALL-E image generator onto a largely unsuspecting public.

The company’s mission is simple: to develop artificial general intelligence (AGI) – that is, an AI which is as smart or smarter than a human – and to do so for the public good. Many were starting to believe OpenAI could succeed at this goal.

But developing AGI isn’t just a technical challenge. It’s a major management and economic nightmare. How can you ensure the vast power and wealth generated by AGI doesn’t subvert the company’s goal to seek the public good?

Many individuals within OpenAI and the wider tech community worry AI is progressing too fast. A global race in AI development is underway and the commercial pressure to succeed is immense.

Following its launch, ChatGPT quickly became the fastest-growing app in history, and OpenAI is by many measures one of the world’s fastest-growing companies. Its most recent funding round (which may now be scuppered by the recent drama) was set to value the company at around US$90 billion. Silicon Valley has never seen anything like it.

Given its mission, OpenAI was originally set up as a not-for-profit. But developing AGI requires billions of dollars. To raise these billions, Altman pivoted the company towards a unique dual for-profit and not-for-profit structure.

The outcome was a for-profit subsidiary which is controlled by the not-for-profit. But the for-profit subsidiary is itself unusual, as it limits the return for investors (including Microsoft) to 100 times their stake.

Calls to bring back Altman

On top of OpenAI’s odd dual structure sat a board made up of Altman, Brockman, chief scientist Ilya Sutskever and three outsiders.

Many saw Altman as central to OpenAI’s success. The candid and boyish tech entrepreneur was previously president of Y Combinator, a legendary Silicon Valley startup accelerator that has launched many household names including Airbnb, Dropbox, Reddit, Stripe and Doordash.

Altman, a Stanford dropout, is a geek with immense social and strategic intelligence. He is also, by all accounts, a genius at building companies and someone who can effortlessly play three-dimensional chess in the cut and thrust of the business world.

In fact, Altman was already a billionaire when Elon Musk brought him on as one of the OpenAI founders in 2015. Musk would later go through his own drama, which led to him leaving the board, and to Altman going back on his original plan of having an open not-for-profit initiative to develop AGI.

OpenAI’s former CTO Brockman was a master at coding, and phenomenally hard working. He is what people in the Valley call a “10x engineer” – someone who has as much productivity as 10 normal coders.

That leaves Sutskever, OpenAI’s chief scientist. He was one of the inventors of AlexNet, a powerful neural network which started the AI deep learning revolution about a decade ago – and also of the GPT language models that started the generative AI revolution. To be responsible for two of the technical innovations that have fuelled the AI frenzy is without precedent.

Sutskever, in particular, seems to be a major key player in the latest drama. According to inside reports, he was worried OpenAI was moving too fast and that Altman was putting money ahead of safety and the company’s original mission. It was Sutskever who persuaded the three outside board members to fire Altman, reports claim.

The shock news of the sacking prompted multiple key staff to either quit or threaten to quit, while investors including Microsoft applied pressure for his return. But it seems this wasn’t enough to bring Altman back.

Microsoft, the largest investor in OpenAI, had promised about US$10 billion towards OpenAI’s goals. But without a seat on OpenAI’s board, Microsoft was only informed of Altman’s departure moments before the news broke.

The word on the street now is Altman and his followers will likely be branching out with their own AI venture.

What’s next?

The OpenAI board justified its original decision to fire Altman on the basis he was “not consistently candid” with them, without further clarification. Some think this may mean the board, which operates as a not-for-profit board, may have felt that under Altman they weren’t able to carry out the board’s duty of ensuring OpenAI was building AGI for the good of humanity.

In the months leading up to his dismissal, Altman had pitched several ideas for new AI projects to investors, including a plan to develop custom chips to train extremely large AI models, which would let it compete with chip company Nvidia.

The board’s decision will likely have a lasting impact. Sutskever’s position in the company is now likely greatly weakened (I wouldn’t be surprised if he leaves or is pushed out). At the same time, his actions may well have addressed his concerns about OpenAI moving too fast.

As OpenAI emerges from this drama, it will be doubled over from the blow that was this weekend – and will struggle to raise funds in the future as it has in the past.

Toby Walsh receives funding from the Australian Research Council and Google.org, the philantropic arm of Alphabet.

– ref. Who is Sam Altman, OpenAI’s wunderkind ex-CEO – and why does it matter that he got sacked? – https://theconversation.com/who-is-sam-altman-openais-wunderkind-ex-ceo-and-why-does-it-matter-that-he-got-sacked-218111

The Optus chief was right to quit but real change is unlikely at the telco until bigger issues are fixed

By The Conversation -

November 20, 2023

Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Helen Bird, DIscipline Leader, Corporate Governance & Senior Lecturer, Swinburne Law School, Swinburne University of Technology

Optus chief executive Kelly Bayer Rosmarin bowed to the inevitable on Monday and resigned as chief executive of Australia’s second largest telecommunications company.

Why inevitable? Poor communication and a lacklustre response during a major system outage is bad enough. Then things got worse when Bayer Rosmarin and the director of Optus networks admitted at a Senate hearing on Friday they had no disaster management plan for the kind of national outage experienced two weeks earlier.

Someone was always going to have to take the blame. Now, two critical questions emerge. First, will the resignation of the chief executive be sufficient to stem the tide of bad publicity from Optus’ outage debacle? Second, is this yet another instance of a female chief at a prominent Australian company being pushed over the “glass cliff”?

Quitting is only a Band-Aid fix

The resignation of a chief executive following a national fiasco has become something of a ritual for big Australian corporations. This happened at Qantas, too.

Such actions calm public anger, making it appear someone is taking responsibility. Yet, is this truly effective? Not necessarily. This is because problems are deeply ingrained within these corporations, which removing the current leader will not necessarily resolve. Again, the Qantas example illustrates this point.

Optus’ challenges are notably linked to its operational model as a subsidiary of Singtel Ltd, a Singapore-based company. A review of its website shows Optus has a very lean corporate structure in Australia.

Remarkably, Optus doesn’t have a traditional board of directors within Australia to oversee its management. The website lists Paul O’Sullivan as the chairman, but it’s unclear what exactly he chairs. Surprisingly, O’Sullivan maintains a low public profile, despite Optus being Australia’s second-largest telecommunications carrier. At best, it appears he chairs a board of senior executives including the chief executive.

Even within the ranks of the nominated executives, no one is specifically responsible for the company’s risk management. While Optus claims to have such systems in place, the recent national outage points to a significant lapse in disaster planning. This is a major failure of risk management.

The likelihood of such an outage might have appeared remote to Bayer Rosmarin, yet given the potentially severe consequences, comprehensive planning and scenario testing would seem essential for the telco giant. Like the inevitability of cyber hacking, a national outage could be considered a matter of when, not if.

Optus needs robust governance

In a typical scenario, a board of directors would scrutinise the executive team’s oversight and accountability functions as the catastrophe unfolded. With no Australian board, those tasks are apparently the responsibility of Optus’ parent, Singtel.

It is easy to imagine systemic risk concerns at Optus might be too far removed from the Singapore-based board. But that is not much consolation for Australian consumers and agencies who depend on Optus for telecommunication services, including the emergency triple-zero number.

Optus’ lack of strong governance in Australia is and remains a major concern for the company, regardless of who’s in charge. Optus urgently needs a properly constituted local board of directors with clear accountability for its local operations.

This includes a chairperson ready to front the media and share responsibility with the chief executive. It also requires more transparent governance, particularly regarding risk management and remuneration. Optus can handle some of these issues, but the cost overlay will no doubt be a factor in the mode of the remedy.

That is where the federal government, through its regulatory agency, the Australian Communications and Media Authority, must come in and tighten up the governance requirements of companies with a carrier licence.

The short-lived tenure of women at the top

The resignation of Bayer Rosmarin from Optus arguably becomes a classic case of the “glass cliff” phenomenon, where women are installed in leadership roles only to be blamed for failing to fix a crisis. Her stint as chief executive was brief, starting in April 2020 after joining Optus in March 2019. Her time at the helm will likely be remembered for two national scandals: a cyber hack and a national outage.

Studies looking at women in leadership suggest women who take on such roles in turbulent times are likely to endure a shorter tenure than their male counterparts. One scandal might be overlooked, but two? It seems the outcome was inevitable.

Michael Venter, the interim chief executive, may well succeed where Bayer-Rosmarin failed. However, unless Optus takes the time to properly resolve systemic risk issues and bolster its governance arrangements, it should expect more trouble ahead.

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

– ref. The Optus chief was right to quit but real change is unlikely at the telco until bigger issues are fixed – https://theconversation.com/the-optus-chief-was-right-to-quit-but-real-change-is-unlikely-at-the-telco-until-bigger-issues-are-fixed-218109

David McBride is facing jailtime for helping reveal alleged war crimes. Will it end whistleblowing in Australia?

By The Conversation -

November 20, 2023

Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Rebecca Ananian-Welsh, Associate Professor, TC Beirne School of Law, The University of Queensland

The long-awaited trial of former Australian Defence Force lawyer David McBride was short-lived.

He stood accused of putting national security at risk by sharing confidential information with journalists, who then reported on alleged Australian war crimes in Afghanistan.

An unexpected strategic move by the Department of Defence succeeded in withholding key documents from the ACT Supreme Court, all but dismantling McBride’s claim for whistleblower protection.

Having now pleaded guilty to unlawfully sharing classified material, what happens to McBride? And what does it say about the state of whistleblower protection laws in this country?

The end of a winding road

David McBride was charged in 2019 for disclosing secret military information to two ABC journalists.

His concerns had included Australian soldiers being sent to Afghanistan by a government he believed was more concerned with politics than the troops. Interestingly, the court heard last week McBride was also concerned about the “over-investigation” of misconduct by special forces.

Instead, that information revealed allegations of war crimes by Australian soldiers in Afghanistan and a culture of cover-up in the Defence Force.

The ABC used the information to publish the Afghan Files reports. Many allegations were later supported by the inspector-general of the Australian Defence Force in the Brereton report.

That report, released in November 2020, recommended the chief of the Defence Force refer 36 matters relating to 25 incidents and involving 19 individuals to the Australian Federal Police for investigation.

So far, the only charges to have been laid as a result of these investigations are against McBride himself. A brief of evidence was also prepared against ABC journalist Dan Oakes, though the Commonwealth Director of Public Prosecutions declined to prosecute Oakes on public interest grounds.

It took four years for McBride’s case to get to court. Delays due to the pandemic and issues around maintaining the secrecy of classified information in court prolonged this process.

Eventually, the Department of Defence claimed public interest immunity over key information. This allows the government to withhold evidence (such as classified material) from the court on public interest grounds.

It means neither party can rely on the information.

This strategic decision meant McBride faced difficulties establishing key aspects of his whistleblower case. This included whether the information revealed relevant wrongdoing, his attempts to tell the department or police about his concerns, or whether the extent of the disclosure was necessary to establish wrongdoing.

On the other hand, the information McBride disclosed was security classified defence material that journalists were not authorised to receive. It is, therefore, not particularly surprising that he pleaded guilty to disclosure offences.

His only hope had been to avoid prosecution by grasping the shield of whistleblower protections.

What next for McBride?

McBride will now be sentenced for his offences, likely next year.

There is a chance the court will show leniency in sentencing, taking into account the demonstrated public interest in McBride’s disclosures.

This happened in the prosecution of Witness K, who conspired to reveal an alleged spying operation in East Timor during oil and gas treaty negotiations.

They were not covered by whistleblower laws because the legislation does not apply to intelligence information, and also pleaded guilty to secrecy offences.

Alternatively, the judge may not be swayed by the public interest in McBride’s disclosures and McBride could face a lengthy jail term.

The length of any jail term will depend on a number of factors, such as:

the extent of information disclosed
the deliberate nature of the disclosures
a need to deter future disclosures of classified defence information.

What does this mean for whistleblowers?

The punishment of McBride would have tragic impacts on whistleblowing in Australia.

Far from being a crime, research has identified whistleblowing as “the single most important way that wrongdoing or other problems come to light in organisations”.

Whistleblowing led not only to the Brereton report, but the Robodebt inquiry, the Banking royal commission, and Fitzgerald inquiry into police misconduct, to name but a few high profile examples.

The importance of whistleblowing has been recognised in Public Interest Disclosure Acts across Australia, protecting whistleblowers from reprisals, victimisation and prosecution.

The importance of these protections is heightened in recent years by the government’s willingness to prosecute whistleblowers such as Richard Boyle (who accused the Australian Taxation Office of using aggressive tactics to retrieve money), David McBride, and Witness K for calling out government wrongdoing.

Whistleblower protection law is not perfect. Calls for its improvement point to a need for greater consistency across private and public sector protections.

They also call for better protection for intelligence and defence whistleblowers, and supports for press freedom.

The protections are yet to be tested. McBride’s case would have been the first opportunity to see how courts interpret and apply whistleblower law.

But the government’s decision to withhold information from court stopped these laws from being tested.

It’s easy to see how the government’s reaction to McBride’s decision to blow the whistle will deter future whistleblowers, sending a bad message about transparency, accountability and the importance of calling out wrongdoing by those in positions of power.

Rebecca Ananian-Welsh receives UQ Advancement Funding.

– ref. David McBride is facing jailtime for helping reveal alleged war crimes. Will it end whistleblowing in Australia? – https://theconversation.com/david-mcbride-is-facing-jailtime-for-helping-reveal-alleged-war-crimes-will-it-end-whistleblowing-in-australia-218108

With COVID surging, should I wear a mask?

By The Conversation -

November 20, 2023

Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By C Raina MacIntyre, Professor of Global Biosecurity, NHMRC Principal Research Fellow, Head, Biosecurity Program, Kirby Institute, UNSW Sydney

COVID is on the rise again, with a peak likely over the holiday season.

Given this, health authorities in a number of Australian states have recommended people start wearing masks again. In Western Australia, masks have been made mandatory in high-risk areas of public hospitals, while they’ve similarly been reintroduced in health-care settings in other parts of the country.

Hospitals and aged care facilities are definitely the first places where masks need to be reinstated during an epidemic. But authorities are differing in their recommendations currently. Calls to mask up, particularly in the wider community, have not been unanimous.

So amid rising COVID cases, should you be wearing a mask?

COVID is still a threat

Unfortunately, SARS-CoV-2 (the virus that causes COVID) has not mutated into just a trivial cold.

As well as causing symptoms in the initial phase – which can be especially serious for people who are vulnerable – the virus can lead to chronic illness in people of any age and health status due to its ability to affect blood vessels, the heart, lungs, brain and immune system.

COVID and its ongoing effects are contributing to substantial disability in society. Loss of productivity due to long COVID is affecting workforce and economies.

While public messaging to “live with COVID” has seemingly encouraged us to move on from the pandemic, SARS-CoV-2 has other ideas. It has continued to mutate, become more contagious, and to evade the protection offered by vaccines.

COVID is not endemic, but is an epidemic virus like influenza or measles, so we can expect waves to keep coming. With this in mind, it’s definitely worth protecting yourself – particularly when cases are rising.

What can we do to protect ourselves?

We know SARS-CoV-2 transmits through the air we breathe. We also know a lot of the transmission risk is from people without symptoms, so you can’t tell who around you is infectious. This provides a strong rationale for universal masking during periods of high transmission.

The need is highest in hospitals where thousands of unsuspecting patients have caught COVID during the course of the pandemic and hundreds have died as a result in Victoria alone. Aged care facilities are similarly vulnerable.

Masks do work. A Cochrane review suggesting they don’t was flawed and subject to an apology.

Masks work equally by protecting others and protecting you. By visualising human exhalations too tiny to see with the naked eye, my colleagues and I showed how masks prevent outward emissions and how each layer of a mask improves this.

The most protective kind of mask is a respirator or N95, but any mask protects more than no mask.

Wearing a mask when visiting health-care or aged-care facilities is important. Wearing a mask at the shops, on public transport and in other crowded indoor settings will improve your chances of having a COVID-free Christmas.

What about vaccines?

Although the virus’ evolution has challenged vaccines, they remain very important. Boosters will improve protection because vaccine immunity wanes and new mutations make older vaccines less effective.

In May 2023 the World Health Organization outlined why monovalent boosters matched to a single current circulating strain gives better protection than the old bivalent boosters (which target two strains). The XBB boosters are available in the United States, but not yet here.

Testing and treatment will also help. There are effective antivirals for COVID, but you cannot get them without a COVID test, and testing rates are very low. Having some RAT tests on hand means you can quickly isolate and get antivirals if indicated.

Finally, safe indoor air is key. Remember that SARS-CoV-2 spreads silently, mainly by inhaling contaminated air. Opening a window or using an air purifier can significantly reduce your risk, especially in crowded indoor settings like schools. A multi-layered strategy of vaccines, masks, safe indoor air, testing and treatment will help us navigate this COVID wave.

C Raina MacIntyre receives funding from mask manufacturer Detmold for testing of their masks and is on an advisory board for mask manufacturer Ascend. She receives funding from Sanofi for investigator-driven influenza research, and from NHMRC and MRFF. She has been an expert advisor for Ontario Nurses Association (ONA) In the matter of a proceeding under the Labour Relations Act, 1995 between ONA and Hamilton Health Sciences Corporation.

– ref. With COVID surging, should I wear a mask? – https://theconversation.com/with-covid-surging-should-i-wear-a-mask-217902

ABC chief is right: impartiality is paramount when reporting the Israel-Gaza war

By The Conversation -

November 20, 2023

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

On November 17, the ABC’s editor-in-chief and managing director, David Anderson, was interviewed on Radio 774, the ABC’s local station in Melbourne, about criticisms of the national broadcaster’s coverage of the Israel-Gaza war.

The interview followed a well-publicised meeting nine days earlier at which ABC journalists raised a range of concerns about the organisation’s coverage. These included the extent to which the ABC was relying on talking points supplied by the Israeli Defence Force (IDF), and the alleged unwillingness of the ABC to use terms such as “invasion”, “occupation”, “genocide”, “apartheid” and “ethnic cleansing” when discussing Israeli government policy.

Concern was also reportedly expressed about what was said to be a blanket ban on the use of the word “Palestine”, with journalists from Muslim and Arab backgrounds saying there was a perception in their communities that the ABC was too pro-Israel.

It was also reported that senior managers acknowledged they had removed a specialist verification team because of the impact that work was having on staff. Instead, they were relying on ad-hoc advice from former Middle East correspondents.

David Anderson addressed many of these concerns in the Radio 774 interview.

In particular, he said while the ABC did include terms such as “genocide” and “apartheid” in reports of statements made by others, it was not prepared to adopt them itself.

Genocide is a claim that’s being made. It’s a serious crime. It’s an allegation of a crime. The IDF and Israel reject that. Same with apartheid. We’ll report other people’s use of that. We won’t use it ourselves.

On the issue of alleged over-reliance on the IDF, Anderson was more equivocal. He said he wasn’t sure that was the case, but pointed out the difficulty of verifying material coming out of the war. “I think we’re trying to verify as much as we can.”

In terms of alienating local communities whose people are involved in the conflict, he said it came with the journalistic territory:

We know that there are some people who will be offended by reporting one perspective or another. It’s our job and what’s enshrined in our charter. We don’t pick sides.

This response has generated a good deal of heat on social media, including an allegation that Anderson is acting out of fear by the stance he has taken on the use of the terms such as genocide and apartheid.

At the heart of this discussion is one of the fundamental tenets of professional journalism: impartiality in news reporting, which includes the separation of news from opinion.

Impartiality is not the product of fear: it is the very reverse. It is the product of courageous efforts to be accurate, fair, balanced, open-minded, and unconflicted by personal interest, especially in the face of unrelenting pressure and highly charged emotions. It takes guts.

It takes guts because when damaging facts or allegations are reported, partisan interests affected negatively will accuse the journalist or the platform of favouring the other side. In no area of journalism is this more insistently demonstrated than in the reporting of the decades-long conflict between Israelis and Palestinians.

Yet impartiality requires that important facts, once verified, be reported regardless of the anticipated blow-back. The same applies to serious allegations for which there is credible evidence.

Verification is foundational to accuracy. But in today’s world, journalists must navigate a landscape where fakery and misrepresentation have become not just art forms in images and text, but political dynamite. War makes the verification challenge even harder because of the combined effects of secrecy, confusion and the opportunities for propaganda.

In addition to accuracy, impartiality requires that the language used should be calibrated to a fair portrayal of events, and that a story should achieve balance by following the weight of evidence.

The question of evidence brings us to yet another fundamental principle, both of law and of journalistic ethics: the strength of the evidence required to support an allegation must be commensurate with the gravity of the allegation. In law it is called the Briginshaw principle. Getting that kind of evidence in the midst of war is difficult, but the imperatives of impartiality require that those accused should at least have the opportunity to reply.

A third challenge in stories where the nation has taken a clear position, as Australia has in its support for Israel, is that there is always pressure to report in ways that support the official narrative. Sometimes that pressure comes from within a media organisation, sometimes from outside and sometimes from both. It can become insidious, almost subconscious.

To partisans, these might all seem like pussyfooting abstractions. But from a journalist’s perspective they lie at the heart of good professional practice, and Anderson’s approach as outlined in his interview was that of an editor-in-chief striving for impartiality and prepared to endure the backlashes that come with it.

Without independent evidence, the ABC is right not to adopt for itself terms such as “genocide” and “apartheid”, but equally it is right to report others making such allegations. These highly contested and emotive terms are often used for their rhetorical power, which is the province of partisans but not of journalists seeking to be impartial.

Impartiality matters because it provides the bedrock of reliable information people need if they are to make up their own minds free of the manipulation that results when news reporting is tainted by partisanship. That is why it is built into the ABC charter and why Anderson is right in his determination to uphold it.

– ref. ABC chief is right: impartiality is paramount when reporting the Israel-Gaza war – https://theconversation.com/abc-chief-is-right-impartiality-is-paramount-when-reporting-the-israel-gaza-war-218100

View from The Hill: Albanese should come clean about what he did or didn’t say to Xi Jinping about sonar incident

By The Conversation -

November 20, 2023

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

The incident last Tuesday in which Australian sailors suffered minor injuries from sonar pulses from a Chinese destroyer couldn’t have come at a worse time for Anthony Albanese.

He’d just finished a very successful trip to Beijing. He was about to again meet President Xi Jinping at APEC in the United States late in the week. The incident was potentially serious in terms of unsettled a much improved relationship.

The HMAS Toowoomba’s sailors had been undertaking the harmless task of unravelling fishing nets from around the ship’s propellers. The vessel was in international waters inside Japan’s exclusive economic zone on its way to a port. It had been supporting United Nations sanctions against North Korea.

The Chinese destroyer had been warned about the divers, but acted anyway.

There were two issues for Albanese: whether to raise the matter with Xi (assuming the President didn’t bring it up) and whether to indicate publicly he had done so.
We don’t know whether he raised it, because his office and ministerial colleagues won’t answer this question. There has been no opportunity to question him since his return at the weekend.

It seems obvious he should have discussed the matter with Xi. He has repeated endlessly that “we will disagree when we must” with China.

Not to canvass the incident would be a cop-out from this formula. It would carry the message that Australia, having established more positive relations with China – to the great benefit of our trade – was now unwilling to be forthright because it did not want to risk setting things back.

The Australian government was careful not to announce the incident until after Albanese was on his way home. The timing was diplomatic.

Then-Acting Prime Minister and Defence Minister Richard Marles said in a statement on Saturday the government had expressed “serious concerns” to the Chinese government, and described the Chinese vessel’s conduct as “unsafe and unprofessional”.

If Albanese did raise the incident, why not say so? Again, only to avoid offending the Chinese and that’s unacceptable.

The government points to Marles’s statement and claims that meant the matter was dealt with at the appropriate level.

This might be convincing if it hadn’t been for the fact Albanese was actually meeting Xi.

The silence is also being defended on the basis of this being a private meeting. This won’t wash either. When the PM and President met in Beijing Albanese gave a very detailed read-out of the encounter, even down to the jokes.

On Monday morning Albanese tweeted a picture showing he was back working with the team. Members of that team appearing in the media have been left intoning the unconvincing talking points.

Albanese should clarify whether he or not he talked about the incident – not just in the name of transparency but to demonstrate that the government’s China policy is as robust as he says. Not to mention that it would be of passing interest to know what the President said, if the matter was in fact one of the topics of their discussion.

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

– ref. View from The Hill: Albanese should come clean about what he did or didn’t say to Xi Jinping about sonar incident – https://theconversation.com/view-from-the-hill-albanese-should-come-clean-about-what-he-did-or-didnt-say-to-xi-jinping-about-sonar-incident-218115

Concern for the Great Barrier Reef can inspire climate action – but the way we talk about it matters

By The Conversation -

November 20, 2023

Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Yolanda Lee Waters, PhD Candidate, The University of Queensland

There’s no doubt you’ve heard the Great Barrier Reef is under pressure. The main culprit? Climate change. The main solution? An urgent reduction in greenhouse gas emissions and a shift away from fossil fuels.

Those who promote action to protect the reef therefore have a difficult task. How do we encourage more people to take action on climate change? Whether it’s reducing reliance on fossil fuels in our personal lives, or asking our government to transition from fossil fuels to renewables, what do people need to know, and how do we say it in a way that makes a difference?

Researchers in climate change communication have been grappling with these questions for decades. But we have something other communicators don’t – the reef itself.

In our new research we used experiments to show what many divers, tourism operators and local communities have known for decades – the wonder of the Great Barrier Reef inspires climate action. But it doesn’t just magically happen. The way we talk about it matters.

Underwater view of a bumpy outcrop of coral higher than the surrounding platform of reef — A ‘coral bommie’ or outcrop of coral rising above its surrounds on the Great Barrier Reef.
Yolanda Waters

What’s happening on the Great Barrier Reef?

Earlier this year the Bureau of Meteorology officially announced an El Niño weather event, which has already begun to bring hotter than average temperatures to much of Australia. But while Australia braces for a scorcher on land this summer, those working on the Great Barrier Reef are preparing for a marine heatwave.

The marine equivalent of bushfires, heat is set to wreak havoc on marine ecosystems all around Australia. For the Great Barrier Reef, this means increased risk of mass coral bleaching.

These events have occurred four times in recent years (2016, 2017, 2020 and 2022). Scientists expect mass coral bleaching will happen every year if we do not urgently reduce greenhouse gas emissions and eliminate the use of fossil fuels.

But while the science around the Great Barrier Reef is clear, the way we talk about it isn’t.

Different messages about the reef

We are constantly flooded with all kinds of information about the Great Barrier Reef. This can make it tricky for people to understand what is going on and what they can do to help.

Some communicators convey a sense of urgency by emphasising the “reef is dying”. Others warn against the use of apocalyptic-style messages, suggesting fear is an ineffective tool for motivating action. These commentators suggest stories of resilience, restoration and recovery can strengthen motivation and hope. But what really works? How do we talk about the reef in a way that motivates action?

A partially submerged diver on the Great Barrier Reef, holding aloft a yellow sign bearing the words 'Climate Action NOW' — Stronger action on climate change is needed to protect vulnerable and iconic places like the Great Barrier Reef.
Yolanda Waters

Which messages work? An experiment

To find out how best to inspire action, we provided 1,452 Australians with one of eight different messages about climate change and/or the Great Barrier Reef. We then looked at which messages were most likely to increase engagement in a range of climate actions.

We found climate messages focusing on the reef were more effective than generic climate messages, compared to a control that included an unrelated message or no message at all.

This suggests the reef itself is a valuable tool for motivating climate action. This was particularly true when we emphasised our collective potential to protect the reef, using language such as “together we can”, and asked people to take action by using their voice. That is, letting their friends, families and politicians know they support stronger action on climate change.

We also found sadness is a necessary ingredient, and there is no need to shy away from the reality of coral bleaching or fear provoking negative emotions. When exploring why these messages focusing on the reef were more effective, we found the effect was largely due to feelings related to sadness, worry and anxiety.

But here’s the rub. For reef messages to work, we found they must include tangible, specific and relevant calls to action. In other words, highlighting the reef is the hook, but we need to show people what they can do to help.

Infographic comparing different climate messages and calls to action from the research — Reef messages were most effective when they focused on social and political actions.
Yolanda Waters

Preparing for a hot reef summer

We can’t control the heatwaves or the headlines coming this summer, but we can do our best to leverage this opportunity to motivate widespread action for the reef.

Here’s how you can talk about the reef this summer:

highlight the iconic nature of the reef and how it is a part of who we are
emphasise collective and motivational language (such as “together we can”) instead of personal and restrictive language (such as “you can reduce”)
state the problem (including the cause – burning fossil fuels) but don’t focus too much on explaining the threat. It’s time to talk about action
avoid broad policy statements such as “to protect the reef, we need to keep global warming to 1.5 degrees” unless they are followed by more specific calls to action
include very specific calls to action. People want to know exactly what you want them to do. Examples include encouraging people to commit to finding ways to reduce their personal carbon footprint, join a climate action group, or have a conversation about climate change with at least one family member or friend
be careful, too many calls to action can be overwhelming. Aim to give one to three options – a mix of easy and difficult actions tends to work best.

Of course, don’t forget to remind people they don’t need to live near the reef to make a difference – people can demand and support climate action from anywhere.

Yolanda Lee Waters is affiliated with Divers for Climate.

Angela Dean receives funding from the Great Barrier Reef Foundation and the Great Barrier Reef Marine Park Authority for projects related to monitoring reef stewardship actions.

– ref. Concern for the Great Barrier Reef can inspire climate action – but the way we talk about it matters – https://theconversation.com/concern-for-the-great-barrier-reef-can-inspire-climate-action-but-the-way-we-talk-about-it-matters-216992

The rule of law is fundamental to a free society – so why don’t NZ courts always uphold it?

By The Conversation -

November 20, 2023

Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Allan Beever, Professor of Law, Auckland University of Technology

Ever since the 17th century, the rule of law has been regarded as one of the fundamental values of a free society. It means you cannot be forced to do something unless there is a law requiring you to do it.

It also means people in power can coerce you only if there is a rule justifying it. This is the opposite of the “rule of persons”, in which the rulers have arbitrary power: they have the authority to force you to do things simply because they think those things should be done.

In free societies, the courts are the chief institution tasked with upholding the rule of law. It is their job to police government and other officials, to make sure they act only in accordance with the law.

But no one polices the courts. If they uphold the rule of law in their own decisions, that’s fine. But increasingly often, they don’t. And this raises important questions about how we want to be governed as a society.

The role of judges

Take, for example, the law of negligence. This is an area of law that allows one person to sue another for injuries that have been carelessly inflicted. To work, the law requires a test that will tell us when a person can sue.

The current approach reads like a set of rules, but basically comes down to two steps: a judge needs to consider everything that relates to the relationship between the parties; and the judge then needs to consider everything else.

In the end, then, the “rule” is to consider everything. It is surely clear that this not really a rule. It is rather an open discretion pretending to be a rule.

Consider also the law of trusts. This is a difficult and technical area of the law, but we can describe what the New Zealand courts have permitted in simple terms.

Imagine you own some property that I am looking after. I then enter into a relationship. My partner helps me look after the property. Eventually, our relationship breaks down and she wants some reward for the work she has done.

She may well be entitled to reward from me, but the courts in this country have dealt with this problem by allowing partners to claim part ownership of the property (as happened in the case of Murrell v Hamilton in 2014, for example).

The problem is this violates fundamental principles of property law. You owned the house from the beginning. How, then, can what went on in my relationship mean my partner came to own what was your property?

The ‘rule of persons’

That this was possible saw one leading legal commentator observe that, “in effect theft was being sanctioned by the courts”.

Why has this happened? Because, although the rules of property law would not permit it, the judges think the outcome is fair. If this is not the “rule of persons”, what is?

There are other examples, but one more will suffice. Imagine I do something horrible to you. If it’s a crime, I can be punished by the criminal law. But the courts have also said that if you sue me, a court may impose a monetary punishment on me that will go to you (effectively a fine).

When will such punishment be justified? Some leading New Zealand judges, including the previous chief justice, have said this punishment is justified not on the basis of some rule, but when a judge finds my behaviour to be sufficiently outrageous. (See, for example, the cases of Bottrill v A from 2001 or Couch v AG from 2010).

In other words, the position is that I can be punished if a judge thinks I behaved badly enough. Could it be any clearer this is the rule of persons and not the rule of law?

Rule by experts

The judges who advanced this view were outvoted by the other judges who presided in those cases. But it would be wrong to conclude all is well. As another recent case showed, the idea remains attractive to judges.

Why does this matter? The rule of law has been under pressure for about a hundred years. As I explain in my recent book, Freedom under the Private Law, society has become increasingly technocratic during this period, and the experts who govern it often prefer to do what seems right to them, rather than follow established rules.

It may not be surprising, then, if judges have come to see themselves similarly. But if the rule of law in our courts goes, where does it leave us? We will be ruled, rather than ruling ourselves, and this fundamental pillar of our liberty will be gone.

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

– ref. The rule of law is fundamental to a free society – so why don’t NZ courts always uphold it? – https://theconversation.com/the-rule-of-law-is-fundamental-to-a-free-society-so-why-dont-nz-courts-always-uphold-it-217556

How can you define a ‘drug’? Nobody really knows

By The Conversation -

November 20, 2023

Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Sam Baron, Associate Professor, Philosophy of Science, Australian Catholic University

What’s a medical drug? Ask someone on the street and they’re likely to tell you it’s the kind of thing you take when you’re unwell.

This understanding is wrong, as we will see. But after a thorough investigation, my colleagues and I found no other potential definitions are any better.

Despite their centrality to medicine, we have no idea what medical drugs are. We can’t even tell the difference between drugs and food, let alone drugs and so-called “natural” alternatives.

A Goldilocks definition

In a recent article in the Journal of Medicine and Philosophy, my colleagues (Sara Linton, a pharmacist, and Maureen O’Malley, a philosopher of biology) and I tried to nail down a viable definition of medical drugs.

A viable definition should be broad enough to include everything classified as a drug. To get a sense of this “everything”, we used the drug bank compiled by the Canadian Institutes for Health Research, which lists more than 16,000 substances.

A definition should also be narrow enough to exclude substances not typically considered drugs. Take food, for example. Eating a sandwich is usually never thought of as taking a drug.

In short, a viable definition of what drugs are should occupy a “Goldilocks” zone between these two demands: big enough to include all drugs, small enough to exclude everything else.

Based on an initial study of pharmacology textbooks, we found three broad ways to define drugs: in terms of what they are, how they work and what they’re used for.

Unfortunately, none of these options fall within the Goldilocks zone.

Are drugs specific chemicals?

If all drugs were a particular type of chemical, then defining drugs would be easy. But this idea is hopeless: there is nothing, chemically speaking, all drugs have in common.

It is also tempting to think drugs are “artificial” chemicals, made in a lab, whereas “natural” supplements come from nature, and that’s the difference.

But many drugs are “natural” in this sense. Aspirin, for instance, is derived from willow bark.

This has immediate implications for so-called “natural” supplements, such as fish oil.

If “drugs” are chemically indistinguishable from “natural” supplements, supplements should not be considered a “safe” alternative. Supplements are no less, and no more, safe than many drugs.

Do drugs perform a specific function?

Perhaps drugs can be defined in terms of what they do. This idea initially seems promising, as many drugs work by binding to receptor molecules in the body.

Think of a lock and key: the receptor molecule is the lock, and the drug is the key that opens it.

The discovery of receptor molecules is significant. For some, it is the “big idea” of the science of pharmacology.

But this definition of medical drugs is also hopeless. Many drugs don’t bind to receptors. Antacids, for instance, work simply by changing the level of acidity (pH) in a person’s body.

Many placebos also bind to receptors. Placebos are often contrasted with drugs, but defining drugs as “things that bind to receptor molecules” would include many placebos in the definition. So this definition won’t work either.

Is there a way to define placebos that clearly distinguishes them from drugs? This is not obvious, since defining placebos is also quite hard.

For instance, one might think placebos are substances that have no therapeutic effects. But placebos can have therapeutic effects (the so-called placebo effect), so this definition won’t work. A number of other definitions face similar problems.

Our research paves the way toward an explanation of why it is so hard to define placebos. To properly define placebos, we need to differentiate them from drugs, which we can’t do without a definition of what drugs are.

Drugs make me better

This brings us back to wellness. On this view, a medical drug is just any chemical substance used in medical treatment.

This does better: it captures the full range of substances used as drugs in medical contexts.

But now there is absolutely no hope of keeping food and nutrients out.

Consider, for example, total parenteral nutrition. This is a chemical infusion given to people who have trouble absorbing nutrients in the normal way.

Total parenteral nutrition is used in medical treatment. But what it does for your body isn’t really different from what a good sandwich does.

Any treatment-based account of drugs inevitably wipes out the contrast with food.

So what?

In our day-to-day lives, we make choices that rely on an implicit understanding of what drugs are.

For instance, we take paracetamol because it is a drug. Many of us may also take fish oil precisely because we believe it isn’t a drug.

Without an account of what drugs are, we risk making serious mistakes.

We might take substances we think are “inert” (placebos) because they are “natural” (like fish oil) when in fact they are active drugs.

Similarly, all legal regulation of medical drugs assumes we already know what a drug is.

But we don’t: our understanding is clearly evolving. This means regulation must also continually change. Substantial resources must therefore be devoted to reworking legislation as we continue to rethink what medical drugs are, as the recent reclassification of MDMA and psilocybin as medicines in Australia demonstrates.

Then there’s food. Food is not administered or regulated like a drug in a hospital, with the exception of total parenteral nutrition and similar substances.

But if doctors use food like a drug to contribute to patient wellbeing, then perhaps it should be subject to the same standards.

This may require radically rethinking the way meals are provided in a hospital. Perhaps meals should be administered, and regulated, with the same care as drugs.

Hospital lunches might never be the same. But that could be a good thing.

Sam Baron receives funding from the Australian Research Council.

– ref. How can you define a ‘drug’? Nobody really knows – https://theconversation.com/how-can-you-define-a-drug-nobody-really-knows-216540