While manufacturers have successfully increased the water-repelling nature of smartphones, they are still far from “waterproof”. A water-resistant product can usually resist water penetration to some extent, but a waterproof product is (meant to be) totally impervious to water.
Last week, Samsung Australia was fined A$14 million by the Australian Federal Court over false representations in ads of the water resistance of its Galaxy phones. The tech giant admitted that submerging Galaxy phones in pool or sea water could corrode the charging ports and stop the phones from working, if charged while still wet.
Similarly, in 2020, Apple was fined €10 million (about A$15.3 million) in Italy for misleading claims about the water resistance of iPhones.
It’s very common for phones to become damaged as a result of being dropped in water. In a 2018 survey in the US, 39% of respondents said they’d dropped their phones in water. Othersurveys have had similar results.
So why is it in 2022 – a time where technological marvels surround us – we still don’t have waterproof phones?
Waterproof vs water-resistant
There’s a rating system used to measure devices’ resistance against solids (such as dust) and liquids (namely water). It’s called the Ingress Protection (IP) rating.
An IP rating will have two numbers. In a rating of IP68, the 6 refers to protection against solids on a scale of 0 (no protection) to 6 (high protection), and 8 refers to protection against water on a scale of 0 (no protection) to 9 (high protection).
The International Electrotechnical Commission is the body behind the IP ratings guide. International Electrotechnical Commission
Interestingly, the benchmark for the water-resistance rating varies between manufacturers. For example, Samsung’s IP68-certified phones are water-resistant to a maximum depth of 1.5m in freshwater for up to 30 minutes, and the company cautions against beach or pool use. Some of Apple’s iPhones with an IP68 rating can be used at a maximum depth of 6m for up to 30 minutes.
Yet both Samsung and Apple are unlikely to consider repairing your water-damaged phone under their warranties.
Moreover, IP rating testing is done under controlled laboratory conditions. In real-life scenarios such as boating, swimming or snorkelling, factors including speed, movement, water pressure and alkalinity all vary. So, gauging a phone’s level of water resistance becomes complicated.
How are phones made water-resistant?
Making a phone water-resistant requires several components and techniques. Typically, the first point of protection is to form a physical barrier around all ingress (entry) points where dust or water could enter. These include the buttons and switches, speakers and microphone outlets, the camera, flash, screen, phone enclosure, USB port and SIM card tray.
These points are covered and sealed using glue, adhesive strips and tapes, silicone seals, rubber rings, gaskets, plastic and metal meshes and water-resistant membranes. After this, a layer of ultra-thin polymer nanocoating is applied to the phone’s circuit board to help repel water.
Nevertheless, a phone’s water resistance will still decrease with time as components age and deteriorate. Apple admits water- and dust-resistance are not permanent features of its phones.
Many people drop their phones down the toilet – be careful! Shutterstock
Cameras are not entirely impervious to water, but some can tolerate submersion a lot better than smartphones. Often that’s because they’re relatively simpler devices.
A smartphone has much more functionality, which means internal components are more sensitive, fragile, and must be built into a smaller casing. All of these factors make it doubly difficult to afford phones a similar level of water resistance.
Adding water resistance to phones also increases their price for consumers (by 20% to 30%, according to Xiaomi’s co-founder). This is a major consideration for manufacturers – especially since even a small crack can render any waterproofing void.
Keeping devices dry
Apart from nanocoating on the internal circuit boards, applying water-repellent coating to the exterior of a phone could boost protection. Somecompanies are working on this technology for manufacturers.
Future phones might also have circuitry that’s fabricated directly onto (waterproof) silicone material using laser writing techniques, and further coated with water-repellant technologies.
For now, however, there’s no such thing as a waterproof phone. If your phone does find itself at the bottom of a pool or toilet and isn’t turning on, make sure you take the best steps to ensure it dries out properly (and isn’t further damaged).
You can also buy a waterproof case or dry pouch if you want to completely waterproof your phone for water activities.
Ritesh Chugh 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.
The US Supreme Court’s recent ruling to throw out Roe v Wade is an issue of relevance to political leaders in Aotearoa New Zealand.
The decision was met with enthusiasm by those opposed to abortion here, including opposition National MP for Tāmaki Simon O’Connor.
Pro-choice groups such as Abortion Rights Aotearoa (ALRANZ) expressed alarm, not only for American women but for what this might signal for our country.
This has left Opposition Leader Christopher Luxon with a dilemma. He found himself caught up in questions that put a spotlight on his pro-life values, politics and integrity.
Luxon’s anti-abortion beliefs are not news. In the days following his election as party leader late last year, when asked to confirm if, from his point of view, abortion was tantamount to murder, he clarified “that’s what a pro-life position is”.
Yet, in recent days, Luxon has repeatedly and emphatically sought to reassure voters National would not pursue a change to this country’s abortion laws should it win government.
Abortion is legal in Aotearoa, decriminalised in 2020 within the framework of the Abortion Legislation Act. It’s clear Luxon hopes his assurances will appease those of a pro-choice view, the position of most New Zealanders according to polling in 2019.
It has long been argued good leadership is underpinned by strength of character, a clear moral compass and integrity – in other words, consistency between one’s words and actions.
Whether a leader possesses the prudence to gauge what is a practically wise course of action in a given situation that upholds important values, or simply panders to what is politically safe and expedient, offers insights into their character.
Over time, we can discern if they lean more strongly toward being values-based or if they tend to align with what Machiavelli controversially advised: that to retain power a leader must appear to look good but be willing to do whatever it takes to maintain their position.
Of course both considerations have some role to play as no one is perfect. We should look for a matter of degree or emphasis. A more strongly Machiavellian orientation is associated with toxic leadership.
Prime Minister Jacinda Ardern has characterised herself as a “pragmatic idealist”. Her track record indicates a willingness to accept considerable political heat in defence of key values. This is seen, for example, in her sustained advocacy of COVID-related health measures such as vaccine mandates and managed isolation, even when doing so was not the politically expedient path to follow.
Luxon’s leadership track record in the public domain is far less extensive. Much remains unknown or untested as to what kind of leader he is. Being leader of the opposition is, of course, a very different role to that of prime minister.
However, in his maiden speech Luxon described his Christian faith as something that anchors him and shapes his values, while also arguing politicians should not seek to force their beliefs on others.
His response to this week’s controversy proves he is willing to set aside his personal values for what is politically expedient. This suggests he is less of an idealist and more a pragmatist.
This may be a relief to the pro-choice lobby, given his anti-abortion beliefs. But if the political calculus changes, what might then happen?
The matter is not settled
New Zealand’s constitutional and legal systems differ from those of the US, but the Supreme Court decision proves it’s possible to wind back access to abortion.
Even if Luxon’s current assurance is sincerely intended, it may not sustain should the broader political acceptability of his personal beliefs change. And on that front, there are grounds for concern.
The National Council of Women’s 2021 gender attitudes survey revealed a clear increase in more conservative, anti-egalitarian attitudes. Researchers at the disinformation project also found sexist and misogynistic themes feature strongly in the conspiracy-laden disinformation gaining influence in New Zealand.
If these kinds of shifts in public opinion continue to gather steam, it may become more politically tenable for Luxon to shift gear regarding New Zealand’s abortion laws.
In such a situation, the right to abortion may not be the only one imperilled. A 2019 survey in the US showed a strong connection between an anti-abortion or “pro-life” stance and more general anti-egalitarian views.
It’s clear Luxon is aiming to reassure the public he has no intentions to advance changes to our abortion laws. But his seeming readiness to set aside personal beliefs in favour of what is politically viable also suggests that, if the political landscape changes, so too might his stance.
A broader question arises from this: if a leader is prepared to give up a presumably sincerely held conviction to secure more votes, what other values that matter to voters might they be willing to abandon in pursuit of political power?
Suze Wilson 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.
Most new parents and caregivers will know the phrase “put your baby down when drowsy but awake”. But some parents may find this just doesn’t work for them. As soon as the baby goes into the cot, they start screaming!
Talking with other parents about how to get a baby to sleep can be as divisive as talking religion or politics. It can feel as though there is only one “right” way of doing things.
But as researchers and clinicians supporting families with child and baby sleep, we can reassure you no one way suits all babies or families.
A baby’s natural temperament, age and feeding pattern are among many factors that influence its sleep. Babies often change their sleep patterns as they get older, and it can take time for them to learn how to settle into sleep.
A baby’s environment also influences how it sleeps – siblings, noise, what the family did that day and stress may all play a role. In turn, family circumstances can affect how a baby’s sleep is perceived.
Sleep happens in cycles. We start out awake, then fall into light sleep and then deep sleep, before moving into wakefulness and so on. For adults, one of these cycles lasts around 90 minutes. For babies and children, it is around half this time.
Every time we go into a light sleep cycle, we may wake briefly. A baby must learn to link sleep cycles to sleep longer. If a baby learns to self-settle, they can link their sleep cycles on their own. If not, they may need help after every light sleep cycle.
Before about six months of age, babies typically wake regularly during the night to feed and get enough nutrients to grow.
After the first few months of life, falling asleep will involve associations – things that are familiar to us – and these associations are learned. If a baby’s sleep associations are with feeding or being in a carer’s arms, they may need this association to fall back to sleep.
Babies need help to set good sleep associations. Shutterstock
It’s the same for us as grown-ups; if we wake, it can be hard for some of us to get back to sleep if we are missing our usual pillow or blanket, or if a light gets turned on or we can hear a noise.
When thinking about babies and sleep, it’s important to differentiate between the first and the second half of the first year of life. The reason is a key milestone in the baby’s development sometime beyond around four months of age: the understanding of object permanence.
This is when the baby knows a caregiver is still around even when they are not visible or in the room with them. This means that if the baby wakes up at the end of a light sleep cycle and cannot go back to sleep by themselves, they will cry or call out.
Does the ‘drowsy but awake’ advice work?
Some babies will find it harder to self-settle than other babies. The “drowsy but awake” technique is often recommended as a way to help babies develop self-settling techniques.
The idea is to get them used to feeling drowsy when in bed to set up the association between bed and sleep.
While the “drowsy but awake” technique hasn’t been rigorously studied on its own, it has been well studied in the context of sleep training.
So what’s the evidence for sleep training?
Sleep training methods that reduce the level of support (incorporating the “drowsy but awake” technique) can help babies build independence in self-settling. The evidence is based on healthy babies, who are typically six months and older.
One of the most widely known sleep training methods is called “controlled comforting” (also known as “controlled crying”). Parents put their baby to bed tired but awake, and leave them to settle for short, increasing periods of time, even if they cry. Parents choose which time intervals are best for their family – for example, two minutes, then four minutes, six minutes, then eight minutes; or two, five, ten minutes; or two, five, five, five minutes.
A more gradual method is called “camping out”. A caregiver lies on a camp bed or sits in a chair next to their baby’s cot to settle the baby when they cry. Over a couple of weeks, the caregiver gradually moves the chair or bed away from the cot and out the door, until the baby is falling asleep without the parent in the room.
Studies show these techniques help parents with their child’s sleep and their own well-being. However, the research is lacking when it comes to cross-cultural context, understanding the perspective of fathers, in children below six months of age, and in families experiencing higher social and economic adversity.
Not every technique works for every baby or every family. If caregivers want to try a new sleep approach, it’s important to have a plan A and plan B. Try plan A with the “ideal” situation but escalate to plan B quickly if plan A doesn’t work. Parents can decide whether to try again another time.
If a baby is used to falling asleep in their parents’ arms, they will associate sleep with being held. Shutterstock
What can I do to establish healthy sleep habits?
Babies and children thrive on routines. Positive bedtime routines can help children get ready for sleep. This means doing the same things every time before bed, so the baby knows it is sleep time. These may include things that help the baby calm down, like a warm bath or reading a story while keeping the environment calm and soothing to promote sleep.
Learning new routines is often easier for babies and children when they have more energy (typically earlier in the day) and harder when they are more tired.
the Sleep with Kip website offers a range of clinically validated, evidence-informed resources to help understand and support families with sleep. It includes a 90-second “sleep quiz”, which once completed will provide recommendations for simple, actionable sleep strategies to support your child’s sleep, plus information on sleep cycles and the science of normal sleep.
Billy Garvey receives funding from the NHMRC.
Nothing to disclose.
Anna Price, Ashikin Mohd Nordin, and Valerie Sung do not work for, consult, own shares in or receive funding from any company or organization that would benefit from this article, and have disclosed no relevant affiliations beyond their academic appointment.
Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Helen Stavrou, English Language Instructor, University of Cyprus, and PhD Graduate, Charles Sturt University
Traditional approaches to adult language teaching often use resources such as textbooks and generic learning materials that are less than inspiring for learners. New research shows using popular song, as well as films and TV series, for language learning can help connect with people’s interests and motivate them. Based on this research, we have developed six tips for using popular songs to learn a language.
Learning a second language can be challenging at the best of times. It takes time and effort to learn a language.
Better ways to promote enjoyment of long-term learning are needed. Enjoyment helps sustain engagement with a language, which in turn can help improve learners’ confidence in their skills.
This is where songs come into play. Songs are a common source of daily inspiration and relaxation, and they also have many qualities that aid learning. The lyrics repeat words, are simple, “conversation-like” and generate personal associations.
It’s important for both learners and teachers to be able to relate to their language-learning resources. Different people will have different backgrounds, interests and cultural contexts. Adult learners in particular often require greater choice in how they engage with language learning prompts.
What did the research find?
Newly released doctoral research on university students shows the benefits of using popular songs, films and TV series as prompts for learning a language. In online surveys, weekly diary entries and focus groups, these young adults unanimously reported they paid greater attention to the language and themes of popular songs beyond their scheduled classes.
Students preferred popular songs due to their real-world authenticity, the personalised choices available in streaming libraries, and relatable topics embedded within them. Learners were likely to encounter these songs outside the classroom, increasing their engagement with their studies.
One student noted in her diary:
Using songs really helps me to participate more in class because it is something more familiar to me, because I listen to songs every day.
A focus group participant said:
Especially in recent years, with technology, a film, a series or a song are much closer to us. We use them much more than a text or a book. After so many years with texts and books, this is much more interesting.
One class task used Rudimental’s These Days, a song well known to students. They enjoyed this exercise in comprehension, making inferences as well as identifying tone and central themes of this song about a relationship break-up.
The song Rudimental tells a story that provides plenty of material for students learning English.
Towards the end of the semester, another student noted in their diary:
It is the most fun way of learning and generally the most entertaining way of learning a foreign language.
Another benefit relates to the mental health challenges young people are facing, especially during the pandemic. There is evidence to suggest the use of song can help reduce anxiety about learning.
6 tips for using songs to learn a language
The new research resulted in the SMILLE Model shown below, as well as six recommendations to guide teachers on using popular song in the classroom.
The Sustained Motivation in Language Learning Environments (SMILLE) Model. Author provided
1. Ensure teachers and learners (including learning groups) can self-select the songs and other media when designing learning tasks and for cross-cultural activities.
2. Bridge language learning tasks and songs, ensuring selections match the learning objectives.
3. Encourage the use of popular song and media outside the classroom to extend learning beyond school.
4. Avoid using textbooks or sources that don’t interest learners or they are less able to relate to.
5. Discuss with the learners how they relate to the popular song, film or TV series. Use these discussions as a springboard for learning tasks in and out of class.
6. Have a range of prompts prepared to help teachers determine students’ understanding of what is going on, the level of involvement, why the event is happening, the topics and messages being portrayed, cultural similarities or differences, and why the source was chosen.
In literature classes, music has been used as an emotional “hook” to engage students’ interest in the works being studied.
Learning resources linked to popular culture also help motivate students who see textbook-type resources as uninteresting or less relevant to their lives outside the classroom.
Evidence of the benefits from around the world
Research has shown embedding songs in language lessons has benefited younger learners across the world:
in the United States, it improved kindergarten students’ motivation, excitement and enthusiasm about learning, increasing their desire to attend kinder
in China, kindergarten students’ vocabulary increased as a result of repeating targeted words in song lyrics
in Singapore, reserved and shy students became more confident and comfortable when attempting English pronunciations and were better able to recall difficult language instructions
Example of how songs are useful in the classroom with younger learners.
in Germany, students improved their ability to form and identify plurals and vowels for unknown words in songs
in Scotland, students in a singing-learning group showed greater improvements in a second language than a non-singing group
in England, students were able to learn targeted phrases better in song-focused lessons than those who didn’t use song.
Our research adds to the evidence that popular songs and media are strong resources to kick-start and sustain adult motivation when learning a second language.
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.
Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Kate Fitz-Gibbon, Director, Monash Gender and Family Violence Prevention Centre; Associate Professor of Criminology, Faculty of Arts, Monash University
AAP Image/Supplied by Department of Justice
In 2020 the killing of Hannah Clarke and her three children – Aaliyah, 6, Laianah, 4, and Trey, 3 – by her former partner Rowan Baxter, horrified the nation. It prompted significant calls for urgent action on violence against women and improved recognition of coercive control as a leading precursor to intimate partner femicide.
Advocates, including Hannah Clarke’s parents, have campaigned for the introduction of coercive control as a stand-alone criminal offence.
Yesterday, the findings of the coronial inquest into these deaths were released. They are a clear reminder that men’s violence against women is a national crisis and system reform is urgent.
Here’s what the inquest found, and what systemic changes are needed.
We must not accept the killing of women as inevitable
Describing Baxter (who subsequently killed himself) as “a master of manipulation”, Deputy State Coroner Jane Bentley said:
I find it unlikely that any further actions taken by police officers, service providers, friends or family members could have stopped Baxter from ultimately executing his murderous plans.
This endorses a key message from recent inquiries at state and national levels of the need to increase perpetrator accountability at all points of the system.
However, we cannot accept as inevitable the status quo that one woman in Australia is killed every nine days by a current or former partner.
Violence against women is preventable. Baxter’s actions reaffirm the well evidenced fact that men who commit intimate partner femicide rarely do so “out of the blue”.
Rowan Baxter had a history of violence. The inquest findings document how, in the period prior to his “final act of cowardice”, Baxter:
had been the subject of a domestic violence order application
had breached the conditions of a domestic violence order, an act for which he was not charged
had been the subject of an assault complaint
had a history of coercive controlling behaviours, details of which were provided by a friend of Hannah’s in an affidavit to Queensland police prior to her death.
Numerous Australian death reviews have found the period of relationship separation, histories of coercive and controlling behaviours, and interactions with the family court system are well recognised precursors to intimate partner femicide.
Victim survivor advocates have repeatedly said they are best placed to assess their risk.
The inquest showed Hannah Baxter had been in contact with police and had expressed her concerns to family and friends.
It exposed a system not built to effectively deal with men’s violence against women, or to contextualise every system interaction in a broader pattern in order to reveal the real risk to women and children.
The coroner made recommendations to improve policing, child safety, and service system responses, including:
a trial of a specialist domestic violence police station
increased training for all specialist domestic violence police officers
increased funding for men’s behaviour change programs both in prisons and in the community.
The recommendations stress the importance of multidisciplinary responses and show working in silos is ineffective.
There has been considerable recent reform in Queensland and across other states and territories.
This includes legislation designed to enhance domestic violence risk assessment and management practices, and to introduce information-sharing schemes essential to a whole-of-system response to domestic violence.
Victoria’s information-sharing system seeks to ensure risks are kept in full view across all parts of the system.
This aims to ensure that when women interact with various agencies, their experiences of an abuser’s violence are shared among professionals tasked with assessing and managing risk.
The inquest findings provide a clear reminder as to why effective risk assessment and information sharing are essential components of an effective whole-of-system response to domestic violence.
there was no real assessment of risk of harm to the children by QPS [Queensland Police Service] or Child Safety Officers – the only assessment was that Hannah was able to care for them.
This finding is critical.
Children frequently remain invisible at different points of the family violence system.
Yet in Australia, one child is killed almost every fortnight by a parent.
While children are typically treated as an extension of their primary carer, the risks children face must be identified and addressed in their own right.
An urgent need for sustained national and state action
The inquest findings are a stark reminder of the horrific cost of men’s violence against women in Australia and the need for urgent action.
With a new federal government in place, and the expected imminent release of the next National Plan to End Violence against Women and Children (as the old one is due to expire today), we now need a whole-of-government commitment to addressing all forms of men’s violence.
The draft National Plan (which replaces the one about to end) sets out a commitment to address prevention, intervention, response, and recovery. Encouragingly, this draft plan provided a much-needed commitment to recognising children as victim-survivors in their own right.
As the next National Plan comes into place, we need to focus on delivering the evidence-based recommendations of recent inquiries, commissions and consultations. Critically, we also need a transparent approach to monitoring progress.
We must not wait for the inevitable findings of the next inquest.
A bold national commitment is needed now. We sorely need a new national plan, matched by a resourcing commitment at the state and national level that befits the depth of the crisis.
Kate currently receives funding for family violence related research from the Australian Research Council, Australian Institute of Criminology, Australia’s National Research Organisation for Women’s Safety, the Victorian Government and the Department of Social Services. This piece is written by Kate Fitz-Gibbon in her capacity as Director of the Monash Gender and Family Violence Prevention Centre and are wholly independent of Kate Fitz-Gibbon’s role as Chair of Respect Victoria.
Marie Segrave receives funding for gender and family violence related research from the Australian Research Council, Australia’s National Research Organisation for Women’s Safety and Respect Victoria.
Sandra Walklate receives funding from the Australian Research Council and the Australian Institute of Criminology for research into violence against women. She is also in receipt of funding from the N8PRP in the UK for police related work on violence against women.
Ellen Reeves does not work for, consult, own shares in or receive funding from any company or organisation that would benefit from this article, and has disclosed no relevant affiliations beyond their academic appointment.
The election of the Albanese Labor government brings an opportunity to end one of the most detrimental elements of Australian refugee law and policy in the past decade: the use of temporary visas.
Temporary protection has been the only option available for asylum seekers who arrived by boat a decade ago and were recognised as refugees. Known as the “legacy caseload”, these people are caught in a system of law and policy that keeps them in a state of perpetual limbo.
As the new government committed to end temporary protection, we have just published a policy brief with the Kaldor Centre for International Refugee Law outlining how this could be achieved.
Our report sets out practical reforms that can be implemented relatively simply, within existing legislative provisions and with only minimal changes to policy and regulations.
The 17 recommendations were produced in consultation with refugees and asylum seekers living on temporary protection visas and bridging visas. We also consulted civil society, including former and current temporary protection visa holders and legal groups working with refugees.
The impact of temporary protection and the fast-track system on refugees and
asylum seekers has left many depressed and suicidal. Expectations from those living on temporary visas and the wider refugee advocates are high and there is significant apprehension about the transition.
The new government understands it will need to approach reforms carefully. Our recommendations are accompanied by a trauma-informed strategy to help reduce mental distress, deterioration and retraumatisation of asylum seekers, while also increasing community engagement.
In 2014, the Coalition government reintroduced a Howard-era three-year Temporary Protection Visa (TPV) and a five-year Safe Haven Enterprise Visa (SHEV) for the more than 30,000 people who arrived by boat between August 13 2012 and January 1 2014.
However, unlike the earlier Howard policy, the temporary visas this time provided no realistic prospect of applying for permanent protection.
The number of people in this “legacy caseload” as of May 2022 is 31,256.
They come from many countries. The largest number are from Afghanistan, Iran, Pakistan and Sri Lanka. The majority – around 19,500 people – have been found to be refugees and have been granted TPV and SHEV.
The 10,000 who have been refused a visa were assessed through a “fast-track” process that has been neither fair nor fast.
People who have been refused have been living in the Australian community for ten years or more while awaiting the outcome of appeals.
There are also many asylum seekers from Afghanistan who have been refused visas but who cannot return due to the reemergence of the Taliban in August 2021.
In other words, some of those refused visas may well be refugees or have other ties to the Australian community. However, the current legal system does not allow them to apply for other visas without going through cumbersome, expensive appeals and ministerial intervention processes.
People who hold TPVs and SHEVs are allowed to work but not to reunite with family or travel freely overseas.
Others live on precarious short-term bridging visas, some without the right to work. Many are without access to income support. In either situation, the uncertainty is damaging people’s mental health and well-being.
Key recommendations
The focus of the policy brief was to set out reforms either within the current legislative and policy framework, or with minimal changes.
This means changes can occur within a relatively short time frame.
Key recommendations include:
refugees on TPVs and SHEVs should be moved onto permanent visas known as Resolution of Status visas. People who have not yet been assessed or who have previously been refused protection should also be able to apply for a permanent visa that does not require another assessment of their protection claims
restrictions on travel for TPV and SHEV holders should be removed, pending the grant of a permanent visa and includes specific recommendations in relation to travel documents. Travel is essential for re-establishing links to separated family
family reunion, particularly partners and children, should be prioritised. Granting people permanent visas allows them to begin the process of family reunion through the family or humanitarian programs
the government should establish a specialised team in the Department of Home Affairs to work closely with migration agents, lawyers and refugee communities. This group could identify other options for allowing reunification of close relatives and children who, under current law, may not fall within the definition of “member of a family unit”. Families have been separated for at least 10 years; many left children at home who have now reached ages where they will no longer be considered dependent.
In 2014, the new minister for immigration, citizenship and multicultural affairs Andrew Giles said
Labor has a longstanding policy of opposing TPVs, for good reason. They do not provide a sustainable solution for refugees. The uncertainty exacerbates real mental health issues and denies people the capacity to live full lives. As well as significant international law concerns with these provisions, they put people in limbo. There is no deterrence value here, even if you accept that to be a valid policy objective – they only place vulnerable people in a place of uncertainty.
He now has significant power to put those words into action.
Mary Anne Kenny has previously received funding from the Australian Research Council and sitting fees from the Department of Home Affairs.
Ali Reza Yunespour is a Board Member of Community Refugee Sponsorship Australia (CRSA) and volunteer Partnership Coordinator with Indigo Foundation Australia.
Carol Grech is a board member of the Rosemary Bryant Research Foundation.
Nicholas Procter has previously received grant funding and sitting fees from from Department of Health and Department of Home Affairs.
Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Ben Swift, Educational Experiences team lead (Senior Lecturer), ANU School of Cybernetics, Australian National University
I love writing code to make things: apps, websites, charts, even music. It’s a skill I’ve worked hard at for
more than 20 years.
So I must confess last week’s news
about the release of a new “AI assistant” coding helper called GitHub Copilot gave me complicated feelings.
Copilot, which spits out code to order based on “plain English” descriptions, is a remarkable tool. But is it about to put coders like me out of a job?
Trained on billions of lines of human code
GitHub (now owned by Microsoft) is a collaboration platform and social network for coders. You can think of it as something like a cross between Dropbox and Instagram, used by everyone from individual hobbyists through to highly paid software engineers at big tech companies.
Over the past decade or so, GitHub’s users have uploaded tens of billions of lines of code for more than 200 million apps. That’s a lot of ifs and fors and print("hello world") statements.
The Copilot AI works like many other machine learning tools: it was “trained” by scanning through and looking for patterns in those tens of billions of lines of code written and uploaded by members of GitHub’s coder community.
Copilot produces code from instructions in plain English (the pale blue text). GitHub
The training can take many months, hundreds of millions of dollars in computing equipment, and enough electricity to run a house for a decade. Once it’s done, though, human coders can then write a description (in plain English) of what they want their code to do, and the Copilot AI helper will write the code for them.
Based on the Codex “language model”, Copilot is the next step in a long line of “intelligent auto-completion” tools. However, these have been far more limited in the past. Copilot is a significant improvement.
A startlingly effective assistant
I was given early “preview” access to Copilot about a year ago, and I’ve been using it on and off. It takes some practice to learn exactly how to frame your requests in English so the Copilot AI gives the most useful code output, but it can be startlingly effective.
However, we’re still a long way from “Hey Siri, make me a million dollar iPhone app”. It’s still necessary to use my software design skills to figure out what the different bits of code should do in my app.
To understand the level Copilot is working at, imagine writing an essay. You can’t just throw the essay question at it and expect it to produce a useful, well-argued piece. But if you figure out the argument and maybe write the topic sentence for each paragraph, it will often do a pretty good job at filling in the rest of each paragraph automatically.
Depending on the type of coding I’m doing, this can sometimes be a huge time- and brainpower-saver.
Biases and bugs
There are some open questions with these sorts of AI coding helper tools. I’m a bit worried they’ll introduce, and reinforce, winner-takes-all dynamics: very few companies have the data (in this case, the billions of lines of code) to build tools like this, so creating a competitor to Copilot will be challenging.
And will Copilot itself be able to suggest new and better ways to write code and build software? We have seen AI systems innovate before. On the other hand, Copilot may be limited to doing things the way we’ve always done them, as AI systems trained on past data are prone to do.
My experiences with Copilot have also made me very aware my expertise is still needed, to check the “suggested” code is actually what I’m looking for.
Sometimes it’s trivial to see that Copilot has misunderstood my input. Those are the easy cases, and the tool makes it easy to ask for a different suggestion.
The trickier cases are where the code looks right, but it may contain a subtle bug. The bug might be because this AI code generation stuff is hard, or it might be because the billions of lines of human-written code that Copilot was trained on contained bugs of their own.
Another concern is potential issues about licensing and ownership of the code Copilot was trained on. GitHub has said it is trying to address these issues, but we will have to wait and see how it turns out.
More output from the same input
At times, using Copilot has made me feel a little wistful. The skill I often think makes me at least a little bit special (my ability to write code and make things with computers) may be in the process of being “automated away”, like many other jobs have been at different times in human history.
However, I’m not selling my laptop and running off to live a simple
life in the bush just yet. The human coder is still a crucial part of the system, but as curator rather than creator.
Of course, you may be thinking “that’s what a coder would say” … and you may be right.
Many in white-collar “creative industries” which deal in
text and images are starting to wrestle with their fears of being (at least partially) automated away. Copilot shows some of us in the tech industry are in the same boat.
Still, I’m (cautiously) excited. Copilot is a force multiplier in the most optimistic tool-building tradition: it provides more leverage, to increase the useful output for the same amount of input.
These new tools and the new leverage they provide are embedded in wider systems of people, technology and environmental actors, and I’m really fascinated to see how these systems reconfigure themselves in response.
In the meantime, it might help save my brain juice for the hard parts of my coding work, which can only be a good thing.
The problem for planners and policymakers is many Australians oppose cycle lanes, believing they’ll only force drivers to drive more slowly and extend travel times.
But our new study, published in the journal Accident Analysis and Prevention, suggests not everyone around the world sees cycle lanes this way.
We found people in the United Kingdom and Australia typically misunderstand the impact cycle lanes have on speed limits – wrongly believing the addition of a cycle lane means cars would inevitably need to go more slowly.
To be clear, nobody is suggesting you should hit the accelerator and drive aggressively fast near cyclists. But if there is a safe cycle path that affords good distance between cars and bikes, there’s no reason the addition of a cycle path should necessarily slow down traffic.
Misunderstanding around this issue may be fuelling avoidable opposition to cycling infrastructure.
Misunderstanding around speed limits may be fuelling avoidable opposition to cycling infrastructure. Shutterstock
Our study involved 1,591 participants in the Netherlands, the UK and Australia. These three countries have similar speed limits in urban areas (50km/h), but the Netherlands has lower speed limits of 30km/h in residential areas.
First, we showed the study participants 15 pictures of streets without cycle lanes and asked them to estimate what the speed limit would be in these streets.
Interestingly, participants from the Netherlands always estimated much lower speeds for these pictures than their UK or Australian counterparts did.
This is important because previous research has shown that the higher speed limits are perceived, the faster drivers intend to drive. And higher speeds are the main contributor to road accidents (even more than drugs and fatigue).
Previous research has also shown 30km/h speed limits on local residential streets could reduce the Australian road death toll by 13%.
So, for our study, it was significant the Dutch participants always estimated the speed limit would be lower than the UK and Australian respondents did. It suggests Dutch drivers already view roads in a way that is safer for other road users (including cyclists).
What about when cycle lanes are added into the picture?
We then showed the participants pictures of the very same streets but after cycle lanes had been built on them (but showed them in a way that meant our participants wouldn’t realise these were the same streets).
In other words, we first showed them the streets without the cycle lanes and then the same street with cycle lanes (some of the cycle lanes were separated lanes, featuring a physical barrier dividing cyclists from cars; others were painted-on bike lanes with no physical barrier).
As we showed these new pictures, we asked the participants again to estimate the speed limit in these streets.
Study participants from Australia and the UK tended to believe cycle lanes would necessitate lower speed limits for drivers. In other words; they saw cycle lanes are a symbol of a slow commute, which would presumably therefore drive down support from drivers.
On the other hand, respondents in the Netherlands (where cycling is more common) perceived cycle lanes would not necessitate lower speed limits for drivers.
In fact, these participants tended to think cycle lanes might even suggest traffic could go faster because the cyclists are in a separate lane (and not mixed in with car traffic).
In short, our research found cycle lanes are usually misinterpreted as meaning “drivers, slow down!” in places where they are not common.
Where to from here?
Lower speed limits and cycle lanes are contested issues. Opposition usually comes from drivers who believe lower speed limits will significantly increase their journey times.
But this isn’t always the case. One 2017 study found “the generic impact of introducing 30km/h in urban residential streets is almost negligible in terms of travel time, ie. 48 seconds for a 27-minute trip, or less than 3%”.
In short, lower speed limits and cycle lanes will not necessarily make your driving time longer. Our study shows that people’s support of cycle lanes is influenced by familiarity with cycle lanes and perceptions of how driver speed limits will be affected by cycling infrastructure.
Australia can learn from other cities. Support for the implementation of lower speed limits and cycle lanes will make travelling safer, faster and more sustainable.
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.
COVID might be the largest mass casualty event in Australian history. And with one in 20 people with COVID still experiencing symptoms three months later, long COVID might even become Australia’s most significant cause of longer-term disability.
Around eight million Australians are estimated to have been infected with COVID during the pandemic, so a prevalence of 5% means 400,000 people could have long COVID. With more than 30,000 new cases of COVID detected each day in Australia, long COVID is becoming increasingly common.
We’ve known for some time that getting vaccinated reduces your chance of long COVID. Now new data suggests getting boosted further reduces your chance of long COVID.
But it’s still possible to get long COVID after being vaccinated – and Australia needs to be better prepared for this.
Long COVID is a potentially debilitating condition which follows the acute or early phase of COVID infection.
Affected people have described many symptoms, the most common being shortness of breath, fatigue, fever, headaches and “brain fog”.
While clinicians are familiar with post-viral or post-infective syndromes, long COVID is new. There is no diagnostic test, and it’s likely it’s really a mixture of different conditions with different underlying causes.
Different time-frames are used to define it. According to the Australian Department of Health, a person experiences long COVID when their symptoms remain four weeks after they first had COVID.
The World Health Organization says long COVID is usually three months from infection, lasts at least two months, and cannot be explained by another diagnosis.
Long COVID can include prolonged brain fog and shortness of breath. Shutterstock
What role does vaccination play?
People who are vaccinated are less likely to get COVID, have less severe COVID, and are less likely to pass it on.
People who are vaccinated are also less likely to get long COVID, with lower rates among those who have had their boosters.
Self-reported data from the United Kingdom compared symptoms in people who received two or three doses of vaccine and between the Delta and Omicron (BA1 or BA2) variants of COVID.
Some 9.5% of people who were likely infected with Delta and were double vaccinated reported long COVID symptoms that limited their activities. The rate for those who were triple vaccinated was less than half: 4.4%.
For Omicron, the rate was 6.2% for those likely to have had BA1 and were double vaccinated, and 5.3% with BA1 who were triple vaccinated.
These results are considered indicators only because the data was self-reported. But although we can’t yet be absolutely sure, triple vaccination looks to be associated with lower rates of long COVID.
Putting it all together, we estimate about 5% of people who had COVID in Australia will develop long COVID.
Children and adolescents appear to be less likely to get long COVID than adults and many will recover with time. But still, up to one in 50 children may get long COVID.
While vaccination protects children and young people from COVID, we don’t yet know if those kids who get breakthrough COVID infections after vaccination will be any more or less likely to develop long COVID.
It’s not yet clear whether vaccination improves symptoms and quality of life for people who already have long COVID. A recent UK review of the evidence suggests it might.
People with long COVID need support
People with long COVID have banded together on social media platforms to support each other, to share information, and to advocate for better care.
The Facebook group Australia Long COVID Community has more than 1,400 members. Many describe severe symptoms with significant disability, and difficulty returning to work.
While most people who are infected with COVID will recover without help, the 5% who get long COVID will often need health care to support them to recover. This support can be intensive and take time.
But Australia’s health, welfare, and disability services are under-prepared. We also have very little information about the number of people with long COVID, as health minister Mark Butler acknowledged last week:
So what do governments need to do?
We need to prepare our health, welfare, and disability services to support the growing number of Australians with long COVID. At a national level, we need:
surveillance for long COVID to track rates, symptoms and impact on work and quality of life over time
better support and resources for GPs to treat long COVID in primary care
more specialist long COVID clinics for those with more complex problems
disability supports for people whose problems become long-lasting
research to understand long COVID and how to best treat it.
Current recommendations are to see your GP for help with long COVID. But while GPs have experience managing post viral illnesses and there are guidelines for the care of post-COVID conditions, GPs are likely to need additional support and resources to respond.
Specialist long COVID clinics are opening in capital cities and regional centres to provide additional care. While these efforts are encouraging, they are likely to only be able to respond to a small proportion of the people who need help for long COVID.
In the US, President Joe Biden has pushed for people with long COVID to have access to federal disability supports. We need a similar plan in Australia.
Let’s not repeat the mistakes of stigmatising and dismissing earlier post-viral or post-infective syndromes like chronic fatigue syndrome. The devastating impact on those struggling to get a diagnosis, and adequate treatment and supports is still felt.
Andrew Baillie works for The University of Sydney in a position partially funded by Sydney Local Health District. He receives funding from the National health and Medical Research Council. He is affiliated with the Long-COVID Australia Collaboration.
Maree Teesson is Chair of Australia’s Mental Health Think Tank which is funded by the BHP Foundation. She is Director of The Matilda Centre, The University of Sydney. She is chair of the Million Minds Mission. She receives funding from the National Health and Medical Research Council, the Australian Government, BHP Foundation, Paul Ramsay Foundation and other research organisations. She is co-director of CLIMATESchools PTY LTD a company established in 2015 to distribute evidence resources to education organisations.
Philip Britton receives funding from the National Health and Medical Research Council, the Medical Research Future Fund, the Royal Australasian College of Physicians and the Commonwealth Department of Health
Tania Sorrell receives funding from NHMRC, ARC, MRFF, NSW Office of Health Medical Research
A tiny parasitic mite that lives on the European honeybee (Apis mellifera) has breached Australia’s border quarantine and been detected in managed bee hives in New South Wales.
This is bad news for Australia’s honey industry, with over 300 hives in Newcastle set to be destroyed and biosecurity zones in place. The potential economic impact to the honey industry is estimated at around A$70 million per year, but the broader impacts to agriculture are not yet known.
This is where much of the dialogue on the impact of varroa mite settling in Australia usually stops. But there’s another way to look at this pest: as an effective biocontrol for feral honeybees in Australia’s natural environment.
Honeybees were introduced to Australia almost 200 years ago and out-compete native pollinators, which may have dire flow-on effects for ecosystems. The varroa mite’s arrival in Australia was only a matter of time – and with better planning, we could benefit from one pest fighting another.
Making trade-offs
The varroa mite infests hives, parasitises the bees, and can spread viruses and other pathogens. They mainly feed and breed on honeybee larvae and pupae, causing malformation. If left unmanaged, heavy mite infestation can cause colony collapse in some circumstances.
The mite has spread across the world to colonise almost every known location of European honeybees. It has been kept out of Australia thanks to stringent border quarantine measures, but this tiny mite can easily hitchhike on imports, then establish and spread when it reaches a honeybee colony.
So would Australia benefit more from treating the varroa mite as a pest, or an environmental biocontrol? More research is needed to resolutely answer this question, but let’s look at a the potential trade-offs of either option.
Treating the mite as a pest would mean chasing down known outbreaks and destroying hives, beefing up border quarantine measures and supporting the beekeeping industry to tide them over the impact and adjustment period.
Beekeepers can stop the mite in its tracks in managed hives with chemical controls, but this comes at a cost, including some loss of productivity. And a loss of productivity in managed hives can have a knock-on effect on the pollination industry, as beekeepers are paid to take their bees to pollinate crops.
Thirty-five agricultural industries in Australia rely entirely or in part on bee pollination, including almonds, apples and cherries. Indeed, the total contribution of honeybees to Australia’s economy is estimated at $14.2 billion.
The potential consequences for industrial beekeeping and agriculture, and increased costs of production, can have unwelcome effects on food prices.
Treating the mite as a biocontrol
Treating the mite as an environmental biocontrol would mean diverting money for eradication and control measures to help industries live with varroa. This could be by, for instance, increasing the use of native pollinators for Australian agriculture.
It could also involve releasing the mite into feral honeybee hives, where we believe a rapid recovery of native pollinators is needed, such as in areas recovering from bushfires. The varroa mite has little impact on native bees because it’s specific to the Apis genus of the introduced bee, though the usual rules for biocontrol release would need to be followed.
Feral European honeybee populations are recognised as a key threatening process to Australia’s native biodiversity, with impacts felt across the country. Feral bees are abundant and efficient pollinators, and compete with native birds, insects and mammals (such as pygmy possums) for nectar from flowers.
Honeybees avoid, or only partially pollinate, some native plants. This means a high concentration of honeybees could shift the make-up of native vegetation in a region. They also pollinate invasive weeds such as gorse, lantana and scotch broom, which are particularly expensive to control in the wake of bushfires.
When the varroa mite breached New Zealand, feral honeybees declined by about 90% within a few years. However, there’s limited information about the ecological benefits of this, because the data was not collected while the focus was on agricultural industry impact.
It’s also worth noting that knocking down feral honeybees could also be good for the honeybee industry, as feral honeybees are a recognised competitor with commercial ones.
Making the best decision
Questions about trading-off potential agricultural costs for environmental benefits are difficult to answer. This is, in part, because any environmental benefits gained from reducing a widespread threat are usually indirect, such as flow-on effects of increased ecosystem health.
Another reason is because markets are well established for agricultural products and services, but they’re usually missing or only just forming for ecosystem services (such as flood control, water supply and quality, and cultural values).
To calculate the economic benefit of reducing feral honeybees, we first must put a value on the services natural ecosystems provide.
While some steps have been made, progress on implementation has been slow for the last decade. So far, we’ve predominately put values on ecosystem services from discrete natural assets, such as the Great Barrier Reef, which contributed an estimated $6.4 billion in 2015-2016 to Australia’s economy.
In the case of the varroa mite, we have known the potential for opportunities and costs from a likely invasion for more than a decade. But the focus has been on preventing the invasion to protect agriculture, because we’re mostly concerned about the industry’s direct benefits and impacts.
There have been no estimations of the economic benefits of using the mite as an environmental biocontrol to lower feral honeybee populations, even though our New Zealand friends did suggest, in a paper, we prepare ourselves.
We may successfully eradicate the varroa mite’s recent incursion to the relief of agriculture and beekeepers. But given the near inevitability of the mite establishing in Australia, we must invest in better understanding the holistic economics of keeping a potentially very important biocontrol out of the country.
Patrick O’Connor receives funding from the Australian Research Council, Agrifutures Australia and State Governments.
The COVID pandemic slowed mining activity across the Pacific. But as economic activity returns, an Australia-based company is poised to pursue what would be the largest mine in Papua New Guinea’s history.
The vast gold and copper project, known as the Frieda River mine, would also include a hydroelectric plant and a dam with a storage capacity for around 4.6 billion tonnes of mine tailings and waste rock.
The project is awaiting approval by the PNG government. However, locals, conservationists and experts say it could cause catastrophic harm to one of the world’s most important river systems and should not proceed as proposed.
Australia is PNG’s largest development partner. As resource extraction expands across the Pacific, the new Labor government is well placed to help our neighbours ensure mining activity doesn’t harm people or the environment.
The project threatens catastrophic harm to one of the world’s most important river systems, and the people who depend on it. Shutterstock
Remote, unstable terrain
The Frieda River mine is proposed by Brisbane-based, Chinese-owned company Pan Aust.
The project centres on the Frieda River copper-gold deposit located in the tropical mountain ranges of northwest PNG.
The river flows into the Sepik River Basin, one of the world’s great river systems. It’s the largest unpolluted freshwater system in New Guinea and among the largest freshwater basins in the Asia-Pacific.
The Frieda River deposit was discovered in the 1960s. It lies in extremely remote terrain, along the Pacific Ring of Fire which is prone to seismic activity.
The mine would produce tailings (or waste materials) containing sulphide, which turns into sulphuric acid when exposed to oxygen. For this reason, the tailings must be permanently covered by water.
The proposed mine’s location, high in the mountains, means a tailings accident could devastate the entire Sepik River Basin.
About 430,000 people depend on the Sepik River and nearby forests for their livelihood. The proposal has galvanised massive opposition from both locals and others.
Villagers travelling along PNG’s Fly River which is choked by tailings from the Ok Tedi mine. Author provided
Downplaying the risks
In 2020, ten independent experts including myself, were commissioned by PNG’s Centre for Environmental Law and Community Rights to individually review the project’s “environmental impact statement”. The work was undertaken pro bono.
I’m an experienced gold exploration geologist and environmental scientist. In my review, I found the statement downplayed or obscured the proposal’s extraordinary level of risk.
First, it omitted a report by design engineers that analysed the extreme consequences of dam failure.
Second, the main report failed to mention the dam would need an intensive inspection and maintenance regime “in perpetuity”. In other words, a potentially toxic dam in a remote part of a very poor country requires highly skilled and experienced professionals to maintain it – not just for the 33-year life of the mine, but forever.
Our reports prompted a group of UN Special Rapporteurs to write letters of concern to the governments of PNG, Australia, China and Canada, where companies involved in the joint venture have ties.
The letters said the mine’s development appeared to “disregard the human rights of those affected … given the nature of the project it could undermine the rights of Sepik children to life, health, culture, and a healthy environment, including the rights of unborn generations.”
The Conversation contacted Pan Aust for a response to these claims. In a statement, the company said it was “respectfully engaged in the Government of Papua New Guinea’s approvals process” and as such, it was inappropriate to provide a public comment.
The UN said the mine’s development seemed to disregard the human rights of those affected. Shutterstock
New safeguards are needed
Inadequate consideration of a mine’s social and environmental impact is rife cross the Pacific. And PNG provides many examples of the catastrophes that can result.
Tailings from BHP’s ill-fated Ok-Tedi mine, located in the same mountain range as the proposed Frieda River mine, severely damaged nearby rivers.
And environmental damage from the Panguna copper mine was a key factor in community unrest and the Bougainville civil war.
Recent research into governance of mining in PNG found government agencies were under-resourced, leaving “companies as effectively self-regulating”.
Proponents of mining in PNG frequently cite its contribution to economic development. But for the benefits to be realised, resources must be extracted in a way that is environmentally, socially and economically sustainable.
The Panguna copper mine, which triggered major civil unrest. Ilya Gridneff/AAP
New laws are needed to ensure resource extraction projects in PNG don’t cause long-lasting social and environmental damage. This should include mandatory, transparent and independent reviews of projects.
Australia has extensive experience with environmental regulation of mining projects and can assist in this regard. Such assistance should be delivered in a way that strengthens relations between Australia and PNG, and empowers and equips the smaller nation.
Sustainable development for our Pacific neighbours is in Australia’s strategic interests. Australian companies often benefit significantly from resource extraction in PNG, creating an extra responsibility to ensure better outcomes.
Michael Main was one of ten independent expert reviewers of the Environmental Impact Statement for the Sepik Development Project and advises on resource extraction projects in the Pacific.
Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Rachele Sloane, Graduate Researcher and Tutor – Master of Education, Student Wellbeing Specialisation (MGSE), The University of Melbourne
Shutterstock
New Child Safe Standards come into effect in Victoria this Friday, July 1. The set of 11 standards builds on the original seven. One significant change was made with little fanfare: well-being was included alongside safety as a key responsibility of organisations working with children and young people.
This change acknowledges growing community expectations and the shift toward a wellness-focused culture. Well-being is often discussed as self-evident.
Indeed, the new standards themselves do not provide a clear definition of well-being. Nor are they clear about associated expectations of what good practice looks like in schools and other educational settings.
Given these standards will amount to a requirement, organisations will need clear direction on how to meet their obligations in regard to well-being.
Well-being is a complex and multifaceted concept. Some researchers have even characterised it as a wicked problem. To meet this new responsibility to support, develop and provide for children and young people’s well-being, schools and educational settings in particular need to understand what this actually means.
Why have the standards changed?
Victoria’s Child Safe Standards recognise the vulnerability of children and young people and the responsibility of adults to help keep them safe. The standards have been in place since January 2016.
The Royal Commission into Institutional Responses to Child Sexual Abuse presented its final report in December 2017. The Victorian government then reviewed the standards and made several recommendations to strengthen the standards and align them more closely with the national principles for child-safe organisations. The primary focus during this time was on safety.
In recent years, interest in the concept of well-being has exploded, particularly with the impacts of COVID-19 on children and young people. Research and debate on well-being have burgeoned.
The Commission for Children and Young People (CCYP) assists organisations to adhere to the Child Safe Standards. This has involved developing and embedding in practice the policy and procedures that support children’s safety.
The commission continues to provide guidance on the new standards. However, the concept of well-being has not been explicitly discussed or defined.
So what exactly is well-being?
Well-being is a term that seems simple enough on the surface and yet evades clear definition. It’s often defined as the subjective experience of quality of life. It is frequently linked to mental health, and in education is often conflated with attendance and behaviour.
The World Health Organization speaks about health as being more than merely the absence of illness. Its definition includes holistic well-being across multiple domains of functioning, but stops short of nominating a single definition of well-being itself.
The well-being of children and young people specifically is more complex still. As a concept, their well-being has been discussed simply as relating to mental health through to more complex understandings as an antidote to poor behaviour and as the key ingredient of positive outcomes.
The concept of youth well-being is so complex that there are increasing attempts to formally define it through conceptual framing. This framing is useful in drawing together knowledge from across disciplines and aspects of physical, mental and social health, along with subjective experience of life, behaviour and skills.
The problem remains that this framing doesn’t give us a concise and practical working definition. This may be because well-being itself is understood differently depending on the context and community in which it is being discussed.
This idea of including well-being in education is of course not new. Evidence to support the benefits of including well-being as an educational outcome has grown steadily over the past two decades.
Well-being has been included in Australia’s educational goals in successive policy directives. It’s reflected in growing numbers of focused programs targeted at schools.
Schools are already working to support student well-being through promotion, prevention and intervention. Unfortunately, definitions of well-being vary widely between policies and programs. The complexity and inconsistency of the concept and how to achieve it continue to create significant challenges.
This is reflected in the findings of a recent study of school principals in New South Wales and in the recommendations to come out of the Royal Commission into Victoria’s Mental Health System. These difficulties suggest schools are overwhelmed with choice and need greater support to select evidence-based programs that are shown to be effective.
Including well-being in the new Child Safe Standards requires schools to focus on well-being. They must now take on an increased responsibility to care not only for student safety but also their well-being.
Schools will have to revise and develop policy in ways that acknowledge the importance and complexity of well-being. They will need to engage thoughtfully with this concept.
As the standards have not defined the term, schools will need to conceptualise this concept for their context. This means drawing together and making explicit all the aspects that the school community understands as well-being. That’s likely to cover health, skills and capabilities, behaviours and subjective experiences.
Policymakers need to provide greater conceptual clarity to support schools in this important work.
Rachele Sloane receives an Australian Research Training Program Scholarship to support her Doctoral research at The University of Melbourne – Melbourne Graduate School of Education.
Annie Gowing 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.
When the temperature drops in the southern hemisphere, you might like to stave off the chill with a big steaming pot of mulled wine, and fill your home with the comforting aroma of red wine, citrus and spice.
The mention of mulled wine conjures images of winter-wonderland white-Christmas scenes – no matter where in the world you live.
Although mulled wine is a staple of contemporary Christmas celebrations throughout Europe, and the customs and recipes may differ somewhat, the celebratory nature of the warm, spiced (usually) red wine is common to all – as are the ingredients sugar, cinnamon and cloves.
Its long history incorporates both pagan and Christian lore, traverses old and new worlds and established it as a favourite Christmastime beverage, travellers’ tipple of choice and a tonic of sorts in times of convalescence.
Whether for festivity or fortification, mulled wine has been around for at least 2,000 years.
The ancient Greek version of mulled wine, Ypocras or Hippocras, takes its name from Hippocrates, the Greek physician regarded as the father of medicine. (It is also the name of the apothecary’s bag or sieve used to strain this wine.)
Wine played an important role in medicine in Greek antiquity. In the only ancient cookery book surviving to our times, De re coquinaria, we see a few versions of spice wine (conditum paradoxum) and wine with honey and pepper.
The latter, known as conditum melizomum viatorum was recommended for travellers: the honey and spices acted as a preservative, allowing the alcohol to accompany travellers on long journeys.
Conditum paradoxium became a prominent feature of the Saturnalia Festival in ancient Rome: the winter solstice celebration of the passing of the shortest day of the year and the rebirth of the Sun.
Conditum paradoxium was a prominent feature of the Roman winter festival, Saturnalia. Uffizi/Wikimedia Commons
By the time of the late-Roman Republic, Saturnalia had grown from a one-day celebration to a week-long festival held each year from December 17 to 23. Consuming the warming wine as part of the celebrations was thought to help ward off winter illness and so became firmly associated with the December celebrations.
Towards the end of the 4th century, this pagan solstice celebration became interwoven with Christianity and the celebration of Christmas Day. By the middle ages, mulled wine had become entrenched as part of the festivities throughout Europe.
According to several medieval cookbooks the most common of the sweet, spiced wines in the late middle-ages were still referred to as hippocras, with the term “mulled wine” coming later.
Just as they do today, ingredients varied depending on the region, but key components were hot red wine blended with sugar and ground spices – usually ginger, cinnamon and pepper and sometimes nutmeg and cloves.
In Europe, mulled wine is synonymous with winter scenes. Shutterstock
Throughout Europe, mulled wine is synonymous with postcard scenes of snow-capped Alps, après-ski shenanigans, the aroma of roasting chestnuts and Christmas markets.
In Sweden, glogg comes sprinkled with almonds and plump raisins, which have soaked up the wine and taken on the flavour of the spices. It is often served with distinctive raisin-studded saffron buns called Lussekatter.
Bischopswijn (Bishop’s Wine) is the Dutch name, in honour of Saint Nicholas, the bishop celebrated during the Feast of Sinterklaas in early December in the Netherlands.
Mulled wine is a staple of European Christmas markets. Shutterstock
Italians call it vin hrüle (French for “burnt wine”). In Poland it’s called grzane wino and in Germany it is gluhwein, which both directly translate to mulled wine.
So beloved is gluhwein in Germany, that when popular Christmas markets were cancelled in December 2020 due to COVID restrictions, pop-up gluhwein stalls began appearing in parks and street corners in German cities despite the rules.
It sparked a plea in parliament from then German Chancellor Angela Merkel for citizens to forgo their usual Christmastime tipple to help avoid increased numbers of deaths.
Exorcising the winter chill
In France it’s called vin chaud (“hot wine”) and more likely than not to contain star anise. The larger-than-life French writer Colette described vin chaud as “the great exorcist of winter crepuscules [twilight] that fall as early as three o’clock” in an advertisement she wrote for a French wine merchant in the early 20th century.
Rather than a Christmastime tipple, in the first 100 years of Australian settlement, mulled wine was more likely to be administered during times of illness or convalescence rather than times of celebration.
It may not be Christmas – but that doesn’t mean you don’t need a winter warmer. Shutterstock
In the 19th and 20th centuries Australian domestic cookbooks commonly included recipes for sick or convalescing patients. Advice about food preparation for “invalids”, “convalescents” or “the sickroom” would commonly take up an entire section of cookbooks. Many of these included recipes for mulled wine.
With nobody under any illusions nowadays that mixing up a large amount of sugar in a hefty pot of red wine is good for anyone’s health, we find other similarly absurd excuses to partake. Christmas in July, anyone?
Morag Kobez 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.
We will continue bringing you the news, holding the powerful to account for their actions and decisions, calling attention to government lapses that further disempower the disadvantaged. We will hold the line.
Dear readers and viewers, We thought this day would never come, even as we were warned in the first of week of December last year that the Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) would be handing down a ruling against us.
Because we have acted in good faith and adhered to the best standards in a fast-evolving business environment, we were confident that the country’s key business regulator would put public interest above other interests that were at play in this case.
We were, in fact, initially relieved that it was the SEC that initiated what appeared to us as a customary due diligence act, considering our prior information that it was the Office of the Solicitor-General that had formed, as early as November 2016, a special team to build a case against us.
We were wrong. The SEC’s kill order revoking Rappler’s licence to operate is the first of its kind in history — both for the Commission and for Philippine media. What this means for you, and for us, is that the Commission is ordering us to close shop, to cease telling you stories, to stop speaking truth to power, and to let go of everything that we have built — and created — with you since 2012.
All because they focused on one clause in one of our contracts which we submitted to — and was accepted by — the SEC in 2015.
Now the Commission is accusing us of violating the Constitution, a serious charge considering how, as a company imbued with public interest, we have consistently been transparent and above-board in our practices.
Transparency best proof Every year since we incorporated in 2012, we have dutifully complied with all SEC regulations and submitted all requirements even at the risk of exposing our corporate data to irresponsible hands with an agenda.
Transparency, we believe, is the best proof of good faith and good conduct. All these seem not to matter as far as the SEC is concerned.
In a record investigation time of 5 months and after President Rodrigo Duterte himself blasted Rappler in his second SONA in July 2017, the SEC released this ruling against us.
This is pure and simple harassment, the seeming coup de grace to the relentless and malicious attacks against us since 2016:
We intend to not only contest this through all legal processes available to us, but also to fight for our freedom to do journalism and for your right to be heard through an independent platform like Rappler.
We’ve been through a lot together, through good and bad — sharing stories, building communities, inspiring hope, uncovering wrongdoing, battling trolls, exposing the fake. We will continue bringing you the news, holding the powerful to account for their actions and decisions, calling attention to government lapses that further disempower the disadvantaged.
We will hold the line. The support you’ve shown us all this time, and our commitment to tell you stories without fear, give us hope.
You inspire courage. You have taught us that when you stand and fight for what is right, there is no dead-end, only obstacles that can only make us stronger. We ask you to stand with us again at this difficult time.
The Bill gives effect to the government’s plan to replace TVNZ and RNZ with a new entity designed for the digital age, but the legislation as it stands does little more than cement the two public broadcasters together.
On first reading (mine, not Parliament’s), it looks like a legislative instrument to give effect to the merger, but its stated intent and functions are much wider. This is supposed to be the legal foundation upon which a new age of public media is to be built.
The general policy statement accompanying the Bill says: “This Bill seeks to strengthen the delivery of public media services by establishing a new public media entity.” It may achieve the latter, but it falls far short of guaranteeing its objective.
The Bill falls short on many fronts: Matters that should be covered are omitted, others are dealt with in obtuse ways, boilerplate clauses are employed in place of purposeful creativity, and ironclad protection of the public interest is absent.
The Bill’s shortcomings are too numerous to set out all of them, but a few key failings give a sense of how much work must be done on the proposed law through its committee stages.
The Bill states the new organisation will be a Crown entity but does not stipulate the category under which it must fall. We need to go to Schedule 2 Part 1 to find that Schedule 2 of the Crown Entities Act is to be amended to make Aotearoa New Zealand Public Media an autonomous Crown entity.
Why the change? Both TVNZ and RNZ are currently Crown companies. Why the change?
Was it because autonomous Crown entities “must have regard to government policy when directed by the responsible Minister”? While the new public media organisation will be protected against ministerial interference on matters relating content and news gathering, there are many ways to skin the cat.
Why was the new entity not designated an Independent Crown Entity which is “generally independent of government policy”?
The Bill states that, in accordance with provisions of the Crown Entities Act, the Minister of Broadcasting and Media will appoint the board of the new entity, but the new Bill stipulates at least two of those directors will be nominated by the Minister for Māori Development.
As things stand, that means Willie Jackson will appoint the entire board because he holds both portfolios. The proposed legislation does not anticipate that aggregation of power.
Ministers are writ large across the Bill. There is oversight of the new entity by no fewer than three, possibly four. Aside from the Minister of Broadcasting and Media, the finance minister has direct powers over financial issues and the Māori development minister has Te Tiriti oversight.
The Crown Entities Act provides for the broadcasting minister to appoint a monitor to act as his eyes and ears over the new entity. The Ministry for Culture and Heritage has been working behind the scenes to gear itself to take on that role – and an even wider role across all media if its current strategy framework draft is anything to go by. So, it is possible that its minister (currently Carmel Sepuloni) will also have a look-in.
Independence absolutely vital I do not think that augers well for the independence that is absolutely vital if the new body is to gain and retain public trust and confidence.
Yes, the Bill does carry over the provisions in existing legislation that tells ministers to keep their hands off editorial matters. However, there are too many other mechanisms by which politicians can influence the direction of the new organisation.
There is a charter that should provide its own protections, given that the relevant minister’s actions must be consistent with it. However, the charter in the Bill consists largely of boilerplate generalities that are less aspirational than the existing RNZ charter.
It is in marked contrast to the BBC Charter, which is erudite, explicit, and carries more direct obligations.
Submissions on the Bill will, no doubt, focus on the charter and it may yet go through iterations that improve it. One necessary improvement relates to the digital environment that made all of this reorganisation necessary. Although there is passing reference to online services, the tenor of the Bill is rooted in the present, not the future.
The entity’s principal purpose is “broadcasting”. That would be fine if the term was defined in broad enough terms. However, it talks of “transmitting” and “reception by the New Zealand public by means of receiving apparatus”. That hardly conjures up pictures of very smart interactive devices and a community for whom one-way linear transmission is antiquated.
The charter does state that one of its principles is “innovating and taking creative risks” but that looks tame alongside the BBC Charter’s clause on technology that states it “must promote technological innovation, and maintain a leading role in research and development”.
Technologically aspirational requirements I would have thought that, in order to set the stage for a future-oriented organisation built for the digital age, the Bill just might contain some technologically aspirational requirements.
It is not the only element of the new organisation that is absent from the proposed legislation.
Aside from a pressing need to provide far more robust independent governance, the Bill’s most glaring omissions relate to finance and internal structures.
The Bill contains an explicit requirement that RNZ’s commercial-free services will continue, and where a charge is applied to new services on first broadcast it will later be free. There is no reference in the Bill, however, to TVNZ’s current commercial status, nor to annual appropriations from government.
It takes a careful reading of the Bill’s schedules and amendments to those in other acts to determine whether the current practice of channelling RNZ’s funding through NZ on Air will continue. Reading between the lines it appears that a more direct funding stream is being contemplated, with some form of coordination with other bodies such as NZ on Air and Te Māngai Pāho.
The Bill itself makes no direct reference to future requirements for TVNZ to pay a dividend but a tick in a column in the Bill’s schedule suggests the new entity will not contribute to the Treasury coffers.
Beyond that, the finances of the new entity are a deep void. The new organisation faces real challenges in reconciling public funding and commercial revenue. It must also determine the division of expenditure associated with programming to meet the expectations created by both sources.
No legislative guidance However, there is no legislative guidance on how these challenges should be met. There is total silence on commercial expectations, and on the mechanisms by which any continuity of government funding will be calculated or guaranteed. The Cabinet papers released to date suggest funding matters will be dealt with through the Ministry for Culture and Heritage. So why is that not explicit in the Bill?
Internal structures — which must address the cultural and funding process differences between commercial and non-commercial broadcasting — are apparently entirely in the hands of the Establishment board as there is nothing in the Bill that mandates the unique internal structure that will be needed to satisfy both imperatives. Does Parliament have no view, for example, on whether news and current affairs should be structurally separated from a commercial enterprise, say as a separate subsidiary with its own statutory independence?
Why is there no requirement to follow the Irish precedent whereby the state broadcaster RTÉ must adhere to a Fair Trading Policy that complies with EU rules on State aid? That policy requires RTÉ “to trade in a manner which ensures that public funds are not used to subsidise RTÉ’s commercial activities…[and] that ensures that RTÉ’s commercial activities are compatible with its public service objects.”
These questions, and more, will be raised during the Bill’s select committee hearings. My fear is that the timetable set out for the legislation — it must be passed and in force by the end of the year — will truncate the process to the point where the necessarily exhaustive examination of its provisions will not take place.
Dr Gavin Ellis holds a PhD in political studies. He is a media consultant and researcher. A former editor-in-chief of The New Zealand Herald, he has a background in journalism and communications — covering both editorial and management roles — that spans more than half a century. Dr Ellis publishes a website called Knightly Views where this commentary was first published and it is republished by Asia Pacific Report with permission.
Source: Council on Hemispheric Affairs – Analysis-Reportage
By John Perry Managua, Nicaragua
Two years ago, COHA reported on the manufactured “refugee” crisis around Nicaraguans living in Costa Rica.[1] Now the United Nations Refugee Agency (UNHCR) is saying that “102,000 people fled Nicaragua and sought asylum in Costa Rica” in 2021. As this article shows, this statement is inaccurate, adding further to the myth that Nicaragua is suffering a refugee crisis.
On June 20, a group called “SOSNicaragua” which is based in Costa Rica, held a conference to mark World Refugee Day. Called “Breaking down walls, building hope,” it was addressed by the head of the Costa Rican government’s Refugee Unit, Esther Núñez.[2] She confirmed that, since 2018, Costa Rica had received 175,055 applications for asylum, the majority from Nicaragua. However, the rest of her message must have been less welcome to the participants. Her unit had limited capacity to deal with these cases, she said, but in any case “a large proportion” of the people who apply for refugee status in Costa Rica do so “because they need to regulate their migratory status, but they do not really qualify for asylum” [my emphasis].
A closer look at asylum claims of Nicaraguans in Costa Rica
Núñez was repeating a point made by the then president of Costa Rica, Carlos Alvarado, when numbers of asylum claims first began to grow, after the violent, US-backed coup attempt in Nicaragua in 2018. He declared that more than 80% of recent asylum requests came from people who had been living in Costa Rica without documents before Nicaragua’s crisis.[3] In the four years since this statement, Costa Rica has made a decision on just 7,803 asylum claims from Nicaraguans and has rejected 60% of them.[4] Even getting an initial appointment to make a claim means a wait of two to three years, according to a Costa Rican NGO that assists refugees.[5]
Yet the UN behaves as if all the asylum claims are not only justified but are made by people who have recently crossed the border, driven by political persecution in Nicaragua. On June 16, the UN human rights chief, Michelle Bachelet, warned that “sociopolitical, economic and human rights crises” in Nicaragua are forcing thousands to leave their homes, in a wave of migration that is growing in “unprecedented numbers.”[6] Bachelet said that over the last eight months “the number of Nicaraguan refugees and asylum seekers in Costa Rica has doubled, reaching a total of 150,000 new applicants since 2018.″ She made no reference to the Costa Rican government’s assertions that most of these claims come from Nicaraguans already living there before 2018. Nor did she explain that claims have only “doubled” because significant numbers of them have reached the formal stages after sometimes waiting for years to be processed.
Costa Rica and Nicaragua are economically interdependent
As Jeff Abbott points out in The Progressive, “Nicaraguans have been migrating to Costa Rica for decades. The two countries are historically and geographically tied together, with seasonal migration filling important jobs within the Costa Rican economy.”[7] He quotes the coordinator of Costa Rica’s Nicaraguan Links Association, describing the “economic interdependence between the two countries.” In fact, around 385,000 Nicaraguans are officially residents in Costa Rica, with perhaps another 200,000 there without official documents, totaling about 10% of the population. In a typical year, there are more than 900,000 official cross-border movements by Nicaraguans, with similar numbers leaving as there are entering the country: principally, migrant workers traveling back and forth, according to Costa Rica’s seasonal job opportunities (see table). Thousands more make unofficial crossings to avoid paying the border fees.
Source: Compiled from data from the Costa Rica Migration Department website (https://www.migracion.go.cr/Paginas/Centro%20de%20Documentaci%C3%B3n/Estad%C3%ADsticas.aspx)
However, official cross-border movements fell by two-thirds in 2020, during the pandemic. Costa Rica was desperate to keep its Nicaraguan workers, with the then vice-president urging Nicaraguans to stay.[8] But the country was hit hard by COVID-19, which badly affected its tourist trade: The Economistreported that government debt reached one of the highest levels in Latin America and, in return for loans to bail out the government, the IMF insisted on spending cuts.[9] Poverty now affects nearly one-third of Costa Rican households.[10] In 2021, over 5,000 more Nicaraguans left Costa Rica than entered it. Although traffic has increased in the first months of 2022, it is still less than half of pre-pandemic levels. Lack of job opportunities in Costa Rica, for Nicaraguans who have historically worked there, is one of the factors leading to more migration north to the United States.
Of course, Nicaragua was also affected by the pandemic, as well as the additional damage caused in November 2020 by two devastating hurricanes. Its economy grew by 10% in 2021, which returned it to pre-pandemic levels, but growth was still not sufficient for the country to recover from the harsh economic effects of the 2018 coup attempt. It is therefore not surprising that, while far fewer Nicaraguans are traveling to Costa Rica to work, a proportion of those already there are looking to regularize their immigration status by seeking asylum, as Esther Núñez pointed out.
Migrants are instead heading to the United States
The temporary breakdown of the historic economic ties between the two countries has almost certainly given extra impetus to Nicaraguan migration northwards, to the United States. Some 163,000 Nicaraguans have been encountered after crossing the U.S. border since January 2020, while before then numbers amounted to a few hundred each month. While (again) this increase is blamed (by the BBC, for example)[11] on the “atmosphere of terror” in Nicaragua, the reality is more mundane.
As Tom Ricker points out, writing for the Quixote Center,[12] while political instability may be a factor, it is certainly no more of a factor than it is for the larger migration flows from the “northern triangle” countries (Honduras, El Salvador and Guatemala). Post-COVID economic problems are also as great, perhaps greater, in the northern triangle. But there are factors unique to Nicaragua: reduced job opportunities in Costa Rica, the growing effect of U.S. sanctions, and the relatively more favorable treatment which Nicaraguans have received after crossing the U.S. border. Indeed, the BBC quotes the case of a Nicaraguan who declared himself to the U.S. border patrol, was detained for a few weeks and then released to await a court hearing on his case. Many new arrivals get travel permits to join relatives elsewhere in the U.S., and the government pays for bus and air transport. The perception that well-paying U.S. jobs are readily available to Nicaraguans has been created by advertising in social media and the activities of the “coyotes” who facilitate the journey north.
The UN Refugee Agency gets it wrong – again
However, the UN Refugee Agency (UNHCR) appears to be blind to economic factors driving migration, and ever keener to claim that Nicaraguans are escaping political repression. In its recently issued report on Global Trends 2021,[13] it picks out Nicaragua on a world map showing forced displacement, and a chart shows Nicaragua ranked #2 in the world for asylum applications last year, below Afghanistan but ahead of Syria (see chart).
Major sources of new asylum applications, 2021 (UN Refugee Agency). Source: UNHCR Global Trends 2021.
Of the 111,600 claims attributed to Nicaraguans in 2021, almost all (102,000) are made in Costa Rica. However, the official Costa Rican figure for claims registered by Nicaraguans in 2021 is only slightly more than half of this, at 52,894. How does UNHCR arrive at the higher figure? Key to understanding the statistics is awareness of the extreme slowness with which Costa Rica deals with asylum applications. By the end of 2021, it had dealt with fewer than 7% of the 116,970 applications from Nicaraguans received over the previous four years. In addition to these formal claims, there are around 50,000 more applications at various stages before registration, many of them lodged before 2021. In correspondence with the UNHCR statistics office, they revealed that “In agreement with the Government of Costa Rica,” they added this backlog of what might be called “pre-applications” to the official tally of registered claims, to produce a total of 102,000. But the Global Trends report, far from making this clear, treats this number as relating to newclaims in 2021 alone, and concludes that 102,000 Nicaraguans “fled” their country last year (see picture). The caption maintains:“In 2021 some 102,000 people fled Nicaragua and sought asylum in Costa Rica.”
Source: UNHCR Global Trends 2021.
Disinformation, used by opposition media
Why the UNHCR wants to portray Nicaraguans as being as much at risk as people fleeing Afghanistan and Syria is a question only they can answer. It is a convenient ploy for the Costa Rican government, since it receives UN financial assistance to respond to the plight of Nicaraguans.[14] However, it also gives added momentum to the media message that Nicaraguans are fleeing persecution. Because the increase in Nicaraguan migration northwards is a focus of media attention, exaggerating the flows southwards to Costa Rica adds to the impression of a country in crisis. This adds fuel to the flames for Nicaragua’s opposition media, of course. For example, Confidencial, a web outlet much cited by international media, gives ever more exaggerated versions of the migration figures. It claimed in June that some 400,000 Nicaraguans had left the country since the beginning of 2020. Yet even adding together the encounters over that period at U.S. borders (163,000), with the accumulation of asylum applications in Costa Rica over the same period (93,000), only produces a total of 256,000. And as we have seen, this does not compare like-with-like.
The empirical evidence indicates that migration to Costa Rica has almost certainly fallen sharply, while there has been a matching increase in migration to the United States. Economic motives are likely to be predominant, although there are political factors too. However, it is far from an “exodus” and it is ridiculous to create a headline (as the BBC does) suggesting that most people would “rather die” than stay in Nicaragua. Unfortunately, and irresponsibly, the UN Refugee Agency is adding to the scare stories, rather than sticking to the facts.
John Perry, Senior Research Fellow at COHA, is a writer living in Masaya, Nicaragua.
Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Caleb Goods, Senior Lecturer – Management and Organisations, UWA Business School, The University of Western Australia
Uber Australia has struck a historic agreement with the Transport Workers’ Union – a statement of principles that re-regulate work in the Australian rideshare and food delivery industry.
This is a major shift to industrial relations in the gig economy.
Uber and its rival platforms have largely treated their workforce as independent contractors, not employees with rights to benefits such as sick leave, minimum wages or union representation.
Now the poster company of the gig economy has agreed with the union that workers on the platform should receive some baseline conditions.
What Uber and the Transport Workers’ Union agree on
First, and most importantly, Uber and the Transport Workers’ Union have agreed to support the creation of an independent umpire, potentially as part of the Fair Work Commission, to apply minimum standards and practices across the industry.
There are four key objectives.
First, an enforceable floor around earnings, to give transparency to drivers and ensure platforms don’t seek to compete by driving down labour costs. Earnings are a critical concern for gig workers.
Second, enhanced and low-cost opportunities for workers to resolve disputes via an independent umpire. Gig workers, as contractors, currently have little recourse to address grievances.
Third, the right for workers to collectively organise and be represented by a union.
Fourth, the effective enforcement of these and other standards, including occupational health and safety compliance.
Beyond these key principles, Uber and the Transport Workers’ Union have also agreed to have an ongoing conversation about making these principles work in reality, not just on paper.
Why now?
The Uber-Transport Workers’ Union statement of principle follows the union signing a similar joint charter with DoorDash in May.
Given DoorDash has been operating in Australia since 2019, and Uber since 2012, why are they making these voluntary agreements to pursue improved working conditions now?
The answer seems reasonably obvious: the Morrison government, which had little enthusiasm for regulating the gig economy, has been replaced by the Albanese government, which has signalled it will.
The new Labor government’s plans for the gig economy and employee-like work arrangements include giving the Fair Work Commission the power to regulate “employee-like” forms of work.
The exact details and timeline for these reforms have not been announced.
These union-platform agreements suggest that platforms are keen to get in front of, and potentially shape, this regulation agenda.
No more debating classification
Critically, unions and platforms working together may mean the end of the classification debates – employee versus independent contractor – that have been fought out in the Fair Work Commission and the courts over the past five years.
As we have suggested previously, the debates over whether workers treated as independent contractors should actually have been classified as employees have largely been a dead-end. They may have even harmed workers, as platforms have sought to avoid doing anything the Fair Work Commission or a court might interpret as indicative of an employer-employee relationship.
This agreement represents a different approach that may produce better outcomes. It should help platforms avoid the cost and reputational damage of ongoing litigation. It also helps the union. Recent High Court rulings have made it harder for the union to recruit, organise and represent gig workers. This agreement implicitly accepts the union’s right to represent those workers.
Setting the agenda
These statements of principles also strongly align with the Albanese government’s proposal to imporve the conditions of “employee-like work.”
Uber and Doordash appear to be embracing self-regulation to help set the agenda around what is (and importantly what is not) included in the new regulations for employee-like work arrangements.
The future of gig work is looking very different from what it did a few months ago.
Caleb Goods is part of a research team that received a University of Sydney Business School Industry Partnership grant. Uber Technologies is a Partner Organisation on this grant and provided a minority financial contribution to the project.
Alex Veen is part of a research team that received a University of Sydney Business School Industry Partnership grant. Uber Technologies is a Partner Organisation on this grant and provided a minority financial contribution to the project. He further receives funding from the Australian Research Council in the form a Discovery Early Career Researcher Award (DECRA) for his project entitled ‘Algorithmic management and the future of work: lessons from the gig economy.’
Tom Barratt is part of a research team that received a University of Sydney Business School Industry Partnership grant. Uber Technologies is a Partner Organisation on this grant and provided a minority financial contribution to the project.
E-cigarettes and vape products are illegally imported into Australia. Some claim not to contain nicotine, but do.Simon Collins/Shutterstock
ABC TV’s Four Corners this week reported how unlawful sale of e-cigarettes in Australia is out of control.
The program highlighted the effects on young people, in particular, including how easy it is for them to buy the products.
How did this slow-moving public health train wreck unfold in broad daylight, almost a decade after the Cancer Council warned it was coming?
The answer is poor or non-existent enforcement of good laws.
A growing problem
The use of all harmful substances in young Australians is declining – except for e-cigarettes and smoking in men aged 18-24.
Lifetime use of e-cigarettes increased by 46% between 2016 and 2019 in non-smokers aged 18-24 – a huge spike in the use of a harmful substance in just three years.
Last week, an updated statement from the National Health and Medical Research Council reflected increasing concerns from public health officials about the growing uptake of e-cigarettes, particularly by young people.
Public health officials are concerned about the growing use of e-cigarettes. NHMRC
Anyone using a nicotine e-cigarette without a valid doctor’s prescription has obtained the product unlawfully. Its importation was unlawful, as was its storage, sale and promotion.
Yet, as the Four Corners program showed, this is happening on an industrial scale. Merchants with a profit motive are promoting addictive products, with no regard for the health of young people.
Retailers and online entrepreneurs are clearly not complying with current laws. And these laws are not being enforced.
We need to target importation
E-cigarettes are not manufactured in Australia. If their destination is not a pharmacy or someone with a valid prescription, their importation is unlawful.
But it is clear, from the number of illegal e-cigarettes available in Australia, the federal government is not enforcing its own importation rules.
Attempts to amend regulations to further restrict imports were proposed in 2020. This would have enabled the Australian Border Force to intercept illegal e-cigarette imports.
However, the government assured the community that requiring all
non-tobacco nicotine products to only be available on prescription (schedule 4 of the Poisons Standard) would achieve the same result. It said this would protect young people from e-cigarettes.
It’s almost nine months since this came into effect in October 2021. Yet young people, in increasing numbers, are accessing e-cigarettes.
The scheduling standard and the rules underpinning it are clearly being ignored. The federal government must revisit proposals to allow interception of illegal e-cigarettes at the border or find another mechanism to block them.
We need to target their sale
Retailers and wholesalers are also breaking rules set out in official advice from the Therapeutic Goods Administration and corresponding information on state government websites.
New South Wales Chief Health Officer Kerry Chant has warned that nicotine e-cigarette traders, other than pharmacies, could face prosecution, heavy fines and even jail.
Yet tobacconists, convenience stores and vape shops are still breaking the rules.
State and territory governments must enforce their laws, especially those being broken in plain view. Authorities can impose substantial fines for offenders, which would not only deter unlawful trade, it would fund additional enforcement.
There are also laws for the bulk storage and transport of schedule 4 poisons, such as nicotine. Four Corners showed how readily a film crew could expose breaches of these laws.
If young people can find them, so can the authorities
Young people told Four Corners they can access products without a prescription from online entrepreneurs importing, storing and selling nicotine e-cigarettes.
Seizing illegal imports will eventually dry up their supply, but there will be stockpiles.
If school children can access these suppliers and their products with a quick search on their smartphones, authorities can also find them and put them out of business.
E-cigarette use in young Australians is a crisis, but is fixable. The federal government must stop illegal imports, the states and territories must end the unlawful retail, wholesale and interstate trade.
The harms of e-cigarettes are severe and far outweigh any modest benefits; there are laws to protect young people from them.
If the crisis worsens, more people will ask, how did this happen? The answer will be simple: governments made good laws, but they did not enforce them.
Paul Grogan is employed by the Daffodil Centre, a joint cancer research venture between Cancer Council NSW and the University of Sydney. He is an investigator on a current research project on e-cigarette use in young people jointly funded by the NSW Government and the Minderoo Foundation, with in-kind support from Cancer Council NSW.
As well as her interviews with politicians and experts, Politics with Michelle Grattan includes “Word from The Hill”, where she discusses the news with members of The Conversation politics team.
Michelle and Peter Browne from the Politics + Society team discuss Anthony Albanese’s weighing a Ukraine visit and whether Australia will announce more support for that country and reopen its embassy there.
They also canvass the just-released Lowy Institute’s poll, which found a narrow majority of Australians support increased defence spending, and Defence Minister Richard Marles’ announcement extending the terms of the military’s top brass.
Meanwhile Parliament House has been like the first week of school, with new MPs being briefed on how the place works. Crossbenchers are in a row with the government over Albanese’s plan to cut back the additional staff they will get, above the entitlement of government and opposition backbenchers, from four in the last parliament to just one.
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.
Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By John Hawkins, Senior Lecturer, Canberra School of Politics, Economics and Society, University of Canberra
Shutterstock
“Stagflation” is an ugly word for an ugly situation – the unpleasant combination of economic stagnation and inflation.
The last time the world experienced it was the early 1970s, when oil-exporting countries in the Middle East cut supplies to the United States and other supporters of Israel. The “supply shock” of a four-fold increase in the cost of oil drove up many prices and dampened economic activity globally.
Stagflation was thought left behind. But now there is a real risk of it coming back, warns the central bank for the world’s central banks.
“We may be reaching a tipping point, beyond which an inflationary psychology
spreads and becomes entrenched,” says the Bank for International Settlements BIS in its latest annual economic report.
By “inflationary psychology” it means that expectations of higher prices lead consumers to spend now rather than later, on the assumption waiting will cost more. This increases demand, pushing up prices. Thus expectations of inflation become a self-fulfilling prophecy.
The danger of stagflation comes from this inflationary cycle becoming so entrenched that attempts to curb it through higher interest rates push economies into recession.
Its report makes clear its experts, like most forecasters, have been surprised by the extent of the rise in inflation.
This is a global phenomenon, which the report attributes to a combination of an unexpectedly strong economic rebound from the COVID-19 lockdowns, a sustained switch in demand from services to goods, and supply bottlenecks exacerbated by a shift from “just-in-time” to “just-in-case” inventory management.
Then there is Russia’s invasion of Ukraine.
An apartment building damaged by Russian attacks on the northern Ukraine city of Chernihiv, June 27 2022. Kunihiko Miura/Yomiuri Shimbun/AP
The war’s effect in driving up the price of oil, gas, food, fertilisers and other commodities has been “inherently stagflationary”:
Since commodities are a key production input, an increase in their cost constrains output. At the same time, soaring commodity prices have boosted inflation everywhere, exacerbating a shift that was already well in train before the onset of the war.
The only bright note is that BIS expects these price surges to be less disruptive than the oil supply shock of the 1970s.
This is because the relative impact of the oil supply shock was greater due to economies in the 1970s being more energy-intensive.
There is also much more focus now on containing inflation, with most central banks having a clearly stated inflation target (2% in Europe and the US, 2%-3% in Australia).
But the current situation is still very challenging, the report says, because increases in the price of food and energy are particularly conducive to spreading inflationary psychology.
This is because food is bought frequently, so price changes are notable. The same goes for fuel prices, which are prominently displayed on large roadside signs.
There is also the risk in many economies of a wage-price spiral – in which higher prices drive demands for higher wages, which employers then pass on in higher prices.
Central banks face what Reserve Bank of Australia governor Philip Lowe has called a “narrow path”.
To achieve a “soft landing” they need to raise interest rates enough to bring inflation down. But not enough to cause a recession (and thus stagflation).
How to avoid a ‘hard landing’?
The BIS report cites an analysis of monetary tightening cycles – defined as interest rate rises in at least three consecutive quarters – in 35 countries between 1985 and 2018. A soft landing was achieved in only about half the cases.
A key factor in the hard landings was the extent of financial vulnerabilities, particularly debt. Economies with hard landings on average had double the growth in credit to GDP prior to the interest-rate rises.
This factor contributes to BIS concerns now. As the report notes:
Unlike in the past, stagflation today would occur alongside heightened financial vulnerabilities, including stretched asset prices and high debt levels, which could magnify any growth slowdown.
Furthermore, the slowdown in China’s labour productivity is removing an important boost to global economic growth and restraint on global inflation.
But a key lesson from the 1970s is that the long-term costs of doing nothing outweigh the short-term pain of bringing inflation under control.
This means governments must curb handouts or tax cuts to help people with cost-of-living pressures. Expansionary fiscal policy will only make things worse. Assistance must be strictly targeted to those who most need it.
There is also a need to rebuild monetary and fiscal buffers to cope with future shocks. This will require raising interest rates above inflation targets and returning government budgets (close) to surplus.
John Hawkins was formerly a senior economist at the Reserve Bank of Australia and the Bank for International Settlements.
Armida Salsiah Alisjahbana is the United Nations Under-Secretary-General and Executive Secretary of the Economic and Social Commission for Asia and the Pacific (ESCAP).
OP-ED by Armida Salsiah Alisjahbana is an Under-Secretary-General of the United Nations and Executive Secretary of the Economic and Social Commission for Asia and the Pacific (ESCAP).
Armida Salsiah Alisjahbana is the United Nations Under-Secretary-General and Executive Secretary of the Economic and Social Commission for Asia and the Pacific (ESCAP).
Older persons are highly visible across Asia and the Pacific: they work in agricultural fields producing our food supplies, peddle their wares as street vendors, drive tuk-tuks and buses, exercise in our parks, lead some of the region’s most successful companies and form an integral part of our families.
Indeed, population ageing is one of the megatrends greatly affecting sustainable development. People now live longer than ever and remain active because of improved health. We must broaden the narrow view of older persons as requiring our care to recognize that they are also agents of development. With many parts of the Asia-Pacific region rapidly ageing, we can take concrete steps to provide environments in which our elders live safely, securely and in dignity and contribute to societies.
To start with, we must invest in social protection and access to universal healthcare throughout the life-course. Currently, it is estimated that 14.3 per cent of the population in Asia and the Pacific are 60 years or older; that figure is projected to rise to 17.7 per cent by 2030 and to one-quarter in 2050. Moreover, 53.1 per cent of all older persons are women, a share that increases with age. Therefore, financial security is needed so older persons can stay active and healthy for longer periods. In many countries of the region, less than one-third of the working-age population is covered by mandatory pensions, and a large proportion still lacks access to affordable, good quality health care.
Such protection is crucial because older persons continue to bolster the labour force, especially in informal sectors. In Thailand, for example, a third of people aged 65 years or over participate in the labour force; 87 per cent of working women aged 65 or over work in the informal sector, compared to 81 per cent of working men in the same cohort. This general trend is seen in other countries of the region.
Older persons, especially older women, also make important contributions as caregivers to both children and other older persons. This unpaid care enables younger people in their families to take paid work, often in metropolitan areas of their own country or abroad.
Older persons should also have lifelong learning opportunities. Enhanced digital literacy, for example, can close the grey digital divide. Older women and men need to stay abreast of technological developments to access services, maintain connections with family and friends and remain competitive in the labour market. Through inter-generational initiatives, younger people can train older people in the use of technology.
We must also invest in quality long-term care systems to ensure that older persons who need it can receive affordable quality care. With the increase in dementia and other mental health conditions, care needs are becoming more complex. Many countries in the region still rely on family members to provide such care, but there may be less unpaid care in the future, and care by family members is not always quality care.
Finally, addressing age-based discrimination and barriers will be crucial to allow the full participation of older persons in economies and societies. Older women and men actively volunteer in older persons associations or other organizations. They help distribute food and medicine in emergency situations, including during the COVID-19 pandemic, monitor the health of neighbours and friends, or teach each other how to use digital devices. Older persons also play an active role in combatting climate change by sharing knowledge and techniques of mitigation and adaptation. Ageism intersects and exacerbates other disadvantages, including those related to sex, race, and disability, and combatting it will contribute to the health and well-being of all.
This week, countries in Asia and the Pacific will convene to review and appraise the Madrid International Plan of Action on Ageing (MIPAA) on the occasion of its 20th anniversary. MIPAA provides policy directions for building societies for all ages with a focus on older persons and development; health and well-being in old age; and creating enabling environments. The meeting will provide an opportunity for member States to discuss progress on the action plan and identify remaining challenges, gaps and new priorities.
While several countries in the region already have some form of policy on ageing, the topic must be mainstreamed into all policies and action plans, and they must be translated into coherent, cross-sectoral national strategies that reach all older persons in our region, including those who inhabit remote islands, deserts or mountain ranges.
Older persons are valuable members of our societies, but too often they are overlooked. Let us ensure that they can fully contribute to our sustainable future.
*******
Armida Salsiah Alisjahbana is an Under-Secretary-General of the United Nations and Executive Secretary of the Economic and Social Commission for Asia and the Pacific (ESCAP)
Today marks 15 years since Apple released what’s arguably its flagship device: the iPhone. A decade and a half later, there are few products that have managed to reach a similar level of brand recognition.
Announced to an eager audience in 2007, the iPhone has revolutionised how we communicate and even how we live day to day.
Steve Jobs introduced the iPhone on January 9 2007.
The large-screen revolution
The iPhone was released in the United States in June 2007, and in a further six countries in November (but notably not in Australia).
From the launch of Mac computers in the 1970s to the iPod in 2001, Apple already knew how to engage with its audience – and how to encourage extraordinary levels of hype when launching a product.
Early reviews for the iPhone were almost universally glowing, applauding Apple’s attention to detail and style. The only problem flagged was network connectivity – and this was an issue with slow speeds on phone carrier networks, rather than the device itself.
Consumers’ appreciation of the iPhone’s style was no surprise. It was indicative of an emerging trend towards smartphones with large-format screens (but which still reflected the form of a phone). The Nokia N95 was another such example that hit the market the same year.
The 2007 Nokia N95 had a slide-out keypad. Asim18/Wikimedia (CC BY-SA 4.0)
The original iPhone offered wifi, supported 2G EDGE connectivity and had internet download speeds below 500Kbps (compared to multi Mbps speeds today).
It was also limited to 4GB or 8GB models. This might sound pitiful compared to the 1TB options available today, but it’s enough to hold hundreds of songs or videos and was revolutionary at the time.
The Apple assembly line
The iPhone 3G was rolled out across the globe in July 2008, with significantly improved data speeds and the addition of the Appple App Store. Even though it offered a mere 500 apps at launch, the app store marked a significant improvement in phone functionality.
And just as users started getting used to 3G, it was superseded by the 3GS about a year later.
This cycle of regularly pushing out new products was critical to Apple’s success. By releasing regular updates (either through whole product iterations, or more minor functionality improvements) Apple managed to secure an enthusiastic audience, eager for new releases each year.
iPhone sizes got noticeably larger from the iPhone 5S release to the iPhone 12. Tboa/Wikimedia (CC BY-SA 4.0)
Also, since older products would often be passed down within families, Apple’s product pipeline helped it establish a multi-generational user base. This pipeline continues to operate today.
New approaches to old ways
The iPhone family has delivered size, speed and storage improvements over its 15-year history. Some of its “new” features weren’t necessarily new to the market, but Apple excelled at delivering them in highly integrated ways that “just worked” (as founder Steve Jobs would say).
“It just works” – Steve Jobs (1955-2011)
In 2013, the iPhone 5S introduced touch ID, which allowed users to unlock their phones with a fingerprint. While this had first been introduced with the Fujitsu F505i back in 2003, Apple delivered a robust implementation of the feature. Of course, it wasn’t long before enterprising individuals learnt how to bypass the mechanism.
The iPhone 8, released in 2017, brought with it the face ID feature. This still had weaknesses, but was at least immune to being unlocked with a photo.
Beyond security, the iPhone series has also produced year-on-year improvements in camera technology. While the original model sported a paltry two-megapixel camera, later models featured multiple lenses, with resolution boosted to 12 megapixels – rivalling many digital cameras on the market.
Wireless charging was introduced with the iPhone 8 (although preceded by Samsung as early as 2011). And the bezel-less design of the iPhone X, released in 2017, built on features found in the Sharp Aquos S2 from the same year.
Controversy
Nonetheless, the iPhone has not been without problems. The introduction of the iPhone 7 in 2016 saw the removal of the standard 3.5mm headphone socket – and many weren’t happy.
While an adaptor was initially provided for customers to connect their regular headphones, it was only free for about two years. After that it had to be purchased. In 2016 there were indications of a spike in wireless headphone sales. Perhaps somewhat conveniently, Apple launched its AirPods (wireless Bluetooth earbuds) at the same time.
A similar change came in 2020 with the release of the iPhone 12. Arguing consumers had a multitude of spare devices – and perhaps trying to ride on the green re-use agenda – Apple removed chargers from the unboxing experience.
Users still received a charge cable, but it was a USB-C to lightning cable, whereas previous iPhone chargers would have a USB-A socket (the standard USB port).
When Apple stopped offering chargers it provided a USB-C to lightning cable, despite older chargers having a USB-A socket. Apple
The justification iPhone users would have a box full of old chargers overlooked the fact that none of them would be likely to support the newer and faster USB-C cable.
So you could use your old USB-A to lightning cable and charger to charge your shiny new phone, but you’d be limited to slower charging speeds.
Future
If the past 15 years are anything to go by, it’s likely the iPhone will continue with annual product releases (as we write this article many will be anticipating the iPhone 14 due later this year).
These models will probably bring improvements in speed, weight, battery life, camera resolution and storage capacity. However, it’s not likely we’ll be seeing many groundbreaking innovations in the next few years.
The latest iPhones are already highly sophisticated mini computers, which means there’s limited scope for fundamental enhancement.
Perhaps the most radical change will be the shift from Apple’s proprietary lightning connection to USB-C charging, thanks to a new European Union directive. And while a common power connector standard is widely considered a positive move, Apple wasn’t convinced:
We believe regulations that impose harmonisation of smartphone chargers would stifle innovation rather than encourage it.
As display technologies evolve, Apple may turn to the clam-shell phone design, with a fully foldable display screen.
Samsung has already brought this to the market. But Apple, in true fashion, will likely wait until the technology (particularly the glass) has evolved to deliver an experience in line with what iPhone users have come to expect.
While we can’t predict what the iPhone will look like in another 15 years (although some have tried), it’s likely the demand for Apple products will still be there, driven by Apple’s strong brand loyalty.
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.
Just before the Western Australian state election in March 2021, the then leader of the Liberal Party did an unusual thing. He conceded defeat – but then asked voters to stop premier Mark McGowan’s Labor Party from achieving “total control” of the state.
The Liberals, shattered, were reduced to just two seats in the assembly. The Nationals, with a grand total of four seats, became the official opposition, and a Nationals MP, Mia Davies, was elected opposition leader. The question immediately arose: could parliament operate effectively in these extraordinary circumstances? Would sufficient democratic scrutiny be applied to the government?
Just over a year later, the federal election provided another crushing blow to the WA Liberals. The party lost not only four lower house seats and a senate seat to Labor, but also the seat of Curtin to independent Kate Chaney.
WA has 122 state and federal MPs. Currently, 89 of them – almost three-quarters – are Labor. Less than six years ago, the comparable figure was 41, or a third. By contrast, the Liberals have just 19 MPs or 16% of the total, compared to 64, or just over half, six years ago. Perhaps we need to take the fears of “total control” seriously?
Senator Linda Reynolds, the former Liberal defence minister, seems to think so. She recently argued that “without substantial change, we risk condemning Western Australia to a one-party state and the WA Liberals to an electoral abyss”.
So far, so good?
Everyone would agree democracy works best when a strong opposition can keep the government accountable. So what is happening in WA? Is democracy in danger?
So far, the answer would appear to be no. Take parliament. Parties with a majority of MPs can, in principle, run roughshod over their opponents in parliament. In practice, most don’t. While governments will occasionally force through legislation or resist pressure to reveal information, rules and conventions enable non-government parties to participate in debates and committees, and to scrutinise the executive about its actions and proposed legislation.
Governing parties know one day they will be in opposition, and parliament should at the very least let the opposition have its say, even if the government prevails.
Despite the vast disparity in numbers, this attitude seems to be holding up in WA. Question time is still operating, unchanged. The parliamentary schedule continues to allow non-government MPs to bring forward debates on matters of public importance, private members’ business and grievances.
Estimates hearings continue to be held, as are meetings of parliamentary committees. As in the past, the opposition chairs one committee in the assembly, two in the council, and the joint audit committee. The deputy Liberal leader chaired a prominent select committee inquiry into sexual harassment in the resources sector.
Of course, with so few seats, the workload of non-government MPs is very large. The government has a majority on most committees – but this was true in previous parliaments. One potential area of concern is that the standing committee on education and health – the two areas of greatest expenditure – has only Labor members.
Clearly, the government is not going to lose any votes on the floor of the house. Overall, though, the structures and operations of parliament look much the same as before.
Under scrutiny
But given the huge imbalance of resources and power within the political system, it is important other players keep the government under scrutiny. WA retains a full complement of independent integrity agencies – ombudsman, auditor-general, information commissioner, corruption and crime commissioner.
Another crucial player is the media. WA’s press and broadcasting landscape is dominated by Seven West Media, which owns the state’s only daily newspaper and its most popular TV station. While Mark McGowan received generally positive coverage for his handling of the pandemic, his government has not escaped media criticism, on hospitals and health in particular. Other media outlets have also been active in scrutinising government.
Right direction? WA Liberal leader David Honey. Tony McDonough/AAP
A Coalition fightback?
With the federal election out of the way, what might we look forward to in WA politics? Three things are worth noting.
First, the WA Liberal Party holds its annual conference in July. This will be an important indicator of whether it has done the thinking it needs to turn its fortunes around.
Second, a state by-election is due soon after a Nationals MP, Vince Catania, resigned his marginal seat of North-West Central. If Labor were to win, the number of non-government MPs would fall from six to five – a much bigger deal than Labor increasing its representation from 53 to 54.
Intriguingly, if the Liberal Party managed to win North-West Central (which is not completely out of the question, as they have held the seat in the past), then they and the Nationals would each have three MPs and would need to work out who would be the official opposition.
Third, no election is due in WA, state or federal, for almost three years. (The state poll is in March 2025, followed by a likely federal poll two months later.) Can Liberal and National MPs maintain their diligence in parliament? Can their parties form a viable alternative government? And can Labor avoid the malaise that commonly strikes second-term governments in WA, where no party has won a third term since 1989?
It seems inconceivable that Mark McGowan and Labor could lose office in 2025. But can he govern well in the meantime? And can the non-government parties, the integrity watchdogs and the media keep him and his government on their toes? For democracy’s sake, let’s hope so.
John Phillimore worked as an adviser to state Labor governments in Western Australia in the 1980s and between 2001 and 2007. He was also a member of a Ministerial Expert Committee on Electoral Reform for the current Western Australian Government, which reported in June 2021.
Long ago, almost up until the end of the last ice age, a peculiar giant kangaroo roamed the mountainous rainforests of New Guinea.
Now, research published by myself and colleagues suggests this kangaroo was not closely related to modern Australian kangaroos. Rather, it represents a previously unknown type of primitive kangaroo unique to New Guinea.
The age of megafauna
Australia used to be home to all manner of giant animals called megafauna, until most of them went extinct about 40,000 years ago. These megafauna lived alongside animals we now consider characteristic of the Australian bush – kangaroos, koalas, crocodiles and the like – but many were larger species of these.
There were giant wombats called Phascolonus, 2.5-metre-tall short-faced kangaroos, and the 3-tonne Diprotodon optatum (the largest marsupial ever).
In fact, some Australian megafaunal species, such as the red kangaroo, emu and cassowary, survive through to the modern day.
The fossil megafauna of New Guinea are considerably less well-studied than those of Australia. But despite being shrouded in mystery, New Guinea’s fossil record has given us hints of fascinating and unusual animals whose evolutionary stories are entwined with Australia’s.
Palaeontologists have done sporadic expeditions and fossil digs in New Guinea, including digs by American and Australian researchers in the 1960s, ’70s and ’80s.
It was during an archaeological excavation in the early 1970s, led by Mary-Jane Mountain, that two jaws of an extinct giant kangaroo were unearthed. A young researcher (now professor) named Tim Flannery called the species Protemnodon nombe.
The fossils Flannery described are about 20,000–50,000 years old. They come from the Nombe Rockshelter, an archaeological and palaeontological site in the mountains of central Papua New Guinea. This site also delivered fossils of another kangaroo and giant four-legged marsupials called diprotodontids.
Flinders University Professor Gavin Prideaux and I recently re-examined the fossils of Protemnodon nombe and found something unexpected. This strange kangaroo was not a species of the genus Protemnodon, which used to live all over Australia, from the Kimberley to Tasmania. It was something a lot more primitive and unknown.
In particular, its unusual molars with curved enamel crests set it apart from all other known kangaroos. We moved the species into a brand new genus unique to New Guinea and (very creatively) renamed it Nombe nombe.
A 3D surface scan of a specimen of Nombe nombe, specifically a fossilised lower jaw from central Papua New Guinea. (Courtesy of Papua New Guinea Museum and Art Gallery, Port Moresby).
Our findings show Nombe may have evolved from an ancient form of kangaroo that migrated into New Guinea from Australia in the late Miocene epoch, some 5–8 million years ago.
In those days, the islands of New Guinea and Australia were connected by a land bridge due to lower sea levels – whereas today they’re separated by the Torres Strait.
This “bridge” allowed early Australian mammals, including megafauna, to migrate to New Guinea’s rainforests. When the Torres Strait flooded again, these animal populations became disconnected from their Australian relatives and evolved separately to suit their tropical and mountainous New Guinean home.
We now consider Nombe to be the descendant of one of these ancient lineages of kangaroos. The squat, muscular animal lived in a diverse mountainous rainforest with thick undergrowth and a closed canopy. It evolved to eat tough leaves from trees and shrubs, which gave it a thick jawbone and strong chewing muscles.
The species is currently only known from two fossil lower jaws. And much more remains to be discovered. Did Nombe hop like modern kangaroos? Why did it go extinct?
As is typical of palaeontology, one discovery inspires an entire host of new questions.
Strange but familiar animals
Little of the endemic animal life of New Guinea is known outside of the island, even though it is very strange and very interesting. Very few Australians have much of an idea of what’s there, just over the strait.
When I went to the Papua New Guinea Museum in Port Moresby early in my PhD, I was thrilled by the animals I encountered. There are several living species of large, long-nosed, worm-eating echidna – one of which weighs up to 15 kilograms.
I’m excited to start digging in New Guinea’s rainforests! Author provided
There are also dwarf cassowaries and many different wallaby, tree kangaroo and possum species that don’t exist in Australia – plus many more in the fossil record.
We tend to think of these animals as being uniquely Australian, but they have other intriguing forms in New Guinea.
As an Australian biologist, it’s both odd and exhilarating to see these “Aussie” animals that have expanded into new and weird forms in another landscape.
Excitingly for me and my colleagues, Nombe nombe may breathe some new life into palaeontology in New Guinea. We’re part of a small group of researchers that was recently awarded a grant to undertake three digs at two different sites in eastern and central Papua New Guinea over the next three years.
Working with the curators of the Papua New Guinea Museum and other biologists, we hope to inspire young local biology students to study palaeontology and discover new fossil species. If we’re lucky, there may even be a complete skeleton of Nombe nombe waiting for us.
Isaac Alan Robert Kerr receives funding from the Royal Society of South Australia.
Renewal or decline? These are the competing narratives that now surround Daniel Andrews’ Victorian Labor government, with five senior ministers exiting cabinet as a preliminary to leaving parliament at November’s state election.
The resignations of this quintet – deputy premier James Merlino, Lisa Neville, Martin Foley, Martin Pakula, and Richard Wynne – is the equivalent of the loss of one quarter of the cabinet.
Another seven ministers have either voluntarily resigned from cabinet or been pushed out during the course of this term of government. This is indisputably a high ministerial turnover.
Yet in another way, this rush to the door is unremarkable. The Andrews administration is already the second longest serving Labor government in Victorian history and at November’s poll will be asking the electorate to extend its tenure to 12 years.
If Andrews were to remain premier until the end of 2026 (which seems more unlikely given the events of the past week) only the post-Second World War Liberal behemoth Henry Bolte would have survived longer in office.
Though there is public cynicism about politicians, theirs is a taxing profession.
The five cabinet members who are departing politics in November have a combined total of nearly one hundred years of experience in parliament.
Ministerial responsibilities are particularly demanding and during the COVID-19 pandemic became even more onerous.
There is then an argument that turnover in the composition of cabinet is a good thing. It does bring opportunity for rejuvenation.
Rejuvenation depends, of course, on whether there are still existing reserves of talent on the backbench of Andrews’ ageing government to cover the departures.
Goodbye James Merlino, hello Jacinta Allan
Of all the changes to the composition of the Andrews government in the wake of last week’s ministerial resignations, the most significant was Jacinta Allan’s replacement of Merlino as deputy premier.
There are two types of deputy: the loyal lieutenant and the leader in waiting. Merlino was the former – he did not covet the premiership himself.
From all accounts, he also had the necessary skill set to provide an effective foil to Andrews. Andrews is a dominating force within his own government and is not shy of treading on toes.
By way of contrast, as demonstrated when he was acting premier for an extended period during 2021, Merlino was more consultative in style and had a calming influence.
Andrews and Merlino were from different factions and there was an expectation that faction chiefs would insist on the preservation of that arrangement.
However, in a dramatic assertion of his authority, Andrews pre-empted the factions and his parliamentary colleagues by publicly anointing Allan (who, like the premier, is a member of the Socialist Left faction) as Merlino’s replacement.
Presented with a fait accompli, the Labor Caucus dutifully assented to Allan’s elevation.
Andrews’ nomination of Allan as deputy premier is full of meaning. He will have done so in the knowledge (and expectation) she will be a different mould of deputy than was Merlino; she will be more than a loyal lieutenant.
Instead, Allan is now recognised as the heir apparent to Andrews. This was, in short, a succession plan; Andrews is trying to create the conditions for a Labor dynasty that outlasts him.
Speculation grows about Daniel Andrews’ own future
Indeed, one of the by-products of the spate of departures from the government and the installation of Allan as deputy premier is that speculation will inevitably grow about Andrews’ own future.
This is likely to be a talking point in November’s election campaign.
Having towered over the Victorian political landscape since his election as premier in November 2014, managing expectations about Andrews’ future exit will be a challenge but also an opportunity for the government.
Looking ahead to November’s election, of all the things that will threaten Labor’s continuing grip on office probably the most dangerous will be an “it’s time” factor.
That is electorate fatigue with a government that will be asking for more than a decade in office. Unquestionably, Andrews will be the focal point of that problem for Labor.
Front and centre in everything the government does, and his prominence especially heightened during the COVID-19 pandemic when he became a figure of national curiosity, there is a risk Andrews will have worn out his welcome with a public that may hanker for life after Dan.
Remaking an ageing government
Jacinta Allan’s heir apparent status and an understanding that Andrews is likely to depart some time during a third term may actually become a means for Labor to mitigate the “it’s time” effect.
The recognition that Allan is in line to become Victoria’s second woman premier (behind Joan Kirner) can also further burnish the government’s handsome record of promoting women to senior leadership roles.
The hardest thing for an ageing government is to remake itself.
On balance, last week’s developments in Spring Street represent the first step towards Victorian Labor performing that elusive feat.
Paul Strangio 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.
Initial data from the 2021 census released this week shows Australia continues to become more culturally diverse.
Almost half of us have at least one parent born overseas (48.2%), and almost a quarter of us (24.8%) speak a language other than English at home.
Just over a quarter of us (27.6%) report being born overseas, and of those, India has risen to become the second-most common overseas country of birth after England.
The growing number of first-generation migrants means Australians’ ancestry will change significantly over the next decade. Australia will continue to change and look different, and we must ensure our institutions and policies reflect this.
That work, by governments and policymakers, should begin now so they can gain trust and maximise the belonging of these communities. Research shows feelings of belonging lead to better socioeconomic outcomes.
It’s likely there would have been substantially more immigration were it not for the COVID pandemic and subsequent restrictions and lockdowns. Some 84% of the one million new migrants arrived before the virus did.
Australia’s future
Three bits of data stuck out to me from this initial census data release:
India surpassed New Zealand and China in becoming the second-most common overseas country of birth
the number of people born in Nepal grew by 123.7% compared to 2016, the second largest increase in country of birth
the number of people who are either born overseas or have a parent born overseas is greater than half (51.5%).
These data show the changing face of Australia and our global links.
They also reveal suburban clusters in the major cities where ethnic groups have a critical mass, median incomes are higher than the state and national average, and tertiary education rates are on the rise (examples include Girraween and Castle Hill in NSW).
Such figures show social class is an important factor when looking at data on migrant populations. In areas with a higher percentage of working class migrants and resettled refugees, such as those mentioned towards the end of this article as more impacted by COVID, household incomes are lower and hence they require more consideration for future planning needs.
The top five sources of ancestry haven’t changed since the last census: English (33%), Australian (29.9%), Irish (9.5%), Scottish (8.6%) and Chinese (5.5%).
But given the big changes in country of birth data, Australians’ ancestry will look very different over the next decade.
This will have policy and planning implications across schooling, housing and local government services.
It will translate into the need for our diversity to be reflected in all aspects of society, including professions, media, decision-making roles and government.
These data also show Australia is as multicultural, if not more, than countries such as Canada, the United Kingdom and the United States.
Data from the 2016 census in Canada, which is known to be multicultural, shows 21.9% of people there are immigrants, with the largest share being from South Asia.
2018 data shows 14% of the UK population was from a minority ethnic background. In the city of London, this figure was 40% in 2018.
According to 2020 data, nearly four in ten Americans identify with an ethnic group other than white.
Australia would have received more migrants were it not for the COVID pandemic, which shut borders from early 2020.
We would have had more tourists, and more people arriving on work and student visas. Census data shows the pandemic led to an 80% decrease in the number of overseas visitors. This affected the economy, particularly in sectors such as tourism, hospitality and higher education.
We also received less relatives of overseas-born Australians, for example on family-sponsored visas. This can have impacts on childcare, care of elderly relatives and mental health.
Some areas with a high percentage of migrants were heavily affected by COVID and pandemic restrictions.
Census data reveals, for example, 71.6% of people in the Western Sydney suburb of Merrylands have both parents born overseas. And in the nearby local government area of Liverpool, 65.5% of people have both parents born overseas.
In Flemington, Melbourne, the site of a public housing tower lockdown in 2020, 47.1% of people have both parents born overseas. Somalia and Ethiopia feature in the top five countries of birth.
In Dandenong, south-east of Melbourne, 75.4% of people have both parents born overseas. The area has also suffered disproportionately more COVID deaths.
We don’t yet know the full extent of COVID impacts on these areas though. Further census data is due to be released in October featuring employment and work commute data for these areas which will be important to look at for COVID impacts.
Sukhmani Khorana has received funding from the Australia Research Council, the Australia-India Council, and conducts contracted research for migrant and refugee-focused organisations in Western Sydney.
The Netflix sci-fi horror series Stranger Things is vividly soaked in 1980s nostalgia, famously catapulting Kate Bush’s 1985 song Running up that Hill to the top of the music charts in 2022.
In season four, series creators the Duffer Brothers introduce viewers to Pennhurst Mental Hospital for the criminally insane (which was also mentioned in season one). Viewers follow teenage sleuths Robin and Nancy into Pennhurst, where they are granted permission to speak with Victor Creel, imprisoned because he is thought to have brutally murdered his family.
Although the Pennhurst Mental Hospital portrayed in Stranger things is fictitious, the location was inspired by the Eastern Pennsylvania State Institution for the Feeble-Minded and Epileptic. Later named the Pennhurst State School and Hospital and located in the woods of Chester County, Pennsylvania, it was founded in 1908 and shut down in 1987. More than 10,000 people with intellectual disability and mental illness lived at Pennhurst, many spending their entire lives within its walls.
The real Pennhurst has become a tourist attraction, like dozens of empty asylums around the world, including some in Australia. But as we seek out thrills, we shouldn’t forget these institutions held real people and their stories.
Pennhurst was a place of segregation, power, abuse, neglect and torture, fuelled by society’s perception that people with intellectual disability were a dangerous threat to social order.
At the dawn of the 19th century’s eugenics movement, people with intellectual disability existed on the lowest rung of the human hierarchy. Ultimately, they were removed from the human gene pool through institutionalisation and sterilisation.
In 1987, in response to the disability rights movement’s loud call for de-institutionalisation and after groundbreaking litigation brought by a resident and her family, the State of Pennsylvania closed Pennhurst’s doors. The courts agreed those in state care had a constitutional right to appropriate treatment and education. More than 1,000 Pennhurst residents began lives of worth and value in the community.
In 2010, the state of Pennsylvania sold the site. Today, Pennhurst exists as a “dark tourism” destination. Pennhurst Asylum entertains visitors with “jump scares” around a narrative of depraved criminality, that simultaneously erases and evokes the inhumane treatment of the people who called Pennhurst home.
To those who lived there and their supporters, Pennhurst is more than the horrors of its past and the commercialisation of its future.
For Dennis Downey and James Conroy, editors of Pennhurst and the Struggle for Disability Rights, Pennhurst represents “one of the great, if unrecognised, freedom struggles of the twentieth century”, fanning the flames of the global de-institutionalisation and independent living movements.
Article 19 of the convention obliges signatory nations to ensure “the equal right of all persons with disabilities to live in the community, with choices equal to others”. And Article 12 asks signatory nations to recognise that all citizens, regardless of disability, have “legal personhood” and therefore should enjoy autonomy and respect.
The convention charges signatory nations with an unequivocal obligation to firmly make the traumatic experiences of institutionalisation a thing of the past, while acknowledging and preserving the stories of trauma as narratives of dignity and respect.
Pennhurst is one of many “haunted” tourist attractions worldwide inspired by traumatised lives of people with disability.
A hemisphere away, high on a hill, overlooking the rural town of Ararat in Western Victoria, Australia, stands Aradale Lunatic Asylum, location of the notorious J-Ward.
During its years of operation from 1867 to 1993, it was home to more than 10,000 people with disability. Like Pennhurst, the past two decades have seen a transformation of Aradale into a tourist attraction, exploiting the very real and horrific life experiences of the people who called it home.
Thrill-seekers can join the Aradale ghost tour and be haunted by such ghostly “tickling, strange smells, banging sounds, shadows, and other spooky sensations”.
Tours and “paranormal investigations” also operate at the former Mayday Hills Lunatic Asylum, in Beechworth, Victoria. Tours of Sydney’s Gladesville Mental Hospital, formerly Tarban Creek Lunatic Asylum, are currently on hold due to COVID.
Shuttered institutions that were once home to people with disabilities in the United States, Norway, Austria and South Korea are regularly grouped into terrifying online itineraries.
Dark tourism operators sell thrilling customer experiences – but the stories of people with disability who lived behind the walls of institutions like Pennhurst and Aradale are much darker.
By relying on offensive and misguided portrayals of people with disability as horrifying, dangerous and criminal, operators exploit the ways residents were treated for commercialised entertainment.
Ironically, London’s Bethlem Hospital (from which the word “bedlam” originated) reportedly ran tours for curious visitors to gawk at residents until 1770. But today, the Bethlem Museum of the Mind houses archives and art “to support the history of mental healthcare and treatment”. An upcoming exhibition explores how “experiences of trauma, mental distress, contact with mental health services and everyday life can shape and disrupt a person’s sense of home”.
Netflix and filmmakers like the Duffer Brothers have an opportunity to acknowledge and preserve the stories of institutionalised communal trauma. A simple dedication to Pennhurst residents could even be added to a Stranger Things episode or opening credits. It could educate a generation of world citizens about the crimes of the past and the intrinsic personhood of all of humanity.
Joanne Watson does not work for, consult, own shares in or receive funding from any company or organisation that would benefit from this article, and has disclosed no relevant affiliations beyond their academic appointment.
Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Jennifer Hamilton, Senior Lecturer, School of Humanities Arts and Social Sciences, University of New England
Shutterstock
A friend introduces their partner as “my current husband”. Another jokes about marriage as a life sentence. Everyone laughs, no one is surprised.
The sentiments at the heart of these asides are pervasive and familiar to many people in (or who have had) heterosexual relationships. There is now a term for this negativity: “heteropessimism”.
Heteropessimism is a new word for an intuitive, possibly very old, concept in white Western culture. Coined in 2019 by writer Asa Seresin, heteropessimism is an attitude of disappointment, embarrassment or despair at the state of heterosexual relations – specifically about being in one.
Seresin’s definition is useful because this pessimism is accompanied by the paradoxical practice of sticking with heterosexuality in its current forms, even as it is judged to be “irredeemable”.
Seresin now uses the term “heterofatalism” to emphasise how dire, hopeless, and lacking in visions for an alternative, this attitude is.
So what is heteropessimism?
Heteropessimism describes a negative attitude that pervades heterosexual culture, within many of the men and women who co-create it.
Heteropessimism does not necessarily imply violent or harmful relationships, overt sexism, abuse or even a hierarchy. In fact, many heteropessimistic relationships likely start with real desire for romantic, sexual and intimate connection.
Heteropessimism describes something more mundane. It’s a pervasive disappointment, ambivalence, if not doubt, about the quality of the lived heterosexual experience.
It is either unhappily ever after, or living with compromises that are fundamentally unsatisfactory. While life can be a little disappointing at times, the problem with heteropessimism is the negativity stifles thinking about how things could be different.
It is easy to find examples of heteropessimism in culture. Stories that highlight the power of female friendship or sisterly love (from Sex and the City to Frozen), often do so by comparing it to the disappointments of heterosexual romance.
Out of a sense of anger and frustration about the monotony and violence of it all, the queer internet has turned heteropessimistic culture into jokes. The Instagram account Hets Explain Yourselves is a growing archive of heteropessimism memes (on clothing, greeting cards, masks, mugs, bumper stickers) without a compelling vision for change.
Meanwhile, writer Andrea Long Chu claims heterosexuality is on the verge of collapse, held together with “sticky tape and crossed fingers”.
The persistent desire to keep it together is clearest in a show like Married at First Sight. In MAFS, there is no space for exploring or developing a new kind of heterosexual relation. There is only time for a man and a woman to say hello and be stuck together with matrimonial glue.
Married at First Sight is a reality TV show following Australian ‘couples’ as they meet for the first time at their wedding, then honeymoon, meet the in-laws and set up home, all the while getting to know one another more deeply, in what’s billed as a ‘social experiment’. Nine
So, why are heterosexuals so pessimistic about heterosexuality?
Many couples feel resentful in relationships with unequal caring responsibilities. This imbalance was given a new clarity during COVID.
Rising living costs also compel compromises. One partners’ career is prioritised over the other’s, work hours increase and it takes multiple jobs to sustain a household. All this increases relationship pressure.
Even if some couples negotiate happier and more equitable relationships, we can’t ignore the ubiquity of intimate partner violence and sexual assault. This is the darkest and far too often fatal expression of dissatisfaction with the heterosexual ideal.
Although heteropessimism might manifest as a personal or private feeling, Asa Seresin says “heterosexuality is nobody’s personal problem”.
On one hand, pessimism works like cynicism. It thwarts an examination of the other forces shaping intimate relations – misogyny and normative gender roles, economic stresses and the moral and emotional pressures of monogamy.
On the other, pessimism diverts attention from the lack of cultural encouragement to imagine alternatives beyond the nuclear family household.
For an interview as part of our research, author Sophie Lewis identifies this fatalism as especially acute amongst straight women in heterosexual relationships. Lewis observes many women seem to see “no alternative to their trajectory” within heterosexuality. This kind of dissatisfaction is “unaccompanied by political experimentation and response”.
Where do we go from here?
There are established alternative ways of living and loving in other cultures and LGBTQAI+ communities. These include expanded kinship arrangements with friends or family, platonic or romantic polyamorous relationships, or even just good relationship therapy.
But a feature of heteropessimistic culture is that proponents are radically disinterested in, even hostile to, such possibilities.
Although heteropessimism as a concept is useful in raising awareness of an enduring cultural problem, pessimism can’t help solve it. We need other visions for heterosexuality that are neither straightforward, nor particularly straight.
We hope for new forms of liberation that don’t rely on the binary opposition of heterosexual versus LGBTQAI+. We want them to recognise all kinds of desire and breathe optimism into relationships by emphasising equality, freedom, consent, creativity, kindness and respect.
Transmedia consultant, Daz Chandler, from the Parallel Effect https://www.paralleleffect.com/ worked on the podcast project and also assisted with the writing of this piece. The authors of this article received funding from the Freilich Project for the Study of Bigotry to seed their research. https://freilich.anu.edu.au/
Christina Kenny, Felicity Joseph, and Matt Allen 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.
Cost of living is – and should be – on everyone’s mind. But how we are managing increasing costs could impact us well into retirement.
As cost-of-living pressures continue to increase with record inflation and rising interest rates for mortgages, increasing numbers of New Zealanders are withdrawing money from their KiwiSaver accounts to survive.
According to last September’s Financial Market Authority’s KiwiSaver Annual Report, financial hardship withdrawals were up 42.8% from 2020.
For New Zealanders struggling to survive in 2022, saving for retirement is likely far from their minds.
It is also these New Zealanders for whom safeguarding retirement savings is arguably the most important, as they are less likely to enter retirement owning their home.
Worrying about retirement
The Financial Services Council’s Money & You report gave insight into how many of us are worried about our retirement savings – namely, being able to afford one at all.
Around 64% of Kiwis worry they won’t be able to afford retirement, while 70% think they’ll need to work past age 65.
So while withdrawals, fees and fund switching due to stockmarket volatility are important savings topics, there is one (admittedly unpleasant) question we all need to ask ourselves. Is our KiwiSaver balance building up fast enough to provide for our retirement?
For the average New Zealander, the short answer is no. We are not on track. That’s before we take into consideration the possibility of future financial shocks, like high inflation.
Just over two-thirds of New Zealanders worry that they will have to work well past retirement age. Olga Shumytskaya/Getty Images
The gap between retirement and reality
The average KiwiSaver balance is $29,022, as of December 31 2021.
This figure is relatively uninformative by itself.
The Retirement Commission (formerly the Commission for Financial Capability) asked actuaries Melville Jessup Weaver (MJW) to dig into the numbers and provide some context, namely to break down the figures by age and gender.
Unsurprisingly, there is a large gender disparity in KiwiSaver funds – another important topic that has received considerable media coverage since it was revealed.
But there is a more general and pressing concern: the limited savings of people in their 40s.
Why this age group? Put simply, these individuals face high household expenditure with kids at home and, if they’re homeowners, increasing interest rates on their mortgage repayments. If they’re paying rent, that’s likely to be going up as well.
This age group also has less time to benefit from KiwiSaver’s compounding returns before retirement and, despite NZ Super being seemingly guaranteed, retirement is far enough away for a little uncertainty to be prudent.
This group was also already in the workforce for KiwiSaver’s inaugural year, with our current 41-year-old aged 27 in 2007.
Calculating a clearer picture
To gain a better understanding of what is facing this cohort, we need to do two things: first, estimate their KiwiSaver balance at age 65 (using Sorted’s KiwiSaver Calculator) and, second, calculate if this will be enough for retirement.
The average KiwiSaver balance for a 40-something is $36,833 ($32,987 for women, $43,068 for men). Assuming the average wage (to be conservative, let’s use figures from 2017) and investment in a balanced fund, a 43-year-old with a current average balance of $33,331 is projected to have $151,820 by 65. For a 48-year-old with current average balance of $40,335 in a balanced fund, Sorted projects $121,350 by 65.
Let’s assume our average Kiwis are city-slickers (“metro”) and hope for a comfortable standard of living with a few luxuries thrown in (a “choices” lifestyle). Those in regional areas and/or planning to live (very) frugally are likely to spend less in retirement.
This calculation does not factor in other income (such as savings outside KiwiSaver, or working past 65) or having a partner, and we’re (optimistically) living until 90 years old.
The gap between retirement funds and expenses will depend on your lifestyle, but even those living frugally face a weekly shortfall. Marko Geber/Getty Images
After the weekly (singles) NZ Super payment of $463 combined with KiwiSaver funds, our 43-year-old is projected to be $392 per week short of the $1,029 they’ll need per week in retirement. Our 48-year-old is projected to be $427 per week short.
Those considering a more frugal lifestyle ($726/week) are still short after NZ Super and KiwiSaver: $89/week for our 43-year-old and $124/week for those currently aged 48.
Save now or work longer
Kiwis are right to think they are not on track to afford their retirement and that they may be working well past retirement age.
Depending on your personal circumstances, you may or may not be the average Kiwi. It doesn’t matter. We all need to cope with today’s cost-of-living pressures while making sure we’re saving enough for tomorrow. On average, what we are doing now isn’t enough.
While we can’t go back in time and introduce KiwiSaver in the early ’90s like Australia, raising the baseline savings rate from 3% would help. This is not a new idea, with the Commission for Financial Capability recommending a graduated increase in 2016.
Unlike our employee-employer contribution mix where New Zealand employers match their employees’ 3%, Australians also enjoy an employer-paid scheme (currently a 10% rate, by 2025 it’ll be 12%). The current average balance for a 40-something Australian is about $125,000.
But what you can do now is take stock of your own financial situation. Regardless of age, you should do the above calculations yourself. Then, do something about it.
Individuals can contribute to KiwiSaver at a higher rate of 4%, 6%, 8% or 10% and choose the best fund type for their circumstances to ensure that money is working for them. Your future retired self will thank you.
Ayesha Scott receives research funding from the Auckland University of Technology (AUT) and AUT Business School. She collaborates with Good Shepherd NZ and BNZ on non-KiwiSaver research projects, around healthy financial relationships and economic harm. Ayesha has consulted for KiwiSaver providers in the past, as an independent expert reviewer.
Australians are becoming more fearful in an insecure world, and want to see the country armed up, favouring more defence spending and the planned acquisition of nuclear-powered submarines.
Three quarters of Australians say it is likely China will become a military threat to Australia in the next 20 years, according to the 2022 Lowy Institute’s Poll. This is an increase of 29 points since 2018.
Moreover, for the first time a majority (51%) would favour Australian military forces being used if China invaded Taiwan and the United States intervened. This was an eight-point rise since 2019 when the question was last asked.
Just over half (51%) say Australia should boost defence spending – a 20-point rise since 2019. Seven in ten favour the plan to acquire nuclear-powered submarines. More than six in ten support the American military being based in Australia.
Defence Minister Richard Marles, who is acting prime minister, on Tuesday announced the government is extending the terms of the Chief of the Defence Force, Angus Campbell, and the ADF’s vice chief, Vice Admiral David Johnston, by two years. The government has also asked the CDF to extend the term of the Chief of Joint Operations, Lieutenant General Greg Bilton.
Marles said the extensions were because it was “a time which is as strategically complex as any since the end of the Second World War in terms of our national security and the needs of our defence procurement”.
In his preface to the poll, Lowy executive director Michael Fullilove writes:
“Australians are increasingly concerned about the potential for great power competition to spill over into confrontation.
“In 2022, Australians report feeling unsafe, and as the potential for conflict in our region feels more possible, support for Australia’s alliance with the United States has returned to a record high.”
Nearly seven in ten (68%) believe Russia’s foreign policy poses a critical threat to Australia’s vital interest in the next decade – a 36-point increase since 2017. Russian foreign policy tops the list of threats to Australia’s vital interests, narrowly ahead of China’s foreign policy (65% – up 29 points since 2017).
In general, anxiety about Russia, China and a war over Taiwan have overtaken Australians’ concerns about COVID-19 and climate change.
The poll was conducted March 15-28 with a sample of 2006. It is the 18th in the Lowy Institute’s annual series and is authored by Natasha Kassam.
In the election campaign the Coalition tried to make national security and fears about China an issue to its advantage but this backfired when it came under attack for having been unable to head off the China-Solomons security pact.
The poll found 88% of people were concerned about China potentially opening a military base in a Pacific Island country.
While there has been a 11-point (to 58%) fall in confidence in US President Joe Biden since 2021, this is still 28 points above the confidence expressed in President Donald Trump in 2020 (30%).
On climate change, there is overwhelming support for federal government subsidies for renewable technology (90%), committing to a more ambitious emissions target for 2030 ((77%), and Australian hosting a United Nations climate conference (75%). Nearly two thirds (65%) support reducing coal exports, and banning new coal mines (63%).
COVID has receded but not disappeared as a threat in the minds of Australians. Only just over four in ten (42%) see COVID as a critical threat to Australia’s interests, 17 points down on 2021 and 34 points down on 2020.
More than six in ten people (62%) are optimistic about Australia’s economic performance in the world over the next five years, but this is a 17-point fall from 2021.
With Anthony Albanese’s visiting Paris later this week, in the poll 49% blame both Australia and France for the tensions in the relationship over the cancellation of the submarine contract; 35% say Australia is more to blame, while 12% blame France more.
Making his announcement about the defence chief, Marles said the Albanese government “is putting a premium on continuity. This applies to strategic advice and the timely and effective delivery of key procurements including through the AUKUS framework. Australia cannot afford any further delay in the next generation of submarines.”
Marles announced new chiefs of the navy, army and air force.
Navy: Rear Admiral Mark Hammond.
Army: Major General Simon Stuart.
Air Force: Air Vice-Marshal Robert Chipman.
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.
An Aotearoa New Zealand health workforce recruiting agency is fielding calls from senior US doctors who say they can no longer live in their own country.
Accent Health Recruitment has been flooded with inquiries from US doctors wanting to come to New Zealand following the US Supreme Court’s decision overturning abortion rights last Friday.
Accent Health Recruitment managing director Prudence Thomson said she normally got about 30 inquiries a day but that had doubled since the ruling.
“The emotion and frustration attached to their email, you could just feel it. They’re saying, ‘we can no longer live in this country, we need to come, will you have us in New Zealand?’
“It was quite an emotional tug, as far as of people really wanting to leave and throwing their hands in the air.”
Thomson said most inquiries were from GPs and obstetricians.
‘A spike in inquiries’ “There has been quite a spike in inquiries from them — they’re really passionate about looking after their patients and now they no longer are able to provide the healthcare they want,” she said.
“So they want to come to New Zealand to practise, which is good for New Zealand.”
However, she said it would take at least six months before the American health professionals could work in New Zealand.
“Every medical professional needs to get their qualifications verified to come to New Zealand and that takes from three to six months.
“While we want to speed it up we don’t want to cut corners because in a crisis that’s when the weaknesses will be exposed and that’s when the people who want to commit identity fraud could get through.”
However, she said it should still give the chronically understaffed health sector some hope that help was coming.
Messaging about jobs US nurse McKenzie Mills recently moved to New Zealand and said former colleagues had been messaging her about jobs ever since the US Supreme Court ruled against abortion.
She said she was heartbroken and angry after the ruling.
However, she said she was even more sure now that her decision to move to New Zealand in January was the right one.
“I take care of people and it just really broke my heart that there is so much health care that will be denied to millions of women.”
Mills said she felt like she had “escaped” her own country as a result of the ruling.
This article is republished under a community partnership agreement with RNZ.
Foreign investors could be sent to jail in Fiji for breaking a new investment law, says the prominent Suva law firm Munro Leys.
The company said the “vague and unsatisfactory” new Investment Act could create greater uncertainty for foreign investors.
In a legal alert to its clients, Munro Leys lawyers also said aspects of the new law could do “more harm than help” and “poor legal drafting leaves us more confused and slightly alarmed”.
It said serious investors relied on the laws of their target country to give them certainty and transparency.
“The Investment Act, unfortunately, does the opposite. In place of transparency, there is significant potential for confusion and frustration,” the legal firm said.
Munro Leys criticises some of the wording of the new law as “vague and almost impossible to legally pin down”.
“If we don’t know who a ‘foreign investor’ is and when they are investing, it is impossible to know which rules apply,” the legal alert said.
New regulations criticised The firm’s alert also criticised new regulations which required foreign investors to bring into Fiji their total investment amount within three months of “incorporation” and said an investor could be prosecuted for failing to do so.
“The penalty for the offence, for an individual, is a fine not exceeding $10,000 or imprisonment for a term not exceeding five years or both. Bodies corporate can be fined up to $50,000.
“To make matters worse, it’s not clear to whom this three-month rule applies. From a plain reading of the regulations, it applies only to those foreign investors investing in restrictive activities,” the legal advice said.
“However, the authorities appear to have expressed the view that it applies to all foreign investors.
“It is difficult to see the government prosecuting a foreign investor which does not bring in its money on time. But criminalising delay may create other issues for investors going to the legality of their investment and double down on the uncertainty that has already been created.”
Criticising Section 7 of the Act, Munro Leys said that an investor was required to send an investment proposal to the government for consent to invest in certain “critical sectors” but it was not clear what those sectors were.
“No one knows what the proposal should say, what criteria the minister will apply in his/her decision and how long the minister will take to approve it.
Other problems “It seems that the government intends for regulations to be made to decide what sectors need ministerial approval. [But] with about a month to go before the new law comes into effect, there are no regulations.
“The problems are not confined to new investors.
“Existing investors, including those who complied with the old Foreign Investment Act, are not immune.
“They may now need to apply for permission to make new investments. Some companies who were not previous “foreign investors” may find they are now in that category (and vice versa).”
The Act will come into effect from August.
Questions sent to Attorney-General Aiyaz Sayed-Khaiyum, Fiji Commerce and Employers Federation (FCEF) and Fiji Chamber of Commerce and Industry remained unanswered.
Luke Naceiis a Fiji Times reporter. Republished with permission.
More than 25 million people Australians sat down on (or around) Tuesday August 20 last year to complete their census.
Despite our borders still largely being closed, that was an 8.6% increase in the number of people completing the census in 2021 compared to the last time we broke the internet to do it (in 2016).
And the population has been steadily increasing, largely thanks to migration, over the past 25 years.
So what did the average respondent look like?
They were most likely to be 38 (37 if male, 39 if female), with a slightly larger chance of it being a woman (50.7%).
This census saw a generational shift in who was filling out the census.
While there has been little change in the total size of the Boomer population, the proportion of the population has dropped since 2016 – making way for their traditional generational rivals.
Millennials are now on equal footing, which could tells us something about recent (and future) elections, as well as potential culture wars.
We’re an increasingly diverse country
More than half of Australians (51.5%) reported either being born overseas or having a parent who was.
This is the first time since the question was added to the census this has been the case, and it will be interesting to see if this number continues to increase given the impact border closures have had over the past two years.
While England remains the number one source of new Australians, India, New Zealand and China were not far behind – and growing – as the most common countries of birth.
The First Nations population also continues to grow
Since 2016 there’s been a 25% increase in the number of Australians who identify as Aboriginal and/or Torres Strait Islander, with 812,728 people (or 3.2% of the population) indicating it on their census form.
The 2021 data also revealed a shift in First Nations demographics, with a growing population of Indigenous people now aged over 65 – a more than 150% increase (from 31,000 to 47,000 people) on 2016.
The number of Australians who identified as having no religion increased again this census (38.9%), rocketing up from 30.1% in 2016.
While Christians as a whole remained the number one religious group – with 43.9% of the population identify with some form of Christianity – “no religion” was the number one individual religious affiliation, with Catholic a distant second.
For the first time, the Australian Bureau of Statistics asked Australians about long-term health conditions, which gives us a population-level view of the self-reported health of the nation.
While just under 15.3 million (60.1%) Australians reported no conditions, 2.2 million reported having some kind of long-term mental health condition (including depression or anxiety), with arthritis and asthma not far behind.
An ageing population, as well as reports of the impact of COVID and lockdowns on mental health across multiplepopulations, suggest it’s unlikely the number of people with a long-term health condition is going to decrease over time.
The data also show that women are more likely than men to have multiple long-term conditions.
Women are still doing (much) more housework than men
Women were much more likely than men to be doing more than 30 hours of unpaid domestic work in the week prior to census night, and men were more likely to have done none at all.
Our first – and hopefully last – COVID census shows that we still have a lot of progress to make in the way labour is shared in the home.
The reversal of Roe v. Wade by the American Supreme court last week is a watershed moment in American politics. The ruling withdraws constitutional protections for abortion rights and sends the issue to the states, around half of which are expected to ban abortions.
Unlike the last time abortion was illegal in the United States, almost half a century ago, we now live in an era of pervasive digital surveillance enabled by the internet and mobile phones. Digital data may well be used to identify, track, and incriminate women who seek abortion.
Over the past 20 years or so, large tech companies, mobile app operators, data brokers, and online ad companies have built a comprehensive system to collect, analyse, and share huge amounts of data. Companies can follow our every movement, profile our behaviour, and snoop on our emotions.
Until now, this system has mostly been used to sell us things. But following last week’s ruling, many are concerned that personal data could be used to surveil pregnancies, shared with law enforcement agencies, or sold to vigilantes.
Data everywhere
There are various sources of data that could be used to identify, track, and prosecute women who are suspected of seeking an abortion.
Google routinely shares private user information with law enforcement agencies, even without a warrant. This includes search terms, which could be used as evidence by law enforcement agencies investigating or prosecuting abortion-related cases.
Online surveillance can also include location data. American police already use location data from mobile devices to collect evidence against suspected criminals.
The same technology could be used to track women’s movements, and report when they went near an abortion facility or travelled to a different state where abortions are legal.
Social media
Social media activity, and data collected by social media platforms, can also be used to infer whether someone may be pregnant or is interested in getting an abortion.
A recent investigation showed hundreds of “crisis pregnancy centres” – quasi-healthcare clinics that aim to dissuade women from having abortions – around the US shared website visitor information with Facebook. In some cases, this revealed people’s names and addresses, as well as whether a woman was considering an abortion.
The investigation also showed anti-abortion organisations were able to get access to some of this information. If abortion is made a crime, this information could be used against women in legal proceedings.
Period trackers
Data from fertility and health apps could also be used to identify and track women who are suspected of seeking abortion. These apps record highly private information including menstruation cycles, sexual activity, and hormonal treatments.
With the end of institutional protections for abortions, many worry that data from such applications could be used as evidence against women in legal proceedings.
However, such piecemeal individual efforts are likely to be ineffective or impractical. The digital surveillance apparatus is too vast for us to effectively evade it.
Billions of webpages contain trackers that collect detailed data. More than 6.5 billion phones globally can be easily repurposed as sophisticated surveillance tools. It is becoming increasingly difficult to avoid the gaze of cameras whose images can be stored in biometric databases and algorithmically identified and analyzed.
What is worse, these data are collected, stored, and traded in ways we don’t understand very well, with only minimal rules and regulations.
Privacy advocates and researchers have been warning us for years of the destructive potential of the digital surveillance apparatus.
Critics have often noted how this system could bolster and embolden totalitarian regimes, such as in China. Surveillance in Western countries, like the US, has been seen as less of a problem because it was focused on commerce.
The overturning of Roe v. Wade is an era-defining moment because of its significance for women’s reproductive rights. It may also define the era in another way: we may see the existing digital surveillance system routinely used to criminalise individual citizens.
Not too late for better privacy rules
Much of the existing legislation is out of step with current technologies and in need of reform, not only in the US but also in Australia.
What would new rules look like? To rein in digital surveillance, they would
strictly limit the collection, storage, sharing, and recombination of digital data
tightly regulate the use of facial recognition technologies
require digital platforms, websites, and mobile apps to provide users with easy and genuine non-tracking options, and
require companies to offer true end-to-end encryption to protect user data.
We are on the cusp of an era where digital surveillance is used at scale against ordinary citizens. Huge changes are required, not only to protect women’s reproductive choice but also to protect everybody’s privacy and freedom from undue surveillance.
Uri Gal does not work for, consult, own shares in or receive funding from any company or organisation that would benefit from this article, and has disclosed no relevant affiliations beyond their academic appointment.
Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Bronwyn Carlson, Professor, Indigenous Studies and Director of The Centre for Global Indigenous Futures, Macquarie University
Limitations in census reporting includes how Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander caregivers are reported on and considered.GettyImages
The census counted 812,728 Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander people on census night, making up 3.2% of the total people counted. That’s up from 649,171 in the 2016 census, an increase of over 25%.
Many have estimated the population prior to the arrival of the British was between 750,000 and 1 million. So the exciting news is in only 234 years we are nearing pre-colonial numbers.
Whenever there is an increase in the numbers of Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islanders, there is always speculation as to why.
Of course the politics of identity is always at play. There will be the usual commentary that targets the way people look in those old arguments that refer to skin colour as the measure of who counts as Aboriginal and the idea that lighter skin signifies less Indigenous or no Indigenous identity at all.
These worn out tropes never take into consideration that colonial policies and practices such as those that led to the Stolen Generations directly targeted people with mixed heritage. These targeted people suffered unimaginable violence in the nation’s mission to breed the colour out of us.
But unfortunately, given the lack of information in the census about Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander peoples’ lives, we can’t be sure if overall health among Indigenous people is improving and why lifespans seem to be improving. And the census has failed to investigate other ways Indigenous people may choose to identify, and how we live as families.
The 2021 census, like previous years, leaves me wanting more information and a more complex read of our lives. As my colleague Wiradjuri Indigenous Studies professor Sandy O’Sullivan has pointed out repeatedly, the census survey is often a reductive examination of our lives and lacks a more detailed exploration of who we are.
There is generally no focus on race, gender and sexuality as it pertains to Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander peoples. Nor are there any questions in the survey around what constitutes a family or a household or parenting from our perspectives.
In terms of families, the census shows there are many changes to the 6 million families counted. The census speaks of parents as being either female or male. What of same sex, queer and trans parents? Such a focus can have significant impact on families seeking services.
The census also records a reduction of people over the age of 55 years looking after “other people’s children”. However Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander non-parental caregivers such as grandparents would likely see children they care for as being “theirs”, as this is the way Indigenous family systems work. There are thought to be a significant number of Indigenous kids living in informal kinship care. Therefore these numbers will not be accurate for Indigenous people.
The census provides details such as there are now more than 47,000 Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander people who identify as being over the age of 65 years old. This up from 31,000 in 2016. That is great news, but without knowing any more about those who are living longer, we don’t know the circumstances that have led to this improvement.
The census tells us how many Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander people own a house or are paying rent, but it does not speak to the rising number of Indigenous people who are homeless or unable to afford rising rent prices.
Dr David Gruen, an Australian statistician has said,
The Census collects vitally important information about Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander communities that will help governments and local organisations plan for health, education and community services into the future
But do the questions asked in the census survey reflect our population and what is important to many of us? And if not then what does that mean for service provision for our communities?
If the census is the means by which Australia understands its population then it is fair to say it falls short on several fronts, especially with regard to Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander peoples.
It’s time we demanded a more nuanced picture of ourselves. If the results of the census are to inform planning for health, education and community services as Dr Gruen suggests, then we need to do a better job of collecting data that reflects our population and the reality of the lives we lead.
Bronwyn Carlson 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.
Some animals can live to a startlingly old age, from the famous 392-year-old “Greenland shark” to a 190-year-old tortoise in the Seychelles. Two science studies published last week brings us closer to understanding why some animal species can live for so long – far longer than humans.
The first, published in Science, debunked a few theories on why amphibians and reptiles (such as tortoises) live long lives. It found most reptiles and amphibians have highly variable rates of ageing and that, perhaps counter-intuitively, being coldblooded is not indicative of a long lifespan.
The only exception is turtles, which may fit the hypothesis of having a “protective phenotype”, where physical or chemical traits such as shells or venom enable a species to live longer.
The second study, which I was involved in, discovered the age of the world’s oldest aquarium fish: Granddad the lungfish.
Granddad was sent from Australia to Chicago in 1933 and lived in an aquarium until 2017. Our study measured changes in Granddad’s DNA to calculate his age at death. He was 109 years old.
Finding out how long an animal lives for isn’t easy, especially if they can outlive humans. It is well established that ageing is under genetic control, as the DNA sequence of certain genes can predict potential lifespan.
However, environmental pressures – such as getting eaten by a predator or succumbing to disease – can cut life off short, and may explain age differences between closely related species, such as between reptiles in the first study.
Here, I introduce you to five remarkably old animals and the fascinating lives they’ve led.
Granddad the Lungfish
Age: 109 years
Species: Australian lungfish (Neoceratodus forsteri)
The world’s oldest lived aquarium fish is Granddad, the Australian lungfish. In our recent study, we used a DNA-based method to determine that Granddad was 109 years old when he died.
He lived a remarkable life. In 1933, Granddad made the 20-day voyage from Australia to the Chicago World’s Fair in the United States, where more than 100 million people visited him in the John G. Shedd Aquarium.
As its name suggests, Australian lungfish have the unique ability to breathe air from a single lung during dry spells, when streams become stagnant or water quality becomes poor.
The species, now endangered, has a deeply ancient lineage. Indeed, the Australian Lungfish is the closest living relative to all land-based “tetrapods” – four-limbed animals including frogs, humans, and even dinosaurs.
To find out Granddad’s age, we used a test that looks at “epigenetic” changes in the DNA, which occur from environmental changes and accumulate over a lifetime.
In fact, our study also identified the sub-population in Queensland Granddad came from. We learned Granddad originally came from the Burnett River, one of three rivers in Queensland home to Australian lungfish.
A rare photo of Cocky Bennett, aged 117. Aussie~mobs/Flickr
Another long-lived Australian animal was a sulphur-crested cockatoo named Cocky Bennett, who lived to 119.
Cocky lived at the Sea Breeze Hotel in Blakehurst, New South Wales, and even had a tribute written in the newspaper in 1916 when he died.
According to the tribute, Cocky would often say “one at time gentlemen, please” when other birds harassed him, and “one feather more and I’ll fly”. But due to a disease, Cocky was almost featherless for the last two decades of his exceptionally long life, and had a long, curved and twisted beak.
Prior to ruling the Sea Breeze Hotel, Cocky Bennett is thought to have accompanied a ship captain on his seafaring journeys for 78 years, and reportedly circled the globe seven times.
The Animal Ageing and Longevity Database report a much shorter lifespan for sulphur-crested cockatoos in the wild at 57 years. But in captivity, they can live as long as humans.
This is where researchers need to be careful, as lifespans are often longer for animals in captivity than would naturally occur in the wild.
It’s estimated he hatched in 1832 in the Seychelles Islands. When he was around 50 years old, Jonathan was transported to St Helena, a remote island in the South Atlantic Ocean, and gifted to the St Helena governor. Jonathan has not only outlived the governor, but has seen 31 different governors hold office.
Photograph of St Helena resident tortoise Jonathan (left) around 1900. Wikimedia, CC BY-SA
As the new study on reptiles and amphibians hypothesised, tortoises may be long-lived due to their extra protection from their shells. A lack of predators may also play an important role. For example, Galapagos giant tortoises can live to over 100 and are free from any natural predators.
The species, the Greenland shark, is thought to be the longest-lived animal with a backbone. We know only little about Greenland sharks. But a 2016 study used radiocarbon dating and found one to be 392 years old.
The authors also estimated that Greenland sharks don’t reach sexual maturity until 156 years old.
Living deep in the cold waters of the Arctic and North Atlantic oceans, these iconic sharks are also one of the slowest growing, at a rate of around 1 centimetre per year. Yet, these ocean giants can reach over 5 metres in length.
We know only little about Greenland sharks, including how long they can live for. It’s thought freezing polar waters may play a role in their longevity as it may slow down their metabolism.
The ocean quahog is the world’s longest-lived species, with many reaching over 400 years. As a clam (or marine bivalve mollusk), it’s the only invertebrate on our list. Just like the Greenland shark, this species also lives in the cold waters of the North Atlantic Ocean.
One ocean quahog called “Ming” lived for 507 years. He was named after the Chinese dynasty in power when he was born in 1499, and was discovered off the coast of Iceland. His age was confirmed by counting growth bands on its shell, in the same way you’d count the rings of a tree.
Little is known to why ocean quahogs live for so long but, similar to the Greenland shark, it’s thought the colder waters may have a role in its long lifespan.
The CSIRO paper this article features was published in Frontiers in Environmental Science with authors from CSIRO, Queensland State Government, and Seqwater.
The reversal of Roe v. Wade by the American Supreme court last week is a watershed moment in American politics. The ruling withdraws constitutional protections for abortion rights and sends the issue to the states, around half of which are expected to ban abortions.
Unlike the last time abortion was illegal in the United States, almost half a century ago, we now live in an era of pervasive digital surveillance enabled by the internet and mobile phones. Digital data may well be used to identify, track, and incriminate women who seek abortion.
Over the past 20 years or so, large tech companies, mobile app operators, data brokers, and online ad companies have built a comprehensive system to collect, analyse, and share huge amounts of data. Companies can follow our every movement, profile our behaviour, and snoop on our emotions.
Until now, this system has mostly been used to sell us things. But following last week’s ruling, many are concerned that personal data could be used to surveil pregnancies, shared with law enforcement agencies, or sold to vigilantes.
Data everywhere
There are various sources of data that could be used to identify, track, and prosecute women who are suspected of seeking an abortion.
Google routinely shares private user information with law enforcement agencies, even without a warrant. This includes search terms, which could be used as evidence by law enforcement agencies investigating or prosecuting abortion-related cases.
Online surveillance can also include location data. American police already use location data from mobile devices to collect evidence against suspected criminals.
The same technology could be used to track women’s movements, and report when they went near an abortion facility or travelled to a different state where abortions are legal.
Social media
Social media activity, and data collected by social media platforms, can also be used to infer whether someone may be pregnant or is interested in getting an abortion.
A recent investigation showed hundreds of “crisis pregnancy centres” – quasi-healthcare clinics that aim to dissuade women from having abortions – around the US shared website visitor information with Facebook. In some cases, this revealed people’s names and addresses, as well as whether a woman was considering an abortion.
The investigation also showed anti-abortion organisations were able to get access to some of this information. If abortion is made a crime, this information could be used against women in legal proceedings.
Period trackers
Data from fertility and health apps could also be used to identify and track women who are suspected of seeking abortion. These apps record highly private information including menstruation cycles, sexual activity, and hormonal treatments.
With the end of institutional protections for abortions, many worry that data from such applications could be used as evidence against women in legal proceedings.
However, such piecemeal individual efforts are likely to be ineffective or impractical. The digital surveillance apparatus is too vast for us to effectively evade it.
Billions of webpages contain trackers that collect detailed data. More than 6.5 billion phones globally can be easily repurposed as sophisticated surveillance tools. It is becoming increasingly difficult to avoid the gaze of cameras whose images can be stored in biometric databases and algorithmically identified and analyzed.
What is worse, these data are collected, stored, and traded in ways we don’t understand very well, with only minimal rules and regulations.
Privacy advocates and researchers have been warning us for years of the destructive potential of the digital surveillance apparatus.
Critics have often noted how this system could bolster and embolden totalitarian regimes, such as in China. Surveillance in Western countries, like the US, has been seen as less of a problem because it was focused on commerce.
The overturning of Roe v. Wade is an era-defining moment because of its significance for women’s reproductive rights. It may also define the era in another way: we may see the existing digital surveillance system routinely used to criminalise individual citizens.
Not too late for better privacy rules
Much of the existing legislation is out of step with current technologies and in need of reform, not only in the US but also in Australia.
What would new rules look like? To rein in digital surveillance, they would
strictly limit the collection, storage, sharing, and recombination of digital data
tightly regulate the use of facial recognition technologies
require digital platforms, websites, and mobile apps to provide users with easy and genuine non-tracking options, and
require companies to offer true end-to-end encryption to protect user data.
We are on the cusp of an era where digital surveillance is used at scale against ordinary citizens. Huge changes are required, not only to protect women’s reproductive choice but also to protect everybody’s privacy and freedom from undue surveillance.
Uri Gal does not work for, consult, own shares in or receive funding from any company or organisation that would benefit from this article, and has disclosed no relevant affiliations beyond their academic appointment.
The new federal Labor government is ending the compulsory religious aspect of the A$60 million-a-year National School Chaplaincy Program. The change comes as newly released census data show only 44% of Australians now identify as Christian. The new rules will give Australian schools a fresh choice between a chaplain or a secular student welfare officer, but this change creates a potential for conflict within school communities.
Chaplains of various denominations are now embedded in thousands of schools across Australia. Considering past angst within school communities about the program, guidance is needed for parents and school administrators who wish to shift to secular welfare support for students.
My interest in this issue arises from my personal experience of the chaplaincy program as a parent. But it is informed by my wider research on governance systems and how institutions’ decision-making affects communities. I’m currently researching inclusive approaches to community development. This includes how local schools make decisions to achieve positive outcomes for students and diverse local communities.
In this article, I hope to offer a low-conflict pathway for school communities seeking to change from a religious chaplain to a secular officer.
In schools where there is strong support for incumbent chaplains, particular care needs to be taken. Religious communities, students, parents and school professionals all need to feel comfortable that respectful processes are followed and that resources for student welfare deliver maximum benefit.
As a parent in a rural state high school during the past decade, my family experience of the chaplaincy program was vexed. The program facilitated extracurricular activities at the school with religious themes. Religious activities beyond the school gate were also promoted.
While operating within the program guidelines, I believed these activities weakened the separation of church and state. Some of them lacked any form of secular and multi-faith context setting. There were visits by a creationist artist, a Christian magic show and contested programs like “Shine” for girls and “Strength” for boys.
“Straight Talk Australia” presenters handed out postcard pledges encouraging students to commit to sexual abstinence until entering “a covenant marriage relationship”. I encouraged the school to consider prefacing the talk by outlining state education department policy on sex education and stressing that the activity represented just one organisation’s view on relationship-building and sex education.
Encouraging students to attend non-school-supervised activities beyond the school gate and school hours was equally of concern to me. This could draw students into places where proselytising could occur.
Lessons on changing from religious to secular welfare support
In 2011, the Gillard Labor government institutionalised the same change (but a short-lived one) as the Albanese government has just announced. My school’s Parents and Citizens Association successfully made the shift from a Scripture Union-hosted chaplain to a secular welfare worker. This was achieved with a minimum of conflict despite strong support for the chaplain among many parents and some local Christian groups.
For me, at least three lessons emerged from this process.
1. Not seeking removal of the incumbent chaplain
It is important to not personalise problems associated with the chaplaincy program to individual school-based chaplains. Chaplains have been appointed through legitimate processes under program rules. Many Australians support chaplains as having performed an important role.
Once the rules changed in 2011, our school did not actively seek an immediate transition from the chaplaincy position. Discussion and decision-making were delayed until the position became vacant.
2. Finding a suitable secular host for the welfare worker
Finding a suitable secular organisation to host the welfare worker was perhaps the most difficult challenge the school faced, as there were few organisations well positioned to cover the costs associated with the program. At that time, the funds available for the position were meagre (A$20,000 a year). This meant any hosting organisation would likely, to some degree, need to subsidise overheads.
Religious institutions are often motivated to host the chaplains. That’s why they’re willing to help cover the costs. After a complex national search, our school eventually found a not-for-profit organisation with a secular focus on improving child welfare (and a commitment to trial a hosting arrangement).
3. Framing the school-based decision well
Of utmost importance is the need to positively frame the transition decision within the relevant school-based body. When the chaplaincy position became vacant, my school’s Parents and Citizens Association explored a range of options such as not re-appointing anyone, re-appointing a chaplain, or transition.
I argued we should seek the best-qualified person (religious or not) to service the needs of all school students. Doing so, in my view, made the transition option less contentious.
My interest here is in encouraging good local community and school governance and preserving the integrity of our secular school system.
I hope that sharing this experience can guide all schools in considering this complex decision while meeting the wider needs of the entire school community.
Allan Dale has received no funding in relation to this article. While the views represented are based on his personal experience, they are informed by his extensive research and practical background in governance systems analysis and place-based approaches to community development. At the time of the events discussed, Allan was an ordinary member, and his partner an office bearer, of the P&C referred to. His separate research efforts receive Australian and State Government funding.
At the May 21 federal election, Labor won 77 of the 151 House of Representatives seats (up eight since 2019 when adjusted for redistributions), the Coalition won 58 seats (down 18), the Greens four (up three) and all Others 12 (up seven). This was a Labor majority of three.
The 2019 election result was Coalition 77 seats and Labor 68, but the ABC adjusted for Labor gaining a seat from the Coalition from redistributions. Craig Kelly’s defection from the Coalition to the UAP was not factored in, so Hughes was not a gain for the Coalition.
Despite losing the primary vote by 3.1%, Labor won the national two party count by a 52.1-47.9 margin, a 3.7% swing to Labor. This is obtained by recounting all seats that did not finish as Labor vs Coalition contests between those parties to ascertain the preference between Labor and Coalition of all of Australia’s voters.
With the combined major party primary votes down to just over 68%, and 16 seats won by crossbenchers, some would argue that the two party vote is not relevant anymore. I think it is still relevant as a basic measure of whether more Australians preferred a Labor government or a Coalition one, and of how left or right-leaning seats and states were at the election.
The table below shows the number of seats for each state and nationally, the number of Labor seats, the percentage of Labor seats, the number of net Labor gains, the Labor two party percentage, the two party swing to Labor, the number of Other seats (this includes Greens), the number of Other gains and the number of Coalition seats.
Final results of the 2022 federal election.
The two party swing to Labor in Western Australia was a massive 10.6%, far larger than in any other state.
Seat changes occurred in cities
All Labor, Greens and independent gains occurred in Australia’s five mainland capital cities, and the large majority were in inner city seats. In regional seats, there were swings to the Coalition in Lyons, Gilmore and Lingiari, which made these seats close holds for Labor.
The Australian Electoral Commission (AEC) has a table of two party swings by seat demographic. Negative swings are to Labor, positive to the Coalition. This table has a 5.6% two party swing to Labor in inner metro seats, 3.6% in outer metro, 2.5% in provincial and 2.3% in rural seats.
In Queensland, there was a particularly marked difference between inner metro (an 8.7% two party swing to Labor) and other seat categories (between a 3.1% and 4.4% swing).
Analyst Ben Raue has charts of the difference between each seat demographic and the national two party vote since 1993. He says the inner metro difference in Labor’s favour is the highest ever in these charts, while the difference between rural seats and nationally is the highest in the Coalition’s favour.
Before the election, I anticipated that the best swings to Labor would occur in the cities. Australian cities with over 100,000 population have 68% of our overall population. Winning rural seats isn’t good enough for the Coalition in Australia.
People with a higher level of educational attainment tend to live in inner metro seats, and they have swung towards the left in recent elections in Australia, the US and the UK. Concerns about climate change and social issues were likely important factors in inner metro seats.
State result summaries
In NSW, Labor gained Robertson, Bennelong and Reid from the Liberals, but lost Fowler to an independent. Independents also gained Wentworth, North Sydney and Mackellar from the Liberals. The regional seat of Gilmore was held by Labor by just a 0.2% margin against the Liberals.
In Victoria, Labor gained Chisholm and Higgins from the Liberals, and independents gained Goldstein and Kooyong. The Liberals held Deakin by just a 0.2% margin and Menzies by 0.7% against Labor.
In Queensland, the Greens gained Griffith from Labor and Ryan and Brisbane from the LNP. Outside Brisbane, Labor had swings in its favour, but did not gain any seats. While Labor recovered ground from 2019’s shellacking in regional Queensland, it wasn’t enough to gain seats.
In WA, Labor gained Swan, Pearce, Hasluck and Tangney from the Liberals and an independent gained Curtin. The Liberals held Moore by 0.7% against Labor. Labor has WA to thank for its House majority.
The WA Senate result was crucial in giving Labor a friendly Senate, with Labor winning three of the six up for election, to two Liberals and one Green, a gain for Labor from the Liberals.
In SA, Labor gained Boothby from the Liberals, with the Liberals holding Sturt by 0.5% against Labor.
Tasmania was the only state to record a two party swing to the Coalition. The Liberals had swings in their favour in the regional seats of Bass, Braddon and Lyons, easily retaining the first two after gaining them in 2019, and coming close to gaining Lyons, which Labor held by 0.9%.
In the ACT, Labor easily retained its three seats, while independent David Pocock defeated Liberal Zed Seselja in the Senate. Pocock was helped by Labor’s 67.0-33.0 two party win in the ACT, a 5.3% swing to Labor.
In the NT, Labor easily retained the Darwin-based Solomon with a swing in its favour, but came close to losing the regional Lingiari, holding by 1.0% against the Country Liberals.
Two party seat margins and swings
The AEC has a sortable table of two party results for each seat. Ignoring crossbenchers, Labor won the two party count in 84 of the 151 seats, to 67 for the Coalition. Labor won this measure in its own 77 seats, the four Greens seats, Clark, Fowler and Mayo.
None of the seats gained by teal independents at this election flipped from a Coalition win to a Labor win on two party votes. Labor gained a two party majority in Brisbane, Ryan and Mayo; the first two were gained by the Greens and the last is held by Centre Alliance’s Rebekha Sharkie.
Labor’s best seats against the Coalition were the six seats that were Labor vs Greens contests: Cooper, Wills, Melbourne, Sydney, Grayndler and Canberra.
When Greens and other votes in these seats were counted between Labor and the Coalition, these six seats gave Labor between 72 and 79% against the Coalition. The best two party share in a traditional Labor vs Coalition contest for Labor was in Newcastle (68.0%).
With WA recording a much bigger swing to Labor than any other state, it’s not surprising that WA seats made up the top seven two party swings to Labor.
Greens leader Adam Bandt’s seat of Melbourne was the top non-WA swing to Labor at 10.1%. In 2019, Labor’s Melbourne candidate was disendorsed after nominations closed, and this affected Greens preference flows.
The largest swing to the Coalition was in Fowler (8.3% swing). This was the seat Kristina Keneally lost to an independent. Other western Sydney seats, such as Blaxland, Chifley, McMahon and Watson, swung slightly to Labor, so this was a candidate effect against Keneally.
There were six other seats which swung more than 4% to the Coalition: in ascending order, they are Lyons, Gorton, Lingiari, Braddon, Scullin and Calwell. Gorton, Scullin and Calwell are safe Labor seats in Melbourne, and it appears there was a backlash from the Victorian Labor government’s COVID lockdowns.
The other three are regional seats in Tasmania and the NT. In my election maps article before the election, I said Labor could struggle to regain the Tasmanian seats of Braddon and Bass.
Once elected, independents and other parties who win seats in Australia are difficult to dislodge. For example, independent Andrew Wilkie won Clark (then named Denison) from third on primary votes in 2010, but has retained it easily at subsequent elections.
Furthermore, while the Coalition won the two party count in all the seats won by teal independents, these seats all swung to Labor by between 1% and 10%. The lowest two party swing to Labor in a teal seat was Warringah, where Tony Abbott had deflated the Liberal vote in 2019. If the trend to the left in inner cities continues, it will be difficult for the Coalition to regain these seats.
While the Coalition came close to gaining three regional seats from Labor – Gilmore, Lyons and Lingiari – there are not enough regional seats in Australia for the Coalition to compensate for the losses of city seats.
If the Coalition is to win the next election, they will probably need to regain support in outer metro seats. I believe that in these seats the economy is of paramount importance. At this election, people in outer metro seats probably swung to Labor owing to concerns about inflation.
Economic conditions at the next federal election are likely to be crucial in determining how outer metro seats vote. So if the economy is lousy in three years, the Coalition will probably return to power.
With the massive swing to Labor in WA at this election, the Liberals will be hoping it returns to its normal place as a strongly pro-Coalition state at the next election. But while the WA swing was enhanced by COVID factors, Perth has around 80% of WA’s overall population.
If the Liberals continue to struggle in cities, WA is likely to be more difficult than it may first appear for the Liberals to win back. Tasmania’s three northern seats are likely to be easier for the Liberals to win and hold, but Tasmania only has five seats while WA has 15.
With declining vote share for the major parties, it is becoming more difficult for one of them to win a majority even with our single-member system for the House. Labor has angered both House and Senate crossbenchers with its proposals to cut the number of parliamentary staff each crossbencher is entitled to from four to one.
While Labor does not need the crossbench for a House majority in this term, they could easily need more support in the future, And Labor needs at least one non-Greens crossbencher in the Senate to pass legislation opposed by the Coalition in this term. The proposed reduction is stupid politics.
Adrian Beaumont 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.
In 2012, legislation was introduced in the Northern Territory to restrict the possession and supply of alcohol without a liquor license or permit in designated alcohol protected areas in the Northern Territory.
This legislation will expire at midnight on 16 July 2022, when 344 areas where Aboriginal people live will go back to unrestricted alcohol access. Alcohol restrictions in about 100 general restricted areas (GRAs) that were in place prior to the Stronger Futures legislation will continue under the Liquor Act 2019.
Is restricting the sale of alcohol in communities racist and paternalistic? Without consultation, perhaps. But Indigenous and non-Indigenous organisations have come out against the lifting of restrictions. They call for transparent negotiation processes, that involve key community stakeholders, including women’s groups and youth groups.
Consultation with First Nations community members is vital to avoid making policy decisions without affected communities. This would ensure any strategies implemented would be culturally safe and be informed by people who have better knowledge of what respective communities need.
Last minute legislation could lead to more overpolicing in the NT
An Australian Institute of Health and Welfare report estimated alcohol misuse accounts for 10.5% of total disease burden among Indigenous people in Australia, with that number doubling for Indigenous males aged 25–44. Reducing alcohol misuse can significantly improve overall health and well-being, reduce levels of crime and disability and improve educational achievement.
According to one report, the Northern Territory has around five times the level of alcohol-related emergency department presentations compared to the next closest state or territory. Despite these numbers, both Commonwealth and Territory governments seem to be turning their backs on remote communities when it comes to alcohol policy.
The NT government will implement an “opt-in” policy when the restrictions are lifted. The NT government claims this policy will “empower communities” as communities themselves can determine whether or not a designated area continues with an alcohol ban.
However this new “opt-in” process comes with barriers and risks. It assumes community awareness of these new laws and that communities will know how required procedures and processes for this will work, and have the required technology and internet access to do this. Another significant barrier will be communities achieving consensus about whether or not to “opt-in” to alcohol restrictions for their area. Applications to opt in must have written support of the registered land owner, which could be an NT incorporated association, a land trust or a corporation formed under Commonwealth legislation.
If communities are unaware of, or are unable to complete opt in process, this could result in a significant increase in alcohol-related harm and crime. The NT government says extra support will be provided to communities who decide not to re-implement the ban to help ensure safety.
However it is not clear what this “extra support” will look like, and communities are concerned it will mean “extra policing”. This is a concern for First Nations people, given the history of over policing of Aboriginal people and unfair or overzealous treatment by police.
Communities in The Northern Territory need a better way forward
There is urgent need for a reconsideration of policy approaches to alcohol regulation in the NT. One example of this is the government approval of a Dan Murphy’s super liquor store in Darwin, with the owners themselves commissioning a report that found the new superstore approval was against the advice of health experts and community feedback.
Many jurisdictions in the world regulate alcohol, and regulations vary depending on particular needs and circumstances. Regulation should be tailored to local requirements determined by community consultation.
Consultation can be complicated, time-consuming and expensive, but it is the process called for in Australia’s own guidelines for engaging with
Indigenous communities.
Communities have expressed support for modification of drinking environments, through social clubs, better education around alcohol consumption and public messaging about alcohol behaviours. Also culturally appropriate treatment programs and early intervention or preventative measures have been recommended.
Any future misuse of alcohol in these communities will lead to blame and punishment of individuals despite some affected communities being vocal about not wanting these restrictions lifted in the first place.
Successful community outcomes can only be found through respectful and collaborative support from the government, industry and the wider community to better support First Nations people in controlling their social environment, including the use of alcohol.
The authors wish to thank Neil Westbury for his time and insights, as reflected in this commentary.
Andrew Lockyer Works for North Australian Aboriginal Justice Agency. He is affiliated with NT Government Youth Justice Advisory Committee.
Elizabeth Crawford Spencer 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.
