As the Glasgow climate summits gets underway, New Zealand’s government has announced a revised pledge, with a headline figure of a 50% reduction on gross 2005 emissions by the end of this decade.
This looks good on the surface, but the substance of this new commitment, known as a Nationally Determined Contribution (NDC), is best assessed in emissions across decades.
New Zealand’s actual emissions in the 2010s were 701 million tonnes (Mt) of carbon dioxide equivalent. The carbon budget for the 2020s is 675Mt. The old pledge for the 2020s was 623Mt.
The Climate Change Commission’s advice was for “much less than” 593Mt, and the new NDC is 571Mt. So yes, the new pledge meets the commission’s advice and is a step up on the old, but it does not meet our fairshare under the Paris Agreement.
The dark dashed line shows New Zealand’s domestic climate goal – its carbon budget. The blue area shows a possible pathway under the old climate pledge, and the red area represents the newly announced pledge. Office of the Minister of Climate Change, CC BY-ND
It is also a stretch to call the new NDC consistent with the goal of keeping global temperature rise under 1.5℃.
True 1.5℃ compliance would require halving fossil fuel burning over the next decade, while the current plan is for cuts of a quarter.
Emissions need to half this decade
Countries’ climate pledges are at the heart of the Paris Agreement. The initial round of pledges in 2016 added up to global warming of 3.5℃, but it was always intended they would be ratcheted up over time. In the run-up to COP26, a flurry of new announcements brought that figure down to 2.7℃ — better, but still a significant miss on 1.5℃.
As this graph from the UN’s Emissions Gap Report 2021 shows, the world will need to halve emissions this decade to keep on track for 1.5℃.
This graph shows that new and existing pledges under the Paris Agreement leave the world on track for 2.7ºC of warming. If recent net-zero pledges are realised, they will take us to 2.2ºC. UNEP, CC BY-ND
New Zealand’s first NDC, for net 2030 emissions to be 30% below gross 2005 emissions, was widely seen as inadequate. An update, reflecting the ambition of the 2019 Zero Carbon Act to keep warming below 1.5℃, has been awaited eagerly.
But several factors have combined to make a truly ambitious NDC particularly difficult.
First, New Zealand’s old climate strategy was based on tree planting and the purchase of offshore carbon credits. The tree planting came to and end in the early 2010s and is only now resuming, while the Emissions Trading Scheme was closed to international markets in 2015. The Paris Agreement was intended to allow a restart of international carbon trading, but this has not yet been possible.
Second, New Zealand has a terrible record in cutting emissions so far. Burning of fossil fuels actually increased by 9% from 2016 to 2019. It’s a challenge to turn around our high-emissions economy.
Third, our new climate strategy, involving carbon budgets and pathways under advice from the Climate Change Commission, is only just kicking in. The government has made an in-principle agreement on carbon budgets out to 2030, and has begun consultation on how to meet them. The full emissions-reduction plan will not be ready until May 2022.
Regarding a revised NDC, the government passed the buck and asked the commission for advice. The commission declined to give specific recommendations, but advised:
We recommend that to make the NDC more likely to be compatible with contributing to global efforts under the Paris Agreement to limit warming to 1.5℃ above pre-industrial levels, the contribution Aotearoa makes over the NDC period should reflect a reduction to net emissions of much more than 36% below 2005 gross levels by 2030, with the likelihood of compatibility increasing as the NDC is strengthened further.
The government then received advice on what would be a fair target for New Zealand. However, any consideration of historic or economic responsibility points to vastly increased cuts, essentially leading to net-zero emissions by 2030.
Announcing the new NDC, Climate Change Minister James Shaw admitted it wasn’t enough, saying:
I think we should be doing a whole lot more. But, the alternative is committing to something that we can’t deliver on.
What proper climate action could look like
Only about a third of New Zealand’s pledged emissions cuts will come from within the country. The rest will have to be purchased as carbon credits from offshore mitigation.
That’s the same amount (100Mt) that Japan, with an economy 25 times larger than New Zealand’s, is planning to include in its NDC. There is no system for doing this yet, or for ensuring these cuts are genuine. And there’s a price tag, possibly running into many billions of dollars.
New Zealand has an impressive climate framework in place. Unfortunately, just as its institutions are beginning to bite, they are starting to falter against the scale of the challenge.
The commission’s advice to the minister was disappointing. It’s being challenged in court by Lawyers For Climate Action New Zealand, whose judicial review in relation to both the NDC and the domestic emissions budgets will be heard in February 2022.
With only two months to go until 2022 and the official start of the carbon budgets, there is no plan how to meet them. The suggestions in the consultation document add up to only half the cuts needed for the first budget period.
Thinking in the transport area is the furthest advanced, with a solid approach to fuel efficiency already approved, and an acknowledgement total driving must decrease, active and public transport must increase, and new roads may not be compatible with climate targets.
But industry needs to step up massively. The proposed 2037 end date for coal burning is far too late, while the milk cooperative Fonterra — poised to announce a record payout to farmers — intends to begin phasing out natural gas for milk drying only after that date.
The potentially most far-reaching suggestion is to set a renewable energy target. A clear path to 100% renewable energy would provide a significant counterweight to the endless debates about trees and agricultural emissions, but it is still barely on the radar.
Perhaps one outcome of the new NDC will be that, faced with the prospect of a NZ$5 billion bill for offshore mitigation, we might decide to spend the money on emissions cuts in Aotearoa instead.
Robert McLachlan 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 the wake of a jump in the proportion of workers quitting jobs in the United States – dubbed the “Great Resignation” – Australia’s media has been warning of a surge in resignations here.
Over much of 2021, Klotz’s predictions appear to be borne out in the US, with the monthly quit rate climbing from about 2.4% in 2019 to 2.9% in August – the highest rate ever recorded.
And there’s little to suggest the trend will come to a stop there any time soon.
Writing in the New York Times, Nobel Prizewinning economist Paul Krugman suggests America is witnessing a new form of worker revolt in the wake of years of substandard conditions. Workers are using growing job openings to look for better or less demanding jobs, or are simply retiring early.
In Australia, resignation rates are falling
Data collected each year by the Australian Bureau of Statistics suggests that in the 12 months to February 2021 almost 1.1 million Australians left their jobs.
That’s not unusual. In most years more than a million Australians leave their jobs.
Leaving and changing jobs is a sign of a healthy, well-functioning labour market.
If Australia has had a problem, it is with fewer and fewer quitting, something Treasury officials have identified as a contributor to low growth in both wages and productivity.
In the year to February 2021 the proportion of Australian workers switching jobs fell to an all-time low: 7.6% of employed Australians changed jobs that year, down from a peak of 19.5% in 1988-89.
Of course, it is possible Australia’s labour market will change direction and ape the US labour market. But a few caveats are worth noting.
First, although quit rates in the US have increased significantly over the past decade, the increase was largely about playing catchup after the recession that accompanied the global financial crisis of 2008-09. Monthly US quit rates in 2019 were little different to rates 20 years earlier.
Second, the increase in US quit rates has been uneven across sectors. There has been no increase in the finance, information and government services sectors. But in leisure and hospitality, monthly quit rates have jumped from 4.4% to 6.4%.
Even in the US, only some resignation rates are climbing
Our assessment is that the trends in the US result from two forces.
One is the usual pattern associated with economic cycles – when jobs become more plentiful, quit rates rise.
The other is that in jobs exposed to the public an ongoing fear of COVID-19 and increased requirements imposed by employers, including vaccination mandates, has made employment less attractive.
What does this all mean for Australia? The first thing to say is that a rise in quit rates would be far from undesirable.
Australia should welcome more resignations
Also, if job opportunities improve as the economy opens and competition for workers increases, quit rates should increase as more workers seek to move to jobs providing better wages and opportunities. But we repeat: there would be nothing unusual or undesirable about this.
More job switching would be no bad thing. Mark Deibert Productions
Third, as in the US, COVID-19 will likely continue to weigh on decisions. Fear might lead some workers to exit the workforce, especially older workers close to retirement age and those with underlying health conditions.
Nevertheless, with vaccination rates rising rapidly and predicted to exceed 90% very soon, we do not expect this to play a big role in Australia.
Possibly more important will be how employers manage workers who became accustomed to working from home during the pandemic.
As in the US many of them might be reluctant to return to the office.
As other researchers have shown, there are good reasons to expect working from home to stick and for workers to have a stronger preference for mixed arrangements than many managers might like.
The issue here is not so much a Great Resignation, but how to deal with a Great Resistance to the idea of returning to the office, and the daily commute.
Mark Wooden has received funding from the Australian Research Council and is currently receiving from the US National Institutes of Health.
Peter Gahan has previously received funding from the Australian Research Council and the Commonwealth Government.
Arika Waulu (Koolyn, Gunnai, Djap Wurrung, Peek Wurrung, Dhauwurd Wurrung), Yuccan Noolert (Mother Possum) 2021. Wood, red ochre, yellow ochre, charcoal, acrylic, ink, melaleuca bark, crushed granite, koolor (lava stone). Dimensions variable. Installation view, WILAM BIIK, TarraWarra Museum of Art, 2021Courtesy of the artist. Photo: Andrew Curtis
Review: Wilam Biik (Home Country), TarraWarra Museum of Art
Wilam Biik (Home Country) is a multi-layered conversation between Country, people and ancestors that surges with the power of Aboriginal connectivity.
The first major exhibition curated by Wurundjeri and Dja Dja Wurrung woman Stacie Piper in her role as Tarawarra’s 2019 Yalingwa Curator, it is a generous offer to see Wurundjeri biik (Country) the way Wurundjeri see it — not as a “natural resource” to be exploited, but a life-sustaining force interconnected with all things.
It is an important call to those who live on Wurundjeri biik to uphold Wurundjeri people’s principles of relationality: to live in reciprocity with all life, including land, animals, water, sky and people.
The exhibition embodies the Wurundjeri concept of layers of biik: country extends from below the ground to above in the sky, all interconnected through water country.
Piper gathered artists by following the “waterlines” and “bushlines” which connect Wurundjeri to the 38 Aboriginal groups throughout south east Australia.
These artists offer a different way to look at Country. Not by the roads we travel, but by the relationships embedded in it.
Care for Country
Piper developed her curatorial practice at Bunjilaka Aboriginal Cultural Centre after working for many years with her Elders at Wurundjeri Woi Wurrung Cultural Heritage Aboriginal Corporation.
Kim Wandin (Wurundjeri/Woi-wurrung). Jemima Burns Wandin Dunolly, Robert Wandoon, Annie Borate, William Barak, Wrapped in Country 2021. Digitally reproduced historic photographs, rescued Victorian Mountain Ash wood frame, woven natural fibres 56 x 45.5 cm each. Installation view, WILAM BIIK, TarraWarra Museum of Art, 2021. Courtesy of the artist, Aunty Joy Murphy Wandin and the State Library of Victoria Collection Photo: Andrew Curtis
The vision for Wilam Biik came from Piper’s sovereign responsibility to care for Country, and her despair at the unsustainable logging of old growth forest in the Warburton ranges not far from Tarrawarra on Wurundjeri biik.
Climate trauma and relationship to country was the starting point for Stacie’s curatorial vision. Wilam biik embodies the rich knowledge of Country that holds the answers to recovering from this trauma.
The exhibition is grounded in land and ancestors. Audiences are welcomed by a wall-sized historical photograph of Wurundjeri biik and baluk (people) at Corranderrk.
“Ancestor tools”, such as Barak’s carved parrying shield, a boomerang and basket – on loan from Melbourne Museum – are displayed in the way they would be held: close to the people.
Djirri Djirri Wurundjeri Women’s Dance Group (Dancers include Wurundjeri, Dja Dja wurrung, Ngurai illum-wurrung) Wominjeka 2018–20. Video projection on phototex wallpaper duration 00:02:26. Filmed by Ryan Tews. Installation view, WILAM BIIK, TarraWarra Museum of Art, 2021. Courtesy of the artists Photo: Andrew Curtis
Eel trap by Wurundjeri Elder Kim Wandin underlines the continuing connection between generations.
In conversation with the sepia image of their ancestors, their living descendants — the Djirri Djirri dancers — are projected dancing on Wurundjeri country in the upper reaches of the Birrarung.
Ceremony (c1895) by Wurundjeri painter Ngurungaeta Wiliam Barak has been brought to wilam biik by Wurundjeri people for the first time since they were made. The painting details ceremonial adornment, as referenced by the Djirri Djirris today.
William Barak (Wurundjeri Ngurungaeta, Head Man), Ceremony c. 1895. Ochre, watercolour and pencil on paper 56.3 x 78.7 cm (irregular). Art Gallery of Ballarat Collection Gift of Mrs Anne Fraser Bon, 1934
Following the water sources that start in Country shared with Gunnai and Taungurung Peoples, Gunnai and Gunditjmara artist Arika Waulu’s matriarchal Digging Sticks are carved wood adorned in gold, set against a wallpaper showing layers of country and the cycle of plant life. In this, Waulu speaks of women’s interconnectivity with Country.
Of the Earth, an installation by Taungurung artist Steven Rhall, places a photograph of a boulder on a sound platform, animating the image in a contemplation of the deep time written into Taungurung Country, or in what Alexis Wright has called the ancient library.
Steven Rhall (Taungurung) Of the Earth 202. Inkjet print, steel, audio, amplifier, subwoofer, granite, table, light, architectural intervention, framed and wrapped inkjet prints. Dimensions variable. Installation view, WILAM BIIK, TarraWarra Museum of Art, 2021. Courtesy of the artist. Photo: Andrew Curtis
The water connection flows through Dhunghula (Murray River) to Yorta Yorta, Waddi Waddi, Wemba Wemba, and all the way to Ngarrindjeri Country as well as into Kolety (Edwards River) and the Baaka (Darling River).
In Drag Net, a woven net incorporating river mussel shell, Waddi Waddi, Yorta Yorta and Ngarrindjeri artist Glenda Nicholls evokes this connection to the river and “water country”.
Glenda Nicholls (Waddi Waddi, Ngarrindjeri and Yorta Yorta) Drag Net 2021 (detail). Jute, wood, river clay, native river mussel shell. 200 x 100 cm. Installation view, WILAM BIIK, TarraWarra Museum of Art, 2021. Courtesy of the artist Photo: Andrew Curtis
In Wemba Wemba and Gunditjmara artist Paola Balla’s intergenerational work, Murrup Weaving in Rosie Kuka Lar with Rosie Tang, Balla builds a camp house made from cloth imbued with bush dyes in the landscape of her grandmother’s painting of country. Through these bush dyes, Balla brings the smell of “on ground country” directly into the gallery.
Paola Balla (Wemba Wemba, Gunditjmara), Murrup (Ghost) Weaving in Rosie Kuka Lar (Grandmother’s Camp), 2021, with Rosie Tang, Untitled Wallpaper, image c. 1978, reproduced 2021. Installation view, WILAM BIIK, TarraWarra Museum of Art, 2021. Courtesy of Paola Balla. Photo: Andrew Curt
Barkindji artist Kent Morris’ Barkindji Blue Sky – Ancestral Connections is a stunning photographic series, embodying water connections to the Baaka as well as “sky country”.
Many varied relationships
Waterlines like the Birrarung and the Werribee River, marking connections and boundaries with the Boonwurrrung, Wathaurong and Tyereelore, are mapped with kelp baskets by Nannette Shaw and paintings by Deanne Gilson.
These artists reference the transition from freshwater to saltwater and the relationships that exist amongst the Kulin, across to Tasmania and all life forms within Country.
Deanne Gilson (Wadawurrung) As I Walk on Country, Passing the Manna Gum and the Banksia Tree, I Remember the Past and Work Towards a Brighter Future 2021. White ceremonial ochre, wattle tree sap, red ochre, pink ochre, acrylic on canvas. Diptych: 90 x 110 cm each. Courtesy of the artist Photo: Andrew Curtis
Wilam Biik speaks of the powerful connections between artists, Peoples and Country. It is also a testament to the power of Aboriginal knowledge in Aboriginal hands, and the centring of south east artists and curators as the experts of their knowledges, practices and Country.
Importantly, it is also a call to learn how to live in good relationship with Wurundjeri biik and baluk.
Wilam Biik (Home Country) is at TarraWarra Museum until 21 November.
Kim Kruger is a member of Creative Victoria’s First Peoples’ Directions Circle.
Māori climate activist India Logan-Riley speaking on the indigenous challenge to the “colonial project” at the COP26 opening … “In the US and Canada alone, indigenous resistance has stopped or delayed greenhouse gas pollution equivalent to at least one quarter of annual emissions. What we do works.” Image: COP26 screenshot APR (at 1:00.26)
A young Māori activist has told delegates at a massive UN summit in Scotland the world’s climate crisis has its roots in colonialism and that the solution lies in abandoning modern-day forms of it.
India Logan-Riley was asked at the last minute to speak at today’s opening session of the COP26 summit in Glasgow.
They said indigenous resistance to resource exploitation, corporate greed and the promotion of justice had led the way in offering real solutions to climate chaos.
Addressing delegates today, the young activist fearlessly linked imperialism’s lust for resources and its destruction of indigenous cultures centuries ago, to modern-day enablement by governments of corporate giants seeking profit from fossil fuels at any cost.
Logan-Riley said the roots of the climate crisis began with imperialist expansion by Western nations and reminded Britain’s leader Boris Johnson of the colonial crimes committed against subject peoples, including those in Aotearoa.
Māori and other indigenous people had been forced off the land so resources could be extracted, Logan-Riley said.
“Two-hundred-fifty-two years ago invading forces sent by the ancestors of this presidency arrived at my ancestors’ territories, heralding an age of violence, murder and destruction enabled by documents, like the Document of Discovery, formulated in Europe.
Land ‘stolen by British Crown’ “Land in my region was stolen by the British Crown in order to extract oil and suck the land of all its nutrients while seeking to displace people.”
Logan-Riley said the same historic forces continued to be at play in Aotearoa, citing the example of the government’s “theft of the foreshore and seabed” and subsequent corporate drive to extract fossil fuels.
They expressed frustration that after being lauded at the Paris talks five years ago for relaying climate warnings of wildfires, biodiversity loss and sea-level rises, nothing since had changed.
“The global north colonial governments and corporations fudge with the future,” they added.
India Logan-Riley … world leaders need to listen to indigenous people. Image: COP26 screenshot APR
Logan-Riley said world leaders needed to listen to indigenous people as they had many of the answers to the climate crisis. Their acts of resistance had already played a part in keeping emissions down, they added.
“We’re keeping fossil fuels in the ground and stopping fossil fuel expansion. We’re halting infrastructure that would increase emissions and saying no to false solutions,” they said.
“In the US and Canada alone indigenous resistance has stopped or delayed greenhouse gas pollution equivalent to at least one quarter of annual emissions. What we do works.”
‘Complicit’ in death and destruction Failure to support such indigenous challenges to the “colonial project” and acceptance instead of mediocre leaders means you too are complicit in death and destruction across the globe, Logan-Riley warned.
The comments come as other climate activists have criticised the G20 summit on climate action ahead of the COP26 meeting.
Italian Prime Minister Mario Draghi, who chaired the G20 gathering in Rome, today hailed the final accord, saying that for the first time all G20 states had agreed on the importance of capping global warming at the 1.5C level that scientists say is vital to avoid disaster.
As it stands, the world is heading towards 2.7C.
G20 pledged to stop financing coal power overseas, they set no timetable for phasing it out at home, and watered down the wording on a promise to reduce emissions of methane — another potent greenhouse gas.
The final G20 statement includes a pledge to halt financing of overseas coal-fired power generation by the end of this year, but set no date for phasing out coal power, promising only to do so “as soon as possible”.
This replaced a goal set in a previous draft of the final statement to achieve this by the end of the 2030s, showing the strong resistance from some coal-dependent countries.
G20 set no ‘phasing out’ date The G20 also set no date for phasing out fossil fuel subsidies, saying they will aim to do so “over the medium term”.
On methane, which has a more potent but less lasting impact than carbon dioxide on global warming, leaders diluted their wording from a previous draft that pledged to “strive to reduce our collective methane emissions significantly”.
The final statement just recognises that reducing methane emissions is “one of the quickest, most feasible and most cost-effective ways to limit climate change”.
“I just wanted to really convey that the negotiations are the same age as me and admissions are still going up and that needs to stop right now,” they said.
Logan-Riley had opened their address in te reo Māori before telling delegates they resided on Aotearoa’s east coast, where the sun had turned red in February last year because of smoke from wildfires in eastern Australia.
The activist relayed a story about supporting their brother in hospital being told by the doctor there staff were seeing higher numbers of people presenting with breathing problems because of the smoke.
“In that moment our health was bound to the struggle of the land and people in another country. In the effects of climate change are fates intertwined, as our the historic forces that have brought us here today,” they said.
This article is republished under a community partnership agreement with RNZ.
New Zealand’s cabinet has decided to ease restrictions for some, Prime Minister Jacinda Ardern says cases may peak this month at 200 a day, and Tonga will enter a snap lockdown at midnight.
Restrictions are set to ease slightly in both Waikato and Tāmaki Makaurau, albeit at different times.
Prime Minister Ardern announced at today’s post-cabinet briefing that Waikato would move down to alert level 3 step 2 from midnight Tuesday.
In Auckland, fewer than 5000 first doses remain before reaching 90 percent single-dose vaccination, and for Auckland as a whole 80 percent has had two doses.
“And that’s incredible,” said Ardern, praising Aucklanders for their progress.
“Case numbers, while growing, remain within some of our expectations as modelled and the public health assessment of the impact of changes like opening up retail include that this activity is generally not responsible for marked increases of new cases.”
Meanwhile, cabinet has decided in principle to move Tāmaki Makaurau to alert level 3 step 2 next Tuesday at 11.59pm.
Covid-19 Response Minister Chris Hipkins said potentially slightly easing restrictions in Auckland was a pragmatic move.
Hipkins told RNZ Checkpoint tonight the in-principle decision was based on public health advice.
Covid-19 modeller Professor Michael Plank earlier warned that relaxing restrictions in Auckland and parts of Waikato would accelerate case numbers.
The lockdown will stay in place until next Sunday.
The positive case arrived in Nuku’alofa on a repatriation flight from Christchurch and while he is asymptomatic, he is being cared for alone in a special quarantine facility in Mu’a.
Tonga’s Ministry of Health Chief Executive Dr Siale Akau’ola said the remaining 214 passengers were in MIQ at the Tanoa Hotel while about 80 frontline workers who met the flight are also in MIQ at the Kupesi Hotel.
“In terms of gatherings this is the most significant part of the lockdown. No schools, all schools are closed, no church gathering, no kava club, no entertainment or any kind of gathering,” RNZ Pacific’s correspondent in Tonga, Kalafi Moala, said.
Safety fears as supplement sales soar Sales of natural health supplements have risen since covid-19 arrived in New Zealand, but some products can have adverse effects such as anaphylaxis or death.
Supplements, however, are largely unregulated in New Zealand, with the Ministry of Health saying the pandemic has delayed new legislation.
Ten years of Medsafe data shows two people died from complementary and alternative medicine, or CAM, and that 30 percent of suspected reactions are life-threatening or cause disability.
About eighty percent of New Zealanders have taken natural health supplements, and Nielsen data shows sales in supermarkets alone rose by nearly 14 percent in the past two years, reflecting worldwide trends.
Progress in New Zealand vaccination levels of eligible population. 01112021. Source: Ministry of Health
Police said one of the people has been found and returned to MIQ. He was found during a vehicle stop in west Auckland.
The whereabouts of a woman who also skipped MIQ on Saturday is known to police but public health officials said she did not need to return.
Police said a decision around any charges would be made soon.
Meanwhile, police said a 36-year-old man had been arrested and charged with Failing to Comply with Order (Covid-19) in relation to attending a gathering at the Auckland Domain and subsequent march through Newmarket on Saturday.
Ronapreve covid-19 treatment A covid-19 treatment the government is purchasing can help reduce the number of people dying from the virus, says an expert from the University of Otago.
Pharmac revealed yesterday it is set to subsidise Ronapreve, also known as Regeneron or REGEN-COV, which is used for people in danger of becoming severely unwell.
Australia’s union for journalists says Australian journalism is in crisis after years of disruption, undermining and neglect, and swift action is needed to halt the decline.
A new study pointing to the crisis in public interest journalism demands urgent government action to safeguard democracy.
The Media, Entertainment and Arts Alliance (MEAA) commissioned the Centre for Future Work at The Australia Institute to prepare the report, The Future of Work in Journalism, to examine the state of Australian journalism and to develop recommendations that could be used to address the serious decline in public interest journalism that has taken place over the past decade.
The report says journalism is a “public good” that can only be sustained by a dramatic renovation of government supports, including:
• a new $250 million fund to sustain journalism; • expanded funding for public media organisations; • rebates (refundable tax credits) for the employment of journalists; • tax concessions for consumers of news media; and • a stronger Mandatory News Bargaining Code with dedicated funding for small and new media.
MEAA media federal president Marcus Strom said: “It’s abundantly clear that the slow erosion of Australia’s media industry over many years has taken its toll on public interest journalism.
“As this study shows, failure to take dramatic steps now places our democracy at risk.”
Disappearance of dozens of outlets He said the crisis was most stark in the disappearance of dozens of outlets and hundreds of jobs from regional, rural and community media in the past few years.
The Australia Institute’s study reveals that the number of journalists has fallen dramatically over the past decade; that decline will continue without effective policy and regulatory changes.
Efforts to support journalism have, to date, been inadequate and poorly targeted.
Media workers have delivered massive productivity gains in an environment of ongoing cost-cutting, but have been “rewarded” by stagnant wages, and ongoing restructuring and shifts into freelance and casual work, which now make up about one-third of the media workforce.
A significant and unacceptable gender pay gap persists above the national industry average.
The report highlights the upheaval caused to the Australian media ecosystem by the arrival and rise of digital platforms.
The government’s response, the News Media and Digital Platforms Bargaining Code, has not achieved the rebalance needed to promote public interest journalism.
Call to disclose Bargaining Code ‘deals’ The report recommends that the deals struck under the code be disclosed and that dedicated funding be provided to the small-to-medium media sector, which has been “treated with contempt” by the major digital players.
Among the other remedies recommended in the report, MEAA supports calls for certainty around and restoration of the funding of public media including the national broadcasters ABC and SBS; and expansion of the government’s existing Public Interest News Gathering programme to include all classes of journalism, including freelancers, and media content production.
The amount of support needed has been estimated at $250 million a year.
“This storm has been coming for many years,” Strom said.
“The media industry has been savaged. Thousands of journalism jobs have been lost. Print and broadcast media have all been hurt: mastheads have closed, networks have been cut back.
“Local community and regional reporting has, in many places, disappeared altogether. The number of media players have been reduced to a handful of very powerful players, and that power concentrated in the hands of a few reduces the variety of voices and choices for Australians.
‘Cynically avoided regulation’ “The News Media Bargaining Code offers a partial remedy to the revenue losses by Australian media, but the big digital platforms have cynically avoided regulation under the code by promising to do ‘just enough’.
“Outside the code they are showing their ‘just enough’ is wholly inadequate with not only small publishers missing out, but SBS and The Conversation being excluded.
“Public interest journalism is a public good. It informs and entertains Australians, ensures the public’s right to know and holds the powerful to account.
“If we want that to continue, then there is no time to waste to address the many challenges facing those working in journalism and the entire media industry.”
In other media developments today, the videoYour ABC vs Their IPA, funded by ABC Alumni and the ABC Friends, was released on YouTube in response to an attack by the rightwing Institute of Public Affairs (IPI) on the ABC. The ABC itself is not involved in any way, but the presenter is former ABC Media Watch presenter Jonathan Holmes who says that “the mainstream thinks that the ABC is the most trustworthy source of news in Australia”.
Scott Morrison weighed whether to go to the G20 and COP26. The political hard heads will be thinking maybe it would have been wiser to have stayed at home.
Important as it is internationally, the Glasgow conference is billed as a harm-minimisation assignment for the prime minister. And the G20 wasn’t expected to yield much that was useful for him.
Everyone knew that after the submarine contract cancellation an awkward encounter with France’s Emmanuel Macron was possible at one of these meetings.
But it’s safe to say no one expected the French president would call pants-on-fire when asked about the PM.
Morrison had been claiming the fractured Australian-French relationship was starting to recover, albeit slowly.
He tried to underline the progress by approaching Macron in an off-stage moment at the G20, which was captured by his official photographer.
Morrison later told reporters: “He was having a chat with someone. I went up and just put my arm on his shoulder, I said, g’day Emmanuel and look forward to catching up over the next couple of days.
“And he was happy to exchange those greetings, and we’ve known each other for a while. But you know, it’s just the process of being on the road back.”
But the picture told another story – the look in Macron’s eye was anything but friendly.
Macron was having none of the Morrison spin. When asked a day later by the Australian media whether he thought the PM had lied to him over the cancellation of the submarine contract, he said “I don’t think, I know”.
The French were furious at the time by the sudden announcement of AUKUS and the way the subs contract was quashed without notice, and, although their ambassador is now back in Canberra (and at the National Press Club on Wednesday) the anger obviously remains strong.
In a phone conversation just as Morrison was about to leave for Rome Macron told him it was up to the Australian government “to propose tangible actions” to redefine the bilateral relationship.
Morrison tends to speak of the French rather as if they are children deprived of a valued toy who are naturally “disappointed” but just need time to get over their tantrum.
Admitting error or showing contrition are not part of Morrison’s political repertoire. Instead, when caught or cornered, he denies, spins, blusters, changes the subject.
The French president’s forthrightness has made these tactics more difficult to deploy. But Morrison always has excuses.
Macron blindsided? The PM argues the president should have realised, from their mid-year conversation in Paris, that the contract was likely to become history.
“I was very clear that what was going to be provided to us was not going to meet our strategic interests,” he said at the weekend. Did he indicate he’d break the submarine deal? No but, “We all understood what the gates in the contract were and what then needed to be decided.”
The French kept in the dark about the Australian move to new partners and nuclear subs? Morrison says they couldn’t be brought into the secrecy surrounding AUKUS.
Joe Biden (who has again apologised to Macron for the lack of communication) saying he hadn’t known the French weren’t in the loop much earlier? Apparently all the fault of the US officials not passing information up to the president.
Morrison denied Macron’s claim he’d lied – “it’s not true” – and defaulted to his line that “I’ll always stand up for Australia’s interests”.
The French will be further riled by the intervention by acting PM Barnaby Joyce, who tried to minimise the whole affair.
“We didn’t steal an island. We didn’t deface the Eiffel Tower – it was a contract. And contracts have terms and conditions, and one of those terms and conditions and propositions is that you might get out of the contract.”
Asked whether things could have been handled better, Joyce said, “With hindsight – you know tomorrow the Melbourne Cup’s on? If only I could put a bet on last year’s one, geez, I’d make some money.”
Another line the government is running is that the French have an election coming up. Defence Minister Peter Dutton raised this last week. Whether or not this is a factor in Macron’s reaction, it just adds to the diplomatic rift to pull out that card.
How much will all this matter politically for Morrison?
Internationally, it is very bad for his reputation and that of Australia.
And indirectly, it has brought back questions about the AUKUS submarine deal, which will deliver no boats until about 2040, which is increasingly looking a very concerning timeframe.
Domestically, Labor has seized on the liar line to reinforce its argument that Morrison misleads and worse.
Morrison surely will (and should be) be embarrassed by what’s happened. But he’ll be more intent on asking what the voters think, and he’ll probably be reckoning that on the home front he can neutralise Macron’s allegation.
And that’s by invoking “national interest”, which sits besides “national security.
“I’m not going to put that [relationship with France] interest higher than Australia’s national interest, and I don’t think any Australian would expect me […] to surrender that interest for the sake of another,” he said.
He’ll be betting that in the focus groups, while this might be seen as fresh government untidiness, they won’t be on Macron’s side.
And that’s where Morrison’s attention is centred, as he currently looks at everything through next year’s election prism.
Michelle Grattan does not work for, consult, own shares in or receive funding from any company or organisation that would benefit from this article, and has disclosed no relevant affiliations beyond their academic appointment.
French President Emmanuel Macron has called Australia’s Prime Minister Scott Morrison a liar on the world stage.
In an extraordinary doorstop interview with Australian reporters at the G20 in Rome, Macron was asked if he thought Morrison lied to him over the cancellation of a submarine contract in September. The French President’s reply was damning:
I don’t think, I know.
For his part, Morrison says he did not lie (and gave Macron a heads-up in June about the contract). Nevertheless, the comments show a diplomatic relationship in deep trouble.
What is this about?
Macron’s comments come off the back of Australia’s abrupt strategic breakup with France as part of the AUKUS partnership. In September, Australia announced this new alliance, which meant it would end a multibillion-dollar submarine deal with France.
This sudden decision greatly angered the French, who have likened it to a “stab in the back”.
As a result, France cut off diplomatic communication. This only resumed on October 28 with a frosty phonecall between Macron and Morrison. The recently concluded G20 meeting in Rome was their first meeting in person since the tensions emerged.
What happened in Rome
As the tensions swirled, Morrison approached the French President unannounced at the Rome summit, while Macron was talking to others. Morrison put his arm on the President’s shoulder and reportedly said “g’day”. Images were then released by Morrison’s office as proof of the functional relationship between the two leaders.
The next day, Macron answered Australian reporters’ questions as he was leaving a press conference. Macron’s informal comments, at such a highly choreographed diplomatic event, show how he went out of his way to show he and Morrison are not mates on “g’day” terms.
Macron also took these further steps to ensure his message did not get lost in translation:
He made the comments in English. The French President speaks English but usually uses French, the language of the republic he represents. Using English was a way of speaking to Australians directly, rather than having a voiceover doing a translation from the French.
He spoke to the media of a foreign country – usually a world leader would not engage informally with media from other countries. This is done formally, at joint press conferences.
He did not use “diplo-speak”. Macron is a highly educated, polished politician who knows how to choose his words and send subtle messages. This message was deliberately blunt.
Why this is serious
Since the September fallout, France recalled its ambassador from Canberra to “re-evaluate” its relationship with Australia. In French diplomatic language, “re-evaluate” is a powerful euphemism. All forms of cooperation (military, political, educational, cultural) are at a standstill.
As of January 2022, France will take on the presidency of the Council of the European Union for six months. The timing could not be worse for Australia as it tries to negotiate a major trade deal with the EU. Negotiations have already been paused for a month as a result of the failed submarine deal. The economic implications are serious for Australia, which has a lot more at stake than Europe here. The EU is Australia’s third-largest market but Australia is only the EU’s 19th-largest trading partner.
Indeed, Australia is a sensible target for France to send signals to any other allies that may be tempted to act against French interests. As a middle power, Canberra can be treated as a naughty child in a way that more powerful allies, such as the United States, cannot.
What happens now?
Macron has made it clear he respects Australia, its people, and its shared values with France.
But his comments also show it will be very hard to properly repair the bilateral relationship while the two men are in power. Fundamentally, Macron says he does not trust the current Australian prime minister.
What is urgently needed is for French and Australian diplomats and high-level officials to start talking again, because so much more is at stake than submarines. If they do, this will mean the infrastructure is there at the working level, when leaders are able to engage properly again. Regrettably, this may not happen for a while.
Romain Fathi 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.
As the Glasgow climate conference begins, and the time we have to avert a climate crisis narrows, it is time to revisit successful First Nations campaigns against the fossil fuel industry.
Like the current fight to avert a climate catastrophe, these battles are good, old-fashioned, come-from-behind, David-versus-Goliath examples we can all learn from. The Jabiluka campaign is a good example.
In the late 1990s, a mining company, Energy Resources of Australia, was planning to expand its Kakadu uranium mine into Jabiluka, land belonging to Mirarr Traditional Owners in the Northern Territory. The adjacent Ranger Uranium mine had been operating for 20 years without Traditional Owners’ consent and against their wishes, causing long-term cultural and environmental destruction.
But the expansion of the mine ultimately failed, thanks to an extraordinary campaign by the Traditional Owners, led by Yvonne Maragula and a relative, the lead author of this article, Jacqui Katona (a Djok woman).
In recognition of our work, we shared the 1999 Goldman Environmental Prize, one of the most prestigious international grassroots environmental awards.
Yvonne Maragula and Jacqui Katona after accepting the Goldman Environmental Prize for grassroots activism, Island Nations 1998. Provided by author.
The campaign included a huge on-site protest camp, shareholder action and significant overseas support (including from the European Parliament, US Congress and an expert committee to UNESCO). It also included a blockade of the mine site – one of the biggest blockades Australia had ever seen.
These are valuable lessons for those wanting to take decisive action against the fossil fuel industry. Here are six ways to learn from our experience:
1. Put pressure on the financial sector
Continuous pressure on companies in the financial sector (such as banks), which are complicit in the success of fossil fuel companies, can have an impact. This can be done by exposing their involvement with fossil fuels and pressuring them to be held accountable for these partnerships.
One of the most successful actions of the Jabiluka campaign was the coordination of protests at Westpac, which financed the mine’s owner, Energy Resources of Australia. Not only did protesters raise awareness about Westpac’s investment at local branches, they created bureaucratic chaos by opening and closing bank accounts.
This resulted in a corporate shift in Westpac towards better accountability on issues affecting First Nations people. Coordinated protests like this are an effective way to empower people to participate in positive action for change.
First Nations campaigns against mining and other fossil fuel companies show the single most important factor in successful protests is leadership by politically powerful organisations or alliances.
In the Jabiluka campaign, Katona and Margarula were successful in large part because of their insistence on a Mirrar-led campaign forming strong alliances with powerful unions, environmental groups and other national and international organisations.
Shareholders were then able to have some influence over corporate responsibility and accountability, including the appointment of a sustainable development manager. While the government ultimately amended the Corporations Act to make such actions more difficult, this nevertheless shows that creative direct action can be successful in holding corporations accountable.
4. Win over the right people
When Rio Tinto detonated 46,000-year-old rock shelters at Juukan Gorge on the traditional land of the Puutu Kunti Kurrama and Pinikura peoples last year, it was not only public outcry that led to the resignation of three senior executives, including the chief executive.
Katona led the Jabiluka campaign while a mother to two small children, juggling local work with international activism. She was jailed for trespassing on Aboriginal land. She was hospitalised with complications from lupus, which required a long recovery.
Be strategic about your participation in high-energy campaigns and find ways to support the efforts of key activists. But also know the fight against the fossil fuel industry takes more effort than just changing your social media profile picture.
There is no perfect time, or single solution, to campaigning for a better future. The power of people is a resource which often delivers inspiration to disrupt and needs to be nurtured.
6. Believe you can win
Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander communities have faced hundreds of years of colonisation, industrial desecration of their sacred lands, and destruction of their Country. However in many cases, they have won battles against the odds.
The Mirrar faced a discriminatory system which sidelined their interests in Kakadu for more than 20 years. But they continued their fight to protect Country, and ultimately succeeded in preventing Jabiluka’s expansion.
So take heart and don’t give up. This is a fight that can be won.
Lily O’Neill is a Research Fellow on the Zero-Carbon Energy for the Asia-Pacific Grand Challenge Project, funded by the Australian National University.
Jacqui Katona 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.
It is a remarkable coincidence that both New Zealand black comedy Creamerie and American post-apocalyptic drama Y: The Last Man have arrived on our screens in the middle of a global pandemic. Both are shows about the aftermath of plagues that kill off the male population.
Both were well into production by the time COVID-19 hit, the latter adapting a critically acclaimed DC Comics series by Brian K. Vaughn and Pia Guerra. Both are led and entirely directed by women – a strong statement in a significantly male-dominated industry.
And as dystopian narratives, they also tap into some significant areas of current social and political interest. These include anxieties about gender roles, and how we deal with loss and grief at a global scale.
Dystopian stories are very effective at exploring the fractures and inequities in our everyday lives by throwing up scenarios in which dreams of a better world have become nightmarish. They take present conditions and challenges and extrapolate them into a society that is deeply recognisable, but more extreme than our own.
Whether they are horrific or comedic, they expose and often satirise the real-world conditions, such as political trends or environmental inaction, that already facilitate oppression and destruction. They act as both thought experiment and warning.
Apocalyptic narratives, too, foreground the best and the worst of us. Although the “end of the world” might be triggered by a sudden calamity – plague, war, a supernatural event – these stories are more concerned with what happens next.
They ask: what happens when the things that structure our everyday lives are stripped away? How can we learn to live in these new conditions? And are we as much of a threat to one another as the catastrophe itself?
Both TV shows engage with these questions, although to different ends and with very different tones.
Divisions and the ‘double shift’
The sudden death of all mammals with a Y chromosome in Y: The Last Man is only the first in a series of rolling disasters – not least the logistical problem of dealing with the physical remains of half the population.
The series is very interested in the ripple effects of gender inequality, especially in the workplace. This exposes how much our societies remain structured along roughly binary lines, despite significant attempts to move towards a more equitable and egalitarian society.
Olivia Thirlby as Hero Brown in Y: The Last Man, which tells the apocalyptic narrative of a world after the sudden death of all mammals with a Y chromosome. IMdB
In early episodes the former Congresswoman and newly minted President Jennifer Brown (Diane Lane) struggles to govern. The United States’ critical infrastructure, which was staffed almost entirely by men, has collapsed.
Without water, power or food, people are beginning to riot, but there aren’t enough police or military personnel to keep the peace. Because men still dominate decision-making roles, a skeleton crew of female politicians and civil servants is left to salvage civil society.
In a moving scene, Brown tries to persuade one of the only remaining female nuclear engineers to help restore the power grid. Brown reminds her how hard it has been to always be the only woman in the room – and the burden that she now bears because of this.
The cover of an issue of graphic novel version Y: The Last Man, created by Brian K. Vaughan and published by Vertigo, later DC Comics. Wikimedia Commons, CC BY
But power struggles swiftly emerge. The overnight erasure of gender privilege only exacerbates other sources of inequity, such as race and class. There is also an ideological clash between Brown and more politically conservative women, notably the Machiavellian former First Daughter Kimberley, played by Amber Tamblyn.
Their insidious emphasis upon the importance of traditional gender roles and so-called “family values” sits uncomfortably against scenes, pre- and post-disaster, where women struggle to deal with their domestic and professional roles. We are reminded that social inequity is deeply tied to child-bearing and rearing.
Far from critiquing women’s professional ambitions and reproductive choices, the series’ domestic scenes illustrate powerfully the damaging “double shift”: the large amount of invisible, underappreciated and unpaid domestic labour undertaken by women.
This is a problem not just for women, but society at large – made worse when the survival of the species relies on sperm banks and willing mothers.
Reproduction is also central to Creamerie’s satirical project. Eight years after the emergence of the virus – illustrated through a gory, slo-mo montage set ironically to a dreamy cover of What A Wonderful World – we seem to be in a feminist utopia.
The new society is overseen by blonde, charismatic Lane (Tandi Wright), leader of a hyperfeminine, Goop-like organisation. Education and healthcare are free, and menstruation leave is mandatory. Thanks to the survival of sperm banks, women enter a lottery to be artificially inseminated so they may re-populate the world with their daughters.
Rebel Alex (Ally Xue), grieving mother Jamie (JJ Fong), and perky rule-follower Pip (Perlina Lau) live together on an organic dairy farm. Crisis hits when Pip accidentally runs over a man – potentially the last man alive. He believes there are other survivors, which would upend this new way of life.
In New Zealand comedy Creamerie, the new world sans men is run by the leader of a hyperfeminine, goop-like organisation. SBS on Demand
The premise inverts many of the tropes laid bare in the reproductive horrors of The Handmaid’s Tale and its many imitators, which similarly foreground natalist policies.
Instead, Creamerie is wickedly funny and playful. Its bougie wellness cult operates with silken voices, performative kindness, and what appears to be the veneration of female collectivity.
However, we soon witness the classist, racist, heteronormative, and individualistic tendencies at the heart of this new society, which satirises the predatory nature of the wellness industry.
We are also faced with difficult questions about the fate of those men who might remain – how they too might be objectified and commodified for their reproductive potential.
Although they differ considerably in tone, both shows are united in their exploration of loss and trauma. This reflects the rising number of recent series, films, books and games that feature inexplicable mass casualty events and ecological cataclysm.
In a world grappling with a climate disaster, and now a brutal pandemic, it is natural to turn to art to explore how we might live when our lives are braided with inconsolable grief.
Ultimately Creamerie and Y: The Last Man ask us how we suffer losses that are too great for words, and whether we cope with tears, connection, or gallows humour.
Creamerie is available to stream on SBS on Demand, and Y: The Last Man is currently streaming on Binge.
Erin Harrington 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 Soheil Mohseni, Postdoctoral Research Fellow in Sustainable Energy Systems, Te Herenga Waka — Victoria University of Wellington
Thierry Monasse/Getty Images
The transport sector accounts for 47% of New Zealand’s carbon dioxide emissions. It will be a focus for decarbonisation to meet the country’s new climate pledge to cut emissions by half by 2030.
Most (90%) transport emissions come from road transport, which is also the fastest-growing sector. Battery-driven electric vehicles have been highlighted as the sole pathway to a net-zero transport sector. But a life-cycle approach suggests we should consider more than one option.
Advances in hydrogen fuel cell technologies suggest a multi-pronged strategy is a more sensible approach to decarbonisation. It also aligns well with the aim of building resilient transport systems.
We argue a single solution will not be adequate to decarbonise road transport.
Hydrogen fuel cells versus batteries
Electric vehicles with hydrogen-powered fuel cells have the edge on battery-driven cars in three important ways: longer range, shorter refuelling time and greater payload.
Hydrogen contains nearly three times the energy density of diesel and petrol. This makes it attractive for use in heavy commercial vehicles. Hydrogen’s light but energy-dense properties allow heavy-duty and long-haul trucks to couple hefty payloads and long ranges while offering refuelling times comparable to conventional combustion-engine vehicles.
But while hydrogen is lighter than batteries, efficiency losses are significant. Producing green hydrogen by splitting water using renewable electricity in a state-of-the-art electrolyser results in an energy loss of about 35%.
Of the remaining 65% of the original energy, another 55% is lost during compression, distribution and conversion back to electricity in the fuel cell to drive the electric motor. This results in an overall efficiency of around 35% with existing technologies.
In contrast, the overall electrical loss (from plant to plug) in centralised electricity networks is only up to 8%. This includes transmission and distribution losses, as well as the efficiency of grid-scale storage. This represents the worst-case scenario in light of the recent developments in smart local energy systems.
Comparison of losses across each step of the chain for battery electric and hydrogen fuel cell electric vehicle technologies. CC BY-ND
Battery vehicles have a battery-to-wheel efficiency of 75-87%, resulting in a well-to-wheel efficiency of 70-80%, depending on the model. But batteries (particularly lithium-ion batteries) have a substantially lower energy density than hydrogen.
This means the range of a battery-driven electric vehicle can only be increased by adding weight and cost. This tips the hydrogen fuel cell to be the most promising future of heavy-duty road transport.
The environmental cost of producing batteries or fuel cells is another important factor to consider when evaluating the sustainability of future carbon-neutral fleets.
Technology improvements and economies of scale have pushed down the cost of lithium-ion batteries substantially. But the so-called “green conflict” highlights humanitarian controversies in communities where mining battery metals (mainly cobalt, but also lithium, nickel and copper) takes place.
This is a major challenge for the battery electric vehicle industry. Costly and energy-intensive processes are now available to recycle depleted batteries. The green transportation industry is also considering “second-life options” to reuse batteries elsewhere before recycling the raw materials.
However, moving to a hydrogen-powered fleet would also drive up demand for nickel, platinum and other rare minerals, given the significant losses in efficiency.
As part of the initiative, eight hydrogen filling stations tailored to heavy-duty fuel-cell trucks and buses will be installed across the country.
Map of planned hydrogen refuelling station developments in Aotearoa-New Zealand. Provided by Soheil Mohseni
The network is expected to service heavy-duty freight routes in the North Island and South Island, at 95% and 82% of current capacity, respectively. Hiringa has also signed a vehicle-supply agreement with Hyzon Motors to deliver up to 1,500 fuel-cell electric trucks, assembled at its site in the Netherlands, by 2026.
Startup hydrogen-powered truck maker Hyzon Motors has pledged to deliver up to 1,500 trucks to Hiringa Energy by 2026. Hiringa Energy, CC BY-ND
When it comes to the electrification of transport, most advocates fall into one of two camps: battery electric or hydrogen fuel cell. The two are nearly always perceived as opponents. Few organisations or companies promote an optimal mix of the two technologies.
But recent research suggests the cheapest and environmentally and socially most acceptable approach is to combine complementary characteristics of these technologies. It also contributes to the goal of a 100% renewable electric grid.
We believe battery and hydrogen vehicles will coexist for different applications, as each finds its niche in the future zero-carbon economy.
Alan Brent and Soheil Mohseni do not work for, consult, own shares in or receive funding from any company or organisation that would benefit from this article, and have disclosed no relevant affiliations beyond their academic appointment.
The G20 summit in Rome concluded over the weekend with a disappointing outcome for Earth’s climate.
Leaders of the world’s wealthiest countries, including Australia’s Prime Minister Scott Morrison, failed to reach a commitment to phase out fossil fuels. And the meeting’s final communique did not include a commitment to achieving net-zero carbon emissions by 2050.
G20 leaders made significant strides to tackle the COVID-19 pandemic, especially on global vaccine targets. They also struck an agreement that will mean profits of large multinational companies pay more tax.
But breakthrough leadership on climate change was missing. This outcome does not bode well for the Glasgow talks – the world’s last hope for keeping the 1.5℃ global warming limit within reach.
G20 leaders, including Australia’s Scott Morrison and the UK’s Boris Johnson, failed to reach a commitment to phase out fossil fuels. AP
No timeline for coal exit
The G20 meeting was seen as a crucial precursor to the COP26 negotiations. But while world leaders agreed substantial action was needed to stay within 1.5℃ of global warming, they made few real commitments to meeting that target.
Going into the G20, Morrison was under pressure, after US President Joe Biden on Saturday described Australia’s handling of the cancelled French submarine deal as “clumsy”. And in the months leading to the talks, both the US and United Kingdom had called on Australia to up its climate ambition.
Days before leaving to attend the summit, Morrison struck a deal with the Nationals for Australia to adopt a target of net-zero emissions by 2050.
The Rome talks, however, failed to set a concrete 2050 target for all G20 nations – instead underlining the importance of reaching the target by or around the middle of the century. This phrasing meets the positions of China and Saudi Arabia, which don’t plan to reach net zero until 2060.
China has pledged to reach net-zero emissions until 2060. Shutterstock
Morrison’s commitment to net-zero emissions by 2050 was welcomed by some, and scrutinised by others, particularly for lack of detail.
UK Climate Change Committee chair John Gummer said international pressure “squeezed out” a net-zero pledge from Morrison, and the plan lacked the action necessary to meet the target.
Major global news outlets have labelled Morrison’s plan “hollow” and “hard to believe”. CNN called Australia “the rich world’s weakest link at COP26”.
In his closing statement at the G20, Morrison talked up the nation’s record on emissions reduction and sought to justify his government’s “technology not taxes” approach to climate action.
He promoted the case for emerging technologies, saying many existed now. He conceded some technologies were not yet invented, but likened the challenge to development of the COVID-19 vaccine which “didn’t exist two years ago”.
Morrison’s focus on technology appeared to resonate. G20 leaders agreed to “cooperate on the deployment and dissemination of zero or low carbon emission and renewable technologies, including sustainable bioenergy, to enable a transition towards low-emission power systems”.
United Nations Secretary General Antonio Guterres had called on G20 leaders to strike a deal on coal, saying wealthy countries should phase out coal-fired power by 2030 while developing nations should do so by 2040.
But he was left disappointed. The G20’s final communique failed to put a timeline on the phase-out, instead saying it should be done “as soon as possible”.
Unsurprisingly, Australia pushed back on coal phase-outs, alongside India and China.
However, small steps towards phasing out coal were achieved. Leaders accepted the G7 position to end international public finance for “new unabated coal power generation abroad by the end of 2021”. But this commitment does not address existing coal plants, and it means coal can still be burned with carbon capture and storage technology.
Now to COP26
Australia’s overall contribution to the G20 was low-key. In a defiant statement about climate policy issued last week, Morrison declared the nation “won’t be lectured by others who do not understand Australia”. On this, Morrison may regard the G20 as a success, for it required few concessions to Australia’s position on climate.
Morrison enjoyed some positive moments at the G20, including a bilateral meeting with Indonesian President Joko Widodo. This resulted in a joint statement on cooperation on the green economy and energy transition – an important move that advances the bilateral relationship while recognising the significance of Indonesia’s forthcoming G20 presidency.
But that high note was overshadowed when French President Emmanuel Macron claimed Morrison lied to him about cancelling the major French submarine contract.
The comments deepen the rift between Australia and France. Heading into COP26, this could cause Australia issues with coalitions such as the G7, the OECD and the European Union, where France is a major player.
Of course, there’s still room for diplomatic pressure and progress on climate action in Glasgow.
There, attention will turn towards national pledges for emissions reduction by 2030 and the action required to meet them. Australia’s 2030 target lags almost all developed countries, and we are one of very few rich nations not to ramp up its 2030 target since the Paris Agreement six years ago.
Macron has declared “2030 is the new 2050”. On that score, Australia is likely to feel the heat.
LED face masks are the latest device promoted on social media as a marriage of technology and beauty.
A range of celebrities have endorsed portable versions of the product that was previously offered in beauty salons. Actress Olivia Munn carries hers with her at all times. Julia Roberts, Victoria Beckham and Chrissy Tiegen are also reportedly fans. The trend has even achieved the social media holy grail – a Kardashian Instagram post.
But regardless of whether they’ll help make your skin glow, our understanding of circadian rhythms suggests they have the potential to disrupt users’ sleep-wake cycles.
The human body has its own internal clock which, among other things, helps to control our sleep-wake patterns. This internal clock is influenced by several factors, the most potent being light exposure directly into the eyes. More specifically, short-wavelength “blue light” influences this system the most.
Exposure to this type of light at night has been shown interrupt the production of melatonin – also known as “the sleep hormone”. Melatonin is produced by the pineal gland in the brain and released within 2 hours of your habitual bedtime – preparing the body for sleep. But bright blue light exposure may interrupt this process.
There are a range of sources for blue light – including our beloved phones, electronic devices and also the room lighting in our homes. While it has become a common recommendation to avoid using electronic devices close to bedtime, in the context of blue light exposure, our phones and tablets do not seem to be bright enough to impact sleep. In fact, home lighting appears to have a greater influence – likely due to the transition to energy-efficient LED, “blue light” wavelength light.
Last year, Monash University researchers examined sleep and light exposure in 57 participants, finding that nearly half of them had LED lighting that suppressed melatonin by 50%. The study also found those with greater evening light exposure had increased wakefulness after bedtime.
Insufficient sleep has been shown to increase the likelihood of poor health outcomes, including cardiovascular disease.
Room LED lighting may be a bigger issue than phones and devices when it comes to sleep disruption. Shutterstock
LED mask manufacturers say they are the “future of skin care”, with masks emitting light at different wavelengths to target particular skin-related outcomes.
Several devices are FDA-approved in the United States, and claim to target acne with “blue light” modes – the precise wavelength range that may impact melatonin production.
To date, no experimental research studies have examined the impact of these devices, and their blue light settings, on sleep or the human body clock. But given the device’s proximity to users’ eyes and the intensity of LED light bulbs, it is reasonable to flag concerns about their possible impact on our body clock.
Sean Cain, a leading scientist on the impact of light exposure on human health, coined an analogy to provide perspective to the sources of artificial light. The light we receive from electronic devices can be thought of as like a glass of water being poured over your head, while home LED lighting is more like a bucket of water. In keeping with this analogy, could LED masks be something on the scale of a bathtub or swimming pool? Further research could quantify their effect.
You can still make like a Kardashian … in the daytime
These concerns, based on well-established circadian principles, do not rule out the use of these devices entirely. However, it is important for people who use them to avoid doing so at night – especially on the blue light settings.
Ideally, use of the masks should be during daylight hours, to avoid potential sleep disturbances and/or shifts in the human body clock. Future research could clarify any negative outcomes associated with these devices and potentially prompt manufacturers to provide recommendations on the timing of their use.
Dean J. Miller’s position at CQUniversity is funded by WHOOP inc .
Right wing Queensland Liberal senator Gerard Rennick has told Scott Morrison he will withhold his vote from the Coalition until various issues relating to COVID are resolved.
Rennick says there should be a “fit and proper” compensation scheme for victims of “vaccine adverse events”, and the right upheld for people who have had an adverse event to refuse a second shot.
Also, no one should lose their job because they won’t be vaccinated, Rennick says in his letter.
The Senator says domestic travel restrictions relating to COVID should be scrapped. and says children do not need to take the vaccine.
The government has a scheme to cover the costs of injuries above A$5,000 resulting from “a proven adverse reaction to a COVID-19 vaccination”.
The program is funded by the Commonwealth to provide compensation for the small number of people who have significant adverse reactions, giving them an alternative to legal action.
Rennick wants the scheme enhanced including by providing compensation “from the first dollar of expenses incurred”.
“In the last two weeks I have become aware of severe and undiagnosed injuries to people as a result of the Covid vaccines. Many of these are not being acknowledged by the very medical authorities who should be helping them. Those who have suffered injuries from vaccines need help urgently,” he writes.
In the letter to Prime Minister Scott Morrison he says “you need to stop vaccine mandates regardless of if they are mandated by the employer or State Governments.
“If as you say that the Commonwealth doesn’t support mandatory vaccinations, then why are we paying for and indemnifying vaccines being mandated by the State”.
“I have been inundated from many Australians who are stressed about losing their jobs or having mandatory vaccinations for their children.”
Facebook has put information alerts on many of the controversial senator’s postings about COVID and vaccines.
Recently Rennick in the Coalition parties room reportedly threatened to withhold his vote on critical legislation unless the government challenged Queensland’s border restrictions.
Michelle Grattan does not work for, consult, own shares in or receive funding from any company or organisation that would benefit from this article, and has disclosed no relevant affiliations beyond their academic appointment.
Japan’s ruling conservative nationalist Liberal Democratic Party (LDP) will remain comfortably in power under its new prime minister Fumio Kishida, after the weekend’s national election.
This comes after a historically short 12-day campaign.
According to projections by public broadcaster NHK, the LDP will still keep a majority in the 465-seat house of representatives (or Diet). It looks like losing 15 seats to 261, supported by 32 seats held by its coalition partner Komeito, which gained three seats.
The main opposition, the centrist Constitutional Democratic Party, lost 13 seats, to end up with 96. Other smaller opposition parties only shifted slightly, with the Japanese Communist Party dropping two to ten, and the centre-right Democratic Party for the People gaining three to reach 11. The biggest gains were made by the populist Japan Innovation Party (JIP), which boosted its numbers from 11 to 41 seats.
Voter turnout was 55.33%, a slight increase from 53.68% in the last election in 2017.
Frustrated voters
Kishida is new to the job, only winning the LDP leadership last month. He is gratified by the election result, stating he will “really listen to people” for “a bright future for Japan”.
Since gaining the leadership, he deliberately lowered expectations for the election, setting a goal for the LDP of securing a bare majority. With 261-plus seats, the coalition can retain control of Diet committees and keep its tight control of the parliamentary agenda.
The decline in the LDP’s vote reflects the electorate’s frustration over its erratic handling of the economy and coronavirus pandemic under former prime ministers Shinzo Abe and Yoshihide Suga, particularly the decision to go ahead with the Tokyo Olympics despite the spike in delta cases.
The progressive opposition parties tried to increase their chances with an agreement not to run against each other in more than 200 electorates. However, many disgruntled voters in Japan’s second-largest city of Osaka completely swung to the JIP, based in the central-west Kansai region, which promotes more neoliberal economic policies.
‘New capitalism’ for Japan
Kishida now has the challenge of delivering a “new capitalism” – reducing the income inequality that worsened under the previous nine years of “Abenomics”. The LDP will now prepare a draft supplementary budget with “tens of trillions of yen” to stimulate a post-pandemic recovery, which may include tax breaks for firms that raise wages, and increases to wages for public-sector workers
Prime Minister Fumio Kishida has been re-elected to the job he has only held since October 2021. Behrouz Mehri/EPA/AAP
Having only made a virtual appearance at the G20 Rome summit, Kishida will immediately set off for the COP26 summit in Glasgow.
Suga committed Japan to net zero by 2050, a policy Kishida has pledged to pursue by restarting Japan’s idled nuclear power plants. His cabinet’s plan, released before election campaign, has a target for carbon neutrality by 2050, and to cut emissions by 46% from 2013 levels by 2030, an improvement on the previous target of 26%.
Renewable energy is aimed to reach 36-38%, and fossil fuel-generated power 41% by 2030, leaving nuclear power at 20-22% of energy generation. This is likely to continue the gradual decline of coal and gas imports from Australia, potentially to be replaced by hydrogen.
More defence spending, security fears
During the election campaign, Kishida interrupted his campaigning to address North Korea’s latest illegal missile tests and attend virtual meetings of the ASEAN-Japan and East Asia summits. He again indirectly criticised China for its human rights abuses in Hong Kong and Xinjiang, pledged support for Taiwan, and reaffirmed Japan’s opposition to any change to the rules-based maritime order in the region.
Kishida is also set to continue the LDP’s policy of increased defence spending, ensuring Japan’s participation in the escalating regional arms race. Developing an overseas strike capacity, including hypersonic missiles, will further push the boundaries on constitutional limits to operations by the Japanese Self-Defence Forces. Japan may even eventually join the AUKUS security pact.
Equality for women?
Various social issues confront Kishida’s returned government, particularly gender equality, where Japan is 120th in the rankings of the World Economic Forum. Fewer than 18% of candidates in the election were women, no better than 2017.
Kishida will also be confronted with a lack of progress on gender equality in Japan. Frank Robichon/EPA/AAP
The media frenzy over the delayed marriage of Japan’s Princess Mako last week highlighted how gender inequality even threatens the future viability of the imperial family. Kishida has so far been against changing the law to allow female succession, despite widespread public support for this reform.
Most Japanese similarly wish to see laws changed to allow women to keep their family names after marriage, and to allow same-sex marriage, but these are also resisted by LDP conservatives.
Another election ahead
The loss of LDP seats puts Kishida on notice. If his approval ratings continue to fall below 50%, he remains vulnerable to pressure from discontented Diet members and rival LDP faction leaders.
There will be increasingly nervousness about further setbacks in an the election scheduled for the middle of next year, for half the seats in the upper house. If the LDP-Komeito lose its majority in the upper house, this could turn Kishida into a lame duck, and see him follow his predecessors Abe and Suga into an early departure.
Craig Mark 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.
Global climate talks have started in Glasgow, Scotland, but most Pacific leaders cannot get there.
While the leaders of four Pacific nations are attending the United Nations’ COP26 summit, covid travel restrictions are preventing the leaders of 10 Pacific nations from attending with their delegates.
Cook Islands Prime Minister Mark Brown is one, and he said it was verging on hypocrisy that Pacific countries are denied a voice unless they attend in person.
“I would have been committed to go to Glasgow as one of the climate change champions for finance for the Pacific, but the situation, of course, with the outbreak in New Zealand – the travel restrictions meant that I could possibly be locked out of my own country for a period of time that wasn’t acceptable,” he said.
Brown said COP26 organisers should allow virtual voting.
“We’ve come through two years of attending virtual meetings with the covid situation, the inability to travel.”
Brown said the Cook Islands’ Europe-based representative would go to COP26 while he and his team would be pushing their climate messages hard from home.
Four Pacific leaders attending Leaders from Papua New Guinea, Fiji, Tuvalu and Palau are attending the summit.
But covid-19 travel restrictions have grounded the leaders of 10 Pacific nations — the Cook Islands, Federated States of Micronesia, Kiribati, Solomon Islands, Vanuatu, Tonga, Samoa, Nauru, Marshall Islands, and Niue.
Meanwhile, travellers heading to Glasgow have been left stranded by major rail disruption caused by “intense storms”.
Hundreds of people were left waiting at London’s Euston station after fallen trees caused all trains to be suspended.
At the G20 summit in Rome, which would up on Monday morning, the leaders of the world’s richest economies have agreed to pursue efforts to limit global warming with “meaningful and effective actions”.
But the agreement made few concrete commitments, disappointing activists.
‘Little sense of urgency’ Oscar Soria, of the activist network Avaaz, said there was “little sense of urgency” coming from the group, adding: “There is no more time for vague wish-lists, we need concrete commitments and action.”
Host nation Italy had hoped that firm targets would be set before COP26.
British Prime Minister Boris Johnson said leaders’ promises without action were “starting to sound hollow”.
“These commitments… are drops in a rapidly warming ocean,” Johnson said.
The G20 group, made up of 19 countries and the European Union, accounts for 80 percent of the world’s emissions.
The communiqué, or official statement released by the leaders, also makes no reference to achieving net zero by 2050.
Net zero means reducing greenhouse gas emissions until a country is absorbing the same amount of emissions from the atmosphere that it is putting out.
Italian Prime Minister Mario Draghi did, however, say in his closing statement that all of the G20 countries are committed to reaching the target by the mid-century.
Scientists have said this must be achieved by 2050 to avoid a climate catastrophe, and most countries have agreed to this.
This article is republished under a community partnership agreement with RNZ.
And of course, Australia’s scientists have long, long, long been demanding urgent climate action. Here is one of the billion or so expert calls for the Australian federal government to act responsibly on climate: https://t.co/k4XY01E9uV
The Australia West Papua Association has protested over the “lack of any concern” by Canberra over worsening clashes in the Indonesian military crackdown on pro-independence groups in West Papua.
Joe Collins of AWPA said in a statement today that the harsh “behaviour” of the Indonesian forces would lead to the instability that the Australian government fears.
He said there was a risk that Indonesian soldiers might breach the Papua New Guinean border in pursuit of rebels.
Collins said there have been a number of clashes between the Indonesian forces and the pro-independence Papuan rebel force TPNPB in the town of Sugapa, Intan Jaya Regency.
Media reports have said that in one incident, on October 26, a two-year-old infant, Nopelinus Sondegau was killed and a six-year old, Yoakim Majau, was wounded by Indonesian forces although the police have denied this.
The TPNPB alleged the children were shot because the military “lost control” after one of their personal was shot by the TPNPB, said the statement.
At one stage the pro-independence OPM took control of Bilogai Airport in Sugapa subdistrict, leading to the suspension of civil flights.
The commander of the Nemangkawi Law Enforcement Task Force said that a generator, house, kiosk, and two motor vehicles, including an ambulance had been set on fire.
Senior Commissioner Faizal Rahmadan said that they would station two platoons of personnel in Intan Jaya to reinforce security.
“It’s hard to understand the lack of any concern from Canberra to what is going on in West Papua,” Collins said in the statement.
“It’s in the interest of Canberra to have a stable region to our north, yet it’s the behaviour of the Indonesian security forces that will lead to the very instability Canberra fears.
“West Papuans have fled across the border into PNG and there is always the possibility that one day the Indonesian security forces could follow.
Collins said AWPA would write again to Australian Foreign Minister Marise Payne expressing concern about the crackdown.
Prime Minister Voreqe Bainimarama was briefed yesterday on Fiji’s priority areas ahead of the 26th Conference of Parties (COP26) which includes keeping 1.5 degrees alive, scaling up support for adaptation and loss and damage, oceans climate nexus, increased climate finance and finalising the Paris Agreement rule book.
Bainimarama is adamant that Fiji must stand its ground on keeping the 1.5 degrees target alive alongside its Pacific Island neighbours — a stand if not enforced would mean disaster for the Small Islands Developing States (SIDS).
At COP26, Fiji and SIDS must push for greater climate ambition from all G20 members — regardless of their development status — as low-lying nations in the Pacific are likely to become completely uninhabitable under the current emissions settings by 2050.
The COP26 is starting today in Glasgow where Bainimarama alongside other world leaders will deliver a national statement at the World Leaders Summit among other climate-related engagements.
Convened by the United Kingdom, the World Leaders Summit signifies the importance for world leaders to deliver concrete action and credible plans aimed at achieving successful COP goals and coordinated action to tackle climate change.
The Summit is also a vital opportunity for Bainimarama in his capacity as chair of the Pacific Island Forum (PIFs) to provide a voice not only for Fiji but for Pacific Island countries, particularly those which are unable to attend in person because of lockdown and challenges caused by covid-19.
The COP26 meeting is held this year with in-person attendance by leaders. No leader will attend virtually.
Bainimarama will also be meeting other heads of government to discuss issues of mutual concern along the margins of COP26.
Talebula Kateis a Fiji Times journalist. Republished with permission.
New Zealand Parliament Buildings, Wellington, New Zealand.
Editor’s Note: Here below is a list of the main issues currently under discussion in New Zealand and links to media coverage. You can sign up to NZ Politics Daily as well as New Zealand Political Roundup columns for free here.
Physicists searching for evidence of a “light sterile neutrino”, a hypothetical particle that could give clues to cosmic puzzles such as the nature of dark matter and why the Universe is made of matter at all, have announced their hunt has come back empty-handed.
The MicroBooNE experiment at Fermilab was designed to follow up on earlier hints of neutrinos behaving oddly, but the negative result deals a blow to the idea of such a new elementary particle.
Neutrinos are lightweight, elusive subatomic particles, and current theories recognise three different types. In 1995, however, the Liquid Scintillator Neutrino Detector (LSND) experiment in Los Alamos detected more of one type than anyone expected.
Most attempts to explain the anomaly proposed the existence of a fourth kind of neutrino that barely interacts with normal matter at all: a so-called “sterile” neutrino.
Morerecentexperiments have also reported results broadly consistent with the sterile neutrino hypothesis, but the MicroBooNE result casts the whole idea into doubt.
What is a sterile neutrino?
Neutrinos are subatomic particles postulated by Austrian physicist Wolfgang Pauli in 1930 to explain how some radioactive atoms fire out electrons.
Their existence wasn’t confirmed until 1956, when Americans Clyde Cowan and Frederick Reines observed tiny flashes of light made by neutrinos crashing into the atoms in a tank of water.
Today, neutrinos are an integral part of the “Standard Model of particle physics”. This is our best theory of the Universe’s particles, describing the 17 known elementary particles and how they interact via three fundamental forces (electromagnetism and the strong and weak forces).
The Standard Model divides the 17 particles into two basic groups: 12 fermions, which make up matter, and five bosons, which carry the forces.
Not all fermions interact with all the forces. For example, neutrinos are only affected by the weak force (and gravity, which doesn’t fit into the Standard Model).
The fermions are split into three families, each of which has a neutrino: the electron, muon, and tau neutrinos.
The 17 particles of the Standard Model. The 12 fermions on the left make up matter, while the 5 bosons on the right carry forces. The three known neutrinos are on the bottom row. MissMJ / Wikimedia, CC BY
All of these neutrinos are “left-handed” with respect to the weak force. It’s hard to explain simply what that means, but suffice to say left- and right-handed particles are mirror images of one another, and they are affected differently by the weak force.
All other known fermions come in both left- and right-handed versions. This encourages us to think that right-handed neutrinos should also exist in nature.
Being right-handed, these hypothetical neutrinos are blind even to the weak force and are in this sense “sterile”.
But like all known particles, they should still feel gravity. Sterile neutrinos are also predicted by “grand unified theories” that try to combine the three forces into one.
Hunting for sterile neutrinos
If sterile neutrinos exist, how would we find them? One way is to use a process called “neutrino oscillation”, in which the three known kinds of neutrinos can transform into one another.
Experiments measuring these oscillations usually look at either how many of a given kind of neutrino appear in some situation, or how many disappear.
The LSND experiment which originally inspired the sterile neutrino hypothesis was an “appearance” experiment, as are MicroBooNE (which produced the new negative result) and its predecessor MiniBooNE.
Results from the MiniBooNE experiment hinted at the possible existence of a light sterile neutrino. Fred Ullrich / Fermilab, CC BY
They fire a beam of muon-neutrinos over a relatively short distance (between 30 and 500 metres) and measure how many electron-neutrinos are detected at the other end.
At LSND and MiniBooNE, they saw more electron-neutrinos than expected. We know from other experiments that muon-neutrinos cannot oscillate directly into electron-neutrinos over these distances.
But if some of muon-neutrinos turn into very light sterile neutrinos and then into electron-neutrinos, it could explain how those extra electron-neutrinos appeared.
This is the sterile neutrino hypothesis.
What if there are sterile neutrinos?
If experiments did confirm the existence of a light sterile neutrino, there would be a good chance that heavier sterile neutrinos exist as well.
These heavier cousins could answer several major puzzles in particle physics, such as the nature of the “dark matter” that seems to make up most of the Universe, why neutrinos have any mass at all, and why the Universe contains so much more matter than antimatter.
There is but one problem. The light sterile neutrino we started with is a headache for cosmologists.
If it exists, we should be able to observe traces of sterile neutrinos formed just after the Big Bang.
If sterile neutrinos exist, they should have left traces in the cosmic microwave background, a faint afterglow of radiation from the dawn of the Universe that pervades the sky. ESA / Planck Collaboration
However, no recent surveys of the cosmic microwave background radiation or the distribution of galaxies and light elements in between them show any sign these sterile neutrinos existed.
This could mean the sterile neutrino hypothesis is incorrect. But it is also possible that something else in our understanding of the Universe is amiss.
MicroBooNE and the global picture
MicroBooNE analysed its results in four different ways, and none of them turned up signs of extra electron-neutrinos. This is disappointing for the researchers behind the LSND and MiniBooNE collaborations, and for proponents of the sterile neutrino hypothesis.
It also raises the question of exactly what caused the results observed by the earlier experiments. Further analysis of the MicroBooNE data may help unravel this mystery.
The IceCube experiment in Antarctica has found no evidence in favour of sterile neutrinos. Emanuel Jacobi / IceCube / NSF
Globally, however, MicroBooNE’s latest result is in line with the findings of two large “disappearance” experiments, MINOS+ and IceCube. Neither of these saw evidence of disappearing muon-neutrinos as the sterile neutrino hypothesis predicts.
Elsewhere, there have been claims of disappearing neutrinos in nuclear reactor experiments. However, calculating how many neutrinos a nuclear reactor will emit is notoriously difficult, so these claims are best taken with a grain of salt.
Future searches
The MicroBooNE collaboration has so far analysed only half of its collected data.
Some have also questioned whether no excess of electron-neutrinos necessarily means no neutrino oscillations, given the measurement has been made at only one distance. Technically, we need measurements at two distances or more to definitively establish oscillations or otherwise.
These measurements are likely to come in the next few years, when Fermilab switches on two more detectors as part of the Fermilab Short Baseline Neutrino program. The trio of detectors will test for disappearance of muon-neutrinos and appearance of electron-neutrinos using a single beam of source neutrinos.
The prospects for a final verdict on light sterile neutrinos in the next decade are therefore good.
Yvonne Wong receives funding from the Australian Research Council.
Michael Schmidt receives funding from the Australian Research Council.
For a brief moment in 2020, it appeared the COVID pandemic might be the catalyst for a new era in Australian federal relations.
The national cabinet, comprising the prime minister and state and territory leaders, was established in March 2020 in response to the pandemic. Following the first meeting, Prime Minister Scott Morrison praised the forum’s “very strong spirit of unity and co-operation”.
Soon after, in May 2020, the Council of Australian Governments (COAG) was abolished. The national cabinet took its place as the nation’s peak intergovernmental forum.
The national cabinet did not just represent a new, more direct line of communication between political leaders. It promised reform of a federal system that is widely agreed to be inefficient and inadequate.
According to the prime minister, the defining mission of the new intergovernmental infrastructure was “to create jobs”. This would be achieved through “a congestion-busting process” of centralising decision-making in the national cabinet and Council of Federal Financial Relations (a forum of treasurers).
While the national cabinet enjoyed early achievements such as the JobKeeper scheme of wage subsidies and increased hospital funding, optimism about a new era of co-operative federalism has waned.
Cracks that appeared last year over hotel quarantine arrangements and border closures have widened in 2021. The Commonwealth has been accused of favouring New South Wales in the provision of financial assistance and vaccines.
The status and power of state and territory leaders have continued to rise through the pandemic, and there has been condemnation of the Commonwealth’s attempt to subject the national cabinet to the same secrecy provisions that apply to the federal cabinet.
When Queensland’s Annastacia Palaszczuk and Western Australia’s Mark McGowan indicated they would set their own targets for reopening in defiance of the national plan, Deputy Prime Minister Barnaby Joyce quipped Australia had gone
from a federation […] back to little colonies again […] I was waiting for Queensland to get their own air force and Western Australia to get their own navy.
Joyce’s derision of the popular support for state premiers’ action was likely an attempt to deflect attention from adverse polling on Commonwealth leadership during the pandemic. Evidently, many regard a weakening of federal government power over their state as no bad thing.
One might think that emboldened states threaten national cabinet. On the other hand, a national co-ordinating body in which there is (relatively) more parity between participants, inducing measured negotiation that leads to consensual decisions, might provide the circuit breaker to end the bitter partisan deadlocks that have plagued major policy decisions for decades.
As Australia re-opens, can national cabinet serve such purposes and fulfil its early promise as a vehicle for much-needed reform?
The answer to the first question is manifest: though the Australian Constitution is silent on the issue, the nature of our federal system of government, with overlapping jurisdictional responsibilities and complex funding arrangements, means some form of intergovernmental forum is vital.
For the first 91 years after Federation on January 1 1901, this forum was known as the Premiers’ Conference. The first meeting between the prime minister and premiers was held in November 1901.
In the following decades, premiers’ conferences were sometimes held once, twice, even three times a year. Occasionally, two or three years passed with no conferences. By the early 1960s, under the Menzies government, premiers’ conferences had settled into a mostly regular schedule of twice-yearly meetings.
The meeting of the first premiers’ conference in 1916. State Library of Victoria
In 1992 the Council of Australian Governments (COAG) superseded the Premiers’ Conference. The recently commissioned Conran Review claimed COAG “was a slow, bottom-up framework for intergovernmental cooperation that too often resulted in lowest common denominator outcomes”. But this seems an overly crude characterisation.
As constituted by Paul Keating, COAG enjoyed the administrative support of the prime minister’s department and the credibility that came with the leader’s imprimatur. COAG met with early success in dealing with pressing national issues of native title and competition policy.
Morrison’s criticisms of COAG’s overly bureaucratic nature ignore the fact that it was John Howard’s Coalition government that decentralised COAG’s health expenditure negotiations to ministerial councils.
A 2013 COAG meeting during the Gillard government. The nature of our Commonwealth is such that a regular meeting between federal and state leaders is essential. Alan Porritt/AAP
The proliferation of ministerial councils, with secretariats, was one of the factors that led Conran and others rightly to conclude that COAG had become unwieldy and inefficient.
But little attention was paid to the COAG Reform Council, established in 2010. Initially, under the Rudd and Gillard Labor governments, the council looked set to address such problems and continue promoting expert input into the policy deliberation.
Thereafter, Coalition impatience with “bureaucratic” process diminished that momentum.
National cabinet, initially attentive to health experts and epidemiologists, enjoyed success at the onset of the COVID crisis. It effectively addressed a pressing national issue about which it was able to achieve bipartisan consensus, in much the same way as COAG achieved with native title and competition policy. Since then, national cabinet has looked less exceptional and more like its now-maligned predecessor.
The issue, then, is not whether the national cabinet will survive when Australia re-opens. Rather, the issue is how well it will work.
The “job-making agenda” that Morrison assigns to national cabinet seems a thin foundation on which to build an intergovernmental forum. It smacks of sloganeering and politicking. Jobs are vital, but so are other complex issues of economic, energy, climate and social policy.
The efficacy of premiers’ conferences, COAG and national cabinet is not determined by nomenclature or tweaks in process. It lies ultimately in the willingness and capacity of the prime minister to provide dynamic and sensitive leadership, prioritise policy reform over political spin and negotiate outcomes with all levels of government.
The premiers’ moment in the political sun may seem temporary. But when the national government fails to lead on portentous issues, as it continues to do in regard to climate policy, state premiers have shown themselves ready to act.
Australia needs a prime minister who is willing to deal with the range of pressing challenges we face as a nation, and is capable of orchestrating all parties necessary to their solution.
If Scott Morrison proves unwilling or incapable of providing the strong leadership and consensus-building that an effective intergovernmental forum requires, his failure may well see national cabinet fatally diminished. But successors will surely then create another such forum. Will they learn from what has gone before?
Carolyn Holbrook receives funding from the Australian Research Council.
James Walter 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 term “toxic positivity” has received a good deal of attention lately. Coming off the back of the “positivity movement” we are beginning to recognise while feeling happy is a good thing, overemphasising the importance of a positive attitude can backfire, ironically leading to more unhappiness.
Yes, research shows happier people tend to live longer, be healthier and enjoy more successful lives. And “very happy people” have more of these benefits relative to only averagely happy people. But pursued in certain ways, happiness or positivity can become toxic.
Our research, published in The Journal of Positive Psychology and involving almost 500 people, was inspired by these apparently inconsistent findings – pursuing happiness may be both good and bad for our well-being. We aimed to uncover a key ingredient that turns positivity toxic.
Some studies have shown that when people place a high value on their own happiness it can lead to less happiness, especially in contexts where they most expect to feel happy.
This tendency to expect happiness and then to feel disappointed or to blame oneself for not feeling happy enough, has been linked to greater depressive symptoms and deficits in well-being.
As the line to a cartoon by Randy Glasbergen depicting a patient confessing to his psychologist puts it:
I am very, very happy. But I want to be very, very, very happy, and that is why I’m miserable.
However, researchers have also observed when people prioritise behaviours that maximise the likelihood of their future happiness – rather than attempting to directly increase their levels of happiness “in the moment” – they are more likely to experience improvements (rather than deficits) in their levels of well-being.
This may mean engaging in activities that provide a sense of achievement or purpose, such as volunteering time or completing difficult tasks, or constructing daily routines that support well-being.
This work suggests pursuing happiness indirectly, rather than making it the main focus, could turn our search for positivity from toxic to tonic.
We wanted to find out what it was about making happiness a focal goal that backfires.
To gain a better understanding, we measured these two approaches to finding happiness: valuing happiness versus prioritising positivity.
People who valued happiness agreed with statements such as “I am concerned about my happiness even when I feel happy” or “If I don’t feel happy, maybe there is something wrong with me”.
People who prioritised positivity agreed with statements such as “I structure my day to maximise my happiness” or “I look for and nurture my positive emotions”.
We also included a measure of the extent to which people feel uncomfortable with their negative emotional experiences. To do this, we asked for responses to statements like: “I see myself as failing in life when feeling depressed or anxious” or “I like myself less when I feel depressed or anxious”.
People who expected to feel happy (scoring high on valuing happiness), also tended to see their negative emotional states as a sign of failure in life and lacked acceptance of these emotional experiences. This discomfort with negative emotions partly explained why they had lower levels of well-being.
On the other hand, people who pursued happiness indirectly (scoring high on prioritising positivity), did not see their negative emotional states this way. They were more accepting of low feelings and did not see them as a sign they were failing in life.
What this shows is when people believe they need to maintain high levels of positivity or happiness all the time to make their lives worthwhile, or to be valued by others, they react poorly to their negative emotions. They struggle with these feelings or try to avoid them, rather than accept them as a normal part of life.
Pursuing happiness indirectly does not lead to this same reaction. Feeling down or stressed is not inconsistent with finding happiness.
So, it appears the key ingredient in toxic positivity is not positivity itself, after all. Rather, it is how a person’s attitude to happiness leads them to respond to negative experiences in life.
The prospect of experiencing pain, failure, loss, or disappointment in life is unavoidable. There are times we are going to feel depressed, anxious, fearful, or lonely. This is a fact. What matters is how we respond to these experiences. Do we lean into them and accept them for what they are, or do we try to avoid and escape from them?
If we are aiming to be happy all the time then we might feel tough times are interrupting our goal. But if we simply put a priority on positivity, we are less concerned by these feelings – we see them as an ingredient in the good life and part of the overall journey.
Rather than always trying to “turn a frown upside down”, we are more willing to sit with our low or uncomfortable emotions and understand that doing so will, in the long run, make us happy.
Learning to respond rather than react to these emotions is a key enabler of our happiness.
Our reaction to discomfort is often to get away and to reduce the pain. This might mean we employ ineffective emotion regulation strategies such as avoiding or suppressing unpleasant feelings.
If we do, we fail to engage with the insights an unpleasant experiences bring. Responding well to these experiences means getting “discomfortable” – being comfortable with our discomfort. Then we can be willing to feel what we feel and get curious about why those feeling are there. Taking this response allows us to increase our understanding, see our choices, and make better decisions.
As the saying goes: “Pain is inevitable. Suffering is optional”.
Brock Bastian works for the University of Melbourne and consults to organisations on issues of culture, ethics, and wellbeing for Psychological Safety Australia. He receives funding from the Australian Research Council.
Ashley Humphrey does not work for, consult, own shares in or receive funding from any company or organization that would benefit from this article, and has disclosed no relevant affiliations beyond their academic appointment.
Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Frank Jotzo, Professor, Crawford School of Public Policy and Head of Energy, Institute for Climate Energy and Disaster Solutions, Australian National University
Prime Minister Scott Morrison arrives at today’s opening of the United Nations climate summit with a 2050 net-zero emissions target born from a painful political process.
Friendly nations will breathe a sigh of relief, freed from the awkward task of calling out Australia on that basic climate pledge. But the target won’t afford Australia much cover in Glasgow.
This nation still doesn’t have a 2030 emissions-reduction target that passes international muster. Nor does it have policies to achieve greater near-term emissions cuts, or a strategy for the economic and social transition.
The paucity of process around Australia’s climate policy must end. We need a proper long-term emissions strategy – one that’s transparent, inclusive and informed by the best available knowledge.
Australia still does not have a 2030 target that passes international muster. EPA
Does the net-zero target matter?
Net-zero targets or pledges have now been proclaimed by almost all developed countries and many industrialising countries – including China, Russia and Saudia Arabia, which all came in before Australia.
Targets for the middle of the century can be cynically regarded as an attempt to kick the can down the road. But they’re important signposts – an affirmation of commitment to the long-term goals of the Paris Agreement.
And importantly, a long-term commitment implies the need for action in the meantime.
Net-zero targets are likely to be increasingly influential in future policy-making. And they matter for investment decisions.
In Australia, the net-zero target could serve yet another function. The fact it was adopted by a conservative government previously opposed to substantial climate action could help end the political “climate wars” which have raged in Australia since 2009.
Net-zero will likely be a durable bipartisan cornerstone – giving the political contest a chance to move beyond whether to do it, to how to do it.
Net-zero emissions targets signal a commitment to the Paris Agreement. Shutterstock
What about the 2030 target?
That said, mid-century net-zero targets will be mostly taken for granted at Glasgow. High-level political talks will be focused on stronger emissions targets for 2030 – and almost all developed countries have 2030 targets far more ambitious than Australia’s.
Australia will aim for a 26-28% emissions reduction by 2030, based on 2005 levels. The key point of comparison is the United States, which has committed to a 50-52% reduction in the same time period.
Other important reference points include the United Kingdom and European Union, which respectively aim for emissions reductions of 68% and 55% on 1990 levels. Japan has pledged to cut emissions by 46% based on 2013 levels.
Australia’s 2030 ambition, put forward at the Paris climate talks in 2015, was relatively weak even back then. Six years on, it’s not even in the ballpark of what’s acceptable internationally. And Australia will be just about alone among developed countries in not having updated its target since Paris.
The majority of the 26% target has already been fulfilled, through reductions in emissions from land-use change and forestry, which occurred mostly during 2005 to 2012. In fact, the latest official figures project Australia’s emissions will decline by 30-38% by 2030, without new policy efforts beyond technology support.
The government’s tactic is to argue that Australia over-achieves on its targets. But the purpose of setting targets is to define an ambition, and let that ambition drive policy action.
Other nations will rightly argue the projections show Australia should take on a target far more ambitious than 38%, let alone the current 26-28%.
The existing target is also inadequate to guide the transition to a low carbon economy. The Business Council of Australia is now calling for a 46-50% emissions reduction by 2030.
We need a national plan
The document accompanying the federal government’s net-zero announcement last week was heavy on politics and light on analysis. The government called it a “plan”, but in reality it was little more than a statement of aspiration.
First, it assumes technological innovation will take Australia most of the way to net-zero. But much of the technology we need already exists. This includes but is not limited to sectors such as:
electricity (renewable energy, energy storage and decentralised power supply)
transport (electric vehicles, clean hydrogen in heavy transport)
industry (electricity for heat and processes, hydrogen for specific uses)
agriculture (lower-carbon practices and products).
Policies can be tailored to specific applications, including market and regulatory reform, R&D support, and broad-based and specific incentives and regulations. They can also help with the economic transition in particular regions and industries.
A carbon price is a key part of a sensible policy mix. Carbon pricing is the most cost-effective mechanism to shift to low-emissions production. Australia’s political class must overcome its hang-ups about carbon pricing. Over 20% of global emissions are now subject to emissions trading or a carbon tax, and for good reason.
Much of the technology Australia needs for it’s low-carbon transition already exists. Shutterstock
Where are the costs?
But there’s no escaping the fact Australia’s fossil fuel industries will bear most of the economic cost of a global shift to net-zero, as demand for fossil fuels declines and eventually dries up. This is out of the government’s hands.
Governments can help, though – not by propping up old industries, but by investing in infrastructure and economic diversification, worker retraining and social programs.
And there’s a huge upside to the transition. Australia’s comparative advantage in renewable energy means such industries could become very large, if we’re smart about it.
A proper national conversation
Quite inexplicably, the modelling underpinning the government’s net-zero plan has not been released. It’s but one small illustration of the paucity of process around climate policy in Australia.
Governments dropping glossy brochures brimming with political messaging, produced behind closed doors, is not the way to deal with a complex long term national issue.
Brochures brimming with political messaging are not a way to to address a national problem. AAP
Australia needs a proper long-term emissions strategy that fully maps out how to position the nation for success in a low-carbon world. It should be developed openly, draw from the best available knowledge and bring major stakeholders to the table.
Out of that, a shared understanding can be forged between industry, federal and state governments, the unions, civil society and communities. Universities can bring research and analysis to the table.
Many other countries have prepared long-term emissions strategies of this kind, often led by independent statutory agencies like Australia’s Climate Change Authority.
Perhaps our prime minister will return from Glasgow with a few good ideas for how to start a real conversation.
The make-or-break United Nations climate talks in Glasgow have begun. Much attention so far has rightly focused on the emissions reduction ambition each nation is taking to the negotiations. But another key goal of the talks is to dramatically scale up so-called “climate finance” for developing nations.
Climate finance is money paid by wealthy countries (which are responsible for most of the historic emissions) to developing countries to help them pay for emissions reduction measures and adaptation. Climate finance should be in addition to standard development aid.
At the 2009 Copenhagen climate talks, wealthy nations promised US$100 billion a year in climate finance to developing nations by 2020. But that goal has not been met.
A new climate finance plan, developed by Germany and Canada, has been proposed. Reports suggest it will propose meeting the US$100 billion annual target by taking an average of the finance provided from 2020 to 2025, instead of in single years.
The renewed focus on the plan is welcome. But it must be robust enough to tackle the mammoth task ahead, not just an exercise in shuffling figures. Time is running out – if developing nations can’t afford to reduce emissions, we won’t hit global climate goals and everyone will suffer.
The cost for inaction on climate change is high and livelihoods are at stake. Shutterstock
Failing to commit enough climate finance puts us all at risk
At COP26, intense pressure will be applied to developed countries to provide adequate climate finance.
The promised US$100 billion a year is not nearly enough. The IPCC estimates US$2.4 trillion is needed annually for the energy sector alone until 2035 to limit global warming below 1.5℃ to prevent catastrophic consequences.
The cost for inaction is high and livelihoods are at stake. Crop failures, water shortages, and poor health outcomes due to pollution in major cities are all on the cards.
Wealthy nations such as Australia are also affected by such issues – but they often have a far greater capacity to prepare and respond than developing nations.
Australia’s pledges lag behind others
Australia’s current pledge for climate finance under the Paris agreement is A$300 million a year by 2025. So far, there are no signs this will change.
Compared to many countries, Australia is lagging. Even New Zealand, with its much smaller economy, has increased its pledge to NZ$1.3 billion over four years 2025.
The European Union is pledging an additional €4.7 billion until 2027 and the US is doubling its commitment to over US$11 billion annually by 2024.
The EU remains a world leader in climate action and pledges commitments fully in line with the goals of the Paris Agreement. Its impressive set of actions includes:
COP26 will also likely see “Article 6” of the Paris Agreement come into effect, and produce more detail on how this would work in practice.
This article establishes a market mechanism which would encourage emission reductions by means of carbon trading. It could mean companies have to buy allowances to continue emitting CO₂.
This carbon trading will provide a funding stream for climate finance. In an ideal world, it generates climate cash that poor countries can use to reduce emissions and adapt.
Another topic expected to be fiercely negotiated at COP26 is the so-called “third pillar” of climate change action: loss and damage caused by human-induced climate change.
Loss and damage can be, for example, slow onset events such as sea level rise or prolonged droughts. It could be extreme weather events such as floods and cyclones.
Other impacts include economic damage to livelihoods and personal “non-economic losses” such as cultural heritage or loss of loved ones. Loss and damage goes beyond what we consider “normal weather”.
Increased human migration and displacement also fall under “loss and damage” if caused by climate change impacts. Between 2008 and 2014 and average of 22.5 million people were displaced because of extreme weather and climate-related disasters. This figure does not include migration due to sea level rise, desertification or environmental degradation.
Loss and damage has been a highly sensitive topic in international negotiations. Wealthy countries fear being made liable and opening themselves up to compensation claims from poorer countries due to climate inaction, human rights violations because of forced migration or other issues related to climate injustices.
After several previous attempts to include loss and damage in convention text, it was finally recognised under Article 8 in the Paris Agreement in 2015.
However, the document’s fine print ensured Article 8 does not provide any basis for liability or compensation. Finance to address loss and damage was also not identified.
The Alliance of Small Island Developing States, the Least Developed Countries and the Africa Group make up over half the world’s nations and currently take the brunt of climate damage. These groups have banded together and are expected to negotiate hard on loss and damage at COP26.
Failing on climate finance means failing the planet
The risk of legal consequences from climate inaction is increasing. Court cases against fossil fuel companies are on the rise.
Governments are no longer immune either. In 2015, an environmental group called the Urgenda Foundation joined with 900 citizens to sue the Dutch government for not doing enough to prevent climate change.
The law suit was successful. The court found the Dutch government’s commitment to reduce greenhhouse gas emissions was insufficient.
In the US, 21 young Americans recently sued the government for violating their constitutional rights by exacerbating climate change. While unsuccessful, the Biden administration agreed to symbolic settlement talks.
And only last month, Vanuatu asked the International Court of Justice to weigh in on what rights current and future generations may have to be protected from climate change.
If developing countries do not receive financial assistance to reduce emissions, it is unlikely we will meet the commitment of the Paris Agreement to limit global warming to 1.5℃.
Clearly, helping developing nations pay for the expensive work of emissions reduction and adaptation benefits everyone on the planet.
Melanie Pill 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 federal government has finally committed to achieving net-zero emissions by 2050 – a target Prime Minister Scott Morrison will take to this week’s crucial United Nations climate summit in Glasgow.
Though unlegislated, the target represents a rare moment of bipartisanship in Australia’s climate wars, and brings the federal government into line with the states’ and territories’ own net-zero targets.
Yet the target is much closer to a ceasefire than a peace treaty. Without changes to how climate policy gets done in Australia, there will be many more skirmishes about how we should get to net zero, and how much carbon we emit along the way.
Australia can’t afford further delay: governments need to act now to avoiding locking in emissions, or there will be little chance of reaching net zero by 2050.
Australian governments typically have a single minister for climate change or emissions reduction, who often has responsibility for the energy or environment portfolios too. But to reach net zero will take policies that span energy, industry, transport, agriculture, land use, even trade. Climate change is a whole-of-government issue. It’s every minister’s problem.
Now all governments are committed to net zero by 2050 or earlier, they need to ensure their policies are consistent with this target. Every government decision on planning, infrastructure, resource extraction, forests, national parks, and land management potentially locks in future emissions.
At a minimum, governments should stop subsidising further expansion of fossil fuel production – taxpayers should not be on the hook for industry handouts such as the A$217 million in federal funding for gas industry road upgrades in the Northern Territory or the Queensland government’s royalty holiday for the proposed Carmichael coal mine.
And governments should not weaken existing land-clearing laws, given the contribution avoided land-clearing is expected to make to future emissions reductions.
Climate policy should also be harmonised across tiers of government. Currently, there is a mess of divergent, sometimes contradictory policies. In the electricity sector, for example, the federal and state governments have repeatedly failed to implement any national emissions policy.
Federal and state energy ministers used to meet and discuss reforms through the COAG Energy Council. But during the COVID-19 pandemic, the council was replaced by the clumsily-titled Energy National Cabinet Reform Committee.
State and federal governments should re-establish the co-operative co-ordination structures formerly dealt with through the energy council, and create similar structures for climate policy and programs.
Climate change and the global transition to net zero will batter government revenues and create greater calls for government spending. All governments need to start planning how to replace the revenue they current derive from fossil fuels.
Up to this point, Australia has asked itself: what progress are we making in decarbonising the economy? What emissions target should we therefore set? And what is the emissions budget to meet this target?
Our near-term target should be set with respect to staying within this budget. And then policies should be set to achieve this target, and adjusted if they are failing.
To reach net zero will take policies that span energy, industry, transport, agriculture, land use, even trade. Shutterstock
Setting a carbon budget also allows businesses to reach their own conclusions about how fast they might be required to reduce or offset emissions in the future. Once we have a carbon budget, the annual emissions projections become critical information about the future direction of the economy. They need to be developed, released, and treated with the same seriousness and commitment to rigour and independence as other economic data.
An emissions budget will determine the direction of economic policy for decades, so it requires bipartisan support. Evaluating policy effectiveness can be subject to politicisation, because there is always an incentive for governments to find fault with their predecessor’s policies, and seek praise for their own.
Luckily, as we note in our latest Grattan Institute report, Australia already has an institution tailor-made to provide independent, rigorous advice on issues like carbon budgets, emissions projections, and policy reviews. The Climate Change Authority, reinvigorated, could do all this, and could also advise governments on interim targets to keep Australia on the pathway to net zero.
Adopting the target is only the first step
Investing in new technology is one part of the puzzle, but these technologies won’t deliver emissions reductions until the 2030s or 2040s – and many of them may turn out to be dead-ends or failures.
There’s plenty governments could do now, through market-based policy approaches and technologies that already exist, to push emissions down.
Grattan Institute began with contributions to its endowment of $15 million from each of the Federal and Victorian Governments, $4 million from BHP Billiton, and $1 million from NAB. In order to safeguard its independence, Grattan Institute’s board controls this endowment. The funds are invested and contribute to funding Grattan Institute’s activities. Grattan Institute also receives funding from corporates, foundations, and individuals to support its general activities as disclosed on its website.
Alison Reeve was previously general manager of project delivery at the Australian Renewable Energy Agency. She led development of Australia’s National Hydrogen Strategy in 2019, as well as Commonwealth policy for offshore wind, energy innovation, energy efficiency, and structural adjustment.
Female academics continue to be underrepresented in senior academic positions in Australia and internationally. Most research has focused on the low number of women professors at universities. But the largest drop-off in the number of female academics is between two mid-level positions: lecturer and senior lecturer.
We set out to find why this occurs, using a new method to explore the career journeys of male and female academics. We found they continue to experience different careers: men commonly described a clear run at their career goals, while many women found themselves in a holding pattern as a result of having to juggle other responsibilities.
Most female lecturers in our study were ambitious, but unable to fully commit to their careers. The main reasons for this included their avoidance of work-life conflict, undertaking service activities and a lack of support from colleagues.
Our research shows gender equity efforts need to target this holding pattern for women to make career progress.
To explore the careers of female academics we created a new method called Draw, Write, Reflect (DWR). We asked 18 male and 29 female academics at one university to draw or write their career journeys, since not all knowledge can be expressed in words. Our participants confirmed drawing made it easier to express their experiences and relay emotions.
Next, we asked respondents to reflect on their drawing. We also interviewed nine senior stakeholders including executive leaders, HR managers and gender equity committee members.
Male academics had a clear career focus and many described their career journeys as “lucky” or “privileged” and with “tailwinds”.
One example of a drawing by a male academic is shown below. He drew a snakes and ladders game to represent his “lucky” career, with ladders well outnumbering snakes on his game board.
Tye DWR: ‘Snakes and Ladders’. Author provided
Another male academic wrote “tailwinds” on his drawing as shown below.
Xavier DWR: ‘Tailwinds’.
Juggling competing responsibilities
Female academics were much more likely to include their families in their career drawings, highlighting the interrelatedness of work and family. Those with children were all primary carers. Their academic work had one set of requirements, their family another and both required their attention, often at the same time.
This situation resulted in a constant struggle and negotiation, as the drawing below shows.
Danielle DWR: Up the Hill. Author provided
Connectedness was also clear in the drawing below created by another female academic.
Ruth DWR: Interrelatedness.
To maintain a level of balance – “to keep my head above water” as one put it – most female academics chose not to progress their careers. They could not see themselves successfully managing their domestic tasks in a senior lecturer role. One female lecturer said:
“Half the time I feel like I am sinking, so for now I am happy just to keep doing the best I can in my job and then retire at the age of 65.”
Seven of the eight female lecturers reported putting their career aspirations on hold.
Another reason for the holding pattern was female academics undertaking more service activities. Coined “academic housework”, these activities are associated with caring and include assisting students, administration of teaching, or organising professional academic activities. Generally, these activities are not considered for career progression.
This situation was confirmed by a member of the executive leadership team who said some women:
[…] have literally taken on a lot of things that you can tell no one else wants to do – academic housework.
Similarly, a female academic reported male colleagues are:
[…] focusing on the things that matter for promotion, not on the things that matter for the team.
Lacking support from colleagues
Some junior female academics did not support ambitious senior female colleagues. They referred to them as “alpha women”, “men dressed in women’s clothing” or “women acting like men”. This situation was confirmed by senior female academics who reported backlash from other women for being ambitious. One said:
“I am ambitious and if this was a man sitting here there would be a different connotation of ‘Wow, you’ve done well!’, but for a woman it is like, ‘Well, how are your children? And your family and everything else?’ So, there is an issue.”
Another female academic reported “thinking like a man” had helped her have a very successful career. She reported that this requires not thinking about family, putting yourself first and “being selfish”.
Fear of backlash may stop some women, however, from pursuing career progression.
Despite their career aspirations, organisational and personal reasons resulted in women not pursuing promotion to senior lecturer and beyond. Our study identified a clear holding pattern among female lecturers that inhibited their progression to the next level.
While male academics reported focused career trajectories, women reported difficulty managing many work and life responsibilities in pursuing their careers.
Universities can help female lecturers break the holding pattern cycle and assist their career progression. They can start by developing guidance in better negotiating academic housework and service tasks and by changing the narrative and culture around career ambition for women at universities. This will be a win-win for female academics and universities.
Kerry Brown receives funding from the Australian government through several Cooperative Research Centres.
u.jogulu@ecu.edu.au receives funding from Australian Research Council, AMA (WA), DWER.
Fleur Sharafizad and Maryam Omari do not work for, consult, own shares in or receive funding from any company or organization that would benefit from this article, and have disclosed no relevant affiliations beyond their academic appointment.
Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Joanna Mendelssohn, Principal Fellow (Hon), Victorian College of the Arts, University of Melbourne. Editor in Chief, Design and Art of Australia Online, The University of Melbourne
Sculptor Margel Hinder with the model for Interlock in 1973. Photograph: Richard Beck. Heide
Many years ago my daily pleasure was to walk past a Margel Hinder masterpiece, the Civic Park Fountain in Newcastle. With water spraying in rhythmic patterns, it would bring a smile to my face for its beauty, the way the streams caught the light.
Fountains can’t be moved for an exhibition, of course, but Hinder’s Civic Park Fountain and her sadly decommissioned Northpoint Fountain of 1975 have been digitally simulated by Andrew Yip for Margel Hinder: Modern in Motion, a joint project of Heide Museum of Modern Art and the Art Gallery of New South Wales.
Throughout the 1960s and 70s Hinder was commissioned to create sculptures for Australia’s public places, including the Reserve Bank in Sydney, Woden Town Square in Canberra and the Telecommunications Building in Adelaide. So her work has hardly been hidden from the public gaze.
But for many years the dominant book on Australian art was Bernard Smith’s Australian Painting. As a result, artists in other media are less well known than they deserve to be.
The Art Gallery of New South Wales began collecting her work in 1949. Nevertheless the range of the sculptures in the current exhibition is still a surprise. With mostly small works, this is sculpture at its most intimate – welcoming the viewer into a world where asymmetrical form rules.
Sunlight plays with the water in Margel Hinder’s Civic Park fountain in Newcastle. Shutterstock
American by birth
Margel Ina Harris was born in New York, brought up in Buffalo, and lived in Boston with a family that encouraged creativity.
In 1929, at the age of 23, she went to a summer school in upstate New York to work with the modernist artist Emil Bisttram. There she met young Australian artist and designer Frank Hinder. They married in 1930 and daughter Enid was born the following year.
In 1933, at the depths of the Great Depression, the Hinders travelled to New Mexico, again to work with Bisstram. Margel took nourishment from the dry sculptural Mesa landscapes of Taos – and observed the rhythms and of the Pueblo women as they went about their daily business. Her approach to form began to change from modelling to carving.
Margel Hinder working on Mother and Child, circa 1939. Heide/AGNSW
On the family’s subsequent slow sea voyage from the US to Sydney, she carved her first wooden relief sculpture, Taos Women. After arriving in Sydney she carved Pueblo Indian, a simplified solid form emerging from the wood.
Sydney’s art establishment was decidedly conservative. Nevertheless the Hinders soon befriended a small group of modernist painters and thinkers including Grace Crowley, Ralph Balson, Eleonore Lange and Rah Fizelle.
In Gerald Lewers, Margel found a fellow sculptor who understood her exploration of wood as form. She later wrote that Gerald Lewers “was the most developed of any sculptors here in Sydney”.
In 1939 she made Mother and Child, a work less about the subject and more about honouring the material from which it is made.
Light enters
Her methods changed again during and after the second world war. The Hinders moved to Canberra where Frank worked on camouflage projects for the Department of Home Security and Margel made small wooden models.
After the war they returned to Gordon in Sydney and a house that backed onto the bush. There birds would come to feed in the elaborate sculpture Frank made for them. Margel worked in her studio, surrounded by the light and sounds of the bush.
Her work became more constructive. And a new element entered — light. She sometimes used hand-coloured Perspex to get particular effects.
Wire and Perspex Abstract, c.1955, Newcastle Art Gallery, New South Wales. Heide/AGNSW
She shaped and soldered wire to cast shadows. Revolving Random Dots (1953) spins using a swivel mechanism, while movement in other constructions is aided by a carefully placed fan.
Many of her small sculptures were first exhibited at the NSW Contemporary Art Society, the only ready exhibition venue for modernist art.
At the same time, Hinder was entering public sculpture competitions. Most of these were local events, associated with the post-war building boom. But in 1953 she was awarded third prize out of 3502 entries in an international competition for a memorial to the Unknown Political Prisoner. Her entry shows an abstract embrace of an ethereal shape. Along with work by the other finalists, her maquette was exhibited at the Tate in London.
Construction, c.1954, also known as Revolving Ball. AGNSW
Hinder’s growing reputation led to her first public commission for a large sculpture in Sydney’s newly built Western Assurance Company Building.
The sculptures made for public spaces are bolder, more assertive than her smaller private sculptures. This is art made to withstand the elements but also bold statements disrupting the straight lines of corporate architecture.
The fate of the Western Assurance work is a reminder that sculptors face an extra peril in preserving their art. In the 1980s the building and the sculpture were demolished. Fortunately a passer-by alerted the Hinders who were able to salvage the pieces. The work was eventually reassembled at the University of Technology where it remains on permanent view.
Hinder was determined never to be defined by her gender or as a wife and mother. This was not only evident in her own single-minded pursuit of art, but in her frequent advice to young women that they must persist in their careers and not abandon art after having children. Talent, she believed, should not be wasted.
In the 1950s and 60s there was considerable cultural pressure on Australian women to limit themselves to domesticity. Hinder’s remarkable career was supported at every step by Frank, who sometimes did the heavy lifting (literally) in the creation of her larger works.
Their closeness might be one reason why previous survey exhibitions at Newcastle, Bathurst and the Art Gallery of NSW presented their work together. Now it is time for her art to stand alone.
In the time of the COVID-19 pandemic, when so many lives have been lost to the virus, celebrating a “day of the dead” might seem strange, even tactless. But despite the morbid associations of its name, the Day of the Dead is actually a time to be reminded of the beauty of life, rather than just the inevitability of death.
Part of an important season for most Christians that begins at the end of October, the day sits within the celebration of Allhallowtide. This three-day period comprises All Hallows’ Eve on October 31, All Saints’ Day on November 1, and All Souls’ Day on November 2.
The last one is particularly important for Catholics and is an official holiday in their ecclesiastic calendar. Also known as the Commemoration of the Dearly Departed and the Day of the Dead, All Souls’ Day is generally a day of remembrance, when prayers are said for the souls of those who have passed on.
Around the world, All Souls often involves visiting cemeteries where loved ones are buried, and tending to their graves. Attending a mass or church service, praying and eating particular foods are all part of these observations.
In Italy, for instance, one can eat the pan dei morti – literally, bread of the dead – a kind of chocolate biscuit filled with nuts. The biscuit represents the soil, and the nuts represent the bones of the departed. In a number of cultures, food is left out as an offering for the dead as a way of commemorating their lives.
The duality of life and death: a parade through Mexico City on Día de Muertos. Shutterstock
Día de Muertos
While it is first and foremost a religious holiday, All Souls’ Day/The Day of the Dead has, as often happens, been incorporated into secular popular culture.
Most obviously, we see Day of the Dead motifs borrowed for secular Halloween celebrations – even if the two days within Allhallowtide have very different origins, iconographies and principles at their core.
Increasingly, though, it is the Mexican incarnation of the Day of the Dead that has taken hold of the popular imagination. Día de Muertos takes on special tones in Mexico and elsewhere in Latin America, as well as within Latino communities around the world.
Observed over the first two days of November, Día de Muertos is a time of both remembrance and celebration. But where All Souls can be a sombre occasion in other places, in Mexico it is a bright and colourful holiday, focused on celebrating the lives of those who have come before.
While Día de Muertos is certainly situated within Christian belief, it also mingles culturally and conceptually with Indigenous beliefs dating back before the Spanish invasion, where the celebration of “death as part of life” was central to religious systems.
Ceramic flower skull souvenirs on sale in Mexico. Shutterstock
The flower skull
An important part of Día de Muertos – which it shares with celebrations in other countries – is the belief that the dearly departed can return and visit the living during this time. Big family feasts and musical performances are held to welcome the spirits.
Altars known as ofrendas are set up for the dead, where their pictures are commonly displayed. You sometimes see the practice represented in popular culture, most recently in the 2017 animated film Coco.
The iconic “flower skull” is perhaps the most recognisable motif of Día de Muertos. You will find it printed on postcards, banners and clothing. It’s also common to see people dressed as “flower skeletons”, and to consume “sugar skull” confectionery.
The flower skull has been widely appropriated by popular culture around the world, even in countries geographically and culturally distant from Mexico. This undoubtedly owes a lot to the enduring popularity of Mexican artist Frida Kahlo (1907-1954), who regularly incorporated the flower skull in her paintings exploring the duality of life and death.
Visiting the graves of loved ones is an important element of the Christian All Souls’ Day. Shutterstock
We’ll meet again
While it may seem at odds with the grim reality of the pandemic, the deeper meaning of the Day of the Dead is felt in many communities across many countries. For those who believe and celebrate All Souls in a religious way, the holiday can be a balm, as families pray and remember their dead.
In its more celebratory manifestations, the Day of the Dead rests on the belief that our loved ones who have gone are still always with us – and that we will see them once again when the time comes.
While it can’t erase the grief and pain of losing loved ones, a recurring commemoration such as the Day of the Dead also emphasises the importance of celebrating life. This can certainly be a comfort for those who believe, and should be respected as something spiritually important in their lives.
And in its most colourful incarnation as the Mexican-inspired Día de Muertos, the day celebrates the profound idea that love, memory and family connections live on, even in the face of death.
Lorna Piatti-Farnell 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 Pacific Islands are in grave danger and at the frontline of global climate change and the United Nations Conference on Climate Change, known as COP26, in Glasgow this week is vitally important for islanders, says Reverend James Bhagwan.
The general secretary of the Suva-based regional Pacific Conference of Churches visited Geneva last week on his way to COP26 in Scotland’s largest city taking place from today until November 12.
“COP26 is important because if this doesn’t work, then we’re in serious danger. It’s already obvious that many of the targets set during the Paris Agreement in 2015 have not been met,” says Reverend Bhagwan with passion and sadness tinging his voice.
“We’re in danger of going well beyond the 1.5C limit of carbon emissions that we need to maintain where we’re at.”
The Pacific Conference has a membership of 33 churches and 10 national councils of churches spread across 19 Pacific Island countries and territories, effectively covering one-third of the world’s surface.
Some progress on countering the effects of climate change have been made in global awareness, says Reverend Bhagwan, a Methodist minister.
The return of the United States to the treaty around it helps.
“And even though there is significant commitment to reduce carbon emissions by countries to as much as 26 percent of those countries that have committed, globally we’re going to see an increase of carbon emissions by 19 plus percent by 2030, which isn’t far away—that’s nine years away,” rues Reverend Bhagwan.
Greenhouse gases warning On October 25, the World Meteorological Organisation secretary-general Dr Petteri Taalas, releasing a report on greenhouse gases, confirmed Reverend Bhagwan’s worries in a warning:
“We are way off track. At the current rate of increase in greenhouse gas concentrations, we will see a temperature increase by the end of this century far in excess of the Paris Agreement targets of 1.5 to 2 degrees Celsius above pre-industrial levels.”
Reverend Bhagwan said his churches’ group covers from the Marshall Islands in the northern Pacific across to Ma’ohi Nui (French Polynesia) in the eastern Pacific, down to Aotearoa New Zealand in the southern Pacific.
The conference also has member churches in West Papua and Australia, and it serves a population of some 15 million people.
For the members of the Pacific region churches, climate change is not an abstract issue.
‘Frontline’ of climate change “We are on the frontline of climate change; we have rising seas we have ocean acidification which affects our fish and the life of the ocean,” says Reverend Bhagwan.
“We have extreme weather events now regularly, and the category five cyclones which, in the past, would be the exception to the rule for us, now are the baseline for our extreme weather events. During the cyclone season, at least one cyclone will be category five.
“And so, you just pray that either it goes past, or it drops enough when it reaches us, and usually these systems do not affect just one country.”
Reverend Bhagwan notes that the churches in the Pacific region play a much more integral role in society than they do in some of the secular nations.
Because of the covid-19 pandemic, “we’re not getting as many Pacific Islanders attending COP26 as we would like, both in governments and in civil society.
“And so, it’s important that those who can come do so. We, the church, play a very significant role in the Pacific. The Pacific is approximately 90 percent Christian, particularly within the island communities.
“And so, we have significant influence within the region, working with governments. But we also recognise ourselves as part of the civil society space,” said Reverend Bhagwan.
“And so, we have that ability in the Pacific to walk in these spaces, because leaders, government leaders, ministers, workers, civil servants — they’re members of our churches.
“So, we are providing pastoral care and engagement with those in leadership and government leadership, but also that prophetic voice.”
In just a few weeks the situation in Afghanistan has deteriorated sharply as millions cope without desperately needed international aid, New Zealand journalist Charlotte Bellis says.
Bellis is Al Jazeera’s senior producer in Afghanistan and reported on the turmoil in August as the Taliban took over the government and thousands of people tried to flee.
She has dealt with Taliban leaders for a long time, and has sensed a change in their attitudes since they first ruled the country before being toppled 20 years ago.
She had to leave the country in mid-September because the network feared for her safety and Bellis noted on Twitter that the Taliban were detaining and beating journalists trying to cover protests.
Now she has returned and told RNZ Sunday Morning that she was not worried about her safety.
“The situation here is pretty dire and there are a lot of stories still to be told and I feel invested in what’s happening here and I also just love the country. It’s a beautiful place to be with amazing people and I genuinely like being here.”
However, the country is facing an uncertain future with its population suffering more than ever now that international aid has been cut off.
UN warns of humanitarian crisis This week the United Nations warned that Afghanistan is becoming the world’s largest humanitarian crisis and Bellis agrees.
“The Taliban took over about two months ago and I just can’t believe how quickly everything has deteriorated.
“People cannot find food, there’s no money, they can’t pay for things, employers can’t pay their workers because there’s no cash, they can’t get money out even from the ATMs.”
Millions of jobs have disappeared, half of the population does not know where their next meal is coming from and already children are dying from malnutrition, Bellis said.
All the aid agencies are appealing to the world to listen.
23 million need urgent help She is about to go out with the UN Refugee Agency whose teams are organising some aid distribution as the temperatures drop to 2 degC overnight as winter approaches. They are handing out blankets, food and some cash to thousands of the needy in camps in Kabul.
“But it’s such a Band-Aid. There is no way they can reach the number of people they need to reach — it’s like 23 million people who need that kind of assistance,” she said.
Neighbouring countries such as Pakistan and Iran were very concerned, in part because they fear a huge influx of refugees. They have closed the borders to try and keep them away.
The process of getting money and food into people’s hands had broken down, she said, with a lot of it due to United States sanctions.
Three quarters of the country ran on foreign donations before the Taliban took over and that has dried up because no countries are recognising the Taliban’s legitimacy to govern.
Bellis has spoken to one senior Taliban official who said that at recent meetings between the Taliban and the US in Doha the Americans would not tell the Taliban what policies they needed to enact to unfreeze billions of dollars in funding.
“They [the Americans] are playing with millions of people’s lives.”
School problem for girls She believes some Taliban leaders are pragmatic and would be willing to agree to high school girls being educated but are worried they will alienate their conservative base.
In the main, primary school age girls are able to attend their lessons but the problem is at secondary school level.
“If you’re a high school girl in Kabul it’s awful – sitting around thinking how did this happen. It’s really frustrating and really frustrating for everyone to watch and say this doesn’t make sense.”
An elite Taliban Badri 313 fighter guarding Kabul airport … facing threats from ISIS-K. Image: Al Jazeera screenshot APR
Bellis said while she feels safe at the moment, the main problem is the terrorist group, ISIS-K, who have made threats against the hotel where she is staying.
The Taliban have said they will protect guests and have placed dozens of extra guards outside.
ISIS-K is believed to only number between 1200 and 1500 yet they are a potent force with their random attacks, such as beheading members of the Taliban, whom they hate.
She believes the Taliban’s biggest worry is that ISIS will appeal to its most fundamentalist members.
ISIS attracting recruits ISIS is also believed to be trying to attract recruits who would be trained as fighters and be paid $400 a month which is a substantial amount of money in Afghanistan.
Bellis said she feels guilty staying at a hotel with the scale of poverty and deprivation she is witnessing.
“Right outside the door people are desperate,” she said.
She visited a major maternity hospital in Kabul yesterday and the only medication available for women giving birth was paracetamol.
“Imagine going into labour and thinking, OK if anything goes wrong I’ve got paracetamol. It’s just life and death on so many levels.”
This article is republished under a community partnership agreement with RNZ.
For those of you wondering what you can do to help Afghans.. this @WFP project is the gold standard. You donate meals direct to Afghans – choosing a set number of meals or month at a time. ???? https://t.co/qgmuaTdpfo
A new study shows rising sea levels in the Marshall Islands will endanger 40 percent of buildings in the capital Majuro, with 96 percent of the city likely to flood frequently.
As COP26 begins in Glasgow, the new visualisations demonstrate the existential threat the Marshall Islands faces.
If existing sea level rise trends continue, the country will confront a series of increasingly costly adaptation choices to protect essential infrastructure.
World Bank senior municipal engineer and the leader of the study, Artessa Saldivar-Sali, said these visual models give insights that have not been available before.
She said these will be critical for decision-makers to understand the potential benefits of adaptation options, such as sea walls, nature-based solutions and land raising.
Saldivar-Sali said the modelling paints a clear picture of the need for significant investment in adaptation for, and by, atoll nations like Marshall Islands.
This article is republished under a community partnership agreement with RNZ.
New Zealand has reported 143 new community covid-19 cases today – 135 in Auckland, six in Waikato and two in Northland.
There were no community cases in Christchurch today. One previously reported case in the city has been reclassified as a historical case, so the total Christchurch tally is now four.
There was no media conference today. In a statement, the Ministry of Health said that because of the recently reported cases in Canterbury, it was important that anyone with any symptoms — no matter how mild — got tested.
The ministry said 73 cases were still to be linked.
There are 384 unlinked cases from the past 14 days.
The ministry said the reported number of cases in Auckland “is not unexpected and is line with modelling to date”.
Fifty-six people are in hospital, up from 47 yesterday. Two are in intensive care.
There were no cases detected at the border today.
There have now been 3348 cases in the current community outbreak, and a total of 6068 cases since the pandemic began.
There were 42,617 vaccines given yesterday, including 10,703 first doses and 31,914 second doses.
More locations of interest in Northland The two Northland cases reported today were announced yesterday and have been formally added to the official tally today.
There have now been 12 confirmed covid-19 community cases in Northland in the current outbreak. All of the cases are isolating at home.
Tonga traveller contacts The ministry said the four household contacts of the person who reportedly tested positive for covid-19 in Tonga yesterday have been traced, are in isolation and have returned an initial negative result.
Two close contacts are in isolation at home in Christchurch and two in Porirua.
“Anyone with symptoms is asked to please get tested and reminded to get vaccinated today if they have not already. Testing locations in the Wellington region can be found at Capital and Coast DHB and Hutt Valley DHB.”
A man infected with covid-19 was yesterday reported to have broken out of an Ellerslie MIQ hotel in Auckland, but was caught by police less than half and hour later and has been arrested.
An icon of Australian broadcasting, he is remembered as a master performer and comedian, with successful roles on radio, television and the theatre. He is survived by his wife Patti, children Matthew and Lauren, and grandchildren.
Bert Newton’s achievements, particularly relating to Australian television, are remarkable. As an Order of Australia and Member of the British Empire holder for his services, he is also a Logie Hall of Fame inductee, a four-time Gold Logie winner and 20-time host of the ceremony. It has often been said the Logies should be renamed the “Berts” in his honour.
Born July 23 1938, the Melbourne boy started his broadcast career as part of a children’s program, Peter’s Pals, on radio station 3XY while still in his early teens. As leading Australian media historian Bridget Griffen-Foley explained in her book Changing Stations, “Newton read newspapers aloud in his bedroom to overcome a childish lisp, and took his scripts to school”.
Soon, he would become a master radio, then television broadcaster. Relationships formed with Sir Frank Packer and Graham Kennedy during the 1950s set him up for renown in the best possible way.
Depending on your age and media preference, Newton was either your late night or early morning companion. First, late-night viewers knew him as Graham Kennedy’s partner on In Melbourne Tonight (1957-1970) – apparently the “straight man” to Kennedy’s bluster, but with comedic skills just as sharp.
Later, early morning viewers knew him as the host of Good Morning Australia (1992- 2005) – an otherwise “graveyard” broadcasting shift between breakfast and lunch into which Newton somehow managed to inject remarkable life. There were the standard interviews and infomercials, but those paying closer attention were rewarded with nuance and incredible cheeky comedy.
Later in life, Bert appeared on stage in musicals, from Beauty and the Beast to The Wizard of Oz, and notably as the infamous Narrator in The Rocky Horror Picture Show in 2015.
A perfect place for the host who has it “all together”, it was a role that also let him play, too. Although in his late 70s at the time, he told the Sydney Morning Herald he saw the Narrator as a “the calming influence” amid some otherwise “wild scenes”.
A product of his times, some of his comedy has not aged well, either. Some sketches relating to race and gender are particularly problematic for contemporary viewers who now, rightly, expect more.
But as Denise Scott tweeted this morning, Bert’s devotion to comedy and the comedy community knew no bounds or personal ego, recalling how when her friend and colleague, iconic comedian Lynda Gibson was dying of cancer, Bert attended and “paid homage by removing his ‘rumoured’ toupee & revealing his total baldness.”
This is a sentiment also shared by Dan Illic, saying Newton’s “immense talents were only amplified by his generosity of spirit and kindness to even the smallest names in showbiz.”
A good ending
I’ve been asked three times over the past few years to draft obituaries for Bert Newton, “just in case”. Each time, I’ve said “no” – the reason has always been timing. While I know lots of media outlets have a bank of obits ready to go (famously, The Queen’s “Operation London Bridge” strategy has been updated periodically for decades and a variety of new media forms), I believe you should always let a comedian choose their own timing.
In his 1977 autobiography, Bert!, Newton wrote about his own struggle with finding a satisfying conclusion:
The hope of every good producer is to come up not only with a good show or a good movie but also to have a good ending.
Only a few days ago, his beloved wife, Patti Newton, posted a picture of him in a hospital bed but beaming, surrounded by his family, with the caption “This is what happiness is”. A good ending, indeed.
Liz Giuffre 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.
Armida Salsiah Alisjahbana is the United Nations Under-Secretary-General and Executive Secretary of the Economic and Social Commission for Asia and the Pacific (ESCAP).
Op-Ed by Armida Salsiah Alisjahbana
Armida Salsiah Alisjahbana is the United Nations Under-Secretary-General and Executive Secretary of the Economic and Social Commission for Asia and the Pacific (ESCAP).
As the leaders of Asia and the Pacific prepare to head to Glasgow for the 26th United Nations Climate Change Conference of the Parties (COP26), they can be sure that our region will be in the spotlight: many of the most vulnerable countries to the impacts of climate change are located here; the seven G20 members from this region are responsible for over half of global GHG emissions; and five of the 10 top countries with the greatest historic responsibility for emissions since the beginning of the twentieth century are from Asia.
There is an urgent need to raise ambitions
The starting point is not encouraging, however. A joint study by ESCAP, UNEP and UN Women shows that the Asia-Pacific region is falling even further behind in its efforts: greenhouse gas emissions are projected to increase by 34 per cent by 2030 compared to 2010 levels. Getting the 30 Asian and Pacific countries that have so far updated their NDCs to drastically raise ambitions and securing adequate NDCs from the other 19 who have yet to submit will determine if the region — indeed the world — can maintain any hope of keeping the temperature increase well below two degrees.
The ESCAP Sustainable Business Network is crafting an Asia-Pacific Green Business Deal in pursuit of a “green” competitive advantage, while companies are responding to greater shareholder and consumer pressure for science-based targets that align businesses with climate aspirations. Entrepreneurs, SMEs and large industries in the region could adopt this new paradigm, which would also enable countries to meet their commitments for sustainable development.
People-centred action, focusing on groups in vulnerable situations
It is clear from the science and the frequency of disasters in the region that time is not on our side. The combination of disasters, pandemic and climate change is expanding the number of people in vulnerable situations and raising the “riskscape”. Countries are ill-prepared for complex overlapping crises; the intersection of COVID-19 with natural hazards and climate change remains poorly understood and gives rise to hotspots of emerging and intensifying risks. Building resilience must combine climate mitigation efforts and investments in nature-based climate solutions. Moreover, it also requires increasing investments in universal social protection systems that provide adequate benefits over the lifecycle to people and households. The active engagement of women and girls is critical to ensuring inclusive climate action and sustainable outcomes.
The Way Forward
Without concerted action, carbon neutrality is not within the reach of the Asia-Pacific region by 2050. All stakeholders need to collaborate and build a strong case for decisive climate action. Our leaders simply cannot afford to go to Glasgow with insufficient ambition and return empty handed. Since it was founded nearly 75 years ago, ESCAP has supported the formation of strategic alliances that have lifted millions out of poverty and guided the region to enabling a better standard of life. The time is right for such an alliance of governments, the private sector and financial institutions to help turn the full power of the region’s ingenuity and dynamism into the net zero development pathway that our future depends on.
Armida Salsiah Alisjahbana is the United Nations Under-Secretary-General and Executive Secretary of the Economic and Social Commission for Asia and the Pacific (ESCAP)
New Zealand has reported eight new covid-19 cases, including seven residents, at an Auckland rest home, adding to one announced yesterday.
This was part of a jump to a record total of 160 new community cases reported today — 151 in Auckland, seven in Waikato and one each in Northland and Canterbury.
Following further testing at Edmonton Meadows rest home in Henderson, the seven residents and one staff member have been confirmed as having the virus, bringing the total number of cases at the home to nine, the Ministry of Health said in a statement.
The ministry said it was important to point out the home had high levels of vaccination among residents, and all staff are fully vaccinated.
All staff and residents have now been tested and will also receive day five and day 12 testing.
Auckland Regional Public Health staff are supporting the residents and staff at the privately owned facility.
At this stage, only one positive staff member has been required to stand down.
Investigation seeking source An investigation has begun to try and find out the source of the infection.
The retirement village has been operating under alert level 3 guidelines for visitors, meaning people have only been able to visit the village on compassionate grounds.
Meanwhile, the focus today in Auckland remains on testing in areas identified as having higher positivity rates, where the risk of unidentified cases is higher.
Public health staff are asking people in the suburbs of Redvale, Rosedale, New Lynn, Wiri, Drury, Henderson and Manurewa with symptoms to get tested — no matter how mild their symptoms may be.
The advice is the same even if people are vaccinated.
There are 16 community testing centres available for testing across Auckland today. Up-to-date information on testing locations in Auckland, visit here.
There was no media briefing today. In a statement, the ministry said 95 of today’s cases were still to be linked and there had been 358 unlinked cases in the past 14 days.
There are 47 people in hospital, up from 37 yesterday. Two are in intensive care.
Tonga’s Prime Minister is urging people on the main island of Tongatapu to use the weekend to prepare for a potential lockdown next week after the kingdom’s first covid-19 case was confirmed.
The positive case was a passenger on a repatriation flight from Christchurch with 215 other people on Wednesday.
The passengers from the Christchurch flight are quarantined in the Tanoa Hotel, Nuku’alofa.
Dr Pohiva Tu’i’onetoa said the reason the lockdown would not happen this weekend was because he had been advised that the virus would take more than three days to develop in someone who caught it before they became contagious
Tongan PM Dr Pohiva Tu’i’onetoa … no lockdown over the weekend. Image: RNZ Pacific/Tongan govt
Matangi Tonga Online reports the prime minister announced at a press conference that Tongans should use this time to get ready in case more people were confirmed they had the virus.
The Ministry of Health’s CEO Dr Siale ‘Akau’ola explained that if the covid-19 virus entered a person, that person could not spread it right at that time, the virus needed time to grow and that person would become infectious three to five days after contracting it.
“Frontliners should be safe because even if say the [quarantine bus] driver returned home that night, and whether he wore PPE or not, if he contracted the virus then there is that incubation period where it grows, becoming infectious three or more days after. That is why I think they are alright,” Dr ‘Akau’ola said.
Chief executive of Tonga’s Ministry of Health Dr Siale Akauola … “I think they [frontliners] are alright.” Image: RNZ Pacific/Christine Rovoi
He said that when they got the news just before midnight of two positive community cases in Christchurch, they had informed the frontliners involved and they self-isolated at home.
Then after the covid-19 positive test was confirmed yesterday in Tonga, the frontliners were also taken into quarantine.
“So, we have acted swiftly in just a day,” he said. “Our frontliners are trained and have been fully vaccinated.”
Health officials say the passenger who tested positive to covid-19 was inoculated with the first dose of the Pfizer BioNTech vaccine in the last week of September, and had received a second dose in mid-October.
“So the person is fully vaccinated and their protection level will be up two weeks after this second shot,” Dr ‘Akau’ola said.
“We are satisfied despite this person being positive, we believe the person would not get seriously ill and reach a dangerous level.”
Tanoa Hotel in Nuku’alofa … the quarantine venue. Image: RNZ Pacific/Tanoa Hotel
Meanwhile, it has not been confirmed if the covid-19 virus is the delta variant, which spreads easily.
“When there is a covid-19 positive case we can assume it’s delta, then confirm later,” he said.
People can still get their covid-19 vaccinations over the weekend including on Sunday.
Dr ‘Akau’ola confirmed Health would still be providing vaccinations even if there was a lockdown.
Fully vaccinated Meanwhile, New Zealand’s Ministry of Health confirmed that the case had returned a negative pre-departure test before leaving New Zealand and was fully vaccinated and had their second dose on October 15.
Passengers on the flight, including members of Tonga’s Olympic team who had been stranded in Christchurch, were required to provide a negative covid test result at least 72 hours before boarding.
They also had to show vaccination cards prior to the flight, with dates for first and second doses.
The Olympic team were double vaccinated before they departed Tonga for the Olympic Games in Japan.
This article is republished under a community partnership agreement with RNZ.
The Papua New Guinea government’s financial hub was hit by computer hackers last week, holding state officials at ransom, reports have revealed.
The ransomware attack on the Department of Finance’s Integrated Financial Management System (IFMS) happened last Thursday, locking out government workers who use the system to run the country’s entire financial system.
The Acting Treasurer, Finance Minister Sir John Pundari, confirmed the hacking but told the PNG Post-Courier that the system had been restored and no ransom was paid.
Sir John said workers were using a temporary accounting system after the IFMS was hit last week but did not reveal the real extent of the damage, saying only that the hackers did not steal anything.
However, they had damaged a system that now puts PNG’s national security at risk.
This is the first time the country’s central financial hub has been hit to such an extent.
Ransomware is a collection of malicious software variants, including viruses, designed by hackers to cause extensive damage or gain unauthorised access to computer networks.
‘Cyber-attack on core server’ “The Government Financial System suffered a cyber-attack in the form of ransomware infiltrating our core server at 1am on Friday, 22 of October 2021,” Sir John said.
“As a result of the ransomware infiltration, the Department of Finance’s IT network was compromised. The department immediately took precautionary steps by closing down the network systems.
“The department has now managed to fully restore the system, however, because of the risk we are playing it safe by not allowing full usage of the affected network.
“While we progress cleaning up the server environment, we have put in temporary measures.
“These include all government departments and agencies having access to commit and process cheques using a controlled environment in Vulupindi Haus.
“All provinces and districts will also have access to commit funds, through a controlled temporary arrangement.
‘Full restored’ “The department is conscious of the security and integrity of its data, thus, restoration of services to all government agencies, including at the sub-national level will be done gradually, bearing in mind the security of individual networks, so as not to compromise or allow any further spread of this malware or other viruses.
“At this stage I wish to state clearly that the government financial system has been fully restored.
“Department of Finance did not pay any ransom to the hacker or any of its third party agents. We have managed to restore normalcy.
“The government and the people of Papua New Guinea can be assured that the government’s financial services will continue as usual.”
Gorethy Kenneth is a senior PNG Post-Courier journalist. Republished with permission.
The first chart shows excess deaths in Germany for every year from 2015. (The chart is essentially the one that can be found here, on the Our World in Data website, though it uses three-period moving averages to smooth out some of the ‘random noise’ that inevitably accompanies such time-series data.
The first thing our eyes are drawn to in this chart is not the covid bulge; rather it’s the 2018 bulge. (Yes, the chart is in a sense biased against December-January bulges, and there could be an argument that the use of narrower dashed lines for the covid years is also a bias. Nevertheless, all charts seek to emphasise something, and the use of a January to December scale is default for any calendar-based analysis.)
Before looking at that 2018 bulge, the important thing to note is that from May to November the years 2015 to 2019 are broadly similar to each other; there is no obvious indication that death numbers are climbing because of increasing population size. Indeed Germany is a country with a stable population size, though not a stable age distribution. It is a country with an aging indigenous ‘Germanic’ population that is being offset by substantial immigration of younger people.
The main reason for differences year-to-year in the 2015-19 period is seasonal endemic disease, which has a disproportionate impact on the older ‘more-likely-to-die’ population. There are two mortality seasons: late winter, and summer. The lesser summer peaks, which are visible in other countries too, are most likely due to the heightened mobility of people – especially young people – given that mobility is the key vector of infectious diseases. This international mobility of young people was almost certainly the vector of Europe’s second Covid19 wave of 2020, as suggested by the August 2020 bulge in the chart.
For the late-winter mortality peak, we see that every year except 2016 and 2020 has a large number (of mainly older people) dying from influenzas and the like (and their complications such as pneumonia). 2018 was the worst such year, and it may indeed follow from a bad influenza strain in 2017 in the southern hemisphere. (See New Zealand chart, and story.)
For Germany, 2020 started out looking like a year comparatively free from the influenza reaper; then, anti-Covid19 public health restrictions reduced overall mortality, making the seasonal reaper – in this case, Covid19 – appear to be somewhat less malign than those of 2015, 2017, and 2018. Indeed, it is most likely that most of the covid deaths in Germany in April and May 2020 were the same older people who would have died at that time from respiratory infections had 2020 been a year like, say, 2015.
Germany’s big mortality wave from Covid19 clearly was in the winter of 2020/21, and it came much earlier than in previous winters.
What is significant in the above chart, but not prominent, is the consistently higher number of deaths since April 2021. This is indicative of Germany’s ongoing toll from Covid19.
Chart by Keith Rankin.
The second chart shows Germany in context with other northwest European countries, plus United Kingdom, United States, and New Zealand. And it shows ‘excess deaths’ for people born in the late 1940s and early 1950s; people still young in many respects (ie the young ‘elderly’!).
(A technical note; this data is quarterly, meaning that the German peak which looks like the end of January 2021 is really mid-December 2020. And the last German mortality peak shown is not due to ‘Delta’ Covid; it’s associated with ‘Alpha’ Covid.)
We clearly see that Germany’s public health policies performed an excellent job in fending-off Covid19 in the early months of the pandemic. (Sweden, and interesting case not shown, has, until early 2021, a profile similar to that of Netherlands.)
What is of concern for Germany is what looks like a rising mortality trend for this age group, which contrasts with France’s more stable trend. We know that mobile French people are substantial vectors of Covid19, simply by observing the tragic events in France’s many overseas territories. The look of the chart is that French people have a higher resistance to Covid19 than do German people (and a much higher resistance than service workers in the French Caribbean or the French Pacific).
In these last weeks of October, Germany is just starting its Delta outbreak, as winter comes and as vaccination potency wanes. As is Netherlands and Belgium. France is getting more cases too, though it is looking significantly better than these other three. I fear for Germany’s post-war baby-boom generation. And not only Germany’s. (For example, Austria, not shown, is looking ever worse than Germany.)
Keith Rankin (keith at rankin dot nz), trained as an economic historian, is a retired lecturer in Economics and Statistics. He lives in Auckland, New Zealand.
The dilemma facing whistleblowers, journalists and publishers who risk it all to help the world’s people to become more informed. WikiLeaks founder Julian Assange finds himself crushed between these two counterbalances — the asserted right of powerful nations to operate in secret, and the right of the press to reveal what goes on in the public’s name.
This week, on October 27-28, Julian Assange appeared before a United Kingdom court defending himself against an appeal that, if successful, would see him extradited to the United States to face a raft of indictments that ultimately could see him spend the rest of his life in prison.
The US lawyers argued largely that human rights reasons that caused the UK courts to reject extradition to the US could be mitigated. That Julian Assange’s case could be heard in Australia and if found guilty serve out jail time in his home country rather than the US.
Assange’s defence lawyer Edward Fitzgerald QC argued: “In short there is a large and cogent body of extraordinary and unprecedented evidence… that the CIA has declared Mr Assange as a ‘hostile’ ‘enemy’ of the USA, one which poses ‘very real threats to our country’, and seeks to ‘revenge’ him with significant harm.” The lawyers said the United States assurances were “meaningless”.
UK courts in London. Image: Selwyn Manning/ER
“It is perfectly reasonable to find it oppressive to extradite a mentally disordered person because his extradition is likely to result in his death.” Fitzgerald QC added that a court must have the power to “protect people from extradition to a foreign state where we have no control over what will be done to them”.
Lord Chief Justice Lord Burnett, sitting with Lord Justice Holroyde, said: “You’ve given us much to think about and we will take our time to make our decision.”
The judges then reserved their decision. It is expected Assange’s fate will be revealed within weeks.
In this Special Report, we examine why the US wants this man. And we detail the space between whistleblowers, journalists and publishers who risk it all to help the world’s people to become more informed. Julian Assange finds himself crushed between these two counterbalances: the asserted right of powerful nations to operate in secret, and the right of the press to reveal what goes on in the public’s name.
Should Julian Assange be extradited from the UK to face indictments in the United States? Or should he be set free and offered a safe haven in a country such as Russia or even New Zealand?
It was always going to come down to this: Is Julian Assange captured by the assumptions people have of him, or a blurred line between a public’s right and a state’s wrong.
‘Manhunt Timeline’ The United States effort to capture or kill Assange goes back to 2010. But his inclusion in what’s called the “Manhunt Timeline” soon lost its sting when, under US President Barack Obama, it was believed if charges against Assange were brought before the US courts for his publishing activity, then he would be found not guilty due to the US First Amendment “freedom of the press” constitutional protections.
But everything changed with a new president, and a massive leak to Wikileaks of CIA secret information on 7 March 2017.
That leak of what was called Vault 7 information “detailed hacking tools the US government employs to break into users’ computers, mobile phones and even smart TVs.”
CBS News reported at the time: “The documents describe clandestine methods for bypassing or defeating encryption, antivirus tools and other protective security features intended to keep the private information of citizens and corporations safe from prying eyes.” (CBS News)
The Vault 7 leak (and earlier leaks going back to 2010) also revealed information that the US security apparatus argued compromised the safety of its personnel around the world. This aspect is vital to the US Justice Department’s case against Julian Assange.
Among a complex web of indictments and superseding indictments, the US alleges Wikileaks and Assange conspired with whistleblowers (significant among them Chelsea Manning) in what it argues was a conspiracy against the US interest. It also argues that Wikileaks and Julian Assange failed to satisfactorily redact leaked documents before dissemination or publication of the same — including details that put US personnel and agents at risk.
Prominent New Zealand investigative journalist Nicky Hager had knowledge of Wikileaks’ processes, and, going back to 2010, spent time working with Wikileaks on redacting documents.
Hager testified at The Old Bailey in London in September 2020 before a hearing of the Assange case and, according to The Australian, said: “My main memory was people working hour after hour in total silence, very concentrated on their work and I was very impressed with efforts that they were taking (to redact names).” Hager added that he himself had redacted “a few hundred” Australian and New Zealand names.
On cross examination, The Australian reported: “Hager referred in his testimony to the global impact of the publication of the collateral murder video, which shows civilians being gunned down in Iraq from an Apache helicopter, which led to changes in US military policies. He claimed it had a ‘similar galvanising impact as the video of the death of George Floyd’.” (The Australian)
But it was the Vault 7 leak that triggered the then Central Intelligence Agency (CIA) director Mike Pompeo to act. After that leak, Pompeo set out to destroy Wikileaks and its publisher Julian Assange.
Pompeo vs Assange
Former CIA director and US Secretary of State Mike Pompeo. Image: ER
Mike Pompeo was appointed as CIA director in January 2017. The Vault 7 leak occurred on his watch. It was personal, and in April 2017 he defined Wikileaks as a “non-state hostile intelligence service”.
That definition triggered a shift of approach. The US intelligence apparatus and its Justice Department counterpart then re-asserted that Wikileaks and its publisher and editor-in-chief Julian Assange were enemies of the United States.
Pompeo’s definition paved the way for a more targeted operation against Assange. But, for the time being, the US public modus operandi was to ensure extradition proceedings, through numerous hearings and appeals, were dragged out while stacking an increasing number of complex indictments on the charge-sheet.
The definitions ensured the UK’s corrections system regarded Assange as a high risk and dangerous prisoner hostile to the UK’s special-relationship partner, the USA.
The tactic is well used by governments and states around the world. But in this case it appears beyond cold and calculated. As the US applied a figurative legal-ligature around the neck of Julian Assange it knew his circumstances — that he was imprisoned, isolated, in solitary confinement, on a suicide watch, handled by prison guards under a repetitive high security risk protocol. It knew the psychological impact was compounding, causing legal observers, his lawyers, his supporters — even the judge overseeing the extradition proceedings — to fear that the wall before Assange of ongoing litigation, compounded with the potential for extradition and possible life imprisonment, would overwhelm him.
Let’s detail reality here. In real terms, being on suicide-watch as a high security risk prisoner, meant every time Assange left his cell for any reason (including when meeting his lawyers), on return he would be stripped, cavity searched (which includes being forced to squat while his rectum is digitally searched, and a mouth and throat search).
This was a similar security search protocol that was used against Ahmed Zaoui while he was held at New Zealand’s Paremoremo maximum security prison. At that time Zaoui was regarded as a security risk to New Zealand. He was of course later found to be a man of peace and given his liberty. Sometimes things are not what they initially seem.
In the UK, for Assange the monotonous grind of total solitude and indignity ticked on. In the US in March 2018, Mike Pompeo was set to be promoted. He received the then US President Donald Trump’s nomination to replace Rex Tillerson as US Secretary of State. The US Senate confirmed Pompeo’s nomination and he was sworn in on 26 April 2018.
Pompeo quickly became one of Trump’s most trusted and powerful White House insiders. As Secretary of State, Pompeo toured the globe’s foreign affairs circuit asserting the Trump Administration’s position on governments throughout the world. As such, Pompeo was regarded as one of the world’s most powerful men.
Looking back, Pompeo wasn’t the first high ranking US official to regard Assange as an enemy of the state. The Edward Snowden leaks of 2014 revealed that the US government had in 2010 added Assange to its “Manhunting Timeline” — which is an annual list of individuals with a “capture or kill” designation.
This designation came during the early stages of the Obama Administration years. However, US investigations into Wikileaks then suggested Assange had not acted in a way that excluded him from being defined as a journalist and therefore it was likely Assange, if tried under US law, would be provided protections under the First Amendment constitutional clauses.
But when Pompeo advanced toward prominence, Obama was gone. And under Donald Trump, the US appeared to ignore such constitutional rocks in the road. Trump had his own beef with the US Fourth Estate, and the conditions for respecting First Amendment privilege had deteriorated.
Did Trump stop the CIA kidnap or kill plan?
Former US President Donald Trump speaking to NZ Prime Minister Jacinda Ardern. Image: ER
Perhaps we understand the Trump Administration’s mindset more now in the wake of the 6 January 2021 insurrection where supporters of Trump stormed the US House of Representatives seeking to overturn the election result and reinstate Trump as President. Throughout much of that destructive day, Trump reportedly remained at the White House while the mob erected a gallows and sought out Vice-President Mike Pence. The mob’s reason? Because Pence had begun the process of certifying electoral college writs, an essential step toward swearing in as President the newly elected Joe Biden.
It may reasonably be argued that Trump and some members of his Administration displayed a disregard for elements of the US Constitution. But, it must also be said, that Trump had at times displayed an empathy for Julian Assange’s situation.
This week The Hill reported on Trump’s view of Assange through an interview with the former president’s national security advisor, Keith Kellogg (who is also a retired US Army Lieutenant General.
Kellogg told The Hill: “He (Trump) looked at him (Assange) as someone who had been treated unfairly. And he kind of related him to himself … He said there’s an unfairness there and I want to address that.”
Kellogg added that Trump saw similarities between Assange and himself in that Trump would not back down in the face of media attacks: “I think he kind of saw that with Julian in the same way, like ‘ok, this guy’s not backing down’.” (The Hill)
Kellogg’s account seems incongruous to what we now know. On 26 September 2021, a Yahoo News media investigation delivered a bombshell. It revealed how the CIA had planned to kidnap or kill Assange.
But more on the detail of that below. First, let’s look at a confusing picture of how former President Trump’s words do not meet his Administration’s actions.
We know that “someone” in the Trump Administration put a halt to the CIA’s kill or capture plan. We just do not know whether Trump commanded its cessation, or whether Pompeo or Trump’s attorney-general/s operated outside the former president’s orbit. But we do know the US Justice Department pursued Assange through an intensifying relentless application of indictments of increasing severity and complexity. If it is an MO, then it is reasonable to suggest the legal wall of indictments and the CIA’s plan to kill or capture were potentially one of the same.
Which segues back to the details of the US case against Assange.
The US Justice Department vs Assange In March 2019, The Washington Post reported that US Whistleblower Chelsea Manning had been subpoenaed to testify before a grand jury in the investigation of Julian Assange. The Post correctly suggested that the US Justice Department appeared interested in pursuing Wikileaks before a statute of limitations ran out.
Washington Post reported: “Steve Vladeck, a professor at the University of Texas at Austin School of Law, said the Justice Department likely indicted Assange last year to stay within the 10-year statute of limitations on unlawful possession or publication of national defense information, and is now working to add charges.” (Washington Post)
Then, On April 11 2019, after high-level bilateral meetings between the US and Ecuador, the Ecuadorian Government revoked Assange’s asylum. The UK’s Metropolitan Police were invited into Ecuador’s London embassy and Assange was arrested.
Once Assange was in custody (pending the outcome of a court ruling of what eventually became a 50 week sentence for breaching bail) the United States made its move. On 11 April 2019 (the same day Ecuador evicted him) US prosecutors unsealed an indictment against Assange referring back to information that Wikileaks had released in stages from 18 February 2010 onwards. (US Justice Department)
Collateral Murder, the video that Wikileaks published that turned public opinion against the US-led occupation of Iraq.
This video, known as the collateral murder video, was among the Wikileaks release. The video is of US military personnel killing what they initially thought were Iraqi insurgents. It also displays an apparent indifference by US personnel when, shortly after, it was revealed by ground troops that there were civilians killed, including women and children (and also what were later found to be journalists). The leaked video exposed the United States to potential allegations of war crimes.
The video, and the accompanying dossier of US classified documents, shocked the world and revealed what had been covered up by US secrecy. The information that was leaked by then US Military intelligence analyst Chelsea Manning, and published by Wikileaks and provided to a select group of the world’s most prominent media, was arguably a tipping point for public sentiment regarding the US invasion and occupation of Iraq. It was, in the <2010 decade, on a par with revelations of abuses of detainees by US personnel at Abu Ghraib prison.
In a release to the US press, the Justice Department’s office of international affairs stated: “According to court documents unsealed today, the charge relates to Assange’s alleged role in one of the largest compromises of classified information in the history of the United States.”
It connected to how Wikileaks had acquired documents from US whistleblower Chelsea Manning. The leak contained 750,000 documents defined as “classified, or unclassified but sensitive” military and diplomatic documents. The documents included video. The sum of the leaks detailed what were regarded generally as atrocities committed by American armed forces in Iraq and Afghanistan.
The leaked material was also published by The New York Times, Der Spiegel and The Guardian. In May 2010, Manning was identified then charged with espionage and sentenced to 35 years in a US military prison. Later, in January 2017, just three days before leaving office, US President Barack Obama commuted Manning’s sentence.
On 23 May 2019, the US Justice Department issued a statement confirming Assange had been further charged in an 18-count superseding indictment that alleged violation of the Espionage Act 1917. It specifically alleged (among other charges) that Assange conspired with Chelsea Manning in late 2009 and that: “… Assange and WikiLeaks actively solicited United States classified information, including by publishing a list of ‘Most Wanted Leaks’ that sought, among other things, classified documents. Manning responded to Assange’s solicitations by using access granted to her as an intelligence analyst to search for United States classified documents, and provided to Assange and WikiLeaks databases containing approximately 90,000 Afghanistan war-related significant activity reports, 400,000 Iraq war-related significant activities reports, 800 Guantanamo Bay detainee assessment briefs, and 250,000 US Department of State cables.” (US Justice Department)
The superseding indictment added: “Many of these documents were classified at the Secret level.”
It’s also important to note, a superseding indictment, in this context carries heavy weight. It isn’t merely a charge lodged by an investigative wing of government, but issued by a US grand jury.
The Washington Post, The New York Times, and media freedom organisations criticised the US government’s decision to charge Assange under the Espionage Act. Image: ER screenshot
The May 2019 superseding indictments ignited a stern rebuttal from powerful media institutions.
The Washington Postand The New York Times, as well as press freedom organisations, criticised the government’s decision to charge Assange under the Espionage Act, characterising it as an attack on the First Amendment to the United States Constitution, which guarantees freedom of the press. On 4 January 2021, District Judge Vanessa Baraitser ruled against the US request to extradite him and stated that doing so would be “oppressive” given his mental health. On 6 January 2021, Assange was denied bail, pending an appeal by the United States. (Wikipedia.org)
In normal times an assault on the US First Amendment through a clever legal move would destroy a presidency. But these were not normal times.
Ultimately, the powerful US Fourth Estate fraternity failed to ward off the Trump Administration’s men. Trump himself was by this time already hurling attacks on the credibility and purpose of the United States media. And, he tapped in to a constituency that distrusted what it heard from journalists.
Then on 24 June 2020, the US Justice Department delivered more charges against Assange, this time with an additional superseding indictment that included allegations he conspired with “Anonymous” affiliated hackers: “In 2010, Assange gained unauthorised access to a government computer system of a NATO country. In 2012, Assange communicated directly with a leader of the hacking group LulzSec (who by then was cooperating with the FBI), and provided a list of targets for LulzSec to hack.” (US Justice Department)
As the Trump presidency ran out of steam, and arguably created its own attacks on the US national interest, Democratic Party candidate Joe Biden won the election and became the 46th President of the United States.
Why Assange was imprisoned in the UK
Julian Assange on the first day of extradition proceedings in 2020. Image: Indymedia Ireland.
Julian Assange was tried before the UK courts and convicted for breaching the Bail Act. He was sentenced to 50 weeks in prison. He was expected to have been released after five to six months, but due to the US extradition proceedings and appeal he was held indefinitely.
The initial bail conditions (of which Assange was found to have breached) were set resulting from an alleged sexual violence allegation made in Sweden in 2010. Assange had denied the allegations, and feared the case was designed to relocate him to Sweden and then onto the US via a legal extradition manoeuvre — hence this is why he sought asylum at the Ecuadorian Embassy. Assange was never actually charged by Swedish authorities nor their UK counterparts, but rather the initial bail breach related to a move to extradite him to Sweden.
Also, as a side-note: in November 2019, Swedish prosecutors dropped their investigation into allegations of sexual violence crime. The BBC reported that Swedish authorities dropped the case as it had: “Weakened considerably due to the long period of time that has elapsed since the events in question.”
Meanwhile, Assange was imprisoned at London’s Belmarsh maximum-security prison where he was incarcerated indefinitely pending the outcome of US extradition proceedings.
There is an irony that in January 2021, the week Assange was denied bail pending the outcome of the US-lodged appeal, back in the US a mob loyal to Trump attempted a coup d’etat against the US constitution.
Out with Trump, in with Biden On 20 January 2021, Joe Biden was sworn in as US President. Around the world a palpable mood of change was anticipated. It’s fair to say those involved or observing the Assange case were hopeful the United States under Joe Biden’s presidency would withdraw the initial charges and superseding indictments.
But, that was not to be.
Then on 26 September 2021, a Yahoo News media investigation delivered a bombshell. It revealed how the CIA had planned to kidnap or kill Assange.
The investigation’s timeline revealed a plan was developed in 2017 during Pompeo’s tenure at the CIA and considered numerous scenarios where Assange could be liquidated while he resided at the Ecuadorian Embassy. The investigation was backed by “more than 30 US official sources”. (Yahoo News)
The media investigation stated: “… the CIA was enraged by WikiLeaks’ publication in 2017 of thousands of documents detailing the agency’s hacking and covert surveillance techniques, known as the Vault 7 leak.”
It added that Pompeo: “was determined to take revenge on Assange after the (Vault 7) leak.”
Apparently, the CIA believed Russian agents were planning to remove Assange from the Ecuadorian Embassy and “smuggle” him to Russia: “Among the possible scenarios to prevent a getaway were engaging in a gun battle with Russian agents on the streets of London and ramming the car that Assange would be smuggled in.”
It appears a wise-head in the Trump Administration ordered a halt to the CIA plan due to legal concerns. Officials cited in the investigation suggested there were: “Concerns that a kidnapping would derail US attempts to prosecute Assange.”
It would also be reasonable to suggest that a prosecution would be difficult should Assange be dead.
As the US extradition appeal loomed, Julian Assange’s US-based lawyer Barry Pollack reportedly said: “My hope and expectation is that the UK courts will consider this information (the CIA plot) and it will further bolster its decision not to extradite to the US.”
Assange’s partner Stella Morris, on the eve of the US extradition appeal proceedings also said reports of the CIA’s plan “was a game-changer” in his fight against extradition from Britain to the United States. (Reuters)
Greg Barnes, special council and Australian human rights lawyer and advocate spoke this week to a New Zealand panel (A4A via the internet): “Now we know that the CIA intended effectively to murder Assange. For an Australian citizen to be put in that position by Australia’s number one ally is intolerable. And I think in the minds of most Australians the view is that the Australian Government ought to intervene in this particular case and ensure the safety of one of its citizens.”
Barnes added that the Assange case is now a human rights case: “I can tell you that the rigours of the Anglo-American prison complex which we have here in Australia and in which Julian is facing at Belmarsh (prison in London) are such that very few people survive that system without having severe mental and physical pain and suffering for the rest of their lives.
“This should not be happening to an Australian citizen, whose only crime, and I put quotes around the word crime, has been to reveal the war crimes of the United States and its allies.” (A4A YouTube)
The respected journalist advocacy organisation Reporters Without Borders (Reporters Sans Frontières, or RSF), this week called for the US case against Assange to be closed and for Assange to be “immediately released”. (Reporters Without Borders)
RSF added: “During the two-day hearing, the US government will argue against the 4 January decision issued by District Judge Vanessa Baraitser, ruling against Assange’s extradition to the US on mental health grounds. The US will be permitted to argue on five specific grounds, following the High Court’s decision to widen the scope of the appeal during the 11 August preliminary hearing. An immediate decision is not expected at the conclusion of the 27-28 October hearing, but will likely follow in writing several weeks later.”
RSF concluded: “If Assange is extradited to the US, he could face up to 175 years in prison on the 18 counts outlined in the superseding indictment… (If convicted) Assange would be the first publisher pursued under the US Espionage Act, which lacks a public interest defence.”
RSF recently joined a coalition of 25 press freedom, civil liberties and international human rights organisations in calling again on the US Department of Justice to drop the charges against Assange.
Beyond Belmarsh Prison – human rights and asylum options
Pentagon Papers whistleblower Daniel Ellsberg speaking to an online panel organised by New Zealand’s A4A group. Image: ER
There remains a logical and considered question as to what will become of Julian Assange should his legal team successfully defend moves of extradition to the United States.
Whistleblower Edward Snowden has found relative safety living inside the Russian Federation. But beyond Russia there are few safe-haven options available to Julian Assange.
This week a group called A4A (Aotearoa for Assange) coordinated an online panel of human rights advocates and whistleblowers to consider whether New Zealand should become involved.
It was a serious move. The panel included the United States’ highly respected Pentagon Papers whistleblower Daniel Ellsberg. (Pentagon Papers,Wikipedia)
Daniel Ellsberg told the panel: “A trial under (the Espionage Act) cannot be a fair trial as there is ‘no appeal to motives, impact or purposes’.”
“A trial under the Espionage Act could not permit that person to tell the jury why they did what they did,” Daniel Ellsberg said. “It is shameful that President Biden has gone in the footsteps of President Trump. It is shameful for President Biden to have continued that appeal.
“To allow this to go ahead is to put a target on the back of every journalist in the world who might consider doing real investigative journalism of what we call the National Defence or National Security…”
It’s a valid point for those that work within the sphere of Fourth Estate public interest journalism. While in New Zealand, there are rudimentary whistleblower protections, they fail to protect or ensure anonymity. For journalists, if a judge orders a journalist to reveal her or his source(s), then the journalist must consider breaching the code of ethics required from the profession, or acting in contempt of court.
In the latter case, a judge can, in New Zealand, order the journalist to be held in custody for contempt, and it should be pointed out there is no time limit of incarceration. Defamation law is equally as draconian. In New Zealand (unlike the United States) a journalist accused of defamation shoulders the burden of proof — to prove a defamation was not committed.
The chill factor (a reference to pressures that cause journalists to abandon deep and meaningful reportage) is real.
Daniel Ellsberg knows what this means. And he fears, that if the US wins its appeal against Assange, it will erode the Fourth Estate from reporting on what goes on behind the scenes with governments: “… there will be more Vietnams, more Iraqs, more acts of aggression… A great deal rides (on this case) on the possibility of freedom.”
Former NZ Prime Minister and Administrator of the United Nations Development Programme Helen Clark. Image: ER
His comments connect remarkably with those of former New Zealand prime minister, and former administrator of the United Nations Development Programme (UNDP), Helen Clark.
In a previous online discussion, Clark was asked what she thought of Julian Assange’s case. In a considered reply she said: “You do wonder when the hatchet can be buried with Assange, and not buried in his head by the way.
“I do think that information that’s been disclosed by whistleblowers down the ages has been very important in broader publics getting to know what is really going on behind the scenes.
“And, should people pay this kind of price for that? I don’t think so. I felt that Chelsea Manning for example was really unduly repressed.
“The real issue is: the activities they were exposing and not the actions of their exposure,” Helen Clark said.
The US appeals case this week is not litigating the merits of its indictments. But rather it has attempted to mitigate the reasons Judge Vanessa Baraitser denied extradition in January 2021. The US legal team has suggested to the UK court that Assange’s human rights issues could be minimised should he face trial in his native Australia, that if found guilty that he could serve out his sentence there. It gave, however, no assurances that this would occur.
On the eve of the appeal, and appearing before the A4A online panel was Dr Deepa Govindarajan Driver.
Dr Driver is an academic with the University of Reading (UK) and a legal observer very familiar with the Assange case. The degree of human rights abuses against Assange disturb her.
Dr Driver detailed what she had observed: “Julian Assange was served the second superseding indictment on the first day of trial. When he took his papers with him, back to the prison, his privileged papers were taken from him. He was handcuffed, cavity searched, stripped naked on a daily basis. [This is] a highly intelligent human being who we already know is on the Autism Spectrum. To be put through the indignities and arbitrariness of the process which is consistently working in a way that doesn’t stand with normal process…
“For somebody who has gone through all of this for a number of years, it has its psychological impact. But it is not just psychological, the physical effects of torture are pretty severe including the internal damage that he has.”
She added: “We expect the high court will recognise the kind of serious gross breaches of Julian’s basic rights and the inability for him to have a fair trial in the UK or in the US and that this case will be dismissed immediately.”
On the merits of whistleblowers, Dr Driver said: “You can see through the Vault 7 leaks how much the state knows about what is going on in your daily lives… As an observer in court I see how he (Julian Assange) is being tortured on a day to day basis. His privileged conversations with his lawyers were spied on.”
Dr Driver said the Swedish allegations were never backed up with charges. In fact the allegations were dropped due to time and insufficient evidence.
The UN Special Rapporteur on Torture, Nils Melzer, concluded after his investigation of the Swedish allegations that Assange was never given the opportunity to put his side of the case.
Dr Driver said: “In any situation where there is violence against women, and I say this as a survivor myself, people are meant to be presumed innocent until proven guilty. And, this new trend which is accusation-equal-to-guilt is a bad trend because it undermines the cause of women, and it prevents women from getting justice — just as it happened in Sweden because indeed nobody will ever know what happened between Julian and those women other than the two parties there.”
A crime left undefended or a case of weaponising violence against women? Dr Deepa Driver said: “If cases like this are not brought to court, then neither the women nor those accused like Julian get justice. And it is Lisa Longstaff at Women Against Rape who has said time and again, ‘this is the state weaponising women in order to achieve its own ends and hide its own war crimes’. And this is what Britain and America have done in weaponising the case in Sweden, because Sweden was always about extraditing Julian (Assange) to America.”
She suggested Assange’s situation was a human rights case where he was the victim. The view has validity.
United Nations Special Rapporteur Nils Melzer. Image: ER
The United Nations’ special rapporteur Nils Melzer issued a statement on 5 January 2021 welcoming the UK judge’s ruling that blocked his extradition to the United States (a ruling that this week was under appeal).
Melzer went on: “This ruling confirms my own assessment that, in the United States, Mr. Assange would be exposed to conditions of detention, which are widely recognised to amount to torture or other cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment.”
Melzer said the judgement set an “alarming precedent effectively denying investigative journalists the protection of press freedom and paving the way for their prosecution under charges of espionage”.
“I am gravely concerned that the judgement confirms the entire, very dangerous rationale underlying the US indictment, which effectively amounts to criminalizing national security journalism,” Melzer said.
In summary Melzer said: “The judgement fails to recognise that Mr Assange’s deplorable state of health is the direct consequence of a decade of deliberate and systematic violation of his most fundamental human rights by the governments of the United States, the United Kingdom, Sweden and Ecuador.”
He added: “The failure of the judgment to denounce and redress the persecution and torture of Mr Assange, leaves fully intact the intended intimidating effect on journalists and whistleblowers worldwide who may be tempted to publish secret evidence for war crimes, corruption and other government misconduct”. (UNCHR)
A call for New Zealand to provide asylum This week, US whistleblower Daniel Ellsberg applauded New Zealand’s independent global identity. And, he called for New Zealand’s Prime Minister Jacinda Ardern to provide an asylum solution should Julian Assange be released.
Dr Ellsberg’s call was supported by Matt Robson, a former cabinet minister in Helen Clark’s Labour-Alliance government and whom currently practices immigration law in Auckland.
Matt Robson said: “We can support this brave publisher and journalist who has committed the same crime, in inverted commas, as Daniel Ellsberg — to tell the truth as a good honest journalist should do. Our letter to our (New Zealand) government is a plea to do the right thing. To say directly on the line that is available, to (US) President Biden, to free Julian Assange.”
Australian-based lawyer Greg Barnes said: “New Zealand plays a prominent and important role in the Asia-Pacific region and it is not beyond the realms of possibility that the New Zealand government could offer Julian Assange what Australia appears incapable of doing, and that is safety for himself and his family.”
So why New Zealand?
Daniel Ellsberg said: “There are many countries that would have been supportive of Assange, none of whom wanted to get into trouble with the United States of America. Of all the countries in the world I think you can pick out New Zealand that has dared to do that in the past. I remember the issue over whether they would allow American warships into New Zealand harbours.
“Julian Assange should not be on trial,” Daniel Ellsberg said. “And given he is indicted, he should not be extradited. It is extremely important, especially to journalists.
“To allow this to go ahead is to put a target, a bull’s eye, on the back of every journalist in the world who might consider doing real investigative journalism of what we call national security. It’s to assure every journalist that he or she as well as your sources can be put in prison, kidnapped if necessary to the US.
“That is going to chill (journalists) to a degree that there will be more Vietnams, more Iraqs, more acts of aggression such as we have just seen. The world cannot afford that. A great deal rides on the policy matters on the possibility of freedom,” so said Daniel Ellsberg — the US whistleblower who blew the lid off atrocities that were committed in Vietnam.
Conclusion Of course there are always complications, such as executive government leaders involving themselves in judicial matters. But sometimes a leader does the right thing, simply because it is the right thing to do — as Helen Clark did early on in her prime ministership when she extended an olive branch to people fleeing tyranny onboard a ship called the Tampa, which was under-threat of sinking off the coast of Australia. Helen Clark brought the Tampa refugees home to a new place called Aotearoa New Zealand, and we have been better off as a nation because of it.
Former Timor-Leste President Xanana Gusmão today lamented the death of journalist and filmmaker Max Stahl, recalling that his work had “changed the fate of the nation”.
In a letter sent to his widow Dr Ingrid Brucens, Gusmão, chief negotiator over East Timor’s maritime borders, said Stahl’s footage of the 1991 Santa Cruz massacre “exposed the repression and brutality of the Indonesian occupation” for 24 years.
His work was an archival history the country — a legacy for the Timorese nation.
“Few people have managed to make such a significant contribution to the nation,” Gusmão said.
He said Stahl was “loved by the Timorese” and that the country was “in mourning”.
Max Stahl died in Brisbane hospital early yesterday after a long illness.
The journalist was decorated by the state with the Order of Timor-Leste and the National Parliament awarded him Timorese nationality in 2019.
Born Christopher Wenner, but better known as Max Stahl, he began his commitment to East Timor on 30 August 1991 when he entered the country disguised as a tourist to film a documentary for ITV in Britain, In Cold Blood: The Massacre of East Timor.
He interviewed several resistance leaders and left because of his visa. However, he returned and secretly filmed the Santa Cruz graveyard massacre on November 12 that year.
The Portuguese government also highlighted Stahl’s “key role” in the “East Timor fight for self-determination”.
“Max Stahl played a key role in East Timor’s struggle for self-determination. Our condolences to the family, friends, and also to the Timorese people, who today lose a person who made an invaluable contribution to their history,” said the Foreign Affairs Ministry.
