Pacific leaders fear they will have little or no voice in the new National-led government in Aotearoa New Zealand with the real possibility of not a single Pacific person making it into the new coalition.
Labour had 11 Pacific members of Parliament, then 10 when then Communications Minister Kris Faafoi left. Included was Carmel Sepuloni who became Deputy Prime Minister when Chris Hipkins became leader.
National currently has one possible Pacific MP, Angee Nicholas, but she may lose the Te Atatū seat on special votes, leading with only a margin of 30 over Labour’s Phil Twyford.
But even though the race is tight, she said on social media she had been stopped and congratulated by community members.
“It is going to be close but I hope to bring it home now,” Angee said in a post to social media.
Angee Nicholas says she has been getting positive responses from people in her community . . . “This beautiful family stopped me today to say congratulations. Thank you.” Image: RNZ Pacific/Angee Nicholas/Facebook
National list MP Agnes Loheni has not made the cut as things currently stand.
Pacific political commentator Thomas Wynne said it meant that the number of Pacific people in government might very well go to one or even zero.
Who is it? “Here’s my question to National, who is it exactly that you’re going to have as the minister for Pacific people? Because if Angee doesn’t get in and neither does Agnes, then who?” Wynne asked.
“Because you don’t have any Pacific people in there.
“Chris Luxon has said he has a party of diversity, well I’m sorry but that’s just not the case.”
At the moment Dr Shane Reti is the Pacific people’s spokesperson for National.
On the campaign trail Dr Reti said “attending to the cost of living” was one of the most impactful things that could be done for Pacific people.
Thomas Wynne is part of the Marumaru Atua voyagers. Here he helps guide the vaka into Avarua Harbour in Rarotonga. Image: RNZ Pacific/Daniela Maoate-Cox
Pacific community advocate Melissa Lama said she did not know how National planned to make decisions on Pacific issues.
“To me that’s really scary to have one person represent a massive group of New Zealand society who are visible which is our Pacific people, I just can’t get over that.”
Disheartened over results Lama said she felt disheartened after the results.
“If we look at some of the campaigning slogans and narratives that particularly on the right side, National and Act, have had throughout this election it doesn’t necessarily give me hope for what’s to come for my future and my children’s future,” she said on Sunday.
“I’m definitely gutted. I feel a bit low mood today.”
Dunedin community leader Melissa Lama . . . “I’m definitely gutted. I feel a bit low mood today.” Image: RNZ Pacific/Fire Fire/The Outliers
On Saturday, at a Pacific election watch party in Ilam, Christchurch, most attendees opted to socialise outside instead of watching the results.
Views on what’s to come for Pasifika are mixed. There’s some excitement for change but also nerves.
A common thread was concern that the Ministry for Pacific Peoples would be scrapped.
However, just last week the now incoming Prime Minister told RNZ Pacific he would not bow to ACT.
“Our position very strongly is I’ve been supportive of the Pacific Peoples Ministry. I haven’t been supportive of the management of it. When you have a $40,000 farewell I think that’s insane,” Luxon said.
Keeping an optimistic outlook Deputy Mayor of Waitaki Hana Halalele who is also the general manager of Oamaru Pacific Island Community Group said she was disappointed about the results but was trying to be optimistic.
Hana Halalele . . . disappointed but trying to be optimistic. Image: RNZ Pacific/Waitaki District Council
Despite the drop in Pacific representation in Parliament, Wynne wants to focus on the positives and asks frustrated Pacific community members to hold National and ACT to account on what they have promised.
“I feel it’s time for us to not think about what we’re losing because that day is done — that was yesterday and really we need to start looking at the opportunity of what this new government affords us, because shouting from the sidelines is not going to help,” he said.
Wynne said Act’s vision was for less government and more community involvement could be beneficial.
He also said Act had promised a return of charter schools, which could be good for Pasifika.
Tongan community leader Pakilau Manase Lua, who is leading the charge on fighting for justice for ongoing Dawn Raids said National and Act had been clear on overstayers.
“They don’t support any pathway to residency for people who are overstaying or who may have been stuck here during the lockdowns and had no other option but to try and find a way to settle.”
Pakilau said while there was concern for overstayers, he was still holding out hope the new government would surprise him.
Community leader Pakilau Manase Lua at a Tongan Council of Churches and Aotearoa Tonga Response Group church service . . . leading the charge on fighting for justice over ongoing Dawn Raids. Image: RNZ Pacific/Lydia Lewis
This article is republished under a community partnership agreement with RNZ.
On October 16 1923, brothers Walt and Roy set up a modest cartoon studio. Their goal was to produce short animated films. They created a new character: a mouse, with large ears.
Named “Mickey”, he soon became one of the world’s most recognisable images.
Walt Disney was an innovator in terms of space, colour and movement. He had an uncanny ability to provide pleasure for millions of viewers struggling through the Great Depression.
Disney has influenced countless other animation studios and artists. It has received Academy Awards for Best Animated Feature for the likes of The Incredibles, Up and Frozen. Walt himself holds the record for most nominations (59) and Oscar wins (22 competitive awards, plus four honorary awards) for a single individual.
Just how did Disney manage to do it?
Steamboat Willie and technological wonders
Based in Los Angeles, Disney set about innovating. He created The Alice Comedies, a series of short films featuring a live-action child actress in a cartoon world. Then came Oswald the Lucky Rabbit, a precursor to Mickey Mouse.
Steamboat Willie, released in 1928, was the world’s first fully synchronised sound cartoon. His pioneering use of sound quickly became an industry norm.
A simple story featuring Mickey as a steamboat captain trying to navigate the boat while dealing with various comical situations, Steamboat Willie was universally praised. After a short theatrical run in New York, the film was exhibited nationwide and set Disney on its way.
The clip of Mickey holding the ship’s wheel and whistling became the company’s logo in 2007, reminding audiences of Steamboat’s enduring importance.
New characters emerged post-Steamboat, such as Donald Duck and Mickey’s love interest, Minnie, which still endure today.
Flowers and Trees, made in 1932, was the first animated short film to win an Academy Award – it was also Disney’s (and the industry’s) first full-colour three-strip Technicolor film.
By the end of the 1930s, Disney had pivoted to feature-length animated films, releasing Snow White and the Seven Dwarfs in 1937.
What followed Snow White is often referred to as Disney’s “golden age”, with the release of Pinocchio (1940), Dumbo (1941) and Bambi (1942).
Those early films still dazzle today – think of the Sorcerers’ Apprentice scene in Fantasia (1940) or the Pink Elephants hallucinogenic number in Dumbo. And is there any scene, in any film, more heart-wrenching than the death of Bambi’s mother?
But the golden age never really stopped. The hits just kept on coming – Peter Pan (1953), Lady and the Tramp (1955) and Mary Poppins (1964) remain enduring classics. In the 1990s, a new generation fell in love with Beauty and the Beast (1991), Aladdin (1992) and The Lion King (1994) – and these films were then remade as live-action versions in the 2010s.
Even a minor Disney film like Zootopia (2016) could make a billion dollars at the box-office.
Disneyland and diversification
In 1955, Walt Disney opened Disneyland in Anaheim, California. He wanted to build an inclusive theme park where all the family could have fun.
After Disneyland came Disney World in Florida in 1971, then versions of Disneyland in Paris, Tokyo, Hong Kong and Shanghai.
A famous diagram, sketched by Walt himself in 1957, foreshadowed the direction Disney would ultimately take: a huge business empire of synergies, merchandising and cross-promotion.
Buyouts and a cultural behemoth
In 2006 Disney bought Pixar, in 2009 it bought Marvel and in 2012 it bought LucasFilm. These acquisitions solidified Disney’s position as the brand leader in the entertainment industry.
Pixar was known for films like Toy Story (1995) and Finding Nemo (2003) and the purchase would lead to multiple collaborations between the two.
Most recently, in 2019, Disney acquired 21st Century Fox for a staggering US$71 billion. The deal gave them instant access to Fox’s vast back catalogues.
The deal made some industry insiders uneasy: Disney had become a cultural behemoth, strangling competition, homogenising content and swallowing up entire franchises.
Disney films proudly prioritise family values, stress teamwork and empathy and promote gender equality. Yet until relatively recently, its heroes and heroines were very visibly white, and the studio was criticised for invoking messages of privilege, racial hierarchy and standards of beauty.
Its 1946 film Song of the South has long been criticised for its racist portrayal of African Americans and its romanticisation of the plantation era. Since 1986, Disney have tried to keep it out of circulation, although clips can be found online.
Many old films streaming on Disney+ now feature a disclaimer telling viewers some scenes will include “negative depictions” and “mistreatment of people or cultures”.
LGBTQ+ representation has become more visible since LeFou became Disney’s first openly gay character in its 2017 live-action Beauty and the Beast. But the backlash was troubling, and Disney also ran into trouble with conservative critics with its same-sex kiss in Lightyear (2022), and would later be mocked as “woke Disney” by conservative politicians and media personalities.
CEO Bob Iger – who stepped down in 2021 but was then brought back in 2022 on a huge salary – has not fared well during the recent SAG-AFTRA disputes, with comments deemed out of touch and tone-deaf by many.
Still, despite these tricky issues, Disney’s corporate stranglehold shows no sign of abating. Its reach is gigantic. From cartoons to comics to CGI, Disney controls much of our popular culture.
“If you can dream it, you can do it,” Walt once said. As Disney turns 100, with a market capitalisation today of more than US$150 billion, that’s some dream come true.
Ben McCann 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.
But with almost a million species worldwide and some 30,000 calling Australia home, the (unusually) warm weather also presents an opportunity to appreciate these remarkable and essential insects with whom we share our world.
Despite their sheer diversity, we’re likely to encounter only a select few flies daily. So who are these curious insects, and how should we think about their presence in our lives?
Familiar faces
Bush flies (Musca vetustissima) are the iconic Australian fly, and are found country-wide. They slake their thirst on the sweat and tears of mammals and so linger around our heads, shoulders and faces in search of a refreshing drink.
They’re so persistent that they’re credited with inspiring the “Aussie salute”. These small explorers are otherwise harmless, and pose no serious threat to health or home beyond being a mild nuisance.
The ‘Aussie salute’ is a characteristic gesture of waving flies – specifically the persistent Australian bush flies – away from the face. Mick and Rortles / Wikimedia, CC BY-SA
Similar in appearance are house flies (Musca domestica), which frequent our homes. Unlike bush flies, however, they’re more interested in scraps of food and waste left unprotected. They regurgitate digestive juices to break solids into a mush more amenable to their straw-like mouths, and can pose a minor hygiene concern as a consequence.
Blowflies bring some sparkle to the fly world, and are easily recognised by their often large, shiny bodies. Although sometimes a pest, they’re also voracious scavengers and effective pollinators. In this way they do their bit to break down organic matter, recycle nutrients, and transport pollen to support plant life.
The golden bluebottle (Chrysomya incisuralis) is one of many species of Australian blowfly. Shutterstock
The sheer size of horseflies makes them powerful fliers, which can often be heard and seen at a distance. Females demand a blood meal and so pack a hearty bite to mammals, including us, and can be a nuisance to livestock. They are also, however, excellent pollinators, with some orchids relying on their hard work and specialised mouthparts for survival.
Finally, and famously, are mosquitoes. (Yes, they are a type of fly.) Many summer evenings are spent swatting females as they sip our blood.
More serious is their role as vectors for diseases that have helped to topple empires, and which remain a significant health burden, especially in the Global South. Malaria is among the farthest-reaching, while Ross River Virus, chikungunya, zika and dengue all circulate with help from mosquitoes.
Shoo fly?
For the minority of flies that prove a recurring annoyance, the primary goal is to deter rather than kill them. In this case, the remedies are simple:
use topical repellents containing DEET or Picaridin, and wear loose-fitting clothing when outside
install flyscreens in the house, and check them regularly for holes
keep your food covered, both at home and when out enjoying the warm weather
empty your bins regularly and minimise standing water, both of which can attract unwanted attention.
Avoid reaching for the bug-bombs and sprays, which have devastating impacts on beneficial insects. If a chemical last resort is required, choose selective sprays rather than broad-spectrum options such as pyrethroids and neonicotinoids, which kill the many good bugs with the few bad ones.
Similarly, those noise-emitting, electrified or smelly gadgets that promise a fly-free existence are best avoided, as most are either ineffective, or harm far more than their intended targets.
From pesky to paramount
While our daily encounters with a handful of fly species may taint our perception of the group as a whole, such a view is both unwarranted and unjustified. Flies are among the most diverse animals on the planet, and are utterly crucial for the healthy function of our ecosystems.
The larvae of the black soldier fly (Hermetia illucens) are highly effective decomposers, eating twice their own bodyweight every day. Didier Descouens / Wikimedia, CC BY-SA
On the other side of the circle of life are outstanding decomposers, such as black soldier flies. Each individual larva can eat twice its bodyweight daily, which at the scale of tens of thousands of grubs presents a promising pathway towards sustainable waste management. They are also a rich source of protein for livestock, or even humans.
Just as a very few flies are pests, many serve as remedies in their role as biological controls. The 10,000-odd species of tachinid, or example, make a living as parasitoids of other insects. That is, they lay their eggs inside, and eventually kill, the developing young of others, which include pest caterpillars, flies and bugs.
As the warm weather rolls around, then, take the opportunity to look a little closer at our nimble neighbours, and consider both their staggering diversity and the vital roles they humbly fill. The natural world – us included – would not be the same without them.
Thomas White receives funding from The Australian Research Council, Agrifutures, and the Hermon Slade Foundation. He is also affiliated with the conservation charity Invertebrates Australia.
Tanya Latty receives funding from the Australian Research Council and AgriFutures Australia. She is affiliated with conservation organisation Invertebrates Australia and is president of the Australasian Society for the Study of Animal Behaviour.
Unlike nearly every other species of shark, scalloped hammerheads are highly social. They gather in large groups, or aggregations, numbering in the hundreds. But why? We don’t know.
With the help of drones, we now know a bit more. In our new research, we describe finding a location in a marine park off the coast of Perth where juvenile scalloped hammerheads (Sphyrna lewini) gather in numbers.
Scalloped hammerheads – one of ten species in the hammerhead family – prefer warm waters. But they have become regular visitors to the waters off Perth in summer, now the southernmost part of their range. The sharks are not considered dangerous to humans.
These iconic sharks are among the world’s most threatened species due to over-fishing. And incredibly they are still legally fished in Australia, despite their populations falling by 80% in just 55 years.
They are in danger unless we protect them.
What’s special about these oceanic wayfarers?
Scalloped hammerheads are named for the dents on their hammer-shaped head or cephalofoil. They’re skilled long-distance swimmers and exceptional free divers, able to hunt in the dark waters 500 metres below the surface. They grow slowly and live for up to 55 years.
They’re a challenging species to study because they cover long distances and spend lots of time down deep. Finding a place where these sharks regularly aggregate offers us a remarkable opportunity to learn more about these oceanic wayfarers.
From our drones, we could watch as the scalloped hammerheads grouped together each month. Author provided, CC BY-ND
How did we find them?
Small commercial drones are revolutionising the way we study marine wildlife – especially sharks. The aerial perspective lets us see things we couldn’t see before. Drones have shed light on elusive behaviours we have otherwise been unable to verify. Footage can also be used to identify, count and measure animals.
We heard surf lifesavers had observed hammerhead sharks off Perth beaches during their helicopter shark patrols. We began our search at the Shoalwater Islands Marine Park, off the coast from Rockingham, in Perth’s southern suburbs.
Over two successive summers, we used drones to successfully spot and then track scalloped hammerheads as they aggregated inside the marine park.
The juvenile sharks aggregate in the shallow waters of the Shoalwater Islands Marine Park, south of Perth. Author provided, CC BY-ND
What did we learn?
We learned many things. First, the scalloped hammerheads aggregating at the marine park were juveniles, not adults.
We only found them in a small area of the marine park. They were present with the full moon.
Once aggregated, they would swim in formation, moving in winding patterns through the shallow waters of the marine park.
In terms of what were they doing, our study suggest they’re seeking a place to rest and recover. Sharks often hunt more on the nights with a full moon, taking advantage of better light to see prey.
That would mean these juveniles are tired after a night’s hunting. Now they need to rest and digest. Gathering in a group could also provide some degree of protection from other predators in the area.
It’s likely, therefore, these shallow waters are important shelter for scalloped hammerheads.
This scalloped hammerhead was filmed by a baited remote underwater video system (BRUVS) off the Cocos Keeling Islands, Western Australia. Author provided, CC BY-ND
How can we protect them?
Our research points to the urgent need to strengthen protection of scalloped hammerheads in the popular Shoalwater Islands Marine Park.
We need a code of conduct to prevent water users such as boaters, kayakers, and swimmers from disturbing the animals, similar to those protecting whale sharks and humpback whales. Boat speed limits and bans on chasing animals are essential if we are to protect these endangered animals.
Stopping fishing at the aggregation site is vitally important. Hammerheads are extremely vulnerable to any capture and are unlikely to survive “catch and release” fishing. The marine park should be a safe spot for the sharks to shelter and rest.
We need to strengthen protections in the marine park, shifting from multiple use status – which allows fishing – to highly protected, which prohibits fishing.
Right now, the federal government is reviewing the status of these sharks. Given ongoing fishing pressure, there are clear reasons to assess them as endangered rather than their unclear status as “conservation dependent”.
Australia is fortunate to host remarkable and endangered species such as hammerhead sharks. As our understanding grows, so does our responsibility. There are simple steps available to the state and federal government to safeguard the future of this threatened species and maintain healthy marine ecosystems.
Naima Andrea López received funding for her PhD research from the Australian Government RTP Scholarship, The Jock Clough Marine Foundation through the Oceans Institute Robson and Robertson Award and The Holsworth Wildlife Research Endowment & The Ecological Society of Australia.
Jessica Meeuwig 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.
In March 1976, American Leonard Mack was convicted of sexual assault and holding two female victims at gunpoint. In September 2023, Mack’s wrongful conviction was finally overturned by a New York judge on his 72nd birthday with the help of the Innocence Project, an organisation that uses DNA evidence to prove factual innocence.
Mack’s conviction took 47 years to overturn. He served seven-and-a-half of these years in a New York prison. His case is the longest in United States history to be overturned using DNA evidence.
In June 2023, a similar historic moment occurred in Australia. Kathleen Folbigg was pardoned and released after 20 years in prison for the murder and manslaughter of her four young children.
Considered one of the worst miscarriages of justice in Australian history, Folbigg’s release has sparked discussion over whether Australia needs a formalised body to deal with post-conviction appeals.
Mack and Folbigg are only two individuals on different sides of the world who have spent decades fighting to prove their innocence.
Many others are still fighting. The prevalence of wrongful convictions is hard to determine. The National Registry of Exonerations in the United States has recorded 3,396 exonerations nation-wide since 1989.
But data on official exonerations fail to capture the many individuals whose convictions are yet to be overturned.
Estimates of the prevalence of wrongful convictions in the United States range from 0.5 to 5%. The exact prevalence in Australia is less clear but we do know 71 cases of wrongful convictions have been identified in Australia between 1922 to 2015.
Some have argued there could be 350 convictions per year of individuals who are factually innocent in Australia.
A witness mistakenly identifying an innocent suspect is common in many wrongful conviction cases.
Eyewitness misidentification is the leading contributing factor in wrongful convictions overturned by the Innocence Project, present in 64% of their successful cases.
In Australia, 6% of recorded wrongful convictions involved an eyewitness error.
This may be an underestimate given many applications to innocence initiatives in Australia alleging wrongful conviction, such as the Bridge of Hope Innocence Initiative, report eyewitness evidence as a potential contributing factor.
In Mack’s case, two victims misidentified him as the perpetrator. These identifications proved to be instrumental in his wrongful conviction. How did the two victims get it wrong?
How problematic procedures influence eyewitnesses
Eyewitness identification evidence relies on witnesses to accurately remember criminal perpetrators. Several factors affect eyewitness memory accuracy. Features of the crime can impact memory, such as whether it was light or dark, or whether the perpetrator wore a disguise.
Memory can also be affected by characteristics of the witness at the time of the crime, such as their stress or intoxication levels.
These factors are present at the time of the crime and cannot be changed. What is perhaps more crucial is that eyewitness memory can also be affected by the procedures law enforcement use to collect identification evidence.
In Mack’s case, there were serious problems with the procedures used to get the identifications from the victims. One of the victims made three separate identifications of Mack. Witnesses should only complete one identification procedure for each suspect, because the first identification will bias future identification attempts.
For two of the identifications the victim made, she was only shown Mack by himself surrounded by police. Showing a lone suspect without any other lineup members may increase mistaken identifications, particularly when the context in which they are shown is highly suggestive.
Seeing Mack in handcuffs and in the presence of police may have led the victim to identify him. Mack was the only person shown to the witness in these identification attempts, so the police officers organising the process knew he was the suspect.
“Single-blind” administration of identification procedures – where the police officers organising the lineup know who the suspect is – increase the likelihood of mistaken identifications.
For the other identification this victim made, she picked Mack out of a photo lineup containing seven images. Mack’s photo was the only photo in the lineup that contained visible clothing and the year (1975) in the background. All members of a lineup must be matched and no one lineup member should stand out, but Mack’s photo was distinct.
With all these problematic practices combined, we can see how Mack was misidentified and convicted.
These recommendations serve to reduce mistaken identifications and enhance accurate ones.
The recommendations address the problematic practices in Mack’s case, but also include things like making sure there is sufficient evidence to place a suspect in a lineup, and giving appropriate instructions to witnesses during the procedure.
Identification procedures should also be video recorded to identify any poor practices.
While these recommendations will go a long way to reducing wrongful convictions resulting from faulty eyewitness identifications, they will only be effective if followed by police.
The next step is ensuring these recommendations are embedded into everyday policing practice.
Hayley Cullen previously worked on a voluntary basis for Not Guilty: The Sydney Exoneration Project, an organisation that reviews cases of potential wrongful conviction. She was not involved in any of the cases discussed in this article.
You’ve finished a workout, so you’re hot and drenched with perspiration – but soon you begin to feel cool again. Later, it’s a sweltering summer evening and you’re finding it hard to sleep, so you kick off the covers.
Sweating is a normal part of the body’s cooling system, helping to release heat and maintain optimal body temperature. But regularly waking up during the night, soaked through from excessive sweating is not.
Night sweats are repeated episodes of excessive or intense sweating at night. They are an unpleasant part of life for many people.
Many conditions and factors can trigger night sweats by changing the body’s tightly regulated temperature set point, at which the body attempts to maintain its core temperature. Some triggers are harmless (a hot bedroom) or even related to positive lifestyle changes (exercise). Others have an underlying cause like menopause, infection, disease or medication.
Temperature control and sweating
The hypothalamus, located in the brain, is part of the endocrine system and the temperature control centre for the body. It contains temperature sensors that receive information from nerve cells (thermoreceptors) located centrally (in the organs) and peripherally in the skin.
Thermoreceptors detect changes in body temperature, sending signals back to the hypothalamus. These signals will either activate sweating to cool the body or shivering to warm the body.
Anyone, regardless of age or gender, can experience night sweats. But women experience night sweats more often than men, largely because menopause and associated changing hormone levels are a leading cause.
Approximately 80% of women experience hot flashes (also called hot flushes) or night sweats after menopause (when periods have ceased for 12 months) and during perimenopause (the time leading up to it).
While both hot flashes and night sweats produce a feeling of overheating, they are different experiences associated with menopause. Hot flashes occur during the day, are transient episodes of flushing and may involve sweating. Night sweats occur at night and involve an intense period of sweating. Changing oestrogen levels are thought to impact norepinephrine and serotonin levels, two neurotransmitters that influence temperature regulation in the hypothalamus.
Hormones also influence night sweats in men, particularly those with low testosterone levels, known as hypogonadism. Around 38% of men aged 45 years or older have low testosterone levels but it can affect men at any age.
Night sweats that come with other symptoms could be a sign of illness. Shutterstock
When fighting infection, our body temperature often rises. This can stimulate sweating to cool and decrease body temperature.
Minor infections like the common cold can cause night sweats. They are also a symptom of serious infections such as human immunodeficiency virus (HIV) and diseases such as Hodgkin’s and non-Hodgkin’s lymphoma. However, night sweats are rarely the only symptom present.
Medications such as selective serotonin reuptake inhibitors (SSRIs), corticosteroids, thyroid hormone replacement and methadone can cause night sweats. These medications affect parts of the brain and neurotransmitters that control and stimulate sweating.
Regular alcohol (particularly alcohol dependence) and recreational drug use can also increase the risk of night sweats.
Stress, snoring and strenuous exercise
Night sweats are commonly reported by people with anxiety.
Psychological stress activates the body’s fight or flight system releasing neurotransmitters that increase heart rate, respiration, and blood pressure. This causes the body to heat up, at which point it starts sweating to cool the body back down. Night sweats may also increase anxiety, causing more sweating which in turn leads to less sleep and more anxiety.
If anxiety causes night sweats and this causes distress, it’s best to get up, move around and engage in a calming routine, preferably in a dark or dimly lit room.
Night sweats have similarly been connected with sleep disorders like obstructive sleep apnoea, where the airway is repeatedly blocked during sleep and there is loud snoring. About one third of people with obstructive sleep apnoea regularly experience night sweats. The exact cause is undetermined but research shows it is linked with low blood oxygen levels (hypoxemia) and/or high blood pressure.
People who snore have a higher likelihood of night sweats. Shutterstock
People can experience night sweats after high-intensity workouts. Vigorous exercise can stimulate the thyroid, increasing basal metabolic rate and body temperature for up to 14 hours post exercise. So night sweats can occur even after a vigorous morning workout.
Night sweats can indicate overtraining and/or under-fuelling. If not enough calories are consumed to support the increase in training, blood sugar could drop and you could experience hypoglycaemia, which can cause night sweats.
When to seek help and 5 things to try
There are numerous health conditions and medications that can cause night sweats and interfere with sleep.
If night sweats are regular, distressing, interfere with sleep or are accompanied by symptoms such as fatigue or weight loss (not related to lifestyle or diet changes) talk to a doctor to help determine the cause. They might suggest alternative medications to any you’re taking or recommend tests or investigations.
In the meantime, you can try the following ideas:
1. sleep in a cool room and use a fan if needed
2. don’t overdress for bed. Wear breathable cotton or linen pyjamas
3. choose lightweight bedding you can kick off. Avoid synthetic fibres and flannel bedding
4. consider a cooling mattress or pillow and avoid those (such as foam ones) that can limit airflow
5. avoid spicy foods, caffeine or alcohol before bed.
Linda Grosser 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.
You might have noticed it after sliding on a rock in a Melbourne creek. Or it could have been wading through a Northern Territory waterhole. It’s slime, and our rivers are full of it. That’s a good thing.
Wherever there are hard surfaces like snags and rocks in our rivers, you’ll find slime. Or, as ecologists call it, biofilm. Biofilms consist of communities of microorganisms that include algae, cyanobacteria, bacteria, fungi and protozoa. Together, they’re fixed in a matrix of natural polymers made by bacteria and other tiny creatures. It’s this matrix which gives the slippery, slimy texture we encounter when swimming in rivers.
Biofilms play an important role in our freshwater ecosystems. They underpin healthy rivers by forming the base of freshwater food webs.
Our new research explores how these common but unsung communities change over time. We found that biofilms are most nutritious when new – less than six weeks old. After that, their food value declines.
This is what a 73-day-old biofilm looks like after being pulled from a lowland river. Author provided, CC BY-ND
Why are biofilms important?
Without slime, rivers would lack a fundamental source of food for animals. That sounds like a big statement, but it’s true.
Algae take energy from the sun and convert it into new biomass through photosynthesis. Bacteria and fungi break down organic debris, from dead leaves to dead fish, and recycle the nutrients. Tiny invertebrate grazers such as zooplankton and macroinvertebrates feed on biofilms. In turn, they become food for larger predators such as fish, platypus and turtles.
Not all biofilms offer the same quality of food. And different communities of biofilm grow under different physical conditions.
When the water level goes up in a river, rocks and dead trees at the surface are submerged and biofilms colonise this new habitat. It happens very quickly. Bacteria arrive first, followed by algae in the next few weeks.
Biofilms undergo natural changes in community composition over time, influenced by physical disturbance (such as scouring when water flow is high, or sedimentation from low flows) or chemical changes, such as additional nutrients from runoff.
These disturbances often lead to periods of collapse and recolonisation by new organisms. Biofilms are thought to become a poorer source of food for animals as they get older. That’s because older biofilm communities become dominated by cyanobacteria and filamentous algae, which aren’t as nutritious as a food for animals.
So what makes good slime?
For the discerning invertebrate, the best biofilm is one containing lots of algae – especially diatoms and green algae. These are rich sources of omega 3 fatty acids, molecules essential for animal growth and reproduction. (That’s why the food supplement industry likes to sell us products rich in omega 3s).
Mayfly nymphs, such as this Offadens spp. (Baetidae) scrape algae and fine detritus from submerged rocks, wood and macrophytes in rivers. Chris Davey, CC BY-ND
Having high quality food is one thing. But the food also needs to be easy to get. In the study of food webs, we often use a theory called ecological energetics. Put simply, this suggests the success of an animal population is limited by how hard it is for individuals to obtain sufficient food for growth and reproduction.
You might have long-chain omega 3 fatty acids present, but buried under a pile of less edible microorganisms and detritus. The effort may simply not be worth the reward.
To date, we have a poor understanding of when biofilms hit their peak food value for animals. That’s what we set out to find.
What did we find?
Many of our rivers are regulated by dams and weirs. That means we can alter water levels to cover rocks and snags with water and trigger growth of new biofilms.
If we know how long it takes for biofilms to reach optimum quality, we can manage water levels to improve food value and benefit both biofilm grazers and the fish that eat them.
In our study, we sank wooden redgum blocks 20 centimetres under the surface of three rivers. Then we sampled the biofilm for 73 days, taking DNA to assess how the proportions of algae, cyanobacteria and fungi varied over time.
We developed a novel approach to assess food value, accounting for both quality of fatty acid profiles and their availability in space.
Redgum blocks give biofilm communities something to grow on.
What did we find? Food value for animals peaked between 24 and 43 days after the blocks were submerged.
After 43 days, the food value of biofilms declined. Filamentous algae and cyanobacteria numbers increased as the biofilms aged, while green algae and diatoms abundance decreased. The amount of slimy-feeling natural polymers also increased over time, making our once-delicious biofilms even less nutritious.
So what does this mean? Water agencies are increasingly using environmental flows to support freshwater fish and animal populations. A widely used application for environmental water is to raise water levels in rivers and weirs to inundate new hard surfaces to grow new biofilms.
Now we know that after six weeks the food value of biofilms for animals declines – and that can help managers find the best ways of using environmental water to produce a biofilm bonanza for invertebrates and everything that eats them.
Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By André O. Hudson, Dean of the College of Science, Professor of Biochemistry, Rochester Institute of Technology
Shutterstock
Almost since antibiotics were first discovered, we’ve been aware bacteria can learn how to overcome these medicines, a phenomenon known as antimicrobial resistance.
The World Health Organization says we’re currently losing to the bugs, with resistance increasing and too few new antibiotics in the pipeline.
We wanted to know whether experts around the world think we will still have effective antibiotics in 50 years. Seven out of seven experts said yes.
André O. Hudson receives funding from the National Institutes of Health.
Lori L. Burrows receives research grants from the Canadian Institutes of Health Research, the Natural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of Canada, Glyconet, and the Ontario Research Fund.
Roy Robins-Browne has received funding from The Australian National Health and Medical Research Council, The Australian Research Council, the Bill and Melinda Gates Research Foundation and The US National Institutes of Health.
Fidelma Fitzpatrick, Juliana Côrrea, Raúl Rivas González, and Yori Yuliandra 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.
This article is part of a series by The Conversation, Getting to Zero, examining Australia’s energy transition.
For those people focused on meeting the profound challenge of shifting our economies from fossil fuels to clean energy sources, recent headlines from Europe have made alarming reading.
In September, after five months of fierce controversy, Germany’s ruling coalition managed to pass a law banning new gas boilers in homes and beginning a phase-out of existing ones. Yet public protests and likely electoral setbacks in some parts of the country have forced the government to soften the new law.
That same month, British Prime Minister Rishi Sunak also delayed bans on gas boilers, along with new petrol and diesel cars. Climate activists like Al Gore were dismayed, but Sunak said: “If we continue down this path, we risk losing the consent of the British people” (for net zero policies).
These conflicts all show that achieving net-zero emissions by 2050 requires not only technology and policy changes but an understanding of the human element – the individuals, workers and communities whose lives will be profoundly affected by these changes.
To transform our energy system, all of us will need to join forces to make fundamental changes in our lifestyles. But these changes cannot fall on everyone in the same way; they must be in line with what is called a “just transition”.
The notion of a “just transition” emerged from the US labour movement in the 1980s as a means to shield workers from the impact of new pollution regulations that potentially threatened their jobs. Today, it has gained prominence as a fundamental principle for achieving climate goals.
The concept proposes a comprehensive approach that ensures a fair distribution of both the benefits and burdens of any significant economic transition. Properly implemented, it enables governments and other stakeholders to avoid a backlash from the wider population as they seek to enact sweeping and necessary change.
The risk of such a backlash is real. Uncomfortable realities about the fairness of proposed solutions to climate change are emerging. London’s recent expansion of its ultra-low emissions zone to encompass all the city’s boroughs provoked strong protests.
Media coverage pitted supporters of the initiative against drivers from low socio-economic backgrounds who struggle to afford low-emissions vehicles and face paying penalties for older, high-emitting cars.
Public discourse concerning the energy transition typically centres around the energy trilemma: ensuring a secure energy supply, reducing carbon emissions, and keeping prices affordable for consumers. Yet vital distributional and equity aspects both between and within nations are far less often addressed.
The potential inequality of climate policies
The problem is made worse by the rising cost of living, which falls harder on low-income households. In Australia, large- and small-scale energy policies have driven up network costs associated with renewable investments. Low-income households now spend twice the amount of their disposable income on energy than average-income households do. An increasing number of households are falling into energy debt as they are unable to pay their energy bills.
What’s more, research shows that households without access to solar power, many of whom are on low incomes, largely fund government-backed renewable energy programs, since the costs of funding these programs are distributed through energy bills.
In these programs, governments assure renewable energy developers a fixed energy price to secure their support to provide renewable energy. Consumers who can afford to install solar get cheap power; those who cannot are left paying the difference in their bills.
These pressures help to explain why trust in the energy sector has eroded. The sector needs to put people and communities first in the delivery of products and services.
Australia’s fairness challenge
Australia’s task in ensuring a just transition is not easy, when policymakers already have much to do to deliver an integrated climate and energy policy. While our effort on climate change compared to other countries has improved on last year, it still ranks 55th in the Climate Change Performance Index, below the USA and China, and its performance is categorised as “very low”.
One risk is that as Australia falls behind other countries in its energy transition, if it were to suddenly accelerate its net zero ambitions to keep up with the pace of change elsewhere, it could lose sight of the transition costs imposed on different groups.
For example, to-date mining workers have borne the brunt of costs associated with the transition to renewable energy. Areas with recently closed coal-fired power stations have experienced an average increase in their unemployment rate of around 0.7%, holding other factors constant. Hardest hit have been regions heavily reliant on coal mining and coal-based power generation, such as Victoria’s Latrobe Valley, the Hunter Valley in New South Wales, and Queensland’s Mackay and Fitzroy regions.
People in these areas around the world need plans that help them to learn new skills and find new jobs, and encourage new ways to start businesses and make money. Without such alternatives, people often struggle not only to find jobs and pay bills but to sustain their physical and mental health.
Governments can reduce the risk climate change poses to their security and reputation by conducting an honest accounting of how green policies affect people’s wallets. They need to be brave and release information on the less visible aspects of the transition, such as rising unemployment in areas traditionally reliant on coal, and higher energy prices for those who rely on grid energy.
The race against time to achieve net-zero emissions by 2050 makes the concept of a “just transition” not a far-fetched dream but a dire necessity. Only by addressing the financial and fairness concerns of hard-pressed individuals, workers, and communities is Australia’s journey to a net-zero future assured.
Tracey Dodd is affiliated with the University of Adelaide and University of Exeter. She is also a Board Member of Green Industries SA.
Will Harvey 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 Linda J. Graham, Professor and Director of the Centre for Inclusive Education, Queensland University of Technology
Shutterstock
Suspension from school is meant to be a last resort for serious problem behaviour. Despite that, an alarming number of children are suspended every year, often at young ages, for minor reasons.
Indigenous children, those with a disability, and/or those living in out-of-home care are grossly over-represented.
So what are the alternatives to suspension and how have they worked overseas?
Prevention is better than cure. This means targeting the root problems underpinning behaviours leading to suspension and teaching children the skills they need to avoid making errors in the first place.
This approach involves screening all children in a cohort to identify issues that could lead to problems down the track (such as struggling with reading or difficulty regulating emotions).
Schools can then provide academic, social-emotional, and behavioural supports to students who need it and use data to track their progress over time.
This approach recognises several issues can be linked. For example, reading difficulties can affect a child’s self-esteem, leading to frustration, disengagement, disruptive behaviour and truancy.
The multi-tiered systems of support approach helps educators identify these children early, accurately interpret what they need and provide targeted interventions.
Students might, for example, go on a daily “reading walk” where they divide up and join a group working on a particular reading skill, such as vocabulary.
Group membership changes as soon as the focus skill is learnt and children progress to the next skill. The groups fluctuate. Difficulties are addressed early, groups are flexible and children get the support they need without being stigmatised or pigeonholed.
It is through these tiered approaches that some public school systems in the United States, such as Chicago Public Schools, have been able to reduce suspension, while improving safety and student attendance, perceptions of school climate, and academic outcomes.
A similar approach is now in place in countries like Finland.
How might this apply to behaviour?
Many incidents resulting in suspension are rooted in cognitive or emotional overwhelm. This can be prevented by providing children with reasonable adjustments (such as extra time for certain tasks or being able to work in a quiet place) and evidence-based interventions.
For example, a child could be taught to recognise the signs of overwhelm and use a “chill out” card when they need to. This card allows them to retreat – without being interrogated about it by the teacher – to a safe space. Once there, they can recover and then rejoin the fray.
In Vermont, another US state where schools are using the multi-tiered systems of support approach, classrooms have been designed to have these safe spaces.
However, teachers must also be able to detect when a child is beginning to spiral so they can intervene to diffuse situations before they escalate. This may require professional learning in inclusive practice.
But it isn’t just down to individual teachers
One of the most common reasons for suspension is coded in incident reports as “physical aggression” or “physical misconduct”. This is when children hit, kick or push.
Again, this can be the result of overwhelm, which induces a fight-or-flight response. However, it can also be a response to teasing, bullying or racism. These incidents often happen outside the classroom.
The incidence of physical aggression in schools can be reduced by:
establishing clear and consistent expectations with the input of students
valuing religious, ethnic and cultural diversity and providing meaningful opportunities for children to interact and learn about each others heritage
having more adults in the playground and reducing low-visibility areas where bullying might occur
making sure teaching is culturally responsive and respectful of First Nations students’ families, culture, languages, history and knowledge and that curriculum is relevant to the local context
implementing quality interventions that include anti-bullying programs and mental health support services
providing teachers with training and time to plan adjustments, empathise with students, use inclusive practices, manage diverse classrooms and problem-solve with support staff and parents.
Even after all this, some children will still have difficulty complying with expectations. For these children, there are alternatives to suspension.
Alternatives can reduce suspension and teacher stress
A growing body of evidence suggests an educative response works better than a punitive one.
The focus is on understanding the cause of behaviour, rather than simply suppressing it. In this model, a teacher might respond to disruptive behaviour by:
hearing the student’s perspective about the cause
explaining their own perspective and
describing the wider impacts for the student and their classmates.
The teacher and student then work towards a solution addressing the underlying issue: in this case, supporting the student to develop strategies to self-regulate.
An educative approach is better than a punitive one. Shutterstock
Parents of neurodivergent children have advocated strongly for Australian education departments to implement collaborative and proactive solutions.
One US study found training teachers in the collaborative and proactive solutions approach can reduce problem behaviour and teacher stress.
Another approach, used internationally, is known as restorative justice. The aim is to educate students about the impacts of behaviour, ensure wronged parties are heard and repair relationships.
Suspension does not provide children with the skills they need to succeed at school and it can make problem behaviour worse.
Australian schools can, with the right support and leadership from governments, take steps to reduce suspension by finding alternatives that work better for students and teachers alike.
Linda J. Graham receives funding from the Australian Research Council (ARC) and the Queensland Department of Education.
Callula Killingly 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.
Wes Anderson’s latest work involves four short films based on Roald Dahl stories: The Wonderful Story of Henry Sugar, The Swan, The Rat Catcher and Poison.
The Wonderful Story of Henry Sugar is the longest, with a runtime of 39 minutes (from an 82-page story), following the altruistic journey of the eponymous character, played by Benedict Cumberbatch. A wealthy dandy transforms into a benevolent figure, giving away his gambling fortune to children’s hospitals and orphanages.
While the others may seem like lesser works, shorter in length (from shorter stories) and less ambitious in set design and locations, Anderson begins to survey more complicated aspects of Dahl rarely explored in the abundant screen adaptations.
A complicated figure
Netflix acquired the rights to Dahl’s entire catalogue in 2021 for £370 million. The first production was Matthew Marchus’s Matilda the Musical (2022) – more accurately a screen version of Tim Minchin and Dennis Kelly’s award-winning stage musical adaptation.
Several more Netflix productions are slated. The Twits, an animation film written and directed by Phil Johnston, is set for a 2025 release. This will be followed by Taika Waititi writing and directing two live-action features: Charlie and the Chocolate Factory, and its literary sequel Charlie and the Great Glass Elevator.
Dahl remains a difficult figure in history. There is Dahl the beloved author of some of the most influential and popular works ever written for children. Meanwhile, there is the complicated persona who repeatedly made unwavering racist remarks and further reduced his characters to discriminatory and sexist stereotypes.
Dahl remains a difficult figure in history. Netflix
Despite Dahl insisting to his publishers to “not so much as change a single comma in one of my books”, in February this year Puffin Books announced it would be creatively editing portions of many of his children’s novels to “ensure that it can continue to be enjoyed by all today”.
This included removing or replacing words describing the appearance of characters (“old hags” become “old crows” in The Witches) and adding gender-neutral language (“Cloud-men” have become “Cloud-People” in James and the Giant Peach). Contemporary writers, such as Salman Rushdie, decried such liberties as a form of literary vandalism and blatant censorship.
Anderson’s Dahl shorts explore some grittier works from the author’s oeuvre without any creative rewriting. These are some of the most literal and faithful Dahl adaptations ever put on screen.
First and foremost, Dahl (played by Ralph Fiennes) becomes an onscreen character and narrator. The sight of Dahl talking directly to camera in his famous writing chair is somewhat uneasy. Which Dahl will we see? The bigot? Beloved children’s author?
In truth, we see neither in the character – but rather manifestations of both in the films themselves.
Anderson doesn’t suppress aspects of nastiness, weirdness and racism from the adapted stories underlined by darker themes and a darker tone.
Anderson doesn’t suppress aspects of nastiness, weirdness and racism. Netflix
The Wonderful Story of Henry Sugar is the most joyous in both style and story, and a natural follow-on from Anderson’s earlier stop-motion Dahl feature adaptation, The Fantastic Mr Fox (2009).
From the altruistic Henry Sugar, things significantly go darker both tonally and thematically. The Swan is about a boy victimised to merciless bullying; The Rat Catcher involves a man (played also by Fiennes) with disgustingly filthy nails resembling claws who kills a rat with his teeth.
These characters are not punished, exposed and exiled. They are revealed for their true selves – as ugly and uncomfortable as that may be to watch.
A point of interest is the order these shorts are curated on Netflix. Each was dropped on the platform within a few days of each other, and this order remains when the films are grouped together as the Dahl adaptation package.
The final, and most confronting, of these shorts is Poison. The story is of Englishman Harry Pope (Benedict Cumberbatch) in British-ruled India, who believes he has a poisonous krait snake asleep with him in his bed. When this is proven incorrect, Dr Ganderbai (Ben Kingsley) is subjected to Harry’s racial slurs.
It is an ugly and unexpected moment that provokes the doctor to leave in stunned silence.
This adaptation has been previously adapted several times on television: in 1958 into an episode of Alfred Hitchcock Presents; in 1980 it was adapted as the fifth episode of the second series of Tales of the Unexpected.
These TV adaptations turn Harry into an alcoholic whose mind cannot be trusted. Here, Anderson is more faithful to Dahl’s story, presenting Harry as a lucid and ungrateful bigot to the doctor’s attempts to rescue him.
It is with this reprehensible and unapologetic racist attack that Anderson’s shorts conclude.
From the first film, with its vivid colours and altruistic themes, to the bleak finale of Poison, it feels as if Anderson is making a statement about the difficulties in which to regard Dahl and his cultural legacy.
In the process, he has produced some of his most challenging, complex and intriguing films to date.
Stephen Gaunson 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.
A peace researcher and other pro-Palestinian supporters are calling on Auckland Museum to apologise over a furore about the “unethical” lighting of the main building in the blue and white colours of the Israeli flag.
Researcher Dr Arama Rata said she wanted the museum to issue a formal apology to the community over the insensitivity over the lights incident last night.
Israeli security forces have been bombing Gaza daily for the past week with at least 2215 Palestinians killed and 8714 wounded, according to the Gaza Health Ministry. Among the dead are 720 children.
The Israeli forces are poised for a massive air, sea and ground invasion of the enclave of about 2.3 million people.
The bombing is in retaliation for an attack by the Hamas military wing into southern Israel last Saturday which left 1300 people dead, including 265 soldiers, and more than 3300 wounded.
“Auckland Museum is supposed to be a welcoming place for all members of our community. Their actions tonight have caused deep divisions for people who are already hurting,” Dr Rata said.
‘Horrors of wars’ “The museum is entrusted with many of our taonga, and regularly holds exhibitions helping us to remember the horrors of wars.
“Their actions today show they have no respect for human suffering. Their actions were highly unethical.”
“We were appalled to see Auckland Museum lit up in the colours of the Israeli flag at a time when Israel is conducting slaughter — there is no other word for it — of the Palestinian people in Gaza.
“Palestinians are used to seeing such awful behaviour from Euro-centric institutions such as the museum.”
JUST IN Auckland Museum decided to project on their building front apartheid Israel’s flag as it commits a literal genocide in Gaza,, and it got quickly surrounded by a flood of Palestine flags booing the genocidal museum 🇵🇸🇵🇸 pic.twitter.com/mOXsHxLfm0
According to a statement by the protest group, the museum posted on its Instagram social media account a message saying, “This evening, your museum is lit in blue and white in solidarity with Israel. Our thoughts go out to the many civilians impacted as a result of the terrorist attack a week ago today.”
An image of the main building showing the blue and white light accompanied the message.
‘Free Palestine’ call Within hours, about 100 people had gathered outside the museum, many holding Palestine flags and chanting “free Palestine”.
Cars with Palestinian flags also drove in procession around the museum, drivers honking their horns and blaring music.
An argument developed between Palestine supporters and a small group of Israel supporters who had also gathered at the foot of the hill below the museum, holding Israeli flags.
By 9pm, the museum lights had been turned off. Later, white lights were turned back on, according to the protesters’ statement.
Palestine supporters subsequently covered the lights with red fabric.
Israel faces widespread condemnation from the international community for issuing an evacuation order for more than a million people living in northern Gaza.
In the aftermath of Palestinian group Hamas’ terror attack inside Israel on October 7 and the Israeli state’s even more terrifying attacks on Palestinian urban neighbourhoods in Gaza, the media across many parts of Asia tend to take a more neutral stand in comparison with their Western counterparts.
A lot of sympathy is expressed for the plight of the Palestinians who have been under frequent attacks by Israeli forces for decades and have faced ever trauma since the Nakba in 1948 when Zionist militia forced some 750,000 refugees to leave their homeland.
Even India, which has been getting closer to Israel in recent years, and one of Israel’s closest Asian allies, Singapore, have taken a cautious attitude to the latest chapter in the Palestinian-Israeli conflict.
Soon after the Hamas attacks in Israel, Indian Prime Minister Narendra Modi tweeted that he was “deeply shocked by the news of terrorist attacks”.
He added: “We stand in solidarity with Israel at this difficult hour.” But, soon after, his Ministry of External Affairs (MEA) sought to strike a balance.
Addressing a media briefing on October 12, MEA spokesperson Arindam Bagchi reiterated New Delhi’s “long-standing and consistent” position on the issue, telling reporters that “India has always advocated the resumption of direct negotiations towards establishing a sovereign, independent and viable state of Palestine” living in peace with Israel.
Singapore has also reiterated its support for a two-state solution, with Law and Home Affairs Minister K. Shanmugam telling Today Daily that it was possible to deplore how Palestinians had been treated over the years while still unequivocally condemning the terrorist attacks carried out in Israel by Hamas.
“These atrocities cannot be justified by any rationale whatsoever, whether of fundamental problems or historical grievances,” he said.
“I think it’s fair to say that any response has to be consistent with international law and international rules of war”.
Chinese Foreign Minister Wang Yi has blamed the rapidly worsening conflict in the Middle East on a lack of justice for the Palestinian people.
Lack of justice for Palestinians “The crux of the issue lies in the fact that justice has not been done to the Palestinian people,” Beijing’s top diplomat said in a phone call with Brazil’s Celso Amorim, a special adviser to Brazilian President Luiz Inacio Lula da Silva, according to Japan’s Nikkei Asia.
The call came just ahead of an emergency meeting of the UN Security Council on October 13 to discuss the Israel-Hamas war. Brazil, a non-permanent member, is chairing the council this month.
Indonesian President Jokowi Widodo called for an end to the region’s bloodletting cycle and pro-Palestinian protests have been held in Jakarta.
“Indonesia calls for the war and violence to be stopped immediately to avoid further human casualties and destruction of property because the escalation of the conflict can cause greater humanitarian impact,” he said.
“The root cause of the conflict, which is the occupation of Palestinian land by Israel, must be resolved immediately in accordance with the parameters that have been agreed upon by the UN.”
Indonesia, which is home to the world’s largest Muslim population, has supported Palestinian self-determination for a long time and does not have diplomatic relations with Israel.
But, Indonesia’s foreign ministry said 275 Indonesians were working in Israel and were making plans to evacuate them.
Many parts of Gaza lie in ruins following repeated Israeli airstrikes for the past week. Image: UN News/Ziad Taleb
Sympathy for the Palestinians Meanwhile, Thailand said that 18 of their citizens have been killed by the terror attacks and 11 abducted.
In the Philippines, Foreign Affairs Secretary Enrique Manalo said on October 10 that the safety of thousands of Filipinos living and working in Israel remained a priority for the government.
There are approximately 40,000 Filipinos in Israel, but only 25,000 are legally documented, according to labour and migrant groups, says Benar News, a US-funded Asian news portal.
According to India’s MEA spokesperson Bagchi, there are 18,000 Indians in Israel and about a dozen in the Palestinian territories. India is trying to bring them home, and a first flight evacuating 230 Indians was expected to take place at the weekend, according to the Hindu newspaper.
It is unclear what such large numbers of Asians are doing in Israel. Yet, from media reports in the region, there is deep concern about the plight of civilians caught up in the clashes.
Benar News reported that Malaysian Prime Minister Anwar Ibrahim has spoken with Turkish President Recep Tayyip Erdogan about resolving the Palestine-Israel conflict according to UN-agreed parameters.
Also this week, the Malaysian government announced it would allocate 1 million ringgit (US$211,423) in humanitarian aid for Palestinians.
Western view questioned Sympathy for the Palestinian cause is reflected widely in the Asian media, both in Muslim-majority and non-Muslim countries. The Western unequivocal support for Israel, particularly by Anglo-American media, has been questioned across Asia.
Hong Kong-based South China Morning Post’s regular columnist Alex Lo challenged Hamas’ “unprovoked” terror attack in Israel, a narrative commonly used in Western media reporting of the latest flare-up.
“It must be pointed out that what Hamas has done is terrorism pure and simple,” notes Lo.
“But such horrors and atrocities are not being committed by Palestinian militants without a background and a context. They did not come out of nowhere as unadulterated and uncaused evil”.
Thus Lo argues, that to claim that the latest terror attacks were “unprovoked” is to whitewash the background and context that constitute the very history of this unending conflict in Palestine.
US media’s ‘morally reprehensible propaganda’ “It’s morally reprehensible propaganda of the worst kind that the mainstream Anglo-American media culture has been guilty of for decades,” he says.
“But the real problem with that is not only with morality but also with the very practical politics of searching for a viable peace settlement”.
He is concerned that “with their unconditional and uncritical support of Israel, the West and the United States in particular have essentially made such a peace impossible”.
Writing in India’s Hindu newspaper, Denmark-based Indian professor of literature Dr Tabish Khair points out that historically, Palestinians have had to indulge in drastic and violent acts to draw attention to their plight and the oppressive policies of Israel.
“The Palestine Liberation Organisation (PLO), under Yasser Arafat’s leadership, used such ‘terrorist’ acts to focus world attention on the Palestinian problem, and without such actions, the West would have looked the other way while the Palestinians were slowly airbrushed out of history,” he argues.
While the PLO fought a secular Palestinian battle for nationhood, which was largely ignored by Western powers, this lead to political Islam’s development in the later part of the 1970s, and Hamas is a product of that.
“Today, we live in a world where political Islam is associated almost entirely with Islam — and almost all Muslims,” he notes.
Palestinian cause still resonates But, the Palestinian cause still resonates beyond the Muslim communities, as the reactions in Asia reflect.
Indian historian and journalist Vijay Prashad, writing in Bangladesh’s Daily Star, notes the savagery of the impending war against the Palestinian people will be noted by the global community.
He points out that Hamas was never allowed to function as a voice for the Palestinian people, even after they won a landslide democratic election in Gaza in January 2006.
“The victory of Hamas was condemned by the Israelis and the West, who decided to use armed force to overthrow the election result,” he points out.
“Gaza was never allowed a political process, in fact never allowed to shape any kind of political authority to speak for the people”.
Prashad points out that when the Palestinians conducted a non-violent march in 2019 for their rights to nationhood, they were met with Israeli bombs that killed 200 people.
“When non-violent protest is met with force, it becomes difficult to convince people to remain on that path and not take up arms,” he argues.
Prashad disputes the Western media’s argument that Israel has a “right to defend itself” because the Palestinians are people under occupation. Under the Geneva Convention, Israel has an obligation to protect them.
Under the Geneva Convention, Prashad argues that the Israeli government’s “collective punishment” strategy is a war crime.
“The International Criminal Court opened an investigation into Israeli war crimes in 2021 but it was not able to move forward even to collect information”.
Kalinga Seneviratne is a correspondent for IDN-InDepthNews, the flagship agency of the non-profit International Press Syndicate (IPS). Republished under a Creative Commons licence.
The rules by which politics are conducted have changed dramatically, especially since the rise of Trumpism. Yet the professional mass media continue to cover politics in ways that are no longer fit for purpose.
This has created distortions in the way the public discourse unfolds – distortions that have been on full display during the Voice referendum debate.
It presents a complex challenge to journalists and editors about how to simultaneously meet their obligations to truth-telling and impartiality, because there is now an unresolved tension between these two professional standards.
Truth-telling requires that lies and misrepresentations are either not published or refuted; impartiality requires that voices on all sides of a debate be heard, especially if they are the voices of people in positions of influence.
What happens, then, when influential voices on one side of a debate engage in obvious falsehoods?
Take two examples from the Voice debate: Opposition Leader Peter Dutton’s allegation that the Australian Electoral Commission had rigged the referendum outcome by accepting ticks but not crosses as indicative of voting intention, and Senator Jacinta Nampijinpa Price’s claim that colonialisation has had a positive impact on First Nations Australians.
In the pre-Trump era, journalists could have counted on the self-righting process of politics to kick in, governed by conventions that repudiated gross falsehoods and imposed consequences.
A completely baseless allegation by a leader of the opposition that the voting system was rigged would probably have finished his career on the grounds that he had undermined public confidence in the electoral process.
And an outlandish claim of the kind made by Price would have been quickly rebutted by other public voices referring to the facts from Closing the Gap, the findings of various royal commissions and countless other sources of reputable data on Aboriginal disadvantage.
Instead, Dutton sails on as leader of a party that seems to think his conduct unremarkable, perhaps even politically advantageous, while Price begins to be spoken about in certain circles as a potential prime minister.
So the pre-Trumpian self-righting process can no longer be relied on. The old expectation that by exposing misrepresentations of this kind, the media will be holding these public figures to account is dead. Instead, it just gives them publicity.
At the same time, the responsible elements of the professional mass media try to adhere to established standards of truth-telling and impartiality by publishing rebuttals or condemnations.
In the Dutton case, The Australian published a sharp response from the constitutional lawyer George Williams, calling out Dutton’s “irresponsible and harmful” conduct. In the Price case, her comments provoked a backlash published in many newspapers, including the Canberra Times, where her remarks were condemned as “offensive” by the Minister for Indigenous Australians Linda Burney.
This is all very well, but these responses appear days after the initial misrepresentations. In that time, the damage is done, the social media beast has devoured and regurgitated them in almost unrecognisable form, and public attention has long ago been diverted to some newer excitement. By then, to quote Winston Churchill, the lie has gone halfway around the world before truth has got its boots on.
There is no easy and conclusive answer to this dilemma. But there are some steps the media could take to make it less acute.
First, it requires a commitment from the media not to indulge in disinformation of its own. During the Voice debate, for example, several News Corporation mastheads – though not all – published an article claiming the Uluru Statement from the Heart was not one page but 20-plus pages, and included references to treaties and reparations, none of which formed part of the statement or the proposed Voice.
This was too much even for some other News Corp journalists, who pointed out that the document referred to was not the statement itself but a record of meetings and discussions leading up to it.
The second step the media could take requires the application of a few filters. The first is: does this need to be run at all? If the answer is yes, then how can a neutralising antidote be delivered at the same time? Or can this wait until the speaker can be challenged on it?
The third – and some in the media are already doing this – is to confront the threat disinformation poses by drawing attention to examples and calling them out. During the Voice debate, articles of this kind appeared in the Canberra Times and The Age, as well as in the George Williams article in The Australian referred to earlier.
So much for truth-telling: now for impartiality.
Impartiality does not oblige a broadcaster or publisher to ventilate lies, fantasies or misrepresentations as if they are true.
It is not a failure of impartiality to call Dutton’s utterance a baseless allegation at the time of reporting it. It is accurate and it is fair, two vital elements in impartiality.
It is not a failure of impartiality to report Price’s remarks and in the next paragraph point out that this view is refutable by reference to whatever data seem most apt.
Another element in the impartiality equation is balance. Balance is not about giving equal time, space or prominence to each or every side of a story. Balance follows the weight of evidence.
In the context of the referendum, it is false balance to give equal weight to the claim that the proposed Constitutional amendment would import a divisive race-based element into the Constitution, and to the constitutional lawyers’ opinion that it does no such thing.
The fact is that the Constitution already contains two race-based clauses: 25 and 51, the latter known specifically as the “race power”. Reporting the claim of racial divisiveness without the contradicting facts is a failure of balance.
Giving effect to these remedies requires close scrutiny of potential content and rigorous editorial decision-making.
The alternative – still widely used – is to fall back on that discredited and outdated approach called “he said/she said” journalism. This is where the damaging content is presented as a plausible point of view, someone else is quoted as opposing it, and the public is left to figure out the truth for itself.
This is against the public interest. Lies and misrepresentations are not just another set of truths – what Trump’s one-time press assistant Kellyanne Conway called “alternative facts”. They corrode trust. No one knows where to turn for reliable information, and the ground is prepared for yet more conspiracy theories to take root.
Denis Muller does not work for, consult, own shares in or receive funding from any company or organization that would benefit from this article, and has disclosed no relevant affiliations beyond their academic appointment.
The workers gathered across the street from the US Embassy with a command vehicle being used to give speeches.
Protesters could be seen putting up large banners with the message “Stop the Palestine-Israeli war”.
“Today, the Labour Party and the KSPI (Confederation of Indonesian Trade Unions) are holding an action in front of the United States Embassy and later it will be continued at the United Nations offices in the context of calling for an end to the Palestine and Israeli war”, Labour Party president Said Iqbal told the protesters.
Iqbal said they were asking US President Joe Biden not to send troops to Israel.
They gave speeches in front of the US Embassy so that the message they are conveying is immediately implemented by the UN General Assembly and the UN Security Council.
“The Labour Party and trade unions in Indonesia reject the presence of American troops entering Israel, and the American aircraft carrier that has already entered the Mediterranean,” said Iqbal.
Heavy death toll A heavy police presence was deployed around the event and the officers redirected traffic when it became too congested.
The Israel-Hamas conflict has been heating up since Saturday, October 7, when Hamas attacked Israel and since then the Israeli Defence Forces have been bombing the Gaza Strip enclave.
From Ireland to South Africa and from the U.S. to Pakistan, tens of thousands of people all around the world are taking to the streets to demand an end to Israel’s attacks on occupied Gaza. pic.twitter.com/CKlNMVWXlT
Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Frank Bongiorno, Professor of History, ANU College of Arts and Social Sciences, Australian National University
The result of the Voice referendum on Saturday was unexceptional if considered in light of the constitutional history of this country.
With a “yes”/“no” split likely to be about 40/60%, the defeat was no more or less resounding than several other proposals since Federation that became buried in contention, partisanship and opportunism. The “no” side’s clean sweep of the states has also occurred before – on a quarter of all referendum votes, in fact.
There will now be many a post-mortem, and many a “what if?” There will be an abundance of wisdom after the event. What if Opposition Leader Peter Dutton had offered bipartisan support? What if there had been a constitutional convention? What if the government had negotiated with the opposition over the detail? What if it had released a draft bill? What if the referendum were held next year? What if “yes” had run a different campaign? What if there had not been a cost-of-living crisis? What if there had been less lying?
In truth, it is hard to imagine a counterfactual scenario that would have produced a different result. Even if Dutton had said “yes”, the Nationals would still have said “no”. Even if the Liberals and Nationals had both said “yes”, other elements on the political right would have said “no”, and both parties would have split. Indigenous opinion was clearly divided, whatever the proportion on each side.
The “no” side – and even the odd Liberal on the “yes” side – complains to whoever will listen about process, but there is no reason to believe some other pathway would have led to a better result. Dutton never indicated what alternative formulation would have satisfied him.
The “yes” case will have its critics, but it was never going to be easy to craft a message with broad appeal. The more than 96% of Australians who are not Indigenous were being asked to offer a concession to the fewer than 4% that the latter do not presently have. It was never going to be easy to make that case.
Settler Australians have often tended to equate equality with sameness. This sentiment is what they call egalitarianism and understand as democracy. For many, to create an Indigenous Voice was to foster inequality and promote division where they believe there should be unity. The “no” case’s claim that the Voice would create disunity was likely devastating in its effects. What many “no” voters want is unity on their own terms.
A referendum proposal begins as the diagnosis of a problem, an argument that the Constitution – drafted in the 1890s – can be made to work better. Governments don’t go to the people with a referendum for opportunistic reasons: it’s just too difficult. So, they tend to be genuine efforts to solve a problem. To get a “yes” vote, you need to get acceptance of both the authorised diagnosis of the problem and the solution being offered.
What was the problem to be solved here, and how was the Voice to help solve it? The “yes” leaflet I received as I went to vote identified three things the Voice would do. “Yes” would provide Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander people with constitutional recognition through a Voice. It would offer the means by which advice from Indigenous people would be listened to, leading to better government decision-making. And it would get better results for First Nations people in health, education, employment and housing, leading to a better life.
In other words, the Voice would provide Indigenous people with formal constitutional recognition and an opportunity to speak for themselves, and it would provide practical benefits to help “close the gap”. It seems like a simple message, but it also demands that voters accept several propositions. Let us take just two of them.
First, do Indigenous people need a further opportunity to speak for themselves? I believe so, but “no” voters might have taken the view that there were already Indigenous members of the federal parliament able to speak for Indigenous people.
And if they believed as much, the prominence of two of those members on the “no” side, Jacinta Nampijinpa Price and Lidia Thorpe, would have done little to persuade them that a Voice was needed. Price and Warren Mundine, a former Liberal candidate for parliament, were the de facto leaders of the “no” campaign. The prominent role of a few high-profile Indigenous people was, in my view, devastating to the moral and political authority of the “yes” case.
Second, while there are some white Australians still prepared to deny the existence of Aboriginal disadvantage, even those who acknowledge the truth of it needed to accept that the Voice would be effective in helping to close the gap.
Given the long history of policy failure in this area, that was a hard argument to make. The Voice, moreover, was to be advisory – a point that Prime Minister Anthony Albanese, among others, repeatedly underlined in an effort to reassure non-Indigenous voters it would do little to change the existing political arrangements. People were being asked to support something important enough to call them to the polls, at the same time as they were told it was too modest a proposal for them to need to worry over.
The “no” result will be deeply disappointing to many Australians, and most of all to those Indigenous people who have worked patiently for years to achieve constitutional change. There will be many broken hearts. These people have had to endure some of the very worst impulses at work in this country, and some of the nastiest instincts that disfigure its public life. That, too, is unexceptional in the history of this country.
If there is to be any healing, it will be a long journey.
Frank Bongiorno does not work for, consult, own shares in or receive funding from any company or organisation that would benefit from this article, and has disclosed no relevant affiliations beyond their academic appointment.
Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Rebecca Strating, Director, La Trobe Asia and Associate Professor, La Trobe University, La Trobe University
In recent days, news organisations around the world have sought to explain to global audiences both the Voice to Parliament referendum campaign and the result. The picture they have painted of Australia is not exactly flattering. The BBC, for example, described the win for the “no” side coming after a “fraught and often acrid campaign”.
Headlines from The Independent, Al Jazeera and the New York Times. The Conversation
The Washington Post declared it a “crushing blow” for Australia’s First Nations people who “saw the referendum as an opportunity for Australia to turn the page on its colonial and racist past”.
Australia’s own media warned a “no” vote could be seen as evidence that Australia was a “racial rogue nation”. A crucial question, then, is whether this result will affect the way the world views Australia and potentially have an impact on Australia’s international relations.
‘Uncomfortable fault lines’
Much of the world’s attention over the past week has been focused on the Israel-Hamas conflict. Yet, the data we’ve been analysing from Meltwater, a global media monitoring company, showed a 30% increase in mentions of the Voice to Parliament in the mainstream news and social media in the week leading up to the vote. There were 297,000 mentions this past week, compared with 228,000 mentions the preceding week.
Much of this content was generated within Australia, but just before the referendum, there was an uptick in the number of “explainers” produced by global news organisations.
Headlines from the BBC and the New York Times. The Conversation
The BBC, for instance, reported the historic vote had
exposed uncomfortable fault lines, and raised questions over Australia’s ability to reckon with its past.
surfaced uncomfortable, unsettled questions about Australia’s past, present and future.
A number of pieces compared Australia unfavourably with other settler-colonial nations in terms of the legal recognition of First Nations people, including New Zealand and Canada.
First Nations people in other former British colonies continue to face marginalisation, but some countries have done better in ensuring their rights.
And in an interview with Reuters, the UN’s special rapporteur on the right to development, Surya Deva, said the Voice debate had “exposed the hidden discriminatory attitude” in Australia towards Indigenous peoples.
Misinformation grabs headlines
Some international media also pointed to the large amount of misinformation that had surfaced during the campaign.
One blunt BBC headline explicitly linked misinformation to racism: “Voice referendum: Lies fuel racism ahead of Australia’s Indigenous vote”.
A Reuters explainer similarly reported on concerns that “racist and false narratives” had sparked fears the Voice would be a “third chamber of parliament”.
Many outlets had compared the Voice to Parliament referendum to the 2016 presidential election of Donald Trump in the United States and the Brexit referendum in the United Kingdom. This referendum result, however, was less surprising and generally reflected the polls.
How will this affect Australia’s relations?
In a previous analysis piece, we wrote that most mentions of the Voice in the international mainstream media and social media had been generated by the United States, followed by the United Kingdom. In the last week of the campaign, there was a 30% increase in number of media mentions of the Voice (9,100) from US traditional news and social media accounts, compared to the preceding week (7,000).
Yet, despite the negative tone of the coverage, it seems unlikely the result will substantially affect Australia’s relations with either country. Concerns about the shifting geopolitics of the Asia-Pacific region have brought the three countries much closer in recent years. This was cemented further by the AUKUS pact.
In the Asia-Pacific region, however, leaders have no doubt been watching the referendum, even if they will not immediately comment on the result.
China’s representatives might be quiet now, but there is little doubt the “no” vote will contribute to the strategic narratives that Beijing uses to blunt Australia’s criticisms of its human rights abuses on the international stage.
A measured interview with Indigenous academic and poet Jeanine Leane in China’s Global Times newspaper, for example, carried the headline “Colonialism, white supremacy loom over Australia’s aboriginal referendum”. This is, however, not entirely out of step with some of the other coverage emerging from Australia’s allies and partners.
Indian security expert Ambika Vishwanath argued in a piece for the Lowy Institute:
it seems extraordinary that a country such as Australia, one that largely aligns itself with ‘Western’ norms and values of freedom and democracy and a liberal outlook on life, has yet to recognise the people that originally inhabited the continent for close to 60,000 years.
New Delhi now has another avenue for pushback if Australia raises concerns about India’s domestic politics.
For some in the Pacific, the result will not come as a surprise. It may entrench views of Australia as a settler-colonial state unwilling to grapple with its past, including colonialism in the Pacific.
As the referendum is a domestic issue, it is unsurprising other governments’ leaders have not immediately commented publicly on the result. But this does not mean they’re not watching. The Australian government must now explain to the international community the “substantive policy steps” it is taking to close the gap in Indigenous disadvantage – a tough ask.
Rebecca Strating receives funding from a La Trobe University Synergy grant for this project. She is a recipient of external grant funding, including from the governments of Australia, United States, United Kingdom, the Philippines and Taiwan.
Andrea Carson receives funding from La Trobe University Synergy grant pogram to undertake this research.
From winning a single-party majority in 2020, Labour’s vote has virtually halved in 2023 in the Aotearoa New Zealand general election.
Pre-election polls appear to have under-estimated support for National, which on the provisional results last night can form a government with ACT and will not need NZ First, despite those same polls pointing to a three-way split.
While the Greens and Te Pāti Māori both saw big gains, taking crucial electorate seats, it has been at the expense of Labour.
Labour leader Chris Hipkins . . . ousted as New Zealand prime minister with a stinging defeat for his party. Image: 1News screenshot/APR
Special votes are yet to be counted, and Te Pāti Māori winning so many electorate seats will cause an “overhang”, increasing the size of Parliament and requiring a larger majority to govern.
There will also be a byelection in the Port Waikato electorate on November 25, which National is expected to win.
So the picture may change between now and November 3 when the official result is revealed.
But on last night’s count, the left bloc is out of power and the right is back.
New Zealand Parliament party seats. Source: Electoral Commission
Big shift in the Māori electorates
Te Pāti Māori has performed better than expected in the Māori electorates – taking down some titans of the Labour Party and winning four of the seven seats.
The Māori electorate boundaries. Source: Wikimedia, CC BY-SA
The party vote remained at 2.5 perecent — consistent with 2020.
One of the biggest upsets was 21-year-old Hana-Rawhiti Maipi-Clarke’s win over Labour stalwart Nanaia Mahuta in the Hauraki-Waikato electorate. Mahuta has represented the electorate since 2008 and has been in Parliament since 1996.
This was a must-win race for Mahuta, the current foreign affairs minister, after she announced she would not be running on the Labour party list.
Labour won all seven Māori seats in 2017 and six in 2020.
Advance voting
In 2017, 1.24 million votes were cast before election day, more than the previous two elections combined.
In 2020, this rose to 1.97 million people – an extremely high early vote figure attributable to the impact of the COVID-19 pandemic.
This year, more than 1.3 million New Zealanders cast advance votes before election day – higher than 2017 but significantly lower than 2020.
The comeback kid
After a dismal showing at the 2020 election, NZ First’s Winston Peters has yet again shown himself to be the comeback kid of New Zealand politics. Peters and his party have provisionally gained nearly 6.5 percent of the vote, giving them eight seats in Parliament.
On the current numbers, the National Party will not need NZ First to help form the government. But the result is still a massive reversal of fortune for Peters, who failed to meet the 5 percent threshold or win an electorate seat in 2020.
The heart of Wellington goes Green
Urban electorates in the capital Wellington have resoundingly shifted left, with wins for the Green Party’s Tamatha Paul in Wellington Central and Julie Anne Genter in Rongotai.
Chlöe Swarbrick has retained her seat in Auckland Central.
The Wellington electorates had previously been Labour strongholds. But the decision by outgoing Finance Minister Grant Robertson to compete as a list-only MP opened Wellington Central to Paul, currently a city councillor.
Genter takes the seat from outgoing Labour MP Paul Eagle.
Both Wellington electorates have also seen sizeable chunks of the party vote — 30 percent in Rongotai and almost 36 percent in Wellington Central — go to the Greens.
Close, but so far no “baubles of office” for Winston Peters and NZ First. “We have done the impossible,” he told supporters on election night. But as the old saying goes, politics is the art of the possible.
For the past two weeks, as the polls showed NZ First climbing towards and then past the 5% threshold for securing seats in parliament, all the talk was about how Peters – the great survivor of New Zealand politics – might exercise the balance of power.
In the event, many things now hang in the balance. New Zealanders will have to wait until the variables and peculiarities of the MMP electoral system shake down once special votes are included in the final results.
But there’s no denying the laurels on the night went to Christopher Luxon’s National Party. It outperformed recent polling to secure 38.9% of the vote and 50 seats in the new parliament. All that, plus an All Blacks victory the next morning too.
The ACT Party will reflect on a night which, if not quite as good as earlier polling might have delivered, still resulted in 8.9% of the vote and 11 seats.
For Chris Hipkins and the Labour Party, however, it was a terrible evening. Labour’s 26.9% of the vote is barely half what it achieved just three years ago, and its second worst performance since 1969.
Labour lost a slew of electorates – including seats such as Rongotai, Wellington Central and Mt Roskill – which have rarely not been red. The road back for Labour will be a long one, and it begins with a much-diminished caucus.
End of an era
Ironies abound in this election. Under MMP, the party vote determines the overall outcome, but the votes cast in constituencies have shaped the size of the next parliament.
The unfortunate death of an ACT candidate means NZ First’s leader may yet be kingmaker. Parties hostile to the very existence of Māori seats may have to work together because of what happened in those electorates.
But beyond those minutiae, something else happened last night. Three years ago, Jacinda Ardern’s Labour Party won the largest share of the popular vote since 1951, largely on the basis of the trust voters placed in her political leadership and her government’s response to the COVID-19 pandemic.
Last night, a New Zealand that no longer wishes to be reminded of those dark times closed the door on the government that led the country through them.
Not so ‘minor’ parties
Behind the raw numbers lies another story. The combined two-party vote for National and Labour was just 65.9%, the lowest since 2002. It may soon be time to retire the “minor” shorthand used to refer to the other parties now embedded in the political landscape.
The Greens have real cause for celebration, adding four seats to the ten they secured in 2020. The party held the key urban seat of Auckland Central and also picked up Wellington Central, comfortably winning the party vote in that electorate too.
Te Pāti Māori’s performance in doubling the number of its parliamentary seats to four was striking: reward for confident, assertive leadership from Rawiri Waititi (the incumbent for the seat of Waiariki) and Debbie Ngarewa-Packer (the new MP for Te Tai Hauāuru).
At just 20 years of age, new Waikato-Tainui MP Hana-Rawhiti Maipi-Clarke – who toppled foreign affairs minister Nania Mahuta – becomes the youngest representative ever elected in Aotearoa New Zealand.
NZ First, on the other hand, will be feeling frustrated. Yes, it is back in parliament with eight seats, after three years on the sidelines. But Winston Peters is not (yet) in the kingmaker position most major polls were predicting just days ago.
The maths of MMP
Te Pāti Māori’s strong showing means the 54th Parliament will probably have 122 MPs, including the additional seat that will be added following the Port Waikato by-election to be held on November 25.
Crucially, this means at least 62 seats will be needed to form a government. National and ACT currently control 61. Assuming National holds Port Waikato, between them they will be able to cobble together a bare majority.
However, if either National or ACT lose seats when the official results are announced on November 3, Port Waikato would become irrelevant: if he hasn’t already done so by then, Christopher Luxon would have to pick up the phone and speak with Winston Peters.
And it’s worth pointing out National has routinely dropped seats once special votes have been counted at each of the past six elections: two in 2017 and 2020, and one in every election between 2005 and 2014.
It is possible, therefore, that the business of stitching together the next government will not be entirely straightforward.
That process is unusually permissive under New Zealand’s election rules. Parliament must meet within six weeks of the return of the writs (November 9), but there is no formal requirement that a government be in place at that point.
Moreover, the shape, substance and duration of the process is for the political parties to determine. The Governor-General steers clear of proceedings, and some of the arrangements that apply elsewhere – the appointment of a “formateur” to oversee the process, for instance, or the requirement that the largest party is included in the government – do not apply in New Zealand.
It’s all a little freestyle, which explains why the country has had such different government formation processes and outcomes since the first MMP election in 1996.
If National and ACT maintain the number of seats they won on election night, the only barriers they face to the formation of a government are internal ones.
Negotiations will likely have been concluded by December 22, the day the Governor-General will deliver the Speech from the Throne containing the incoming government’s policy priorities.
But any slippage and all bets will be off. NZ First’s support will be required to form a government. And if Winston Peter’s chequered history with the National Party is any guide, negotiations could quickly turn difficult. But for now, NZ First – and New Zealand itself – must wait.
Richard Shaw does not work for, consult, own shares in or receive funding from any company or organisation that would benefit from this article, and has disclosed no relevant affiliations beyond their academic appointment.
A majority of Australian voters have rejected the proposal to establish an Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Voice to Parliament, with the final results likely to be about 40% voting “yes” and 60% voting “no”.
What was the referendum about?
In this referendum, Australians were asked to vote on whether to establish an Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Voice to Parliament. The Voice was proposed as a means of recognising Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander peoples as the First Peoples of Australia in the Constitution.
The Voice proposal was a modest one. It was to be an advisory body for the national parliament and government. Had the referendum succeeded, Australia’s Constitution would have been amended with a new section 129:
In recognition of Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander peoples as the First Peoples of Australia:
i. there shall be a body, to be called the Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Voice
ii. the Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Voice may make representations to the Parliament and the Executive Government of the Commonwealth on matters relating to Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander peoples
iii. the Parliament shall, subject to this Constitution, have power to make laws with respect to matters relating to the Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Voice, including its composition, functions, powers and procedures.
This proposal was drawn from the Uluru Statement from the Heart from 250 Indigenous leaders, which called for three phases of reform – Voice, followed by Treaty and Truth -telling about Australia’s colonial history. The proposal was for constitutional change to ensure the Voice would not be abolished by government in future, as previous Indigenous bodies have been.
Voting is compulsory in Australia. Every eligible Australian citizen over 18 years of age is obliged to vote in elections and referendums. Australia has one of the highest rates of voter turn out in the world – over 90% of those eligible have voted in every national election since compulsory voting was introduced in 1924.
Australia has a written Constitution. A successful referendum vote is required to change the Constitution in any way.
To succeed, a referendum proposition requires a double majority. This means it must be agreed to by a majority of voters, and a majority of states. Australia has six states, so at least four must have a majority of voters in favour for a referendum to succeed.
Australia also has two territories – individuals in the territories contribute to the overall vote, but the territories do not count towards the majority of states.
It’s very difficult to achieve constitutional change in Australia. Since federation in 1901, 45 questions have been put to Australian voters in referendums. Only eight of those have succeeded.
In the Voice referendum, only the Australian Capital Territory voted “yes” by majority. A clear majority of the national electorate voted “no”. All states returned majority “no” results.
Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander people constitute 3.8% of Australia’s population. Government members claimed on ABC TV in the referendum coverage that polling booths including high proportions of Indigenous voters, for example Palm Island in Queensland, returned high “yes” votes. However, in a majoritarian democracy like Australia, such a small proportion of the national population cannot dictate the outcome of a national poll.
Importantly, the Voice referendum did not have unanimous support across the two main political parties in Australia. The Labor government announced and has campaigned for “yes”. The leader of the opposition, Liberal Queensland MP Peter Dutton, campaigned strongly against the referendum proposal.
What happens now?
The government is bound to abide by the referendum result. Prime Minister Anthony Albanese has confirmed that his government will not seek to legislate a Voice as an alternative to the constitutional model.
Albanese, conceding the failure of the referendum, said: “Tomorrow we must seek a new way forward”. He called for a renewed focus on doing better for First Peoples in Australia.
The referendum outcome represents a major loss for the government. But much more important than that will be the negative impacts of the campaign and loss on Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander people.
On ABC TV, Arrernte/Luritja woman Catherine Liddle called for a renewed focus on truth-telling and building understanding of Australia’s history across the population. She said the failure of the referendum reflected a lack of understanding about the lives and experiences of Indigenous people in Australia.
“Yes” campaign advocates reported devastation at the outcome. Sana Nakata, writing here, said: “now we are where we have always been, left to build our better futures on our own”.
Some First Nations advocates, including Victorian independent Senator Lidia Thorpe – a Gunnai, Gunditjmara and Djab Wurrung woman – argued the Voice proposal lacked substance and that the referendum should not have been held. Advocates of a “progressive no” vote (who felt the Voice didn’t go far enough) will continue to call for recognition of continuing First Nations sovereignty and self-determination through processes of treaty and truth-telling.
The information landscape for Australian voters leading up to this referendum was murky and difficult to navigate. The Australian Electoral Commission published a disinformation register. Misinformation and lies, many circulated through social media, have influenced the decision-making of a proportion of voters.
It’s open to question whether constitutional change of any kind can be achieved while voters remain so exposed to multiple versions of “truth”.
For many First Nations people, the proliferation of lies and misinformation driven by racism throughout the Voice debate have been traumatising and brutal.
Indigenous Australians’ Minister, Wiradjuri woman Linda Burney, spoke to Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander people after the result: “Be proud of your identity. Be proud of the 65,000 years of history and culture that you are part of”. Her pain was patently obvious as she responded to the referendum outcome.
Amy Maguire is a board member of Reconciliation NSW and a volunteer for the Yes23 campaign.
Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Adrian Beaumont, Election Analyst (Psephologist) at The Conversation; and Honorary Associate, School of Mathematics and Statistics, The University of Melbourne
While the tide well and truly went out on Labour on election night, there are still several factors complicating the formation of a National and ACT coalition government. Special votes are yet to be counted, with the official final result still two weeks away.
In past elections special votes have boosted the left parties. If that is the case this year, we won’t know by how much until November 3. Consequently, the preliminary results may be slightly skewed against the left.
On these figures, National won 50 seats (up 17 since the 2020 election), Labour 34 (down 31), the Greens 14 (up four), ACT 11 (up one), NZ First eight (returning to parliament), and Te Pāti Māori/the Māori party four (up two). There are 121 seats overall (up one from the last parliament).
While National and ACT currently have 61 combined seats, enough for a right majority, if past patterns hold they will lose one or two seats when the special votes are counted – and thus their majority.
Several variables in play
There are two other complications. First, there will be a November 25 by-election in Port Waikato after the death last Monday of an ACT candidate. The winner of that by-election will be added as an additional seat. National is almost certain to win the by-election.
Second, Te Pāti Māori won four of the seven Māori-roll electorates and Labour one. In the other two, Labour is leading by under 500 votes. If Te Pāti Māori wins both these seats after special votes are counted, it would win six single-member seats, three above its proportional entitlement of three.
The new parliament already has one overhang seat due to Te Pāti Māori’s electorate success. If it wins six, the new parliament will have 124 members (including the Port Waikato by-election winner). That would mean 63 seats would be needed for a majority.
National, though, would be assisted if Te Pāti Māori’s party vote increases from the provisional 2.6% to around 3% after special votes are counted, but it wins no more single-member seats. That would increase Te Pāti Māori’s seat entitlement to four and eliminate the overhang.
Then, if the right drops only one seat after special votes and National wins the by-election, National and ACT would have a majority.
While National performed better than anticipated given the late trend to the left in the polls, National and ACT are unlikely to have a combined majority once all votes are counted, and National will likely depend on NZ First in some way.
Polls understated the right
Party vote shares on the night were 39.0% National (up 13.4%), 26.9% Labour (down 23.1%), 10.8% Greens (up 2.9%), 9.0% ACT (up 1.4%), 6.5% NZ First (up 3.9%) and 2.6% Te Pāti Māori (up 1.4%).
For the purposes of this analysis, the right coalition is defined as National and ACT, and the left as Labour, the Greens and Te Pāti Māori. NZ First has sided with both left and right in the past, and supported the left from 2017 to 2020, so it is not counted with either left or right.
On the preliminary results, the right coalition won this election by 7.7 percentage points, enough for a majority despite NZ First’s 6.5%. In 2020, left parties defeated the right by a combined 25.9 points. But it’s likely the right’s lead will drop on special votes.
The two poll graphs below include a late poll release from Morgan conducted between September 4 and October 8. I have used September 22 as the midpoint. This poll gave the left parties a two-point lead over the right, a reversal of an 8.5-point right lead in Morgan’s August poll.
The current result is comparable to the polling up to late September and early October when there was a late movement to the left.
Overall, it looks as if the polls overstated the Greens and understated National. The polls that came closest to the provisional result were the 1News-Verian poll and the Curia poll for the Taxpayers’ Union.
It’s possible media coverage of the possibility of NZ First being the kingmaker drove voters back to National in the final days. By 48% to 26%, respondents in the Guardian Essential poll thought NZ First holding the balance of power would be bad for New Zealand rather than good. For now, any such concerns are on hold.
Adrian Beaumont does not work for, consult, own shares in or receive funding from any company or organisation that would benefit from this article, and has disclosed no relevant affiliations beyond their academic appointment.
Christopher Luxon and the National Party are on course to form a new government with the ACT Party in Aotearoa New Zealand, with National winning almost 40 percent of the party vote in yesterday’s general election.
That may mean the party needs New Zealand First to hit the numbers, but with special votes yet to be counted and a number of close electorate races, the final picture is not quite clear.
Labour was sitting at about 26.5 percent of the party vote, and Prime Minister Chris Hipkins conceded there was no chance he could form a government and that Labour was heading out after six years and two terms in office.
The Green Party was at about 10 percent, ACT at 9 percent, New Zealand First at 6.4 percent and Te Pāti Māori at 2.5 percent with 94 percent of results counted.
Te Pāti Māori was poised to win most of the seven Māori seats with new candidate Hana-Rawhiti Maipi Clarke defeating Foreign Minister Nanaia Mahuta in the Hauraki-Waikato electorate, ousting the longest serving female MP and at just age 21 becoming the youngest MP in Aotearoa in 170 years.
It is a stunning reversal from 2020’s election, when Labour hit 50 percent of the vote as Jacinda Ardern’s government won a second term and National cratered with 25.6 percent.
One Labour supporter told RNZ that “Labour expected a slap on the wrist. This is a punch in the face.”
‘A new government and a new direction’ – Luxon Greeting cheering supporters in Auckland, Luxon said the results were a mandate for change.
“You have reached for hope and you have voted for change,” Luxon told supporters. “On the numbers tonight, National will be in a position to lead the next government.”
“My pledge to you is that our government will deliver for every New Zealander, because we will rebuild the economy and deliver tax relief.
“We will bring down the cost of living, we will restore law and order, we will deliver better health care and we will educate our children so that they can grow up to live the lives that they dreamed of.
“That’s what you voted for and that’s what we will deliver.”
A joyous crowd chanted “back on track” as Luxon spoke.
‘I gave it my all, but that was not enough’ – Hipkins Earlier last night, Labour leader Chris Hipkins conceded that the party had no path to return to power, saying that “the result tonight is not one that any of us wanted”.
Hipkins replaced Jacinda Ardern in January, but he joined other prime ministers like Mike Moore, Jenny Shipley and Bill English in failing to win election in their own right after taking over from another leader mid-term.
“I gave it my all to turn the tide of history, but alas, that was not enough.”
Outgoing Prime Minister Chris Hipkins speaks to media after conceding the election . . . “”We put people first, we refused to leave people behind.” Image: RNZ/Maree Mahony
Hipkins struck a defiant note in his speech and promised Labour would remain strong in opposition.
“When the tide comes in big it almost invariably goes out big as well . . . but Labour is still here, it is not going anywhere, and we will get up again as we have done many times before.
“We put people first, we refused to leave people behind, because that is what we do, that is what the Labour Party does.”
Many electorate seats were still too close to call, with only a few hundred votes separating candidates.
This article is republished under a community partnership agreement with RNZ.
About 2000 people from Aotearoa New Zealand communities, including many families, staged a vibrant rally in Auckland’s Aotea Square and marched down Queen Street today in support of freedom for #Palestine and an end to the Gaza massacre.
Marchers held placards proclaiming “This is a massacre not war”, “Free Palestine – End the Occupation now”, “Land back” — with reference to Israel seizing Palestinian land on a banner also displaying the Aboriginal, Māori (Tino Rangatiratanga) and West Papua (Morning Star) flags.
Warning about a “new Nakba” — the 1948 forced eviction of 750,000 Palestinian refugees from their homeland — the Jewish Voice for Peace advocacy group said in a statement that the Israeli government had declared a “genocidal war” on Palestinians in Gaza.
Israeli officials are openly planning to open “the gates of hell” on Gaza, referring to the two million Palestinians trapped inside as “human animals”, the statement said.
“The Israeli military has launched non-stop airstrikes and bombing over Gaza.
“Our partners tell us of entire neighbourhoods being flattened, schools and hospitals being bombed, apartment buildings being brought down.”
At least 583 Palestinian children have been killed by the Israeli military offensive on Gaza so far, representing one-third of the total death toll with casualty count rapidly rising, reports Defence for Children International.
The Gaza “evacuation” zone as ordered by the Israeli military which has been condemned by global critics as a “death sentence”. Image: JVP
“The Israeli government has shut off all electricity to Gaza. Hospitals cannot save lives, the internet will collapse, people will have no phones to communicate with the outside world.
“Gaza will be plunged into darkness as Israel turns its neighborhoods to rubble. Still worse, Israel has openly stated an intention to commit mass atrocities and even genocide, with Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu saying the Israeli response will ‘reverberate for generations’.
“All of this with the full throated support of the US.
“End the occupation now” says a placard held by these young Palestinian women protesting in Auckland today in solidarity with the Gaza suffering. Image: David Robie/APR
“On Friday, the Israeli military called for all civilians of Northern Gaza — over one million people, including half a million children — to relocate south within 24 hours, as it amassed tanks for an expected ground invasion.
“According to the UN, it is impossible to evacuate everyone with power supplies cut and food and water in the Palestinian enclave running short after Israel placed Gaza under total siege.
The UN said this invasion would have “devastating humanitarian consequences”, the statement said.
“For 16 years, Palestinians blockaded in Gaza have lived in the most densely populated place in the world. That density is set to double, if one million Palestinians are pushed from the North into the South.
“We shudder to think what will happen if the north is vacated: Israel could annex the territory. Another Nakba could be imminent.”
Solidarity with Palestine marchers in Auckland’s Queen Street today. Image: David Robie/APR
From winning a single-party majority in 2020, Labour’s vote has virtually halved in 2023. Pre-election polls appear to have under-estimated support for National, which on the provisional results can form a government with ACT and won’t need NZ First, despite those same polls pointing to a three-way split.
While the Greens and Te Pāti Māori both saw big gains, taking crucial electorate seats, it has been at the expense of Labour. Special votes are yet to be counted, and Te Pāti Māori winning so many electorate seats will cause an “overhang”, increasing the size of parliament and requiring a larger majority to govern.
There will also be a by-election in the Port Waikato electorate on November 25, which National is expected to win. So the picture may change between now and November 3 when the official result is revealed. But on tonight’s count, the left bloc is out of power and the right is back.
Big shift in the Māori electorates
Te Pāti Māori has performed better than expected in the Māori electorates – taking down some titans of the Labour Party and winning four of the seven seats.
The party vote remained at 2.5% – consistent with 2020.
One of the biggest upsets was 21-year-old Hana-Rawhiti Maipi-Clarke’s win over Labour stalwart Nanaia Mahuta in the Hauraki-Waikato electorate. Mahuta has represented the electorate since 2008 and has been in parliament since 1996.
This was a must-win race for Mahuta, the current foreign affairs minister, after she announced she would not be running on the Labour party list.
Labour won all seven Māori seats in 2017 and six in 2020.
Advance voting
In 2017, 1.24 million votes were cast before election day, more than the previous two elections combined.
In 2020, this rose to 1.97 million people – an extremely high early vote figure attributable to the impact of the COVID-19 pandemic.
This year, more than 1.3 million New Zealanders cast advance votes before election day – higher than 2017 but significantly lower than 2020.
The comeback kid
After a dismal showing at the 2020 election, NZ First’s Winston Peters has yet again shown himself to be the comeback kid of New Zealand politics. Peters and his party have provisionally gained nearly 6.5% of the vote, giving them eight seats in parliament.
On the current numbers, the National Party will not need NZ First to help form the government. But the result is still a massive reversal of fortune for Peters, who failed to meet the 5% threshold or win an electorate seat in 2020.
The heart of Wellington goes Green
Urban electorates in Wellington have resoundingly shifted left, with wins for the Green Party’s Tamatha Paul in Wellington Central and Julie Anne Genter in Rangotai. Chlöe Swarbrick has retained her seat in Auckland Central.
The Wellington electorates had previously been Labour strongholds. But the decision by Grant Robertson to compete as a list-only MP opened Wellington Central to Paul, currently a city councillor.
Genter takes the seat from outgoing Labour MP Paul Eagle.
Both Wellington electorates have also seen sizeable chunks of the party vote – 30% in Rangotai and almost 36% in Wellington Central – go to the Greens.
October 14, 2023 will be remembered by many as the day reconciliation died.
The defeat of the referendum may not have surprised many of us, Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander people. After all, we have become accustomed to disappointment. Nonetheless, it is a devastating and demoralising blow.
We must take stock of this political disaster and consider where it leaves us as a nation and a society of people and in what direction we walk from here.
A political disaster
I have published extensively on the impacts of disasters on Indigenous peoples, such as fires and floods.
When a disaster strikes, people’s experiences are varied and complicated. Some people escape relatively unscathed, perhaps even better off, while others are heavily and negatively impacted. It is common for those negatively impacted to experience shock and trauma.
There is much to be learned by viewing the referendum defeat as a political disaster.
The first thing to acknowledge is the impact the result will have on many of our peoples and allies. We must validate these feelings of hurt, distress and anger.
Yet the opportunities after a disaster lay in the rebuild, in learning and adapting, and in recognising systemic features of our society that produce vulnerabilities.
This is not to say every person who voted “no” on October 14 is a racist.
Motivations driving individual voting preferences are complicated, contested, perhaps even contradictory. We must be careful to not equate an individual “no” vote as a marker of individual racism. But ignoring patterns of racism and the relentless racist dialogue from some in the “no” campaign is to be wilfully, and knowingly, indifferent.
Racism is a drug, and Australia has an addiction.
Our insistence on this has elicited strong rejections from mainstream Australians who have preferred to see racist events – the Northern Territory Intervention, the 2005 Cronulla riots, the booing of AFL player Adam Goodes – as isolated instances.
For us, these instances are never isolated. They join together in a chain of prejudice which began with the arrival of the First Fleet.
We could say Australia has always been casually, or informally, racist. The resounding “no” written by the majority of Australians across a majority of states, then, formalises the informal.
Finally recognising this fundamental truth about our society will allow us to take generational steps to address it.
October 14 will be remembered by many of us as a spectacular own-goal, rivalling perhaps the Whitlam dismissal.
It was a day when rather than step towards a more kind and equitable future, Australia chose to retreat to a deeply problematic past.
Where to from here?
Within the disappointment of defeat there remain opportunities for those brave enough and willing to embrace it.
We have been denied a place within the Constitution, but it is within our collective power to reconstitute ourselves and create a self-determined Voice. We don’t even need to look far to see how this might work.
Established in 2009, The National Congress of Australia’s First Peoples was perhaps the most complete expression of what an organised and unified Voice might be.
The decline of Congress was not because it wasn’t an effective model of representation. Rather, it was disbanded in 2019 because of the withdrawal of funding by a Coalition government.
If funding is holding back a self-determined Voice such as a Congress, the “yes” campaign has shown Indigenous peoples are far from friendless or penniless.
Other opportunities may exist in plain sight. I have previously written about the sleeping electoral power of Indigenous peoples. Could Indigenous votes be mobilised beyond the Northern Territory for targeted political impact?
The largest learning from the referendum is that we require new political strategies for Indigenous advancement.
The politics of asking must cease.
Many activists will want to hit the streets once again, but this is not the 1970s. The Sorry Day rally in 2000 and the Students for Climate Action rally in 2021, each of which brought many thousands of people to the street, failed to move government. And the treatment of asylum seekers demonstrates Australia cares little for its international reputation.
What we require is a different kind of political action. This action will require support, membership, funding, and clear communication, but never asking for permission.
We need innovation and imagination for this, and our allies must be brave and willing to step into these more radical spaces with us.
Perhaps most importantly, this renewed political action requires new leadership.
Passing the baton
The generations of Indigenous leaders who have steered our communities, and the campaign for Constitutional recognition, deserve our deepest gratitude.
It takes a certain type of person to take the hits and keep standing up and moving forward.
To our leaders who have offered us strength and shone light on a righteous path, we will forever look up to you.
October 14 will not be your legacy.
A new generation of leaders has followed in your footsteps and grown up in your shadow.
Now is the time to pass the baton of leadership.
That new generation is already here – and we are hungry for the opportunity.
Hand us not the baton of defeat, but strength in the struggle.
May each “yes” vote cast at the referendum be a drop of rain that nourishes the land as it seeks to heal itself.
With concerted effort, and sympathetic yet radical activism, October 14 may be remembered as the firestorm that tore through our nation, but from which green shoots of opportunity sprung.
Bhiamie Williamson is a Director of Country Needs People
There has never been a decade without a significant Indigenous-led movement in Australia. These movements have centred on the reinstatement of Indigenous peoples’ rights as self-determining peoples, and demands for justice arising from our brutal dispossession and its contemporary fingerprints.
There has never been a successful referendum without bipartisan support. Success for the Voice to Parliament was always going to be against the odds. Tonight, we saw results track recent polls with an overall Yes vote expected in the mid 40s nationally. With New South Wales, Tasmania and South Australia called by 7:25pm, the referendum has failed.
On May 27, 2017, more than 250 community delegates from across the continent stood together and provided an invitation to the Australian people through the Uluṟu Statement from the Heart.
The statement proposed a path forward for the nation: Voice, Treaty and Truth. Today, Australia voted on the first step and in delivering a No outcome, has revealed the heart of this nation.
Let’s acknowledge the significance of the work it took to get here.
The journey here
Megan Davis and George Williams’ Everything You Need to Know About the Uluṟu Statement from the Heart, offers a heartbreaking timeline of the many forms of political claim-making First Nations’ people have engaged in since at least 1846.
In the 13 years since the 2010 Expert Panel on Constitutional Recognition, there have been seven separate processes and ten reports. In the middle of these, the sixth report was the Final Report of the Referendum Council, shortly after the delivery of the Uluṟu Statement from the Heart.
The Final Report’s recommendations focused on constitutional recognition in the form of a Voice to Parliament, because this was the most strongly endorsed option from the five options considered by the 12 regional deliberative dialogues. The Uluṟu Statement from the Heart also called for Treaty, the second most strongly endorsed form of recognition, and for Truth, out of respect for the truth-telling that was given at each and every dialogue.
Where it all went wrong
Years of bipartisan support was maintained right until the early months of this year. By February it was becoming clear Opposition Leader Peter Dutton would be unlikely to support the Voice to Parliament referendum.
In doing this, Dutton actively ignored the advice of those around him in the Liberal party. By April 5, 2023, it was announced Australia would head to its 45th referendum without bipartisan support for the proposal, knowing no referendum had never succeeded without it.
In August 2023, the Australian Financial Review’s Phillip Coorey reported a leaked text message from a coalition MP:
We can’t win the election unless we defeat the Voice solidly. i.e. we need to defeat it to get to the election starting line.
The opposition made their bet: defeat the Voice and give themselves a chance at the next federal election.
This transformed a people-driven proposal into a partisan political debate. It has made for a campaign characterised by lies, misinformation, disinformation, and outright conspiracies circulated on social media platforms. This sometimes occurred with complicit mainstream media that have either failed to fact-check basic claims or given misinformation equal weight in their presentation of “both sides”.
The “no” campaign’s decision to position two prominent Aboriginal faces as their spokespeople enabled a doubly effective claim to division: arguing the Voice would create racial division between Indigenous and non-Indigenous peoples, and that Indigenous people also couldn’t agree.
The small levels of disagreement within Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander community were, so often, treated as media spectacle and not treated with the seriousness our diverse political views deserve, in the context of so much shared experience.
What now?
We have heard numerous thought bubbles along the way about what happens next, if not a Voice. These have included Dutton’s suggestion of a second referendum on symbolic recognition. This proposal will not have any support from First Nations’ people, and there’s likely to be little appetite from the wider Australian population. That lack of support also no doubt informs the prime minister’s decision not to pursue a legislated Voice.
Senator Lidia Thorpe is likely to call for truth-telling and Treaty making, though those involved in the Victorian processes have thrown their weight behind the necessity of the Voice to give strongest effect to treaty and truth. Whatever comes next, we now know it will happen without a protected representative connection between community and the Commonwealth parliament.
There will no doubt be a lot of commentary and analysis about the relative successes and failures of the “no” and “yes” campaigns, their strategy, and their arguments over future weeks and months. For most Aboriginal peoples and Torres Strait Islanders, however, this will be of little interest or use.
The political subjugation and further marginalisation of First Nations’ peoples is no longer historical legacy but a contemporary decision reinscribing centuries of paternalism: that we are not peoples deserving of a protected right to be heard on matters that affect us.
We asked for change. We asked to be heard. We asked the Australian people to walk with us.
And so now we are where we have always been, left to build our better futures on our own.
Sana Nakata has contributed to the Uluru Dialogues during the campaign period on an unpaid basis. She receives funding from the Australian Research Council.
The referendum has been defeated, with a “no” majority called by the ABC in at least four states.
The Constitution can only be changed if there is a double majority, meaning there must be a national majority of voters across all states and territories and a majority of voters in a majority of the states (at least four of the six states). The Northern Territory and ACT counts are not included in the majority of states, but do contribute to the overall national count.
Israeli occupation forces are intentionally targeting Palestinian journalists in the besieged Gaza Strip, media outlets warned after three reporters were killed Tuesday bringing the total number of journalists killed since Saturday to seven, reports Middle East Monitor.
The Government Media Office’s Monitoring and Follow-up Unit in Gaza has documented dozens of attacks and crimes against journalists and media outlets.
Israeli attacks have resulted in the killing of seven journalists: Ibrahim Lafi, Muhammad Jarghun, Muhammad Al-Salhi, Asaad Shamlikh, Saeed Al-Taweel, Muhammad Subh Abu Rizq and Hisham Al-Nawajaha.
In addition, “more than 10 journalists have been injured with varying degrees of severity, and they lost contact with two colleagues, Nidal Al-Wahidi and Haitham Abdul-Wahed”.
The monitoring unit added that the homes of journalists Rami Al-Sharafi and Basel Khair Al-Din had been targeted and destroyed.
In contrast, the homes of dozens of other journalists were partially damaged.
Furthermore, dozens of media institutions were either completely or partially damaged by Israeli strikes including on Palestine Tower and Al-Watan Tower, with more than 40 media headquarters being affected, the unit reported.
Despite the risks, the government media office emphasised that their journalists will continue their professional role and national duty in covering the events, exposing the crimes of the occupation and debunking its false claims.
Stuff, New Zealand’s biggest independently owned news business, today announced it will stop sharing content to X (formerly Twitter), effective immediately.
A media statement said that decision followed Stuff’s increasing concerns about the volume of mis- and disinformation being shared, and the “damaging behaviour being exhibited on and enabled by the platform”.
All Stuff brands including stuff.co.nz, and publishing mastheads brands The Post,The Press and Waikato Times will no longer post on X, with the exception of stories that are of urgent public interest — such as health and safety emergencies, said the statement.
Stuff will also publish these stories on Neighbourly, to reach communities fast and with hyper-local information.
The following message was sent to all staff from CEO Laura Maxwell:
Trusted storytelling “When Stuff returned to New Zealand ownership in 2020, we set growth in public trust as a key measure of success. Three years on, our mission is to grow our business through trusted storytelling and experiences that make Aotearoa New Zealand a better place,” she said.
“As a business we have made the decision that X, formerly known as Twitter, does not contribute to our mission.
“We are increasingly concerned about the volume of mis- and dis-information being shared on the platform, and the damaging behaviours we have observed, and experienced.
Stuff’s CEO Laura Maxwell . . . “We will also continue to assess our use of other social platforms.” Image: Linked-in/PMW
“So, as of today, we will stop sharing our content on X. An exception to this will be stories that are of urgent public interest, such as health and safety emergencies. We will also publish these stories on Neighbourly.
“We also encourage you all to consider how much you personally engage with X, if at all. The platform is diametrically opposed to our own values, as outlined in our Editorial Code of Practice and Ethics. It deliberately and actively seeks to undermine the value of our journalism.
“We are aware many of you might use X for news gathering and as a way to share information with others. However, as a company that values truth and trust, this platform is no longer a tool for us.
“As many of you know, this is not the first time Stuff has taken such a stance.
“In July 2020, Stuff paused posting activity on Facebook. The move built on the decision to stop paid advertising on Facebook in 2019, following the live streaming and widespread dissemination of footage of the Christchurch mosque shootings on the platform. We will also continue to assess our use of other social platforms.
“As New Zealand’s biggest news organisation, we benefit from a loyal audience, who engage with us every single day on our platforms, our papers, magazines and at our events.
“As restless creators, our innovation mindset is enduring and so we’ll continue to innovate and invest in our platforms to deliver high-quality, trustworthy journalism that is relevant and reflective of Aotearoa.”
When I was a child in the 1970s, seeing a satellite pass overhead in the night sky was a rare event. Now it is commonplace: sit outside for a few minutes after dark, and you can’t miss them.
Thousands of satellites have been launched into Earth orbit over the past decade or so, with tens of thousands more planned in coming years. Many of these will be in “mega-constellations” such as Starlink, which aim to cover the entire globe.
These bright, shiny satellites are putting at risk our connection to the cosmos, which has been important to humans for countless millennia and has already been greatly diminished by the growth of cities and artificial lighting. They are also posing a problem for astronomers – and hence for our understanding of the universe.
In new research accepted for publication in Astronomy and Astrophysics Letters, we discovered Starlink satellites are also “leaking” radio signals that interfere with radio astronomy. Even in a “radio quiet zone” in outback Western Australia, we found the satellite emissions were far brighter than any natural source in the sky.
An animation showing the increase in the number of satellites in Earth orbit, over the course of the space age, so far.
We found expected radio transmissions at designated and licensed radio frequencies, used for communication with Earth.
Starlink satellites emit bright flashes of radio transmission (shown in blue) at their allocated frequency of 137.5 MHz.
However, we also found signals at unexpected and unintended frequencies.
We found these signals coming from many Starlink satellites. It appears the signals may originate from electronics on board the spacecraft.
Here we see constant, bright emissions from Starlink satellites at 159.4 MHz, a frequency not allocated to satellite communications.
Why is this an issue? Radio telescopes are incredibly sensitive, to pick up faint signals from countless light-years away.
Even an extremely weak radio transmitter hundreds or thousands of kilometres away from the telescope appears as bright as the most powerful cosmic radio sources we see in the sky. So these signals represent a serious source of interference.
And specifically, the signals are an issue at the location where we tested them: the site in WA where construction has already begun for part of the biggest radio observatory ever conceived, the Square Kilometre Array (SKA). This project involves 16 countries, has been in progress for 30 years, and will cost billions of dollars over the next decade.
Huge effort and expense has been invested in locating the SKA and other astronomy facilities a long way away from humans. But satellites present a new threat in space, which can’t be dodged.
What can we do about this?
It’s important to note satellite operators do not appear to be breaking any rules. The regulations around use of the radio spectrum are governed by the International Telecommunications Union, and they are complex. At this point there is no evidence Starlink operators are doing anything wrong.
The radio spectrum is crucial for big business and modern life. Think mobile phones, wifi, GPS and aircraft navigation, and communications between Earth and space.
However, the undoubted benefits of space-based communications – such as for globally accessible fast internet connections – are coming into conflict with our ability to see and explore the universe. (There is some irony here, as wifi in part owes its origins to radio astronomy.)
Regulations evolve slowly, while the technologies driving satellite constellations like Starlink are developing at lightning speed. So regulations are not likely to protect astronomy in the near term.
But in the course of our research, we have had a very positive engagement with SpaceX engineers who work on the Starlink satellites. It is likely that the goodwill of satellite operators, and their willingness to mitigate the generation of these signals, is the key to solving the issue.
In response to earlier criticisms, SpaceX has made improvements to the amount of sunlight Starlink satellites reflect, making them one-twelfth as bright in visible light as they used to be.
We estimate emissions in radio wavelengths will need to be reduced by a factor of a thousand or more to avoid significant interference with radio astronomy. We hope these improvements can be made, in order to preserve humanity’s future view of the universe, the fundamental discoveries we will make, and the future society-changing technologies (like wifi) that will emerge from those discoveries.
Steven Tingay is affiliated with the Australian Labor Party.
Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Katharine Kemp, Associate Professor, Faculty of Law & Justice, and Deputy Director, Allens Hub for Technology, Law & Innovation, UNSW Sydney
Shutterstock
Cars with internet-connected features are fast becoming all-seeing data-harvesting machines – a so-called “privacy nightmare on wheels”, according to US-based research conducted by the Mozilla Foundation.
The researchers looked at the privacy terms of 25 car brands, which were found to collect a range of customer data, from facial expressions, to sexual activity, to when, where and how people drive.
They also found terms that allowed this information to be passed on to third parties. Cars were “the official worst category of products for privacy” they had ever reviewed, they concluded.
Australia’s privacy laws aren’t up to the task of protecting the vast amount of personal information collected and shared by car companies. And since our privacy laws don’t demand the specific disclosures required by some US states, we have much less information about what car companies are doing with our data.
Australia’s privacy laws need urgent reform. We also need international cooperation on enforcing privacy regulation for car manufacturers.
How do cars collect sensitive data?
Apart from data entered directly into a car’s “infotainment” system, many cars can collect data in the background via cameras, microphones, sensors and connected phones and apps.
These data include:
speed
steering, brake and accelerator pedal use
seat belt use
infotainment settings
phone contacts
navigation destinations
voice data
your location and surroundings
and even footage of you and your family outside your car. (Between 2019 and 2022, Tesla employees internally circulated intimate footage collected from people’s private cars for their own amusement, according to reports.)
A lot of these data are used, at least in part, for legitimate purposes such as making driving more enjoyable and safer for the driver, passengers and pedestrians.
But they can also be supplemented with data collected from other sources and used for other purposes. For instance, data may be collected from your website visit, your test drive at a dealership, or from third parties including “marketing agencies” and “providers of data-collecting devices, products or systems that you use”.
The latter is very broad since our TVs, fridges and even our baby monitors can collect data about us.
Mozilla points out these combined data can be used “to develop inferences about a driver’s intelligence, abilities, characteristics, preferences and more”.
Connected cars transmit data in real time
While cars have been collecting large amounts of information since they became “computers on wheels”, this information has generally been stored in modules in the vehicle and accessed only when the car is physically connected to diagnostic equipment.
Now, however, vehicles are being sold with connected features “in the sense that they can exchange information wirelessly with the vehicle manufacturer, third party service providers, users, infrastructure operators and other vehicles”.
This means your connected car can transmit data about you and your activities, generally via the internet, to various other companies as you go about your life.
Your internet-connected car can collect a range of data about you. Shutterstock
Where do the data go?
In Australia, we have little information about how our information can be used and by whom.
In its US-based study, Mozilla found data from consumers’ cars was being disclosed to other companies for marketing and targeted advertising purposes. It was also sold to data brokers.
Mozilla was able to uncover highly detailed information, largely because the laws of California and Virginia require specific disclosures about who personal data is disclosed to and for what purposes (among other higher privacy standards).
Australian privacy law doesn’t require such specific disclosures. This is one reason car brands often have separate privacy policies for Australia.
A look at the privacy policies of various companies supplying connected cars in Australia reveals several vague, broad statements. Aside from using your data to provide you with connected services, these companies will:
provide the data to unspecified “third parties in connection with” developing new “marketing strategies”.
Some may disclose your information to law enforcement or the government even when not required by law, such as when they believe “the use or disclosure is reasonably necessary to assist a law enforcement agency”.
Trust us – we invented a ‘voluntary code’
It’s safe to say car manufacturers generally don’t want privacy laws tightened. The Federal Chamber of Automotive Industries (FCAI) represents companies distributing 68 brands of various types of vehicles in Australia.
During the recent review of our privacy legislation, the FCAI made a submission to the Attorney General’s department arguing against many of the privacy law reforms under consideration.
For example, signatories don’t say they’re bound by the code. Nor do they promise to follow its terms. They only say its principles will “drive their approach to treatment of vehicle-generated data and associated personal information”. There are no penalties for ignoring the code.
It even states signatories will “voluntarily notify” consumers of certain matters when the Privacy Act already requires this as a matter of law.
The code also notes third parties are increasingly interested in accessing and using consumers’ data to provide services, including insurance companies, parking garage operators, entertainment providers, social networks and search engine operators.
It says companies making data available to such third parties “will strive to inform you” about this.
We need privacy law reform
The government recently proposed important and wide-ranging privacy law reforms, following the Privacy Act Review which began in 2020. These changes are long overdue.
Proposals such as an updated definition of “personal information” and higher standards for “consent” could help protect consumers from intrusive and manipulative data practices.
The proposed “fair and reasonable test” would also assess whether a practice is substantively fair. This would help avoid claims data practices are lawful just because consumers had to provide consent.
The FCAI points out many cars aren’t specifically designed for Australia’s relatively small market, so increased privacy standards might result in some vehicles not being released here. But this isn’t a reason to carve out vehicles from privacy law reform.
Privacy laws are also being upgraded in numerous jurisdictions overseas. Australia’s government agencies should coordinate with their international counterparts to protect drivers’ privacy.
Katharine Kemp receives funding from the UNSW Allens Hub for Technology, Law and Innovation. She is a Member of the Expert Panel of the Consumer Policy Research Centre, and the Australian Privacy Foundation.
Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Adrian Beaumont, Election Analyst (Psephologist) at The Conversation; and Honorary Associate, School of Mathematics and Statistics, The University of Melbourne
The referendum on the Indigenous Voice to parliament will be held on Saturday. Polls close at 6pm AEDT in the south-eastern states, 6:30pm in South Australia, 7pm in Queensland, 7:30pm in the Northern Territory and 9pm in Western Australia.
For a referendum to succeed, it requires a majority in at least four of the six states as well as a national majority. Polling suggests there is no realistic chance of a national “yes” majority, so the double majority is a moot point.
The graph below has been updated with the inclusion of national Voice polls from YouGov, Morgan and Focaldata (see below).
The Voice polls range from a six and seven point “no” lead in Essential and Morgan to a 22 and 24-point “no” lead in Focaldata and Newspoll. So the most optimistic case for “yes” is a loss by high single digits, but the actual loss is likely to be higher.
Labor’s lead widens in federal Resolve poll
I previously covered the 56–44 lead for “no” in the national Resolve poll for Nine newspapers that was conducted September 22 to October 4 from a very large sample of 4,728.
Primary votes in this poll were 37% Labor (up one since early September), 31% Coalition (down three), 12% Greens (steady), 7% One Nation (up two), 2% UAP (steady), 9% independents (steady) and 2% others (steady).
Resolve does not give a two party estimate until near elections, but applying 2022 election preference flows to this poll gives Labor a 57–43 lead, a 1.5-point gain for Labor since September. During this term, Resolve has easily been Labor’s most favourable pollster.
Anthony Albanese’s net approval improved seven points to net zero, with 43% saying he had done a good job and 43% a poor job. Peter Dutton’s net approval fell seven points to -15. Albanese led Dutton by 47–25 as preferred PM, out from 43–28 in September.
The Liberals retained a narrow 35–33 lead over Labor on economic management, in from 36–30 in September. On keeping the cost of living low, Labor led by 31–27, reversing a Liberal lead of 28–27 in September.
Federal questions other than voting intention and the Voice referendum were based on the normal sample of 1,600 respondents. Additional Voice questions below are based on a sample of over 3,100.
Further Resolve Voice questions
Among “no” voters, 33% cited dividing the country by race as the most persuasive “no” argument, while 16% selected not enough detail. Among “yes” voters, 19% cited a practical way to recognise Indigenous people in our Constitution as the most persuasive “yes” argument.
By 49–20, voters thought the Voice would create waste and inefficiency rather than reduce it. By 38–23, they thought colonisation had had a positive rather than negative impact on Indigenous Australians.
Based on a subsample of 420 Indigenous respondents from the full sample of 4,728, “yes” led by 59–41 among Indigenous people. This is down from 80% support for “yes” among Indigenous respondents in surveys by other pollsters conducted early this year.
In other demographic breakdowns, “no” led with religious voters by 64–36, while “yes” led with the non-religious by 53–47.
Full results of this Voice poll can be downloaded from the Resolve website. Self-identified progressives supported “yes” by 75–25, while conservatives supported “no” 78–22. The killer for “yes” is that those who took neither view supported “no” by 66–34. There are similar findings in a Focaldata poll.
YouGov poll: ‘no’ leads by 56–38
A YouGov national poll, conducted October 6–10 from a sample of 1,519, gave “no” to the Voice a 56–38 lead, out from 53–38 in the previous YouGov poll in late September. YouGov used to conduct Newspoll, but is now producing its own polls.
On voting intentions, Labor led by an unchanged 53–47, from primary votes of 36% Coalition (up one), 33% Labor (steady), 14% Greens (up one), 6% One Nation (not listed in September) and 11% for all Others.
Albanese’s net approval was steady at -3, while Dutton’s was up five points to -12. Albanese led Dutton by 50–34 as preferred PM (50–33 previously). By 41–39, respondents said they would support a constitutional change to make Qantas a publicly owned company.
Morgan poll: ‘no’ leads by 51–44
A national Morgan Voice poll, conducted October 2–12 from a sample of 1,419, gave “no” to the Voice a 51–44 lead (a 46–37 “no” lead in late September). Initial preferences were 46% “no” (steady), 40% “yes” (up three) and 14% undecided (down three). Undecided were then asked how they were leaning. Morgan predicts a 54–46 “no” vote by allocating two-thirds of remaining undecided to “no”.
Morgan’s weekly federal poll this week gave Labor a 53–47 lead, a one-point gain for Labor since last week. Primary votes were 34% Coalition, 33% Labor, 13.5% Greens and 19.5% for all Others. This was taken October 2–8 from a sample of 1,378.
Focaldata poll: ‘no’ leads by 61–39
A poll by British pollster Focaldata had “no” leading by 61–39. Focaldata used multi-level regression with post-stratification (MRP) to predict that 22 of the 151 electorates would support “yes”; these “yes” seats are inner city seats. This poll was conducted September 18 to October 2 from a sample of 4,608.
Adrian Beaumont does not work for, consult, own shares in or receive funding from any company or organisation that would benefit from this article, and has disclosed no relevant affiliations beyond their academic appointment.
Installation view of Patrick Pound’s People who look dead but (probably) aren’t 2011–2014 on display in Photography: Real & Imagined at The Ian Potter Centre: NGV Australia from October 13 2023 – February 4 2024. Photo: Lillie Thompson
Photography is almost 200 years old and Photography: Real and Imagined at the National Gallery of Victoria (NGV) can be interpreted as an attempt to make sense of its history.
A huge and dazzling exhibition containing 311 photographs, the basic thesis of this exhibition is that some photographs record an actuality, others are purely a product of the photographer’s imagination, while many are a mixture of the two.
The parameters of the exhibition are determined, in part, by the holdings of the NGV collection and, in part, by the perspective adopted by the curator, the erudite and long-serving senior curator of photography at the NGV, Susan Van Wyk.
Mercifully, the curator has not opted for a linear chronological approach from daguerreotypes to digital, although both are included in the exhibition, but has devised 21 diverse thematic categories, for example light, environment, death, conflict, work, play and consumption.
Australian artists, international context
The categories have porous boundaries. Even with the assistance of the 420-page book catalogue, it is difficult to determine why Michael Riley’s profoundly moving photograph of a dead galah shown against the cracked earth belongs to the environment theme instead of death; why Rosemary Laing’s Welcome to Australia image of a detention camp belongs to movement, instead of being in community, conflict or narrative.
Installation view of Photography: Real & Imagined on display at The Ian Potter Centre: NGV Australia from October 13 2023 – February 4 2024. Photo: Lillie Thompson.
I felt that there was a perceived need to somehow organise the material, and the broad thematic structure allows the viewer to develop some sort of mega-narrative for the show.
There is also evident a desire to create an international context within which to display the work of Australian photographers.
It is indeed a very rich cross-section of Australian photographers assembled in this exhibition. This is not an Anglo-American construct of the history of photography; Australian photographers are presented together with New Zealanders and their Asian contemporaries.
Installation view of Photography: Real & Imagined on display at The Ian Potter Centre: NGV Australia from October 13 2023 – February 4 2024. Photo: Lillie Thompson.
Although the NGV boasts of having the first curatorial department of photography in any gallery in Australia, in the department’s 55-year history there remain serious lacunae in the collection.
For example, Russian constructivist photographers, including Aleksandr Rodchenko, who, as far as I am aware, in the NGV collection is represented by a single small booklet, but looms large in any account of the history of photography as presented by the British, European and American museums. Eastern European photographers are also generally underrepresented.
This exhibition combines the iconic with the new and the unexpected.
The expected key moments in the history of photography are generally all present with the roll-call of names including Dora Maar, Man Ray, André Kertész, Henri Cartier-Bresson, Dorothea Lange, Eadweard Muybridge, Bill Brandt, Lee Miller and László Moholy-Nagy.
They are all included in the exhibition and are represented through their iconic pieces.
Henri Cartier Bresson’s Juvisy (1938), colloquially known as Sunday on the banks of the Marne, is an intentionally subversive image by this left-wing radical photographer.
This image, made at the height of the Great Depression, shows a victory by France’s popular left-wing government that legislated in 1936 the entitlement for French workers to have two weeks of paid vacation. Here the working class is enjoying a picnic at Juvisy, just to the south of Paris.
At about the same time, Dorothea Lange’s Towards Los Angeles, California (1936) contrasts the anguish of the unemployed trekking in search of work and a billboard advertising the comforts of train travel. An aphorism ascribed to her sums us much of her work:
Bad as it is, the world is potentially full of good photographs. But to be good, photographs have to be full of the world.
Man Ray’s Kiki with African mask (1926) is one of the most famous photographs in the world, also known as Noire et blanche (Black and White). The surrealist artist juxtaposes the elongated face of his Muse and mistress, Kiki (Alice Prin), with her eyes closed with that of a black African ceremonial mask.
The photograph was controversial when it was first published and continues to be controversial to the present day.
There are also numerous modern classics in the exhibition, including Pat Brassington’s Rosa (2014), Polly Borlan’s Untitled (2018), from MORPH series 2018 and Robyn Stacey’s Nothing to see here (2019), that can all be viewed as edging into the realm of the uncanny. Beyond the façade of the familiar, we are invited to enter an unexpected world.
Installation view of Polly Borland’s Untitled 2018 from MORPH series 2018 on display in Photography: Real & Imagined at The Ian Potter Centre: NGV Australia from October 13 2023 – February 4 2024. Photo: Lillie Thompson.
Reinterpreting our world
Photography’s reputation of creating a trustworthy facsimile of the real had long been eroded, even before the creation of digital software. There is an old adage, “paintings sometimes deceive, but photographs always lie” – precisely because there was a perception that they could not lie.
One of the most intriguing works in the exhibition is by the New Zealand-born photographer Patrick Pound, titled Pictures of people who look dead, but (probably) aren’t (2011–14). It is a sprawling installation of mainly found photographs where the audience is invited to create a life and death narrative.
Photography: Real and Imagined reexamines our thinking about the art of photography and explores photography’s ability to recreate and reinterpret our world.
Photography: Real and Imagined is at the Ian Potter Centre, National Gallery of Victoria, Melbourne, until February 4 2024.
Sasha Grishin ne travaille pas, ne conseille pas, ne possède pas de parts, ne reçoit pas de fonds d’une organisation qui pourrait tirer profit de cet article, et n’a déclaré aucune autre affiliation que son organisme de recherche.
It was perhaps inevitable that the shock Hamas attack on Israel would become a minor election sideshow in New Zealand. Less than a week from the polls, a crisis in the Middle East offered opposition parties a brief chance to criticise the foreign minister’s initial reaction.
But if it was a fleeting and fairly trivial moment in the heat of a campaign, the crisis itself is far from it – and it will test the foreign policy positions of whichever parties manage to form a government after Saturday.
It can be tempting to see the latest eruption of violence in Gaza and Israel as somehow “normal”, given the history of the region. But this is far from normal.
What appear to be intentional war crimes and crimes against humanity, involving the use of terror against citizens and guests of Israel, will provoke what will probably be an unprecedented response.
Israel’s declaration of war and formation of an emergency war cabinet – backed by threats to “wipe this thing called Hamas off the face of the Earth” – were the start. The bombardment and “complete siege” of Gaza, and preparation for a possible ground invasion, have catastrophic potential.
Hundreds of thousands may be forced towards Egypt or into the Mediterranean, with the fate of the hostages held by Hamas looking dire. Israel has now said there will be no humanitarian aid until the hostages are free.
There is a risk the war will spread over Israel’s northern border with Lebanon, with Hezbollah (backed by Iran) now involved. US President Joe Biden’s warning to Iran to “be careful”, and the deployment of a US carrier fleet to the Eastern Mediterranean, only ups the ante.
Rules of war
Given the suspension of some commercial flights to and from Israel, New Zealand’s most meaningful first response has been practical: arranging a special flight from Tel Aviv for citizens and their families currently in Israel or the Palestinian territories who wish to leave.
Beyond these immediate concerns, however, the world is divided. Outrage in the West is matched by support in Arab countries for Palestinian “resistance”. Despite US efforts to get a global consensus condemning the attack, the United Nations Security Council could not agree on a unified statement.
With no global consensus, New Zealand can do little more than assert and defend the established rules-based international order. This includes stating clearly that international humanitarian law and the rules of war are universal and must be applied impartially.
That’s akin to New Zealand’s position on the Russian invasion of Ukraine: the rules of war apply to all, both state and non-state forces (irrespective of whether those parties agree to them). War crimes are to be investigated, with accountability and consequences applied through the relevant international bodies.
This applies to crimes of terror, murder, hostage-taking and indiscriminate rocket attacks carried out by Hamas. But the government needs also to emphasise that war crimes do not justify further retaliatory war crimes.
International law prohibits collective punishments, and access for humanitarian relief should be permitted. To hold an entire population captive – as a siege of Gaza involves – for the crimes of a military organisation is not acceptable.
The two-state solution
It is also important that New Zealand carefully considers definitions of terrorism and legitimate force. Terrorists do not enjoy the political and legal legitimacy afforded by international law.
Whether this distinction is anything more than a fiction needs to be reviewed. If this were to change, it would mean the financing, participation in or recruitment to any branch of Hamas would be illegal. This might have implications for any future peace process, should Hamas be involved.
At some point, most people surely hope, the cycle of violence will end. The likeliest route to that will be the so-called “two-state solution”, requiring security guarantees for Israel, negotiated land swaps and careful management of Jerusalem’s holy sites.
New Zealand has long supported this initiative, despite its apparent diplomatic near-death status. An emergency meeting of the Arab League in Cairo this week urged Israel to resume talks to establish a viable Palestinian state, and China has also reiterated support such a solution.
New Zealand cannot stay silent when extreme, indiscriminate violence is committed by any group or nation. But joining any movement of like-minded nations to continue pushing for the two-state solution is still its best long-term strategy.
Alexander Gillespie does not work for, consult, own shares in or receive funding from any company or organisation that would benefit from this article, and has disclosed no relevant affiliations beyond their academic appointment.
The use of artificial intelligence (AI) by New Zealand police is putting the spotlight on policing tactics in the 21st century.
A recent Official Information Act request by Radio New Zealand revealed the use of SearchX, an AI tool that can draw connections between suspects and their wider networks.
SearchX works by instantly finding connections between people, locations, criminal charges and other factors likely to increase the risk of harm to officers.
Police say SearchX is at the heart of a NZ$200 million front-line safety programme, primarily developed after the death of police constable Matthew Hunt in West Auckland in 2020, as well as other recent gun violence.
But the use of SearchX and other AI programmes raises questions about the invasive nature of the technology, inherent biases and whether New Zealand’s current legal framework will be enough to protect the rights of everyone.
Controversial technologies
At this stage, New Zealanders only have a limited view of the AI programmes being used by the police. While some the programmes are public, others are being kept under wraps.
Police have acknowledged using Cellebrite, a controversial phone hacker technology. This programme extracts personal data from iPhones and Android mobiles and can access more than 50 social media platforms, including Instagram and Facebook.
The police have also acknowledged using BriefCam, which aggregates video footage, including facial recognition and vehicle licence plates.
Briefcam allows police to focus on and track a person or vehicle of interest. Police claim Briefcam can reduce the time analysing CCTV footage from three months to two hours.
Other AI tools such as Clearview AI – which takes photographs from publicly accessible social media sites to identify a person – were tested by police before being abandoned.
The use of Clearview was particularly controversial as it was trialled without the clearance of the police leadership team or the Privacy Commissioner.
Eroding privacy?
The promise of AI is that it can predict and prevent crime. But there are also concerns over the use of these tools by police.
Cellebrite and Briefcam are highly intrusive programmes. They enable law enforcement to access and analyse personal data without people realising, much less providing consent.
But under current legislation, the use of both programmes by police is legal.
The Privacy Act 2020 allows government agencies – including police – to collect, withhold, use or disclose personal information in a way that would otherwise breach the act, where necessary for the “maintenance of the law”.
AI’s biased decisions
Privacy is not the only issue being raised by the use of these programmes. There is a tendency to assume decisions made by AI are more accurate than humans – particularly as tasks become more difficult.
Some of the mistakes can be tied to biases in the algorithms. In the past decade, scholars have begun to document the negative impacts of AI on people with low incomes and the working class, particularly in the justice system.
AI’s use in predictive policing is also an issue as AI can be fed data from over-policed neighbourhoods, which fails to record crime occurring in other neighbourhoods.
The bias is compounded further as AI increasingly directs police patrols and other surveillance onto these already over-policed neighbourhoods.
This is not just a problem overseas. Analyses of the New Zealand government’s use of AI have raised a number of concerns, such as the issue of transparency and privacy, as well as how to manage “dirty data” – data with human biases already baked in before it is entered into AI programmes.
We need updated laws
There is no legal framework for the use of AI in New Zealand, much less for the police use of it. This lack of regulation is not unique, though. Europe’s long awaited AI law still hasn’t been implemented.
That said, New Zealand Police is a signatory to the Australia New Zealand Police Artificial Intelligence Principles. These establish guidelines around transparency, proportionality and justifiability, human oversight, explainability, fairness, reliability, accountability, privacy and security.
Under the principles, police are meant to continuously monitor, test and develop AI systems and ensure data are relevant and contemporary. Under the charter, police must have a point of contact for public inquiries and a channel for challenging or appealing decisions made by AI.
But these are both voluntary codes, leaving significant gaps for legal accountability and police antipathy.
And it’s not looking good so far. Police have failed to implement one of the first – and most basic – steps of the charter: to establish a point of inquiry for people who are concerned by the use of AI.
There is no special page on the police website dealing with the use of AI, nor is there anything on the main feedback page specifically mentioning the topic.
In the absence of a clear legal framework, with an independent body monitoring the police’s actions and enforcing the law, New Zealanders are left relying on police to monitor themselves.
AI is barely on the radar ahead of the 2023 election. But as it becomes more pervasive across government agencies, New Zealand must follow Europe’s lead and enact AI regulation to ensure police use of AI doesn’t cause more problems than it solves.
Alexandra Sims does not work for, consult, own shares in or receive funding from any company or organisation that would benefit from this article, and has disclosed no relevant affiliations beyond their academic appointment.
Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Rebecca Bentley, Professor of Social Epidemiology and Director of the Centre of Research Excellence in Healthy Housing at the Melbourne School of Population and Global Health, The University of Melbourne
Shutterstock
Although most Australian states require homes be free of mould before they are rented out, seasoned renters know that’s not always the case. In fact, an alarming number of tenants report discovering mould after they’ve moved into a rental property.
But how can you tell? Based on our research and practical experience in the field, these are 12 questions worth considering before you sign a residential tenancy agreement.
Enquire upfront if there’s a history of mould in the property. Tell the agent or landlord if a household member has a chronic condition, such as asthma or an allergy, which could be exacerbated by mould exposure. It’s worth a shot.
2. Can you see any mould?
This sounds obvious but there’s an art to spotting the clues. Carpets retain a history of mould damage. If you’re allowed and without causing damage, carefully inspect under carpet in a corner in areas that could be prone to water coming in (such as near a bathroom, external wall or window).
Single-glazed windows often experience condensation, so check windows closely. Mould problems tend to show up most significantly on the south-facing side of the house, and can sometimes be spotted on fly screens or the exterior face of blinds and curtains.
3. Are there damp smells in any room?
Check if the agent or landlord has attempted to mask odours with air fresheners or incense.
4. Has the place been recently repainted, re-carpeted or given a new floor?
If so, ask the agent why and if any mould was found in the process.
5. Do exhaust fans in the kitchen and bathroom work well?
Make sure you understand where these fans release the ventilated air and moisture. You don’t want this to be the roof space (above the ceiling but below the roof) unless there are roof vents.
6. Do the gutters leak?
Look at the roof and try to find the valley gutters (these are the things between two planes of the roof and help direct rainwater down to the normal gutters).
If a downpipe is not located near a valley, there is a risk the gutter could overflow. Look for water damage to roofs and eaves or sagging gutters.
7. Are there water stains on the walls, floor, windows or ceiling?
Check the frames and around the windows closely. Look under the kitchen and bathroom sinks for stains, blistering melamine or swelling particle board.
See if there’s swelling or peeling on the walls and skirting board on the shared wall between the shower and the adjoining room. Peeling or swelling could indicate a failed waterproofing membrane.
External walls in contact with the ground have the highest risk of rising damp, and south-facing walls tend to get the least sunlight.
8. Is the property well ventilated?
Are there fly screens so you can leave windows open? Is there anything making it hard to get fresh air? For example, do windows face a noisy main road? This means they are likely to remain closed.
9. Is the home humid?
Find out as much as you can about glazing, insulation and orientation. Is the home humid? You can find out with a thermo-hygrometer, a device often sold in hardware stores that reads temperature and relative humidity. In older houses with poor insulation, you can usually try to maintain the interior at 65% relative humidity with the help of a dehumidifier.
Are there any evaporative coolers in the home? These machines keep the room cool by evaporating water, but they add moisture to the air. Ask the agent if they can switch on any evaporative coolers to see if your sinuses feel irritated when you are near a vent.
10. Are tiles cracked, lifted, uneven or loose?
This can suggest water damage underneath, especially in the shower (or areas near the shower).
11. Have you checked behind any furniture pushed up against walls?
Having furniture pushed up like this can prevent walls from drying out. Look behind furniture for evidence of mould.
12. Is there water pooling under the house?
Are there garden beds or plants positioned right up against the walls? If the house is on a slope, does rain run off down the hill and pool under the house? See if you can go under the house to look and smell for mould.
Rebecca Bentley receives funding from the National Health and Medical Research Council and the Australian Research Council.
Tim Law is the Technical Lead for Building Sciences at Restoration Industry Consultants (RIC). He receives funding from the National Health and Medical Research Council, the Australian Building Codes Board, the Victorian Building Authority, Consumer Building and Occupation Services (Tasmania) and Commercialisation Australia.
The Royal Commission into Violence, Abuse, Neglect and Exploitation of People with Disability has shared its final report. In this series, we unpack what the commission’s 222 recommendations could mean for a more inclusive Australia.
On Wednesday, the chair of the National Disability Insurance Agency (NDIA), Kurt Fearnley, spoke passionately about the need to end segregation of Australians with disabilities, particularly in schools. “This is the way we build an entire country,” he said of the education system.
The disability royal commission was split over the issue of special schools.
When it handed down its report last week, three commissioners recommended special or segregated schools should be phased out by 2051. Another three said we should maintain special schools but, where practical, locate them close to mainstream schools so students can do some things together.
Some disability groups say inclusive education is the only way to fulfil the human rights of all Australians and students with disability should be funded and supported to attend mainstream schools.
But what is often missing from these debates is the voices of families. In our research, we spoke to parents who have children at special schools about what they think.
Special schools – sometimes called specialist schools – are for students with moderate to high learning and support needs. This includes students with intellectual disability and complex learning needs.
In Australia, special schools are run by state and territory education systems. Special schools are not homogeneous, but respond to the diverse needs of students.
Our research
Our research, recently published in the journal Support and Learning, was based on a survey of 390 parents and guardians that was initially released by the Australian Special Education Principals’ Association in 2021.
Their children attended special schools all around Australia and ranged from the first year of school to Year 12. The students had one or more disabilities, including cognitive, sensory neurological, physical and language disabilities.
Most parents are satisfied
The study found parents had high levels of satisfaction with special schools:
91% of those surveyed were “extremely satisfied” or “slightly satisfied” with the educational support their child received
90% said there were “extremely satisfied” or “slightly satisfied” with the school’s overall understanding of their child’s strengths and needs.
Teachers, supports and individual attention
We also asked open-ended questions to gain more understanding of parents’ views.
One of the key themes was how much parents valued the teachers’ experience and expertise at their special school. One parents told us:
The amount of experience the teachers have with teaching kids with special needs is obvious to us, as we have noticed a remarkable improvement in our child’s behaviour and learning […] They really know how to manage these kids and modify their teaching to get them to learn and participate.
Parents also spoke about the individual attention and support given to their children. They noted there was “no attempt to try a one-size-fits-all method”:
Our son’s schooling is very tailored to his learning style, from equipment to the amazing staff and their personal knowledge of our son.
Our survey respondents spoke about how their children could access physiotherapy at school, had pool sessions on site and had sensory needs catered for. They also emphasised the benefits of small classes.
Our daughter’s disability is very complex. The small classroom setting with a teacher and support team provide her with the correct level of support and attention. Our daughter would not be able to follow the ‘mainstream’ curriculum and the school supports her well with her adapted curriculum.
Safety and friends
Families also told us how their children were safe and supported socially at their special school.
[My son] is supported by behaviour intervention methods by support staff who understand his needs. He is given literacy and numeracy support as well as social support in the playground.
Another parent similarly said:
My child is safe, [she] has friends which she may not have in a mainstream school. She is cared for and feels that she belongs in her special school setting.
This study was not designed to challenge the concept of inclusive education – if parents decide a mainstream school is the best learning environment for their child, they should be able to attend their local school and be supported to do so.
But parents’ responses in our research show their strong satisfaction with special schools because they provide teaching expertise, tailored support and safe learning environments.
It is important to keep providing choice for families to enrol their child in a school that fits their needs and values.
In that way, the option to enrol your child in a special school is no different from a parent wishing to enrol their child in an independent or religious school.
Fiona Forbes, principal of Peel Language Development School WA, coauthored the journal article and survey research on which this article is based.
Tania Aspland and Fiona Forbes received funding from the Association of Special Education Principals’ Association to fund this research. No funds were taken personally but provided for the costs of research assistants associated with the project.
Tania Aspland is currently Vice President (Academic) Kaplan Higher Education, Australia-New Zealand.
Information is a valuable commodity. And thanks to technology, there are millions of terabytes of it online.
Artificial intelligence (AI) tools such as ChatGPT are now managing this information on our behalf – collating it, summarising it, and presenting it back to us.
But this “outsourcing” of information management to AI – convenient as it is – comes with consequences. It can influence not only what we think, but potentially also how we think.
What happens in a world where AI algorithms decide what information is perpetuated, and what is left by the wayside?
The rise of personalised AI
Generative AI tools are built on models trained on hundreds of gigabytes of preexisting data. From these data they learn how to autonomously create text, images, audio and video content, and can respond to user queries by patching together the “most likely” answer.
ChatGPT is used by millions of people, despite having been publicly released less than a year ago. In June, the addition of custom responses made the already-impressive chatbot even more useful. This feature lets users save customised instructions explaining what they are using the bot for and how they would like it to respond.
This is one of several examples of “personalised AI”: a category of AI tools that generate content to suit the specific needs and preferences of the user.
Another example is Meta’s recently launched virtual assistant, Meta AI. This chatbot can have conversations, generate images and perform tasks across Meta’s platforms including WhatsApp, Messenger and Instagram.
Artificial intelligence researcher and co-founder of DeepMind, Mustafa Suleyman, describes personalised AI as being more of a relationship than a technology:
It’s a friend. […] It’s really going to be ever present and alongside you, living with you – basically on your team. I like to think of it as like having a great coach in your corner.
Tech companies are trying to find ways to combat these issues. For instance, Google has added source links to AI-generated search summaries produced by its Search Generative Experience (SGE) tool, which came under fire earlier this year for offering up inaccurate and problematic responses.
Technology has already changed our thinking
How will generative AI tools – and especially those personalised to us – change how we think?
To understand this, let’s revisit the early 1990s when the internet first came into our lives. People could suddenly access information about pretty much anything, whether that was banking, baking, teaching or travelling.
Nearly 30 years on, studies have shown how being connected to this global “hive mind” has changed our cognition, memory and creativity.
For instance, having instantaneous access to the equivalent of 305.5 billion pages of information has increased people’s meta-knowledge – that is, their knowledge about knowledge. One impact of this is the “Google effect”: a phenomenon in which online search increases our ability to find information, but reduces our memory of what that information was.
Research also shows online searching – regardless of the quantity or quality of information retrieved – increases our cognitive self-esteem. In other words, it increases our belief in our own “smarts”.
Couple this with the fact that questioning information is effortful – and that the more we trust our search engine, the less we critically engage with its results – and you can see why having access to unprecedented amounts of information is not necessarily making us wiser.
Today’s generative AI tools go a lot further than just presenting us with search results. They locate the information for us, evaluate it, synthesise it and present it back to us.
What might the implications of this be? Without pushing for human-led quality control, the outlook isn’t promising.
Generative AI’s ability to produce responses that feel familiar, objective and engaging means it leaves us more vulnerable to cognitive biases.
The automation bias, for instance, is the human tendency to overestimate the integrity of machine-sourced information. And the mere exposure effect is when we’re more likely to trust information that is presented as familiar or personal.
Research on social media can help us understand the impact of such biases. In one 2016 study, Facebook users reported feeling more “in the know” based on the quantity of news content posted online – and not how much of it they actually read.
We also know that “filter bubbles” created by social media algorithms – wherein our feeds are filtered according to our interests — limit the diversity of the content we’re exposed to.
This process of information narrowing has been shown to increase ideological polarisation by reducing people’s propensity to consider alternative perspectives. It’s also been shown to increase our likelihood of being exposed to fake news.
Using AI to wise up, and not dumb down
Generative AI is, without a doubt, a revolutionary force with the potential to do great things for society. It could reshape our education system by providing personalised content, change our work practices by expediting writing and information analysis, and push the frontiers of scientific discovery.
It even has the potential to positively alter our relationships by helping us communicate and connect with others and can, at times, function as a form of synthetic companionship.
But if our only way to judge the future is by looking to the past, maybe now is the time to reflect on how both the internet and social media have changed our cognition, and apply some precautionary measures. Developing AI literacy is a good place to start, as is designing AI tools that encourage human autonomy and critical thinking.
Ultimately, we’ll need to understand both our own and AI’s strengths and weaknesses to ensure these “thinking” companions help us create the future we want – and not the one that happens to be at the top of the list.
Sarah Vivienne Bentley works for CSIRO, which receives funding from the Australian Government.
Claire Mason and Einat Grimberg do not work for, consult, own shares in or receive funding from any company or organisation that would benefit from this article, and have disclosed no relevant affiliations beyond their academic appointment.
This Saturday is the final day of voting in the Voice to Parliament referendum, which asks Australians to support recognition of First Peoples in the Constitution and enable First Peoples’ representation on relevant policies and programs.
Over the last several weeks, I have attended many events supporting and advocating for the Voice referendum. In these forums, my fellow Australians talk about the Constitution, the role of government and how power is exercised in modern democracy. Some have never read or thought about the Constitution before.
I’ve seen young First Nations lawyers explaining to a mixed crowd how the Constitution works, what is included in it and what a constitutionally enshrined Voice would mean. I have been invigorated by such sincere participation in understanding how our democracy works, and could work better.
This serious contemplation was getting underway at the Referendum Council’s Aboriginal regional dialogues I attended in 2017. With other Aboriginal people, we discussed what change could look like. I have supported the implementation of the Uluru Statement from the Heart and played my small part supporting the “yes” vote at my university and with my family and community.
Debates around the Voice have presented three competing narratives to the Australian public.
The “yes” position addresses the outstanding business of the place of First Peoples in the life of the nation. This position is an offer of peace, to walk together towards settlement. It also believes that if First Peoples are able to work with and through government – with power devolved to local-level decision-making – the everyday experiences of the disadvantaged will be changed.
The Voice proposal is a modest, middle path. It’s a compromise position that was believed to have the greatest chance of gaining support from progressives, liberals and conservatives.
The “no” position refuses to acknowledge the unique place of First Peoples in the life of the nation and rejects any perceived “special treatment” based on either disadvantage or cultural difference.
A third, minority group is the so-called “progressive no” vote, which rejects the Voice referendum as an unacceptable compromise with limited utility as a mechanism to advance First Peoples’ rights. It argues Voice is not enough, and it’s time instead for recognition of sovereignty.
Each of these narratives draws from competing versions of the story of the nation’s past and future. We can see that understanding our history is more important than ever in addressing the politics of disruption and disinformation and the toxic social and political discourse that has dominated the campaign.
Right-wing tactics of division
Debate over the referendum has played out in a different way to other referendums and general election campaigns. The debate has often been discourteous, relying on a swarm of cruel, derogatory and racist social media posts. Some leading “no” campaigners have presented increasingly extremist and sensational views intended to dominate the news cycle and social media.
In many ways, the “no” campaign has followed patterns of right-wing campaigning from overseas, which is intended to destabilise the social relations, trust and confidence we have in one another and seed division.
Consider the Brexit debate in the UK, and or US Capitol insurrection and claims of a stolen election by former President Donald Trump. Each provided a platform for people to express white nationalist sentiments and their deep distrust in the institutions of democratic government.
The “no” campaign’s tactics have also sought to link a host of disparate themes to the referendum, from climate change denial to anti-vaccination beliefs. The common theme is grievance against the perceived extension of the distrusted government into people’s lives. Disinformation has played a key role.
Other concerns have also been publicly raised about the Voice, such as that it would be a risk to people’s private land. These concerns are sincerely feared, but totally unfounded.
Difficulties confronting our history
What sits beneath this right-wing rhetoric in Australia is the highly charged debate over the nation’s past and its future.
Contesting views about Australia’s history should not come as a surprise. Since historians became more interested in the telling of Australian history “from the other side” and writing First Peoples back into the nation’s story, it has been met with an equal measure of resistance and shock.
The ongoing difficulty of “coming to terms” with colonial histories can be attributed to a number of things:
historical amnesia, disbelief or cultural differences over what counts as historical knowledge
the strategic use of “forgetting” to protect a social group’s self-image
and the belief that engaging in these difficult histories is somebody else’s responsibility rather than our own.
The Voice Referendum and Uluru Statement introduce a new nationalism underpinned by a different origin story: the process of a settlement between First Nations and non-Indigenous Australians with a recognition of how our continent’s much deeper history can be a gift, or inheritance, to all Australians.
In this vision for the future, the worlds of Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islanders narrate the story of the country over much longer timeframes through an entirely different archive and knowledge system.
The idea of inheritance of a much deeper and longer history of country is less concerned with colonial settler-Indigenous relations. Rather, it is a transformed sense of history that extends over thousands of generations and speaks to place.
Playing a role in the future of the nation
The aim of the Voice is to strengthen democracy by meaningfully engaging with those who have the knowledge and expertise, in local conditions and contexts, to improve government decisions in Indigenous policy and programs.
The Voice proposal eschews a rights framework in favour of providing
the impetus for a profound paradigmatic shift between Indigenous peoples and the state. While this “power of influence” on one hand seeks to improve policy and programs and services on the ground, it also seeks to shape a new and meaningful relationship between Indigenous Peoples and political institutions.
There is a legitimate and important role for government to play in First Peoples’ lives, but this role can be improved by greater participation and local-level input in the design and implementation of policy and programs.
For too long, First Peoples have experienced the worst excesses of government and its various instruments – namely the police and judiciary. There’s a reason why many people hold a deep and abiding fear and suspicion of government. It has been responsible for many traumas:
the brutal dislodging of kinship connections
the taking of land without any legal basis or compensation
the violent dispersal of people from their land, which has rendered many destitute and without means to care for their families
the removal of people’s children, denial of basic services and assistance, and management of people’s lives by a cruel and underfunded protection board
the empowering of police and military to seize people’s community assets.
And yet, the Voice referendum, supported by the overwhelming majority of First Peoples, seeks to improve the relationship with governments to achieve greater efficiency and effectiveness of policies intended to improve lives.
At one Sydney “yes” rally, we walked from Redfern Park along Cleveland Street to Victoria Park. It was a massive turnout that far exceeded expectations. The mood was serious, yet joyous. People came from all over Sydney and brought their place with them – the crew from “The Shire” got a big cheer from the crowd.
This gathering was not looking for division, but rather a heart-filled yearning to come together as a community of people and play a role in the future of a nation that’s accepting of the fact it’s our country, too.
Heidi Norman does not work for, consult, own shares in or receive funding from any company or organisation that would benefit from this article, and has disclosed no relevant affiliations beyond their academic appointment.
Coffee is well recognised as having a positive impact on long-term health. Drinking the equivalent of three to four cups of instant coffee a day reduces the risk of many health conditions including heart disease, type 2 diabetes and some cancers.
Most people gain small amounts of weight each year as they age. But can coffee help prevent this gradual weight gain?
A group of researchers examined whether drinking an extra cup of coffee a day – or adding sugar, cream or a non-dairy alternative – resulted in more or less weight gain than those who didn’t adjust their intake.
Their research (currently a pre-proof, which means it has been peer reviewed but is yet to undergo the final formatting and copyediting) found a modest link between coffee and gaining less weight than expected.
People who drank an extra cup of coffee a day gained 0.12 kg less weight than expected over four years. Adding sugar resulted in a fraction more (0.09 kg) weight gain than expected over four years.
The Nurses’ Health Studies are two of the largest cohort studies, with more 230,000 participants, and investigates chronic disease risks for women. The Health Professional Follow-up study involves more than 50,000 male health professionals and investigates the relationship between diet and health outcomes.
Participants in all three studies completed a baseline questionnaire, and another questionnaire every four years to assess their food and drink intake. Using the combined datasets, researchers analysed changes in coffee intake and changes in the participants’ self-reported weight at four-year intervals.
The study looked at associations between coffee intake and weight. Unsplash/Annie Spratt
The average four year weight-gains for the nurses’ studies were 1.2kg and 1.7kg, while participants in the health professionals study gained an average of 0.8kg.
The researchers found that increasing unsweetened caffeinated or decaffeinated coffee intake by one cup a day was associated with a weight gain that was 0.12 kg less than expected over four years.
Adding creamer (milk) or a non-dairy alternative did not significantly affect this weight change.
However, adding sugar (one teaspoon) to coffee was associated with a weight gain that was 0.09 kg more than expected over four years.
These associations were stronger in participants who were younger and had a higher body mass index at the beginning of the studies.
What are the pros and cons of the study?
This study is unique in two ways. It had a very large sample size and followed participants for many years. This adds confidence that the associations were real and can likely be applied to other populations.
However, there are three reasons to be cautious.
First, the findings represent an association, not causation. This means the study does not prove that coffee intake is the true reason for the weight change. Rather, it shows the two changes were observed together over time.
Second, the findings around weight were very modest. The average four-year weight gain averted, based on one cup of coffee, was 0.12 kilograms, which is about 30 grams per year. This amount may not be a meaningful change for most people looking to manage weight.
Finally, this analysis did not consider the variability in the amount of caffeine in coffee (which we know can be high), it just assumed a standard amount of caffeine per cup.
How could coffee help with weight management?
Caffeine is a natural stimulant which has been shown to temporarily reduce appetite and increase alertness. This may help to feel less hungry for a short period, potentially leading to reduced energy intake.
Some people consume coffee before exercise as a stimulant to improve their workout performance – if a workout is more effective, more energy may be expended. However, the benefit is largely thought to be short-lived, rather than long-term.
Caffeine has also been shown to speed up our metabolism, causing more energy to be burned while resting. However, this effect is relatively small and is not a suitable substitute for regular physical activity and a healthy diet.
Finally, coffee has a mild diuretic effect, which can lead to temporary water weight loss. This is water loss, not fat loss, and the weight is quickly regained when you re-hydrate.
Is it worth trying coffee for weight loss?
Losing weight can be influenced by various factors, so don’t get too enthusiastic about the coffee-weight link highlighted in this new study, or increase your coffee intake to unreasonable levels.
Most adults can safely consume around 400mg of caffeine a day. That’s the equivalent of two espressos or four cups of instant coffee or eight cups of tea.
If you are pregnant or breastfeeding, it is important to talk to your doctor before increasing your caffeine intake, because caffeine can be passed through to your growing baby.
Lauren Ball works for The University of Queensland and receives funding from the National Health and Medical Research Council, Queensland Health and Mater Misericordia. She is a Director of Dietitians Australia, a Director of the Darling Downs and West Moreton Primary Health Network and an Associate Member of the Australian Academy of Health and Medical Sciences.
