Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By David Tuffley, Senior Lecturer in Applied Ethics & CyberSecurity, Griffith University

Australia has joined a raft of other countries in banning the popular video sharing app TikTok from government devices, as several outlets have today reported.

The move comes after a seven month-long review instigated by Home Affairs Minister Clare O’Neil into security risks posed by social media platforms.

Last week, TikTok CEO Shou Zi Chew was grilled by US politicians in a more than five hour-long Congress hearing. Questions mainly focused on TikTok’s handling of user data and whether it could be accessed by the Chinese Communist Party, as well as how harmful content (such as content on self-harm and eating disorders) spreads on the app.

TikTok has maintained user data are stored securely and held privately, with CEO Shou Zi Chew telling Congress:

Let me state this unequivocally: ByteDance is not an agent of China or any other country.

But the evidence seems to suggest a ban was a long time coming.

Read more:
‘Anorexia coach’: sexual predators online are targeting teens wanting to lose weight. Platforms are looking the other way

Some background

Since it was acquired by Chinese company ByteDance in 2017, TikTok (formerly Musical.ly) has faced persistent rumours regarding its handling of user data and privacy.

Despite its assurances, TikTok’s privacy policy allows for user data, including browsing history, location and biometric identifiers to be collected and shared with

business partners, other companies in the same group as TikTok, content moderation services, measurement providers, advertisers, and analytics providers.

More worrying is this provision:

Where and when required by law, we will share your information with law enforcement agencies or regulators, and with third parties pursuant to a legally binding court order.

“Where and when required by law” would include the provisions of China’s National Intelligence Law, which came into effect in 2017. It obliges organisations to cooperate with state intelligence agencies, and would oblige Bytedance to share TikTok data from Australia that may be deemed relevant to national security.

ByteDance has tried to distance itself from the perception that it is a Chinese company. According to TikTok’s vice president of policy in Europe, Theo Bertram, 60% of ByteDance is owned by global investors, 20% by employees and 20% by the founders.

Read more:
TikTok tries to distance itself from Beijing, but will it be enough to avoid the global blacklist?

But it hasn’t been enough to dispel fears. In 2020, India was among the first countries to impose a lasting nationwide ban on TikTok (and dozens of other Chinese apps), citing privacy and security concerns.

In December 2022, Taiwan imposed a public sector ban after the US Federal Bureau of Investigation warned the app posed a national security risk. That same month, the US House of Representatives issued a ban on devices used by members and staffers.

More recently, lawmakers of the European Union were banned from having TikTok on their devices.

A host of other countries have also enacted bans, including Canada, Latvia, Denmark, Belgium, the UK, New Zealand, France, Netherlands and Norway.

What are Australia’s concerns?

Australia and its allies are engaged in a so-called grey zone conflict with China; this is where TikTok becomes a major concern.

Grey zone conflict can be understood as competition between states and non-state actors that resides in a blurred reality between peace and war. It involves the strategic use of disinformation, propaganda, economic coercion, cyberattacks, and other forms of non-kinetic (subtle and non-coercive) action.

The danger TikTok poses to Australia is that the means would exist for foreign intelligence agencies to track the location of government officials, build dossiers of personal information, and conduct espionage.

An in-depth analysis of TikTok’s software code by Australian cybersecurity firm Internet 2.0 makes for interesting, if not alarming, reading.

The firm determined TikTok requests almost complete access to a user’s smart device while the app is active. These data include their calendar, contact lists and photos. If the user denies access, the app keeps asking every few hours until access is granted.

Co-founder Robert Potter told the ABC:

When we did that [pulled apart the code], we saw the permission layer that the phone was requesting was significantly more than what they said they were doing publicly. When the app is in use, it has the ability to scan the entire hard drive, access the contact lists, as well as see all other apps that have been installed on the device.

Potter points out these permissions are “significantly more” than what a social media site actually needs to access.

This isn’t an isolated incident. Last year, Buzzfeed released leaked audio from more than 80 internal US TikTok meetings that raised the alarm. According to the Buzzfeed report, China-based employees of ByteDance had repeatedly accessed non-public data about US TikTok users.

In one September 2021 meeting, a senior US-based TikTok manager referred to a Beijing-based engineer as a “master admin” who “has access to everything”. A US-based staffer in the Trust and Safety Department was also heard saying “everything is seen in China”.

The tapes overwhelmingly contradict TikTok’s repeated insistence about the privacy of user data.

Read more:
Concerns over TikTok feeding user data to Beijing are back – and there’s good evidence to support them

The larger context

Australia’s ban on TikTok on government phones is hardly surprising. A partial ban has existed for some time.

The decision speaks to the larger issue of balancing national security interests against the trade relationship with our largest trading partner. The TikTok ban is just the latest manifestation of this struggle.

In 2018, Australia’s decision to exclude Huawei from installing its 5G network was based on advice from the Australian Signals Directorate that this would give the Chinese government the means, in time of war, to paralyse the nation’s 5G-enabled critical infrastructure. A number of other countries came to a similar conclusion.

China is a nation that takes the long view when it comes to geopolitical strategy. Its planning horizon extends to many decades, and even centuries.

Against a backdrop of escalating grey zone conflict, TikTok is an example of a potentially weaponised tool in China’s cyber arsenal that could harvest massive amounts of data for nefarious means. And it’s likely not the last of such tools we’ll face.

The wisest course of action for Australia would be to also develop a long-term orientation, making plans that reach forward many decades – and not as far as the next election cycle.

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

– ref. Why was TikTok banned on government devices? An expert on why the security concerns make sense – https://theconversation.com/why-was-tiktok-banned-on-government-devices-an-expert-on-why-the-security-concerns-make-sense-202339

Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Patrick Leman, Pro-Vice Chancellor, Professor of Psychology, University of Waikato

Rates of child poverty in Aotearoa New Zealand remain stubbornly high, despite the issue being the focus of considerable political attention while Jacinda Ardern was prime minister.

In 2022, 120,000 children in New Zealand were being raised in households experiencing material hardship. This means their family is unable to afford essential items such as food, clothing, accommodation, heating and transport.

Alongside the obvious and pernicious direct effects of poverty on a person’s health and life prospects, there is a broader issue of what rising economic inequality may mean for all of us in the long run.

As we look at the consequences of poverty, we also need to ask what children themselves – the “kids who have” and the “kids who have not” – understand about the unequal world around them.

Stages of understanding

Statistics about childhood poverty tell part of the story of the widening gap in income and wealth. But children’s perceptions and understanding of economic inequality, and their experiences of it, will shape how future generations deal with the social upheaval it may bring.

So how do our children learn about, or perhaps learn to tolerate, inequality? Just for a moment, let’s set aside political or moral positions. For children growing up in poverty there are undeniable negative consequences on their physical and mental health, and their education.

Read more:
We must go beyond singular responses in the fight against child poverty

Over the course of a person’s life, this disadvantage restricts opportunity. Rising levels of poverty risk creating a cycle of inequality that continues into the future as those raised in poverty become adults.

Research indicates a consistent developmental pattern in how children acquire an understanding of economic inequality.

Before five years of age, children grasp only very basic distinctions between rich and poor. Older children can link wealth to work, albeit in a linear way: that is, they believe working hard leads to wealth.

And at around ten years, children start to consider effort, education, inheritance and occupation as factors affecting wealth.

Children understand fairness

Through most of childhood, wealth and poverty is framed in terms of basic stereotypes attributed to individuals. While these explanations can persist into adulthood, adolescents increasingly consider inequality more in terms of its structural, political and economic causes.

Children may not grasp the social and structural features that relate to economic inequality. But as any parent can tell you, you’ll find out pretty quickly if a child thinks something isn’t fair.

Of course, questions of inequality are intimately bound up with questions of morality. So while there is arguably limited reward in a conversation with your three-year-old about the finer points of macroeconomic theory, instilling a straightforward ethic of fairness and the principle of equality (or equity) from a young age is worthwhile.

Read more:
The cost of living crisis means bolder budget decisions are needed to lift more NZ children out of poverty

The broader social and political context matters too. Public discussions on individualistic versus structural explanations for inequality, and the prevailing political milieu, provide important backdrops for how children will frame and discuss inequality at home, school and among their peer group.

For instance, children and adolescents in Finland – one of the world’s most economically equal nations – use more structural explanations in discussing poverty compared with those from more unequal nations.

In nations with relatively high levels of economic inequality (such as New Zealand and the United States), people frequently believe wealth is based on individual merit.

Subverting meritocracy

Yet at the same time, poverty is associated with stigma. Stereotyping means poor people are more likely to be viewed as lazy or unintelligent. These stereotypes entail social influences that can diminish poorer children’s self esteem, increase their anxiety and lead them to under-perform in academic assessments.

Conversely, children from more affluent families may be more confident of their ability. Compounded with the different opportunities for support afforded to rich and poor children, this may lead those from less affluent families to lack the confidence to seek and reach their potential.

Read more:
Child poverty is at a 20-year high – but in one English community, children themselves are intervening

Human psychology subverts the supposed meritocracy in other ways. Adolescents tune in to social networks, status and hierarchies. Research from Wales found that moving to a high school with more affluent classmates negatively affected less affluent children’s mental wellbeing.

In fact, these self-perceptions of class predict physical and mental health inequalities later in life better than objective measures of wealth.

Read more:
Global inequality must fall to maintain a safe climate and achieve a decent standard of living for all – it’s a huge challenge

Not all bad news

Unequal societies have lower levels of social cohesion. Economic inequality is associated with less subjective wellbeing, even among the more affluent members of a society.

In other words, everyone is less happy. And rising economic inequality intersects with societal “faultlines” such as race and gender which are ripe for political exploitation.

In the future, economic inequality may be as much a consequence as a cause of the challenges future generations will face – climate change, for example. But it doesn’t have to be all bad news.

Historically, levels of income inequality have tended to fluctuate (albeit often as a consequence of financial crises or wars). So future economic inequality is not inevitable. And even if we adults cannot generate the political will or moral consensus to change things, maybe we can do our bit by nurturing and empowering a generation that can.

Patrick Leman 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. Children have a basic understanding of poverty – a more equal society means talking to them about it – https://theconversation.com/children-have-a-basic-understanding-of-poverty-a-more-equal-society-means-talking-to-them-about-it-202820

Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Joshua Conrad Jackson, Postdoctoral fellow, Kellogg School of Management, University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill

Religion is a human universal. For thousands of years, humans have held religious beliefs and participated in religious rituals. Throughout history, every human society has featured some kind of supernatural or religious belief.

Why is religion so prevalent? One reason is that it’s a powerful tool for explanation.

The world is a mysterious place, and was even more mysterious before the rise of modern science. Religion can be a way of making sense of this mystery. This idea dates back to theologians and philosophers such as Henry Drummond and Friedrich Nietzsche, who both supported the “God of the gaps” hypothesis, wherein divine intervention by God is used to explain gaps in scientific knowledge.

For example, ancient Chinese and Korean societies looked to divine intervention to justify changing their rulers, whereas Egyptians, Aztecs, Celtic, and Tiv people used the will of gods to explain celestial cycles.

In the contemporary world, many US Christians viewed the COVID pandemic as a form of divine punishment.

Yet despite these specific examples, we know little about which kinds of phenomena people try to explain using religion. If religion helps us fill gaps in knowledge, what kind of gaps is it most likely to fill?

Our international research team has pursued this question over the past five years, by surveying ethnographies from societies around the world and throughout history.

We found societies are overwhelmingly more likely to have supernatural beliefs that concern “natural” phenomena, rather than “social” phenomena.

Leer más:
Rituals have been crucial for humans throughout history – and we still need them

Supernatural explanations for natural events

In total, our research sample included historical records from 114 diverse societies.

These ranged from nomadic hunter-gatherer groups in Africa (such as the ǃKung people), to fishing and horticultural societies from the Pacific Islands (such as people from the Trobriand Islands), to large “complex” societies with modern technology and written records (such as the Javanese, Malay and Turkish societies).

For each society, we read through ethnographic texts and identified supernatural explanations that were commonly held across its people. We then identified the source of the explanation.

We were particularly interested in whether supernatural explanations focused on “natural” phenomena – events that had no clear human cause such as disease, natural disasters and drought – or whether they focused on human-caused “social” phenomena such as wars, murder and theft.

We found explanations for all these various phenomena in our survey. For example, the Cayapa people of the Ecuadorian rainforest attributed lightning, a natural phenomenon, to the Thunder spirit, who carried a large sword that glinted when he used it in combat.

And the Comanche people of the great American plains explained the timing of war, a social phenomenon, using dreams from medicine men.

However, our results also revealed a striking gap: supernatural explanations for natural phenomena were much more prevalent than for social phenomena.

In fact, nearly all the societies we surveyed had supernatural explanations for natural phenomena such as disease (96%), natural disasters (92%) and drought (90%). Fewer had supernatural explanations for warfare (67%), murder (82%) and theft (26%).

Supernatural beliefs evolve as societies expand

The global prevalence of naturally focused supernatural explanations is one of the most striking findings from our research. It’s partly surprising because current major religions such as Christianity and Islam are very social institutions.

Contemporary Christians rely on their religious beliefs as more of a social and moral compass, rather than a way to understand the weather. Similarly, the Bible seeks to explain a variety of social phenomena. The story of Cain and Abel explains the origin of murder, while the Book of Joshua explains the supernatural causes of the war that destroyed Jericho.

So how might we explain the contrast between supernatural explanations in modern-day Christianity, and supernatural explanations among traditional societies, as told through historical records? One of our findings could provide a clue.

We found societies develop more supernatural explanations for social phenomena as they get bigger and more complex. More populous societies with currency and land transport were more likely to explain events such as theft and warfare using supernatural principles than small hunter-gatherer and horticultural groups.

We can’t say with certainty why this is. It may be because people know and trust each other less in bigger societies, and this translates to beliefs in witchcraft and sorcery. Or perhaps people in larger complex societies are more concerned about issues such as warfare and theft, and therefore more likely to develop supernatural explanations for them.

Intellectuals such as Edward Tylor and David Hume thought religious beliefs may have originated as a means of explaining natural phenomena.

Although our study can’t shed light on the origins of religion, it does corroborate this idea. But beyond that, it also shows that societies are more likely to turn to religion to make sense of the social world as they get larger and more complex.

Leer más:
In Japan, supernatural beliefs connect the spiritual realm with the earthly objects around us

Las personas firmantes no son asalariadas, ni consultoras, ni poseen acciones, ni reciben financiación de ninguna compañía u organización que pueda obtener beneficio de este artículo, y han declarado carecer de vínculos relevantes más allá del cargo académico citado anteriormente.

– ref. Supernatural beliefs have featured in every society throughout history. New research helps explain why – https://theconversation.com/supernatural-beliefs-have-featured-in-every-society-throughout-history-new-research-helps-explain-why-203041

Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Matthew Sussex, Fellow, Strategic and Defence Studies Centre, Australian National University

Recent revelations about the close partnership between the Kremlin and NTC Vulkan, a Russian cybersecurity consultancy with links to the military, provide some rare insights into how the Putin regime weaponises cyberspace.

More than 5,000 documents have been leaked by an anonymous whistleblower, angry at Russia’s conduct in the war in Ukraine. They purport to reveal details about hacking tools to seize control of vulnerable servers; domestic and international disinformation campaigns; and ways to digitally monitor potential threats to the regime.

Although caution is always necessary before accepting claims about cyber capabilities, it’s noteworthy several Western intelligence agencies have confirmed the documents appear genuine.

The leak also corroborates the view of many strategists: that the Russian government regards offensive cyber capabilities as part of a holistic effort to degrade its enemies. This includes the sowing of mistrust via social media, the gathering of kompromat (compromising material), and the ability to target crucial infrastructure.

That list of enemies is a long one, and has grown since Putin’s full-scale invasion of Ukraine in February 2022. Naturally, the Kremlin’s just-released 2023 Foreign Policy Concept identifies the United States as the “main source of threats” to Russian security.

But Ukraine, every NATO and European Union member, and several other states are identified as “unfriendly countries”, including Australia, Japan, Singapore and New Zealand.

War in the shadows

Russia utilises a range of methods to wage war in cyberspace.

On one end of the spectrum, it uses groups attached to official agencies, such as the GRU (military intelligence) and the FSB (ostensibly domestic intelligence, but also carries out missions overseas).

The GRU’s groups include Sandworm and Fancy Bear. Another group, Cozy Bear, is associated with the FSB.

One or more of these groups have been responsible for a series of prominent cyber attacks on a range of targets, including:

• the Pentagon in 2015

• the Ukrainian power grid in 2015

• the 2016 Democratic National Convention

• the 2017 NotPetya ransomware attacks, which targeted Ukraine but spread globally

• German and French elections in 2017 and 2018

• the International Olympic Committee

• US-based NGOs and think tanks

• COVID-19 vaccine data

• the 2021 Republican National Committee

• and a 2022 attempt to cause a power blackout in Ukraine.

At the other end of the spectrum, Russian information operations regularly use armies of bots and trolls, as well as unsuspecting “citizen curators”, to spread false narratives.

Doing so is cheap and increases the distance between the attacker and its agents, allowing for plausible deniability.

Like biological warfare, it also weaponises the targets to do the job of spreading the narrative disease for it.

Russian information campaigns operate globally, among nations it considers its friends as well as its adversaries. Russian-weaponised media can be found in Africa, where the Russian Wagner paramilitary organisation has been especially active, as well as in South Asia and Australia.

Read more:
Russian trolls targeted Australian voters on Twitter via #auspol and #MH17

In many respects, Russian information operations mimic Soviet geopolitical doctrine during the Cold War. This focused on courting areas of the world where the West was weakest.

But in the grey space between official agencies, useful idiots and unwitting proxies is an area of increasing emphasis of Russian cyberwar: outsourcing. Some of these, such as Vulkan, retain an aura of respectability as consultancies that do government work as well as contracting to other firms.

They also include the Internet Research Agency in St Petersburg, which was used to coordinate social media attacks on the US Democratic Party during the 2018 mid-term elections, leading to an indictment by the Department of Justice.

Others are [organised criminal gangs] like the aptly named “EvilCorp” (https://www.state.gov/transnational-organized-crime-rewards-program-2/maksim-viktorovich-yakubets/) that use malware to harvest people’s banking details or personal information.

The November 2022 breach of Australia’s private health insurer Medibank was one example, which exposed patients’ sensitive health details such as treatments for drug addiction or HIV.

The Vulkan revelations

The Vulkan leak adds more detail to what we know about Russian methods, tactics and targets in cyberspace. The GRU group Sandworm is identified as having authorised Vulkan to help build “Skan-V”, a piece of software that can monitor the internet to detect vulnerable servers to hack.

Another Vulkan project, known as “Fraction”, was designed to monitor social media sites for key words to identify regime opponents, both at home and abroad.

An even larger project in which Vulkan seems to have been engaged was “Amezit”. This is a tool that would enable operators to seize control of the internet both inside Russia and in other nations, and hijack information flows.

To function, its users need to be able to control physical infrastructure such as mobile phone towers and wireless internet nodes. Amezit can then be used to mimic legitimate sites and social media profiles, scrub content that might be deemed hostile, and replace it with disinformation.

Given the requirement to possess physical infrastructure, it’s clear Azemit was designed not solely as a piece of software, but to operate in tandem with the coercive instruments of a state.

This has internal uses as well as external ones. Domestically, it could be used to silence dissent in restive Russian regions. In a war zone, such as Ukraine, it could be used alongside Russia’s armed forces to intercept government communications and swap genuine information sources for false ones.

Read more:
As Russia wages cyber war against Ukraine, here’s how Australia (and the rest of the world) could suffer collateral damage

The Vulkan leak also included information on physical objects. Although not a concise target list, its software allowed users to map physical infrastructure. This included airports worldwide, the Swiss Ministry of Foreign Affairs, and the Muhlberg nuclear power plant near Bern.

What’s more, the document drop featured mapped clusters of internet servers in the United States. And the Skan-V project identified a site in the US labelled “Fairfield” as a potentially vulnerable point of entry.

If the documents are accurate, Vulkan’s work for the Russian government shows how extensive the Kremlin’s attempts have been to monitor digital infrastructure, collect information about vulnerabilities, and develop the capacity to hijack it.

Combating Russian cyber attacks

Cyber threats are insidious because they can be used in multiple combinations and aimed at different targets. Hack-and-leak campaigns against influential figures can be mixed with attempts to sabotage vital infrastructure, perform corporate espionage, undermine social cohesion and trust, and push fringe narratives to the political centre.

They can be drip-fed into the digital ecosystem. Or, much like the campaign that accompanied Russia’s takeover of Crimea in 2014, they can be employed all at once in a cyber-blizzard.

This makes cyber attacks very hard to build resilience against, and even harder to deter. They are a weapon of potentially mass disruption that can result in real casualties. Turning off the power grid in a city, for example, can lead to deaths among people on life support in hospitals, traffic accidents, and exposure to extreme cold in certain regions.

Read more:
A year on, Russia’s war on Ukraine threatens to redraw the map of world politics – and 2023 will be crucial

But beyond infrastructure and industry, such attacks also target social pressure points: a states’ institutions, ideas and people. This makes them especially useful in attacking democracies, making the open and free exchange of views a potential vulnerability.

As the Vulkan leaks demonstrate, hostile governments have greater ambitions in cyberspace than being able to switch off the lights. They seek to be able to encourage us to question what we believe to be true, and pit us against one another.

Recognising that will be a crucial step in preventing the poisonous seeds of disinformation from taking root.

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

– ref. Russia’s shadow war: Vulkan files leak show how Putin’s regime weaponises cyberspace – https://theconversation.com/russias-shadow-war-vulkan-files-leak-show-how-putins-regime-weaponises-cyberspace-203146

Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Tim McCreanor, Professor Race Relations, Health and Wellbeing, Massey University

The marketing of legal but harmful products – like alcohol and tobacco – has always targeted our emotional desires. But it has now moved to digital and social media, and this creates a heightened threat to public health because both the products and the platform target our neurological response.

Promoting psychoactive products for profit by stimulating the neurotransmitters in the brain’s reward centres, or its limbic structures, is called “limbic capitalism”.

But as limbic capitalism has gone digital over the past decade, marketers can now reach us on our smartphones as we use digital and social media platforms.

The algorithms that keep us swiping and tapping on images and videos stimulate the dopamine drive in our brains that induces feelings of pleasure.

When used to promote potentially addictive products, this presents a serious threat to public health and the wellbeing of individuals, communities and populations. We know alcohol and tobacco products are linked to a wide range of harms and injuries, but existing regulatory frameworks have nothing to say about these new forms of marketing.

Read more:
Alcohol marketing has crossed borders and entered the metaverse – how do we regulate the new digital risk?

The addictive power of social media

We surveyed people aged 14 to 20 in Aotearoa New Zealand about their experience of alcohol and tobacco marketing on social media. While they valued the way social media enabled them to keep in touch with family and friends, they also frequently told us they felt these platforms were addictive.

As one 20-year-old Māori/Pākehā male told us:

Content algorithms are addictive and predatory. The only value is in being able to communicate with friends and whānau.

An 18-year-old Pākehā female said:

I dislike the addiction it fuels, dislike the competitive and comparative posting and dislike the mental health issues it feeds to young people.

Participants’ responses highlight the addictive power of social media platforms and, despite their benefits, the price users pay in continuing to use them. These insights lead us to argue limbic capitalism is becoming “limbic platform capitalism”.

New challenges to public health

This highlights the importance of understanding how much capacity we have to choose and control our compulsions on mobile social media. Users of digital platforms have valuable insights about how marketers use social media to target their vulnerabilities as they pursue their own interests and social lives online.

The public health challenges of limbic platform capitalism present a serious escalation. This is because marketing has been naturalised into these digital environments and has become difficult to identify and avoid. It has become more powerful in its capacity to target our limbic system.

An example comes from Perth in Australia, where the alcohol industry used the global COVID pandemic as a marketing opportunity. The number of alcohol ads increased significantly on commonly used digital platforms. Users saw alcohol ads at least every 35 seconds, offering easy access to alcohol without leaving the home and promoting the use of alcohol to “feel better”.

Our participants reported noticing increases in vape and alcohol ads on social media, including delivery offers, during lockdowns. When asked what changes they had seen in marketing since lockdowns, they also showed awareness of the synergies between platforms and products, for example:

The way they promote their products. The sounds they use. A lot of songs have become famous off [platform name]. So a lot of companies use the really famous music to help promote.

Need for regulation of social media marketing

Mobile social media are now central to young people’s professional and social identity, leisure and civic engagements. While they actively use social media for their own ends, they are simultaneously recruited as limbic platform and product consumers.

Platform algorithms are designed to generate, analyse and apply vast amounts of personalised data to target and tune flows of content to users, influencing their desires, behaviours and consumption, in order to increase profits.

Read more:
NZ children see more than 40 ads for unhealthy products each day. It’s time to change marketing rules

These developments and their public health implications require immediate attention.
Algorithmic models intensify targeting of users at times, places and contexts when they are most susceptible. Home delivery of alcohol in the evening is an example.

This can influence purchase decisions, potentially harming vulnerable consumers and exacerbating health inequities. Such commercialised algorithm-driven systems raise serious questions for health policymakers about public oversight of the algorithms. Should we ban the promotion and marketing of unhealthy but legal products on limbic platforms?

Scholarship exploring mobile social media landscapes is essential to inform public health and health promotion research agendas, initiatives and policies. We urgently need regulatory responses for this new era of marketing, where both commodities and the popular platforms they are marketed on are dynamic, participatory, data-driven and limbic.

Tim McCreanor receives funding from the Royal Society of New Zealand Marsden Fund.

Angela Moewaka Barnes receives funding from the Royal Society of New Zealand Marsden Fund.

Antonia Lyons receives funding from the Royal Society of New Zealand Marsden Fund.

Ian Goodwin receives funding from Royal Society of New Zealand Marsden Fund.

Nicholas Carah 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. How digital marketing of legal but harmful products escalates health threats to the most vulnerable – https://theconversation.com/how-digital-marketing-of-legal-but-harmful-products-escalates-health-threats-to-the-most-vulnerable-201164

Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Cristyn Davies, Research Fellow in Child and Adolescent Health, Faculty of Medicine and Health, University of Sydney

In her address to the National Press Club of Australia today, actress, writer and advocate Georgie Stone OAM is sharing her experience as a young trans person growing up in Australia.

Georgie’s story highlights her courage and determination to overcome barriers that prevent young trans people from accessing gender affirming health care and support. At just 22, Georgie has been recognised for her tireless work to reduce discrimination and remove systemic barriers for young trans people, who were subjected to attacks at recent protests in Melbourne, Sydney and Canberra.

In the face of this negativity, Georgie’s story emphasises how we can better support the trans community and calls particular attention to the pivotal role families play in supporting trans children and adolescents to thrive and reach their full potential.

The positive impact of family support for young trans people

Although many young trans people experience anxiety and depression as a result of stigma and discrimination, family support acts as a protective buffer for their health and wellbeing.

Research with trans adults shows family support is most strongly linked with mental health and resilience compared to support from friends or connectedness to the trans community.

Similarly, for young trans people, parental support is significantly associated with higher life satisfaction and fewer depressive symptoms, as well as reducing reported suicide attempts from 57% to 4%.

When family support is missing, trans people experience more homelessness. Many who do not have parental support end up in out-of-home care.

In a recent study, young trans people in the United States were asked about family support and identified numerous ways parents can help. Some – such as expressions of love and affection, open communication, and the provision of advice, encouragement and financial support – were not directly related to the young person’s gender diversity. Others were directly related, including emotional support at the time of coming out, willingness to listen to the young person’s experience of gender, use of chosen names and pronouns, and support for social, legal and/or medical gender affirmation.

Notably, some young trans people said their parents weren’t comfortable, or didn’t have knowledge and understanding about gender diversity. So, how can we help parents better support their trans children?

3 things that help build family support for young trans people

Surveys of families of young trans people have identified ways parental support can be facilitated.

1. Learning as much as possible

First, parents of young trans people say becoming educated on trans-related issues and accessing relevant information is really important.

Such information includes knowledge about gender diversity, its impact on families, trans affirming parenting practices, and gender affirming health care.

While many parents can obtain this information online, family-based peer support groups and health professionals with expertise in this area (including general practitioners and community-based and school psychologists) are often critical sources of additional and reliable knowledge.

Read more:
5 books for kids and teens that positively portray trans and gender-diverse lives

2. Families supporting families

Secondly, as Georgie’s story illustrates, families of young trans people can play a powerful role through the provision of peer support. Support groups for parents of trans young people provide a space to share stories and obtain support from people in similar situations. This helps parents feel less alone and to navigate the challenges facing their children, including in schools and health institutions.

Family-based support groups can provide connections to the broader trans community. This can help foster a sense of pride in gender diversity but also give young trans people role models that show trans people enjoying positive, fulfilled lives. Family-based peer support groups are essential and should be funded to meet the growing demand of parents requiring assistance.

Read more:
Trans people aren’t new, and neither is their oppression: a history of gender crossing in 19th-century Australia

3. Accessing multidisciplinary care

Many parents seek access to gender-affirming healthcare for their trans children. Multidisciplinary gender clinics (that could involve mental health, endocrinology, adolescent medicine and nursing specialists) and other health care professionals have an important role in providing parents with the support they need. This needs to be done in an inclusive, respectful manner and incorporate best practices, such as addressing parental concerns from a risk/benefit perspective, understanding the parent journey, and adopting a shared decision-making approach to a young person’s care.

More broadly, research identifies the need for integrated service provision that is comprehensive, efficient, and provides continuity of care across all the health professionals involved, whether they be general practitioners, mental health clinicians or paediatricians. This applies not only to the health system but also welfare, education and legal sectors too. For example, a social worker may assist a trans young person and their family with referral pathways to available support services in their local area. They can also work with the young person’s school to ensure an inclusive school environment.

Read more:
Supporting trans people: 3 simple things teachers and researchers can do

Protecting young people

Families serve a critical protective role for young trans people, helping to minimise poor mental health and to promote wellbeing.

Listening to trans young people and their parents and carers, is vital to help families provide effective support and nurturing. Engaging families in partnerships to reconfigure health and support services that are culturally safe and meet their needs is essential.

Cristyn Davies reports voluntarily being co-chair of the Human Rights Council of Australia; co-chair of the Child and Youth Special Interest Group for the Public Health Association of Australia; a board director of the Australian Association of Adolescent Health; an ambassador to Twenty10 Incorporating the Gay and Lesbian Counselling Service of New South Wales; and co-chair of the research committee for the Australian Professional Association for Trans Health.

Cris Townley is a member of the advocacy network Parents for Trans Youth Equity (P-TYE).

Ken Pang is a paediatrician at the Royal Children’s Hospital in Melbourne. He receives research funding from the Australian National Health and Medical Research Council, the Royal Children’s Hospital Foundation, and the Hugh D T Williamson Foundation. He is a member of the Australian Professional Association for Trans Health (and its research committee), as well as the World Professional Association for Transgender Health

Rachel Skinner is an paediatrician in Adolescent Medicine at Sydney Children’s Hospitals Network and Senior Clinical Advisor in Youth and Wellbeing at the NSW Ministry of Health. She holds research funding from the Australian National Health and Medical Research Council, the Medical Research Future Fund and Cooperative Research Centre project scheme. She is a member of Royal Australasian College of Physicians, Australian Association for Adolescent Health; Australian Professional Association for Trans Health, Society for Adolescent Health and Medicine and World Professional Association for Transgender Health

Kerry H. Robinson 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. Family support protects trans young people – but their families need support too – https://theconversation.com/family-support-protects-trans-young-people-but-their-families-need-support-too-202743

Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Tessa Leach, Senior Analyst at Climateworks, Monash University

Making steel was responsible for about 7% of global greenhouse gas emissions in 2020. That’s because steelmakers in countries like China, Japan and South Korea have long relied on fossil fuels like coal to make steel in blast furnaces.

But change is coming, as the world works to decarbonise. Researchers and steelmakers are exploring new ways of making steel without using coal.

If the move to green steel gathers speed, Australia could be left behind. That’s because even though we’re the world’s largest exporter of iron ore, some of the new techniques rely on ore with a higher purity than we currently export. Coal exporters could also lose income, as we’re the largest exporter of the coking coal burnt in furnaces using current technology.

To avoid this, we should plan for a green steel future. Our recent report on opportunities for Australian industry to decarbonise suggests this is possible. Australia can make the transition to green steel and remain a major global player.

Why would Australia be affected by a shift to green steel?

Emerging steelmaking technologies are well along the path to development. Sweden produced the first batch of steel made without coal in 2021.

This steel was made using a direct reduced iron-electric arc furnace process, which can be powered with renewable energy and green hydrogen. While the pilot schemes are promising, this technology could take until the late 2030s to be available at scale.

The problem for Australia is this approach needs high purity ore. At present, the bulk of our iron ore exports would simply not be compatible, as there are too many impurities.

Read more:
‘Green steel’ is hailed as the next big thing in Australian industry. Here’s what the hype is all about

Australia exports two main types of iron ore: hematite and magnetite.

Hematite is mined in Western Australia’s Pilbara. It’s a naturally higher-grade ore (56–62% iron) and makes up almost all (96%) of our exports.

Magnetite is a lower grade ore (25-40% iron) which needs extra processing. This processing, however, produces ore with more iron content, fewer impurities and less waste rock (known as gangue) than hematite.

It’s also, as the name suggests, magnetic. That makes it possible to efficiently separate iron from waste rock using magnets.

Why does this matter? Because this processing converts lower grade iron ore into a product compatible with direct reduced iron-electric arc furnace technology.

You might wonder why it’s important to get rid of waste rock. Doesn’t it slough off in the furnace? In a traditional blast furnace, this is true. But in the direct reduction process, the iron ore doesn’t actually melt. And the next step – the electric arc furnace – can’t handle too many contaminants.

Hematite or magnetite?

This leaves us with a predicament.

Our major iron ore export, hematite, won’t be able to supply green steelmakers using one of the leading technologies. But our much smaller ore type, magnetite, could.

If we develop new methods of processing hematite to allow it to be used in green steelmaking, we could keep current mines open and preserve existing markets. But it would mean significant research and development to make possible commercially viable methods.

The other option is to accelerate mining of magnetite, because processing this kind of ore is well understood.

Some Australian miners are already heading down this path. Fortescue’s Iron Bridge magnetite project in the Pilbara is scheduled to begin production this quarter.

Magnetite is also recognised as an opportunity in South Australia, given it makes up 90% of the state’s ore body. The state government has set a target of 50 million tonnes per year by 2030.

To ensure expanded mining of magnetite is sustainable, we need strong benchmarks to limit emissions and broader environmental impacts from new mine facilities.

That’s because the actual mining of iron ore is an emissions-intensive industry, given it relies on heavy machinery. But our modelling shows there are pathways to progress here too, with electrification and fuel switching.

Are other green steel techniques better suited to Pilbara ore?

The direct reduction method being pioneered in Sweden isn’t the only way to clean up steelmaking.

We looked at a range of potential low-emissions steelmaking techniques, some of which could make use of Australia’s existing hematite exports.

Australian steelmaker Bluescope and multinational miner Rio Tinto are exploring another method, using direct reduction to get rid of oxygen, melting the ore to remove impurities, and then using a basic oxygen furnace to make steel. This, they hope, will let them keep using Pilbara hematite ore.

Other emerging steelmaking techniques, such as electrolytic steelmaking, should also be developed to ensure there are plenty of options for the use of hematite in zero emissions steelmaking in the future.

Fortescue Future Industries recently announced they have succeeded in producing zero carbon iron using an electrolyser and a membrane, but so far have not provided details of the process.

It’s hard to give concrete timelines for these changes, as a transformation at this scale will require coordinated effort. Each of these technologies requires significant investment and a massive build-up of reliable, cost-competitive renewable energy and green hydrogen production.

Planning and action is needed now

As you would imagine, steelmaking companies plan for their plants to last decades. This timeframe means decisions being made now will affect emissions in the future.

It’s vital Australia is prepared for the shift to green steel. We’ll need a national strategy to futureproof iron ore production, and iron and steel supply chain roadmaps to get suppliers, finance, consumers and decision-makers on the same page in working to take the fossil fuels out of industries.

Read more:
Red dirt, yellow sun, green steel: how Australia could benefit from a global shift to emissions-free steel

Dr Tessa Leach works for Climateworks Centre. She is a member of the Australian Industry Energy Transitions Initiative, which received funding from the Australian Renewable Energy Agency.

Dr Tyra Horngren works for Climateworks Centre. She is a member of the Australian Industry Energy Transitions Initiative, which received funding from the Australian Renewable Energy Agency.

– ref. Australia’s main iron ore exports may not work with green steelmaking. Here’s what we must do to prepare – https://theconversation.com/australias-main-iron-ore-exports-may-not-work-with-green-steelmaking-heres-what-we-must-do-to-prepare-201469

Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Jacqueline Peel, Director, Melbourne Climate Futures, The University of Melbourne

The United Nations has just backed a landmark resolution on climate justice.

Last week, the UN General Assembly supported a Pacific-led resolution asking the International Court of Justice (ICJ) to provide an advisory opinion on a country’s climate obligations.

This has been hailed as a “turning point in climate justice” and a victory for the Pacific youth who spearheaded the campaign.

But what does this UN decision actually mean? Does an advisory opinion from the ICJ have any teeth? And what might be the legal consequences for rich countries, like Australia, that have contributed the most to the climate problem?

Read more:
Once again, wealthy nations are letting down poor nations at the Egypt climate talks

What is an ICJ Advisory Opinion?

The ICJ is the world court and the leading global authority on international law. It generally hears disputes between countries known as “contentious cases” such as the 2010 case brought by Australia against Japan over whaling in the Southern Ocean. In that case, the court ruled in Australia’s favour.

However, the ICJ can also issue advisory opinions. This is a kind of general advice on the status of international law on a particular topic. Opinions must be requested by one of the organs or specialised agencies of the UN, such as the General Assembly.

On March 29 2023, the UN General Assembly resolved to seek an ICJ advisory opinion on the obligations of states with respect to climate change. That was based on draft text put forward by the tiny Pacific nation of Vanuatu.

Significantly, this resolution was co-sponsored by 105 states, including Australia. It’s the first time the General Assembly has requested an advisory opinion from the ICJ with unanimous state support.

The question put to the ICJ asks whether countries have an obligation to protect the global climate system. It also seeks advice on the “legal consequences” when countries’ actions or omissions cause significant climate harm to small island states and future generations in particular.

The UN will communicate the resolution to the ICJ in coming weeks and the court will then organise hearings over the next few months. It’s expected an advisory opinion will be issued six to 12 months later.

A win for the Pacific

The adoption of the advisory opinion resolution represents an important milestone in a long-running fight by Pacific small island nations and youth activists to secure climate justice.

For these communities, climate change is already causing or exacerbating harm to natural and human systems. Indeed, only a few weeks before the UN General Assembly decision, a rare double cyclone event ripped through Vanuatu.

Faced with these threats, Pacific nations like Tuvalu and Palau have previously publicly discussed options for seeking a ruling from the ICJ. These efforts met with stiff resistance from major emitting countries, which eventually saw the proposals shelved.

Renewed efforts began in 2019 with 27 law students from The University of the South Pacific forming Pacific Islands Students Fighting Climate Change.

The students worked with the Vanuatu government to launch a new campaign for a General Assembly resolution on climate change and human rights. Introducing the resolution, Vanuatu’s prime minister Ishmael Kalsakau stated:

This is not a silver bullet, but it can make an important contribution to climate action, including by catalysing much higher ambition under the Paris Agreement.

For student campaigners like Cynthia Houniuhi, it means

an opportunity to do something bigger than ourselves, bigger than our fears.

What might the ICJ advisory opinion deliver?

Advisory opinions issued by the ICJ are – as the name suggests – advisory. They are not legally binding on any country or on the General Assembly. So this climate advisory opinion will not establish the accountability of particular countries for climate harms, nor deliver compensation to vulnerable nations like Vanuatu.

Nonetheless, the authority of the world court means its advisory opinions do matter in shaping how countries understand their international obligations.

There is an opportunity with this opinion to cement emerging links between climate harms and human rights, which could open up new avenues for litigation either domestically or internationally. Already there are several new climate rights cases underway, with the European Court of Human Rights hearing its first two climate cases (against Switzerland and France) on the same day the advisory opinion resolution was adopted.

The ICJ opinion could also provide an extra incentive for countries to reexamine and strengthen their national emissions reduction targets, to make sure they are compliant with the Paris Agreement. As the new fund for climate-related loss and damage takes shape at this year’s international climate meeting (COP28 in Dubai), negotiators may be thinking about how the rules they are crafting could complement the ICJ opinion.

Australia’s support signals our government understands the need to strengthen cooperation and solidarity in the region. Such efforts – including increasing the ambition of Australia’s emissions reduction target and contributing funds to the emerging loss and damage fund – would be tangible indications Australia is striving to meet its international obligations. It’s about being a good neighbour while also avoiding future lawsuits.

Read more:
Australia violated the rights of Torres Strait Islanders by failing to act on climate change, the UN says. Here’s what that means

A turning point for climate justice?

For many advocates the success of the ICJ advisory opinion campaign heralds the beginning of a new era in the quest for climate justice. By asking the world court to bring its authoritative voice to this issue, campaigners like the Pacific students’ group seek to make a difference. They hope to ease the path to holding polluting countries accountable for climate harms and help ensure vulnerable communities receive the resources they need to realise a better climate future.

Other voices urge a more cautious approach. The ICJ, for example, does not have much expertise in human rights – with the notable exception of recently appointed Australian judge Hilary Charlesworth. With judges drawn from several major emitting states, the court may be reluctant to intervene decisively on such a highly charged political question. Courts are generally followers, not leaders, of social movements.

Nonetheless, the confluence of dire warnings from climate scientists in the latest report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, proliferating climate protests and litigation around the world, and the accelerating occurrence of climate harms like last year’s massive floods in Pakistan may just yield a moment in history – one where the world court steps forward to put its thumb on the scales in favour of the cause of climate justice.

Jacqueline Peel received funding from the Australian Research Council for a project on climate change litigation in Australia between 2013-2017.

Zoe Nay is affiliated with World’s Youth for Climate Justice.

– ref. The UN is asking the International Court of Justice for its opinion on states’ climate obligations. What does this mean? – https://theconversation.com/the-un-is-asking-the-international-court-of-justice-for-its-opinion-on-states-climate-obligations-what-does-this-mean-202943

Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Jacqueline Hendriks, Research Fellow and Lecturer, Curtin University

Decades of research have shown when relationships and sexuality education is delivered well, it can improve the sexual, social, and emotional health of young people. It can also lead to improved academic outcomes.

But research also shows schools worry parents and families will revolt if they provide too much detail in their sex education programs.

So it is important schools know what Australian parents actually think and want when it comes to relationships and sexuality education.

Our recent study surveyed Australian parents about what schools should teach and when they should teach it.

The history of sex education in Australia

Sex education in Australian schools has a long and complex history. Propelled by the HIV and AIDS pandemic of the early 1980s, programs often focused on the prevention of sexually transmissible infections, and led to many of us suffering through awkward lessons, such as how to put condoms on bananas.

Lessons about our changing bodies, menstruation and pregnancy prevention were also common. For many, perhaps the only time we saw our school nurse was that one time they came into the classroom to put a tampon in a glass of water – much to the horror of anyone who might need to use one.

More recently, a broader variety of topics has been covered by schools, to reflect the modern issues faced by young people. This includes a focus on consent. Age-appropriate consent education is mandatory as of 2023, from the first year of schooling to year 10.

However, the actual delivery of relationships and sexuality education in Australian schools is still highly varied. And students often tell us that the content they are given is not relevant. This is in stark contrast to the United Kingdom, where relationships and sex education became mandatory in 2020.

What should good quality sexuality education include?

According to international research, schools should teach a broad range of sexuality-related topics from the earliest years. Previous approaches, that relied heavily on fear or risk should be avoided. Instead, there should be an emphasis on wellbeing.

To give children and young people the information they need to be safe and healthy, a good quality relationship and sexuality education should include:

• naming all body parts without shame

• learning about the social, emotional and physical changes that come with puberty

• developing a healthy body image (this includes learning that our genitals all look different – and that’s okay)

• skills for decision-making about around sex and relationships, how to communicate effectively with friends or partners

• how to safely navigate online spaces, including an understanding of the impact pornography can have on how we see sex

• gender stereotypes and how they are problematic for everyone

• skills to maintain healthy relationships and how to engage in sexual practices as safely as possible

• affirmation of LGBTIQA+ diversity and

• reliable places where you can seek support or get more information.

Read more:
Netflix’s Sex Education is doing sex education better than most schools

Our research

Our new research project set out to establish exactly what Australian parents think about school relationships and sexuality education via an online survey.

More than 2,400 Australian parents were surveyed in late 2021. They represented all states and territories, and their children were enrolled in both primary and secondary schools.

All school sectors – government, independent and Catholic – were represented.

What should students be taught?

Overall, 90% of parents in the survey either agreed or strongly agreed schools should deliver relationships and sexuality education.

Parents also reviewed a list of 40 sex education topics, from correctly naming body parts, to sexting and masturbation. They were then asked if such a lesson was appropriate for the school classroom.

Across all 40 topics, there was emphatic support for schools to address each of these issues. In most cases the level of support was more than 95%. Some of the most supported topics were peer pressure, communication skills and changes associated with puberty.

Support was lowest for topics such as pleasure, masturbation, pornography, gender stereotypes, gender identity and sexual orientation. However, the level of support for these topics still ranged from 83% to 92%. This confirms other recent research, which found Australian parents are highly supportive of schools teaching about diversity of gender and sexuality.

When should students be taught?

Parents in our survey were also asked to indicate at what grade level each topic should first be introduced.

Most parents thought a small number of topics could easily begin in primary school, with remaining topics being held over until secondary school. The primary school topics included bodily autonomy and personal boundaries, personal safety (or child abuse prevention) and correct names for body parts, including genitals and changes associated with puberty.

Interestingly, their preference was for more sensitive lessons, such as reasons to engage/not engage in sex, safer sex practices, sexting, contraception, and pornography to start in years 7 and 8. This is an important finding, as we know many schools hold off on delivering a lot of their sexuality education until years 9 and 10, as guided by the Australian curriculum.

Whilst most parents rated the current quality of relationships and sexuality education at their child’s school to be somewhere between good and very good (58%), 21% felt it hadn’t been taught at all by their school, and 12% were unsure what their school actually delivered.

Read more:
Relationships and sex education is now mandatory in English schools – Australia should do the same

What happens now?

Our study clearly demonstrates the vast majority of Australian parents surveyed want schools to delivery a truly comprehensive relationships and sexuality program. Yes, there is public support for consent to be covered – as it should be. But parents also want many issues, beyond consent, to be taught at school.

Despite a vocal minority who might criticise particular lessons, schools should feel confident most families have their back. In many instances, they actually want these topics to be introduced in earlier grade levels.

Schools may benefit from consulting with their parent bodies, and developing a specific school policy about relationships and sexuality education. Any policy should be heavily grounded in evidence, but it will also benefit from the input of staff, students and parents.

Our curriculum writers should also feel confident to include terms like “sex”, “contraception”, “pornography”, “gender diversity”, and “sexual orientation” in their guidance to educators. For too long there has been a reticence to provide clear directions to schools about exactly what to topics teach. This lack of clarity, along with inadequate teacher training, has had a big impact on our ability to implement relationships and sexuality education across the country in an effective and uniform manner.

Young people have a right to be educated about their bodies. And Australian parents want schools to play their part in doing this.

Talk Soon. Talk Often is a resource to help families have discussions about relationships and sex with their children. Yarning Quiet Ways is a similar resource for Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander families.

The author wishes to acknowledge her co-researchers: Katrina Marson, Jennifer Walsh, Tasha Lawton, Hanna Saltis and Sharyn Burns.

Jacqueline Hendriks (she/her/they) is based at Curtin University, is Project Lead of the Curtin University RSE Project and is part of the Management Team for SiREN. She receives funding from the WA Department of Health (Sexual Health and Blood-borne Virus Program) and various other Australian government and non-government organisations. They are a founding member of Bloom-ED, a collective action group to promote improved relationships and sexuality education throughout Australia, and is a Board Director of the Australian Association for Adolescent Health.

– ref. Australian parents want schools to teach more sex education topics and teach them from an earlier age – https://theconversation.com/australian-parents-want-schools-to-teach-more-sex-education-topics-and-teach-them-from-an-earlier-age-202441

Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Patricia Ranald, Honorary research associate, University of Sydney

Australian business figure Clive Palmer is suing the Australian government for almost A$300 billion in an international tribunal, having lost a case against the Western Australian government he took all the way to the High Court.

The High Court is meant to be the ultimate arbiter of Australian legal disputes. But in 2019 while in conflict with the WA government Palmer moved ownership of his two main Australian firms offshore, ultimately to a company he set up in Singapore, Zeph Investments Pte Ltd.

As a Singapore-based company, Zeph believes it is able to take action against the Australian government that Australian-based companies cannot, using an obscure provision of the ASEAN-Australia New Zealand Free Trade Agreement.

What makes him think it would work?

Palmer lost in the High Court

First, a quick look at what’s at stake.

In 2002, Palmer’s two companies entered into an agreement with the WA government to explore, mine and process iron ore in the Pilbara region, known as the Balmoral South Iron Ore Project.

The two sides fell out, and in 2020 Palmer sued the state for $27.8 billion. In 2022 the WA government hurriedly passed legislation that indemnified the state against any money it might be found to owe Palmer, meaning he would get nothing.

Palmer appealed to the High Court, and lost in a unanimous judgement.

Read more:
Clive Palmer versus (Western) Australia. He could survive a High Court loss if his company is found to be “foreign”

In his new guise as director of a Singapore-based company, Palmer has upped the ante to US$200 billion (about A$300 billion) – an amount WA Premier Mark McGowan says is “A$11,500 for every person in Australia”. The demand includes US$10 billion for “moral damages”.

By way of comparison, A$300 billion is in the ballpark of the A$268 billion to $368 billion Australia is set to pay for nuclear submarines over three decades.

Palmer has hired former Australian Attorney-General Christian Porter as part of his legal team. The clause Porter and the rest of the team will attempt to use is known as the Investor-State Dispute Settlement (ISDS) clause.

Investor-State Dispute Settlement clauses allow foreign (but not local) investors to claim damages from governments if they can argue that a change in law or a government decision has reduced their future profits.

Trying again, as a Singaporean

ISDS clauses were originally designed in the postcolonial period to compensate foreign investors from countries which claimed to have the rule of law against having their assets appropriated by developing countries countries which were viewed as having less developed legal systems.

But its use has expanded to include concepts such as “indirect expropriation,” “minimum standard of treatment” and “legitimate expectations” which enable foreign investors to sue on the grounds that government action reduced the value of their investments or did not meet their expectations at the time they invested.

US tobacco company Philip Morris tried a similar ploy when it sued the Australian government over Australia’s plain packaging law.

Read more:
When even winning is losing. The surprising cost of defeating Philip Morris over plain packaging

Although Philip Morris couldn’t sue using the Australia-US Free Trade Agreement (which lacks an ISDS provision), it moved ownership of its Australian arm to Hong Kong and sued using a Hong Kong treaty, ultimately failing. However, Australia was left with a A$24 million legal bill, only half of which it recovered.

The tool used by big tobacco

Overseas, ISDS clauses have been used to enable corporations to take action against measures to reduce carbon emissions, as well as against public health measures. Denmark and New Zealand appear to have designed their fossil fuel phaseout plans specifically to minimise their exposure to ISDS clauses.

Unlike normal legal proceedings, ISDS adjudications lack safeguards including an independent judiciary (ISDS arbitrators can continue to act for clients in other ISDS cases) or the need to consider precedents or allow appeals. This means decisions lack consistency and the outcome of Palmer’s case is unpredictable.

Read more:
Corporations prepare to sue as pandemic reveals trade flaws

Mounting criticism of the clauses led to their exclusion from recent Australian trade agreements, including those with the United Kingdom, the European Union and nations bordering the Pacific.

Labor recently reaffirmed its policy to exclude ISDS clauses from all new trade agreements and to review their inclusion in existing agreements.

Palmer’s case, and the millions of dollars and years of effort it could cost Australia even if he ultimately fails, makes removing these clauses more urgent.

Dr Patricia Ranald is an honorary research associate at the University of Sydney and the honorary convener of the Australian Fair Trade and Investment Network, a network of community organisations which advocates for fair trade based on human rights, labour rights and environmental sustainability.

– ref. How Clive Palmer is suing Australia for $300 billion with the help of an obscure legal clause (and Christian Porter) – https://theconversation.com/how-clive-palmer-is-suing-australia-for-300-billion-with-the-help-of-an-obscure-legal-clause-and-christian-porter-203111

Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Darius von Guttner Sporzynski, Historian, Australian Catholic University

On March 17, the International Criminal Court cited Russia’s deportation of Ukrainian children as a war crime for which President Vladimir Putin is being held responsible.

By some reports, since the invasion of Ukraine in February 2022, more than 6,000 children have been removed from Ukraine into Russia. The UN Commission of Inquiry on Ukraine published evidence of the “illegal transfer of hundreds of Ukrainian children to Russia”.

A recent Yale School of Public Health report provides evidence of a organised attempt to reeducate abducted Ukrainian children now held in locations stretching from Russian-occupied Crimea to Siberia.

Putin is the first Russian leader to have an arrest warrant issued against him for the deportation of citizens of another country, but the origins of using deportation as a weapon are deeply rooted in Russia’s history.

Centuries before the Russian invasion of Ukraine in February 2022, the expulsion of individuals or even entire nations was used as a targeted instrument of war.

Read more:
In Russia’s war against Ukraine, one of the battlegrounds is language itself

A tool of policy

Deportation as a tool of policy was first seen in Russia’s rapid expansion in the second half of the 16th century.

In 1547, the Grand Duke of Muscovy, Ivan the Terrible, declared himself tsar of all the Russias. He claimed the leadership not only of Moscow and its territories but of all lands of the ancient Kyivan Rus. The name “Russia” replaced “Muscovy” as the name of the new tsardom.

Muscovy’s expansion strategy was directed towards the Grand Duchy of Lithuania in the west, coupled with the conquest of Siberia, then a vast separate region to the east. Between 1550 and 1700, the tsardom expanded by 35,000 square kilometres per year.

In 1569, Lithuania had joined Poland to form the Polish–Lithuanian Commonwealth. The Commonwealth, in which power was shared between the king and the parliament, became one of the largest countries in Europe, covering almost a million square kilometres in the early 1600s.

Muscovy’s expansion to the west at the expense of Lithuania from the early 1500s encountered opposition. Earlier, Lithuania’s rulers united “all the Russias” (including the territory of modern Ukraine) within its multi-ethnic and multi-confessional monarchy.

Influenced by the Orthodox religion and language of the Kyivan Rus – an amalgam of principalities in eastern and northern Europe – the Lithuanian dynasty did not want to relinquish its control of the sprawling territories bordering Muscovy. The union with Poland was perhaps one of the strategies to defend itself against Russia’s encroachment.

In the early 17th century, the wars between Russia and Poland-Lithuania resulted in the deportations of soldiers, including Adam Kamieński (c.1635-c.1676). Kamieński was detained in 1666 and deported to Yakutsk, a settlement built on continuous permafrost about 450km south of the Arctic Circle.

Between the 1760s and 1795, the conflict between Russia and Poland-Lithuania entered its acute phase. Its ultimate outcome was the end of independence for Poland-Lithuania.

In 1767, Russian Ambassador Nicholas Repin ordered kidnapping and deportation to Kaluga of a group of Polish-Lithuanian parliamentarians who opposed Russian-sponsored legislation.

Between 1771 and 1795, more than 50,000 citizens of Poland-Lithuania were deported to various locations in the Russian Empire. Among that number were about 20,000 who supported or served in the Polish-Lithuanian army under Tadeusz Kościuszko.

Kościuszko’s revolt from March to November 1794 aimed to prevent division of Poland-Lithuania’s territory between Russia, Prussia and Austria. The Russians deported Kościuszko to Saint Petersburg in October 1794.

In January 1795, the Russian military removed King Stanisław August, the last monarch of Poland-Lithuania, from Warsaw. He died in Saint Petersburg in 1798.

Read more:
Mount Kosciuszko: how Australia’s highest peak came to be named for a freedom fighter against Russian aggression

The 20th century

The former citizens of Poland-Lithuania rebelled against Russia again in 1830 and 1863. After the suppression of the uprising of 1830, about 30,000 of its participants were deported to Russia. Another 27,000 soldiers were forced into compulsory military service in the Russian army.

On March 23 1831, Emperor Nicholas ordered children of Polish-Lithuanian military personnel to be deported to Russia to join special imperial army units.

After 1863, Russia deported at least 25,000 of those who fought for the independence of Poland-Lithuania. The majority were deported to Tobolsk, Irkutsk, Akatuy and Tunka, deep in the Siberian hinterland. Most never returned home.

In the 20th century, Soviet Russia perpetrated deportation against its own people. Affluent farmers known as kulaks were branded as “class enemies”, and ethnic Koreans, Germans and Tatars were also targeted. These deportations were described by the state as “population transfers”, with the authorities deporting “anti-Soviet” “enemies of the people” to cleanse specific territories.

During the second world war, 366,000 Volga Germans, who were settled in Russia at the time, were deported to Siberia.

Soviet Russia’s invasion of Poland in 1939 resulted in deportation of more than a million people. About 350,000 died.

The entire Tatar population of Crimea, numbering around 200,000, were deported and resettled mainly in Uzbekistan, where a significant percentage died.

In 2015, Ukraine recognised this deportation of Crimean Tatars as genocide, and marked May 18 as a day of remembrance.

Between 1940 and 1953, more than 200,000 people are estimated to have been deported from Latvia, Lithuania and Estonia – 10% of the entire adult population.

It is estimated that between 1936 and 1952, at least three million people were deported across the western territories of Soviet Russia and transported thousands of kilometres away to Siberia and Central Asia.

In 2023, the world is witnessing deportation again being used as a weapon by Russia. Will the children taken away from Ukraine ever find their way home?

Darius von Guttner Sporzynski 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. International Criminal Court has cited Russia’s deportation of Ukrainian children a war crime: on Russia’s long history of weaponising deportation – https://theconversation.com/international-criminal-court-has-cited-russias-deportation-of-ukrainian-children-a-war-crime-on-russias-long-history-of-weaponising-deportation-203040

Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Fiona Walsh, Ethnoecologist, The University of Western Australia

What are “fairy circles”? They are polka dots of bare earth, regularly scattered across arid grasslands. Scientists first described fairy circles in Namibia in the 1970s and sparked a global debate in the scientific community about the causes of the phenomenon.

In 2016, a group of international scientists concluded that, in the Australian Pilbara, “fairy circles” arose from spinifex plants competing for water and nutrients – a similar explanation to the one they proposed for fairy circles in Namibia. These stories were amplified by the media, but the voices of Aboriginal desert people were not reported.

In a study published in Nature Ecology & Evolution today, we show what our Aboriginal coauthors have always known – that fairy circles in the Western Deserts of Australia are flat, hard “pavements” inhabited by spinifex termites (Drepanotermes species).

Knowing the Country

Aboriginal people have lived in Australia’s Western Desert, including the Pilbara, for at least 50,000 years and know their Country deeply. We are grateful to be part of a cross-cultural team of researchers that include Western Desert people and scientists.

Our starting points included open-minded curiosity. Some of us knew little about spinifex grassland ecosystems. None of us knew about “fairy circles” or the international science debate. However, we all wanted to learn, and were interested in learning together. As our research unfolded, the more we learned, the more we realised we didn’t know. We learned things that were new even to those who’ve lived in and studied deserts for a lifetime.

We saw similarities between patterns in specific Aboriginal artworks and aerial views of the pavements. We found paintings that tell deep and complex stories about termites and the activities of termite Jukurrpa (Dreaming) ancestors.

Western Desert Martu people call the fairy circle pavements linyji and the fat-rich flying termites Warturnuma. We learned that the hard surfaces of linyji are used to thresh seed and flying termites are prized foods. Martu colleague Gladys Karimarra Bidu stated:

Linyji are the homes of termites who live underground. We gathered and ate the Warturnuma that flew from linyji. Warturnuma is wama, delicious. Old people also put their seeds on the hard linyji. They hit seed to make damper; our good food. I learnt this from my old people and have seen this myself many times.

Termites as kin

This knowledge about pavements and termites is shared and passed down through generations by Martu and other Indigenous groups. Our Australian Wildlife Conservancy colleagues Alice Nampijinpa Michaels and Lee Nangala Wayne describe their feelings for flying spinifex termites in this video. Alice said:

Pamapardu, big mob. Waturnuma and pamapardu we call them. I been crying for that pamapardu. I was crying for my brother. My brother’s Dreaming.

Why such strong feelings? Spinifex termites are kin to them. Those that live in the pavements are like the krill of desert ecosystems – they are super-abundant. Most people think of above-ground termite mounds, but here is a whole community that lives mostly below the soil surface, only emerging to eat dead spinifex or to fly to reproduce.

Most Australians consider spinifex grasslands to be “rubbish country”. A pastoralist even said so while we were excavating into termite pavements. He was about to set fire to the spinifex (and potentially us). Termites, including those that live in the spinifex, are often maligned and poisoned by Australians. However, these vast tracts of land and their termites are deeply important to Aboriginal people in ways that were invisible to some of our team.

New science findings from Aboriginal knowledge

Our cross-cultural research has led to unexpected findings. Termite pavements hold water after big rains, which was unknown to scientists until we recognised clues in the stories and art of Aboriginal country folk. Purungu Desmond Taylor, Martu interpreter and co-author, remembered the Mulyamiji, great desert skink, and describes breeding behaviour not previously reported by scientists:

After good rains in linyji country, Mulyamiji would be born in water lying on the linyji. My mother, my two fathers, my uncle told me this long ago.

Aboriginal people have refined their encyclopaedic knowledge while living continuously on this continent for thousands of generations. Listening to Aboriginal desert voices improved our understanding of how ubiquitous, but often overlooked, desert Country works.

We learnt that the flat, hard linyji are used to prepare foods, they can become ephemeral sources of water and support the breeding of Mulyamiji, they provide abundant and rich sources of food, and have deep spiritual significance.

This year, Australians will be asked to recognise Australia’s First Nations People in our constitution. In our experience, we strengthen our connections with Country and each other when we nurture relationships, listen well and share together, work equitably and two-ways.

Read more:
The Voice: what is it, where did it come from, and what can it achieve?

Fiona Walsh received a 2020 Australian Academy of Science Thomas Davies Research Grant. The majority of her research was undertaken voluntarily without salary.

Carolyn Oldham, Purungu Desmond Taylor, and Theo Evans do not work for, consult, own shares in or receive funding from any company or organisation that would benefit from this article, and have disclosed no relevant affiliations beyond their academic appointment.

– ref. First Peoples’ knowledge of ‘mysterious fairy circles’ in Australian deserts has upended a long-standing science debate – https://theconversation.com/first-peoples-knowledge-of-mysterious-fairy-circles-in-australian-deserts-has-upended-a-long-standing-science-debate-202956

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

Malka Leifer, former principal of the Orthodox Jewish Adass Israel school in Melbourne, has been found guilty of sexually abusing two former students.

A jury in the County Court of Victoria found Leifer guilty of 18 rape and sexual assault charges relating to sisters Elly Sapper and Dassi Erlich. The jury cleared Leifer of nine charges, including all relating to a third sister, Nicole Meyer, and some relating to Erlich.

Leifer’s trial was a long-term goal for Victorian and Australian authorities. Allegations of sexual assault were initially made against Leifer in late 2007 or early 2008. She fled to Israel in March 2008 and was finally extradited to Australia in January 2021.

What were the charges?

Leifer was charged with 29 offences. During the trial, she was acquitted on two charges of indecent act with a 16- or 17-year-old because the alleged offending occurred before the relevant law came into effect.

The jury was then tasked to consider 27 offences, including ten charges of rape, ten of indecent assault, three of penetration of a 16- or 17-year-old child, and one charge each of compelled rape and indecent act with a 16- or 17-year-old.

Meyer, Erlich and Sapper alleged that Leifer sexually abused them between 2003 and 2007. The abuse was said to have been perpetrated at school, on school camps and at Leifer’s home. The sisters were vulnerable to abuse by an authority figure, as their ultra-orthodox upbringing had left them ignorant of sexual matters.

The ABC’s Australian Story program profiled the sisters in 2018. It revealed the insular nature of the Adass Israel community and the extreme social and behavioural constraints placed on the sisters as children. Their home life was said to be controlled and terrifying.

Manny Waks, an advocate for the sisters and chief executive of Voice against Child Sexual Abuse, said today:

We thank the sisters for sharing their very personal and difficult story so publicly, which has contributed to educating the public regarding the complexities of pursuing justice in the context of child sexual abuse, in particular within the ultra-Orthodox Jewish community.

Read more:
Explainer: what is extradition between countries and how does it work?

A high profile trial

It is striking that Leifer was convicted by a jury that had not been fully informed of her efforts to evade justice.

When the allegations emerged against Leifer in 2008, she fled to Israel with her family. The Adass Israel school funded her travel. Leifer lived in the community for several years.

Australia lodged an extradition request with Israel in 2013. She was arrested by Israeli police in 2014, but was later bailed. Over several years, Leifer claimed to be too unwell to attend court hearings and she was assessed by more than 30 psychiatrists.

In 2018, she was again taken into custody when it became known she had been living normally in an orthodox Israeli settlement. In October 2019, she was bailed into house arrest in her sister’s home. It was September 2020 before Israel’s Supreme Court ruled Leifer was fit to stand trial on charges in Victoria.

Read more:
The Israeli Supreme Court has cleared the way for Malka Leifer’s extradition hearing. What happens now?

Leifer successfully stalled the justice process for an inordinate period of time. Between early 2008 and late 2020, more than 60 court hearings were taken up by efforts to avoid extradition and prosecution.

The first ruling on the merits of the extradition request was held in September 2020, when the Jerusalem District Court ruled Leifer should be extradited to Australia to face the charges against her.

It is not uncommon for extradition matters to be highly politicised. This case strained relations between Australia and Israel. The federal and Victorian governments will undoubtedly welcome today’s verdict following their years of combined action to bring Leifer to trial.

One particularly controversial aspect of the saga culminated in the conviction in 2022 of former Israeli health minister Yaakov Litzman, for obstructing justice in Leifer’s case. Litzman had pressured public officials to alter Leifer’s psychiatric evaluations to support her claim that she was unfit to stand trial. He was subsequently sentenced for the lesser charge of breach of trust as part of a plea deal to avoid a custodial sentence.

What comes next?

Leifer maintained her innocence throughout the trial. She is due back in court on April 26 to fix a date for the plea. She will then be sentenced. It is possible the time Leifer spent in custody in Israel may be considered when setting a custodial sentence.

Once Leifer is sentenced by the judge, it is expected that sentencing remarks will be published by the court. It is possible Leifer may choose to appeal the jury’s verdict. No such intention has been announced at this time.

Regardless, today’s outcome is a hugely significant milestone. As Victorian Liberal MP David Southwick, who has advocated for Leifer’s accusers, said:

These verdicts represent the culmination of over two decades of suffering and unstoppable activism by so many caring people who simply wanted to see justice done. Today’s verdict finally brings closure for three brave women, after astonishing delays and setbacks that no victim of sexual abuse should ever have to endure.

Nicole Meyer, Elly Sapper and Dassi Erlich have consented to being identified in the media.

For support, please call the National Sexual Assault, Domestic and Family Violence Counselling Service on 1800RESPECT (1800 737 732).

Amy Maguire 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. Malka Leifer found guilty of sexual abuse of former students – https://theconversation.com/malka-leifer-found-guilty-of-sexual-abuse-of-former-students-199582

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

Opposition spokesman for Indigenous Australians Julian Leeser has delivered a detailed critique of the government’s Voice proposal, ahead of Wednesday’s special Liberal Party meeting to determine its stand.

Leeser, a long-time supporter of the Voice, also flagged he would like to see shadow ministers given the right to support either side at the referendum.

Asked about the republic referendum where senior Liberals were free to support the yes or no case, Leeser praised that approach. “I think the proposal during the republic referendum was good.” But he said he did not want to pre-empt the party room discussion.

Opposition leader Peter Dutton has hardened his rhetoric on the Voice proposal in recent weeks, and Liberal sources say there is a majority against it in the party room. The Nationals have already come out in opposition.

Leeser, addressing the National Press Club, argued that if there was a danger of the referendum failing, it should be withdrawn – something Prime Minister Anthony Albanese has emphatically ruled out.

“I wish the referendum was in a better place than it is,” Leeser said. But the government was “mucking it up” by not trying to find common ground and not trusting Australians with all the facts.

Leeser attacked the government’s approach for being “top down”, urged a “ground up” model, and called for an extensive change to the wording of the proposed insertion into the constitution.

Read more:
‘We’re all in’, declares an emotional Albanese as he launches the wording for the Voice referendum

He said the opposition supported “local and regional voices”, saying that funding for these should be in the May budget.

“Any national voice must be deeply connected to the local and regional voices across Australia and it would have been better if the national voice was settled by reaching a bipartisan legislated consensus before we went to a referendum,” he said.

But the local and regional had “been forgotten by the government, ignored even in the Voice design principles released last week”.

Leeser also said one clause of the proposed constitutional change should be deleted.

The government’s proposed new section reads:

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

There shall be a body, to be called the Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Voice

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

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

Leeser said the second clause, covering representations, raised three questions: Who could the Voice talk to? What could it talk about? What did it mean to make representations? The answer to these questions were currently unclear, Leeser said.

Read more:
Grattan on Friday: A ‘No’ vote in the Voice referendum would put a serious dent in Australia’s image abroad

It wasn’t enough to say these questions would be dealt with later by legislation. “You can’t out-legislate the constitution,” he said.

“I raise these issues not only at a technical level, but a political one as well. Because this clause will be the rallying point for the no campaign.

“For those that want the referendum to succeed, it puts the broader constitutional question at risk.”

He also warned about the proposed reference to Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander peoples “as the First Peoples of Australia”.

This was “a symbolic statement that sets out an incontrovertible fact”. But it raised the question of what the term implied at law. “The Constitution is not a good place for historic or symbolic statements, however well-meaning, as those statements have a legal effect and will be subject to judicial interpretation in ways that we cannot imagine”.

Anthony Albanese accused the opposition of “an attempt to undermine the prospect of a successful referendum”.

Albanese, in his tribute following the death of highly-respected Indigenous leader Yunupingu, a former Australian of the Year, said that at the Garma festival last year, after he announced the details of the referendum, Yunupingu had asked him, “‘Are you serious this time?’ I replied: ‘Yes, we’re going to go for it.’

“When I spoke with him just over a week ago, I told him I was confident we would get there. This brought him some comfort, as did his totems of fire and baru, the saltwater crocodile, which watched over him in his final days,” Albanese said.

“We mourn with his people today. And we pay tribute to a lifetime of advocating for the rights of Aboriginal people in this country.

“He was a key focal point of the development of the Uluru Statement from the Heart. […] And when that happened in 2017, he spoke about lighting a fire. I think that today is a day that I certainly recommit myself to do everything we can to make sure that that referendum is carried at the end of this year.”

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. Liberals to meet on Voice, with Julian Leeser favouring campaign freedom for senior figures – https://theconversation.com/liberals-to-meet-on-voice-with-julian-leeser-favouring-campaign-freedom-for-senior-figures-203157

Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Professor Marcia Langton, Foundation Chair in Australian Indigenous Studies, The University of Melbourne

Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander readers are advised this article contains names and images of deceased people. Yunupiŋu’s family have given permission for his name and images to be used.

Dr Yunupiŋu was a magnificent person and a magnificent leader. Most people in Australia who are aware of him know him as a ceremonial leader because of his towering presence leading ceremonies at the Garma Festival for so many years and, most importantly, at events that he himself curated in order to make representations to prime ministers and ministers of Australian governments.

Throughout his life, he has spoken and made representations to every prime minister of his adulthood.

He was a great clan leader, a great family man and very much loved by so many Australians who came into contact with him through his Garma Festival and so many other good works.

He was also an intellectual. He published some wonderful works, particularly Tradition, Truth and Tomorrow.

He was a musician, one of the most important traditional singers from Northeast Arnhem Land. Indeed, one could hear his beautiful voice on the Tribal Voice album, which his late younger brother’s band Yothu Yindi made famous.

So many people will be in mourning for him. He touched so many people with his gracious leadership and kindness.

It’s such a shame, really, that he didn’t live to see better outcomes.

Read more:
Legendary band Yothu Yindi and their trailblazing call for a treaty

Working for land rights

Constitutional recognition for Indigenous Australians was his idea. I was with him in Arnhem Land and he said to me, “I want to see Noel Pearson”. They’d never met, and he told me to find Noel and get him to come and speak to him.

So, in those days, I had to drive around and find a Telstra hotspot.

I found Noel. Noel jumped on a plane immediately and they met, and Yunupiŋu put to him constitutional recognition as a matter of highest importance. Because, as Yunupiŋu explains in his writings, he felt the existential threat towards his clan and other Indigenous people.

He was the interpreter for the clan leaders in the Aboriginal Land Rights Commission, appointed by Gough Whitlam to determine how land rights were to be recognised. He had been appointed by his father to become a clan leader and to go through the many years of learning that involved.

By interpreting for all the clan leaders and their evidence, he became extremely knowledgeable. He also interpreted in the court in Canberra in the Milirrpum case. Later, of course, when the Land Rights Act had passed and the land councils were established, he became Chair of the Northern Land Council and served in that position twice.

So, he is, in many ways, one of the crucial figures in the land rights movement. He was able to translate philosophical beliefs and the inherited ancient property systems of Yolŋu people to a very wonderful judge, Justice Woodward, to enable a land rights system to be legislated.

He also contributed to culture, the survival of Aboriginal culture, and to education. The Yothu Yindi Foundation press release on his passing explains how he initiated the Dhupuma Barker School in his community in Arnhem Land, which has been producing wonderful results with high attendance rates for the children.

He also led many other initiatives; too many to mention. People turned to him for advice because of his highly honed political and strategic skills.

A kind man

The great quality he had was kindness. He chose not to make people his enemy, unless they’d committed some egregious crime. He always attempted to find humanity in people. He was able to speak to every prime minister, as I’ve said, and encourage Indigenous leaders to set goals – such as constitutional recognition – and find a way to achieve it.

He pulled together the clans of Arnhem Land and presented three petitions on constitutional recognition to prime ministers Julia Gillard and Kevin Rudd. He was very determined about this. He also gave some wonderful lectures on this topic.

Many people have been inspired by him because he always found a way through the terrible burden of colonialism. Nobody suffered it more than people like himself.

There is a terrible view, sometimes, that traditional people were not affected by colonialism. That’s far from the truth. In fact, I think if any Indigenous culture survives today, and of course so much does, it is precisely because people like this great man valued culture above all else.

He took his ceremonial responsibilities as the highest priority and he regarded the survival of his own culture, and by extension other Indigenous cultures, as matters of the highest importance.

Because it is in our cultures that we find the values that make life worthwhile, make life worth living, and enable us to enjoy life.

And he did enjoy life. He had a wonderful life. It’s such a tragic loss for everyone.

I met him in the late 1970s and we became very good friends and remained so throughout our lives. He was very curious, a great intellectual, and I believe he had a huge concern, not only for his family, but also the friends he made far and wide.

Hence, the popularity of the Garma Festival with so many people from Australia and around the world. He truly believed that we are all one people; we all have red blood running through our veins.

I wish Australian political leaders could have learned more from him, because Australia would be so much a better country if they had adopted some of his values. He certainly showed the way forward.

Read more:
We now know exactly what question the Voice referendum will ask Australians. A constitutional law expert explains

Professor Marcia Langton 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. Yunupiŋu was a great clan leader, a great family man and very much loved. I wish Australian political leaders could have learned more from him – https://theconversation.com/yunupinu-was-a-great-clan-leader-a-great-family-man-and-very-much-loved-i-wish-australian-political-leaders-could-have-learned-more-from-him-203160

Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Terry Goldsworthy, Associate Professor in Criminal Justice and Criminology, Bond University

Australia’s homicide rate has continued its overall downward trajectory in the latest crime data released last week.

In fact, in 2020-21, Australia recorded the second-lowest number of homicides since the Australian Institute of Criminology began compiling national statistics in 1989.

How does Australia compare with other nations? And do our perceptions of crime match the reality of Australia becoming a generally safer place to live?

Homicide in Australia

The National Homicide Monitoring Program is the only national data collection program for homicide incidents, victims and offenders.

According to the most recent report, there were 210 homicide incidents reported in Australia between July 1, 2020 and June 30, 2021, with 263 identified offenders. There were 221 homicide victims, nearly 70% of whom were men. Only nine incidents involved multiple victims.

This was the second-lowest annual homicide rate (0.82 per 100,000 people) since 1989-90. This period (2020-21) was at the height of the COVID pandemic, when lockdowns and other restrictions were in place in various localities.

Homicides had ticked upwards the previous year (2019-20), which included the start of the pandemic when lockdowns were similarly in place. There were 261 homicides reported that year, about 1.02 per 100,000 people.

While it’s difficult to firmly establish a direct causal relationship between coronavirus restrictions and crime rates, the 2019-20 homicide data does appear to be an aberration in the longer-term trend in Australia.

Overall, the national homicide rate has dropped steadily from a rate of 1.88 per 100,000 people in 1992-93 to 0.82 in 2020-21 – a decrease of 55% over nearly 30 years.

When it comes to the type of homicides occurring in Australia, domestic killings were the most common in 2020-21, accounting for about 36% of incidents. The rate of women killed in intimate partner homicides was 0.25 per 100,000 people, which is a decrease of 74% since 1989-90.

Men were overwhelmingly responsible for all homicides in 2020-21, accounting for 84% of perpetrators.

Read more:
Some crimes have seen drastic decreases during coronavirus — but not homicides in the US

How do we compare to the rest of the world?

The 2019 United Nations Global Study on Homicide indicated that the world average homicide rate was 6.1 per 100,000 people in 2017, a rate inflated by the Americas with 17.2 per 100,000 people.

Data from the Centres for Disease Control and Prevention in the United States shows the homicide rate in that country was 7.8 per 100,000 in 2021. This rate has been increasing over the last few years.

In 2022, the homicide rate in England and Wales was 1.2 per 100,000 people. There was a 23% increase in the number of homicide victims compared to March 2020-21, returning to pre-COVID levels.

Some 81% of homicides in the US involved the use of firearms, while in England and Wales, sharp instruments (including knives) were the most common methods of killing at 41%.

The latest Australian data shows knives were used in 38% of incidents and firearms in 11%.

Read more:
Prisoner numbers in Australia have decreased, but we’re not really sure why yet

Is the homicide rate reflective of general crime trends?

Overall, crime in Australia is also on the decline. According to the Australian Bureau of Statistics Crime Victimisation survey, physical assaults are down 39% from 2008-09, face-to-face threatened assaults are down 44% and robberies are down 50%.

However, sexual assaults have increased by 66% over the same period. And experts say the vast majority of people who experience sexual assault don’t report it to police, meaning the true figure is much higher.

Do our perceptions match reality?

Criminologists Don Weatherburn and Sara Rahman examined the decline of crime in Australia in their recent book. They note that crime statistics overall began to decline in 2001, and by 2018,

rates of the most common forms of crime had fallen between 40 and 80% and were lower than they’d been in twenty or in some cases thirty years.

However, perceptions of personal safety may not be aligning with these lower crime statistics.

The fear of crime is an emotional reaction to the expectation of being victimised by criminals. A person’s fear level can be influenced by a number of things, including their own life experiences, their media exposure, and their social and cultural environments.

The Productivity Commission’s Report on Government Services measures perceptions of safety from the National Survey of Community Satisfaction with policing. In 2021-22, a vast majority of people (89%) declared feeling “safe” or “very safe” in their homes.

However, when asked about public places, the rates decreased significantly. Just over half of respondents (53.8%) said they felt safe walking alone in their neighbourhoods and a third (32.7%) felt safe when travelling on public transport.

The data, however, shows that crime in general, and homicide specifically, is declining. Australia is becoming a safer place to live.

Read more:
Putting the pieces together to create safe public spaces for all

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

– ref. Australia’s homicide rate is down over 50% from the 1990s, despite a small blip during COVID – https://theconversation.com/australias-homicide-rate-is-down-over-50-from-the-1990s-despite-a-small-blip-during-covid-202730

Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By David Clune, Honorary Associate, Government and International Relations, University of Sydney

Although Labor has returned to power in NSW, it will be in a minority government, with probably 45 seats, two short of a majority, to the Coalition’s 36 (assuming the Liberal Party wins the seat of Ryde, where it is currently ahead as counting continues).

Labor’s position could be further diminished as the government has to provide a speaker. The obvious strategy will be to offer the position to a crossbencher to maintain its numbers on the floor of the lower house. Independent MP for Lake Macquarie, Greg Piper, is a likely candidate, as he was appointed assistant speaker by the previous government.

Incoming premier Chris Minns has said:

It’s always been the case, at least for the last 15 years, that the NSW upper house has been controlled by the crossbench and that will be the situation in the lower house, as well. So legislation will have to be navigated through those two parliaments but it’s not necessarily difficult or different from what’s been in place for the last two years.

In fact, no government has had a majority in the Legislative Council since 1988, a situation that looks set to continue in the new parliament.

It is true that towards the end of its term, the Coalition government slipped into a minority position in the lower house, but it could count on the support of a former Liberal on the crossbench. Despite his optimistic prediction, Minns may find the situation he faces in the lower house more complex and difficult, particularly as he has a large legislative agenda to implement.

Read more:
The long history of political corruption in NSW — and the downfall of MPs, ministers and premiers

Fluid, complex and hard to predict

There are 12 crossbenchers, ranging across the spectrum: Greens and progressives, disenchanted or disendorsed Liberals, ex-Shooters, other regional MPs.

The government will need crossbench votes to win divisions. Three sitting independents – Alex Greenwich, Joe McGirr and Piper – have already offered to support Minns on confidence and supply motions, which will give the government stability in office.

This accords with the principle that independents having the balance of power should support the party with the majority of seats. However, like the other crossbenchers, they will vote on other measures according to their assessment of merit.

It is tempting to divide the crossbenchers according to assumed left or right sympathies. Their voting pattern, in reality, will be more fluid, complex and harder to predict.

Of the three MPs combining to guarantee the government in office, for example, one is a progressive (Greenwich), the others are moderates. The crossbenchers may also band together on issues of common concern, such as procedural reforms to give them more influence in the House.

The government’s lack of control of the lower house means it will potentially operate in an entirely different way.

The government will have no assurance its legislative proposals will be passed unamended – or passed at all. It will not routinely be able to gag debate or silence opposition or crossbench MPs. After years of being dominated by the executive government, power has returned to the parliament.

History shows it can work

The most relevant precedent is the Legislative Assembly from 1991-95. After that election, the Coalition had 49 seats (48 after appointing a speaker) and Labor 46. Four independents held the balance of power in the 99-seat house.

In return for implementation of a charter of reform, three of them – John Hatton, Peter Macdonald and Clover Moore – agreed to support the government on appropriation and supply bills and confidence motions, except where “matters of corruption or gross maladministration” were involved.

Otherwise, the unaligned independents were free to vote as they saw fit, which they certainly did.

The government was forced to negotiate regularly with the independents. It was a slow and sometimes tortuous process. The independents needed time to make their own assessment of proposals and consider the views of interest groups and the opposition.

Under this regime, committees were often established on legislation and other matters, whether the government liked it or not. Debate was unfettered.

In previous parliaments, governments were rarely, if ever, defeated in the lower house; that was not the case between 1991 and 1995.

Government bills were carefully scrutinised and, in some cases, heavily amended; in many instances, better legislation emerged.

The process may at times have been chaotic but the government usually got what it wanted, although it had to accept negotiation and compromise as the price.

Another NSW precedent for coping with a large crossbench is the upper house after the 1999 election.

The balance of power was held by 13 independent and minor party members of the Legislative Council, ranging across the ideological spectrum.

It seemed a recipe for legislative chaos; in fact, it proved to be a relatively stable, even productive, period.

Much of the credit is due to treasurer and leader of the government in the Legislative Council, Michael Egan. He was a skilful parliamentarian and accomplished negotiator who had the ability to accommodate most of the various interests in the house.

His deputy, John Della Bosca, commented perceptively:

I think the idea of having a lot of different crossbenchers actually made it easier, even though in theory they were a block on the government’s program. Generally speaking, because there were so many of them, it was easier to negotiate proposals about amendments or not amending the legislation as proposed. You would think that the more crossbenchers there were, the more difficult it would be, but I think the more crossbenchers there are, in some ways it makes it easier.

Della Bosca believes better legislation resulted from negotiation with the crossbenchers:

There were days when we were pretty frustrated with the crossbench, of course, and probably there were many days that they were very frustrated with us, but I think on the whole it achieved exactly that outcome. I do not think there was any legislation you just could not get through because of the crossbench. I do not think we ever brought anything in that did not eventually get passed, though sometimes in a highly modified form.

To govern effectively, the Minns government needs to accept the crossbenchers have legitimate concerns that should be listened to.

Communication and compromise should be the new order. It may be a wild ride, but democracy is the potential beneficiary.

Read more:
It’ll be tough for Perrottet to win the NSW election. But Labor won’t romp home either

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

– ref. It’s not easy, but history shows minority government has worked in NSW before. Here’s what Chris Minns must do – https://theconversation.com/its-not-easy-but-history-shows-minority-government-has-worked-in-nsw-before-heres-what-chris-minns-must-do-203138

Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Jarryd Daymond, Lecturer, University of Sydney

Australia’s federal parliament has approved a A$15 billion National Reconstruction Fund, intended to reverse the nation’s dwindling manufacturing sector. It is the “first step” in Prime Minister Anthony Albanese’s election promise “to revive our ability to make world-class products”.

The fund will focus on investing in high-tech manufacturing. There are seven priority areas:

• clean energy
• medical science
• transport
• value-added manufacturing in agriculture, forestry and fisheries
• value-added manufacturing in mining
• military equipment, and
• “enabling capabilities”.

The fund is expected to operate commercially and deliver a return on its investments. Its approach will be similar to the Clean Energy Finance Corporation, which over the past decade has provided more than $10 billion in grants and loans to low-emission energy projects.

Investments will be in the form of loans, equity and guarantees. It will be a co-investment model, meaning private investors will have to match funds provided.

It will start with $5 billion. The other $10 billion will provided in instalments over the rest of the decade. After 2030, investments are expected generate enough revenue to support new projects. These decisions will be made by a board that will be independent of the federal government.

Criticisms of the fund

There is support for the fund from employer groups and trade unions. But there are also criticisms.

More broadly, some economists argue government-supported investment schemes misallocate resources, give certain businesses an unfair advantage, and slow down innovation over time by investing too much in one area and starving other innovative ideas of resources. As The Economist has put it, trying to “pick winners” can also mean investing in losers.

But government-backed investments do play a crucial role in providing financial support to commercialise new technology, for which attracting private investment is typically tough.

The federal opposition has complained the Albanese government should focus on more immediate challenges facing manufacturers, such as high energy prices and labour shortages.

Opposition frontbencher Paul Fletcher has expressed concern the fund will finance projects that “would not succeed in getting private sector finance – but which for political reasons the government wants to fund”. A factory in a marginal seat, for example.

There are precedents for such concerns. The Morrison government, of which Fletcher was a senior member, did such things with funding for car parks and sporting facilities.

But it is also the case that such pork barrelling didn’t happen with the Morrison government’s $1.3 billion Modern Manufacturing Initiative, which provided grants in roughly the same priority areas as the new fund.

Despite political and financial incentives to find fault with it, the Albanese government has endorsed the Modern Manufacturing Initiative’s expenditure. It has criticised only the way the Morrison government manipulated the timing of funding announcements.

Nor has the Clean Energy Finance Corporation, established by the Gillard government in 2012, faced such criticisms. It is regarded as a success story across the political spectrum, from groups such as the Australian Conservation Foundation to mining magnate Clive Palmer.

The establishment of the National Anti-Corruption Commission should further give confidence that Albanese, a longtime champion of making things in Australia, is sincere about “complete transparency” for the National Reconstruction Fund.

Read more:
Australia’s national anti-corruption agency arrives. Will it stand the test of time?

3 ways to improve the fund

To but to improve the fund’s chance of success, there are three things that can be done.

First, to achieve the transparency Albanese has promised, the fund should publicly share the reasoning behind its investment decisions, similar to how the Reserve Bank of Australia’s board publishes minutes of its monthly policy meetings. Being open about decision-making will build public trust in the fund’s transparency and fairness.

Second, the National Reconstruction Fund’s investment board will need to clearly outline investment priorities while staying flexible, so projects that span multiple sectors or applications don’t fall between the cracks. Breakthrough ideas may not fit neatly into a single category. For instance, synthetic biology technology can be used in food manufacturing and plastic recycling. It doesn’t belong to just one priority area.

Third, supporting individual projects isn’t enough. Here’s where those “enabling capabilities” are crucial. Changing the trajectory of manufacturing in Australia requires a supportive ecosystem that aligns things like funding and policy priorities in education and training, research being done in universities, immigration settings, and natural advantages.

Read more:
To become an innovation nation, we really need to think smaller

Projects won’t succeed without skilled workers, strong research backing, and easy access to suppliers and customers.

Australia’s renewable energy sector is an example of a supportive environment that can lead to success. Australia has plenty of sun and wind, a growing number of skilled workers in the renewable energy field, top research institutions, a knowledgeable investor base thanks to the Clean Energy Finance Corporation, and a growing number of people who care about eco-friendly energy solutions.

By setting clear goals, encouraging innovation, and making decisions transparent, the fund stands the best chance to achieve what it has been created to do.

Jarryd Daymond 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. 3 ways to help the $15 billion National Reconstruction Fund revive manufacturing – https://theconversation.com/3-ways-to-help-the-15-billion-national-reconstruction-fund-revive-manufacturing-202834

Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Timothy Welch, Senior Lecturer in Urban Planning, University of Auckland

New Zealand is a small country that suddenly has big ideas about public transportation projects for its largest city. In February, the physical work began for a partially tunnelled light rail line under the Auckland CBD that will eventually connect to the airport. The project could ultimately have a price tag nearing NZ$30 billion.

Things went big again last week with the release of five options for a second harbour crossing. Four of the five will cost at least $20 billion and involve building another bridge and one or more tunnels for light rail and cars.

While the project is said to be on the fast track, with construction to begin in six years, Aucklanders would be forgiven if they didn’t buy into this timeline. The new options are just the latest in a long line of proposals that date back at least 35 years.

It’s worth reviewing the long and tumultuous history of second Auckland harbour crossing proposals. In the process, we might ask whether a sixth option might, in fact, be the best: apply congestion charging to the Auckland CBD, and give public transport, walking and cycling better access to the existing bridge.

Bridges and tunnels

The Auckland Harbour Bridge officially opened on May 30 1959. Construction took four years and cost nearly $250 million (in today’s money), but the structure was already too narrow for traffic volumes. Within a decade, extra lanes built in Japan were bolted to the bridge – the so called “Nippon clip-ons”.

From 1988 until 2010, various second crossing options were studied and presented, including:

• 1988: a plan was developed for either tunnelled public transport or a second bridge

• 1997: 11 options for a second crossing were studied and sent out for public consultation, including different tunnel or bridge alignments, with the most expensive option being a tunnel at roughly $2.6 billion in today’s dollars

• 2003: a followup to the 1997 study suggested a combination of a second bridge and a tunnel, costed at around $4.5 billion in today’s dollars

• 2008: a study of 159 crossing options was narrowed to three options, included either a new bridge or two possibilities for tunnels

• 2010: a business case was developed for three crossing options, including a second bridge, tunnelled heavy rail, and a tunnelled road, with the highest cost estimate just under $6 billion.

Walking and cycling

The original plans for the bridge had also included tolled cycle lanes, but these were eventually rejected for cost. In 2011, the idea was revived, with the New Zealand Transport Agency (now Waka Kotahi) announcing a “SkyPath” plan to add walking and cycling lanes to the clip-ons. This was added to Auckland Transport’s strategic priority list the same year.

Resource consent for the SkyPath was lodged in 2015 and approved in 2016. The new Labour-led government in 2017 said it would fund the project, with a revised design for the path to sit on its own piers revealed in 2019.

Read more:
Using valuable inner-city land for car parking? In a housing crisis, that just doesn’t add up

In 2021 Waka Kotahi pulled the plug on the SkyPath plan, citing engineering complexity. The same year, a $685 million standalone cycling and walking bridge was announced. The cost estimate quickly rose to $785 million before it was cancelled just four months later – but not before the government spent $51 million on designs, consultants and engineering plan fees.

Since then, it has been a tale of stop-start (but mostly stop) initiatives, including:

November 2021: Waka Kotahi decided against a cycling and walking “trial” across the bridge but endorsed a series of events for cyclists and walkers in December.

August 2022: Waka Kotahi announced a planned $700,000 one-day trial for walking and cycling would be scrapped, primarily citing concerns about the 6% bridge gradient allowing cyclists to reach speeds of 60km per hour and the potential for pedestrian collisions. (Ironically, one of the new cycling bridge options “would be of a similar gradient” to the current bridge.)

December 2022: Waka Kotahi announced a series of “Walk it, Wheel it” events for three Sundays in March for up to 60,000 Aucklanders to cross the bridge on foot or bike. But this was postponed in early 2023, with no future date announced.

Read more:
Electric cars alone won’t save the planet. We’ll need to design cities so people can walk and cycle safely

Back to the future

The five new harbour crossing options are now out for public consultation, with a decision due by mid-year and construction to begin in 2029. But given the long history of studying, gathering feedback and then doing nothing about a second crossing (or improving public and active transport options on the existing bridge), some scepticism is warranted.

With projected finish dates ranging from 2039 to 2044, and costs up to $25 billion (assuming no delays or budget blowouts), the options also create more vehicle lanes just a few years before the Emission Reduction Plan’s 2050 target for net zero emissions.

Read more:
To get New Zealanders out of their cars we’ll need to start charging the true cost of driving

Surely a more sustainable solution would be to institute the long-discussed Auckland CBD congestion charge and reallocate a few lanes on the existing bridge for public transport, cycling and walking.

This would reduce the number of CBD car trips and contribute to meeting those climate goals. If a second crossing is still needed, taking this more immediate action would at least offer additional – and more climate-friendly – travel options in the meantime.

Future-proofing part of Auckland’s transportation network may not require billions of dollars and decades of planning and construction. It could simply mean finally embracing a version of what was planned for the Auckland Harbour Bridge almost 65 years ago.

Timothy Welch 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. A short history of doomed second harbour crossing proposals for Auckland – and a quicker, cheaper option – https://theconversation.com/a-short-history-of-doomed-second-harbour-crossing-proposals-for-auckland-and-a-quicker-cheaper-option-203140

Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Daryl Higgins, Professor & Director, Institute of Child Protection Studies, Australian Catholic University

The following story deals with reports of childhood maltreatment, including neglect and physical and sexual abuse.

This week, we released results from the Australian Child Maltreatment Study. It is the first national survey of the population aged 16 years and older about their experiences of child maltreatment. It’s also the first study globally to examine combined exposure to all five specific domains of child maltreatment and associated family risk factors for multiple types of child maltreatment.

We surveyed 8,500 randomly selected Australians aged 16 and over. We found 8.9% had experienced neglect; 28.5% sexual abuse; 30.9% emotional abuse; 32.0% physical abuse; and 39.6% exposure to domestic violence.

While it is shocking to learn more than three in five Australians have experienced child abuse or neglect, there’s more to consider. Many Australians have experienced more than one type. This is critical to understanding the burden of maltreatment and its impacts across life.

What does ‘maltreatment’ mean?

We explored five types of maltreatment that participants experienced up to age 18:

• physical abuse: the use of force likely to cause injury, harm, pain, or breach of dignity

• sexual abuse: contact and non-contact non-consensual sexual acts inflicted on a child by another person (adult or child)

• emotional abuse: acts by parents or carers that convey to a child they are worthless, flawed, unloved, unwanted

• neglect: when parents or carers repeatedly fail to provide the basic developmentally appropriate necessities of life such as food, shelter or health care

• exposure to domestic violence: hearing or seeing acts of violence towards parents or carers in the home.

For Australians who experience any childhood maltreatment, experiencing more than one type is the “typical” experience (almost two out of three who report any maltreatment). Our data show Australian children are more likely to experience multi-type maltreatment (reported by 39.4% of our participants) than single-type maltreatment (22.8%).

Read more:
Paramedics could sound early warnings of child abuse or neglect – but they need support and more training

Four family factors that double the risk

Four types of family adversity each more than doubles the risk of multi-type maltreatment:

• parental separation/divorce
• living with someone who is mentally ill, suicidal, or severely depressed
• living with someone who had a problem with alcohol or drugs
• family economic hardship.

Girls are more likely to experience multi-type maltreatment (43.2%) than boys (34.9%). The highest prevalence was for those with diverse gender identitites: two-thirds experienced multi-type maltreatment (66.1%).

Although harrowing, our data also reported rates of physical and sexual abuse (in some contexts) are showing some recent declines. One way we determined this was that the younger participants in our study (aged 16–24) had a lower prevalence of sexual abuse (25.7%) than the full sample (28.6%). Similarly, fewer participants aged 16–24 reported physical abuse (28.2%) than all those surveyed (32.0%).

This suggests current policies might be helping. But the continued high rates of most forms of maltreatment, and of experiencing multiple types, shows the need for greater investment in prevention to stop harm from occurring in the first place.

Read more:
Our child protection system is clearly broken. Is it time to abolish it for a better model?

We need to stop focusing on single types of abuse

Our view of child maltreatment has typically focused on the experience of individual types, without considering the possibility of their overlap. We now know multi-type maltreatment is common.

We also found girls were at greater risk of most forms of child maltreatment, but particularly multiple types of maltreatment and their associated health consequences. So, as well as population-wide strategies, we need to put extra effort into ensuring the safety of girls, and those who are gender diverse.

We can approach childhood maltreatment on three fronts:

1. Prevention

Child protection services are overwhelmed, so simply asking them to do more is destined to fail. Instead, we need to shift our focus to primary prevention strategies across the community. Global evidence shows violence against children is preventable.

Our attitudes towards children must change, to value them, uphold their rights, and prioritise their safety.

Parents and caregivers need access to evidence-based supports to improve parenting skills, provide safe environments for children and young people, to stop maltreatment from happening in the first place.

Australia’s strategies for creating child-safe organisations to prevent institutional child sexual abuse needs to be adapted for creating safety for children in the home too. Parents could “assess” the suitability of adults to care safely, to understand and address situational risks (depending on the places, the people, and the activities involved), to equip their children with knowledge about sexuality and skills regarding consent and respect, and be prepared to listen and respond to all safety concerns – including harmful sexual behaviour from other children.

National strategies for addressing sexual abuse, child maltreatment and domestic and family violence need to recognise the high likelihood of exposure to multiple harm types. Child maltreatment prevention efforts need to link with points of vulnerability, including when parents separate, suffer mental illness, substance misuse, economic hardship, or family violence.

2. Responding to adversity

When we see families struggling, we need to keep the focus on children as well as their parents. When working with families who are going through adversities – including mental illness, addiction, poverty, family violence, or separation – we need to ask child-centred questions about parents’ care responsibilities.

If we pay closer attention to what’s going on in young people’s lives, we can identify vulnerability early. We can gently convey information about the increased risk of multiple types of maltreatment. And we can provide families with support that works, tailored to their circumstances and challenges.

3. Better treatment for adult survivors

Clinicians need better training to identify and respond to risks.

When working with clients struggling with mental health issues or substance misuse, practitioners should recognise this group is likely to be primarily victim-survivors of multiple forms of child maltreatment.

Teachers, doctors, therapists, parents and carers should learn about how child maltreatment impacts on health throughout life.

Prevention, protection, and treatment services must coordinate to create safety and recovery from all forms of child maltreatment, particularly when they occur in combination. Our results make it clear we need urgent action.

Read more:
Infographic: a snapshot of Australia’s child protection services

If this article has raised issues for you, or if you’re concerned about someone you know, call Lifeline on 13 11 14 or contact Kids Helpline on 1800 55 1800.

Daryl Higgins receives funding from the Australian Research Council, the National Health and Medical Research Council and a range of government departments, agencies, and service providers. He is a Chief Investigator on the Australian Child Maltreatment Study, which is supported by a National Health and Medical Research Council Project Grant (APP1158750). The ACMS receives additional funding and contributions from the Australian Government Department of the Prime Minister and Cabinet; the Department of Social Services; and the Australian Institute of Criminology The lead Chief Investigator on the ACMS is Ben Mathews, from QUT. Other Chief Investigators are: Rosana Pacella, James G. Scott, David Finkelhor, Franziska Meinck, Holly E. Erskine, Hannah J. Thomas, David Lawrence & Michael P. Dunne. Thanks to Divna M. Haslam & Eva Malacova for assistance with project management and data analysis.

– ref. Major study reveals two-thirds of people who suffer childhood maltreatment suffer more than one kind – https://theconversation.com/major-study-reveals-two-thirds-of-people-who-suffer-childhood-maltreatment-suffer-more-than-one-kind-202033

Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Eleanor Green, Senior Lecturer In Computational Petrology, The University of Melbourne

An amateur gold prospector in Victoria, Australia, recently discovered a gold nugget big enough to hold in two hands, worth around A$240,000. It was a lucky find, but he had chosen the right place to look.

Central Victoria was home to one of the world’s great gold rushes in the 19th century, which was focused mainly on the “golden triangle” northwest of Melbourne.

While that gold rush saw the extraction of thousands of tonnes of gold from Victorian soil, there is still plenty left. What some have called a “second gold rush” is now under way, as large mining companies and amateur fossickers use modern technology.

A rush and a boom

A road trip through Central Victoria’s Goldfields region takes you to 19th-century boom towns like Bendigo, Ballarat and Castlemaine. They are handsome towns, with elegant municipal buildings and graceful churches, the products of decades of wealth built on gold.

Rambling farther through Victoria, here and there you will find the ghost towns, such as Steiglitz, or the optimistically named Eldorado. These were less fortunate – their gold soon ran out.

Victoria’s first gold rush took place during the 1850s and 1860s. Miners and prospectors poured into Victoria from across the world, colonising the lands of the traditional owners.

Some of these early gold hunters shovelled for small nuggets of gold sitting on the ground, or panned for flakes of gold floating in waterholes and creeks.

Others sought the underground source of the gold. They knew subterranean gold does not occur at random, but would be found in certain rocks.

When they found gold-bearing rocks breaking the surface, they dug for more. Then, they crushed the rock to get the gold out. It was skilled, difficult work that took a brutal physical toll.

How to hunt gold

In Victoria, most underground gold is found in “quartz reefs”: bands of hard white quartz. Formed some 400 million years ago, these gold-bearing reefs may be kilometres long, but are typically less than a metre wide, and slant steeply into the ground.

The places where these reefs break the surface were hard to find. But if the gold hunters were lucky and discovered a new reef, they could follow it a long way, along the surface and underground. The deeper the miners dug, the greater the risks of mine collapse, flooding, or other disasters.

Read more:
How gold rushes helped make the modern world

Victoria’s remarkable gold rush history is the subject of a World Heritage bid. You can learn about the gold rush at Sovereign Hill in Ballarat, the Eureka Centre in Melbourne, and the Golden Dragon Museum in Bendigo, among other places. These places tell moving stories of the gold rush era: of colonial theft, of cruelty and exploitation, of skill, courage and hope.

Across the Victorian goldfields the gold rush had died down by the late 19th century. Even so, the most prosperous gold mines, such as the Central Deborah mine in Bendigo, continued to produce gold well into the 20th century.

But after the gold rush was over, the gold was still there underground. It was just harder to find, or harder to get at.

The second gold rush

Victoria’s second gold rush is less eye-catching and more high-tech than the first.

Mining companies from across the world are coming to Victoria, believing with modern methods they can find and dig up more of Victoria’s unusually pure gold.

Modern mines work with a current understanding of how rocks form, and of how the outer part of Earth deforms during the movement of tectonic plates. They use these ideas to predict the three-dimensional shape of the gold-bearing quartz reefs as they slant into the ground, making it easier to locate them deep underground.

Modern drilling methods make it easy to sample rocks, using machines like giant apple corers. And today’s techniques can extract more of the gold from the quartz that hosts it.

Today, Victoria’s gold mines produce around 650,000 ounces of gold each year, or about 20 tonnes. For comparison, at the height of the first gold rush, some 3 million ounces or around 90 tonnes were produced in 1856.

Many working mines hold open days for interested visitors, such as the Fosterville gold mine near Bendigo.

What to know if you’re hunting gold

Amateur gold hunting also flourishes on the Victorian goldfields today. “Fossicking”, or recreational prospecting, is a popular way to enjoy walks in the bush, with the possibility of taking home some gold or other treasure.

Dedicated fossickers may well invest in a metal detector, at a cost of several thousand dollars. For a more traditional approach, gold pans and sieves provide hours of fun for the patient, and are considerably cheaper than a metal detector.

Would-be fossickers should check their local regulations to find out if they need a licence. Once you have a licence, you must comply with its terms, which may put limits on fossicking activities, such as where you can look, what you can keep, and whether or not you can sell any finds.

You are still responsible for getting permission from the relevant landowners. As with any outdoor activity, you should be aware of the risks around you, including those posed by the weather.

In popular fossicking areas, you may be able to get advice on all of these things, as well as pointers towards finding gold, by joining a fossicking club.

If you aren’t lucky enough to live on a goldfield, don’t despair. You may still enjoy amateur prospecting or treasure hunting, looking for other precious metals or minerals, or even for hoards of gold coins.

Read more:
Discovering a Viking hoard: a day in the life of a metal detectorist

I am exploring a research collaboration agreement with Kirkland Lake Gold Australia Pty Ltd.

– ref. Victoria’s gold rush ended in the 19th century. So why are people still finding so much gold? – https://theconversation.com/victorias-gold-rush-ended-in-the-19th-century-so-why-are-people-still-finding-so-much-gold-202846

Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Harry Hobbs, Associate professor, University of Technology Sydney

This is the second article in our series explaining Voice, Treaty and Truth. Read the first article in the series here.

The Uluru Statement from the Heart calls for Voice, Treaty and Truth. These aspirations are intended as a sequence of reforms, that advance towards a just settlement with First Peoples.

The federal government is committed to holding a referendum later this year to put an Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Voice in the Australian Constitution. The government has also agreed to implement the Uluru Statement “in full”.

Following the referendum, it’s expected attention will shift towards a Makarrata Commission to “work on a national process of treaty-making and truth-telling”. In fact, reports suggest the government might move even faster.

For generations, Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander peoples have called for a formal treaty or treaties to recognise their sovereignty “and set out mutually agreed terms for our relationship with the Australian government”.

But while Treaty has long been part of the political landscape, it is not well understood. Many Australians wonder what a Treaty is, what it would achieve, who it would be negotiated with, or for whom, and how. We’ll explore some of these questions here (in brief).

Why does Australia not have a Treaty?

When European colonial powers encountered Indigenous peoples, they often negotiated treaties. These agreements dealt with a range of matters, including trade and military alliances. They also set out rules to share the land and maintain peaceful relationships.

These colonial-era treaties were regularly broken. However, they recognised Indigenous peoples had the right to deal with land and exercised sovereignty over that land.

The British did not engage in treaty talks in Australia. They never sohttps://theconversation.com/the-voice-what-is-it-where-did-it-come-from-and-what-can-it-achieve-202138ught to negotiate with the owners of this land. Instead, they claimed the land belonged to no one and took it for themselves.

Historians have debated why the British took this approach. Some have argued as a penal colony with a substantial military force there was no need to negotiate trading relationships with the original owners. Others have argued the racist attitudes of the day were influential.

Whatever the reason, the result is Australia is an outlier. As a result, many Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander peoples believe the moral and legal basis of the nation is “a little legally shaky”.

What is a Treaty?

The absence of a Treaty is one of the major challenges facing the Treaty debate in Australia. Without a history of treaty-making, the concept of what a treaty is or involves remains vague for many people, including government.

It means some people can argue a Treaty is dangerous or it would lead to the breakup of the nation. This makes little sense because a Treaty is a marriage not a divorce. It’s about bringing communities together and building strong relationships based on self-determination.

Governments might argue they’re already engaged in treaty-making. There are many examples of bureaucracy adapting its policy formulation and delivery to reflect community aspirations for a greater say in the delivery of services.

Such “partnerships”, “co-design” and local decision-making with government are valuable. They mark an important shift in promoting Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander peoples’ participation in policy development and service delivery. But simply calling an agreement a “treaty” doesn’t make it a treaty.

Australia has signed up to a range of international legal instruments that concern the rights of Indigenous peoples. These legal instruments set a clear standard for what makes an agreement a treaty. A treaty must satisfy three conditions.

1. A treaty acknowledges Indigenous peoples are a distinct political community different to other Australians. This is because Indigenous peoples are the only group of Australians who owned, occupied, and governed the continent before colonisation. This recognition also acknowledges the historic and contemporary injustices that invasion has caused

2. A treaty is a political agreement reached by a fair process of negotiation between equals. Negotiation helps ensure everyone’s interests can be considered. But securing a fair negotiation process can be difficult. In Victoria, the First Peoples Assembly and State government have agreed to a Treaty Negotiation Framework that sets out principles to guide Treaty talks

3. Treaties involve both sides committing to responsibilities, promises and principles that bind the parties in an ongoing relationship of mutual obligation and shared responsibility. Most importantly, while the outcomes of any negotiation will differ according to the parties, a treaty is built on the recognition of Indigenous peoples’ inherent sovereignty. As part of this, a treaty will provide for some degree of self-government. What this looks like in practice will be worked out in negotiations.

A treaty will also include a range of other elements. It could include financial compensation, return of land, formal recognition of historic wrongs, and symbolic gestures of reconciliation, such as apologies.

Treaties are unique agreements. As Professor Megan Davis explains, they are aimed at “settling fundamental grievances, and establishing binding frameworks of future engagement and dispute resolution”.

Modern treaties are different from historic treaties

There is a long history of treaty-making all over the world from which Australia can draw lessons. But it’s important to note modern treaties differ from those negotiated in colonial periods. They are more technical and legally complex. They are also negotiated against a long history of inequitable relationships.

They will also be subject to Australian law. While colonial-era treaties were international agreements between two sovereign communities, modern treaties will be subject to Australian law.

Treaty is happening now

Treaty is a longstanding aspiration of First Peoples in Australia. It is only in recent years, however, governments have decided to talk treaty.

Progress has been slow, but important steps have been taken at the state and territory level. For instance, in February this year, the Queensland government introduced the Path to Treaty Bill 2023 into the state parliament. The bill will establish and finance an independent First Nations Treaty Institute to “help prepare and support First Nations people for treaty negotiations with the state”.

That same month, the South Australian government introduced a bill to establish a Voice to the Parliament, with a treaty process to follow.

In Victoria, after several years of patient work, negotiations between the First Peoples Assembly and state government are expected to begin by the end of the year. Similar processes are underway in the Northern Territory, Tasmania and the ACT.

Every treaty process has its own challenges and complications and it’s too early to tell whether these processes will result in meaningful settlements. Nevertheless, they demonstrate two key things.

First, Treaty is a matter of political will, not legal impossibility. Second, looking towards the referendum later this year, the existence of treaty processes across the country suggests Australians may be willing to deal with the unfinished business of colonisation and its consequences.

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

– ref. What actually is a treaty? What could it mean for Indigenous people? – https://theconversation.com/what-actually-is-a-treaty-what-could-it-mean-for-indigenous-people-200261

Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By David John Hallford, Senior Lecturer and Clinical Psychologist, Deakin University

Many people at risk of suicide are going undetected and unsupported in our community, our research suggests.

Our recently published study found under half of people tell anyone they’re thinking of suicide, making plans or had attempted suicide.

Here are some of the reasons why people don’t often talk about this, and what you can do to help a friend or loved one get the support they need.

Read more:
R U OK day is coming up, but what do you do if someone says ‘no’?

We’re getting no better at predicting

In 2021 in Australia, 3,144 people died by ending their life (2,358 males and 786 females).

Worldwide, more than 700,000 people take their life each year. Globally, suicide is the fourth leading cause of death among 15-29 year-olds.

But our ability to predict who might have suicidal thoughts and behaviours or end their life has not really improved over 50 years of research.

Because suicide is relatively infrequent (as a percentage of the population), it is difficult to identify robust risk factors for suicide we can generalise across the population.

Read more:
Suicide risk is high for military and emergency workers – but support for their families and peers is missing

We need to know who’s at risk

One of the most crucial steps in understanding and managing the risk of suicide is for individuals to disclose their suicidal thoughts and behaviours to other people. It also gives us a chance to mobilise support.

However, when colleagues and I looked at the evidence, we found less than 50% of people tell anyone else about their suicidal thoughts or behaviours.

Even if they had these thoughts or behaviours over the past month, only an estimated 38% of people told anyone. Most people don’t ever disclose any suicidal thoughts or behaviours, however long ago these occurred.

Our study was a meta-analysis, which combined information from almost 100 studies to estimate how commonly people disclosed.

Women were slightly more likely to disclose than men and disclosure was more likely when associated with a psychiatric disorder.

Notably, among studies of people who had died by suicide, close to 60% of people had no documented evidence of telling someone they had thoughts or plans of ending their life.

Put simply, the findings suggest a large number of people at risk of suicide are undetected and unsupported.

Read more:
Why are we losing so many Indigenous children to suicide?

Why don’t people say anything?

Reasons people don’t disclose thoughts of suicide include: stigma and shame about having the thoughts, fear of rejection or unsupportive reactions from others, concerns about burdening other people, and believing nothing can be done.

Worrying about the consequences of telling other people, such as being hospitalised or receiving unwanted treatment, might be particularly important where people have had negative experiences with disclosure in the past.

A lack of confidence in expressing oneself is another significant barrier. Some people avoid thinking or talking about it as their main way of coping.

Having more social support can increase the likelihood of disclosing suicidal thoughts. This is important given most disclosures are made to family or friends. Increased understanding and knowledge about suicide seems to also be linked with a higher likelihood of disclosure.

How do we start conversations?

Public campaigns to increase mental health literacy and normalise discussions about suicide have likely been helpful in facilitating disclosures. Most times, this means talking about it.

Asking someone about suicide risk indirectly can be more comfortable, such as checking in on how they are feeling or how they are doing. But the question might be misunderstood or answered in a “socially desirable” way.

A conversation might go, “How are you doing?”, with a response, “Yeah, not bad.”

But research shows asking more direct questions does not increase their distress and does not cause someone to have more suicide-related thoughts or behaviours.

So, clear questions – such as “Are you having thoughts of ending your life?” or “Are you thinking about hurting yourself?” – may help draw out an answer.

Asking about how safe they feel now can also be useful: “Do you feel safe at the moment?”

Offering the choice of not responding might lead to opportunities to ask about it later. You can say, “It’s OK if you don’t want to answer that right now.”

Talking about suicide can be difficult. But knowing we don’t need to be perfect at it, and we’re not tasked with trying to solve all of a person’s problems, is important.

Read more:
How to ask someone you’re worried about if they’re thinking of suicide

You can really help

For some people, thoughts of suicide reflect a negative or hopeless mental state, but not an intent to harm themselves. Most people who have thoughts of suicide do not end their life.

But what you can do for someone is significant.

First, the emotional support and acceptance you show by simply asking and listening is immensely important to helping people feel understood and cared for. This can help normalise and de-stigmatise their experience. Depending on your relationship, you may want to know more about what is driving those thoughts, and being curious and non-judgemental can help.

Second, you can give simple practical support by asking someone what they might need. You could try, “Is there anything you need right now? How can I help?”. You could encourage them to tell loved ones, and support them to find professional help. This might be their GP, mental health professional, to call a helpline, or 000 if the person seems very unsafe.

If this article has raised issues for you, or if you’re concerned about someone you know, call Lifeline on 13 11 14. In an emergency, call 000.

Dr David John Hallford is a board member for the Australian Clinical Psychology Association

– ref. Most people thinking about suicide don’t tell anyone. Here’s why and what we can do about it – https://theconversation.com/most-people-thinking-about-suicide-dont-tell-anyone-heres-why-and-what-we-can-do-about-it-197402

Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Laura Schuijers, Deputy Director, Australian Centre for Climate and Environmental Law and Lecturer in Law, University of Sydney

People are increasingly making choices about which products to buy and which service providers to use on climate change grounds. With concerns about climate change now affecting most Australians, businesses that promote climate-aligned practices and make emissions-reduction promises have a competitive advantage over those that don’t.

But sometimes these claims fail to live up to reality. Climate-related greenwashing, or “climate-washing”, communicates a message that exaggerates or misrepresents climate credentials through advertising, branding, labelling or reporting.

Examples include where corporate marketing and government campaigns promising “net-zero emissions by 2050” are not backed by a credible plan. Or products are promoted as “carbon neutral” or “climate friendly” when they’re not. It also includes where banks and other investors claim to fund a “cleaner future” when this is not completely true, potentially masking climate-related financial risk.

Climate-washing is a problem because the offending businesses capitalise on climate anxiety. It also allows businesses lacking robust credentials to gain customers and market advantage on false pretences. Ultimately, it also hinders rather than helps progress towards emissions reduction goals.

In March, the Australian Competition and Consumer Commission (ACCC) announced a crack-down on climate-washing and greenwashing. This followed an ACCC report revealing claims made by more than half the 247 Australian businesses reviewed in an internet sweep raised concern. The ACCC has said it will now undertake enforcement, compliance and education activities.

On Wednesday the Senate agreed to establish an inquiry into greenwashing by corporations in Australia. The inquiry will investigate the impacts of greenwashing on consumers and the environment and will identify the legal and regulatory actions needed to stop it.

Read more:
Greenwashing: how ads get you to think brands are greener than they are – and how to avoid falling for it

The credibility gap

The imperative to reach net-zero emissions by mid-century has been consistently reinforced by climate science. This includes, most recently, this month’s report by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change.

One of the upshots has been a deluge of net-zero strategic marketing. Particularly in the case of large climate change contributors – such as fossil fuel companies, airlines and the meat industry – adopting a net-zero narrative switches public perception that the company is part of the solution, rather than the problem.

Climate-washing essentially describes a gap between what’s promised and what’s likely to be achieved. This “credibility gap” can be due to factors such as over-reliance on speculative technology, offsetting, and modelling that’s outdated or hasn’t been properly verified. Although there’s a big global push toward transparency, many entities don’t adequately disclose the data and assumptions behind their promises.

Complaints and court cases

Last week, a group called Flight Free and their lawyers approached the ACCC over Etihad Airways advertising that said, “flying shouldn’t cost the earth” and “net zero emissions by 2050”. The ads were shown prominently at a soccer match in Melbourne last year. Flight Free says the advertising is misleading.

The Etihad complaint follows the Australasian Centre for Corporate Responsibility’s Federal Court proceedings against gas company Santos. Currently afoot, this complaint challenges Santos’ “clean fuel” and “net-zero by 2040” claims.

Earlier this year, corporate watchdog ASIC (the Australian Securities and Investment Commission) initiated proceedings against super fund Mercer for allegedly misleading investors into thinking their investments in a “sustainable” investment option excluded fossil fuels.

Around the world, there’s been a recent rise in climate-washing litigation. Multiple complaints allege that the football association FIFA falsely advertised the Qatar World Cup as “fully carbon neutral.”

In aviation, there’s a pending court case against KLM targeting its “fly responsibly” campaign, and there’s also been a successful challenge to RyanAir’s low-carbon campaign.

Product complaints have ranged from allegedly climate-neutral bin liners, to “climate-controlled pork” in Denmark, and “climate-neutral croquettes” in Germany.

How is climate-washing regulated?

Climate-washing is a form of misleading and deceptive conduct, which is regulated in Australia under federal competition and consumer law.

Climate-washing that relates to financial products and services is regulated under securities and investments law.

Both the ACCC and ASIC monitor climate-washing.

Globally, concerns over climate-washing have led to action by the United Nations. A High-Level Expert Group on the Net-Zero Emissions Commitments of Non-State Entities was formed last year to target climate-washing. The group has a “zero tolerance for net-zero greenwashing” mantra, and delivered a report at November’s Climate Change COP in Egypt, which contains a “how-to” guide for credible, accountable net-zero pledges.

Read more:
‘Toxic cover-up’: 6 lessons Australia can draw from the UN’s scathing report on greenwashing

What you can do

There’s every reason to support businesses taking genuine and meaningful climate action. But as a consumer, it’s hard to fact-check simple statements that are in reality pretty complex claims.

If you’re suspicious of climate-washing, you can report it to the ACCC here. You can also monitor the work of non-profits investigating and reporting on climate-washing. For example, stay informed by following sites such as ClientEarth’s The Greenwashing Files. And follow the public interest law centres taking action, such as Environmental Justice Australia, the Environmental Defenders Offices, and Equity Generation.

When buying a product or service, it never hurts to ask questions and to be sent more information. If you’re a shareholder, look closely at annual reports. And make the most of voting opportunities.

Have a say on government proposals targeting climate change and climate-washing. The initial consultation process for the Australian government’s action on climate disclosure and reporting has recently closed, but submissions on new reporting requirements will open later this year.

Ultimately, it’s a good thing that governments and corporations want to align with a smooth transition toward a net-zero future. And jumping on the net-zero bandwagon is certainly a welcome step away from climate denialism.

But in order for net-zero goals to actually be achieved in a way that avoids a last-minute scramble and significant losses along the way, it’s important for everyone that pledges and promises are made frankly, earnestly and credibly.

Editor’s note: In response to the misleading advertising claim, Etihad said it “runs a comprehensive research, development, and innovation programme to address aviation decarbonisation, and is committed to achieving net zero emissions by 2050”.

The Australian Centre for Corporate Responsibility case against Santos is before the courts.

Super fund Mercer said in a statement: “We have co-operated with ASIC on their enquiries and take their concerns very seriously. As this matter is before the courts, it would be inappropriate for us to comment further at this time.”

Laura Schuijers 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. Capitalising on climate anxiety: what you need to know about ‘climate-washing’ – https://theconversation.com/capitalising-on-climate-anxiety-what-you-need-to-know-about-climate-washing-202507

Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Bianca Fileborn, Senior Lecturer in Criminology, The University of Melbourne

Can you remember the first time you were harassed in a public space? What comes to mind? Can you remember how old you were, or what you were doing? Perhaps this is not something you have personally experienced, although we know 87% of young Australian women have been harassed in public.

We spoke to 47 adult women and LGBTQ+ people in our recent study on street-based and public harassment about their earliest memories of feeling sexualised, uncomfortable or unsafe on the street. Many mentioned they first experienced street harassment in their school uniforms. We heard variations of the phrase “it happened when I was in my school uniform” repeatedly from participants.

For many, street harassment began or became more frequent when they started wearing a high school uniform. Some participants, however, reflected on experiences from when they were even younger, wearing a primary school uniform.

Studies from the United Kingdom have shown 35% of girls wearing school uniforms have been sexually harassed in public spaces. Despite the importance of schools in the daily lives of young people, and the high rates of street harassment they experience, there’s been surprisingly little attention paid to the harassment of young people in school uniform.

Findings from our new research show school-related harassment is a serious issue that has largely flown under the radar in Australia.

Read more:
Catcalls, homophobia and racism: we studied why people (and especially men) engage in street harassment

It happens beyond the school gates

We know young people experience sexual, homophobic and transphobic harassment from their peers and even teachers while they’re at school.

But participants also told us about harassment occurring outside their school grounds. This was perpetrated by strangers (usually individual adult men, or groups of adult men), while they were in uniform and, therefore, clearly identifiable as school children.

This took many forms, ranging from catcalling, staring or leering, wolf-whistling, and being followed by men in cars while walking to school, through to public masturbation and men rubbing themselves against victim-survivors (usually while travelling to school on public transport), sexual assault and rape. As one interviewee told us:

walking from high school to home […] that’s where most of the harassment I’ve experienced happened […] As soon as I stopped wearing a school uniform it happened less. So that’s disgusting for a lot of reasons.

As another interviewee shared, these experiences were really scary not just because of what was happening at that moment but because the perpetrator “knows which school you go to” because of the uniform worn.

The ‘sexy schoolgirl’

Why is it that young people – and particularly young women and girls – are so routinely harassed in school uniform? We found harassment of schoolgirls was seen as being culturally sanctioned through the “sexy schoolgirl” trope. As one interviewee noted:

when you go on Google images and search for ‘school boy’ it will come up with a five-year-old boy but then ‘school girl’ it will come up with the sexy school girl costume.

Participants discussed being targeted because they were viewed as vulnerable and (paradoxically) as both sexually innocent and sexualised:

that was part of the allure for them [the perpetrators], the innocence of a schoolgirl, a fearful schoolgirl in that situation, was like hot to them, they were really getting off on it.

Another interviewee told us:

I went from being an innocent child to a child that felt uncomfortable and didn’t know why I was sexualised – and I didn’t understand it because I didn’t understand what sex really was.

Because they were so young, many participants often lacked a framework or language to understand their experiences. For many, these experiences were also so routine they simply formed part of the background hum of everyday life.

It was often not until years after these formative experiences that participants were able to articulate them as sexual harm and reflect on the impacts.

Trying to avoid harassment

Across our interviews, many participants discussed changing the way they presented themselves or changing the routes they took to school. They often focused on changing their own behaviour and made their lives smaller in an attempt to avoid further harassment. For example:

I started walking the long way. I started just going through the main roads, avoiding the back streets, even though it was a longer walk to be extra safe.

In the longer-term, participants commonly described feeling unsafe, hyper-vigilant, and distrustful of men in public spaces.

‘What if there’s a paedophile on the tram?’: school responses

Unfortunately, the view that victim-survivors are responsible for their own harassment was often reinforced by schools if harassment was reported.

Numerous participants told us how they were reminded of school uniform policies (such as mandated length of skirts and dresses) when they went to teachers for help. One participant recounted an experience where her teacher asked:

Why would you wear your skirt like this [short]? Whose attention are you trying to get? […] what if there’s a paedophile when you’re on the tram home from school […] thinking ‘this is the best day of [my] life’.

Others did not seek help from their teachers because of this focus on students’ appearance at school – they felt they would simply be blamed for what happened.

These types of responses teach young people to think street harassment and other forms of gendered violence are their fault. It also tells them their bodies are sites of risk that need to be managed and contained to avoid harassment.

Read more:
Should school uniforms be compulsory? We asked five experts

School uniform harassment is not ‘normal’

While schools and school-related contexts were often sites of harm for our participants, schools nonetheless have a vitally important role to play here. Harassment in school uniform should not be seen as a “normal” part of growing up.

There is an urgent need to provide young people with a framework to understand their experiences.

Educational efforts must challenge the idea that harassment must simply be endured. Instead, schools should help young people understand harassment as a form of violence, and offer safe and supportive spaces to talk with peers and adults about their experiences. This should be incorporated into existing sex and relationships education in an age-appropriate way.

Importantly, responses to harassment should never blame or implicate young people themselves. It’s time for outdated practices such as measuring school uniform length to be relegated to the past where they belong.

In the words of one participant, “the length of my skirt is not influencing how much I learn”.

If this article has raised issues for you, or if you’re concerned about someone you know, call Kids Helpline on 1800 55 1800 or 1800RESPECT on 1800 737 732. In an emergency call 000.

Bianca Fileborn receives funding from the Australian Research Council, ACON, and the Victorian Department of Justice and Community Services.

Jess Hardley 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 started walking the long way’: many young women first experience street harassment in their school uniforms – https://theconversation.com/i-started-walking-the-long-way-many-young-women-first-experience-street-harassment-in-their-school-uniforms-202718

Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Candice Harris, Professor of Management, Auckland University of Technology

April is set to be a challenging month for New Zealand’s working parents. Their children will be in school for a total of eight days thanks to the timing of Easter, Anzac Day and the school holidays. But it doesn’t have to be all bad.

Media coverage and parenting groups on social media have focused on parents’ concerns over what to do with children while trying to work. The catchphrase “8 for April” has taken off.

None of this is helped by the general silence in wider society about how working parents and organisations might better manage school holidays.

But there is a different way to look at this problematic month – and any other period when school holidays require parents to juggle childcare and work. It just requires a bit of planning and cooperation between individuals, their support networks and organisations.

The work-school mismatch

The “8 for April” dilemma is really an issue parents have faced quietly for decades. Under the Holidays Act, all workers are entitled to at least four weeks paid leave. But primary and secondary school-aged children have at least 12 weeks of holidays each year. You do the maths, as they say.

Little is really known about the solutions working parents use to organise children during the school holidays. Nor do we have a clear understanding of how organisations’ flexible work initiatives could be used to help employees cope with school holiday periods.

Read more:
Parents, take the school holidays pressure off yourself. Let the kids embrace the boredom

These gaps in research are surprising given the number of working parents, frequency of school holidays, and the growth of organisational initiatives to support work-life balance, wellbeing and flexible employment.

While it may take time for research to catch up on this, parents can start tackling the school holiday juggle by using a “C.O.P.E” model.

Learning to C.O.P.E

The C.O.P.E. model has four elements: construct, optimise, perspective and evaluate. Following this model could help parents sort school holidays in an organised and calm manner.

Construct – plan early what will happen for children for each day of the holiday period.

Optimise – try to develop a solution that meets the wants of children, needs of parents and demands of employers. It may not be perfect for all, but should be helpful and liveable.

Perspective – while a challenging time for parents, children are resilient and won’t necessarily even recall the solutions found for all holidays.

Evaluate – consider what worked and what didn’t and use this information to plan the next round of holidays.

Success starts with a plan

Potential fixes for the holiday juggle tend to be pitched at the individual household level, including school holiday programmes. The cost of these programmes can vary widely, from NZ$15 to more than $100 a day.

While we need to be developing a better understanding of how to help working parents as a group, there are some things individuals can do to help the juggle between parenting and children.

• Voice your expectations as early as possible with managers to see if work can be organised to accommodate the holidays (not having major projects due during the holiday period, for example). Don’t assume your employer won’t try to be supportive.

• Understand that one size does not fit all. You are the best judge of what would work for your children for holiday fun. You should consider factors such as time, logistics, cost, enjoyment, restoration, technology, friends, exercise and home dynamics.

• Choice matters. Formulate a jigsaw of approaches including using annual leave, work-from-home days if possible, paid and unpaid options for childcare. The jigsaw may well be different for each holiday period.

• It takes a village. Share care with other working (paid and unpaid) parents, grandparents, neighbours, friends and supporters.

• Give yourself a break. Try to find some time for rest and relaxation. Remember also that children won’t be young forever, so the pressure of school holidays will likely diminish as they age.

Employers can help

While parents will take the lead in planning for school holidays, organisations can also step up and help.

• Support staff. Accept the school holiday may well not affect all employees, but for those it does, the impact could be significant. Consider also that other employees such as grandparents may value work flexibility during these periods.

• Try new approaches. For example, if an organisation is considering the idea of a four-day work week, perhaps trial it with some employees during the school holidays.

Read more:
Structured school days can keep kids healthy. How can we maintain it over school holidays?

• Link flexibility to recruitment and retention. Promote the fact you are “school holiday friendly” as an employer, which can help with staff recruitment and retention.

• Bring kids in. If staff must be on site, explore whether they can bring the kids to work at certain times. Consider if a workplace school holiday programme for employees’ children could be offered – or at least a room with WiFi!

• Clarify work expectations. When discussing flexibility, also agree on the key work expectations during holiday periods.

Changing conversations in society about school holidays, accompanied with practical solutions could help alleviate parents’ fears. As COVID-19 lockdowns proved, work and parenting can be combined when required. Broader conversations are also needed to find solutions for parents whose jobs simply cannot be done at home.

Being school holiday savvy would recognise that perhaps different ways of working could be used for that quarter of the year taken up with school holidays.

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

– ref. NZ kids will be at school for just 8 days in April – but there are ways for parents to C.O.P.E. with the holiday juggle – https://theconversation.com/nz-kids-will-be-at-school-for-just-8-days-in-april-but-there-are-ways-for-parents-to-c-o-p-e-with-the-holiday-juggle-203035

Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Grace Waye-Harris, PhD Candidate in History, University of Adelaide

Imagine if the person you’re dating invites you to their great-uncle’s birthday party. This is not just any family gathering. The great-uncle in question is a billionaire and the party is at their New York City penthouse. To fit in, you wear your best dress and carry your most expensive handbag – a large, four-figure Burberry tote.

Unbeknown to you, your Burberry tote is a major fashion faux pas. It immediately distinguishes you as someone who is not part of this super elite. It is not the price tag or brand that has betrayed you: it’s the size of the bag.

This is what unfolded in a scene from the season-four premiere of HBO’s Succession. While attending patriarch Logan Roy’s birthday, Cousin Greg is mercilessly mocked by Tom Wambsgans for his date’s “ludicrously capacious” handbag. Bridget’s handbag, Tom scoffs, is “monstrous” and “gargantuan”.

The biting humour between Tom and Greg is an entertaining and engaging feature of Succession. In this scene, however, their repartee reveals much about the power structures within elite society.

Read more:
How ‘Succession’ feeds the hidden fantasies of its well-to-do viewers

Money talks, wealth whispers

While many would consider Bridget’s Burberry tote the epitome of luxury and elegance, the functionality of bag and its iconic check pattern was entirely gauche to the Roys.

The size of the bag implied Bridget did not have staff catering to her every whim. She must carry everything she needs for the day with her. According to Tom Wambsgans, this includes her lunch (implying she can’t afford to dine at restaurants) and appropriate shoes for the subway (indicating she doesn’t have a driver).

This is a stark comparison to Shiv Roy, who is rarely seen with a bag or any accessory except her phone. Unlike Bridget, Shiv is not plagued with the stresses of life. She has people for that.

The iconic Burberry tartan that covered Bridget’s bag was also, according to Tom, an “enormous faux pas”. Visible brand names and patterns have become associated with people who try to emulate wealth but are not familiar enough with elite society to understand its sartorial nuances. The upper elite favour quiet but luxurious fashions.

This style is often referred to as the old money aesthetic.

The old money aesthetic

Since the early 20th century, the old money aesthetic has been a symbol of wealth and privilege. Characterised by polo shirts, chinos and a knit sweater over the shoulders, this style romanticises country club, yacht and equestrian cultures. Think Ralph Lauren and the Kennedys.

The old money aesthetic is also deeply entwined with notions of nobility.

Historically, royals and aristocrats were considered superior to all others. This social hierarchy was enforced by laws that regulated what people could wear based on their class. Clothing was an immediate visual representation of social standing and power. In 16th-century England, only kings, queens and dukes were allowed to wear gold cloth. If you weren’t part of the nobility, you weren’t allowed to wear crimson or blue.

Dressing above your station had serious ramifications. Henry VIII’s Acts of Apparel made it illegal for anyone except “The King and his Family” to wear purple. In 1513, one of Henry’s noblemen defied this law to signal his own claim to the English throne. Not long after, Henry had him executed for treason.

In more recent times, the nobility’s penchant for tailored jackets, woollen sweaters and tweeds have become reflective of a leisure class who are exempt from work. The innate historical connection between dress and class has resulted in these items becoming inseparable from notions of social superiority. They are seen as timeless, stylish and sophisticated.

The Roys and everyone else

The intrinsic connection between dress and social superiority is regularly deployed in TV shows like Succession. Costume is an important tool by which creators can demonstrate hierarchy between characters. While almost all the characters in Succession belong to the wealthy upper class, they are clearly not equal.

Cousin Greg’s date, Bridget, is wealthy enough to afford a four-figure bag. Its size and loud pattern, however, mark her as nouveau riche and tawdry.

Tom’s mockery of Bridget is somewhat ironic, given he too was ridiculed for his sartorial inferiority. Tom always presents a polished, buttoned-up appearance in designer suits and ties. This is contrasted against Kendall and Roman, who rarely wear ties, often pair suits with sports shoes and baseball caps and, in more recent episodes, have favoured a combination of jeans, t-shirts and blazers.

Tom’s refined and agreeable appearance reflects his eagerness to please Logan and secure position in the family. When mocking his suit in season two, the Roy children allude to this desperation and reaffirm his status as less than their own.

The costumes of the Roy family situate them firmly at the top of the social elite. They are often in cashmere knitwear and tailored blazers. When in the country, caps and Barbour jackets are in keeping with their casual, conservative, old-money appearance.

Unlike those outside the family, they don’t need to impress anyone. Their clothing denotes a stealth wealth, and its historical significance infers social superiority.

Next time you tune into Succession, pay close attention to subtleties in the characters’ costumes. They reveal much about the fabric of society.

Read more:
Celebrity, money and power: TVs obsession with the Murdoch family dynasty

Grace Waye-Harris 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. Far from the ‘ludicrously capacious’: what the fashion of Succession tells us about the show – and about society – https://theconversation.com/far-from-the-ludicrously-capacious-what-the-fashion-of-succession-tells-us-about-the-show-and-about-society-202744

Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Joey Moloney, Senior Associate, Grattan Institute

Australia’s A$3.3 trillion superannuation system is supposed to boost people’s retirement incomes. The government says as much in its proposed leglislated objective for superannuation. The system is supported by billions of dollars of tax breaks each year, ostensibly to that end.

But there’s just one problem – increasingly, much of what is saved is never spent.

Our new report, Super savings: Practical policies for fairer superannuation and a stronger budget, points out that without an overhaul, super tax breaks are set to do little more than boost the inheritances of Australians with well-off parents.

Super contributions and super earnings are both taxed more lightly than other income. These tax breaks cost the budget about $45 billion (2% of Australia’s gross domestic product, or GDP) each year.

Treasury predicts that figure will hit 3% of GDP by 2060, and that the cost of super tax breaks will overtake the cost of the age pension by as soon as 2036.

Super tax breaks are also unfair: about two-thirds go to the top 20% of earners.

This means the tax breaks provide the biggest boost to the super accounts of high earners, who will almost all have a comfortable retirement regardless, and who tend to save the same regardless of the tax rate imposed.

The wealthiest 10% of Australians get a bigger boost to their retirement savings from super tax breaks than poorer Australians get from the age pension.

But much of what is saved for retirement never actually gets spent in retirement.

Earlier research by Grattan Institute and the 2020 Retirement Income Review found that, for a variety of reasons, spending falls substantially during retirement. Retirees often end up leaving much of their nest egg untouched, bequeathing it to their children.

This means billions of dollars in super tax breaks simply end up boosting the inheritances received by the children of well-off parents. It makes super a taxpayer-funded inheritance scheme.

This problem is set to get worse. With the rate of compulsory superannuation legislated to rise from 10.5% of wages to 12% by 2025, future generations of retirees are set to retire with even larger nest eggs that they will never spend.

Treasury projects that by 2059, one in every three dollars paid out of the super system will be a bequest, up from one in every five today.

Big inheritances boost the jackpot from the birth lottery. They help richer children get richer. Among the Australians who received an inheritance over the past decade, the wealthiest fifth received on average three times as much as the poorest fifth.

To help reverse this, the government needs to rein in the super tax breaks.

How to make super fairer

The government’s policy, announced in February, of taxing the earnings on balances bigger than $3 million at 30%, instead of 15%, will help.

But the threshold ought to be lowered to $2 million. Balances between $2 million and $3 million are very unlikely to be spent in retirement, so winding back tax breaks on earnings on balances bigger than $2 million would further wind back taxpayer-funded bequests.

And there’s more. Currently, many wealthier Australians receive a larger tax break per dollar contributed to super than many low income earners.

Yet low earners have more to be compensated for. Putting money into their super cuts their age pension in retirement, and they live shorter lives, meaning less time to enjoy their super in retirement.

Read more:
The super giveaway that allows the wealthy to amass even more tax-free

The pre-tax contributions of people earning more than $220,000 a year should be taxed at 35%, instead of the 30% charged to those earning more than $250,000 currently. That would still offer a 10% tax break on super contributions for high earners (given the top marginal rate of 45%) and at least a 15% break on the contributions of low and middle earners.

And the annual pre-tax contributions cap should be lowered from $27,500 to $20,000. Contributions above this level tend to be made by people close to retirement with already-high balances.

Tax earnings in retirement the same as while working

On the earnings side, the tax-free earnings enjoyed by retirees on their first $1.7 million ($1.9 million from 1 July this year) of their super should go.

Superannuation earnings in retirement should be taxed at 15%, the same as superannuation earnings before retirement. This would save the budget at least $5.3 billion a year, and much more in future, and make taxing super more simple.

More than 70% of this revenue would come from the top 20% of retirees. The top 10% would pay an extra $7,000 to $7,500 a year on average, wereas the poorest half would no more than $200 more each.

Both sides of politics say they agree that super shouldn’t be a taxpayer-funded inheritance scheme. But there’s a long way to go before that vision is reality.

The Grattan Institute’s new report, Super savings: Practical policies for fairer superannuation and a stronger budget. was released on Monday

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. Super has become a taxpayer-funded inheritance scheme for the rich. Here’s how to fix it – and save billions – https://theconversation.com/super-has-become-a-taxpayer-funded-inheritance-scheme-for-the-rich-heres-how-to-fix-it-and-save-billions-202948

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

Peter Dutton and his demoralised team, shocked beyond belief by their Aston drubbing, say the party has to “rebuild”.

But there are no obvious foundation stones for this mammoth task.

Ideally, the party needs a leader who potentially has appeal when, as will inevitably happen at some point, the gloss goes off the government.

Many voters, well beyond Aston, have made up their minds against Dutton. The chances of turning those perceptions around – notwithstanding the example of John Howard’s personal reinvention – are low. It’s the dog-with-a-bad-name syndrome.

One example. People with Chinese heritage are an important voting group in many areas (like Aston). They are unlikely to ever have a positive view of Dutton.

This not to say Dutton should be replaced. The alternatives (primarily Angus Taylor) would be even less likely to get the party back on its feet.

The best solution would be for the Liberals to get a new leader a year out from the election. But even looking to a younger generation, there is no attractive candidate with broad appeal.

Dutton, who presumably is not a Morrison-type believer in miracles, must realise the chances of his ever becoming prime minister are somewhere under minimal.

So he has little to lose by taking risks in trying to reform the party organisation, in which most state divisions are dysfunctional, faction-ridden and devoted to in-fighting. Ironically, the Queensland LNP is the most efficient (and effective – Queensland is the state where the Coalition is strongest).

The general dysfunction has led to poor candidates, candidates chosen late, and bad ground games that can’t match Labor.

The malaise in the Liberal organisation might not be the problem that is most obvious at a “retail” political level. But it is fundamental, and Dutton – if he has the determination – could knock heads together. That’s even taking into account that in the Liberal party, power resides in the state divisions, with the federal organisation relatively weak.

Most difficult for the Liberals is finding a response to the question: what do you stand for?

Seeking answers to this opens up a complex set of issues, including internal ideological battles, and vast differences among the constituencies to which it must pitch (outer suburban, teal urban).

In former years, Labor faced a similar problem – caught between its traditional working class voters in the outer suburbs and regions, and the progressive inner city voters. It was a challenge as late as the Shorten years. Under Anthony Albanese, Labor has found a sweet spot.

The Liberals are unlikely to light on such a spot before the internal culture wars rage for some time between the conservatives and what’s left of the moderates.

Meanwhile, policy positions have to be crafted – which often, at this stage of the electoral cycle, amount to reactions to government policy.

The Liberals’ constant naysaying has turned off voters who have just elected a fresh government and want the losers to give it a go.

That seems one obvious message out of the byelection.

A skilled opposition mixes the positive and the negative – as Albanese did as opposition leader.

He also resisted (often to taunts from the then-government and sometimes the media) pressure to release policy too early. His crucial climate policy, for example, came very late.

But he did have some policy out for a long time, for instance on child care. The Liberals should do the same, in their search for policy sweet spots.

Housing affordability is an obvious opportunity. It ticks all the boxes. It’s a crucial issue on voters’ minds. It particularly preoccupies the under-40 age group, who have deserted the Liberals. It fits Liberal Party values, going right back to Robert Menzies.

The opposition already is committed to allowing people to use some of their superannuation for a first home. Building around this, including with a policy that addresses the rental crisis, could provide something positive to sell in “the sensible centre”.

Getting down to intense work on a range of individual policies might be a more productive way for the Liberal party to tackle its positioning problems than a generalised debate about conservatism-versus-progressivism. Having the ideological debates around specific policy directions might help achieve practical approaches and compromises.

The Coalition also needs to avoid paths with landmines. Its current flirtation with nuclear power, beloved by the Nationals, is one. The Labor ads could be written now if that was taken to the election. A savvy opposition would quickly rule it out, citing economic grounds.

Behind this must lie a better Liberal party connection with the Australian electorate, especially the younger part of it. It might not be surprising that people aged 18-24 don’t travel with the Liberals, but when they are failing with the under-40 cohort, it is disaster territory.

The baby boomers are becoming a smaller part of the voting public. It’s fruitless for the Liberals to hark back to the Howard days. And yet they give every impression of (as Scott Morrison might say in another context) putting their heads under the doona and living in the past.

Speaking of Morrison, there’s speculation he is preparing to quit parliament. That means another byelection. Just when the Liberals thought things couldn’t get worse.

.

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

– ref. View from The Hill: the Liberals talk about ‘rebuilding’ but how, exactly? – https://theconversation.com/view-from-the-hill-the-liberals-talk-about-rebuilding-but-how-exactly-203125

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

The rout of the Liberals in Aston is a disaster for Peter Dutton.

The party has defied history – in the worst possible way. This is the first time in more than a century that a government has taken a seat off an opposition at a byelection.

Both government and opposition expected a Liberal win, although they predicted a tight result. In the event Labor had a comfortable victory.

The centrepiece of Labor’s campaign was targeting the opposition leader, and Aston voters responded with a resounding ‘no’ when asked for a judgement on Dutton.

In 2001, a byelection in Aston put then prime minister John Howard back into the electoral game. In 2023, this byelection has undermined what authority the opposition leader has had.

There are no obvious alternatives to Dutton (although deputy Liberal leader Sussan Ley and shadow treasurer Angus Taylor have aspirations).

But over coming months it’s likely there will be muttering and undermining of Dutton.

Dutton prides himself on having held together a party that is divided over whether to go to the right or the left. This defeat can be expected to intensify that internal argument.

It will also reduce Dutton’s ability to reform the debilitated party organisations, including and especially in Victoria.

On Saturday night Dutton made the point that “it’s a tough market for us in Victoria”. Aston will feed into what has been a strong narrative – that Dutton, from Queensland and the right, is unelectable in this progressive southern state.

The timing of Alan Tudge’s departure from parliament was, certainly in retrospect, the worst possible. As if Tudge had not previously done enough damage to the Liberal party. Aston voters had already punished it over his behaviour with a big swing at the general election.

Leer más:
Labor wins Aston byelection; NSW election and Trump polling updates

In the byelection, many voters were frustrated they were at the ballot box for the third time in less than a year.

While the cost of living is at the front of people’s minds, Aston showed they are not blaming the Albanese government. They accept that the interest rate hikes and price rises are being driven by factors almost all outside the government’s control.

The Liberals had a strong candidate in Roshena Campbell, but she was parachuted into this outer-eastern suburban seat from Brunswick, seen as a long way away when localism is increasingly the electoral flavour. One is reminded of the fate of Labor’s Kristina Keneally when she was parachuted into a seat that wanted a local in last year’s election.

Labor’s Mary Doyle does not live in Aston but has resided in the region for some 35 years.

The Aston outcome reinforces the point that the Labor government’s honeymoon continues to flourish. The news of the past fortnight’s parliamentary sitting showed a government that was busy and chalking up wins, most notably this week’s deal to get its safeguard machinery legislation in place, which is key to implementing its climate policy.

One achievement of the Labor government that would have resonated with some Aston voters is the improvement in Australia’s relations with China. This electorate has a high proportion of residents of Chinese heritage.

Leer más:
View from The Hill: Dutton saddles up for Aston race amid Victorian Liberal infighting

Dutton has promised to listen to the messages from the byelection, and to rebuild the party. It’s one thing to recognise there are lessons, but another to decipher precicely what they are, and yet another to put solutions in place.

It does, however, seem likely that voters are unimpressed with the Opposition’s constant negativity – which just deepens Dutton’s problem as he comes closer to having to formally declare his position on the Voice to Parliament.

Michelle Grattan no recibe salario, ni ejerce labores de consultoría, ni posee acciones, ni recibe financiación de ninguna compañía u organización que pueda obtener beneficio de este artículo, y ha declarado carecer de vínculos relevantes más allá del cargo académico citado.

– ref. Labor’s unexpected Aston win is body blow for Dutton – https://theconversation.com/labors-unexpected-aston-win-is-body-blow-for-dutton-203116

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

With 44% of enrolled voters counted in today’s Aston federal byelection, the ABC has Labor expected to win by 53.4-46.6 over the Liberals, a 6.3% swing to Labor from the 2022 general election. This includes ordinary election day votes only, no pre-polls or postals.

Labor is very likely to win Aston, but I will update this article tomorrow morning when the pre-polls and most postals have been counted. At the NSW election last week, Labor greatly underpeformed their election day votes on pre-polls.

Update: The pre-poll booths are in on primary votes, and there are swings against the Liberals in all three. This confirms that Labor will gain Aston from the Liberals.

Labor gaining Aston is only the second time a government has gained a seat at a federal byelection – the first time was in 1920. Labor had performed badly in previous byelections during the early years of the Bob Hawke and Kevin Rudd governments.

Read more:
Liberals likely to win Aston byelection; Voice support increases in Essential poll

Labor is currently polling honeymoon levels of support, and this explains the strong Aston result. The next federal election is still about two years away, and by then Labor may not be polling so well. This byelection is not predictive of the next election result.

However, the byelection is a terrible result for the Liberals and their leader, Peter Dutton. It will put him under pressure to keep his job.

Labor won’t win a NSW election majority

The New South Wales state election was held on March 31. The ABC is now calling 45 of the 93 lower house seats for Labor, 35 for the Coalition, three Greens and nine independents.

The large count of postals today confirmed that the Coalition would retain the three seats they looked likely to win as of Wednesday’s article: Terrigal, Goulburn and Holsworthy. Only one seat remains in doubt: Ryde, where the Liberals took a small lead on today’s postals, but Labor could regain the lead.

Read more:
NSW Labor unlikely to win majority after flopping on pre-poll votes

Even if Labor wins Ryde, they would finish with 46 of the 93 seats, one short of the 47 needed for a majority. As I wrote Wednesday, Labor will still form the next NSW government.

As the combined vote share for the major parties declines and the number of seats won by non-major party candidates increases, hung parliaments where one major party has at least a few more seats than the other, but is short of a majority, will become more common.

Postal votes from today’s counting have not yet been added to the upper house count. These votes will assist the Coalition in their attempt to win seven upper house seats, but late counting of absents and new enrolment votes may bring Animal Justice back into contention for the final upper house seat.

NSW One Nation leader Mark Latham made a homophobic and sexually crass tweet on Thursday. At this election, One Nation were expected to at least match the two upper house seats they won in 2019, but have only won one seat after their vote dropped 1.2% from 2019.

Owing to half of the upper house being elected every four years for eight-year terms, One Nation will have three total upper house seats, but would have expected four.

Trump indicted, but Republican primary polls are swinging in his favour

Former US president Donald Trump was indicted on Thursday (Friday AEDT) over hush money payments made to a porn star before the 2016 election.

Republican primaries to select their nominee to contest the November 2024 general election start in early 2024. There is disagreement over the size of Trump’s lead, with recent polls rated B+ or better by FiveThirtyEight giving Trump between a five-point and a 30-point lead over Florida Governor Ron DeSantis when other candidates are included.

It’s very likely that either Trump or DeSantis will be the Republican nominee, as no other potential Republican candidate polls higher than mid single digits.

While the polls disagree on the current size of Trump’s lead, they agree there’s been a recent swing to Trump. A Fox News poll had Trump by 15 points in February, and it now gives Trump a 30-point lead. A Quinnipiac poll gave Trump an eight-point lead in February; now Trump leads by 14.

On the Democratic side, there has so far been no credible challenge to incumbent President Joe Biden.

If Trump is the Republican nominee, he has a good chance of defeating Biden. Biden’s disapproval rating has been higher than 50% in the FiveThirtyEight aggregate since October 2021. He will be almost 82 by the November 2024 election, while Trump will be 78.

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

– ref. Labor wins Aston byelection; NSW election and Trump polling updates – https://theconversation.com/labor-wins-aston-byelection-nsw-election-and-trump-polling-updates-202716