Indonesia’s Commission for Missing Persons and Victims of Violence (Kontras) has criticised the appointment of Central Sulawesi State Intelligence Agency (BIN) regional chief (Kabinda) Brigadier-General Andi Chandra As’aduddin as the acting (Pj) regent of Seram Bagian Barat in Maluku province.
The appointment of As’aduddin was based on Home Affairs Ministry Decree Number 113.81-1164, 2022 on the Appointment of an Acting Seram Bagian Barat Regent in Maluku.
Kontras coordinator Fatia Maulidiyanti said that placing TNI (Indonesian military) or Polri (Indonesian police) officers in civilian positions indicates that the state has no interest in the mandate of reformasi — the political reform process that began in 1998.
One of these was abolishing the dual socio-political function of the armed forces (then called ABRI) and upholding civilian supremacy over the military.
Yet, according to Maulidiyanti, empty regional leadership posts can be filled by state civil servants with experience in administrative management.
She also questioned why the position had to be filled by a TNI officer.
“This is a betrayal of the mandate of reformasi and democratic values,” Maulidiyanti told Tribune News.
She said that what was frightening was the potential abuse of power.
This, she said, was because TNI officers had their own powers which were then augmented by the civilian position they occupied.
“Instead of promoting democracy, it is instead a return back to the New Order [the ousted regime of former president Suharto],” said Maulidiyanti.
Note: The next regional elections will not take place until November 27, 2024. Regional heads who end their terms in office before this will be replaced by acting regional heads appointed directly by President Widodo in the case of governors and the Home Affairs Ministry in the case of regents and mayors. In total, there will be 271 regions led by acting regional heads, including 27 governors.
Tairāwhiti tā moko artists Maia Gibbs and Henare Brooking designed the jersey the Warriors wore in their Indigenous Round National Rugby League match against Newcastle Knights last Saturday.
The jersey, called Te Amokura, is a powerful expression of connection, unity and identity developed in partnership with Puma and Gisborne’s Toi Ake Maori art gallery.
Maia Gibbs (Ngāi Tāmanuhiri, Rongowhakaata, Ngāti Kahungungu) and Henare Brooking (Ngāti Porou, Rongowhakaata, Te Whānau-ā-Apanui, Ngāti Kahungunu, Ngāti Tūwharetoa) run the gallery located in Ballance Street Village.
It was set up about two years ago following the first covid-19 lockdown.
Gibbs said the jersey needed to “encompass what the club and team represent”.
“We are the paintbrushes and pencils that put it together but the players are the ones that live their lives under a microscope. This is about them and what they want to represent.
“It’s pretty cool to see our tohu holding its own,” he said.
Powerful expression “I’m humbled to have had the opportunity to work on this project and see it come to life — even more so to do it along side taku tuakana Henare Brooking.
“To have the support of our iwi, hapū and whānau throughout is really special and we thank you all,” he said.
Te Amokura is a powerful expression of the Warriors’ connection, unity and identity. It takes its inspiration from the manu (bird) of the same name, known across the Pacific, Australia and Aotearoa.
The amokura helped the great navigators of the Pacific chart the largest body of water in the world.
It is known for its two distinct red elongated tail feathers which were highly prized by foremost warriors and chiefs throughout Te moana nui a Kiwa.
These are represented by two red strips on the back of the jersey.
The colours represent significant elements of the club’s identity but also the journey over the last three seasons, and the sacrifices made by players and staff to base themselves away from home, their families and their fans.
The Warriors jersey designers Maia Gibbs and Henare Brooking with Michaela Brooking. Image: The Gisborne Herald
The collective whakapapa Blue represents mana moana — the ocean — that connects Aotearoa, Australia and the Pacific, carrying the collective whakapapa.
Green represents mana whenua — the land — Aotearoa acknowledging the Warriors’ true home and importantly Australia’s mana whenua, the Aboriginal whanaunga and the original people of Australia who hosted the team over the last three seasons.
Red represents mana tāngata — the people — connecting players past, present and future, and interweaving the whakapapa of each individual as they move into the field of battle.
The black represents Te Pō — a place of development and learning — while the white is Te Ao — a place of expression and action.
The jersey is like a korowai (cloak) that adorns the wearer, not just as a jersey but as a representation of their own journey.
It is a celebration of the Warriors’ cultural identity and a representation of the connection they share as indigenous people across the world.
This year’s NRL Indigenous Round focused on creating a space for learning and educating Australians about Indigenous culture as well as encouraging the rugby league community to take three key actions to be part of the change — learn the land; learn the history; support an Indigenous business.
The Te Amokura | Pacific Media Centre logo.
Note: Te Amokura is also the Te Reo Māori name of the Pacific Media Centre, which launched this website Asia Pacific Report in 2016. Asia Pacific Report is now published independently in association with Evening Report and Pacific Journalism Review.
Republished with permission by The Gisborne Herald and NZ On Air.
New Zealand’s Te Pāti Māori has handed over its petition — with 70,000 signatures — calling for the country to officially be named Aotearoa.
It is on our passports, on our money, and in our national anthem. But Aotearoa is not our official name, yet.
The petition was delivered to Parliament today. It calls to change the country’s official name to Aotearoa, and begin a process to restore te reo Māori names for all towns, cities, and places by 2026.
“Whether you’re for or against, the thing is everyone knows that Aotearoa is a legitimate name given to this country by Kupe — not by Governor Grey or any written book, this is well before any of those things,” Te Pāti Māori co-leader Rawiri Waititi said.
Te Reo fluency among Māori dropped from 90 percent in 1910 to 26 percent in 1950.
Today, just 20 percent of the Māori population speak it. That’s three percent of the whole country.
Waititi said the only way to restore the language was to make it visible in as many places as possible.
‘Pebble being dropped in the water’ “This is the pebble being dropped in the water, the initial pebble hitting the water. And what it’ll do, from now for many years to come, is those ripples will continue to get bigger and bigger.”
The petition now goes to a select committee, which will decide what to do next. Whether that was a bill or even a public referendum, it had already succeeded, Waititi said.
“It’s starting the dialogue, it’s building awareness. It has started a wananga across the country.”
National leader Christopher Luxon said changing the name was a constitutional issue.
“I think those are decisions for the New Zealand people, if there’s widespread support it should go to referendum and it should be a decision that they get to make. It’s not something the government makes,” he said.
But just last week Luxon posted a tribute in te reo Māori to kaumatua Joe Hawke, resulting in a tirade of anti-Māori remarks from National supporters.
Waititi brushed off any backlash the petition, and by extension he, received.
“If they’re getting their undies in a twist, that’s their undies, not my undies,” he said.
Time for a discussion Government ministers said it was time for a discussion over changing the name, but were not actually committing to one.
“These things evolve over time, but it’s up to every New Zealander to be part of the debate,” Andrew Little said.
“I’m mindful that representatives from Ngāi Tahu have pointed out that Aotearoa tends to focus on the North Island, but that’s a debate that can rightly happen,” David Clark said.
Associate Health Minister Ayesha Verrall admitted she had not given it any thought.
“But I’m very comfortable having the country referred to as Aotearoa-New Zealand,” she said.
Deputy Prime Minister Grant Robertson said it was not something the Labour caucus had discussed, while Michael Wood called for open-mindedness.
“I think any question like that needs to be worked through really carefully. It’s the name of our country, the identity of our country,” he said.
Labour’s Māori caucus divided Labour’s Māori caucus was somewhat divided
“I think we should have a good conversation about it. I’ve personally got no problems with us using Aotearoa but it’s a question for the whole country,” Kelvin Davis said.
Minister of Māori Development Willie Jackson supported the use of Aotearoa, but said he had recently been travelling around the country, speaking to Māori communities, and changing the country’s name never came up.
“We have other kaupapa more important right now,” he said.
Peeni Henare believed the country was ready.
“I’m encouraging one and all to have a very mature debate over what I think is a pretty cool kaupapa,” he said.
Artist Hohepa Thompson, also known as Hori, backed the petition.
Hori’s Pledge response Hori’s Pledge is a response to billboards popping up around the country saying “New Zealand, not Aotearoa”, funded by lobby group Hobson’s Pledge.
Thompson had been driving across Te Ika a Maui, with his own billboard in tow, to call for change.
He believed a hyphenated ‘Aotearoa-New Zealand’ would not go far enough.
“Māori have taken the backseat for many, many times. So when it comes to Aotearoa-New Zealand, let’s have this. Aotearoa, boom.”
The most positive conversations on his trip came from people who did not even know Pākehā history, he said.
“The only renaming that happened here was from that side. So we’re not trying to create ‘change’, were just re-instating what was already here.”
He pointed out a similar subject that took place recently.
Three years ago, some said a national holiday for Matariki would never happen. Later this month, it will be officially celebrated for the first time.
This article is republished under a community partnership agreement with RNZ.
By the time Chinese Foreign Minister Wang Yi’s ten-day tour of the Pacific is over in early June, he will have met with leaders from all ten Pacific island countries that have diplomatic relations with China.
This tour is the second of its kind since 2006 (his predecessor Li Zhaoxing visited the region that year). It follows a meeting of Pacific foreign ministers with China last year.
But what does China want from the region and why is it showing such strong interest in the Pacific?
China wants two main things
China seeks two main things from the region – one diplomatic and one strategic.
Diplomatically, it needs the voting support of Pacific islands at the United Nations. These countries, most of which are small, have an equal vote at the UN.
Their support – on issues such as Taiwan, Tibet, Xinjiang, Hong Kong, South and East China Seas, and human rights – matters to China.
For example, during Wang’s visit, Pacific leaders pledged to stick to the “One China” policy. This means they will recognise the People’s Republic of China over the Republic of China (Taiwan).
However, the China-Taiwan diplomatic battle is far from over. In the Pacific, Palau, Marshall Islands, Tuvalu and Nauru still recognise Taiwan.
Strategically, China sees Pacific islands as a target of what’s known as “South-South co-operation” – partnerships between developing countries.
China’s mistrust of developed countries is deep rooted and has persisted since the founding of the communist regime in 1949. To reduce the strategic pressure from developed countries, China strives to forge close ties with the developing world.
In this sense, Wang’s Pacific visit is largely prompted by recent heightened competition between China and the US-led traditional powers.
The Quad countries (Australia, India, Japan, and the United States) recently released a joint leaders statement promising to increase their support to countries in the Indo-Pacific region.
It is hardly a coincidence that on the same day, China’s ministry of foreign affairs revealed the itinerary for Wang’s Pacific visit. Details of concrete achievements arising from the provinces of Chinese Guangdong, Fujian and Shandong’s engagement with Pacific islands were released the following day.
China is signalling it will not recede in its competition with traditional powers. It also wants to send a message that a closer relationship with China will benefit Pacific islands.
Security significance for China
In the long run, the Pacific islands have great security significance for China.
China’s People’s Liberation Army, especially the navy, has aimed to break the “island chains” (in particular, there are a series of military bases on islands near China and in the Pacific, which Beijing believes the US and its allies are using to encircle China).
The Pacific islands sit along one of these island chains. Little wonder, then, the Chinese military is keen to gain a foothold in the Pacific in the long run – this would be crucial if competition between China and the US deteriorates into rivalry and even military conflict.
This is why traditional powers are alarmed by the China-Solomon Islands security pact – despite clarification from Beijing and Honiara China will not establish a military base in Solomon Islands.
To achieve these objectives, China has worked hard to foster a closer relationship with Pacific islands. In particular, it has highlighted its respect of Pacific islands as equal partners, economic opportunities for Pacific commodities to enter the massive Chinese market, and the benefits of Chinese aid for the region.
Proposed agreements
In this context, China proposed two broad agreements to be signed by all its Pacific partner countries during Wang’s visit.
However, this plan was shelved due to the lack of consensus among Pacific leaders on the nature of these agreements and potential negative implications for regional security.
For example, prior to Wang’s visit, President of the Federated States of Micronesia David Panuelo wrote to leaders of all Pacific island countries and territories warning that signing these agreements may drag Pacific islands into conflicts between China and the US in future.
This may have taken China by surprise; President Panuelo paid a successful state visit to China in 2019 and lauded his country’s relationship with China as “great friendship taken to a new high”.
This was a clear setback for China. As a suboptimal solution, China’s ministry of foreign affairs turned the two agreements into a position paper and published it on May 30.
A main difference is that in the position paper, China only briefly states its readiness to co-operate with Pacific islands to promote regional security, combat transnational crimes and tackle non-traditional security threats.
By contrast, the original two agreements had more details on security co-operation such as providing police training for the region and strengthening co-operation on cyber security.
Apparently, China has learnt to downplay its planned co-operation with Pacific islands on security, an increasingly sensitive area amid the competition.
Looking into the near future, it is likely China will be more cautious in expanding its engagement with the Pacific region.
It will likely focus on pragmatic co-operation in less sensitive areas like climate change, poverty reduction, agriculture and disaster relief.
China will lobby for more support from Pacific islands before it is willing to reintroduce the broad agreements.
Denghua Zhang 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.
This week’s White House meeting between Jacinda Ardern and Joe Biden reflected a world undergoing rapid change. But of all the shared challenges discussed, there was one that kept appearing in the leaders’ joint statement – China in the Pacific.
Tucked within the statement, with all its promises of increased co-operation and partnership, was this not-so-subtle declaration:
In particular, the United States and New Zealand share a concern that the establishment of a persistent military presence in the Pacific by a state that does not share our values or security interests would fundamentally alter the strategic balance of the region and pose national-security concerns to both our countries.
Unsurprisingly, this upset Chinese officials, with a foreign ministry spokesperson accusing Ardern and Biden of trying to “deliberately hype up” the issue.
But hopefully the statement will also prompt New Zealand to put its money where its mouth is when it comes to increasing assistance in the Pacific region. Expressing “concern” about China’s influence means little otherwise.
Shared concerns: Joe Biden meets Jacinda Ardern in the Oval Office on May 31. Getty Images
Aid and influence
While New Zealand and Australia are responsible for around 55% of all of the aid flowing into the region, that contribution needs to be seen in perspective.
There are two obvious shortcomings. First, more needs to be done to promote democracy in the Pacific, which means supporting anti-corruption initiatives and a free press. Second, both countries simply need to give more.
Neither spends anywhere near the 0.7% of gross national income on development assistance recommended by the United Nations (UN).
It’s against this backdrop of under-spending that China has come to be seen as an attractive alternative to the traditional regional powers. It has no colonial baggage in the Pacific and is a developing country itself, having made impressive leaps in development and poverty reduction.
Three states in the region (Kiribati, Solomon Islands and Tuvalu) are in the UN’s “least developed countries” category. Two others (Samoa and Vanuatu) are just above the threshold. Most are at high risk of debt distress, increasing the risk of poor policy decisions simply to pay bills.
The average debt-to-GDP ratio for Pacific states has risen from 32.9% in 2019 to 42.2% in 2021. Vanuatu, Palau and Fiji have debt-to-GDP ratios greater than 70%.
China currently accounts for only about 6% of all aid in the region, but supplements this with grants and loans, some commercial and some interest-free. These overlap with grand infrastructure plans such as the Belt and Road Initiative aimed at connecting many regions of the world.
While it might not have secured its desired regional multilateral trade and security agreement with Pacific nations, China is clearly in the Pacific for the long haul.
This presence need not be seen entirely negatively. In the right circumstances, Chinese assistance can have a positive impact on economic and social outcomes in recipient countries, according to the International Monetary Fund. (The same study also found a negative but negligible effect on governance.)
Overall, Chinese influence in the Pacific is not necessarily something that must be “countered”. For the good of the region, countries should seek ways to work together, especially given that aid to the Pacific is often fragmented, volatile, unpredictable and opaque.
Co-ordinated, efficient and effective partnerships between donors, recipients and regional institutions will be vital, and co-operation with China could be part of this.
New Zealand and Australia need to expand their work on the vast infrastructure and development needs of the Pacific. Transparency should be a priority with all projects and spending, and co-operation should be tied to shared benchmarks such as the UN’s Sustainable Development Goals.
For its part, China should give more aid rather than loans (especially to the least developed countries) to avoid the risk of poor countries becoming beholden to lenders or even bankrupted.
Peace and security
Above all, peace and security between and within countries should be an agreed fundamental principle. The good news is that South Pacific nations have already taken steps towards this by agreeing to the Nuclear Free Zone Treaty.
This could be complemented by an agreement banning foreign military bases in the region to maintain its independence. If needed, peacekeeping or outside security assistance should be multilateral through the UN, not bilateral through secret arrangements.
Co-operation for the good of the Pacific should be the goal, but this is only possible if the region is not militarised.
Chinese influence and power in the Pacific is a reality that cannot be wished away or easily undermined. With the US similarly determined to assert itself, the stakes are rising. All nations should work together to ensure no small, independent Pacific country becomes a pawn in what could be a very dangerous game.
Alexander Gillespie does not work for, consult, own shares in or receive funding from any company or organisation that would benefit from this article, and has disclosed no relevant affiliations beyond their academic appointment.
Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Jacqueline Wesson, Senior Lecturer (Teaching and Research), Discipline of Occupational Therapy, School of Health Sciences, Faculty of Medicine and Health, University of Sydney
It can be hard to know what to say, or who to talk to, if you notice something isn’t right for you or a loved one in residential aged care.
You might have concerns about personal or medical care, being adequately consulted about changes to care, or be concerned about charges on the latest bill. You could also be concerned about theft, neglect or abuse.
Here’s how you can raise issues with the relevant person or authority to improve care and support for you or your loved one.
You can complain about any aspect of care or service. For instance, if medical care, day-to-day support or financial matters do not meet your needs or expectations, you can complain.
It is best to act as soon as you notice something isn’t right. This may prevent things from escalating. Good communication helps get better results.
Make written notes about what happened, including times and dates, and take photos. Try to focus on facts and events. You can also keep a record of who was involved and their role.
Keep track of how the provider responded or steps taken to resolve the issue. Write notes of conversations and keep copies of emails.
Who do I complain to?
Potential criminal matters
If you have concerns about immediate, serious harm of a criminal nature then you should contact the police, and your provider immediately. These types of serious incidents include unreasonable use of force or other serious abuse or neglect, unlawful sexual contact, stealing or unexpected death.
The provider may have already contacted you about this. They are required to report such serious incidents to both the Aged Care Quality and Safety Commission within 24 hours, and to the police.
Other matters
For other matters, talk to the care staff involved. Try to find out more detail about what happened and why things went wrong. Think about what you expect in the situation.
Then talk to the most senior person in charge, to see if they can make changes so things don’t go wrong in the future. This person may be called the nursing unit manager, care manager or care director.
Providers must acknowledge and investigate your complaint, tell you their findings and actions taken, and follow up to see if you are satisfied.
If you would like support to talk to the provider, the Older Persons Advocacy Network can help. This free service provides independent and confidential support to help find solutions with the aged-care provider. The network can also help you lodge a formal complaint.
Be prepared to submit the facts and events, plus emails and correspondence, you have already collected. Think about what you want to happen to resolve the complaint.
Each complaint is handled individually and prioritised depending on the risks to you or your loved one. The commission will start its processes within one business day when complaints are urgent. The resolution process took an average 40 days in 2020-21.
You can complain confidentially, or anonymously if you feel safer. But the commission may not be able to investigate fully if it’s anonymous. Also, there are limits to what the commission can do. It cannot ask providers to terminate someone’s employment, or provide direct clinical advice about treatment.
You can complain confidentially or anonymously if you feel safer. Shutterstock
Sometimes the commission has issued a “non-compliance” notice to the provider (for a failure to meet quality standards), and action may again be limited. So it is a good idea to check the non-compliance register beforehand to see if your provider is listed.
What do others complain about?
From October to December 2021, about a third of Australian nursing homes had a complaint made to the commission against them. Some had more than one complaint. More than half of these complaints were lodged by family, friends or other consumers.
The top reasons for complaints were about:
adequacy of staffing
medication administration or management
infectious diseases or infection control
personal and oral hygiene
how falls are prevented and managed
consultation or communication with representatives and/or family members.
What if I’m still not happy?
If you’re not happy when you receive the commission’s outcome, you can request a review with 42 days.
You can also request the Commonwealth Ombudsman to review the complaint if you’re not satisfied with the commission’s decision or the way the commission handled your complaint.
You or your loved one can ask for a review if you’re still not happy with the outcome. Shutterstock
Residents, and their representatives or families, have a legal right to speak up and complain, free from reprisal or negative consequences. This right is also reflected in the Charter of Aged Care Rights, which providers are legally required to discuss with you and help you understand.
Moving to another facility
If you have exhausted all avenues of complaint or feel conditions have not improved, you may decide to move to another provider or facility, if available. This option may not be possible in rural areas.
This is a difficult decision. It takes time, as well as financial and emotional resources. Starting again with a new provider can also be disruptive for everyone, but sometimes it may be the right choice.
Jacqueline Wesson has previously worked at Montefiore Residential Care and continues to have a professional link with them. She has previously received funding from Dementia Australia, and has provided advice about restrictive practice legislation via a local PHN.
Lee-Fay Low receives funding from the NHMRC and Dementia Australia. She has previously received research funding from aged care providers including HammondCare and The Whiddon Group, as well as state and federal governments. She has also received honorarium from Roche. She has provided input and advice to multiple aged care providers and government bodies including to the Royal Commission into Quality and Safety in Aged Care, and the Aged Care Quality and Safety Commission.
Tranby is an Indigenous adult education school in the inner-city Sydney suburb of Glebe. Founded in 1957, its graduates include Eddie Mabo, who went on to win the most significant land rights legal battle in Australian history – overturning the fiction of terra nullius.
What makes Tranby special is not just being Australia’s oldest not-for-profit independent Indigenous education provider. It is the type of education it provides – teaching the skills needed to manage organisations and communities democratically.
It teaches co-operation, and the skills to run co-operative organisations.
This makes it a rarity in business education.
Tranby Aboriginal Co-Operative is Australia’s oldest Indigenous adult dducation provider. Tranby, CC BY-NC-ND
Though co-operatives exist throughout Australian society, making a hugely valuable economic contribution, their distinctive nature and management requirements are largely ignored by university business schools.
This neglect is costing us all.
Part of the social fabric
Australia has a rich history of communities forming co-operatives to provide services where for-profit businesses or the state have been unwilling or unable.
They run shops and schools, offer banking and mortgage services, and provide housing and health services.
The first co-operative in Australia is thought to be the Brisbane Co-operative Society, which set up a store in 1859.
Over the next century came many agricultural co-ops. In the 1950s and 1960s, co-workers and communities pooled funds to form building societies and credit unions when banks were unwilling to lend money.
When the northern Victorian town of Sea Lake was left without a pub after one hotel shut and the other burnt down, locals formed a co-operative to reopen and run the Royal Hotel. Kerry Anderson, CC BY
Co-ops range in size from small neighbourhood operations, such the Gymea community preschool in Sydney to major enterprises such as Cooperative Bulk Handling in Western Australia, which reported a $133 million surplus in 2021.
All up there are more than 1,700 in Australia. It’s possible you’re a member of one – or a closely aligned “mutual” organisation (such as the NRMA or RACV). About eight in ten Australians are, yet fewer than two in ten realise it.
Improving co-operative education
This general lack of recognition is reflected by the sector’s almost complete invisibility in educational courses.
In 2016 a Senate committee inquiry found neglect of co-operative and mutual businesses in high-school and university courses was a clear impediment for the sector.
It could easily be concluded this neglect has also actively damaged the sector – notably through the 1980s and 1990s with “demutualisation”
of big member-owned organisations such as AMP and the St George Bank.
This effectively involved privatising these organisations for the benefit of existing members, who got windfall profits at the expense of future members.
Demutualisation was pushed by managers and consultants educated in business, but not in the distinctive values of co-operative business.
They often regarded the co-operative and mutual structure as less competitive than an investor-shareholder model focused on maximising profits.
Subsequent developments have proven how flawed these assumptions were. AMP, for example, featured heavily among the wrongdoings exposed by the Hayne royal commission into financial services. No co-operative or mutual business did.
Levelling the playing field
The Senate inquiry report recommended the federal government look to improve understanding of co-operatives and mutual through secondary school curriculum. It also recommended universities include topics on co-operatives in their business and law programs.
In 2017 the University of Newcastle established Australia’s first postgraduate program in co-operative management and organisation.
But it axed the program in 2020 due to pandemic-related cutbacks and insufficient student numbers.
What’s needed are both specialist courses and recognition within general business or law courses. You’d be hard placed to find a business degree that gives co-operatives more than fleeting attention.
The focus instead is on individual entrepreneurship, investor-owned businesses and vague ideas of social business.
Economic viability with social responsibility
The 2016 Senate inquiry report noted co-operatives have an important economic role to play. They increase competition in highly concentrated markets (such as banking). They provide services in areas where investor-owned or state enterprises do not work.
It singled out Tranby College as an excellent example of what can be achieved – both for members and the broader community:
Evidence suggests the co-operative model is ideal in delivering services in remote areas, such as Indigenous communities, where issues can be complex and service provision through the private sector is often not suitable or available.
As former United Nations secretary-General Ban Ki-moon has said, co-operatives show “it is possible to pursue both economic viability and social responsibility”.
It is important students at all levels be aware of what makes co-operative businesses different and valuable.
Hopefully the Albanese government will not neglect them. They have a lot to offer communities and reinforce democratic values.
Gregory Patmore received funding from the Australian Research Council Discovery Program (DP170100573) for the main research underlying this contribution and has received funding from the Business Council of Co-operatives and Mutuals for a specific project on COVID-19 and co-operatives.
It’s fair to say that drinking alcohol is popular among Kiwis, to the point of potential harm.
According to the latest New Zealand Health Survey, one in five adults – or 824,000 people – have an established drinking pattern that “carries a high risk of future damage to physical or mental health”.
In 2016, data showed heavy drinking sessions were much more common in New Zealand than in the UK, the US, Canada and even countries like Finland, Norway and Sweden.
Alcohol abuse is also a major contributor to crime. In 2010, the New Zealand Police estimated about one-third of all police apprehensions involved alcohol and half of serious violent crimes had alcohol as a contributing factor.
Dropping the purchasing age
However, in a landmark alcohol reform enacted in 1999, New Zealand reduced the minimum purchasing age from 20 to 18 years old.
Politicians in favour of the change argued that an 18-year-old could vote and marry and should therefore be given the chance to drink in a safe environment.
Since then, there has been an ongoing debate among social and political commentators, including health professionals, over whether the legal purchasing threshold should be raised back to 20.
Critics of the 1999 reform usually cite a potential increase in public health risks to support their point of view.
Last year, in an unprecedented move, the heads of the district health boards released a joint statement calling for the reform of the 2012 Sale and Supply of Alcohol Act.
The statement proposed numerous changes to reduce easy access to alcohol, including increasing the legal purchasing age from 18 to 20.
New Zealand’s drinking culture is well known, but data show dropping the drinking age increased only some types of alcohol-related crime. Tim Clayton/Getty Images
Does alcohol access cause a jump in crime?
In a recent study, researchers found monthly consumption jumped drastically when individuals turned 18 and could legally purchase alcohol.
The researchers used Statistics New Zealand’s integrated data infrastructure (IDI) to test whether this change in drinking behaviour prompted a corresponding spike in alcohol-related criminal behaviour among 18- and 19-year-olds.
The analysis also took advantage of the detailed crime register administered by the Ministry of Justice.
The spectrum of offences is broad, ranging from minor incidents, such as bringing alcohol into an alcohol banned area, to severe crimes like causing injury through excess alcohol.
The authors considered convictions a more accurate measure of crime than arrests, as not every arrest leads to a conviction.
Researchers looked at the difference in alcohol-related criminal behaviour for ages just below the minimum legal purchasing age versus ages right above the mandated age threshold.
Put simply, the research compared the criminal outcomes of youths who had just gained the right to buy alcohol to those who were close to turning 18 and therefore unable to legally buy it.
There was a slight increase in traffic violations by drivers around the currently mandated age of 18. However, the analysis found little evidence that 18- and 19-year-olds committed more alcohol-related crimes after reaching the legal purchasing age.
From 2014 to 2018, the average number of alcohol-induced offences for those aged 17 years and 11 months stood at 53 convictions per 100,000 people and increased by four convictions in the month turning 18. This equals an increase of 8% but is not statistically significant.
However, similar to previous research, the analysis indicated that gaining easier access to alcohol was associated with an immediate spike in other crimes, particularly dangerous acts and property damage.
The average number of property damage convictions (per 100,000 people) where alcohol was involved increased from 40 to 51 (28%), and dangerous acts increased from 47 to 60 convictions (27%) in the month of turning 18.
There was a slight increase in alcohol-related traffic offences after the legal drinking age dropped to 18 years old. Getty Images
Alcohol purchasing age of 20
The researchers also examined how criminal behaviour changed in the period between 1994 and 1998 when the legal alcohol purchasing age was 20.
They found that all alcohol-related convictions dropped from 203 to 163 (19%) in the month of turning 20.
This surprising pattern is caused by changes in the legal breath and blood alcohol limit, which takes place at the same age and permits higher blood alcohol levels for drivers aged 20 and above.
When removing those types of convictions, the researchers find no observable jump in alcohol-related crimes. That said, there was an increase in offences against public order and other traffic-related convictions.
A US study looked at how crime rates changed around the minimum legal drinking age of 21 in the states where drinking and purchasing alcohol below the age of 21 is not permitted.
The authors found individuals aged just over 21 were 5.9% more likely to be arrested than individuals just under 21. However, crime levels for this age group were substantially higher compared to New Zealand.
In Canada, where the minimum legal drinking age for most states sits at 18, and 19 in Alberta, Manitoba and Québec, a sharp increase of 7.6% in all crimes was observed – with a large jump of 29.4% for disorderly conduct.
As two decades of data shows, allowing younger people to drink has resulted in upticks in some types of crime, but not all of them. Understanding the impact of lowering New Zealand’s drinking age can inform the ongoing policy debate and offers decision makers an insight into how these sorts of thresholds can change society in unexpected ways.
The authors do not work for, consult, own shares in or receive funding from any company or organisation that would benefit from this article, and have disclosed no relevant affiliations beyond their academic appointment.
Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Michael Kearney, Associate Professor in Ecophysiology and Evolutionary Biology, The University of Melbourne
Michael Kearney, Author provided
Most animals on Earth have two sexes, male and female, that combine and mix their genes when they reproduce. We are so accustomed to this state of affairs that the existence of all-female species that don’t have sex, but instead reproduce by cloning, comes as a great surprise.
The beautiful green grasshopper Warramaba virgo is one of these rare “parthenogenetic” species, in which an egg can develop into an embryo without being fertilised by a sperm. It lives in the southern parts of the Australian arid zone, where it feeds on mulga trees and other shrubs and bushes in the summertime.
The grasshopper Warramaba virgo reproduces asexually. Michael Kearney, Author provided
We have studied these grasshoppers for the past 18 years to understand how they developed asexual reproduction, and how the change has affected their ability to survive and reproduce.
Our new research published in Science shows W. virgo arose about 250,000 years ago from a cross between two different sexually reproducing species of grasshopper, and giving up sex appears to have had no negative repercussions for them whatsoever.
The puzzle of parthenogenesis
Biologists studying evolution have often considered the rarity of parthenogenetic species like W. virgo as a major puzzle.
This is because sex imposes big costs on animal reproduction. First, there is the “two-fold cost of sex”: half a creature’s offspring (the males) are unable to produce their own offspring alone, so they are often seen as “evolutionary wastage”.
Moreover, finding a mate takes energy and mating animals are often at greater risk of attack by predators. Doing away with males also removes these drawbacks.
Warramaba virgo feeds on mulga trees (many of which also reproduce asexually). Michael Kearney, Author provided
So why does sex exist at all? The main reason, biologists think, relates to the mixing or “recombination” of genes as a consequence of sex. This can speed up the rate of adaptation by bringing favourable combinations of genes together and also helps to purge a population of combinations of bad mutations.
Parthenogenetic species don’t have these processes: instead, all members of the species have virtually identical genes. This means they might be less able to adapt when the environment changes. What’s more, parthenogens could accumulate bad mutations that reduce their fitness.
But are these costs real? Do they result in the rapid extinction of any parthenogens that happen to form?
What’s the secret of W. virgo?
Over the past 18 years we have been investigating these questions in W. virgo.
This grasshopper was first studied in 1962 by the eminent evolutionary biologist and geneticist Michael White. White’s young son Nicholas first discovered them near the New South Wales town of Hillston, when he noted that only females of a particular species could be found.
White then went on to show that the same species was present 2,000 km away in Western Australia, along with a sexual species (recently named W. whitei).
W. virgo turned out to have a hybrid origin: a cross between W. whitei and another species, W. flavolineata, many thousands of years in the past.
Warramaba virgo (middle) and its ‘parent species’, W. flavolineata (left) and W. whitei (right) Michael Kearney, Author provided
A parthenogenetic species might have an advantage if its genetic diversity is boosted by repeated hybridisations between the two parent species, producing an army of different clones. Combining the genomes of the two species might also make the parthenogens more vigorous.
Such “hybrid vigour” does occur in some animals, such as mules (crosses between a horse and a donkey). The mule has much greater strength and endurance than its parent species.
Could it be that the hybrid origins of W. virgo generated a diverse clone army with special abilities compared to its sexual relatives, or a hybrid with high level of vigour?
Few benefits to giving up sex, but also no drawbacks
The answers to these questions were a resounding “No”!
We examined more than 1,500 genetic markers in W. virgo and found almost no variation in the parthenogens compared with the parent species.
This showed clearly that only one hybrid mating between W. whitei and W. flavolineata was responsible for producing W. virgo in the first place. Based on the number and nature of mutations that have occurred in W. virgo, we estimate the mating occurred some 250,000 years ago.
We also showed that the parthenogen had no advantage over its parent species in a range of physiological traits including tolerance to heat and cold, rate of metabolism, how many eggs they lay, the size of their eggs, how long they take to mature and how long they live.
Meanwhile, W. virgo naturally produced twice as many female offspring as the sexual species. It retained its two-fold advantage over sexual species despite 250,000 years for low fitness mutations to accumulate in this species.
The conclusion from our research then is that W. virgo has become parthenogenic but without costs. It has also successfully spread all the way from the west side of the country to the east side, unlike its parent species.
Why don’t more species give up on sex?
So why then do we see sexual species everywhere despite their two-fold reproductive cost? We suspect it must be very difficult to develop parthenogenesis in the first place.
Indeed, we have tried experimentally crossing the same sexual species that gave rise to W. virgo and only created a few hybrids, none of which were able to produce offspring. The hybrid state may disturb the normal processes of egg development sufficiently to make parthenogenesis an extremely uncommon phenomenon in animals more generally.
A lab-made cross of W. whitei and W. flavolineata. She produced few eggs, none of which hatched. Michael Kearney, Author provided
We think future research into the paradox of sexual reproduction should focus on barriers that prevent sex from being lost, rather than only focusing on the advantages of sex.
Ary Hoffmann receives funding from the Australian Research Council.
Michael Kearney does not work for, consult, own shares in or receive funding from any company or organisation that would benefit from this article, and has disclosed no relevant affiliations beyond their academic appointment.
The queen’s royal title and duties will one day be transferred to Prince Charles, the 73-year-old Prince of Wales.
Although the timing of this transition remains uncertain, it may prompt many Commonwealth nations such as Australia to reconsider the legacy and legitimacy of the monarchy itself.
The precarity of succession
Succession has long been the weak link in the system of hereditary monarchy.
Sometimes this is because the current ruler produces no surviving heirs, as in the case of Queen Anne, or Carlos II of Spain.
Alternatively, it may be because others dispute the line of succession, as was seen in the war-provoking disputes over succession in the cases of William the Conqueror and “Bonnie Prince Charlie”.
Sometimes, succession has not been successful because the new monarch has practised the “wrong” religion, or married the “wrong” sort of woman – as was thought of James VII and II and Edward VIII, respectively.
Perhaps most memorably the objection to the principle is so violently held, no succession is possible at all. This was true in the cases of Charles I of Great Britain, Louis XVI of France, and Nicholas II of Russia.
Across the Commonwealth, the monarch plays a crucial role in legitimatising systems of government.
Historical continuity denotes stability, an attribute that monarchies are supposed to embody. Hence the idea of the “king’s two bodies”: the physical form of the monarch may perish, but the idea of monarchy continues in the body of the new king or queen.
Our current queen holds the title of Queen Elizabeth II to associate her in line of succession with Elizabeth I. However, Queen Elizabeth is not, in fact, the second Elizabeth to reign in Australia, New Zealand, Canada, or even Scotland.
Instead, this continuity of title serves to imbue the monarchy with a sense of stability independent of party, faction, nation, or ideology.
This is not to say the monarchy is “above politics”, as is often claimed.
The emphasis on political stability and historical continuity puts it, as an institution, firmly in the conservative camp.
Conservatives tend not to write down their rules of operation in one place. One notable exception is Walter Bagehot’s The English Constitution. Published in 1867, this influential book distinguishes between the “efficient” and “dignified” parts of the constitution.
Bagehot viewed the “efficient” part of the constitution as responsible government, primarily concerned with statecraft, grand strategy, and the day-to-day running of kingdoms.
The “dignified” part, in contrast, provided a symbolic focus for the the notions of unity and loyalty across Britain and its Empire – of which the monarchy was a central element.
According to Bagehot, having a popular monarch is crucial to upholding the legitimacy of the political system.
However, the popularity of a monarch can cut both ways.
If a monarch is unpopular, the legitimacy of the system can suffer. This is exemplified by public perceptions of Queen Victoria in the 1870s.
Following Prince Albert’s death in 1861, Queen Victoria remained largely absent from public life during an extended period of mourning. Meanwhile, republicanism gained significant political traction in England.
Similarly, neither Elizabeth II nor the monarchy were particularly popular in either the UK or Australia during the 1990s. Moreover, the death of Diana, Princess of Wales, in 1997 further damaged the monarchy’s public image.
Significant political resources were mobilised in the UK to rectify this situation. As a result, the monarchy was largely rehabilitated by the time of the Queen’s Golden Jubilee celebrations in 2002.
Yet, attitudes towards the monarchy can be equivocal – not least in Australia.
Former Prime Minister Tony Abbott, the most open promoter of monarchy among Australia’s recent prime ministers, came under intense criticism for his decision to appoint Prince Philip a Knight of Australia in 2015.
And the ABC received complaints after the announcement of Prince Philip’s death interrupted an episode of TV drama Vera, indicating ambivalent attitudes towards the monarchy as an institution.
Yet republicanism in Australia currently remains muted. This is in part because, as per the script-writing in the Netflix drama The Crown, the nonagenarian Queen can do no wrong.
The same cannot be said for the rest of the family.
Prince Andrew’s court case in the US, the internal feuding concerning the Duke and Duchess of Sussex (Harry and Meghan), and even William and Kate’s problematic reception during their tour of the Caribbean have harmed public perceptions of the monarchy across the Commonwealth.
In Australia, proponents of republicanism assert Prince Charles’ future ascension to the throne could signify a critical juncture in the realisation of an Australian republic.
Such “constitutional wrangling” may be overshadowed by more pressing matters – pestilence and war being two current examples.
Nevertheless, the imminent transition from Elizabeth II to Charles III across the Commonwealth entails certain risks.
Barbados became a republic last year. Perhaps it may be time for Australia to reconsider the place of the monarchy in our own political system.
Ben Wellings 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.
Supporters of independent candidate Kylea Tink celebrate her victory over the Liberal incumbent in North Sydney.Getty Images
Almost two weeks on from the Australian federal election and the Australian Labor Party looks set to govern alone with 77 seats, despite securing only 32% of the primary vote.
The Liberal and National parties were also beset by primary vote losses, while the winners appear to be the multitude of old and new small parties and independents. Between them, these outsiders have scooped up more than 30% of the vote in the House of Representatives.
It’s tempting to draw lessons for New Zealand from the Australian result – not least because the Liberal-National Coalition governed through the pandemic. The policies of Scott Morrison’s government were not unlike New Zealand’s – closing borders, providing additional funding to states and initially supporting lockdowns – and it was punished at the polls.
Also like New Zealand, they were slow to roll out vaccines and distribute rapid antigen test supplies. Australian cities experienced protests against lockdowns and vaccine mandates in the name of freedom. And while the economy remained resilient, Australia is facing rising cost of living, stretched supply chains and predictions of worse to come.
It would be easy to assume, then, that being the incumbent government at the height of a pandemic does not bode well for re-election. But it may also be that this outcome represents an opportunity for New Zealand.
The ‘teal’ deal
This Australian election was about much more than COVID-19. It was about Morrison’s leadership – or lack of it, especially after catastrophic bushfires and floods. He appeared to care little about political integrity or about the toxic culture within his party that alienated many female colleagues.
And he relished the opportunity to engage in divisive rhetoric on asylum seekers, China and climate change.
It was this last issue that spurred the zeal for independent “teal” candidates (perhaps best thought of as blue-green liberals) in the safe “leafy” electorates of Sydney, Melbourne and Perth, while in Queensland the Greens scooped seats off the Liberals and Labor.
This is not surprising, given research suggests an increasing number of Australians want to see progress on emissions reductions and are less likely to respond to a culture war on climate.
But the teal independents did more than highlight a progressive popular mandate for the environment. They also shone a light on the ugliness of pork-barrel politics and populism, and the limitations of centrally controlled major parties at a time when diverse communities want their voices heard.
Independents at the vanguard
That said, the rise of independents has been a slow and simmering trend in Australian politics, both federally and at the state and territory level. The Liberal and National parties have been the target of what appears to be an independent “movement” since the 1980s.
Independents won a number of rural and regional seats in the 1990s and 2000s, fuelled by three key factors: a belief that major parties were taking “safe” seats for granted, compulsory voting, and community-based candidates able to harness a geographical concentration of votes under Australia’s preferential voting system.
Indeed, by the early 2000s, Australia was home to more independent parliamentarians than any comparable Western country. At times they have held the balance of power. At others, they’ve championed causes the major political parties found too risky or uninteresting, including political integrity and human rights.
Perhaps most relevant for New Zealand has been the influence of independents on Australia’s immigration and offshore detention policies.
In 2019, for example, independent Cathy McGowan sided with the Labor opposition and several other independents to pass the Medevac Evacuation Act, which made it possible for critically ill detainees to be treated on the Australian mainland.
The Morrison government claimed the new law was unconstitutional and repealed it after its “miracle” election victory later in 2019, with the support of independent senator Jacqui Lambie. Lambie reportedly traded her vote for the possibility of a more permanent solution based on New Zealand’s resettlement offer, finally taken up by Australia earlier this year.
Now, with the election of Anthony Albanese’s Labor government, there is discussion about a possible softening of the visa cancellation and deportation polices under section 501 of the Immigration Act. Here, the role of independent (and Green) MPs may be crucial to New Zealand’s interests.
A better deal for Australian Kiwis
There is now a strong tradition of independents committing to human rights issues, in the House and the Senate. And while their focus has often been on the plight of refugees and asylum seekers, the goodwill and energy of these cross-benchers might also be applied to improving pathways to citizenship for New Zealanders living permanently in Australia.
The current barriers to citizenship have fuelled the deportation rate, as well as blocked Australian New Zealanders from access to benefits after natural disasters or for medical disabilities.
The challenge for Jacinda Ardern will be to encourage Albanese and the new Labor government to loosen the 2016 arrangement made by the previous Coalition government. This offered a pathway to permanent residence and eventually citizenship, but applied only to New Zealanders who had been living in Australia before February 2016 and who met certain criteria.
Revising those conditions could form part of a revamped Closer Economic Relations agreement to mark its 40th anniversary next year. If that doesn’t work, New Zealand could consider lobbying Australia’s progressive independent and Green MPs.
Either way, the Albanese government is presenting itself as more interested in its Pacific neighbours and in those who want to make Australia their permanent home. As such, it represents the best opportunity in nearly a decade for more favourable trans-Tasman relations.
Jennifer Curtin is an Associate Investigator on an Australian Research Council grant (2022-2024) with Cosmo Howard and Juliet Pietsch that examines the history of the “fair go” in Australia and New Zealand.
She is the co-author with Brian Costar of the book “Rebels with a Cause. Independents in Australian Politics (UNSW, 2004).
Early in the pandemic, the term “herd immunity” hit the headlines, along with a polarised discussion on how to achieve it.
Some groups were attached to the now-discredited notion of letting a dangerous virus rip through the population to reach the critical level of population immunity needed to reduce transmission.
But a more serious conversation focussed on the prospect of attaining herd immunity by vaccination.
This is the idea that vaccines – when available and taken up at sufficient levels – could squash virus transmission. This would lead to the possible elimination or eradication of SARS-CoV-2, the virus that causes COVID.
The promise was this would herald the return of life back to normal.
It’s understandable why this notion gained so much attention, as it promised a complete return to a world without COVID. But in reality it was probably always a pipe dream.
As time wore on, herd immunity became even less reachable.
Here’s why we’re not talking about it any more, even with the high vaccination rates we see today.
If enough people in the community develop immunity to an infectious agent such as a virus, an epidemic is unable to grow.
In fact, much like a bushfire goes out when it runs out of fuel to burn, an epidemic begins to decline when the virus runs out of susceptible people to infect.
The level of vaccine coverage needed in a population to get you over the line to achieve herd immunity is the “herd immunity threshold”.
This depends on two main parameters – the infectiousness of the virus and the effectiveness of the vaccine.
In short, the more infectious the virus and the less effective the vaccine, the more people you need to vaccinate to achieve herd immunity.
As the pandemic progressed, herd immunity via vaccination moved further and further out of reach. In fact, based on what we know about currently circulating viral variants, today, herd immunity via vaccination is mathematically impossible.
Back at the beginning of 2020, we were grappling with the original strain of SARS-CoV-2, which was much less infectious than current circulating variants.
The original strain had an estimated Ro (basic reproduction number) of two to three. That is, someone infected with the virus would spread it to, on average, two to three others.
Each person with the ancestral strain of the virus infected two to three others. But later variants infected many more. Shutterstock
If we assume we were working with a vaccine with an effectiveness of 80%, this yields a herd immunity threshold estimate of 60-80%. That is, when the original strain of the virus was circulating we would have needed to vaccinate 60-80% of the whole population to see the epidemic decline. Mathematically at least, this was not out of reach.
However, as we know, circumstances have changed dramatically over the course of the pandemic, with the original SARS-CoV-2 virus superseded by far more infectious variants.
Although estimates of the infectiousness for the variants are subject to some uncertainty, it is reasonable to assume Delta has a reproduction number of about five and Omicron may be in the ballpark of about 20, placing it up there among the most infectious diseases known.
Based on these numbers for Delta and Omicron, the herd immunity threshold estimates go up to 100-118%.
As you cannot vaccinate more than 100% of the population, you can see how relying on vaccination to achieve herd immunity has become progressively more mathematically impossible as the pandemic progressed.
That’s not all
Over the course of the pandemic we have learnt more about how the vaccines have performed in the real world and the nature of our immune response.
Vaccines don’t block all transmission
Herd immunity via vaccination, and the calculations above, assume vaccines stop transmission 100% of the time.
Although vaccines reduce transmission to a significant degree, they do not prevent it completely. If we factor this into our calculations, the challenge to achieve herd immunity becomes harder again.
Immunity wanes over time
Attaining herd immunity also assumes immunity against COVID is maintained long term. But we now know immunity wanes after vaccination and after natural infection.
So if immunity is not sustained, even if herd immunity were theoretically possible, it would only be transient. Preserving it would only come with significant effort, requiring regular delivery of boosters for the whole population.
New viral variants
Then we’ve seen new variants emerge with an ability to evade the immune response. Any change in the immunogenicity of new variants moves the goal posts further away, compromising our ability to achieve herd immunity to an even greater extent.
So why are we bothering to vaccinate?
While attaining herd immunity via vaccination is no longer a realistic proposition, this needs to be put into perspective.
Vaccines go hand-in-hand with other measures
It’s better to consider herd immunity as a gradient rather than a binary concept. That is, even if we don’t reach the herd immunity threshold, the greater the proportion of the population vaccinated, the more difficult it becomes for the virus to spread.
Therefore, vaccination can combine with other behavioural and environmental measures (such as physical distancing, wearing masks and improving ventilation), to substantially impact the ability of the virus to move through the population.
Vaccines protect individuals
Despite the allure of herd immunity, the primary purpose of COVID vaccination has always been to protect individuals from severe illness and death, and thus the impact of disease on the population.
In this regard, despite the waning protection against infection, vaccines appear to afford more sustained protection against severe disease.
So being vaccinated remains as important now as it has always been. Right now, at the start of winter and with few COVID restrictions, it has never been more important to ensure you are fully vaccinated.
Hassan Vally 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.
At the start of the pandemic, people were already worried about the virus and the impact of other public health measures, such as lockdowns, on their physical and social well-being. As COVID vaccines were rolled out, concerns mounted about the small but serious risk of blood clots linked to the AstraZeneca vaccine.
Alongside this, there has been a degree of panic around unsubstantiated rumours of adverse events – extremely rare medical problems after being vaccinated – circulating on social media.
But contrary to the popular belief that social media creates these rumours, our new research suggests social media generally only aids the spread of these rumours.
What ‘vaccine harms’ are people sharing on social media?
We have been studying community attitudes to COVID vaccinations, including the flow of information on social media, the kinds of information being shared, and by whom.
In our latest study, we tracked emerging concerns about alleged adverse events globally. We used Google Trends and Crowdtangle – a research platform for studying Facebook’s public-facing data. We focused on the most commonly searched and discussed events to track where they were coming from.
We dug into the five most frequently searched adverse events: clotting, fainting, Bell’s palsy, premature death and infertility.
News reporting on clotting was generally reasonable and in line with the threat the condition posed. Because the issue was newsworthy on its own, it did not require sensationalist reporting. Social media spread these reports globally, so the first reports of clotting, emerging from Austria, spread on Facebook pages as far as Ghana, the Philippines and Mexico within eight hours.
There was no scientific basis for the other four rumours we investigated. However, three of them drew specifically from “traditional” (television and newspaper) news reporting on specific incidents.
For example, a Tennessee nurse fainted on television shortly after receiving the Pfizer vaccine. Traditional media reports included the nurse’s own disclosure of a history of fainting and cautioned against attributing it to the vaccine.
Likewise, elderly baseball legend Hank Aaron died from natural causes two weeks after receiving a COVID vaccine on camera. He had hoped to inspire other Black Americans to be vaccinated.
These two incidents were widely reported in traditional media and soon flowed into social media posts attributing them to the vaccine.
The Bell’s palsy rumour came out of news reports in Bangladesh, which were then picked up by a UK outlet, attributing the rare condition to the Pfizer vaccine.
Infertility
The rumours of COVID vaccines causing infertility were the only ones that we could not trace to an original “traditional media” source. Instead, two internet stories misrepresenting the work, and words of scientists were shared widely on social media. Traditional media only picked up the story to report on the misinformation occurring.
We describe this as an example of vaccine sceptics “theory crafting” online. This is when a group of people on the internet use their collective resources to analyse information to develop plausible explanations for events.
In the case of infertility, a willing community misused two scientific sources to construct what they represented as compelling evidence of a cover-up. This theory then led to a persistent internet rumour that COVID vaccines caused fertility problems.
Traditional media outlets were important to those sharing the social media posts, as they treated mainstream media reports as markers of credibility.
Vaccine-sceptical communities used international media sources to build “evidence” for adverse events. They then redistributed this “evidence” among their international networks.
Disreputable outlets chased “clickbait”, accelerating the spread of misinformation. For instance, when 86-year-old Aaron died, one site led with the headline “Hank Aaron Death: MLB Legend Shockingly Passes Away Weeks After Taking COVID-19 Vaccine”. This headline spread much faster and further on social media than the majority of reports that explained Aaron’s death was not a result of his vaccination.
Inaccurate and sensationalist headlines in mainstream media went on to drive significant searches and shares. The rumours flowed globally, unfettered by national boundaries.
Despite most of the rumours we investigated gaining traction because of media reporting, journalists also played an important role in suppressing or debunking illegitimate claims.
The disruption of earlier media models clearly poses a challenge for the accuracy of information shared on the internet. The imperative for news sources to generate clicks can outweigh the imperative to provide accurate and reliable information.
So what’s the solution?
We can see no easy answers for resolving the flow of misinformation online.
However, the use of credibility markers for both authors and stories on social media is one possible solution. A system where publicly recognised topic experts can “upvote” and “downvote” news stories to produce a “credibility score” would help readers judge the perceived credibility of particular stories and information.
In the meantime, we recommend scientists and health professionals, where possible, promote their own perspectives when a story about alleged adverse events needs clarifying. Doing so can potentially change the trajectory and spread of a story.
Scientists and health professionals speaking out can’t prevent the stories from being shared within online communities of vaccine-refusers. These people are invested in sharing such information regardless of its veracity. However, professionals can limit the damaging spread of rumours once media outlets begin to report their debunking.
Katie Attwell receives funding from the Australian Research Council and the WA Department of Health. She is funded by ARC Discovery Early Career Researcher Award DE1901000158. She is a specialist advisor to the Australian Technical Advisory Group on Immunisation (ATAGI) COVID-19. All views presented in this article are her own and not representative of any other organisation.
Tauel Harper 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.
Stress is common among teachers, and recentreports suggest it’s getting worse. We need to understand the sources of this stress to improve support for teachers. Growing teacher shortages in Australia underscore the need for this support.
It is also important to identify whether there are patterns of stress experienced by individuals and groups of teachers within a school. This knowledge will tell us whether support for teachers should be targeted individually or to a teaching staff more broadly.
Our study involving 3,117 teachers at 225 Australian schools shows sources of stress do vary among individual teachers. At the same time, the school environment – workloads, student behaviour and expectations of teachers – appears important. At some schools the stress experiences of individuals mirror those of the teaching staff more broadly.
So managing stress is not just the responsibility of individual teachers. Schools have an important role to play in developing a workplace that helps to minimise their teachers’ stress.
What are the sources of teachers’ stress?
In our study, published in Teaching and Teacher Education, we examined three common sources of stress at work to see how these affect well-being among individual teachers and across a whole school teaching staff.
These three sources of stress are:
workload stress – teachers’ sense they have too much lesson preparation, instruction or marking work in the time available to them
student behaviour stress – teachers’ sense that student behaviour is overly disruptive or aggressive
expectation stress – teachers’ sense that professional/registration bodies and parents are placing very high or unrealistic expectations on them.
We first examined how the three sources of stress co-occur among teachers to identify teacher stress profiles. That is, we wanted to see if there are distinct types of teachers who experience similar patterns across the three sources. For example, are there teachers with low or high levels of all three sources of stress, and are there teachers who have mixed levels of the sources of stress?
Next, we wanted to ascertain whether different types of schools are identifiable as being more or less stressful based on the make-up of their teacher stress profiles. That is, we set out to identify different school profiles.
Once we had identified teacher and school profiles, we examined whether the different profiles were linked with work strain and work commitment. Work strain refers to the adverse outcomes of stressful work – such as feeling highly stressed and reduced mental or physical health. Work commitment refers to teachers’ attachment to their profession.
Ideally, teachers experience low strain at work, but high commitment.
average-burden profile (41%) displaying slightly above-average levels of all three stressors
high-burden profile (18%) displaying high workload stress and very high student behaviour and expectation stress.
The five teacher stress profiles reflect their experience of the combined impacts of workplace stress, student behaviour stress and expectation stress. Collie & Mansfield 2022, Author provided
Looking at links between profiles and outcomes, the low-burden profile and the two mixed-burden profiles generally displayed the lowest work strain and highest work commitment.
We then examined how these teacher profiles are distributed in schools. We identified three school profiles:
workload-oriented-climate profile (17% of schools in our sample) composed mostly of teacher profiles with high workload stress, but also a sizeable proportion displaying lower stress
behaviour-oriented-climate profile (23%) composed mostly of teacher profiles with high student behaviour stress, but also a sizeable proportion displaying lower stress
higher-pressure-climate profile (60%) composed mostly of teacher profiles with above-average to high levels of all three sources of stress.
Teachers who collectively displayed the highest levels of work strain tended to work in higher-pressure-climate schools. Levels of work commitment were also lowest among teachers in those schools.
One notable finding was the differentiation between workload stress and student behaviour stress in two teacher profiles and two school profiles. Some teachers and schools were higher in student behaviour stress. Others were higher in workload stress. And other profiles had similar levels of all types of stress.
These results suggest sources of stress at work are not necessarily specific to the individual, but reflect a broader school climate as well. So, teachers’ stress isn’t just an individual issue – some schools are more stressful places to work.
In practice, it is important that teachers have their own strategies to manage stress. At the same time, our findings suggest schools and educational systems should be aware of teachers’ collective experiences of stress and provide school-wide supports.
To reduce workload stress, research suggests supportive mentors are helpful. It’s also helpful to develop professional learning communities to share the loads of lesson preparation and marking moderation.
Reducing workload across the school is also critical. Decreasing teachers’ face-to-face teaching time and administrative tasks have been suggested as ways to do this.
A positive learning climate at school is also important. When students feel supported and are more engaged in their learning, they are less likely to be disruptive. In particular, research suggests it is important that all students feel cared for, have opportunities to succeed in their learning, and are given a say in content and tasks in the classroom.
Finally, research suggests school leaders can help reduce expectation stress by seeking out teachers’ perspectives and conveying their trust in them as professionals. Likewise, positive school-home partnerships can help ensure teachers, school leaders, students and parents are aligned in their goals.
Rebecca J Collie receives funding from the Australian Research Council.
Caroline F. Mansfield 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.
Tony Burke reads a poem aloud every day and has a piano lesson once a week.
The new minister for employment and workplace relations, as well as minister for the arts, says it’s important not to get trapped by the “facts in front of you” without any room for creative thought.
And, having been a minister before, Burke brings to government lessons learned from first time round. One of them is not to rush things like a bull at a gate.
For former ministers, a second chance at power is a rebirth, an opportunity to do things differently, avoid mistakes, as well as to augment an earlier legacy. Burke is one of more than half the new cabinet who were ministers previously.
Anthony Albanese, with the experience of the Rudd-Gillard-Rudd government, has a headful of the dos and don’ts of exercising power.
By the same token, moving into government can be like having diligently swotted for the big exam and then being hit by some left-field questions on the day.
Labor knew it would inherent a cost-of-living problem – it campaigned on it. But it didn’t expect the dramatic crisis in gas prices Australia is suddenly facing, driven by events in Europe, outages at coal-fired power stations and other factors.
Inevitably, the government is coming under pressure to “do something”, including pulling the “trigger”, established by the Coalition, that would force gas producers to divert exports to supply the domestic market. The “trigger” came after the Gillard government granted licences for gas exports from eastern Australia without any “reservation” provision for domestic use (such as exists in Western Australia).
The challenge for the government is to be seen to be on top of things, while not rushing into precipitate action.
Energy Minister Chris Bowen, another minister with extensive experience in government, including as a treasurer, walked that line on Thursday.
Bowen has convened a meeting of energy ministers for early next week, and he assured reporters Resources Minister Madeleine King was talking to gas companies and Industry Minister Ed Husic was in discussions with large industrial users.
But Bowen pointed out the “trigger”, even if pulled, couldn’t come into force until January.
The government would “take whatever action is necessary”, but after full briefings and gathering all the information.
The next few months will test the government’s ability to the limit on economic and energy issues, as it confronts major problems while trying to manage expectations.
On the gas crisis, it’s one thing to eschew, as Bowen said, the knee-jerk reaction; it’s another to find an appropriate reaction and know when it has to be applied.
Then there’s the budget. This week’s national accounts showed 3.3% annual economic growth, which was better than anticipated.
Despite this, Treasurer Jim Chalmers – one of the first-time ministers, although a chief of staff to then treasurer Wayne Swan – was negative in his language. Perhaps this is because he is anticipating bringing down what will be a difficult budget. Chalmers’ performance drew some criticism because of the risks of talking down the economy.
What the new government has been talking up is its intention (and ability) to bring a new style and tone to politics. It is setting a high bar for itself because, as the freshness wears off, political behaviour tends to revert to the old ways. The sceptics will say, we’ve held lofty sentiments before and often they haven’t come to much.
Albanese invokes the Hawke “consensus” approach as a model. A major test of this will be the jobs summit the government plans to hold ahead of the October budget.
Hawke’s 1983 economic summit is the gold standard for summits. Attended by employer, union and community representatives, it ran for a week and enabled a detailed airing of issues. In 1985, Labor’s tax summit was a much more fractured affair; it laid the path for some important reforms but failed to pull off support for Paul Keating’s desired consumption tax.
Kevin Rudd’s Australia 2020 summit, co-chaired by Glyn Davis, the man Albanese this week announced will head the prime minister’s department, was an altogether different gathering.
It was an occasion for the free flow of ideas, with an overlay of celebrity. It was criticised for the later outcomes failing to live up to the hype.
To get the best out of the jobs summit – which is to be followed by a white paper – it should be broad in the issues addressed, but focused, and backed by extensive preparatory research. It should run long enough for detailed discussion. A few hours won’t cut it.
It should also be public. This has the downside of excessive grandstanding – the usual suspects saying the usual things – and requires careful management. But it has the upside of allowing voters a (modest) degree of buy-in to the policy process.
The government is also promising to deliver a parliament that behaves and operates better. It is certainly confronting a transformed House of Representatives, in which the crossbenchers have swelled to 16 (including four Greens).
This influx would force changes of itself. For example, last term the crossbench had only one question each day – that will naturally increase.
Burke, in his role as leader of the house, is open to other changes, but makes it clear there are limits.
He is not inclined to supplementary questions (which happen in the Senate). And forget an end to “Dorothy Dixers” – questions from backbenchers inviting ministers to say what good things the government is doing. Burke thinks that’s too valuable a platform to give up.
Will we see less sledging and general bad behaviour in the house? The larger crossbench will promote an improvement. But the conduct will also depend on the strength of whoever Labor puts in as speaker, and how Peter Dutton (a natural headkicker) approaches his role of opposition leader.
As well, the tone is likely to worsen later in the term, when contestants are shaping up for another bout at the ballot box.
The public want better standards of parliamentary behaviour. But old ways are hard to break, so let’s judge in three years’ time.
Another big front on which Albanese has raised expectations is federal-state relations, although he hasn’t sketched out detail.
Scott Morrison’s national cabinet had a mixed record in the COVID era. Relations between federal and state governments varied from co-operative to fractious, depending on the time and issue.
Albanese faces four Labor states, with New South Wales and Tasmania in non-Labor hands. Not that political stripe necessarily determines where a state stands on issues – for example, the GST distribution sees WA set against other states.
Two state elections are looming – in Victoria in November, and NSW in March. If the Perrottet government, which is progressive on issues such as climate and tax, were returned, it would likely be anxious to co-operate with the Albanese government on a reform agenda. If there were a new government in Victoria, that state would likely be less co-operative.
The experience of the pandemic has profoundly altered the federation, without any formal change of the constitution. The premiers have been empowered and energised. Albanese needs to weld them together to deliver a slate of national outcomes.
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.
New Zealand Parliament Buildings, Wellington, New Zealand.
Analysis by Dr Bryce Edwards.
Political Roundup: Jacinda Ardern’s “critical” trip a success
Political scientist, Dr Bryce Edwards.
It came at a “critical moment” according to Prime Minister Jacinda Ardern, referring to her meeting yesterday with US President Joe Biden. She was talking about the need for New Zealand and its superpower ally to have dialogue in the midst of their panic over China’s increasing diplomatic presence in the Pacific region.
In fact, Ardern’s whole US trip came at a “critical moment” for her own government. She desperately needed a decent good news story, given that things have gone so badly for Labour in recent months. Ardern will be hoping that the trip resets the public’s increasingly unfavourable view of her leadership and the competence of her colleagues. She will also be hoping that it illustrates that Labour are dealing with the China-Pacific issue, given that Foreign Minister Nanaia Mahuta has been missing in action.
A sales triumph
Ardern’s trip is being seen as a triumph, and not just by the select group of journalists and business people who accompanied her. There has been positive headline after positive headline, showing the value of the whole exercise, not just for the country but for the Labour Government.
Critics might say that little of substance has actually come out of the trip. There were no significant announcements made, or agreements signed. However, there were plenty of good promotional photo opportunities and speeches made, and relationships nurtured. These are invaluable, and such symbolic and intangible aspects of the trip have rightfully been highlighted by the media.
After all, this was primarily a trade and tourism promotional trip. It was a chance for the Prime Minister to do what she does best: communicate and persuade. The Government’s line that New Zealand is “open for business” will yield results. Ardern’s appearance on TV shows will boost New Zealand’s profile.
Now that the trip is over, tributes have been flowing from the media and commentariat. Newshub’s Amelia Wade labelled it “mission accomplished”. Toby Manhire of the Spinoff said the trip “exceeded any reasonable expectations”. And Stuff’s Luke Malpass explained: “The White House trip, provided a capstone on what has been a successful tour of the US by Jacinda Ardern. The first part of the trip was about shamelessly selling New Zealand, while the second half was more politics.”
Even leftwing blogger Martyn Bradbury, who has been rather scathing lately about Ardern and her Government’s lack of delivery, had this to say: “There is little doubt that the Prime Minister’s visit to America has been an enormous diplomatic victory in capturing hearts and minds. She has generated a level of goodwill unmatched by the last 5 Prime Ministers combined. From Harvard, to the Late Show to the White House, she has dazzled and inspired.”
Of course, there will be some New Zealanders who remain unmoved. RNZ’s Emile Donovan says: “Ardern’s trip has led to some criticism and accusations that the prime minister is more concerned with burnishing her international image than effecting meaningful change at home.”
This is the view of the Australian Spectator magazine which pointed out this week that “there is a considerable disconnect between her high regard internationally and the discontent she is facing domestically”. The magazine titled their story: “Jacinda Ardern is New Zealand’s Gorbachev” – i.e. feted abroad but less positively received at home.
New Zealanders love to see our prime ministers in the international media and on the international stage. But when it occurs at a time of increasing poverty, rising cost of living pressures, and the growing perception that the Government isn’t delivering, then the glamour and celebrity of such trips can be jarring.
The Biden meeting and the Pacific
What will be remembered from Ardern’s trip is her meeting with Biden. The key issue for discussion was China in the Pacific, hence Ardern’s description of the meeting occurring at a “critical moment”.
The geopolitical reset that China is currently carrying out in the Pacific has been a damaging story for the Government, and for Foreign Minister Nanaia Mahuta in particular. The Government is perceived to have dropped the ball on our crucial relationships with Pacific Island nations at the very time the Asian superpower is seeking to develop a very strong partnership with New Zealand’s closest neighbours.
Mahuta is being severely criticised over revelations that since she took the job about two years ago, she has visited only one Pacific country. Although much of this has been down to Covid, Mahuta also doesn’t appear to have kept up much communication with her Pacific counterparts. The suspicion is that Mahuta has been more engaged with her controversial Three Waters agenda instead.
Some of the language to come out of the Ardern-Biden meeting also indicates how the New Zealand Government is shifting further into the US geopolitics camp. Ardern talked about the importance of relations with “like minded countries”, and after the meeting they spoke of the US committing to boosting its resources and relations in the Pacific.
Perhaps more significantly, the joint statement appears to commit New Zealand to a much closer defence alignment with the US – maybe even becoming a full military ally again. This will raise further questions about New Zealand’s so-called independent foreign policy, and whether the country is now going to be lined up against China, and therefore jeopardising its lucrative trade relationship.
The US-NZ statement issued from the meeting certainly showed that the two countries are united in their concern about China’s increased presence. In general, the outcome represented a hardening of the alliance between the two countries against China’s role in the region. But they were both careful not to make the meeting appear to be some sort of emergency meeting about what is happening in the Pacific.
Both countries are very clearly focused on using “soft power” in their ambitions to reassert their role in the Pacific. For example, rather than condemning any of the Pacific countries for entering into partnerships with China, Biden and Ardern spoke of trying to help the Pacific Island via their own partnerships rather than through dominating the region. For example, in announcing the US would reassert itself in the region, Biden stated: “We are not coming to dictate or lay down the law. We have more work to do in those Pacific Islands as well”.
One US Official gave the following report on Ardern and Biden’s private discussion about the need to use soft power: “They also had some fairly detailed discussion about the importance of in-person engagement with Pacific Island leaders and the importance of the United States working closely with New Zealand and other partners as we continue to step up our efforts to engage more effectively in the Pacific.”
Expect, therefore, to see more of this new soft power approach from New Zealand. There seems to be a strong awareness that western countries, having neglected the region and often played an exploitative or even colonial role, now have to be somewhat more subtle and humble towards the Pacific. It is likely that Ardern will now cease using language conveying ownership of the Pacific nations – she has until now been asserting that the islands are in New Zealand’s “backyard”.
In essence, the rise of China means that New Zealand and its allies need to lift their game and make even better offers to our neighbours than China – this will surely include greater aid and support. Coming out of their White House meeting, Biden appears to be on side with this softer strategy.
So, once again, Ardern has in the face of her less competent colleagues, managed to salvage her administration’s reputation. This success in foreign policy couldn’t have come at a more critical moment.
Further reading on Ardern in the US and China in the Pacific
Gas users and the incoming government are describing Australia’s sudden east coast energy crisis as “apocalyptic” and “a perfect storm”.
There is no doubt that a rare combination of international and domestic events, together with long-term policy shortcomings, have led to a very nasty position from which there is no easy way out.
Four events have led to the immediate crisis.
1. Coal-fired generators have been failing
First, outages at coal-fired power stations have meant that gas has been called on more than usual.
More than one quarter of coal-fired plants have been offline for much of the year so far, which is far from usual.
The system is designed so that when that happens, gas generators take their place.
2. Australia is running low on gas
Second, the Australian Energy Market Operator (AEMO) has been warning of gas supply shortages in the southeast for some time as traditional gas resources, mainly in offshore Victoria, run low.
Onshore gas development in Victoria has been prevented by a succession of state government decisions, and input terminals have been either rejected on environmental grounds or delayed due to financial barriers.
In 2012 the Gillard government rejected the idea of reserving a certain proportion for domestic consumption, as happens in Western Australia.
The history of cheap and plentiful gas in Victoria has made Victorian households and firms more dependent on gas than other Australians, and there has been little move towards electrification.
3. Europe wants non-Russian gas
Third, in their desperation to reduce their dependence on piped Russian gas, European countries have been pushing the international price of liquefied natural gas sky high, buying from countries such as Australia, Qatar and the United States.
Some Australian exporters have received prices four times or more times higher than normal.
4. Suddenly, there’s a cold snap
Finally, a cold snap on Australia’s east coast has brought forward the winter spike in demand for gas for heating.
The immediate impact of the combination of these four events has been a looming shortage of gas on the east coast, including gas to supply power stations.
Industrial gas consumers who do not have the protection of a fixed contract are facing potentially destructive prices.
Thankfully there is no immediate price impact for households using gas, as their retailers have gas supply contracts, although many households are suffering higher electricity prices because gas-fired power stations have had to be pushed into service to replace coal-fired stations.
Quick actions
AEMO has taken action, partly by imposing a wholesale price cap of $40 per gigajoule ahead of forecasts the spot price in
Victoria was set to climb $382.
The “shadow price” used to indicate what would have happened were it not for the cap, hit $800 on Tuesday.
These actions have worked, even though a price of $40 per gigajoule is financially crippling for large industrial consumers, and AEMO cannot magically source gas that isn’t there.
But no overnight answer
Chris Bowen, the new minister for climate change and energy, is already working closely with AEMO and his state and territory counterparts and industry to get complete information and advice.
The Turnbull Government introduced the Australian Domestic Gas Security Mechanism in 2017 in response to concerns that exports of liquefied natural gas from Queensland might one day create domestic shortages.
It was also concerned that gas producers were selling gas overseas at lower prices than they were asking for at home. The threat of government intervention has generally ensured supply.
But the mechanism is unlikely to be effective in addressing the current problem, for two reasons. First, there are physical limits on getting gas awaiting export in Queensland to Victoria where it is needed.
And second, to the frustration of many gas customers, the mechanism can’t bring down prices, which are set internationally. It deals only with supply.
Thankfully, no false prices
The current crisis illustrates the fundamental policy connection between electricity supply, gas markets, and climate change.
The decision to immediately convene a meeting of the national energy and resources ministers and the relevant agencies is the right first step, but only the beginning of a journey that will involve urgent and sustained reforms to the way Australia’s markets work.
The new government has indeed come to power in the face of a perfect storm, and there are more challenges ahead. Its approach so far has been constructive, measured, and cooperative – and it has resisted the temptation to make promises it can’t keep.
It is to be hoped that this new approach will enable it to navigate through to what will almost certainly be somewhat calmer waters ahead.
Tony Wood owns shares in related energy and resources companies via his super fund
Women online suffer a disproportionate amount of harm and abuse, but it isn’t all based on their gender. This “cyber violence” is also shaped by a range of other intersectingfactors such as race, religion, class, caste and disability.
Our ongoing research involves collecting case studies from both India and Australia to understand how various marginalised identities can impact young women’s experiences of online violence, and how social media companies – including Facebook, Twitter and Instagram – aren’t doing enough to stop it.
India is a rich case study for this research, as it’s a country where women have many different expressions of identity in large numbers – and where there remains a lot of racial, religious and social tension across society.
However, although Australia and India have significantly different cultures, women in both countries fall victim to onlinecrimes, including cyber stalking and cyber harassment. And those with marginalised identities have to deal with more more stigma and targeting.
What’s worse is platform content moderators are failing to recognise this cyber violence – often because they don’t understand the nuance and contexts in which stigmas operate.
What is cyber violence?
Cyber violence can be understood as harm and abuse facilitated by digital and technological means.
In 2019, there was a 63.5% increase in the number of cyber violence cases being reported in India, compared to 2018. There has since been a further rise in cases against women from marginalised communities, including Muslim and Dalit women.
One prominent example is the “Bulli Bai” app, which turned up on GitHub in July last year. The app developers used the images of some 100 Muslim women without their permission, to put them up “for sale” in a fake auction. The purpose was to denigrate and humiliate Muslim women in particular.
This is mirrored in Australia. Young Indigenous women are susceptible to being on the receiving end of cyber violence which not only targets them by gender, but also race.
A 2021 research report by eSafety found Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander women felt victimised by racist and threatening comments made online, usually in public Facebook groups. They also reported feeling unsafe and having their mental health significantly impacted.
Another example comes from New South Wales Greens Senator Mehreen Faruqi, who has received extremelyhigh levels of online abuse as Australia’s first female Muslim senator. Speaking on behalf of women from marginalised backgrounds, Faruqi said:
It is based on where I come from, what I look like, my religion.
Young women with marginalised identities
Research on cyber violence against women in India reveals how hatred towards certain religions, races and sexual orientations can make gender-based violence even more harmful.
When women express their opinions or post pictures online, they are targeted based on their marginalised identities. For instance, Kiruba Munusamy, an advocate practising in the Supreme Court of India, received racist and caste-based slurs for speaking out about sexual violence online.
And women with marginalised identities continue be victimised online, despite attempts to control this.
Take Australia’s “Safety by Design” framework, developed by the eSafety commissioner. Despite having some gathered traction in the past few years, it remains a “voluntary” code that encourages technology companies to prevent online harm through product design.
In India, hate speech against Muslims in particular has been on the rise. India has laws (albeit flawed) that can be used to deal with online abuse, but better implementation is needed.
With a Hindu majority, and radicalisation, it can be difficult to report incidents. Victims are concerned about safety and secondary victimisation, wherein they may face further abuse as a result of reporting a crime.
It’s hard to know the exact amount of cyber violence perpetrated against women with marginalised identities. Yet it’s clear these identities are linked to the amount of, and type of, abuse women face online.
One study by Amnesty International found Indian Muslim women politicians faced 94.1% more ethnic or religious slurs than women politicians of other religions, and women from marginalised castes received 59% more caste-based slurs than women from more general castes.
We’ve long understood the need for an intersectional approach to feminism. We now need the same approach to protecting women’s safety online. Shutterstock
Recognition in platform design
Five years ago, Amnesty International submitted a report to the United Nations highlighting the need for moderators to be trained in identifying gender-related and identity-related abuse on platforms.
Similarly, in 2019 Equality Labs in India published an advocacy report discussing how Facebook failed to protect people from marginalised Indian communities. This is despite Facebook having caste, religion and gender as “protected” categories under hate speech guidelines.
Yet in 2022 social media companies and moderators still need to do more to approach cyber violence through an intersectional lens. While platforms have country-specific moderation teams, moderators will often lack cultural competency and literacy on matters of caste, religion, sexuality, disability and race. There could be various reasons for this, including a lack of diversity among staff and contractors.
In a 2020 report by Mint, one moderator working for Facebook India said she’s expected to achieve an accuracy report of 85% minimum to keep her job. In practise, this means she can’t spend more than 4.5 seconds on content being reviewed. Such structural issues can also contribute to the problem.
Content moderation can be complex, and requires collective expertise from communities and advocates. One way forward is to enforce transparency, accountability and resource allocation to build solutions within social media companies.
In November last year, the Australian government released the draft of a bill aimed at holding social media companies accountable for content posted on their platforms, and protecting people from trolls.
It’s anticipated these regulations will ensure platforms are held responsible for harmful content that affects users.
The authors do not work for, consult, own shares in or receive funding from any company or organisation that would benefit from this article, and have disclosed no relevant affiliations beyond their academic appointment.
Tony Burke is the minister for employment and workplace relations and minister for the arts, as well as the leader of the House of Representatives.
One of his first tasks is the government’s new submission for the minimum wage case, which will say these workers should not be left behind, as inflation has spiked.
If the Fair Work Commission gives a 5.1% rise, in line with inflation, is there a case for it not flowing through to awards, or all awards?
“I can’t imagine a situation where there was no flow-through at all. The commission always has the capacity to work out how the flow-through might happen.” He notes one option floated has been a flat dollar increase so the flow-through happened differently.
“The commission will work that through. But certainly there are many awards that are not far from the minimum wage.
“And when we talk about the heroes of the pandemic a lot of those people are on those awards. So while the focus has been specifically minimum wage, I tend to use the term low-paid workers.”
On reforming parliament, Burke says he is not trying to get rid of the anger. He doesn’t want to turn parliament into “a quiet, polite dinner party”.
“The debate is fierce and passionate and real. I think that matters and I think it’s good for democracy.”
Nor is he in favour of scrapping “dorothy dixers”, because the government needs the opportunity to tell the house what it is doing.
But there will be more questions for the larger crossbench, and he flags the government won’t so routinely shut down opposition moves for debates.
“Standing Orders say there’s one question from the crossbench. With a crossbench as large as what we’re now facing, that’s just not sustainable.”
Without changing that, “you’re effectively telling a very large number of Australians that because they didn’t vote for a major party, their voice is going to be heard less.”
Burke says he has a passion for the arts – he was briefly arts minister at the end of the last Labor government – and laments a lack of a cultural policy in recent years.
“In cultural terms, what the arts, events, entertainment sector do matters to who we are as Australians. And that affects your education policy, your health policy, your trade policy, your foreign affairs policy. Nor has there been any guidance that these are serious industries and these are serious jobs.”
The arts are really important in giving people a capacity to imagine and create, Burke says. They are “really important for us as a nation. I don’t think we’ve had an arts minister see it as a priority in that sense for a long time, and I really want to bring that back”.
Michelle Grattan does not work for, consult, own shares in or receive funding from any company or organisation that would benefit from this article, and has disclosed no relevant affiliations beyond their academic appointment.
Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Andrew Gunstone, Executive Director Reconciliation Strategy and Leadership, and Professor Indigenous Studies, Swinburne University of Technology
May 27 marks the 1967 Referendum that enabled the Commonwealth government to make laws for Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander peoples, and for Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander peoples to be counted in the Census.
June 3 observes the 1992 Mabo decision that overturned the myth of terra nullius – “land belonging to no one” – and recognised the existence of native title.
The Council for Aboriginal Reconciliation established National Reconciliation Week in 1996. Since 2001, Reconciliation Australia has led the week and the reconciliation movement more broadly. This work embodies the “people’s movement” called for at the 1997 Australian Reconciliation Convention.
Today’s (2 June) launch of the National Centre for Reconciliation Practice will further national understandings of reconciliation beyond this allocated week in June. Through a range of programs, the centre will explore areas such as self determination, cultural safety, and Indigenous Knowledges.
The reconciliation movement has garnered significant engagement from national, state and territory, and local reconciliation bodies.
This has included commitments to Reconciliation Action Plans from 2000 organisations with a reach of 4 million people, including workplaces, schools, universities, clubs, local councils, and many other organisations across the country.
Reconciliation Action Plans articulate an organisation’s commitment to reconciliation through measures such as increasing the employment of Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander people in their organisation. These plans also examine how to make workplaces culturally safe through actions such as cultural training and additional learning, and encouraging engagement with Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander businesses.
However, the nation currently faces some crucial moments in its reconciliation journey. We have the opportunity to address long-standing reconciliation-related areas, including Indigenous rights, treaties, truth telling and reparative justice.
Committed to this vision of reconciliation, Swinburne University is today launching the National Centre for Reconciliation Practice. Swinburne’s 2020-23 Elevate Reconciliation Action Plan’s primary commitment is the national centre, which is the first of it’s kind in Australia.
Led by Andrew Gunstone (this article’s lead author), the National Centre engages with a broad range of reconciliation matters. The National Centre also explores how Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander peoples and non-Indigenous peoples can collaborate in the national reconciliation journey.
The Centre does this through engagement, outreach, education and research activities. In particular four research programs led by Swinburne Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander academics. Each program relates to key areas of Swinburne’s Reconciliation Action Plan and concerns elements critical for sustainable reconciliation.
The programs are Cultural Safety, led by Wiradjuri scholar Sadie Heckenberg; Indigenous Knowledge, led by Yarra Yarra/ Yorta Yorta/ Ngarai illum Wurrung man Andrew Peters; Indigenous Rights, led by Garrwa scholar Emma Gavin; and Reconciliation Movements, led by Wiradjuri scholar Wendy Hermeston.
The National Centre is engaging with Reconciliation Australia, industry, communities, academia and governments to help lead national systemic change in reconciliation, with a range of current projects:
Documenting the history of the Australian reconciliation movement to better understand current reconciliation matters.
Working with Reconciliation Australia to develop several national RAP and reconciliation impact measurement tools.
Working with Reconciliation Australia to create industry-focused online training modules on Reconciliation Action Plans and reconciliation.
Working with Reconciliation Victoria to examine attitudes in the Victorian reconciliation movement on reconciliation matters.
Creating online teaching modules on decolonising and Indigenising higher education and vocational education.
Working with Ember Connect on empowering Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander women in spaces of education.
Institutions, national, state and local governments each have a role in genuinely and tangibly committing to reconciliation and making their organisations culturally safe for Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander people.
As a nation, we must ensure real commitment to Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander self-determination. We must acknowledge the nation’s dark past so we can walk together in the present, as the Uluru Statement from the Heart calls for, “in a movement of the Australian people for a better future”.
Andrew Gunstone is Executive Director of Reconciliation Strategy and Leadership and leads the National Centre for Reconciliation Practice at Swinburne University. He receives funding from the Australian Research Council and the Department of Education. He is Co-Chair of Reconciliation Victoria.
Andrew Peters works for Swinburne University as a Senior Lecturer in Indigenous Studies, and is a Research Lead for the National Centre for Reconciliation Practice.
Emma Gavin works for Swinburne University and is a Research Lead for the National Centre for Reconciliation Practice.
Sadie Heckenberg is a Research Lead within Swinburne’s National Centre for Reconciliation Practice. She receives funding from the Australian Research Council, is the President-Elect of the National Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Higher Education Consortium and sits on the ARC’s College of Experts. She is affiliated with the National Tertiary Education Union, as the Victorian representative on the Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Policy Committee.
Wendy Hermeston works for Swinburne University and is a Research Lead (Reconciliation Movements), for the National Centre for Reconciliation Practice.
Spain recently announced plans to legislate menstrual leave. This is extra leave for those who experience severe period pain.
The decision has sparked public debate about whether Australia should introduce a similar scheme.
But while Australians should have access to menstrual leave, they also need period-friendly policies they can access first. A “menstrual policy” offers an employer-endorsed pathway to manage symptoms in the workplace.
For office workers, this would ideally include: working where most comfortable within the office and the use of heat packs, where helpful; flexible working arrangements to reduce the impact of period pain; as well as access to paid leave.
Menstrual leave has been around for a century. In 1922, the Soviet Union enacted protective labour laws to guard the menstrual health of women workers to “fulfil their reproductive and maternal functions”.
Japan introduced seirikyuuka (menstrual leave) in 1947. The battle for these rights began as early as 1928, when women transport workers demanded change due to inadequate sanitary facilities. It exists today, but has low uptake and generates resentment from colleagues.
Some menstrual leave programs have been in place for decades and have their pros and cons. Mimi Thian/Unsplash
Similarly, Indonesia introduced a menstrual policy in 1948, however some Indonesian women are frustrated that their right to access menstrual leave is not upheld consistently.
In 2020, Vietnam granted women an extra half an hour break, three days a month (fully paid) for those who are menstruating. However, they offer a bonus payment to those women who don’t take any leave.
History shows us that in addition to policy, education needs to accompany any proposed policy to reduce discrimination, uneven application and hesitancy around uptake.
What has Spain proposed?
Spain may become the first European country to introduce menstrual leave for women who experience severe period pain. If the proposed legislation passes, those who menstruate will have access up to three days of paid leave per month.
But a medical certificate must be supplied. For those working in low-paying jobs, the cost of obtaining a medical certificate could outweigh the benefit.
So what are the alternatives?
Australian organisations are leading the world in this space. Future Super and Modibodi have introduced menstrual policies, rather than menstrual leave alone. Their policies are based on a menstrual and menopause policy developed by the Victorian Women’s Trust.
The policy encourages organisations to offer staff flexibility in managing when they work and where they work to best manage their symptoms. They also urge staff to modify their workstation by sitting in a more comfortable location and using a heat pack as necessary.
The final support for employees is the right to access paid leave that they don’t have to pay back, or provide a doctor’s certificate to access.
Mentrual policies should offer staff flexibility to manage their symptoms. Shutterstock
Of course, this approach won’t fit all sectors, especially mining or construction sites. Working from home, flexible start times, or modifying your work station, is often impossible.
However, a menstrual policy that mandates all employees have access to hot water, soap and a hygienic place to dispose of period products, could go a long way. This might seem basic, but unfortunately these provisions are not always available to women working in trades.
Women in the service industry face a different set of challenges. They often don’t have a choice about when they can go to the toilet, and may struggle to afford period products or the doctor’s visit required to access sick leave.
For these workplaces, providing free period products, allowing easier access to toilet breaks, and removing the need for a doctors certificate could make a substantial difference.
Essentially, a menstrual policy should prompt employers to consider how their workplace can be reasonably adapted to support those who want to work while navigating menstruation and support those who temporarily just can’t.
This needs to be done in a way that is sensitive to social, cultural and class-based differences. How it will be perceived by the portion of the workforce who don’t menstruate also needs to be considered.
What are the risks?
Despite the potential benefits of menstrual leave for Australia, if introduced, this policy will exist in a society that (in some quarters) shames menstruation and sees it as something to hide.
Some people worry those who access a menstrual policy may seem unreliable, likely to abuse leave provisions, or be considered too expensive to employ.
Menstruators may face workplace discrimination and harassment to access the leave. In Indonesia, for example, people have been asked to remove their underwear to “prove” they were menstruating.
If given a choice, it’s likely people experiencing severe menstrual pain would rather not need additional supports. But they do. A menstrual policy is a necessary step towards supporting women and people who menstruate to stay in the workforce.
Mike Armour receives funding from Endometriosis Australia and Western Sydney University in relation to endometriosis and the workplace. He is the chair of Endometriosis Australia’s Clinical Advisory Committee.
Emilee Gilbert, Michelle O’Shea, and Sarah Duffy 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.
Under the Morrison government, LGBTIQ+ people were subjected to a steady stream of attacks, including:
Peter Dutton banning the defence department and serving military personnel from holding morning teas where staff wore rainbow clothing to mark the International Day Against Homophobia, Biphobia, Interphobia and Transphobia (IDAHOBIT), on the basis that this constituted a “woke agenda”
A refusal to protect teachers at religious schools from being fired because of their sexual orientation or gender identity
Three separate attempts to pass the Religious Discrimination Bills, widely considered a sword with which to attack LGBTIQ+ people rather than a shield to protect people of faith from discrimination
Morrison supporting Katherine Deves, the Liberal candidate for Warringah, despite her repeated, spiteful attacks on trans people
Morrison endorsing Tasmanian Senator Claire Chandler’s Save Women’s Sports Bill that sought to exclude trans women from single-sex sports.
These assaults had the cumulative effect of making sexual and gender minorities feel like outsiders at best, and unwelcome intruders in the Coalition government’s heteronormative, cisgender vision of Australia at worst.
This, coupled with the prejudice and persecution trans people are already subjected to, has contributed to serious harm to the mental health of LGBTIQ+ people.
One easy and long overdue reform Labor has committed to is counting LGBTIQ+ people in the next census (in 2026). Although the 2021 census asked all sorts of personal questions about income and health conditions, there was no opportunity for LGBTIQ+ people to record their sexual orientation, gender identity or intersex status.
The Australian Bureau of Statistics had drafted and tested such questions but left them out of the census following then Assistant Treasurer Michael Sukkar expressing “a preference” that such questions not be included.
Collecting data about diversity in sexual orientation, gender identity and intersex status provides LGBTIQ+ people with a sense they’re seen and included. It’s also vital to the development of appropriate evidenced-based policies and reforms.
Another commitment by Labor ahead of the election was to amend anti-discrimination laws so that all students are protected from discrimination on any grounds, and all teachers are protected from discrimination at work (while maintaining the right of religious schools to preference people of faith in the selection of staff).
This is a long overdue reform. Too many teachers have beensacked because of their sexual orientation.
It’s easy to compare Labor’s policies relating to LGBTIQ+ people to those of the previous government, and be delighted with the positive changes. However, using the Morrison government as the benchmark is setting the bar way too low. A more appropriate yardstick is that developed by Equality Australia, who used a traffic light system to evaluate the parties’ policies. It found while Labor’s policies are much better than the Coalition’s, there’s still room for improvement.
Although Labor has secured a majority in the lower house, it doesn’t control the Senate. The Greens look set to have 12 senators in the upper house, which places them in a strong negotiating position to secure the implementation of their LGBTIQ+ policies.
While some of the Greens’ policies relate to matters that fall within the jurisdiction of the states rather than the federal government (for example, banning conversion practices), they also have policies the Albanese government would do well to adopt.
This includes having a federal minister for equality. Such ministries exist in Victoria and the UK, and help promote equality of opportunity for everyone.
The Greens also advocate for the appointment of a LGBTIQ+ Human Rights Commissioner within the Australian Human Rights Commission (AHRC), joining other specialist commissioners such as the Race Discrimination Commissioner.
This would be a valuable addition to the AHRC, strengthening its capacity to proactively respond to discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation, gender identity and intersex status.
This is particularly important at this time. We are seeing an increase in violent attacks on LGBTIQ+ people in the US following a sharp rise in anti-LGBTIQ+ laws being debated in nearly 40 of the 50 states.
These developments are a wake-up call for what could happen in Australia if we become complacent.
A tipping point?
Albanese’s victory speech gives us a sense that the treatment of LGBTIQ+ people is about to change dramatically.
The new prime minister said he wants Australia to be a country where “no matter where you live, who you worship, who you love or what your last name is, that places no restrictions on your journey in life”. Now we need to pay close attention to see whether the new government not only delivers on its election promises, but also works with the Greens to see some of their policies implemented.
June is Pride Month – an opportunity to honour the 1969 Stonewall Uprising in New York. The Stonewall riots were a tipping point for the gay liberation movement in the United States. This Pride Month may be a tipping point for the Australian LGBTIQ+ community; a new government that values equality, diversity and respect for all people, is certainly a cause for celebration.
Paula Gerber 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.
You’re taking a stroll through the park on a cold winter’s morning, when it hits you – the need to find a bathroom, and quick! This didn’t used to happen in summer.
Is there something about winter that makes us need to pee more?
We study the bladder and lower urinary tract. Here are two main explanations for what’s going on.
In summer, we tend to be outside and more active. We sweat more (to lose heat) and it’s easy to become dehydrated if we don’t drink enough water.
This impacts the amount of free fluid our body is willing to excrete, and our urine volume is often reduced because of this.
In winter, we’re often indoors, around water sources, so we are more likely to be hydrated, less active, and to sweat less. As such, we tend to have more free fluid to excrete via our urine.
Initially, blood is diverted away from the skin to avoid losing its heat to the outside air. This means more blood ends up flushing through your internal organs.
In particular, blood rushes to your kidneys in a greater volume and at a higher pressure. This increases the amount the kidneys need to filter. As a result, your rate of urine excretion increases.
Our diet, age, blood pressure, and personal situation can all impact how much we urinate.
Could you have a small bladder? Or an overactive bladder?
Producing more urine can also be a sign of hypothermia. This is your body responding to the cold as a stressor, so act quickly. Find somewhere away from the cold, and slowly warm up your body.
If the increased urine is also accompanied by other symptoms, such as extensive shivering, breathing difficulties, or confusion, seek medical attention immediately.
If you’re out in the cold, you may not feel thirsty. Nonetheless, be sure to drink plenty of fluids during the day. Although it may be tempting to avoid drinking so you don’t need to keep rushing to the bathroom, this can lead to dehydration.
Keep drinking fluids, even in winter. Shutterstock
If you’re often out in the cold in light gear, and you find this increases your urinary output, there can be impacts over the long term.
Frequent urination can be detrimental to your body’s natural salt balance (particularly sodium and potassium). So be sure to maintain a healthy diet.
It does seem like a bit of a balancing game. The key, however, is to avoid stressing your body this way when it’s cold. To do this, be sure to dress appropriately and keep warm.
Although the body has mechanisms to make you urinate more in the cold, not everyone notices peeing more in winter.
If you keep warm, there’s no reason to think your body would often be “shocked” into responding to cold temperatures.
In fact, when tracked in research studies, it has been common for researchers to record no difference in urinaryoutput between the seasons.
What about the urine?
It’s not just the volume of urine that might be different in winter. The composition can change too.
The body excretes a higher amount of calcium in the urine during winter.
This is more likely due to lifestyle during cold seasons rather than anything internal. We tend to be less active in winter, gain extra weight, and eat more salty, preserved and processed foods.
This means there can be a higher risk of developing kidney stones during winter for people who are susceptible.
So as the weather cools down, be sure to maintain a healthy lifestyle, stay warm, and don’t forget to stay hydrated, even when it’s cold.
The authors do not work for, consult, own shares in or receive funding from any company or organisation that would benefit from this article, and have disclosed no relevant affiliations beyond their academic appointment.
If so, he would be wise not to follow in the footsteps of his predecessor Josh Frydenberg, who tried for more than a year to introduce Australia’s first so-called Patent Box before the legislation lapsed ahead of the election without a vote.
First introduced in Ireland in the early 1970s, and adopted later in countries such as France, Spain, China and the United Kingdom, patent boxes are said to get their name from a box on the tax form that companies tick if they have income deriving from intellectual property, which is taxed at a discounted rate.
Former treasurer Josh Frydenberg, wanted to tax income from patents at a lower rate.
The theory is that if such income is taxed less, international corporations will do more of their research and development in Australia.
When announced in the 2021 budget, the discount was to be limited to income from patents on medical and biological technologies, although (also before the bill became law) the 2022 budget announced plans to extend it to agricultural and low emission technologies.
Income derived directly from patents in these fields was to be taxed at just 17%, instead of the prevailing company tax rate of 30%.
Doubts ahead of time
Doubts were expressed ahead of time. In 2015 the industry department’s office of the chief economist said while a patent box tax break would certainly increase
the number of patent applications filed, most of the extra ones were
“likely to be opportunistic” (filed on inventions that would have taken place without patents).
Any extra patent fees collected were unlikely to offset the tax lost.
And the advice had a broader point. Rewarding investors well after risky research had been undertaken was unlikely to do much to encourage such research.
Research and development tax credits, on the other hand, provide tax breaks at time the research is being funded, according to one Australian study, creating A$1.90 of research for each dollar of tax lost.
Supporters of the concept point to the Australian biotech company CSL Limited, which set up a new plant in Switzerland rather than Australia in 2014 in part because Switzerland had a patent box and Australia did not.
Critics observe that income from patents is highly mobile, meaning it can be easily separated from real inventive activity moved across borders.
One study found 40% of multinational profits had been moved from one location to another on the basis of tax rather than where the profits were made.
Another study noted that businesses can get the tax breaks by acquiring patents eligible for patent box treatment without doing the patentable research.
A review of the UK scheme published in November 2021 identified “abuse and boundary-pushing” and made a number of recommendations designed to refocus it on activity actually taking place within the UK.
It was to be limited to income derived from patents issued after budget night 2021, which meant (at least at first) it would be limited to income derived from new patents.
Licensees of patents would not be eligible, only firms that held the patent themselves.
And, where patents were filed overseas, they had to be owned in Australia, and the underlying research had to have occurred in Australia.
Labor has given no guarantee it will proceed with the scheme announced in the past two budgets and not yet legislated.
There are reasons why it should not. Australia’s really big productivity gains, in the 1990s and early 2000s, had more to do with reforming or replacing lacklustre industries than with patents.
Australia is on the cusp of yet another transformation, into a low-carbon energy producer and exporter. This is where our focus should be, rather than on tinkering with tax support for innovations that might take place regardless.
Beth Webster receives funding from the Australian and Victorian departments of industry and trade and the Australian Research Council.
Opposition People’s National Congress leader Peter O’Neill is urging Papua New Guinea’s Prime Minister James Marape and the government to refrain from signing any agreements with China when their foreign minister visits Port Moresby today.
“Now is not the right time,” the former prime minister said of the visit by Chinese Foreign Minister Wang Yi, and of any likely deals to be struck between the two countries.
Using more diplomatic words, he said: “A foreign minister of any nation visiting our country is an honour and as a gracious host, PNG would welcome the opportunity to showcase our culture, country, and investment opportunities, especially with a world superpower such as China.”
“Democratic processes such as National General Elections only come around every five years in PNG and the small window of eight weeks of our election timetable should be preserved without international, high-level visits,” he said.
The Chinese top government envoy, who is State Councillor and Foreign Minister, jets into Port Moresby just after midday today for a short visit to meet Prime Minister Marape and Foreign Minister Soroi Eoe.
China and PNG will sign off on a Green Sustainable Development Policy which also covers Trade and Investment and Energy, among other issues.
Foreign Affairs Secretary Elias Wohengu said yesterday that the visit would be brief as he would arrive in the night and would head back to China after meeting Eoe and paying a courtesy call on Marape.
Bilateral meeting tomorrow He said that the official bilateral meeting would be held on Friday morning with Eoe.
“The meeting will be minister-plus nine on both sides,” Wohengu said.
“Thirty minutes after the meeting, he will make courtesy call on Prime Minister James Marape before he flies out of the country to China.
“He will sign one agreement, which is the Green Sustainable Development Policy.
“On the security status of PNG, we will deal with it ourselves.
“He is coming back on his return trip to China from his Pacific Islands Forum ministers meeting which was held yesterday, co-chaired it physically out of Suva.
PNG the ‘last lap’ “So on his return lap, his last country visit is PNG before he flies out.
“He was in Fiji and also visited other Pacific Island countries.
“There has been resentment over Pacific Agreement on security matters.”
China has said it is willing to make joint efforts with PNG to inject stronger impetus into the overall development of relations between China and the Pacific Island countries.
“Both as developing countries, China is also willing to, together with Papua New Guinea, strengthen strategic coordination, and jointly voice maintenance for multilateralism and support for free trade in various international arenas,” it has said.
O’Neill said in his statement that writs for the elections were issued on May 12 dissolving the current Parliament and Members of Parliament were now contesting the election and should not sign any agreements on behalf of the State, particularly with China.
“All election related preparations have been made or should have been made well in advance and any donations of security equipment or agreements for China to provide security or election support this late in the timetable is improper,” he said.
‘Superpower tensions’ “Tensions in the region between global superpowers from the West and China are driving foreign leaders to give a high amount of attention to the Pacific.
“These tensions that exist between larger countries are not our doing and we should not be unnecessarily caught up as these larger nations shadowbox.
“We desperately need partnerships with high quality investors to lift the standards of living for our people, but they must comply with our procurement laws and be done in a transparent way to ensure the best returns for our people.
“There are some Chinese companies and, indeed, some Singaporean and Australian companies, who have not been subject to normal procurement procedures that warrant urgent investigation.”
O’Neill said Marape should not have encouraged this visit which draws PNG into a regional and global matter that it does not have any business on choosing sides.
Foreign Minister Penny Wong’s decision to embark on a diplomatic offensive to outflank China in the Pacific within days of being sworn in has yielded what appears to have been an early success.
Whether Wong’s intervention gave Pacific leaders pause about a wide-ranging economic and security pact with China or they would have baulked anyway, the fact is Australian diplomacy can claim a dividend.
In the process, the country appears to have a new foreign minister who will engage in more creative and activist foreign policy then her predecessor.
Chinese Foreign Minister Wang Yi’s extensive tour of the Pacific has been aimed at extending Beijing’s influence in the region at a moment when regional leaders had grown restive about Australia’s commitment to its immediate neighbourhood.
The Morrison government’s equivocation on climate has not sat well with leaders of the Pacific’s micro-states.
Chinese Foreign Minister Wang Yi’s tour of the Pacific has come at a time when regional leaders were unsure of Australia’s commitment to its neighbourhood. Image: AAP/AP
Wong’s mission appears to have succeeded on three important fronts:
it has reassured Pacific neighbours that a new Labor government will do more than pay lip service to their concerns about climate and other issues
Wong has made it clear Canberra will not be reticent in contesting Beijing’s influence in the region
her mission has enabled her to assert her own authority early over the foreign policy and security reach of her portfolio.
This latter aspect will be important in how and in what form Australia responds to Chinese overtures aimed at achieving a re-set in relations.
Labor governments have long managed the relationship well In one respect, the new Labor government has history on its side.
This year marks the 50th anniversary of the establishment of diplomatic relations between Canberra and Beijing.
All these years later, another Labor government has the opportunity to re-set Australia’s relations with the dominant regional player at a moment when the Indo-Pacific is undergoing profound change.
Few would reasonably argue against the proposition that a “re-set” is overdue after years of drift and ill-will under the Morrison government.
The question for Prime Minister Anthony Albanese and his national security team is how to proceed in a way that conforms with Australia’s national interest, is faithful to its values, and enables Canberra’s voice to be inserted in regional councils.
Wong has, for some time, been sketching out a more creative foreign policy approach — evident in her Pacific initiative — that will seek to expand Australia’s regional relationships and, where appropriate, take the lead in alignment with the country’s national interest.
In this sense, the joint communique on December 21 1972, signalling the establishment of diplomatic relations between Australia and the People’s Republic of China, makes interesting reading.
Unlike Richard Nixon’s Shanghai communique of 1972, which fudged the Taiwan issue, the Whitlam government document is explicit.
The Australian government recognises the Government of the People’s Republic of China as the sole legal Government of China, acknowledges the position of the Chinese Government that Taiwan is a province of the People’s Republic of China, and has decided to remove its official representation from Taiwan before 25 January, 1973.
Albanese and his security policy team can be sure this document will not be gathering dust in a Chinese Foreign Ministry archive.
China’s attachment to anniversaries is one of the more notable features of its diplomacy. These occasions may be used for political purposes, but history weighs heavily on Beijing’s foreign policy calculations.
Albanese government should jump on the promise of a thaw When Prime Minister Li Keqiang promptly sent a congratulatory message to Albanese on the latter’s success in the recent election, Labor’s historic shift towards Beijing back in 1972 will not have been overlooked.
The wording of Li’s message was pointed. It said, in part, that China was:
ready to work with the Australian side to review the past, face the future, uphold principles of mutual respect, mutual benefit.
Beijing talks a lot about “mutual respect” and “mutual benefit”. These are phrases that are, more often that not, designed to deflect criticism of China’s human rights abuses and other bad behaviour.
But taken together with overtures for a “re-set” by the new Chinese ambassador in Canberra, Xiao Qian, Beijing has clearly decided it is in China’s interests to turn the page on a sour period between the countries.
Asked at his press conference after the conclusion of Quad talks in Tokyo about his response to the conciliatory message from Li, Albanese simply said:
I welcome that. And we will respond appropriately in time when I return to Australia.
In other responses to questions about troubled relations with China, the new prime minister has said it is up to Beijing to start removing sanctions on Australian exports.
These Albanese responses are prudent. There is no point in rushing to acknowledge such overtures. However, he would be making a mistake if he seeks to prolong what has the makings of a thaw.
He might remind himself that virtually all of Australia’s western allies, including America, have working relations with Beijing that enable officials to engage in a constructive dialogue, despite differences.
Australian Prime Minister Anthony Albanese’s responses to China so far have been prudent. Image: Lukas Coch/AAP
Australia’s first ambassador to China, Stephen Fitzgerald, has some wise counsel for the new government in Canberra about how to better manage relations with Beijing.
Australia under a Labor government must now return to diplomacy, talking with the PRC, for which it is ready and putting away the megaphone of gratuitous criticism, insult and condemnation which were the hallmarks of Morrison’s China policy. If we do this, there will be many issues on which we can have constructive engagement.
One of these issues can — and should — be the continued detention in China of two Australian citizens, the journalist Cheng Lei and the democratic activist Yang Hengjun. Progress towards their release should be a condition of improved relations, along with removal of punitive tariffs on imports of such items as wine and barley.
Finally, Albanese’s security policy team should pay particular attention to US Secretary of State Anthony Blinken’s landmark foreign policy speech delivered to the Asia Society in Washington on May 26.
In that speech, Blinken laid down guidelines for the conduct of relations with Beijing in a world whose foundations are shifting. His words bear repeating as a template for Canberra’s own interactions with Beijing.
We are not looking for conflict or a new Cold War […] We don’t seek to block China from its role as a major power […] But we will defend [the international order] and make it possible for all countries – including the United States and China – to coexist and co-operate.
Blinken’s attempts to define a workable China policy should be regarded in the same vein as another important statement delivered 17 years ago by then Deputy Secretary of State Robert Zoellick in New York. In that speech, Zoellick said:
We now need to encourage China to become a responsible stakeholder in the international system.
Blinken’s and Zoellick’s interventions, two decades apart, are important guardrails for a constructive relationship with China.
Church bells and police sirens rang out across Samoa at midnight to herald the start of 12 months of nationwide celebrations for the 60th year of independence from New Zealand.
Prime Minister Fiame Naomi Mata’afa, who is the chair of the Independence Committee, raised the flag of freedom at a ceremony this morning, along with a 21-gun salute by police.
Fiame announced earlier that only local dignitaries were invited to this morning’s event.
Chief Executive Officer of the Ministry of Prime Minister and Cabinet, Agafili Shem Leo, told media that foreign dignitaries and overseas guests were expected at the main celebrations in September, after international borders open in August.
Fiame Mata’afa Faumuina Mulinu’u II and Keith Holyoake lower the trustee flags on Samoan Independence Day, 1 January 1962. Image: Archives New Zealand
At the same time, the annual Teuila Festival will be revived after being on hold for the last three years because of the measles outbreak and then the coronavirus pandemic.
The organising committee had asked all villages and districts to plan and hold their celebrations during the 12 months of celebrations.
This article is republished under a community partnership agreement with RNZ.
Papua New Guinea’s Energy Minister Saki Soloma and his supporters had to run for their lives when they were attacked by rival candidate supporters in Okapa station on Friday with the national elections due in July.
His supporters were also injured when they protected Soloma from being harmed as they ran helter-skelter.
The mob then set fire to Soloma’s five vehicles that were used for a rally and visit to a market area.
Recalling his life-threatening ordeal, Soloma, who is also the Okapa MP, said: “We were on our way to the market area at about noon when we spotted a huge crowd of supporters at a rally.
“They were unfriendly and did not seem to want us there. A bottle was then thrown at my convoy of vehicles and all hell broke loose.
“We jumped out of our vehicles and ran for our lives.
“When the assailants could not find us, they torched all our vehicles.
‘Bad precedent for elections’ “The attack and burning of my convoy of vehicles is a bad precedent for general elections.
“I’d like to think that it was pre-planned.
“Objects like catapults were also used in the attack.
“My supporters fled in all directions.
“Some received knife wounds but no lives were lost.
“Everyone should be allowed to campaign peacefully and freely.
“Papua New Guineans should also be allowed to make their choice and cast their ballots safely.”
Warning against taking law into own hands Soloma said he advised and cautioned his supporters to refrain from taking the law into their own hands.
Energy Minister Saki Soloma … ran for his life when opponents attacked his convoy of five vehicles and set them on fire during an election campaign rally. Image: The National
“I have spoken to the provincial police commander. I understand police are investigating,” he said.
“I am very sorry that this had happened.
“It is all a reckless, irresponsible behaviour and jealousy.
“I appeal to other candidates to demonstrate leadership and ensure peace is restored for Papua New Guineans to exercise their right to choose and cast their ballots safely.”
Eastern Highlands commander Superintendent Michael Welly said those responsible would be dealt with accordingly.
Meanwhile, Electoral Commissioner Simon Sinai warned that anyone caught pulling down or burning campaign posters and election materials or paraphernalia would be fined or imprisoned.
Shirley Mauludu is a National newspaper reporter. Republished with permission.
French Polynesia’s pro-independence leader and mayor of Faa’a, Oscar Temaru, says double standards are at play in probing him over the payment of his legal defence.
Temaru commented on being held for six hours last week for questioning over the Faa’a Council’s decision to pay his legal bill in a 2019 court case, which is still under appeal.
The prosecution claimed the payment amounted to an abuse of public funds and that Temaru should have paid for the expense with his own money.
A lawyer acting for Temaru said the council was obliged to cover the mayor’s bill, describing last week’s brief detention of Temaru as a bid to tarnish him.
Temaru said such cover had for example been extended to the former chief-of-staff of Nicolas Sarkozy, Claude Gueant.
As part of the probe, the prosecutor in 2020 ordered the seizure of Temaru’s US$100,000 personal savings — a move being challenged by Temaru.
The probe drew criticism as his defence team risked court action for accepting funds that the prosecutor claimed were unduly allotted to Temaru’s benefit.
Prosecutor’s move challenged One lawyer, David Koubbi, raised the prosecutor’s move with a 22-member agency which rules on professional ethics.
In the 2019 court case, Temaru and two others were given suspended prison sentences and fines in the criminal court in Pape’ete.
Mayor of Faa’a Oscar Temaru … being punished because in the eyes of France he “committed treason” by taking French presidents to the International Criminal Court over nuclear weapons tests. Image: Tinfos 30
They were convicted for exercising undue influence over funding arrangements for a community station, Radio Tefana, which supports Temaru’s pro-independence political party Tavini Huiraatira.
In what was his first conviction, Temaru was given a six-month suspended prison sentence and a US$50,000 fine.
The current and former chairs of the board of the association which runs Radio Tefana, Heinui Le Caill and Vito Maamaatuaiahutapu, had also been given suspended jail sentences of one and three months, respectively.
Radio Tefana was fined US$1 million.
Maamaatuaiahutapu said it would have been easier to blow up the station with dynamite instead of having a trial.
US$1m fine five times radio’s budget Le Caill said the station’s US$1 million fine was five times its budget, meaning the station was unable to pay and would have to close.
At the time of the trial, Temaru said if he had to be convicted, he should be jailed for life.
After sentencing, Temaru said he was being punished because in the eyes of France he “committed treason” by taking French presidents to the International Criminal Court over nuclear weapons tests.
A growing body of research shows public harassment is among the most prevalent forms of sexual and gender-based violence. Street harassment can include homophobic, transphobic, racist and ableist actions, as well as overtly hostile and aggressive behaviour.
Yet, we know very little about who harasses and why they do it. Typically, harassment is perpetrated by strangers, is often fleeting, and can include behaviours welcome in other contexts, such as asking for someone’s number.
In our recent work, we asked participants about why they think people (mostly men) harass others in public space. This centres the expertise and knowledge of those targeted for harassment.
Street and public harassment are among the most prevalent forms of sexual and gender-based violence. Shutterstock
Who does it?
Unsurprisingly, participants said they were either solely or disproportionately harassed by men, reflecting what we know about gender-based violence broadly.
However, a few participants discussed experiencing harassment from women. This was typically in relation to non-sexualised harassment, for example racist, homophobic and transphobic abuse.
There was less agreement on which “types” of men harass. For example, some people said they were most commonly harassed by younger men, older men, men by themselves and men in groups.
Some participants mentioned factors such as age, race and class in describing harassers. “Tradies” were commonly identified; one participant told us “it’s always tradies”, while another described her experiences as the “classic tradies yelling at school girls sort of stuff”.
Some thought men from particular cultural or racial backgrounds were more likely to harass, though others stressed most harassment they experienced was from white Australian men.
However, the focus on particular “types” of men in some responses – such as “tradies”, “bogans”, “creepy old men” and men of colour – also provides insights into who is viewed as more likely to engage in harassment.
Participants often inadvertently perpetuated power inequalities such as classism and racism in the ways they described harassers.
It is important to recognise these are not “neutral” accounts. Perceptions of harassment are shaped by our internalisation of stereotypes and our lived experiences. This is particularly so when what “counts” as harassment can be highly subjective and context-dependent.
So, why did participants think men harass others in public spaces?
Perceptions of harassment are shaped by our internalisation of stereotypes. Shutterstock
Because they’re ‘stupid, sleazy, losers’
Participants offered a range of explanations for why men harass. At an individual-level, men who harass were often depicted as “other” or “deficient” in some way.
Terms such as “stupid”, “creepy”, and “losers” were commonly used to describe men who harass. One participant said “men are just creeps and that’s what they do”, while another thought “that’s their escape from their crappy lives”.
Younger men were more likely to be described as “bored” or doing it for a laugh:
Often it’s like the younger guys that are in groups that are just being silly and have the done up cars and completely attention seeking.
As white, cisgender, heterosexual men typically do not experience harassment to the extent women and LGBTQ+ people do, and are not generally socialised to be fearful for their safety in public, participants felt men were unable to understand why their actions might be threatening to women in public spaces.
These explanations tended to “other” certain types of men as deviant “monsters”, or implied harassment occurs as a result of individual character flaws.
Some participants challenged the idea men didn’t know what they were doing. Shutterstock
Because they’re blokes
Participants viewed harassment as a way for men to “perform” their masculinity, and as an expression of gendered power, alongside other forms of power relating to whiteness and heteronormativity. As one (male) participant put it: “So why did he do it? Because he’s a fucking bloke”.
In other words, harassment provided men with an avenue to express power over women and other men (particularly men who were not seen to be doing their masculinity “appropriately”):
I think it’s just men sort of showing themselves as the superior gender by…dehumanising the female gender […] we can degrade you and you just have to accept it.
Harassment was also a way for men to bond with other men, something referred to as “homosociality”. Reflecting on his own experiences of participating in harassment as a teenager, one male participant said:
It’s hey look at me, I can shout out to that lass, and it’s alright, and that makes me a fella, that makes me a bloke, and that makes me a bigger bloke than you lads.
Because they can: the normalisation of street harassment
Many participants thought men harass because there were no consequences for their behaviour:
Because it’s such a socially acceptable thing at this point for people to harass women and think it’s like a compliment […] I think a lot of men actually don’t realise that what they’re doing is harassment.
Others felt harassment was excused as a form of “locker room banter” and as a case of “boys will be boys”. These responses illustrate the ways street harassment is culturally sanctioned and able to flourish.
Many participants thought men harass because there were no consequences for their behaviour. Shutterstock
Why do they do it? It’s complicated
Our participants’ explanations of why men harass paint a complex and multifaceted picture. While harassment is firmly situated in the spectrum of violence against women, a more holistic approach is needed addressing homophobic, transphobic, racist and ableist harassment.
It’s clear street harassment requires interventions targeting individual, cultural and structural drivers.
The normalisation of street harassment requires urgent attention, so this behaviour is no longer excused.
Bianca Fileborn receives funding from the Australian Research Council to undertake research on street and public harassment (DE190100404)
Sophie Hindes 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.
If so, he would be wise not to follow in the footsteps of his predecessor Josh Frydenberg, who tried for more than a year to introduce Australia’s first so-called Patent Box before the legislation lapsed ahead of the election without a vote.
First introduced in Ireland in the early 1970s, and adopted later in countries such as France, Spain, China and the United Kingdom, patent boxes are said to get their name from a box on the tax form that companies tick if they have income deriving from intellectual property, which is taxed at a discounted rate.
Former treasurer Josh Frydenberg, wanted to tax income from patents at a lower rate.
The theory is that if such income is taxed less, international corporations will do more of their research and development in Australia.
When announced in the 2021 budget, the discount was to be limited to income from patents on medical and biological technologies, although (also before the bill became law) the 2022 budget announced plans to extend it to agricultural and low emission technologies.
Income derived directly from patents in these fields was to be taxed at just 17%, instead of the prevailing company tax rate of 30%.
Doubts ahead of time
Doubts were expressed ahead of time. In 2015 the industry department’s office of the chief economist said while a patent box tax break would certainly increase
the number of patent applications filed, most of the extra ones were
“likely to be opportunistic” (filed on inventions that would have taken place without patents).
Any extra patent fees collected were unlikely to offset the tax lost.
And the advice had a broader point. Rewarding investors well after risky research had been undertaken was unlikely to do much to encourage such research.
Research and development tax credits, on the other hand, provide tax breaks at time the research is being funded, according to one Australian study, creating A$1.90 of research for each dollar of tax lost.
Supporters of the concept point to the Australian biotech company CSL Limited, which set up a new plant in Switzerland rather than Australia in 2014 in part because Switzerland had a patent box and Australia did not.
Critics observe that income from patents is highly mobile, meaning it can be easily separated from real inventive activity moved across borders.
One study found 40% of multinational profits had been moved from one location to another on the basis of tax rather than where the profits were made.
Another study noted that businesses can get the tax breaks by acquiring patents eligible for patent box treatment without doing the patentable research.
A review of the UK scheme published in November 2021 identified “abuse and boundary-pushing” and made a number of recommendations designed to refocus it on activity actually taking place within the UK.
It was to be limited to income derived from patents issued after budget night 2021, which meant (at least at first) it would be limited to income derived from new patents.
Licensees of patents would not be eligible, only firms that held the patent themselves.
And, where patents were filed overseas, they had to be owned in Australia, and the underlying research had to have occurred in Australia.
Labor has given no guarantee it will proceed with the scheme announced in the past two budgets and not yet legislated.
There are reasons why it should not. Australia’s really big productivity gains, in the 1990s and early 2000s, had more to do with reforming or replacing lacklustre industries than with patents.
Australia is on the cusp of yet another transformation, into a low-carbon energy producer and exporter. This is where our focus should be, rather than on tinkering with tax support for innovations that might take place regardless.
Beth Webster receives funding from the Australian and Victorian departments of industry and trade and the Australian Research Council.
Despite years of critique, the Australian national parliament has been overwhelmingly white and male, unlike the country as a whole. But something changed at the 2022 election – most clearly around racism and sexism. How might this play out in the negotiations to come?
The Whitlam government supposedly ended the White Australia policy in 1973. For 50 years though, White Australia has hung on in the elite structures – Commonwealth cabinets, the High Court and the ABC board, for example – even while changing at state and especially local levels.
Prior to the 2019 election, I argued we would realise down the track that:
Election 2019 was the last White Australia election, in which Euro-Australians dominated the parliamentary seats and both major party leaderships, and where xenophobia was the insistent leitmotif of the Right.
If this election marks an ending for White Australia, we would expect to see changes in voting, representation and policy.
Just before the 2022 election, the BBC asked why the Australian parliament was so white (and male). Sydney Policy Lab director Tim Soutphomassane recently noted:
A celebration of cultural diversity has never been accompanied by a sharing of Anglo-Celtic institutional power.
Labor MP Peter Khalil said last November that Australian politics was still swamped by an “Anglo Boys club”. Opting to describe himself as one of the 21% of the population who were NIPOCs (non-Indigenous people of colour), he reflected on years of racism and marginalisation he had experienced inside the ALP and in the wider world.
Peter Khalil has previously described Australian politics as an ‘Anglo boys club’. Mick Tsikas/AAP
At the 2022 election, the trajectories of change differed from each other along almost every conceivable parameter that was not old white male: middle-aged, well-off white women took elite Liberal urban seats from men. Younger people of colour, usually women, took many of the new Labor seats. Smart, mainly young white people took the seats that were turning Green. White Australia was fragmenting along race and gender fault-lines. Meanwhile, the LNP was left with almost only older white guys in the House.
The election demonstrated the salience of specific ethnicity in contributing to voters’ decisions in many seats, while the more general concern about rising racism played out for a more diverse electorate. “The Chinese vote” has been the focus of many newspaper articles reflecting on the effect of the Morrison government’s bellicose rhetoric towards China and how safe Chinese-ancestry voters felt with the conservatives.
The Tally Room blog has argued there was a significant shift towards the ALP (or, better put, away from the Liberals) in electorates where the China-ancestry vote was significant. Where the opportunity existed for an Asian-Australian candidate for the ALP, they were usually successful.
In Fowler, which is a very multicultural electorate with a large Vietnamese community (many with Chinese ethnicity), Labor’s vote dropped by nearly 19% after the party parachuted in Kristina Keneally. The local independent Dai Le picked up nearly all those previously ALP votes, while also taking nearly all the votes that left the Liberals (13%).
The Senate vote in Fowler for the ALP also dropped significantly (8%) from 2019, while the Liberal vote rose slightly. In effect the loss of this formerly safe ALP seat in New South Wales almost cost the party a secure majority.
The key electorates where an apparent anti-Liberal shift in the Chinese-ancestry vote was determinate included Bennelong, Reid and Parramatta in NSW, Chisholm, Higgins and Kooyong in Victoria, and Tangney in Western Australia. Some benefited Labor; others the independents.
Independent Dai Le won the Sydney seat of Fowler after Labor parachuted in Kristina Keneally as its candidate. AAP/Dean Lewins
Representation
Peter Khalil (Wills, Vic) and Anne Aly (Cowan, WA) had been fairly lonely rank-and-file non-European members of the ALP caucus until the election. Aly (her origin is Egyptian Muslim) worked tirelessly during the long COVID lockdown in Perth to build opportunity for candidates of colour.
In Perth, Sam Lim (a Malaysian-Chinese immigrant) took Tangney with a 11% swing, building on his deep links with communities throughout Perth as a police liaison officer during the lockdown.
Zaneta Mascarenhas, born in Kalgoorlie, whose parents arrived from Goa in 1979, took Swan with a 12% swing. Aly herself increased her vote in Cowan by nearly 10%.
In NSW, Labor’s Jerome Laxale, the popular former Labor mayor of Ryde whose parents were Francophones from Mauritius and Le Reunion, achieved an 8% swing against the Liberals in Bennelong. He repeated the victory Maxine McKew had achieved against John Howard in 2007, also with strong Chinese and Korean support.
In Reid, popular local candidate Sally Sitou, of Lao Chinese background, reclaimed the seat for the ALP with an 8% swing, on a base of very strong Chinese support.
In Victoria, both seats that went to the ALP were won by “ethnic background” candidates. In Chisholm, Greek-background Carlina Garland saw a 7% swing away from Gladys Liu, though only 4% went to the ALP. In Higgins, Michelle Anada-Rajah, a Tamil born in Sri Lanka, saw a 6% swing away from Liberal Katie Allen. Meanwhile, the ALP held-seat of Holt went to Cassandra Fernando, also born in Sri Lanka.
In summary, of the ten or so seats the ALP won from the Liberals across the country, six were won by “ethnic candidates”, four of whom were people of colour. On the other hand, the seven new “teal” seats, though all won by women, are all now represented by white Australians. How might this matter?
Sally Sitou won the Sydney seat of Reid for the ALP with an 8% swing. Dean Lewins/AAP
Policy
The ALP released its diversity policy under the names of Katy Gallagher (Finance) and Andrew Giles (Multicultural Affairs) two days before the vote and well after most of the pre-polls and postal votes had been cast.
It is unlikely the LNP or the teal independents will push these concerns to the top of the to-do list. However, the new ALP NIPOCs and Dai Le will have a major investment in exactly that dynamic, creating with Aly (now a minister and a symbol for the prime minister of a new diversity) and Khalil a significant bloc. The Greens have multicultural legislation ready to go.
The new government’s best-known leaders are Anthony Albanese and Penny Wong, two surnames drawn from the deep hinterland of multicultural Australia. Perhaps White Australia is finally on its way out.
Andrew Jakubowicz has received funding from the Australian Research Council for research on cultural diversity and politics, and on cyber-racism. He publishes the website “Making Multicultural Australia” (http://www.multiculturalaustralia.edu.au). During the COVID pandemic he has been a consultant on cultural diversity to local government and the Disability Royal Commission, and is a member of the Commonwealth Health Department advisory committee on COVID and CaLD.
One of the most contentious questions asked in the health community today is whether you can be overweight and healthy.
This question – sometimes framed using the term “fat but fit” – has preoccupied medical researchers for decades, fuelling numerous studies both supporting and debunking the concept.
The debate revolves around whether a physically active overweight or obese person can still be considered metabolically healthy – that is, they have good blood pressure, cholesterol and insulin levels.
As a health professional and obesity expert, my response to this question often surprises: I believe a person can indeed be overweight and healthy. Here’s why.
1. Weight and health are not perfectly correlated
As I discussed in my article on the Body Mass Index (BMI), a person’s weight doesn’t always tell the full story of their health.
While being overweight increases an individual’s risk of a range of health issues, including heart disease, stroke, diabetes and some cancers, many studies have shown a person’s disease risk is linked not to weight, but to body fat and where it’s distributed in the body.
While BMI calculators provide a starting point for assessing body fat, the BMI is not an accurate measure of health because it doesn’t explain where fat is distributed in the body.
People with a high amount of visceral fat – a type of especially unhealthy fat stored around the stomach, close to the organs – have a higher risk of disease than people who hold body fat around their hips.
If you are physically fit and don’t have a high amount of visceral fat, your weight category might be less important. Shutterstock
It’s also important to remember muscle is much denser than fat – another thing the BMI can’t measure.
Therefore, if a BMI calculator classifies you as overweight or obese, but you’re physically fit, have a healthy diet and lifestyle, and fat stored around your hips, you could be healthier than someone with a BMI in the “normal” range if they don’t exercise or eat a balanced diet.
2. Weight and fitness are not perfectly related either
We’ve been conditioned to believe being overweight is directly associated with being unfit. But it’s inactivity, not our weight, that directly impacts our fitness levels.
Indeed, numerous studies have used exercise testing to show that some overweight and obese people have high cardiovascular fitness and strength levels. The difference? These people engaged in regular physical activity.
Regular exercise will improve your fitness, no matter what you weigh. Sadly, more than half of the Australian population don’t even do the 30 minutes of exercise needed five days a week to stay healthy and alive, let alone help them manage their weight.
3. Lifestyle is more important than a number on the scales
It may sound obvious, but healthy behaviours – not weight – make us healthy.
While understanding and managing the relationship between our weight and health is important, we need to remember other factors influence good health too. Top among these are getting enough exercise, eating a healthy and balanced diet, reducing stress, and improving our sleep quality.
Getting enough exercise, eating a healthy and balanced diet, reducing stress and improving our sleep quality are integral to maintaining good health. Shutterstock
How to be healthy at any weight
You can do several simple things right now to support your overall health, no matter what you weigh.
Mix up your exercise routine
It’s indisputable that exercise has enormous health benefits. Alongside improving your heart health, regular activity improves muscle strength and mobility, reduces stress levels and promotes better sleep and energy levels.
To encourage more exercise, take up something you enjoy, no matter what it is. But make sure to include variety, as doing the same routine every day is a surefire way to get bored and avoid activity, and can also make it hard to hit your goals.
It’s also important to look for ways to incorporate incidental activity in your daily routine. Our sedentary lifestyles are literally killing us, with experts suggesting a week of physical inactivity has the equivalent personal health cost of smoking 20 cigarettes.
Introducing more activity can be as simple as taking the stairs instead of the lift, parking the car a little bit further away from our destination, or switching off the robot vacuum cleaner and taking on the housework ourselves.
Improve your sleep
Getting the recommended seven to nine hours of shuteye we need each night will significantly benefit your health. The good news is it’s easy to dramatically improve your sleep quality by taking simple steps to support good sleep hygiene. Start with the “no blue light after twilight” rule, switching off your devices early to boost your body’s secretion of sleep-inducing hormones such as melatonin.
Find exercise you enjoy doing – like a hike in nature. Shutterstock
Retrain your brain to manage your stress
Stress will adversely impact your health, often encouraging unhealthy dietary habits and contributing to chronic conditions such as high blood pressure.
Contrary to popular belief, alcohol isn’t a good way to deal with stress! Instead, take up more beneficial activities to relieve stress, such as exercise and meditation.
The bottom line
Your weight does matter when it comes to your overall levels of health. It’s just not the only thing that matters, and it’s not always necessary to achieve the definition of a “healthy weight” category.
We should all be engaging in healthier lifestyle habits – whatever our weight.
Dr Nick Fuller works for the University of Sydney and has received external funding for projects relating to the treatment of overweight and obesity. He is the author and founder of the Interval Weight Loss program.
The election of a new Labor federal government probably drew sighs of relief across the higher education sector. University staff and students will be hoping for a more sympathetic approach than they received from the Coalition government.
Tertiary education lobby groups have already put forward their wish lists and funding priorities. Yet the case for increasing funding might be a harder sell now that several universities have announced staggeringly large surpluses in their annual reports.
While some universities, such as La Trobe, reported operating losses, many otheruniversities around the country also recorded surpluses, including some that aren’t far off Sydney’s result in relative terms. Examples include Charles Sturt (a 21% surplus of $143 million) and Newcastle (a 19% surplus of $185 million).
The new government is already committed to fiscally expansive policies in areas such as the National Disability Insurance Scheme (NDIS), aged care and early childhood education. In an inflationary environment, it might be tempted to take a light-touch approach to university funding – scrap the Coalition’s incoherent Job-Ready Graduates Package and let universities look after themselves.
After all, despite regularly decrying the damage done by the Morrison government, Labor in opposition made few concrete policy commitments to universities beyond the welcome addition of 20,000 student places.
However, the latest university surpluses actually highlight, rather than diminish, the case for more public funding, and indeed for broader reform of university governance and finances. The key to understanding this lies in the market-based sources of revenue that underpinned these surpluses.
Take the University of Sydney. According to its annual report, the surplus was:
“mainly due to increases in overseas student enrolments, strong investment performance and non-recurring items including the Commonwealth Government’s $95.1 million Research Support Program contribution and the net gains from the disposal of property assets”.
International student fee income increased by about $250 million. Investment returns were up by almost $400 million.
It was a similar story elsewhere. Newcastle University reaped $119 million in additional investment income and UNSW $117 million. Many universities also profited from selling their shares in international student placement business IDP Education.
On the downside, the University of Wollongong lost $169 million after terminating its contract with a private student accommodation provider it had been underwriting.
Remember, these are public institutions
Bear in mind that these universities are public institutions. They are created by acts of parliament. A public agency accredits and regulates their degree-conferring ability.
Public universities have legislated responsibilities to serve public ends. Yet they resemble profit-driven corporations in their financial governance.
This has been evident during the past two years. Having been denied JobKeeper by the Coalition government, universities savagely cut staff. First casuals, then fixed-term staff, and then staff on ongoing contracts.
In response to what loomed as a short-term drop in income from international students, university leaders took the corporate route. They restructured aggressively, losing incalculable expertise and institutional memory and throwing thousands of staff into unemployment. This process boosted “profits”, with employee expenses down at many universities.
Given the composition of university governing councils – about one-third of members are from the corporate sector – it’s hardly surprising a for-profit orientation has come to dominate.
Government funding accounts for a little over half of higher education revenue, if government HELP contributions are included. This creates an incentive for university chiefs to pursue private sources of revenue to make up the shortfalls. Consistent with the corporate approach, the risks arising from market exposure have been devolved to staff by loading up on insecure employment (nearly 70% of the higher education workforce) and rolling workplace restructures.
Surplus revenues are earmarked for infrastructure investment or “to shield the University against unforeseen circumstances”, as the University of Sydney annual report states. Except, as we saw over the past two years, when “unforeseen circumstances” arose, staff bore the brunt to preserve balance sheets.
Such perverse dynamics are out of place at a public institution. And this is the point at which federal policy can play a positive role. Increased and stable federal funding would reduce the incentive for university chiefs to pursue market-based sources of revenue and help avoid the wild budget gyrations of recent years.
But, given the corporate orientation of university governing boards, this would do little in and of itself to fix problems such as chronic job insecurity and increasing workloads.
Governance structures are a state responsibility. However, federal legislation can nonetheless influence universities’ internal resource allocation. The work of the Senate Select Committee on Job Security provides a good starting point.
The committee sought to place responsibility on universities, as public institutions, to achieve positive employment outcomes. It recommended:
“as a condition of receiving public funding, universities […] set publicly available targets for increasing permanent employment and reducing casualisation”.
It also argued the government should legislate to improve the ability of unions to inspect the records of universities with respect to potential wage theft.
Such an approach is well within the remit of government. It could steer universities towards more positive outcomes for employees, students and the broader community. As it stands, university vice-chancellors seem to be saving for a rainy day, when a typhoon is sweeping across the sector.
Damien Cahill is Secretary of the National Tertiary Education Union NSW.
Legacy films are more than a sequel: they hand franchises down to a new generation of viewers, passing a cultural baton.
At the opening night screening I attended of Top Gun: Maverick, when the lights went down, someone loudly whispered “let’s go!” – a perfect evocation of such films’ sense of expectation and repetition.
Films can’t entirely escape their contexts.
Top Gun (1986), an arena rock concert of a film, paints hot-shot US Navy aviator Lt Pete “Maverick” Mitchell (Tom Cruise) as a charismatic all-American rebel. He doesn’t play by the rules, but knows how to be loyal when it counts.
Maverick and his best friend Lt Nick “Goose” Bradshaw (Anthony Edwards) train at the elite Naval Fighter Weapons School, dubbed TOPGUN, which schools the “best of the best” in aerial dog-fighting.
Accompanied by a hyper-masculine soundtrack of screaming electric guitars and thudding synths, the reckless Maverick must negotiate his grief at Goose’s accidental death, his rivalry with Lt Tom “Iceman” Kazansky (Val Kilmer) and the long shadow of his father’s reputation – before beating out enemy fighters and getting the girl.
In this new film, Maverick, now a test pilot, is reluctantly recalled to TOPGUN to train top graduates in a seemingly impossible mission of global importance – or be grounded forever.
A film obsessed with itself
Like recent legacy hits such as the third Star Wars trilogy, Blade Runner 2049 and The Matrix: Resurrections, Top Gun: Maverick is a film obsessed with its earlier self.
It’s still a competition film with exhilarating action and flight sequences. It matches many of the original film’s narrative and emotional beats. It restages key moments and re-imagines others.
The film revisits old characters, reworks the original score and incorporates earlier footage into flashbacks. It surrounds the characters with photographs of their younger selves. It even rolls its end credits over the same burnt orange skies.
Legacy films always have an implicit relationship with the older films’ ideas and politics, and the conditions of their creation.
Top Gun heralded a new, powerful relationship between Hollywood and the US Department of Defense that persists today. Producers Jerry Bruckheimer and Don Simpson had pitched a film to the Pentagon based on journalist Ehud Yonay’s 1983 article Top Guns well before any screenplay was written.
The US Navy was actively seeking a beneficial project to support. The Navy offered significant practical support and had input into the script, and the film was regarded as a seductive recruitment tool.
The TOPGUN program was established by the US Navy in 1969 to train elite pilots in response to aerial combat failures during the Vietnam War. The 1986 film helped rehabilitate the US military’s image in popular culture after Vietnam.
The film expressed vibrantly the jingoistic patriotism of the Reagan era. The Americans are noble good guys who don’t shoot first. The “bogeys” are faceless antagonists, their red star insignia and Soviet MiGs marking them part of a Communist threat.
The geopolitics of Top Gun: Maverick are vague, even chaste. The baddies are an unnamed power that has developed a secret uranium enrichment facility deep within a mountainous region. They are a threat to NATO allies, have superior technology, and anonymous soldiers – and that’s it.
Tom Cruise in his white t-shirt still looks like a present-day James Dean. Skydance Media
This doesn’t affect the action, but the mission is backdrop to a small-scale, human story about bridging intergenerational divides, coming to terms with the past and re-establishing familial bonds.
It is inoffensive enough to cater to Hollywood’s global audience. Beyond mention of contemporary American pilots spending more time dropping bombs from on high than engaging in aerobatic dogfights, and passing references to Iraq and Bosnia, this is a military film largely devoid of war.
It has a pervasive sense of naivete. Tom Cruise in his white t-shirt still looks like a present-day James Dean. It is nostalgic more for images and stories of loyalty and heroism than the murky conditions of conflict.
The thrumming, sexualised, objectophilic tension of the first film centred on the sweaty, muscular white bodies of its cast and similarly muscular images of military technology.
The disciplined, diverse cast of young fighter pilots of Top Gun: Maverick are up against a more insidious foe: skilled human pilots are replaced by unmanned drones.
Maverick, we are told, is a fossil – the last of his kind. We hear time is the pilots’ greatest adversary; Maverick is about to be grounded for good; the future is coming and Maverick isn’t it. But Maverick’s heroism persists in his concern for people, their families and their jobs.
It’s not the plane that matters – it’s the American pilot. Skydance Media
We are repeatedly told superior technology is one thing, but it’s not the plane that’s important. It’s the (American) pilot and their instincts.
Maverick is Tom Cruise, the singular ageing movie star-hero hybrid. The film is a celebration of film itself. This is a proper blockbuster of old that can bring in the punters at cinemas.
In the film’s dynamic climax, Maverick seeks to demonstrate just how powerful the old gear, and the old ways, still are. It’s not subtle.
In Top Gun, the takeaway message was constant vigilance was a means of upholding American exceptionalism. In this film, we hear the end might be coming, but there is still much more in the tank.
That may well be the case for the traditional action blockbuster, which is one of the United States’ greatest global exports. But well after the end of the “American Century”, and at a time of significant domestic and global disruption, this might be a more nuanced and complicated statement than intended.
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 John Hawkins, Senior Lecturer, Canberra School of Politics, Economics and Society and NATSEM, University of Canberra
Shutterstock
Australia’s economy edged closer back towards normal in the three months to March, growing by 0.8% in the quarter (which is towards the upper end of economic growth before COVID hit in early 2020) and 3.3% over the year to the March (which is somewhat higher than before the pandemic).
The economy is now 4.5% bigger than before the COVID pandemic started. This is a stronger recovery than experienced in the United States, the European Union, the United Kingdom, South Korea and Canada.
Japan’s economy remains smaller than it was before COVID.
Consumer spending grew an impressive 1.5% in the March quarter, and 4% over the year, spurred by a further easing of restrictions and a renewed desire to travel.
Spending on travel services surged 60%. Car sales jumped 13%.
Helping fund the increased spending was a further dip in the household saving ratio, slipping from 13.4% to 11.4% of income.
As seen on the graph, it is still much higher than it was in the four decades before COVID, giving it room to fall further if consumers remain confident.
The drop in unemployment to a half-century low of 3.9% has lifted consumer confidence and spending, although the jump in inflation to 5.1% and the first of several interest rate hikes have damped confidence more recently.
Government spending, notably on health care, contributed to economic growth.
Before COVID the wages share was 53%. At the start of the 2000s it was 56%.
Working out the reasons for the downward trend in the share of national income going to wages, and how to get it higher, will be an important priority for the new government.
Prime Minister Anthony Albanese’s first cabinet is Australia’s most diverse ever. Not only do women comprise ten of 23 cabinet ministers (or about 43%), many have diverse race, ethnic and religious backgrounds.
The broader ministry boasts many firsts, including Penny Wong as Australia’s first foreign minister with an Asian background, Linda Burney, the first female Indigenous cabinet minister, and Anne Aly, the first female minister with a Muslim background.
A photo of the incoming Minister for Aged Care and for Sport Anika Wells walking through Parliament House with her three young children seems emblematic of the changes brought by the election.
While falling short of 50/50 representations, this is a cabinet that better represents the country it serves. It is widely welcomed and long overdue.
Australia has been lagging behind
For many years, Australia has lagged behind the rest of the world in gender equality in both parliament and cabinet.
In January 2022, 33% of Scott Morrison’s cabinet were female. In 2021, the Inter-Parliamentary Union ranked Australia 73rd of 193 countries for gender parity in the national parliament. This was up from 90th in 2019 but significantly down from 29th under Kevin Rudd in 2008.
With the incoming Albanese government, we have almost caught up to those countries we like to compare ourselves with. In 2021, women held 50% or more of ministerial positions in seven OECD countries: Austria, Belgium, Canada, Finland, France, Spain, and Sweden, while New Zealand’s cabinet had 40%.
Merit and the ministry
For decades, Australia stuck to the mantra that ministerial recruitment should be made on “merit” rather than gender.
This thinking belongs to an outdated political culture, where women can only access positions of political power with the approval of their male colleagues. But it still exists. New deputy Liberal leader Sussan Ley, when talking about the need to attract more women to the party, has flagged the “issue of merit”.
As Minister for Early Childhood Education Anne Aly becomes the first Muslim woman to be a part of the ministry. Mick Tsikas/AAP
If the 2022 federal election has taught us anything, it is that Australians had run out of patience with the status quo, and the electorate is now demanding politicians look like the country they serve – whether in traditional parties or as independents.
However, people are taking note that we are not at gender parity yet. The first media question for Albanese after announcing his ministry on Tuesday night was:
What will it take to get 50/50 representation of women in cabinet, in the ministry? Would you like to see the factional caucuses put forward 50/50 for your consideration in the future? How far away is Australia from that level of representation?
The importance of leadership
Claire Annesley’s book with Karen Beckwith, and Susan Franceschet, Cabinets, Ministers and Gender, shows significant changes in women’s representation often result from pre-election pledges made by a leader. For example, Canadian Prime Minister Justin Trudeau pledged a parity cabinet ahead of his election in 2015 and achieved this goal. The pledge is a powerful tool because many leaders are fully empowered to make their ministerial selections.
Albanese is on record as saying “Australia should be leading the world in equality between women and men”. While he did not make a pledge for gender equality in cabinet during the campaign, the ALP Constitution does have affirmative action rules which set out an objective “to have 50% women at all levels in the Party organisation, and in public office positions the Party holds” with a minimum percentage requirement of 45% from 2022 and 50% from 2025.
However, Labor leaders have traditionally relied on the party factions to nominate ministers that are then agreed to by caucus. As the late Labor minister Susan Ryan has noted, factional politics have been a significant barrier to women gaining access to senior positions.
Even with quotas, the factional “king makers” have shaped Albanese’s cabinet. This was not without “a kerfuffle” according to political journalist Katharine Murphy, who reported “the right faction was in danger of not complying with Labor’s affirmative action rules”. This resulted in some surprise last-minute ministerial appointments.
Look at the lineup
An important feature of Albanese’s cabinet is not just the diverse range of women who now sit at the table, but the prestigious portfolios which they hold.
The appointment of Wong to foreign affairs, Clare O’Neil to home affairs and Gallagher to finance place women at the centre of government power. Women are also leading ministries with large spending responsibilities, including Amanda Rishworth who has been appointed minister for social services. In contrast, some have been disappointed by Tanya Plibersek’s surprise shift from education to environment.
The test of the new cabinet is to see what difference diversity makes. To what extent will the experiences of these ministers bring new priorities, innovative solutions and accountability to Australian government?
Two areas hold promise. The allocation of the women’s portfolio to Gallagher is important, given she jointly holds the finance portfolio and has oversight over key budget decisions. At the very least, we should expect as a priority a renewed whole-of-government women’s budget statement, led from a key central agency.
Linda Burney is Australia’s first First Nations woman in cabinet. Lukas Coch/AAP
The second area of promise is Burney’s appointment as minister for Indigenous Australians. As an expert in Indigenous affairs, and someone with a strong commitment to the implementation of the Uluru Statement of the Heart, Burney may well oversee the signature reform of this government: a constitutionally enshrined First Nation’s Voice to Parliament.
The incoming cabinet also has a new and potentially game-changing resource in the new parliament. The lower house has the highest number of female MPs ever, at 38%. The crossbench – the largest of any parliament – also includes many women independent members who want to see action on integrity, climate change and women’s rights.
There is an enormous opportunity now for the government to draw on the expertise of this crossbench to drive important changes through parliament and recast the gender status quo of Australian politics.
Louise Chappell receives funding from Australian Research Council
Claire Annesley 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.
Falls are common. Each year one in every three people aged over 65 will fall. Around one in ten falls lead to serious injury. Most of us have a friend or relative who has experienced an injury from a fall and know what a life-changing event it can be.
The most common serious injuries are fractures and brain injuries. Falls can also result in a loss of confidence, which can lead to restriction of activity and a lower quality of life. Many older people never regain their pre-fall level of function and might even struggle to keep living by themselves.
The consequences of falls cost Australia a staggering $4.3 billion every year. The good news is 20-30% of falls among older Australians can be prevented.
Falls happen when there is a mismatch between our physical abilities and the immediate demands of the environment or activity being undertaken.
Falls become more common as we get older because as we age, there is a natural decline in muscle strength, balance and vision, all of which are important for helping us stay upright.
The risk of falls is increased by certain medical conditions (such as Parkinson’s disease, dementia and stroke) and certain medications (such as sleeping tablets).
But this doesn’t mean falls are inevitable.
Exercise makes the most difference
Exercise that aims to improve balance and leg strength is the most effective in preventing falls.
Exercise for strength and balance should be done often. Shutterstock
This means exercise that is carried out while standing (not while seated), with the feet positioned close together or while standing on one leg (if safe to do so), while performing controlled movement of the upper body (leaning and reaching movements, for example).
Balance training combined with strength training for the major muscle groups is most effective.
These exercises need to be tailored to individual abilities. Middle-aged people with good physical function will benefit from harder exercises (such as functional training at a gym or boot camp incorporating squats and step-ups).
Effective exercises for people with impaired physical function or frailty will follow the same principles but should be modified for safety and effectiveness. These include everyday activities such as standing up from a seated position without using arms for support, walking up and down stairs, walking in one line, stepping over obstacles or balancing on one leg.
For lasting impacts, it’s important this type of exercise is done often. The World Health Organization recommends incorporating these exercises two to three times a week as part of the 150-300 minutes a week of moderate activity recommended for improving health.
Not everyone enjoys exercising, which means some people struggle to prioritise it. It’s very important to know nobody is ever “too old” to start exercising, and benefits are gained at any age. But don’t hold off to start exercising either – the earlier we start to build our strength and balance, the better off we will be in our older years.
Starting small and building up the amount and intensity of activity, and choosing something enjoyable, are the best ways to start. If you can’t reach a high dose of exercise initially, any amount is better than nothing.
Simple sit-to-stand exercises can improve strength and balance. Shutterstock
If you like exercising in a group, consider finding a local program and invite a friend along for added support and social connection. Your state government or local council should have their classes listed online.
If you’re not sure where to start, the best thing to do is to seek professional help to select exercises that suit your abilities and health conditions. Talk to your GP, local physio or exercise physiologist.
What else can we do to prevent falls?
In addition to exercise to improve balance and strength, other actions that can reduce the risk of falls include talking to your doctor or pharmacist to review your medications, seeing a podiatrist if you have painful feet, and maximising the safety of your home environment by installing adequate lighting and grab rails, and ensuring walkways are free from clutter and liquid spills.
If you have had a fall or are worried about mobility, talk to your GP. Shutterstock
Falls are not inevitable as we age. We need investment in strategies to help older Australians stay active and independent, and avoid falls. Despite knowing what works to avoid them, we have no national policy or strategy to implement and fund fall prevention programs. Doing so would not only help older Australians, but the budget bottom-line too.
Anne Tiedemann receives funding from the National Health and Medical Research Council.
Cathie Sherrington receives funding from the National Health and Medical Research Institute.
Kim Delbaere receives funding from the National Health and Medical Research Council. Kim Delbaere is the President of the Australian and New Zealand Falls Prevention Society.
From meatballs and cakes to soups and seafood, Sweden is known for its hearty cuisine. It’s also renowned for its quality of life, topping many countries in happiness, equality and social connection.
Perhaps this is why news on Reddit and Twitter that Swedes don’t feed child guests dinner caused a stir online. As one poster explained, while over at a friend’s house as a child, the family ate dinner together – and the friend was expected to wait.
Some Swedes supported these claims, saying unannounced child guests often weren’t accounted for in meal planning, that it could be down to class, or food wasn’t offered “out of respect” for the parents of the visiting child – they might have planned dinner which would then be “wasted”.
Who is allowed to go without in a prosperous and inclusive society was debated under the hashtag #Swedengate, and ignited discussion about expectations of hospitality in Sweden and further abroad.
The anthropology of food
The act of eating is steeped in cultural practice. Food and eating possess cultural meanings that impose order on what is eaten, when, how and by whom.
Social anthropologists have long studied how people eat and what this says about cultural norms.
In the 1960s, Claude Lévi-Strauss’ work among Brazilian Indigenous peoples highlighted ingrained cultural habits about food preparation and how these practices can inform a culture’s system of knowledge.
In the 1980s, Pierre Bourdieu’s analysis of French society showed how a person’s ability to exercise “good taste” is connected to the operation of power and their position in society.
in all societies, sharing food is a way of establishing closeness, while, conversely, the refusal to share is one of the clearest marks of distance.
It is easy to observe this in our own lives. We prefer to eat with friends rather than strangers. It is possible to sit too closely to people we don’t know and sometimes not sit closely enough to loved ones. There are observable differences in expected behaviours when consuming finger food versus a sit-down dinner.
The kindness of a meal
The #Swedengate controversy demonstrates how cultural norms regulate behaviour and produce expectations.
In Australia – and seemingly most countries, accounting for the ensuing discussion on Reddit and Twitter – we believe physical presence should lead to a meal invitation.
As Lévi-Strauss wrote, eating with others is based on reciprocity: receiving guests is repaid through offering a meal.
Twitter users quickly suggested meals were similarly not offered to unaccounted for children in other Nordic countries, with comparisons made to more “hospitable” areas of Europe and Asia.
Connections were also made with Nordic Viking culture from antiquity and how a meal or gift was similar to a debt.
There is limited evidence of the honour and debt practices of the Vikings bearing on contemporary Nordic culture. But we can clearly see how differences in eating practices can highlight the different meanings different communities attach to sharing a meal.
The culture of not extending an invitation to guests for dinner is certainly not standard across all Nordic cultures.
In research I conducted among Icelandic families after the 2008 global financial crisis, I observed the way I was received at mealtimes as a cultural “outsider”.
At one gathering, I sat as an invited guest among a family of seven spaced out around a large dining table, highlighting the formality of the afternoon.
At another event, a farewell party, several people known to one another crowded around a four-seat kitchen table, picking at food on a few plates. The closeness of bodies at this event gestured at its informality and social intimacy.
But meals aren’t always to be shared. One woman I interviewed recalled her decision to walk out of a restaurant when a banker associated with the economic crisis arrived:
I just looked at him and walked out. We don’t forgive or forget, not these men. Most people wouldn’t scream or anything, we’re a little more polite. We walk away. They can have the restaurant to themselves.
The meaning of a meal
The offer or denial of a meal can be telling of social relations. #Swedengate shows how invites can be dependent on historical precedent, parental expectation or food wastage.
Localised norms have existed in all cultures across history. Denial isn’t necessarily an act of inhospitality – it just points to cultural norms, contested as they may be, as seen through the #Swedengate controversy.
Hasty judgements about food and eating are not always accurate. Deeper meanings have always been behind mealtime offerings.
Perhaps what is most interesting about #Swedengate is not what it tells us about Sweden, but what it tells us about ourselves.
This research was supported by the Australian Government’s Research Training Program (RTP). Timothy Heffernan is also affiliated with ANU College of Health and Medicine as a research assistant.
As well as her interviews with politicians and experts, Politics with Michelle Grattan includes “Word from The Hill”, where she discusses the news with members of The Conversation politics team.
In this podcast Michelle and politics + society editor Amanda Dunn canvass Anthony Albanese’s ministry, with its record number of women in cabinet but one woman, Tanya Plibersek, having her portfolio unexpectedly switched.
Peter Dutton, on being elevated to Liberal leader, flagged he’d pitch to the suburbs and small business. Meanwhile the Nationals showed that holding all the party’s seats (and winning an extra one) doesn’t guarantee the leader keeps his job. Barnaby Joyce was dispatched, in favour of the rather less flamboyant David Littleproud, to the relief of many Liberals.
Meanwhile, Anthony Albanese will be off to Indonesia next week, in his second overseas trip since winning office.
Michelle Grattan does not work for, consult, own shares in or receive funding from any company or organization that would benefit from this article, and has disclosed no relevant affiliations beyond their academic appointment.
