Last week’s COVID protest outside parliament served as a warning that New Zealand is not immune to the kinds of anger seen overseas. As Labour Party whip Kieran McAnulty put it, “I think everyone needs to be aware that things are starting to escalate.”
McAnulty himself had been abused by some with strong anti-vaccination views, and there has been increasingly violent rhetoric directed at government politicians and Prime Minister Jacinda Ardern. As a result, security for MPs has been stepped up.
As the recent report from research centre Te Pūnaha Matatini showed, there has been a sharp increase in the “popularity and intensity of COVID-19 specific disinformation and other forms of ‘dangerous speech’ and disinformation, related to far-right ideologies”.
The analysis noted a broader threat: “that COVID-19 and vaccination are being used as a kind of Trojan Horse for norm-setting and norm-entrenchment of far-right ideologies in Aotearoa New Zealand.”
Terror threat: medium
Last year, New Zealand’s Security Intelligence Service (SIS) warned of the “realistic possibility” that continued COVID restrictions or further vaccination requirements could trigger an act of violent extremism.
The country is not alone in this, of course. COVID-19 has seen dissent and angry protest rise globally, with inevitable concern over an increased risk of terrorism or violent extremism.
Right now, New Zealand’s official terror threat level is assessed as “medium”, meaning an attack is deemed “feasible and could well occur”.
By contrast, Australia’s threat level is set at “probable” and Britain’s at “severe”. According to its Department of Homeland Security, the US “continues to face a diverse and challenging threat environment as it approaches several religious holidays and associated mass gatherings”.
Riot police were deployed in Melbourne in September when protests over mandatory vaccination for construction workers turned violent. GettyImages
The lone actor problem
An SIS terrorism threat assessment from February this year, coupled with a “Threat Insight” from the Combined Threat Assessment Group in November 2020, divided potential terrorists in New Zealand into three groups based on faith, identity and politics. What they share is a willingness to use violence to achieve their goals.
The most likely scenario involves a lone actor, inspired by any ideology and probably using an unsophisticated means of attack, without any intelligence warning. However, a small anti-government cell was also considered a realistic possibility.
The SIS assessment noted there are almost certainly individuals who advocate the use of violence to promote racial or ethnic identity beliefs, as well as individuals potentially prone to faith-based violent extremism. As for politically motivated actors, the SIS was more reassuring:
While some individuals and groups have lawfully advocated for signicant change to current political and social systems, there continues to be little indication of any serious intent to engage in violence to acheive that change.
The February report is heavily redacted, so needs to be placed next to the November “Threat Insight”. That report noted a “realistic possibility” of terrorist acts depending on how COVID-19 and the associated economic and social impacts unfolded, and how individual extremists might be affected. It concluded:
The situation in New Zealand over the next 12 months is likely to remain dynamic. There is a realistic possibility further restrictions or potential vaccination programmes […] could be triggers for New Zealand-based violent extremists to conduct an act of terrorist violence.
Still a peaceful place?
If there is any comfort to take, it might be that New Zealand has risen in the 2021 Global Peace Index, putting the country second only to Iceland.
This represents a return to relative normality after the 2019 Christchurch terror attack saw New Zealand drop 79 places in the Global Terrorism Index in 2020 (ranking 42nd, just behind Russia, Israel and South Africa).
There has also been an increase in firearms injuries, many (but not all) gang-related. Figures released under the Official Information Act show the police are facing increased risks: between March 2019 and July 2021, officers had firearms pointed or discharged at them 46 times.
New Zealanders can have some faith the system, however. Two potential shooting events, one involving a school, were foiled by police. The New Lynn extremist was already subject to monitoring so tight he was shot within 60 seconds of launching his attack.
Security intelligence also detected espionage in the military, and was instrumental in New Zealand Cricket calling off its tour of Pakistan due to a plausible terror threat.
All of this underscores the need for everyone to do what they can to combat alienation and misinformation in the community, anchored by tolerance, respect and civil behaviour. And it also requires that people be prepared to report acts of suspicious activity or threats of violence (online or not).
As the Royal Commission on the Christchurch terror attacks noted, the likeliest thing to have prevented the tragedy would have been a “see something, say something” culture — one where people could safely raise their concerns with the appropriate authorities.
“Such reporting,” the commission concluded, “would have provided the best chance of disrupting the terrorist attack.”
As the pandemic stretches into the next year, with likely ongoing restrictions and unforeseeable complications, this remarkable sentence is worth remembering. It suggests the best defence against extremism is to be found within ourselves, and in the robust and safe communities we must create.
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.
New Zealand Parliament Buildings, Wellington, New Zealand.
Editor’s Note: Here below is a list of the main issues currently under discussion in New Zealand and links to media coverage. You can sign up to NZ Politics Daily as well as New Zealand Political Roundup columns for free here.
Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By A J Brown, Professor of Public Policy & Law, Centre for Governance & Public Policy, Griffith University
As we head into a federal election campaign next year, the focus on whether government – and which party – can be trusted to govern openly and honestly for the public good is looming larger than at any time in living memory.
The Coalition government’s legislation for a federal integrity commission (or ICAC) is also imminent, following feedback on the extensive problems with its draft bill last year.
And a plethora of other accountability issues are awaiting action.
All these provide a reminder, heading into the election, that trust in government hinges not only on “performance” in a direct, hip-pocket sense. It also depends on who can be trusted to protect public decision-making from becoming a self-serving gravy train for leaders and their friends.
Healthy political competition on integrity issues is long overdue. Historically, both major parties have been slow to initiate the reforms needed to reverse Australia’s slide on Transparency International’s Corruption Perceptions Index or global press freedom rankings.
Whistleblower protections at a turning point?
The Morrison government’s proposed reforms to the Australia’s Public Interest Disclosure Act – the law that protects federal public service whistleblowers – show that when we do catch up, we can leapfrog to being a world leader.
Building on major corporate whistleblower reforms in 2019, the new proposal includes world-first rights to compensation where a person with a duty to protect a whistleblower fails to do so.
The public has long been in favour of effective whistleblower protection. In 2012, our research first showed that over 80% of Australians believed insiders who reveal wrongdoing should be protected, even if they break official secrecy rules.
But the slow pace of reform stands out as a big integrity problem.
That was two decades after a Senate select committee, led by a Liberal senator, recommended that Australia needed national whistleblower protection laws.
For many, the pace of reform is still too slow. Independent Senator Rex Patrick last week described it as a “big failure” that the government has “basically run out of time” to get the new changes into law before the election.
Indeed, the urgency is clear. Inadequacies in the law continue to allow long, damaging prosecutions against whistleblowers such as Witness K, David McBride and Richard Boyle.
And our new research shows that across a wide range of organisations, less than half of clearly deserving whistleblowers who suffered serious consequences got any remedies at all.
There remain unknowns in the government’s plan, such as when we will see a federal Whistleblower Protection Authority. This was a bipartisan recommendation of a 2017 joint parliamentary committee, strongly supported by stakeholders such as the Law Council of Australia.
Labor has also committed to move ahead with reform. But its own plan for a Whistleblower Protection Authority at the 2019 election was weak and under-resourced. This reinforces that for all parties, better progress on integrity issues relies not just on pace, but also on substance.
Whistleblower protection is also a key test for an even bigger reform – the government’s long-awaited federal integrity commission bill.
Last week, Minister Stoker gave the clearest indication yet that when the government’s bill is revealed, at least one of its major flaws – the inability of whistleblowers to take corruption concerns directly to the new ICAC – has been understood and presumably fixed.
It’s a promising sign, even if falling short of the fully-equipped Whistleblower Protection Authority built into all of the private members’ integrity commission bills introduced by crossbenchers Cathy McGowan, Helen Haines, Rex Patrick and the Greens since 2018.
The next question will be if other, equally important, issues have been addressed.
One is whether a federal ICAC will really have “all the powers of a royal commission”, as twice promised by Communications Minister Paul Fletcher, among other government figures. This means having the power to hold public hearings when justified, and for all federal public officials including parliamentarians – not just some.
Another issue is whether a federal ICAC will meet public expectations by being able to investigate and make recommendations on “grey area” corruption allegations, such as the recent “sports rorts” and “car park rorts” affairs.
Again, the path to reform has been dogged by issues of pace and substance.
The federal ICAC legislation will come three years after the Coalition initially promised it. But it also took Labor over a decade to make the same promise after Transparency International Australia first called for such an agency in 2005. And when it did make the move, Labor’s original budget (since upgraded) was less than half the amount now committed under the Coalition’s proposal.
Less secretive government is needed now more than ever
Global fears over governments becoming more secretive and less trustworthy should sound a warning to the Coalition and Labor alike – they need to pick up the pace.
The pandemic has brought new highs and lows in public trust. We can thank our underlying trust in institutions for Australians getting vaccinated against COVID-19 at a world-leading rate. Yet, at the same time, fears about the trustworthiness of our leaders are growing.
The federal government is even trying to keep National Cabinet’s minutes secret, despite our federation plainly belonging to all Australian governments and citizens.
Beyond these issues, other accountability priorities have languished under successive federal governments, as our integrity assessments again show.
One by one, Australia’s states are moving to reform political donation and lobbying laws, and even outlaw deceptive political campaigning. But federal politics remains a wild west of under-regulation.
Stronger laws against foreign bribery by Australian companies remain stuck in the federal parliament. Promises to end the secret shell companies which facilitate corruption have been on “go slow” ever since Australia led the charge as G20 host in 2014.
In a time of uncertainty, the federal election provides the moment for both major parties to put teeth into their commitments to bolster public trust and finally pick up the pace of reform. Hopefully, promised whistleblower protections and a strong integrity commission will be the crucial first steps.
A J Brown is a boardmember of Transparency International Australia. He has received funding from the Australian Research Council, all of Australia’s Ombudsman offices, most of Australia’s anti-corruption agencies, various other Commonwealth and State regulatory agencies and private sector peak bodies, and the Victorian Parliament for his past research on whistleblower protection and integrity systems relevant to this article.
Some recent studies have shown similar peak viral loads in vaccinated people compared to unvaccinated people who contract COVID. This has raised concerns for the efficacy of vaccines for preventing transmission.
How concerned should we be? Are vaccinated people just as contagious as unvaccinated? What does this mean for future plans for reopening?
These studies only show a similar peak viral load, which is the highest amount of virus in the system over the course of the study.
Therefore, vaccinated people are, on average, likely to be less contagious.
Let us explain.
Similar peak viral loads
A study in medical journal The Lancet followed 602 primary close contacts of 471 people with COVID. It documented transmission and viral load in the group.
It found there were no differences in peak viral loads between vaccinated and unvaccinated individuals. It also showed only a small decrease in the number of infections in household members between vaccinated and unvaccinated people, suggesting a similar level of infectiousness.
Another unpublished pre-print, which is yet to be reviewed by other scientists, suggests a similar trend in viral load between vaccinated and unvaccinated people, as does a CDC report in the US from July which analysed outbreak data from Massachusetts.
The Massachusetts data came from a number of large public events over a two-week period in July in Barnstable County, Massachusetts. From 469 COVID cases, 346 (74%) occurred in fully vaccinated people. Viral load was similar in both vaccinated and non-vaccinated groups.
However, we shouldn’t fear this analysis too much. The data reported is an imperfect representation of the population, and the measures they used – a single swab and PCR test – don’t provide information about overall viral load over time.
Viral load refers to the amount of virus present in someone’s bodily fluids at a given point in time. Scientists can measure this by looking at your blood, or more commonly in COVID, swabs of your nose and throat.
Generally, higher viral loads are thought to correspond to a more contagious individual.
However, this isn’t always clear in reality. For example, some people with COVID who don’t have symptoms and have low viral loads transmit more, as they are less likely to follow social distancing, mask wearing, and stay at home.
The results of the Lancet study suggest similarities in terms of viral load between vaccinated and unvaccinated people. But the study doesn’t provide strong evidence that vaccines don’t work to prevent transmission through the population.
Given vaccines speed the clearance of COVID from the body, vaccinated people have less opportunity to spread the virus overall.
This appears to be the case even with the more infectious Delta variant.
While the Lancet study specifically collected an even number of vaccinated and unvaccinated infections in order to compare them, this isn’t a true representation of the community in Australia. We know being fully vaccinated reduces the likelihood of catching COVID even if the vaccines aren’t perfect (none are) and there are breakthrough infections.
While it’s difficult to estimate the rate of breakthrough infections accurately, studies have estimated they occur in 0.2% to 4% of people. In reality, this means that for every 100 vaccinated people, somewhere between 0.2 and 4 of them would get COVID.
So, while in the rare instance where a breakthrough infection occurs, there may be a similar viral load, and possibly a similar infectiousness, there remain much fewer vaccinated people getting COVID.
Importantly, while the Lancet study also showed a similar rate of household transmission between the vaccinated and unvaccinated, there are a number of other studies in different contexts showing decreased transmission through vaccinated people.
If you’re one of the unlucky few vaccinated people who get a breakthrough infection, it does mean you have to follow the health advice given to you.
Even though you may not feel sick, you still have the capacity to spread the virus to a vulnerable person around you. Though if the people in your home are also fully vaccinated, then the risk of transmission drops even further again.
However, a vaccinated person is less likely to get COVID in the first instance, is less contagious, and is contagious for a shorter time, resulting in significantly less spread of the virus through a highly vaccinated community.
This, combined with the well-known ability of vaccines to keep people out of hospital and ICU, makes them the most important part of the health response in the near future.
As the vaccine rollout continues, and there are fewer people without protection, the decreased rate of breakthrough infection will help ensure a future where COVID no longer dominates the news, society, and our minds.
Vasso Apostolopoulos COVID-19 research has received internal funding from Victoria University place-based Planetary Health research grant and from philanthropic donations.
Jack Feehan 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.
Aluminium is light and versatile, but massively energy-intensive to produce, requiring 10% of Australia’s entire electricity output . Recycling it uses just a fraction of the energy. Why aren’t we closing the loop?
This metal – the most abundant in the Earth’s crust – is used in everything from kitchen utensils to soft drink cans, buildings and plane parts.
Since we discovered how to extract it in the 19th century, around one billion tonnes of aluminium has been smelted. Of that, three quarters is accessible for recycling.
Unfortunately, aluminium’s energy-intensive production has major consequences for climate change. We must power aluminium production with renewables, and find better ways to recycle this most useful metal.
To provoke thought about aluminium and its energy needs, I collaborated with designer Kyoko Hashimoto to produce new works of design using aluminium. These mirrors and vases are currently on display as part of the National Gallery of Victoria’s Sampling the Future exhibition.
As critical designers, we hope to communicate the waste problem created by mixing aluminium into unrecoverable composites, and reframe the perception of the metal’s value, which has diminished since its discovery.
Trash – or treasure? Valuing aluminium more highly could boost recycling rates. Shutterstock
From precious metal to common disposable
When aluminium was first extracted and purified, it was more expensive than gold. Napoleon III famously had his son’s baby rattle made from aluminium. In 1884, as the most exotic metal of its day, it was used for the pyramid cap on the Washington monument.
Now, aluminium is plentiful and cheap. Australia is the world’s leading producer of the main ore, bauxite, and we export most of it for processing overseas.
Over the past few years, aluminium production has shifted to countries such as Iceland, with cheap and sustainable energy from geothermal sources.
Unfortunately, the lion’s share of production takes place in countries such as China, and often relies on Australian coal. Australia also ranks high in CO₂ emissions from alumina refining, an intermediate stage of processing.
Global aluminium recycling rates range from 34% to 70%. In Australia, recycling rates for aluminium packaging are between 44% to 66%, but likely lower across industrial and consumer products.
There is scope to boost recycling, but product design and waste streams pose challenges.
For example, the aluminium we used in our designs is newly milled “5083”, a high grade, corrosion-resistant magnesium alloy with traces of manganese and chromium. Such trace metals are used to improve rigidity, corrosion resistance or welding capacity.
While our supplier sends offcuts and scrap for recycling, the mix of different alloys means these are ‘downcycled’ into lower-grade products. Most of Australia’s aluminium scrap is exported, so increasing our local recycling would decrease the emissions from shipping this scrap offshore.
There are losses across industrial and consumer waste streams alike, despite new sorting technologies. Magnetic eddy current technologies can sort metal objects from non-metal objects and even non-ferrous metal objects from each other.
The job gets harder when you encounter multi-material objects. Metal fasteners like screws, rivets and pins, as well as bonded adhesives, are leading causes of impurities in aluminium recycling.
These problems have to be fixed at the design stage. Such issues mean aluminium is steadily lost to human use, ending up in landfill and back into the environment.
While aluminium ores are readily found across the world, the metal is curiously absent from biological systems. It has had little role in plant or animal evolution and biologically available aluminium can be toxic. We do not know if this will have long-term consequences in nature.
We drew attention to these hidden issues in the design of our “metalloplastiglomerate” vases. They were made by crumpling and hammering aluminium sheet around organic fibre, plastic and soft metal waste.
In these works, we speculate about what will happen to aluminium as it is ejected from collapsing cities and transforms back into geological rock in the far future.
Metalloplastiglomerate vase, detail by Guy Keulemans and Kyoko Hashimoto. Photo by Traianos Pakioufakis.
Could we pioneer a circular economy with aluminium?
Even as the world fights to stave off dangerous climate change, demand for new aluminium is estimated to double or triple by 2050. If Australia’s aluminium recycling improves, we’re likely to keep making new aluminium to supply increasing international demand.
This is a furphy. Hydroelectric power works well with smelters too. Aluminium production using renewable energy may be justified in Australia, if we can manage its other environmental impacts.
Australia should also stop exporting bauxite or alumina to countries with fossil fuel powered smelters.
It’s entirely possible to end the need for new aluminium. Since we discovered the metal, we have produced around 1 billion tonnes of it. Around 75% is in current use, and available for recycling as it becomes necessary. Planning to stop producing new aluminium would create an incentive to better care for the metal we have and reduce waste.
And while aluminium is prized as a light and strong material, there are other materials with potential to replace it, including those that capture carbon instead of release it.
Slowing and eventually stopping new aluminium production would demonstrate how the world’s economy can thrive under degrowth – a controlled contraction of production to stem climate change and function within the planet’s ecological limits.
We considered this idea in the design of our aluminium and bauxite mirrors. They contain roughly the amount of aluminium able to be produced from the bauxite rocks that hold them. To communicate a sense of conservation, we modified the rock as little as possible. We made one cut to expose its beautiful pebble-like internal structure, and a second to hold the mirror.
Round Aluminium and Bauxite Mirror by Guy Keulemans and Kyoko Hashimoto. Photo by Traianos Pakioufakis.
In our designs, we hope to show the technological beauty of aluminium production, as well as the care with which we should approach it.
Aluminium’s unique properties drive ever greater production. But a growth at all costs mentality for resource extraction is perilous – especially when we can use what we already have.
Guy Keulemans receives funding from the Australian Research Council.
“I remember how hard the words hit me – ‘you’re not smart enough’.”
Dylan, a proud Bundjalung man in his 30s from northern New South Wales with South Sea Island heritage, shared with us what high school staff had told him during year 12.
“My childhood dream was crushed. My grades were terrible and my future was not looking bright. I hit rock bottom with no university acceptance, no career trajectory and no plan. I entered the workforce and bounced around.”
Years later, Dylan is publishing research on coral reefs while completing a PhD, thanks to completing the Preparing for Success (PSP) program at Southern Cross University.
PSP is an award-winning, fee-free bridging or enabling program that provides an entry pathway into a wide range of undergraduate degrees. Our recent research, which included comparing academic achievements over six years, shows students who completed the PSP are more successful in their studies than students who gained admission by other means such as an ATAR score. They are also more likely to complete their undergraduate studies.
How do these programs work?
University enabling programs such as PSP are offered across Australia. These programs are designed to equip students who don’t meet standard university entry requirements with the key academic literacy skills. By preparing students for successful transition into university study they can open the way to exciting careers and brighter futures.
Anyone who has completed year 10 of school can apply for Southern Cross’s PSP. Other universities offer versions of bridging programs to students without year 10.
These programs are typically fee-free across Australia. At Southern Cross, there are three intakes a year in March, July and November.
Students can complete PSP full-time in 12 weeks over two six-week terms, or part-time over a year. They can study completely online or on campus.
A shorter six-week version, Transition to Uni, is now available for students who have completed year 12 with an ATAR. Both programs are delivered in the new Southern Cross Model, which delivers a deeper, more focused learning experience in six-week terms. Transition to Uni has a January intake so students can start their undergraduate degrees with their peers in March.
The empowering teaching style engages students in an active learning experience. Active and empowering learning experiences encourage and reward students who are actively contributing, questioning and stretching their thinking. It allows them to develop independent learning and critical thinking skills. These skills ensure later success in degree study.
The approach is very different from most of the students’ previous experiences. In school, students often felt they had to follow teachers’ directions – sit, listen and learn, instead of question information.
Programs like PSP achieve the government’s aim of increasing participation in higher education of people from targeted equity groups, including Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islanders, regional and remote students. They also help produce more job-ready graduates.
5 reasons to protect enabling education
Despite its successes, enabling education is facing challenges in Australia. The Job-Ready Graduates legislation has changed the higher education funding landscape in 2021.
Dedicated funding for enabling programs was removed from legislation and from universities. Despite growth in enrolments in many institutions, enabling funding has not substantially increased since 2017.
It is now up to the universities to decide how they will allocate their limited funding. Our research, including interviews with former PSP students, identifies five good reasons to support enabling education.
1. It provides access to higher education for students who would otherwise miss out due to disadvantage or past schooling attainment.
Ella, a first-in-family student who dropped out of school in year 11, described her experience of the enabling program.
“It just really switched that light bulb for me. I’m about to graduate my Bachelors in Midwifery and I’ll be the only person in my entire family ever to graduate from university.”
2. It prepares students to succeed and complete their undergraduate studies.
Aimee, now studying to be a teacher, thought she would go no further than being a cleaner.
“It was amazing to be using my brain again after four years of mindlessly scrubbing toilets. I gained enough confidence and enough understanding of what being at uni is like.”
3. It contributes to the government’s goals of increasing national participation in higher education and producing more job-ready graduates.
Neve was offered multiple interviews for graduate midwifery positions. This is a scenario she had not previously considered possible.
“If it wasn’t for the enabling program I couldn’t see myself being in the position I am now, doing all these interviews and completing my degree.”
When a parent succeeds at university it can transform their children’s attitudes to education. Shutterstock
4. It promotes inter-generational changes in attitudes to education.
Leanne’s progress in an Indigenous Studies degree helped give her daughter the courage to pursue a university education.
“My youngest daughter said she was definitely not going to uni. She just was too scared. And having seen me do it, she’s now in the middle of session 2 . So that was a direct effect of me doing it and gaining confidence.”
5. It develops students’ critical thinking skills in a world of misinformation.
Wade saw just how much he had developed as a person. He uses the skills he learnt in the enabling program to analyse information and support his views in an informed way.
“Rather than just listen to one person’s opinion on a topic, I can actually go and find different evidence.”
Enabling education opens up a much-needed academic pathway. It allows students from a diverse range of backgrounds to get into and succeed in higher education. It equips them with the skills and confidence they need to fulfil their academic potential and achieve previously unimaginable careers.
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.
A View from Afar - Biden's Time - Buchanan and Manning on One Year since US Voters tossed Trump out of the White House.
A View from Afar – In this podcast, political scientist Paul Buchanan and Selwyn Manning discuss: how it is now over one year since United States voters went to the polls and elected Joe Biden as president – or perhaps it’s fair to say, voted Donald Trump out of the White House.
In this episode, Buchanan and Manning analyse the big issues that have challenged the Joe Biden Administration, and examine Biden’s wins and losses as a first term US President.
So far there have been two iconic moments in the Biden presidency: getting an infrastructure rebuild plan through the House of Representatives; and inching toward a rapprochement with the People’s Republic of China.
Both have taken place this week.
What is the sum of Joe Biden’s impact on domestic USA and around the world?
And has Biden’s biggest challenge been domestic, on confronting the question of how to overcome the enduring legacy of Donald Trump?
While evidence suggests Trumpism has now become a vocal force throughout the United States, it has also become a cultural ideology for export . Evidence of that can be seen in liberal democracies around the world, in countries such as New Zealand and Australia.
Has Biden been able to realign the USA’s outward cultural expression to one of change, or has Trump won that fight with Steve Bannon and other disciples packaging their views for export?
Join Paul and Selwyn for this LIVE recording of this podcast while they consider these big issues, and remember any comments you make while live can be included in this programme.
You can comment on this debate by clicking on one of these social media channels and interacting in the social media’s comment area. Here are the links:
Threat.Technology placed A View from Afar at 9th in its 20 Best Defence Security Podcasts of 2021 category. You can follow A View from Afar via our affiliate syndicators.
People opposing vaccine mandates, or COVID vaccines more broadly, have claimed the vaccines violate the Nuremberg Code.
They say COVID vaccines are experimental and people have been coerced into vaccination. They say this breaches the ethical code drawn up after the second world war to guide medical research and human clinical trials.
But this argument is flawed. Here’s why the Nuremberg Code doesn’t apply, and how to correct this misunderstanding.
The Nuremberg Code was a direct response to atrocities Nazi doctors performed in concentration camps during WWII. They perpetrated this so-called medical experimentation on people with no capacity to consent, and this frequently led to lifelong disability, or death.
The doctors who performed these experiments were tried in Nuremberg in 1947.
The doctors’ defence argued their experiments were not significantly different to other research practices. So two American doctors working for the prosecution produced a document that aimed to draw together what made for ethical research.
It details the process of seeking legally valid voluntary consent, covers the need to establish the humanitarian nature and purpose of the experiment, as well as ensuring the scientific integrity and obligations of the investigator to the subjects’ welfare.
However, the Nuremberg Code is no longer used to guide research ethics. The World Medical Association’s Declaration of Helsinki replaced it in 1964. And there’s been more ethical guidance since.
Online commentary says COVID vaccines are “experimental”.
But COVID vaccines have been thoroughly tested, and they have been shown to work. Their side-effects have been extensively examined. They have been approved for use around the world and have been credited for saving many lives.
So COVID vaccines are not “experimental”. Now COVID vaccines are part of standard public health response, it is not appropriate to refer to codes or documents developed to guide clinical trials and other research studies.
How do you convince someone?
If you come across someone claiming COVID vaccines are experimental, you can try the “truth sandwich” to try to myth bust.
If you imagine two pieces of bread, then the filling in the middle, you are on your way to using the truth sandwich.
First, we take a piece of bread, where we state the truth:
COVID vaccines have been tested in pre-clinical and clinical trials, and their efficacy and effectiveness has been proven, and their side effects profiles have been extensively examined.
Then we come to the filling in the middle, where we talk about a false claim and how it relates to the truth:
You may have heard someone suggest the COVID-19 vaccine program infringes people’s rights under the Nuremberg Code. But the claim that COVID-19 vaccines are experimental is simply not true. Regulatory authorities have approved these vaccines nationally and internationally. Safety monitoring is ongoing, but these processes are routine and commonly used for other vaccines or drugs. Check out AusVaxSafety.
Our final piece of bread comes next, repeating the truth:
The Nuremberg Code focuses on clinical research on humans. Therefore, it is no longer relevant once a vaccine moves beyond the clinical trial phase and has been authorised or approved for use globally.
The issue of informed consent
Online commentary usually cites the first clause of the Nuremberg Code about the need for informed consent in human experiments:
The voluntary consent of the human subject is absolutely essential.
This argument is used as evidence there’s something unethical about using COVID vaccines or introducing mandates.
Indeed, voluntary informed consent is an ethical bedrock for clinical research. Any form of compulsion is unacceptable because clinical research has inherent risks and can’t be quantified precisely. Research also may not have any direct benefit for participants, which again requires consent.
To be ethical, therefore, researchers must ensure participants in clinical trials understand potential risks and benefits, and give voluntarily consent to participate.
How do you convince someone?
Again, we can use the “truth sandwich” to myth bust.
Take your first piece of bread, stating the truth (the facts):
The Nuremberg Code relates to research, where the emphasis of informed consent is on “preventing research participants from being used as a means to an end”. The need for informed consent is still required for receiving a COVID-19 vaccine (or any vaccine) but the need does not stem from the Nuremberg Code.
Here’s the filling (the false claim and how it relates to the truth):
The introduction of a vaccine mandate is not medical research but rather a public health intervention. In every setting where COVID vaccines are mandated, no-one is being forced to be vaccinated against their will or consent. Informed consent is still sought before vaccination, and people retain the right to choose whether to be vaccinated.
However, in these settings, the public health goal of COVID-19 vaccination is seen as outweighing the rights of the individual to remain un-vaccinated. Other people in these settings have a right to health and security. Therefore there are outcomes for those who don’t comply. Exemptions are provided for those who cannot receive the vaccine for medical reasons.
If you want to expand further:
Mandates of this nature have previously been used in occupational settings to reduce the risk from vaccine preventable diseases for the employee and for the people they come into contact with, whether they be hospital patients or aged care residents. Beyond these settings, we have accepted vaccines as requirements of travel (such as yellow fever) both to protect ourselves and to reduce any risk of bringing this infection back to Australia.
Final piece of bread (repeating the truth):
There has been misinformation about linking COVID-19 vaccination, and/or the requirements within some occupations to the Nuremberg Code. The code relates to research and claims that mandates violate it are not accurate.
Why is this important?
This type of misinformation often thrives in situations where feelings are manipulated. And emotional posts on social media referring to Nazi doctors and Nuremberg are more likely to be shared.
We can keep fact checking. But it’s also time for every one of us to get out there with our truth sandwiches.
Holly Seale is an investigator on research studies funded by NHMRC and has previously received funding for investigator driven research from NSW Ministry of Health, as well as from Sanofi Pasteur and Seqirus. She is the Deputy Chair of the Collaboration on Social Science and Immunisation.
Ben Harris-Roxas is an investigator on projects funded by the Cancer Institute NSW, the National Health and Medical Research Council (NHMRC), the Sydney Partnership for Health Education Research & Enterprise (SPHERE), and NSW Health. In the past he has received funding from the Australian Research Council, the World Health Organization, the Australian Government Department of Health, the Public Health Agency of Canada, the Heart Foundation, NPS MedicineWise, the Sax Institute, and the City of Gold Coast.
Bridget Haire has received funding from National Health and Medical Research Council (NHMRC)
Climate change is happening, and it’s mostly due to human activities that change the composition of the atmosphere, which in turn interferes with the natural flow of energy through the climate system.
Two greenhouse gases contribute most to this problem: carbon dioxide and methane. The result is global heating. The repercussions of rising temperatures include heavier rains, stronger storms, more intense droughts, heatwaves and wildfires.
Methane, which is more potent than carbon dioxide but has a shorter lifespan, reached record levels in the atmosphere last year, at about 2.5 times above those during the pre-industrial era.
Reducing methane emissions offers a way to rein in climate change quickly, at least to some extent, and to buy time while the world drastically reduces fossil fuel use.
The COP26 climate summit recognised this when more than 100 nations, representing 70% of the global economy, joined the Global Methane Pledge to cut methane emissions by 30% by 2030.
New Zealand joined, but Australia didn’t. Nearly all of the pledges relate to cuts in “fugitive emissions” of methane through leaks in the oil and gas sector, especially from fracking operations during the drilling of new wells and from old, abandoned wells that have not been sealed properly.
Methane is a primary component of natural gas. It is emitted into the atmosphere from oil and natural gas wells and landfills. Surplus methane is often burned or vented into the atmosphere.
Coal mining, sewage ponds and various industrial processes contribute lesser amounts.
This figure shows the global rise in methane emissions (shown in monthly values in parts per billion by volume in red, with a 12-month rolling average in black. Adapted from NOAA, CC BY-ND
Globally, oil and gas operations account for 26% of methane emissions. Methane concentrations levelled off between 2000 and 2008, suggesting the short average lifetime of the gas depleted it from the atmosphere at about the rate of emissions.
But since then, methane levels have increased again, and this appears to be largely due to fracking and related activities in the oil and gas industry.
Reducing fugitive emissions makes economic sense
In a recent study, climate scientist Ilissa Ocko and colleagues suggest rapidly cutting methane can slow global warming quickly, and cuts can be made at a profit because they reduce leaks.
The research team considered all sectors and found 85% of methane emissions from the oil and gas industry could be readily abated by 2030 (50% are economically feasible, further 35% are technically feasible). For landfills, the respective numbers are 80% (16% and 64%).
In New Zealand, livestock is the main source of methane emissions, known as biogenic methane. The above research found only 32% of biogenic methane emissions could be cut readily (and only 2% are economically feasible, 30% technically possible). Livestock emissions are more manageable in feedlots, used in the northern hemisphere in winter, but more difficult for free-range cattle and sheep.
There are some optimistic reports about how biogenic methane emissions could be cut by changing the feed of cows, treating effluent ponds and using methane from landfills to generate electricity.
Tracking emissions
Under the UN Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC), countries have to report their emissions. But a recent report revealed a gap between countries’ reported emissions and observed increases in concentrations in the atmosphere. This also applies to methane emissions, although natural emissions also play a role.
Recent technology on satellites has enabled large emissions to be detected from space, and from next year MethaneSat is expected to be able to pinpoint even smaller emission sources. A US team will use the MethaneSat programme to focus on methane emissions from the oil and gas industry, while New Zealand will be mission control for the space-based tracking of agricultural emissions.
Spurious methane emissions were recently especially prominent in Russia, where 164 tonnes of methane leaked into the atmosphere during a single hour of repairs on a pipeline owned by state-controlled gas giant Gazprom, and in Australia.
While most methane emissions in New Zealand and Australia come from agriculture, Australia’s fugitive emissions from various mines are large, more than all of New Zealand’s contributions combined.
This figure shows 2016 methane emissions for Australia (AU) and New Zealand (NZ), from different sectors (in million tonnes of carbon dioxide equivalent emissions). Adapted from Our World in Data, CC BY-ND
Recent and future prospects
Since 2016, Australia has made a modest reduction in fugitive emissions because of increased use of renewable energy and slightly reduced coal production. The COVID pandemic has also played a role.
Ilissa Ocko’s team concluded that rapid deployment of available technologies and strategies could cut anticipated global methane emissions by 57% in 2030, if action is taken promptly.
In New Zealand, many changes are desirable for other reasons, including land use and biodiversity protection. But it does not make sense to get out of step with other countries, which aren’t reducing methane from livestock, as that could put New Zealand farmers at a disadvantage.
In particular, New Zealand should not be too far out of step with Australia. Instead, the New Zealand government should step up its efforts to call the Australian government to account to substantively reduce all greenhouse gas emissions, especially fugitive methane emissions.
A price on carbon, created through a tax or carbon markets and designed to capture the cost of damages through climate change, may be enforced internationally through tariffs. This could be particularly critical for power generators and energy-intensive industries.
Australian industry is especially vulnerable. Although many companies are making serious plans to adapt, their timeline is too long, with no prospect for containing global warming to 1.5℃ (above pre-industrial average temperatures).
While much more could be done with respect to methane emissions, notably in some countries, the longer term challenge remains the need to make substantial cuts to carbon dioxide emissions.
Kevin Trenberth 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 Michael Cowling, Associate Professor – Information & Communication Technology (ICT), CQUniversity Australia
Shutterstock
It’s usually around this time of year you hear people complain about their phones slowing down. Apple and Google release new versions of their operating systems (OS) and suddenly there’s a slew of people claiming their old devices have started to lag – conveniently just before Christmas.
But do manufacturers really slow down our phones on purpose to nudge us towards shiny new ones, as has been claimed?
The answer to this, as usual, is complicated. Let’s take a look at the evidence.
But did you know these features are optimised for the new hardware traditionally released during the summer, and the chips that come with it?
As such, system updates have to be programmed to work towards two goals. The first is to support the new hardware and chip, which deliver the newest features.
The second is to continue to work with existing hardware that won’t support the new features. And this means coding the OS so it’s not reliant on the new features having to work.
This challenge exists for desktop OSs as well, as evidenced by the recent removal of old systems from the Windows 11 compatibility list. Microsoft decided coding around new features was an insurmountable challenge in some instances.
Hardships with hardware
So your old smartphone won’t support new features – fair enough. But why does it feel like the new OS update is making existing features slower? To understand this, you need to first understand some of the mechanics of chip design.
Apple used to use other manufacturers’ chips for its devices, but for the past few years has made its own custom silicon. This is referred to as a “system on a chip (SoC), as the entire system exists on a single chip designed and manufactured by Apple.
But even if manufacturers design their own chips, it can be hard to predict what consumers will want in the future, and thus which upgrades will come with future iterations of a device.
Manufacturers have to write OS updates to suit the latest hardware, so consumers who purchase it can take advantage of the latest features. In doing so, they must work around the fact that older hardware doesn’t have the same capacity.
These workarounds mean older devices will run more slowly with the new OS installed, even for tasks the system had done for years. The latest OS is not written to make your old device slower, but because it’s written for the latest device, it can’t help but run more slowly on old hardware.
Examples of this abound in the industry, with many articles written about a newly released OS version running slow on older devices until the manufacturer optimises it (if they ever do).
You might be wondering: if a new OS will slow down old phones, why install the update at all?
Well, it’s because people don’t like being told to stick with old features. Apple recently allowed users of its latest devices to keep the old system, but this is unusual. There is usually a push for users to install new OS versions.
It’s all business
The truth is device manufacturers are in the business to make money. And this means being able to sell new devices.
While there is often an implied expectation from consumers that manufacturers will commit to maintaining old products, at the same time they need to write updates that will work for their latest hardware.
Meanwhile, tech companies aren’t doing enough to educate users on how to adjust their settings to get the best out of their phones, or how to manage software bloat which might contribute to a phone slowing down.
Compounding this are other factors such as network connection issues, like when the 3G mobile network was stopped.
There’s something else to consider, too. If an OS update was designed to intentionally slow down a phone over time, this would be very difficult to prove.
The system codes are “closed source”, so experts can’t look into them. The best we can do is run timers on different processes and see if they are slowing down over time.
But even if they are, is it because of a system update that can’t be supported by old hardware, or is it malicious conduct from the manufacturer? Could the code be written to force the device to sleep for half a second, every ten seconds, with a sleep command?
It’s hard to say for sure, although our personal opinion is this is highly unlikely.
Apple has had multiple lawsuits filed against it in the past, for which it has paid hundreds of millions in settlements. The company has admitted to slowing down some older phone models, but claimed this was done to reduce stress on the battery and prevent accidental shutdowns as the battery aged. Shutterstock
Choose not to play
Ultimately, the issue comes down to how device manufacturers sell their products.
The best option for their bottom line is to deliver OS updates and features that work with the latest hardware, even if this leaves old devices behind. The evidence suggests manufacturers are not intentionally slowing phones down, but are prioritising the latest release so you’ll buy it.
In the meantime, if your slow device is getting you down, the best option is to resist the urge to upgrade. You might get prompts directing you to install the latest OS version (and the frequency of these will depend on the company) but you can ignore them.
There may be auto-updates which you can’t avoid, but in most cases these are for security purposes and don’t include major changes or new features. It’s only once these security updates stop coming that you should upgrade.
Until then, a phone running on its original OS should, in theory, run well for a long time.
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: Council on Hemispheric Affairs – Analysis-Reportage
By John Perry From Masaya, Nicaragua
Official results from Nicaragua’s elections on November 7 showed Daniel Ortega re-elected as president with 75% of the vote. On the same day, President Joe Biden dismissed the ballot as a “pantomime election”[1] and within 48 hours the Organization of American States (OAS) had produced a 16-page report setting out its criticisms.[2] It demanded the annulment of the elections and the holding of new ones, disregarding international and OAS rules that require respect for the sovereignty of nations. Yet it contained no evidence of problems on election day itself that would substantiate its objections. Nevertheless, local and international media were quick to endorse the accusations that widespread fraud had taken place.
This article tries to identify the basis of these accusations, examines the evidence offered to support them and shows why, in practice, the massive fraud being alleged was very unlikely to have happened.
The electoral process – in brief
Before addressing the allegations, let’s look briefly at the process. Nicaragua has developed an electoral system which is probably one of the most secure and tamper-proof in Latin America, with multiple checks on the identity of voters and the validity of ballots.[3] There were 13,459 polling stations covering up to 400 voters each, in an operation involving about 245,000 volunteers and officials across the country.
Jill Clark-Gollub has described at COHA how this worked on the day.[4] Briefly, each voter must:
Go to vote in person (there are no postal or proxy votes).
Have a valid identity card that carries their photo and signature.
Be entered on the electoral register for the polling station, where their name is ticked off (in most cases this is computerized).
Have their ID checked against a print-out which has a small version of their photo and their signature: they sign on top of this to certify that they are going to use their vote.
Be given a ballot paper, which is stamped and initialed by an official before being handed over (see photo).
Make their vote in secret and put the paper in a ballot box.
Retrieve their ID card, and have their right thumb marked with indelible ink to show they have voted.
A ballot paper is stamped and authorized before being handed to the voter (Photo credit: Lauren Smith)
Each polling station has representatives of the political parties (in the U.S. they would be called party poll watchers). The poll watchers are there from the time the polling station opens until it closes – they watch everything – and at the end of the day they also sign the record of the polling. The numbers of votes, in total and for each party, are counted when polling closes and the results certified by the party representatives. The ballot boxes are then taken to a central counting center, accompanied by police or army officers, with each box tagged to ensure that it cannot be tampered with or replaced. The count at the center must match the count in the polling station, and this is again monitored by the poll watchers. Counting starts as the boxes are received and continues non-stop until every vote has been dealt with.
Despite these precautions, the international media and the opposition groups who were not represented on the ballot have not hesitated to condemn the process. For example, William Robinson, writing for NACLA, claims there was “a total absence of safeguards against fraud.”[5] The different critics make one or more of these accusations:
That opponents who would have entered the election were prevented from running, and their participation would have secured Ortega’s defeat.
That the size of the registered electorate was manipulated in the government’s favor.
That polls showed that the government was deeply unpopular, therefore the election result must have been a fake.
That the high proportion of spoiled ballots was a concerted “protest vote.”
That, after the opposition called on its supporters to abstain, most people did so.
That the government “added” one million votes in its favor.
Here we show the plentiful evidence to contest these allegations.
Potential election winners were excluded
“After methodically choking off competition and dissent, Mr. Ortega has all but ensured his victory in presidential elections on Sunday, representing a turn toward an openly dictatorial model that could set an example for other leaders across Latin America.” (New York Times, November 7)[6]
Most of the international media ignored who was on the ballot and focused instead on the arrests of opposition figures earlier this year, which allegedly removed all effective opposition. The reasons for the arrests have been dealt with by Yader Lanuza and Peter Bolton,[7] but briefly they were for violations of laws relating to improper use of money sent to non-profit organizations, receiving money from a foreign power intended to undermine the Nicaraguan state and influence its elections, and seeking international sanctions against Nicaragua.
But in fact, the ballot included five candidates challenging Daniel Ortega for the presidency (see photo). The NYT said, wrongly, that all “are little-known members of parties aligned with his Sandinista government”). However, these are historic parties – two of them (the PLC and PLI) had formed governments in the years 1990-2006, and in the case of the PLC in particular enjoy strong traditional support. The Sandinista front itself won as part of an alliance of nine legal parties.
A ballot paper from León.
Regardless of the arguments about the validity of the arrests, there is no plausible scenario where, if one of those arrested had been eligible to stand, they would have amassed sufficient votes to win. Not only was this unlikely because of the math (see below), but also because not a single one of those arrested had then been chosen as a candidate, the newer opposition parties that might have chosen them were unable to agree on how to stand or who to choose, and none had any program other than vague calls to re-establish “democracy” and “release political prisoners.”
Nevertheless, according to a CID-Gallup poll in October,[8] the most popular opposition figure, Juan Sebastián Chamorro, had 63% popular support. Let us take a look at a possible scenario, assuming he had been allowed to stand for one of the newer parties:
Suppose that, as a consequence of his participation, electoral turnout had increased, reaching its highest in recent elections (73.9% in 2011). This would have produced a total of 3,309,000 valid votes, an increase of around 400,000.
Assume for the moment that the Ortega vote remained the same, and that Chamorro had gained all the non-Ortega votes, including all those won by the other opposition parties:
Chamorro’s total vote would have been about 1,200,000.
However, it would still have fallen short of Ortega’s by more than 800,000 votes.
So to have won, Chamorro would have needed to persuade over a fifth of Ortega voters (almost 440,000) to swap sides, despite the deep hostility towards the Chamorros shown by most Sandinistas.
In practice, of course, it was highly unlikely that Chamorro would have stood as the sole opposition candidate, not only because he had rivals from the “traditional” opposition parties such as the PLC, but also because even as the election approached the newer opposition was divided into different groups backing different potential candidates. A divided opposition would have had an even smaller chance of winning.
The size of the registered electorate was manipulated
“In order to put Ortega’s electoral victory cards on the table, the CSE [Electoral Council] proceeded to increase the registration of the number of people eligible to vote.” (Confidencial)
“…experts estimated that this year’s roll should be at least 5.5 million.” (La Prensa)
The second accusation is that the electoral register of 4,478,334 potential voters was manipulated in the government’s favor, although critics can’t agree on whether the register was inflated or deliberately shrunk.
Opposition website Confidencialargued that the growth since 2016 of around 600,000 in the total numbers eligible to vote was implausible, and it was also implausible that 97% of those eligible were actually registered.[9] However, when opposition newspaper La Prensaassessed the size of the registered electorate, their complaint was that it was too small.[10] According to their analysis, the register should have had approximately 5.5 million voters, so the government was presumably intent on cutting out voters in areas where it has low support.
Either accusation is easily answered. The natural growth in the tranche of the population aged over 16 (those eligible to vote) accounts for about half the increase in the size of the register.[11] Both Confidencial and La Prensa deliberately ignore the huge improvement in the registry of citizenship since 2016, so that almost all the adult population now have identity cards, needed for many everyday transactions, and which automatically enter the holder on the electoral register. Rather than being implausible that 97% of citizens are registered, as Confidencial claimed, it is an intended outcome of the modernized system, which aims for 100% registration. This means that the register has gained in accuracy as the campaign to extend ID cards to the whole population nears its goal.
The government is deeply unpopular, contradicting the election result
“A recent poll showed that 78 percent of Nicaraguans see the possible re-election of Mr. Ortega as illegitimate and that just 9 percent support the governing party.” (New York Times, November 7)[12]
The official election results give the ruling Sandinista Front 71.67% of the votes, if spoiled ballots are included (75.87% if they are excluded). This is similar to the 72.44% vote share obtained in the 2016 election. The second party, the PLC, gained 14% of the vote, similar to its 15% share in 2016.
Opinion polls cited by the international media and the opposition purport to tell an entirely different story. According to a poll by Costa Rican firm CID Gallup (not part of the internationally known Gallup organization), in September-October only 19% of adults would have voted for Ortega had the election been held then, while 65% would support an opposition candidate. In a slightly later CID Gallup survey, paid for by Confidencial, 76% of adults questioned said that Ortega’s re-election would be “illegitimate;” his party’s level of support had by then fallen to only 9% (i.e. about 400,000 potential votes).
The CID Gallup poll’s findings on levels of support for different political parties are rather baffling. While some 68% of those questioned said they were likely to vote, the vast majority (77%) claimed to favor no particular party. Levels of support for individual parties were therefore tiny: the Sandinista Front was judged to have most support, but favored by only 8% of voters, while others had even smaller followings. Those questioned had the option of choosing one of the supposedly popular parties that were prevented from running, but these also received miniscule support: 5% for the CxL (Ciudadanos por la Libertad) and just 2% for the UNAB (Unidad Azul y Blanco). Had these parties been allowed to take part in the election, their candidates might have been one of the supposedly popular figures arrested beforehand, such as Juan Sebastián Chamorro.
CID Gallup survey results from “Confidencial”.
None of the international media who cite the CID Gallup poll question the credibility and consistency of these findings. Nor do they ever mention the more regular and more extensive opinion polls conducted by Nicaragua-based M&R Consultores, which gave a much different picture (see chart). Their results show Daniel Ortega with a 70% share of the vote, a percentage which had increased steadily as the polls approached. M&R claims its surveys are more rigorous, covering more of the country, with 4,282 face-to-face interviews while CID Gallup relies on cell phone calls for its 1,200 responses.
M&R Consultores’ last opinion poll before the election.
Adding to the implausibility of the CID Gallup poll findings is the fact that some 2.1 million Nicaraguans, slightly under half the adult population, are card-carrying members (militantes) of the Sandinista Front, following a membership drive over the last two years. That less than a quarter of these would vote for the party of which they are members seems, at best, highly unlikely. CID Gallup’s findings would also of course imply that no one who was not a party member would support the government, which is also highly unlikely. Nevertheless, even on election day, opposition leaders such as Kitty Monterrey (herself prevented from standing) hubristically claimed that more than 90% of voters would cast their ballot against Ortega.[13]
Invalid votes “won”
“Null votes confirm Daniel Ortega’s re-election farce” (headline in El Faro)
Because the CID Gallup poll appeared to show a high proportion of voters having no party allegiance, there have been a couple of attempts to argue that a protest vote, ie. people spoiling their ballots, “won” the election. There is some very limited truth in this, in that the proportion of ballots spoiled was notably higher than usual, at about 5%, rather than a more typical 1-2%, and these additional spoiled ballots may have represented a “protest vote.”
The El Salvadoran website El Faro, which regularly gives a platform to Nicaragua’s opposition, tried to show “the strength of the invalid votes.” After claiming that abstentions reflected a “third force,” El Faropublished a graphic (below) showing how spoiled ballots “outvoted” the opposition parties.[14]
Chart by El Faro.Source: Author calculations based on official results.
However, a proper comparison between the percentage of invalid votes and those gained by the different parties puts this in perspective (see pie chart). As can be seen, the partial graphic displayed by El Faro gives the votos nulos far more importance than they merit: yes, there were more spoilt ballots than votes for some of the minor parties, but the proportion was well below that gained by the PLC and, of course, by the FSLN. The 161,687 spoiled votes hardly show the electoral “farce,” depicted by El Faro. They were presumably hoping that their readers, glancing at the story and the graphic, would get the impression that the protest vote had “won.” Inadvertently, El Faro’s story also undermines the accusation (see below) that abstentions “won.” If it were really true that only 850,000 people voted, as the abstention camp claims, the 161,687 spoiled votes would have formed an improbably high proportion (19%) of the total.
Another approach to exaggerating the importance of votos nulos was pursued by La Prensa.[15] On each ballot paper there were four voting options so, according to La Prensa, the protest vote was four times the actual total of invalid votes, therefore reaching 666,866, rather than 161,687. This suggests a degree of desperation on La Prensa’s part in its search for ways to discredit the election.
Abstentions “won”
“Once polls opened early on Sunday morning, some polling stations had lines as Nicaraguans turned out to cast their ballots. But as the day progressed, many of the stations were largely empty. The streets of the capital, Managua, were also quiet, with little to show that a significant election was underway.” (New York Times, November 7)[16]
Official results show 66% of registered voters took part in the election, a level within the range (61-74%) of the previous three elections. It is also a level of participation similar to the last elections in the U.S. and the U.K. (which were both higher than normal) and in the middle of the range of participation in other countries’ recent elections.[17]
The international media largely ignore this and cite the opposition website Urnas Abiertas (“Open ballot boxes”) which claims that 81.5% of voters abstained (see graphic).[18] In other words, while officially 2,921,430 voted (including spoiled ballots), Urnas Abiertas say the real figure was more like 850,000.
Urnas Abiertas do not, however, provide any evidence of it other than their claimed survey of attendance at a sample of polling stations, which is only briefly described in a few lines of their four-page report.[19] It offers no technical details of their work or examples of polling stations which they surveyed. Described as “independent” by right-wing newspaper La Prensa,[20] Ben Norton shows how Urnas Abiertas is an obscure organization with few followers and is operated by known opposition supporters.[21]
Various opposition media, such as 100% Noticias, published pictures of “empty streets” or empty polling stations” on November 7, presumably as evidence that the opposition’s campaign to boycott the elections had been successful.[22] In typical fashion, international media picked up the story and, of course, opposition supporters were busy phoning their contacts in the U.S. and elsewhere to give the story credence.
The local media had conveniently forgotten a story they covered earlier in the year. In July, the electoral authorities published a provisional electoral register, and invited voters to verify their entries and check they were allocated to the correct polling station. This exercise was massively supported, by 2.82 million voters out of a possible 4.34 million then registered (the registered total has since increased by about 130,000 as entries were updated).[23] The opposition media, intent on showing supposed anomalies in this process, inadvertently also showed the scale of the response it received from the public, with videos of queues of people waiting to verify their vote.[24] The likelihood is that, having turned up at the polling station to check their right to vote, people turned up again on November 7 to use it, and the similarity in numbers who did both confirms that this was the case.
The photos of “empty streets” and “empty polling stations” were in any case highly misleading: it is easy to take such shots, especially on a Sunday when businesses and schools are closed, and especially at the hottest time of day. Furthermore, a simple calculation of the likely attendance at each polling station, open for 11 hours with (on average) 333 potential voters and 216 who actually voted, shows that roughly 20 people an hour would have passed through each one. Given that each person needs only a few minutes to vote, it is obvious why queues occurred only when groups of voters arrived simultaneously.
The Sandinistas added at least one million votes
“To the amount of votes reported in favor of Ortega, the CSE [Electoral Council] fraud added about one million extra votes.” (Confidencial)
Table comparing the 2021 election results with previous elections and with alternative analyses of the 2021 results by Urnas Abiertas and Confidencial. Note that the 2017 elections were for municipalities, where turnout was lower and people were more likely to vote for diverse parties.
Critics argue that massive abstentions mean that fake votes were created, but they can’t agree how many. Confidencial suggests that it was 1,069,225, while the implication of the “survey” by Urnas Abiertas is that false votes totaled 2,032,067. Confidencial helpfully produced a table (see above) comparing the official (CSE) result with its own and those from Urnas Abiertas, adding for comparison the official results from previous elections.[25] (As with many of the other opposition graphics, one suspects that spurious accuracy is given to their data to make them appear more authentic.)
An attempt was made to substantiate the fraud accusation when a false image of a “manipulated” electoral scrutiny form was circulated by the opposition ahead of the election, suggesting that exaggerated vote totals were being prepared in readiness for November 7.[26] It proved to be a copy of a sample document circulated openly in its briefing materials by the Electoral Council.
In practice, the obstacles to the organization of this scale of fraud can be seen from the brief description already given of how votes were verified on polling day. Clearly, creating 1 to 2 million false votes would require a large proportion of the 13,459 polling stations and 245,000 officials to be engaged in the process. This is because the fraud would have to start at the points where votes were cast, because if the false votes had been created centrally the discrepancy with local voting tallies would be blatantly obvious.
Is it really feasible that every polling station (or most of them) created up to 200 false votes from entries on their register using blank ballot forms, stamped as authorized by officials, at the risk that real people with those votes would turn up and find they had already “voted”? Or, if it was done after polls closed, would there have been no complaint from poll watchers from rival parties, and would none of the 245,000 people involved have leaked the truth about what really happened, in a country as chismoso (gossipy) as Nicaragua? The whole notion is absurd.
As I write this, it is one week since the election took place. I have been unable to find any evidence of actual fraud (as opposed to speculation about fraud) in any of the main media which support the main opposition groups.
The real response to the accusations
While this article has exposed the implausibility of the various accusations, the real response to them was the scenes on the streets on election day and during the celebrations when the results were announced officially on November 8. While some of the media portrayed empty streets and deserted polling stations, there were hundreds of photos (see below, from Bilwí) which showed the opposite.
People queuing to vote in Bilwí (photo credit: Gerry Condon).
Many international representatives who acted as election “accompaniers” confirm that the polls were well attended and that people talked freely and often enthusiastically about the process, even those opposed to the government (see reports by, for example, Roger Harris, Rick Sterling and Margaret Kimberley).[27]
Living in Masaya, which had been a stronghold of opposition support in the violence of 2018, I was amazed by the response to the president’s speech after the result was announced: tens of thousands of people poured onto the streets on Monday November 8, especially in poorer barrios, waving Sandinista flags and even holding up portraits of Daniel Ortega. While clearly a minority opposed his re-election, it was equally clear that the majority supported it.
John Perry is a writer living in Masaya, Nicaragua.
[Main Photo: People waiting in line to vote. Credit photo: El 19 Digital)
[13] “Más del 90% va a votar en contra de Ortega en las elecciones en Nicaragua, asegura opositora,” https://www.vozdeamerica.com/a/mas-del-90-de-la-poblaci%C3%B3n-esta-en-contra-de-ortega-kitty-monterrey/6303518.html
[14] “Los votos nulos confirman la farsa en la reelección de Daniel Ortega,” https://elfaro.net/es/202111/centroamerica/25834/Los-votos-nulos-confirman-la-farsa-en-la-reelecci%C3%B3n-de-Daniel-Ortega.htm
[16] “Nicaragua Descends Into Autocratic Rule as Ortega Crushes Dissent,” https://www.nytimes.com/2021/11/07/world/americas/nicaragua-election-ortega.html
[17] “In past elections, U.S. trailed most developed countries in voter turnout,” https://www.pewresearch.org/fact-tank/2020/11/03/in-past-elections-u-s-trailed-most-developed-countries-in-voter-turnout/
Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Sascha-Dominik (Dov) Bachmann, Professor in Law and Co-Convener National Security Hub (University of Canberra), University of Canberra
LEONID SCHEGLOV/ BELTA / HANDOUT / EPA
For months, Belarusian President Alexander Lukashenko has been accused of using illegal migrants as a tool to punish the European Union for imposing sanctions on his regime.
In July, Belarus loosened its restrictions on visas and increased flights on its state-run airline from the Middle East, allowing thousands of would-be migrants to arrive from Iraq, Syria and other countries. Belarusian security forces then funnelled the migrants to the borders with Poland, Lithuania and Latvia – all members of the European Union – and even gave them wire cutters to breach the fences.
In recent weeks, the situation has grown dire, with thousands of migrants now trapped in tents in freezing conditions and nowhere to go. At least 11 migrants have died.
Belarus has been accused by the EU of manufacturing the crisis in revenge for sanctions imposed in June. The EU has not backed down, adopting fresh sanctions on Belarus this week.
European officials have stepped up their use of war-like rhetoric, as well.
So, is the world seeing a “new type of war”, and if so, what does this mean and who stands to gain?
What is hybrid warfare and ‘lawfare’?
As I wrote in an earlier article for The Conversation with Andrew Dowse, “hybrid warfare” is an emerging concept in war and conflict studies.
It refers to the use of unconventional methods to disrupt or disable an opponent’s actions to achieve strategic objectives without engaging in open hostilities. Russia’s use of cyber attacks against the west are a good example of this.
“Grey-zone” operations are related to hybrid warfare. These are types of coercive actions that are meant to intimidate an opponent, but also fall short of physical conflict. Grey-zone operations are difficult to categorise due to the ambiguity of the actions (and who’s committing them) and the ambiguity of international law about those actions. Sometimes, the actions don’t even justify a response.
For example, Taiwan has accused China of using grey-zone tactics by repeatedly sending fighter jets near its territory to wear down its military capabilities and influence Taiwanese public opinion.
Hybrid warfare and grey-zone operations are often opportunistic and situational in response to a particular vulnerability.
There’s also a third notion that’s relevant in this context called “lawfare”, which refers to using the law itself as a weapon.
Migrants gathered at a checkpoint at the Belarus-Poland border. Leonid Shcheglov/AP
Is Belarus guilty of these things?
So, how is this all playing out on the Belarus-EU border?
In short, the crisis could be considered an act of hybrid warfare because Belarus is using migration strategically to put pressure on the EU and create discord within the bloc. This amounts to state-sponsored human trafficking aimed at creating a humanitarian crisis to force the EU and its member states to accede to Belarus’s demands, namely ending their sanctions.
Any concessions to Belarus could further embolden the rise of right-wing parties in Europe and widen existing divisions within the EU. There were already fears Poland might be heading for a “Polexit” from the bloc over migration and other issues.
Belarus is also engaging in “lawfare” by coercing EU states to break international and EU law by stopping migrants and returning them to Belarus. This is a violation of the principle of non-refoulement under international law, which prohibits the sending of refugees back to countries where they might get harmed.
Poland passed legislation last month allowing migrants who enter the country illegally to be pushed back and for their asylum claims to be ignored. This week, Polish forces have used tear gas and water cannons against migrants trying to cross the border.
Belarus has released photos like this showing Polish forces using water cannons to repel migrants at a checkpoint on the border. The State Border Committee of the Republic of Belarus GPK.GOV.BY/AP
What is Russia’s role in all of this?
Lukashenko seems to have borrowed from Russian President Vladimir Putin’s playbook when it comes to hybrid and grey-zone operations against the west. In fact, Russia has been accused of using illegal migration to push its political agenda before.
In late 2015 and early 2016, thousands of refugees and migrants made their way to Norway and Finland from northern Russia, with the help of Russian guides in convoys of old cars. Then, suddenly, the stream of people stopped.
European officials suspected Russia might be facilitating the migrant flows in response to EU sanctions for Moscow’s annexation of Crimea and its hybrid warfare actions in Ukraine in 2014.
Russia was also accused of fomenting the massive exodus of 500,000 Syrian refugees in 2015 to overwhelm neighbouring Turkey and EU countries. Then-US Senator John McCain said Russia was seeking
to exacerbate the refugee crisis and use it as a weapon to divide the transatlantic alliance and undermine the European project.
Because of the ambiguous nature of hybrid warfare and grey-zone operations, it was difficult to prove Russia’s involvement or intent. But experts said Russian and Syrian forces targeted hospitals and used barrel bombs to push civilians to move.
What would Russia have to gain from this? Russia could be seeking to exploit the crisis as part of its “reflexive control” grey-zone approach. This refers to using a combination of military, political and economic pressures to weaken the west and cement its own role as a still-relevant global player and potential mediator.
If this is Russia’s aim, it’s cynical statecraft at its best by Putin, who will emerge as the only “winner” from this humanitarian and geopolitical crisis.
Sascha-Dominik (Dov) Bachmann has received and is receiving funding from the Australian Department of Defence for research regarding grey zone and information operations targeting Australia. Sascha Dov is a Research Fellow with The Security Institute for Governance and Leadership in Africa, Faculty of Military Science, Stellenbosch University.
New Zealand Parliament Buildings, Wellington, New Zealand.
Editor’s Note: Here below is a list of the main issues currently under discussion in New Zealand and links to media coverage. You can sign up to NZ Politics Daily as well as New Zealand Political Roundup columns for free here.
American-Chinese summit diplomacy comes and goes, but there will not be a much more consequential meeting between two leaders than the latest of Joe Biden and Xi Jinping’s consultations.
If a measure was needed of how transformational the relationship between the US and China has become, one only needs go back to the first post-revolution summit between Richard Nixon and an ailing Mao Zedong in 1972.
Then, no-one could have predicted that within a generation the two countries would be locked in strategic competition. Nor would they have foreseen China surging forward economically to become the world’s second largest economy.
As always, US-China summits are framed by the Shanghai Communique signed in 1972 by Nixon and then Premier Zhou Enlai. This acknowledged a “one-China” policy and set aside the issue of Taiwan.
Nixon and Mao meet during Nixon’s historic trip to China in 1972. AAP/AP
In his virtual discussions with Xi, Biden reiterated America’s acceptance of “one China”, while re-stating Washington’s insistence the status quo in the Taiwan Strait not be altered by force.
While it is much too soon to talk about a reset in US-China relations, a reasonable conclusion is that Biden and Xi have at least got the relationship more or less back on track after the chaotic Trump era.
Comments from the two sides on the encounter, which stretched over three-and-a-half hours, indicate that not much was off the table. Both emphasised the need for ongoing dialogue.
A White House readout indicated that Biden emphasised strong US opposition to China’s attempt to throw its weight around.
President Biden underscored the United States will continue to stand up for its interests and values and together with our allies and partners, ensure the rules of the road for the 21st century advances an international system that is free, open, and fair.
From an Australian perspective, given the bad state of relations between Canberra and Beijing, these expressions of support for “allies and partners” will be welcome,
In another significant intervention, Biden called for greater cooperation to avoid possible conflict.
President Biden also underscored the importance of managing strategic risks. He noted the need for commonsense guardrails to ensure that competition does not veer into conflict […]
The Chinese “readout” came via Foreign Ministry spokesperson Hua Chunying, who said the meeting was “wide-ranging, in-depth, candid, constructive, substantive and productive”.
Chinese state media quoted Xi as describing the talks as a “new era” in which the principles of “mutual respect, peaceful coexistence and win-win cooperation should be followed”.
Both Biden’s and Xi’s words indicated a wish to improve the relationship through more frequent communication.
Biden’s remarks before the two leaders began the talks suggested he was keen to establish a less combative relationship. He said
It seems to be our responsibility as the leaders of China and the United States to ensure that the competition between our countries does not veer into conflict whether intended or unintended, rather than simple, straightforward competition.
Xi responded by calling Biden an “old friend” and expressed the wish to “work with you, Mr President, to build consensus, take active steps and move China-US relations forward in a positive direction”.
The above sentiments expressed by both sides could be regarded as nothing more nor less than what might be expected in exchanges between US and Chinese leaders in a summit setting. But there is at least a chance that a more constructive relationship will emerge from these talks.
In a complex world in which both the US and China are facing immense challenges domestically, it is in neither’s interest for relations to spiral.
Indeed, it is in their collective interest for a more workable relationship to emerge. Agreement between Washington and Beijing at the recent COP26 climate summit to work constructively towards climate targets is an example of the sort of collaboration that serves each other’s interests.
However, it would be extremely naïve to believe the world is about to enter a new and more benign phase following the Biden-Xi talks. Multiple structural differences between the competing powers are such that it is inevitable the two will continue to be at odds on a range of issues.
Most concerning for America and its friends, one of those issues is China’s continuing military build-up. This includes additions to its nuclear arsenal and the development of space-enabled hypersonic missiles that would pose a serious threat to US military supremacy in the Indo-Pacific.
China’s military buildup in the East and South China Seas, despite assurances provided by Xi to President Barack Obama that Beijing’s intentions were benign, represents a significant concern for the US and its allies. This includes Australia.
China’s use of its cyber capabilities in a provocative manner is another cause for concern. Its intellectual property theft weighs heavily on relations with Washington. Its human rights abuses represent another serious drag on the relationship.
All that said, personal diplomacy between Xi and Biden may serve to smooth off some of the rougher edges of a relationship that will continue to be tested. This is because of the simple reality that China, as a rising power, will continue to disrupt the US and its allies on many different fronts.
The question that should be asked about this latest attempt to restore a level of equilibrium to the relationship is whether there is reasonable expectation a more constructive partnership will develop.
There are reasons why relations might become less contentious. On the other hand, there are compelling arguments for why deep and aggravating differences are such that a dysfunctional relationship remains likely.
Tony Walker 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.
While Australian cricket fans celebrate their team’s triumph at the 2021 ICC Men’s T20 World Cup, the tournament’s results have sparked a debate over whether the team that bats second has a potentially match-winning advantage before a ball is even bowled.
Of the 45 matches played at the tournament, 29 (around 64%) were won by the team batting second. Put another way, teams batting second won almost twice as many matches as teams batting first.
Some critics have gone as far as to suggest teams can “win on a coin toss” when deciding which side will bat first.
There are a range of suggested advantages to batting second, particularly in shorter forms of cricket. Perhaps chief among them is knowing exactly what score will win the game, and being able to plan the innings accordingly. As the afternoon or evening progresses, dew can also form on the ground, making it harder for bowlers to grip the ball and for fielders to retrieve it, and easier for batters to hit balls that “skid onto the bat” rather than changing direction.
But what do the stats actually say? Does the coin toss really confer a crucial advantage? Let’s have a look at the numbers.
Time for some stats
The first question to ask is whether the pattern of results seen during the world cup could have arisen purely by chance. We do this by using statistical tests to calculate the “p-value”, which tells us the probability of obtaining 29 or more “batting second” wins out of 45 matches if the true winning chance were 50-50.
In this case, we arrive at a “p-value” of around 0.04, or 4%. This probability is reasonably small, suggesting there is indeed some evidence that batting second was beneficial at this world cup, and that the pattern of results may not have arisen by chance.
But given our data set contains only 45 matches, our test does not have much statistical power, which means this evidence is far from overwhelming.
In other words, there is a non-negligible probability (4%) that this pattern of results arose by chance, and that batting second doesn’t confer a crucial advantage after all.
What’s more, looking at the overall results in this way fails to consider other factors that might influence the outcome, such as the specific pitch, the time of the day at which the game was played, and the relative strength of the teams.
To examine this in more detail, I created a statistical model to examine how these various factors affected the probability of winning when batting second in these 45 matches.
Matches at the 2021 world cup were played at four different venues, and at two different times of day (afternoon and evening). I also factored in the teams’ ICC T20 rankings, as a measure of the difference in overall quality between the two teams in any given match.
My analysis found that the timing of the match did not statistically influence the winning probability of the team batting second. In other words, the advantage of batting first or second did not depend on whether the match was staged during the afternoon or the evening.
That leaves two variables that might conceivably influence the situation: the venue hosting the match, and whether the team batting second has a higher or lower ranking than its opponent. That gives eight possible combinations (four venues times two possibilities for batting order) for which the statistical model can generate results.
Because there is just a handful of matches in each category, we can strengthen our statistical analysis using a concept called the “95% confidence interval”. Rather than generating only a single probability estimate, we can also calculate an upper and lower limit to our estimate, between which we can be 95% confident that the true probability is found.
What do the results say?
The results are shown below. The most striking result is the very high estimated probability of winning when batting second in Dubai (where Australia triumphed in the tournament’s final). Even when the batting-second team was ranked lower than its opponent, there still was a high estimated probability of victory.
The Dubai cricket ground seems to have offered the strongest boost to teams batting second. Christopher Drovandi, Author provided
But notice there is a lot of uncertainty in this estimate, with a 95% interval that still includes 0.5 (which represents random chance). Going back to the raw data, out of 11 matches in Dubai, the team batting second won 10. The final and one of the semi-finals were played in Dubai, where the team batting second won both times.
The other three pitches produced results more like what we might expect: teams were more likely to win batting second if they were the higher-ranked team, and more likely to lose batting second if they were the lower-ranked team.
While the Abu Dhabi pitch also seemed to slightly favour teams batting second, my analysis reveals it was the results from Dubai that skewed the overall results.
This suggests the specific conditions in Dubai might be better suited to batting second. But it’s also possible the Dubai results were just a statistical anomaly.
The analysis revealed some evidence that it was beneficial to bat second in this world cup, but this is likely to depend greatly on the conditions. If we assume a match is played on a randomly selected pitch from the four venues used, and there is a 50% chance the higher-ranked team bats second, my model estimates the probability of winning when batting second is around 0.6, with a 95% confidence interval of 0.48 to 0.71.
So there is a likely benefit to batting second, but it’s far from a foregone conclusion.
My analysis only included data from the 2021 World Cup, but T20 cricket is played in all kinds of conditions all over the world. A more rigorous analysis would include data from many tournaments, and consider more information such as the winning margin, the size of the difference between the teams’ rankings, their recent form, weather conditions, and the stage of the tournament.
The possible factors and permutations are almost endless, which is one of the reasons people love cricket. Of course, it doesn’t hurt if their team is winning too.
Christopher Drovandi is a Professor of Statistics at the Queensland University of Technology (QUT), and is a Program Director in the QUT Centre for Data Science. He is an Associate Investigator of the Australian Research Centre of Excellence for Mathematical and Statistical Frontiers (ACEMS). He receives funding from the Australian Research Council.
Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Chris Wallace, Associate Professor, 50/50 By 2030 Foundation, Faculty of Business Government & Law, University of Canberra
A key to winning elections is performing better than your opponent in the theatre as well as the substance of politics. It’s central to getting voter attention, without which messages about vote-enticing policy offerings won’t be heard.
In recent weeks we have seen a nascent shift in the balance of theatrical advantage between Prime Minister Scott Morrison and Opposition Leader Anthony Albanese. It has been a shift in Albanese’s favour, with potential significance for the 2022 federal election.
As prime minister, Morrison has, until this month, been considered a master of the theatre of politics relative to his Labor rivals. He knows politics is not just about the words you use, but how you use them, what you look like when you use them, the dramatic context of their use and, as a consequence, the emotions they invoke.
He has grabbed attention through preconceived drama and action, spurring emotion in voters that has welded them to the Coalition’s political purpose in sufficient numbers to keep him in power.
At the last election, in May 2019, Morrison’s winning edge over Albanese’s predecessor as opposition leader, Bill Shorten, was one critical factor in the surprise Liberal-National Coalition win.
Morrison relentlessly toured his self-conjured, trucker-capped “daggy dad” persona across Australia during the campaign, generating daily vision of him enthusiastically engaging with voters who radiated enthusiasm back.
This repeated enactment of Morrison’s energetic, mutually positive interaction with voters contrasted favourably to Shorten’s more wooden, lower energy, self-focused performance.
On the job: Scott Morrison has long had a good understanding of the ‘theatre’ of politics. Dean Lewins/AAP
If there is a golden rule in politics, it’s that your pitch has to at least appear to be all about voters, not about you. Morrison achieved this in the 2019 campaign. Shorten did not.
Morrison’s particular strength was being able to do this through pictures more than words – vastly more effective in reaching more voters, more viscerally, and in a shorter time than the alternatives. Annika Smethurst’s new biography, The Accidental Prime Minister, provides interesting detail on the roots of this skill: intense family involvement by Morrison’s parents and him in community theatre during his youth.
Assessments of Albanese’s capacity for political thespianism have been relatively negative. His fondness for retelling his origin story since becoming opposition leader has been emblematic. While Albanese is talking about himself, he’s not talking about voters – and voters are interested in themselves, not politicians.
Unlike the Morrison operation, and unfortunately in common with Shorten’s before him, the Albanese operation does not think visually. There’s an over-reliance on words to do a job that evocative pictures, supported by appropriate words, can do so much more powerfully.
Some improvement is evident. A recent interview coinciding with the COP26 climate conference had Albanese at a wind farm, the pictures reinforcing his renewable energy message. That was good. Him squinting at the camera because of sun glare was not.
Now the Albanese operation is starting to think “pictures”, it needs to make sure the candidate looks the best he possibly can in them. No squinting. Labor would be smart to attach a television producer with a good eye to the campaign to make compelling, politically persuasive vision of the alternative prime minister the daily norm, not a hit-and-miss achievement.
This is not least because Morrison’s thespian edge is relative and, recent events suggest, vulnerable.
A subtle deterioration in the optics of Morrison’s performance has been evident since his return from this month’s G20 and COP26 meetings, where he was under pressure on both the policy and character fronts. His announcement of new policy on electric vehicles (EVs) upon return is a case in point.
The Morrison who love-bombed voters so convincingly in the 2019 election campaign had disappeared. In his place was a hectoring politician trying to impose his version of his historical statements on EVs – at odds with the facts – through sheer rhetorical force.
It provided a public glimpse of Morrison’s overbearing private persona described by credible Coalition insiders such as former Liberal MP Julia Banks in her book Power Play.
Once glimpsed it may be hard to forget, particularly against the backdrop of sustained public discussion of Morrison’s truthfulness.
Further, the prime minister’s frustration that his assertions, long uncritically accepted, are no longer unquestioned could feed into further deterioration in his voter-friendly persona.
It coincides with Morrison becoming a net liability for the government according to recent opinion polls. The latest Newspoll showed his approval falling to 44 (-2) and his disapproval rising to 52 (+2), for a net approval rating of -8.
This remains marginally better than Albanese’s net -11 approval rating. However, compared to Morrison’s soaring net approval advantage earlier in the year, it’s a significant shift, negating one of the Coalition’s big advantages over Labor.
Every election is there for the winning. The theatre of politics is neither a substitute for, nor the antithesis of, good policy: it is what makes winning government, and getting to implement good policy, possible.
If Morrison’s advantage in the theatre of politics cannot be revived, and if Albanese can build on modest recent improvements to further lift his, a change of government at the 2022 election will be more likely.
Chris Wallace has received funding from the Australian Research Council.
New daily COVID cases in New South Wales decreased rapidly from a peak of over 1,600 in early September, and are now hovering at about 200–250 new cases per day.
They’ve remained low even since lockdown restrictions were eased on October 11.
By contrast, new daily cases in Victoria have dropped from a peak of over 2,200 on October 13 to plateau around 1,000 – though they have dropped a little further to around 800 in the last few days.
So how come NSW’s cases dropped so much quicker and further than Victoria’s?
The easy answer is that it’s all just luck, good or bad. But if we look hard enough, we can usually find reasons that are likely to provide at least some of the explanation.
Overwhelmed contact tracing and lockdown fatigue affected both states, so it’s unlikely either of these accounted for a major part of the difference between the states’ cases.
It’s more likely structural factors are playing a major role in driving Australia’s diverse epidemic. These include climate and the connectedness of populations.
The COVID outbreaks in NSW and Victoria had several similarities. Both quickly took root in the suburbs of each state’s capital city with higher population densities and proportions of essential workers.
These regions were also generally younger and so had lower vaccine coverage because our vaccination policy was to gradually progress from older to younger ages.
There were also important differences. Sydney’s wave started earlier, when the national rollout was less advanced. But targeted vaccination of high-risk suburbs was key to stabilising case numbers.
Strict lockdown measures were implemented earlier in the course of the epidemic in Victoria, and yet were insufficient to achieve a quick return to elimination.
Although contact tracing in NSW has previously been lauded as the country’s “gold-standard”, the effectiveness of any state’s contact tracing rapidly declines as daily case numbers rise through the hundreds. So, differences between the states’ contact tracing is a less likely explanation for the differences in case numbers.
Ultimately, both epidemics were controlled through vaccination. Although this has involved both carrot and stick, this can nevertheless be attributed to unprecedented engagement by the public in the vaccination program. Australians have shown how highly motivated they are to get vaccinated once the supply issues were finally resolved, with obvious pay-offs.
So, it’s hard to find a single reason for why the outbreaks played out differently in the two states. While there are several similarities between the two cities’ epidemics, there are also differences, which push in both directions.
In Australia and elsewhere, scientists have frequently proposed climatic factors as one explanation for markedly different COVID waves across the world.
This has been difficult to fully define, there are exceptions to any rule, and several analyses have suggestedno effect.
Nevertheless, the following factors appear to make COVID outbreaks harder to control:
higher population density
higher latitude
colder and drier weather.
Since the first explosive epidemics of 2020 in Europe and North America, major high-income cities in winter in temperate regions have often been hit the hardest. For example, New York, Paris and London.
This is consistent with the cyclical pattern of non-COVID coronaviruses, which are responsible for large waves of common cold symptoms each winter.
This international pattern appears to have played out similarly in Australia.
Melbourne is a significantly colder and drier city than Sydney, and has needed more restrictions than Sydney to achieve control of COVID. Sydney is colder and drier than Brisbane, and similarly needed more restrictions to gain control.
There are biological reasons why respiratory viruses might transmit more efficiently in cold weather. However, given the importance of indoor transmission to COVID, human behaviour and where we choose to associate at different times of the year may be much of the explanation.
Outside of our major cities on the eastern seaboard, population density and connectedness are likely the dominant factors.
Although we don’t fully understand the contribution of each of these elements, it seems clear structural factors, such as population density, city size, socio-economic status and climate are crucial to how COVID spreads.
We now know vaccination doesn’t just protect against disease and death, but also has a substantial effect on transmission – such that we have the ability to slow COVID outbreaks without necessarily resorting to lockdown.
How will COVID spread in Australia going forward?
In our wide, diverse land, we’ll inevitably continue to see different COVID outbreaks in different regions.
Our large cities will likely remain at, or close to, herd immunity through some combination of transmission and vaccination.
Outbreaks will likely occur sporadically in remote areas less connected to major urban centres. Such rural and remote regions may go for months without cases, even with moderate vaccination coverage. However, outbreaks will occur in these communities, particularly as vaccine-induced immunity wanes and long periods without cases lead to complacency about the need for vaccination.
The Epidemiological Modelling Unit at the School of Public Health and Preventive Medicine (led by James Trauer) receives funding from the Victorian Government Department of Health and the World Health Organization.
The Morrison government’s recent plan to reach net-zero emissions by 2050 has been widely criticised by scientists, environmental organisations, journalists, politicians and more.
Released just days before the international climate change summit in Glasgow, the plan sees Australia adopt a target of net-zero emissions by 2050, with a focus on technological solutions and only voluntary efforts by emissions-heavy sectors such as manufacturing and mining.
We can evaluate the plan’s sincerity through a lens of good practice policy making. In my recently published paper, I developed a policy evaluation framework, based on an extensive review of past national environment and sustainability policies over the last 30 years. This includes in national water, forest, biodiversity, fisheries and land use policies.
Good practice policy making is more likely to achieve tangible outcomes than bad policy processes. So how does the government’s net-zero plan rate?
If we assess the plan against six high-level policy design criteria, we can understand why the plan, as a document, is superficial and will fail to deliver on the emission reductions outcomes it promises.
1. Is there a legitimate reason for the federal government to be involved?
This is not well argued.
Under Australia’s constitution, powers to manage natural resource use and extraction are largely vested in the states. The federal government’s powers lie predominantly in giving effect to international agreements (which climate change is squarely in scope) and in regulating international trade.
The export of fossil fuels could certainly be an area the government can exercise restrictions on, should it choose to take a strong stance on emissions reduction – but it isn’t. It has used such powers in the past to manage logging of native forests, for example.
That the plan is marketed as being “uniquely Australian” is, in itself, damning because climate change requires cooperative global effort. Doing things “the Australian way” isn’t credible because if the Australian way was truly effective, it would soon become the “global way”.
2. Was there a concerted effort to engage with stakeholders?
No.
On face value, it seems the plan was drafted by a single government department and released once the National Party was appeased.
Good policy processes should include widespread consultation with state and federal government representatives (including opposition parties and independents), and industry stakeholders (including the renewables sector and environment groups). This would deliver a clearer understanding of what the problem is, and promote buy-in from stakeholders to solve the problem.
Clear objectives and principles can help drive collaborative effort, while a lack of broad consensus on the plan will inevitably see it fail.
3. Are the policy objectives clear and achievable?
No.
A good plan should outline what success would look like and how it will be achieved. But a significant failing of the plan is the lack of well-defined objectives. While net zero by 2050 is a clear goal, we need more detail about how we’d get there, including timelines and targets.
A national plan should also identify meaningful principles. An example of a principle could be “incentivise investments in renewables and eliminate subsidies for fossil fuels”. This would guide the action of the plan’s signatories.
Most importantly, the plan should outline a clear case for change, but it does the opposite – it largely assumes business as usual can prevail.
4. How will implementation occur?
If the objective is to reduce emissions, there should be a clear pathway to the end point with clearly identifiable actions, responsibilities and timelines. But these are lacking.
The plan should identify who is responsible for delivering which actions and by when. The absence of a climate change lead agency (or agencies) at the national level, for example, means effective implementation Australia-wide cannot occur.
An effective plan would build partnerships with states as a bare minimum. This would include new commitments of shared funding, long timeframes for implementation given the scale and nature of the problem, and permit subsidiary plans and policies to be developed.
The plan makes it clear the government will not mandate any actions. Shutterstock
5. Does the plan incorporate diverse policy instruments?
No.
The plan makes it clear the government will not mandate any actions to reduce emissions – Australian households and businesses can choose whether they engage with the policy. But change doesn’t occur merely because a document gets published.
Good policy outcomes require a combination of incentives (subsidies, grants), penalties (taxes, fines) and soft powers (education campaigns), as has occurred with the management of Australian marine fisheries , for example.
The federal government can contribute substantial funds to drive change. While it allocates A$20 billion, presumably to 2030, this is woefully inadequate given the scale of the problem. After all, the government is prepared to spend at least A$90 billion on submarines which won’t be fully delivered until well after 2050.
Surely addressing an existential crisis deserves large and ongoing investments in reform? The lack of funding commitment will inevitably lead to ineffective implementation.
6. Can the policy be evaluated to measure its effectiveness?
No.
The plan involves a review of its progress every five years. But the lack of well-specified objectives means there are no clear metrics to measure policy effectiveness.
And the absence of a clear agency (or agencies) to put the plan into practice increases the likelihood that reporting will be ad hoc, unstructured and inconsistent between reporting schedules.
What’s more, an over-reliance on technological advancements, some yet to be conceived and with no obligations for uptake, suggests data sources will be vague and unlikely to inform progress.
The government should make at least some elements of emissions reduction mandatory, as it would require compliance measures to be in place. It should also identify signposts of what success would look like to offer reference points from which to evaluate the policy’s effectiveness.
The government should make at least some elements of emissions reduction mandatory. Shutterstock
More hot air in a warming climate
A rudimentary evaluation of the plan shows the governments intentions are spin. The plan assumes emissions reduction will occur while we continue with business as usual.
The many critiques of the plan are well justified, and the absence of good policy processes substantiate these.
After years of dismissing climate science and global warming, it would be quite a rapid awakening for the Coalition government to be truly responsive to its citizens’ concerns on climate change. Adopting good practice policy-making processes would show it’s now taking the matter seriously.
Dr Nadeem Samnakay 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 enrolment share of students from low socio-economic, regional and non-English-speaking backgrounds fell in 2019. And that was before the COVID-19 pandemic hit these students hard, affecting both their expectations and pathways to higher education. Access rates of other equity groups, such as students from remote areas, remain low.
Achieving equitable access is a complex challenge. Our longitudinal study of school student aspirations shows we need to think more broadly about how young people see the meaning and value of higher education.
Of course they see its value for getting a job. But they also value higher education for intellectual enquiry, social interaction, personal growth and the desire to just experience “university life”. And students from equity groups in particular valued these last four aspects the most.
Higher education policy has often focused on the economic goals of participation. However, our research suggests that policies to support fair access need to do more than funnel students into degrees and aim to make them “job-ready”.
To appeal to a more diverse range of young people, equity policy must take heed of what higher education actually represents to prospective applicants.
The federal government has long had policies targeted at widening participation, including measures in the 2020 Job-Ready Graduates Package. Australian universities have also long had a vocational focus.
To influence course choice, fees have been reduced in “national priority” areas and increased in areas deemed to not directly benefit the labour market.
This particular change, however, is not about equity. It’s about meeting perceived workforce needs. It may well decrease diversity in certain degrees. The impacts on the workforce profiles of different industries could have wide-ranging consequences.
Our longitudinal study of young people’s post-school aspirations looked at the way school students start to form ideas about university during late primary and secondary school. The study drew on focus groups with 310 university aspirants from 30 government schools in New South Wales.
We found young people were interested in higher education for many reasons. But there were important differences in their interest depending on background.
A way to get a job
While students did value higher education for employment, these students tended to match the profile of the “traditional” university applicant – high-achieving and from a higher socio-economic background.
Young people who mentioned employment often focused on the need for a qualification in today’s job market. This view reduced the experience of university to the degree awarded at the end. As one student put it:
“I would definitely go to uni because you can’t really get a job without a piece of paper.”
That ‘piece of paper’ needed to get a job tends to be important for the sort of students who traditionally have dominated university enrolments. Shutterstock
Students from a wide range of backgrounds saw inherent value in higher education. But those living in lower socio-economic circumstances tended to focus on this intrinsic value rather than employment. For example, one student told us:
“I’ll definitely go to university, that’s the thing – the top of the list. And that’s the thing with university […] there’s so much that’s being offered to attract more students, it ticks all your interests […] I adore history and geography, and all sorts of things that are not going to be focused on my career, but I’ll still do them anyway.”
Many of these students saw university as an opportunity to meet people who share similar interests and passions. This was particularly the case for young people attending relatively disadvantaged schools:
“It’s going to be a lot of learning opportunities with like-minded people that are open-minded […] They care and they want to do something, not be with people that don’t care and don’t want to do anything.”
Many young people saw university as an opportunity to meet people with similar interests and passions. Shutterstock
The social justice and economic goals of higher education have long been in tension within policy. Employability agendas, such as “Job-Ready Graduates”, narrowly link the value of higher education to economic objectives. In doing so, they obscure important philosophical questions about the purpose of higher education, particularly for those from equity groups.
Other research has similarly shown that university students link the purpose of higher education to employment, personal growth and societal change. University students from equity target groups can also have much more expansive views of “success” than what is portrayed in policy.
There is a clear need, therefore, for the intrinsic value of higher education – not just its economic value – to be more widely promoted in equity policy and practice.
Universities often use outreach activities such as campus visits and mentoring programs to spark interest among young people from equity groups. Such activities should not just narrowly focus on degrees and jobs.
We also need to continue to ask questions about the nature of higher education today, and what young people from equity groups are being asked to participate in, rather than just the outcome of participation.
A more equitable higher education sector can play a critical role in creating a more just society. Again, this is not just in terms of economic value, but in terms of how students see themselves and society. On World Access to Higher Education Day, our research challenges the sector to think more genuinely about fair access.
The Aspirations Longitudinal Study was funded by the NSW Department of Education and the Australian Research Council.
In his announcement as spokesperson for the jury of the Sydney Film Festival, film director David Michôd pointed out that judging films at film festivals is like comparing apples and oranges.
And he’s right – there’s such an assortment of films from a variety of genres, that it becomes difficult to lay out clear judgements. The best we can hope to do is articulate the strengths and weaknesses of particular films on their own terms, and then hold these evaluations in relation to one another.
With this caveat in mind, my pick for the top five films of the Sydney Film Festival follows, in no particular order.
Paolo Sorrentino’s latest film is his best to date, and I wouldn’t hesitate to suggest that this will endure as a masterpiece of cinema. In some respects, it’s a simple coming of age film, following adolescent Fabietto (Filippo Scotti) and his family as they live their lives in Naples in the 1980s, anchored around the event of Maradona coming to play soccer for Napoli.
But it’s a far more complex film than its simple narrative would suggest, and where other films of this type chart the course of the main character’s life purely through narrative, with events marking their education about the reality of the world, The Hand of God embodies this transformation at a formal cinematic level in the film’s transition from kitschy Italian comedy in the first part to devastating urban drama in the second.
It begins like a tourist advertisement for Italy. We are presented with a colourful, sun-drenched Naples bound by the usual cliches: buxom women, sexist men, yearning boys, bad driving, and bounteous food. It’s good natured and funny, and so beautifully shot that we are sucked into the world despite all the silliness.
Hand of God is set in Naples in the 1980s, anchored around the event of superstar player Maradona coming to play soccer for Napoli. Sydney Film Festival
However, midway through a completely random tragic event befalls Fabietto, and the film’s whole tenor is transformed in a way that forces us to re-imagine what we have just been watching. All of the clichés are suddenly redrawn as the product of Fabietto’s (and the cinematic viewer’s) fantasies about Italy and the world at large, as realised with the simplicity of caricature.
The second half moves more clearly into the “true” consciousness of Fabietto as he finds himself deracinated, bereft, wondering around Naples without a clue what to do. His formerly adored Naples soccer team no longer holds any interest for him, and the hand of God, rather than referring to his idol Maradona, now seems to suggest, merely, the cruelty and arbitrariness of the world.
The Hand of God is a haunting, miraculous film about the power – and lack thereof – of our illusions to comfort us. Despite its appearance, it is hard edged and unsentimental, forcing us to think about our positions as subjects in the cinema.
Pleasure
Like many of the best films about America, Pleasure is made by a European, Swedish writer-director Ninja Thyberg. It is a thoroughly formulaic film, following an ingenue’s rise to stardom in an American tradition stretching from Paul Verhoven’s Showgirls back to Theodore Dreiser’s novel Sister Carrie. But this makes Pleasure no less pleasurable.
The narrative is centred on Bella Cherry (Sofia Kappel) as she arrives in LA to try to become, as she puts it early in the film, the best porn star in the world. We follow her from shoot to shoot, on her way to becoming a “Spiegler girl” (played by real-life talent agent Mark Spiegler, with all of the cast of the film, except Kappel, coming from the porn industry).
Much of the action is comical, and one of the key comedic tropes of the film is the contrast between the fantasy when the cameras are rolling and the reality when the cameras stop. Brutal, tattooed men become attentive and sensitive coworkers.
Pleasure follows Bella Cherry (Sofia Kappel) as she arrives in LA to try to become, as she puts it early in the film, ‘the best porn star in the world’. Sydney Film Festival
But it’s not all hugs and jokes. In a particularly disturbing sequence, the boundaries between reality and fantasy are blurred during a “rough sex” shoot. Bella finds herself harassed and abused by two men on camera, demands they stop, and when she tries to get out of it the director and actors pressure her to continue. When she later confronts her agent, claiming that she was “raped,” he replies “Don’t throw that word around just because you had a bad day at work.”
The inconsistency of Bella’s experience across different “rough sex” sets – rather than the morality of the acts themselves – is critically scrutinised by the film as a reflection of a general lack of regulation in the industry.
Kappel is absolutely mesmerising as Bella, star-struck ingenue-come-Machiavellian player, and she performs the part with confident understatement, surprising for an actress in her first film. The supporting cast are equally brilliant, including newcomer Revika Anne Reustle as Joy, and porn actors Chris Cock and Kendra Spade in non-porn roles as Bella’s friends Bear and Kimberly.
Pleasure is an intense experience, raucous, but terrifying at times too. It is beautifully shot by Sophie Winqvist, capturing the neon lights of party LA with electric intensity, while visually connecting this to the other LA – the LA of the sprawling, post-industrial wasteland. This is a film that truly revels in its own pleasure, amoral and sublime.
Television Event
Television Event is an extremely well-made documentary that follows the difficulties of the (American) ABC network producing and then exhibiting the nuclear apocalypse telemovie, The Day After, which aired in 1983 and became the most-watched TV movie to this day.
Director Jeff Daniels skilfully assembles a plethora of archival material, interspersing this with talking head interviews with the main figures behind the television event. This includes director of The Day After, Nicholas Meyer, and his nemesis at ABC, executive Stu Samuels, who still mostly have only negative stuff to say about each other.
Television event is a documentary about the Cold War nuclear apocalypse telemovie, The Day After, which aired in 1983 and became the most-watched TV movie to this day. Sydney Film Festival
While it taps into a certain nostalgia for the period, evident in the hilariously outdated network promos and talk shows featured in the film, the story of the conception, filming and screening of the movie is carefully contextualised by Daniels in terms of the Reagan-era Cold War, with the anti-nuke message of the film changing, the film suggests, America’s nuclear policy.
And this is the ultimate claim of the film – that mass media does have the potential to positively effect the world for most of the population, not just the powerful who control the networks – even if one’s cynicism regarding the military-media-industrial complex is usually warranted.
The Story of My Wife
In a seemingly inconsequential piece of dialogue in Ildikó Enyedi’s The Story of My Wife, protagonist Jakob (Gijs Naber) challenges the astrological obsession of his landlord Herr Blume (Josef Hader). Why not a carrot?, he asks him – the miracle of the world is in a carrot, not in the stars, in the simplicity of being-as-it-is, not in the attempt to decipher some underlying mystery.
In this moment, the film articulates its vision of the world – the mystery is in the play of light across surfaces, not in the attempt to render depth where there is none. And the film performs this truth: it is an epic-scale production, a period film featuring meticulous design in every aspect – and yet the whole thing seems effortless, breezing along for nearly 3 hours with the lightest of touches propelled by two amazing actors in the lead roles.
After sea captain Jakob is advised to get a wife by his vessel’s cook, he promises his colleague that he will marry the next woman who enters the café in Paris where they are drinking. It happens to be Lizzy (Léa Seydoux), and, charmed by his combination of bravado and frankness, she agrees to his proposal.
The Story of My Wife is epic in length, a massive-scale production shot in multiple languages. Sydney Film Festival.
Once they are married, suspicions regarding his wife’s motives immediately begin to emerge. He cannot believe she has married him – she is a social butterfly type, he is a stodgy sea captain. He is unable to follow his own advice, to find beauty in the present, in the simple appearance, in the being of the carrot.
It sounds tragic and dramatic, but it’s not really, with the film adopting the easygoing attitude of Lizzy, at the same time romantic, whimsical and profoundly melancholic. Its three hours passes like a flash of light on a Parisian street, and it is rare to see such a light touch in a film today.
Pompo the Cinéphile
Pompo: The Cinéphile, an animated work from writer-director Hirao Takayuki, is an incredibly joyful film. The title character is a hotshot producer in “Nyallywood”, renowned for her exciting but trashy blockbusters, the kind of stuff involving bikini-clad beauties fighting giant octopi with machine guns. Pompo, despite her status, acts and looks like a kid, with her temper tantrums, one suspects, poking fun at some of the more eccentric Hollywood producers.
Pompo the Cinéphile is set in ‘Nyallywood’, a fictional Hollywood analogue. Sydney Film Festival
When Pompo develops an idea for a more serious dramatic film – a corny but completely believable Oscar-bid type film about an ageing conductor’s path to redemption – she enlists her assistant, film nerd Gene, to direct it. We follow Gene as he flourishes into a star director, with his rise paralleling the rise to stardom of the leading actress in the film, Nathalie.
The whole thing plays like a weird and delightful fantasy. It’s of the funny and sweet rather than violent and mean school of anime, but this does not make its barbs about the film industry any less incisive. This film will not be for everyone – maybe not even for most – but it makes my top five as an exercise in pure cinematic joy, full of stunningly drawn images and a pleasurably escapist narrative.
Other hits
Many other brilliant films screened, like Eddie Martin’s stunning documentary The Kids, which looks at the aftermath of career and life of those who participated in Larry Clarke/Harmony Korine’s famous 1990s film Kids, and received virtually nothing for their efforts. Or Paul Schrader’s brooding exercise in minimalistic noir, The Card Counter, about an ex-torture specialist soldier who now spends his life travelling from casino to casino.
Then there were the standouts from the Freak Me Out section of the festival, The Spine of God, a fantasy film made by rotoscope animation that played like an R-rated, ultraviolent version of the Masters of the Universe cartoon, and Censor, a grim, beautifully made horror film set in the UK video nasties era, about a censor who finds herself swept into her own horror story.
The two strongest films not in the above five are A Hero, an Iranian film from Asghar Farhadi that skilfully dissects the effects of social media when a prisoner’s return of a bag of gold becomes a local media event, and Compartment Number 6, a beautifully shot film from director Juho Kuosmanen that follows the budding friendship between pretentious Irina (Dinara Drukarova) and macho Vadim (Yuriy Borisov) as they share a compartment while travelling across Russia by train.
A frequent refrain during this film festival was that “Sydney needs the festival now more than ever.” It sounds corny, but having sat in the dark with masses of potentially germ-bearing strangers over the past twelve days, collectively participating in an absolute feast of cinema, I can at least confirm this for myself.
Ari Mattes 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 COP26 climate summit, world politicians patted themselves on their backs for coming to a last-minute agreement. Humanity now waits with bated breath to see if countries implement the commitments they made, and if those commitments help the planet.
If the rest of our climate progress mirrors the policies around transportation, we’re in for a difficult future.
COP26 may have been one of the last chances to head off devastating climate change, and yet, the best and boldest action our leaders could envision for transportation was the universal adoption of electric vehicles (EVs) — with a vague nod to active and public transport.
EVs are exciting for politicians, many businesses and a few drivers. They give us the illusion we are dramatically reducing our environmental impact while changing virtually nothing about our lifestyles.
But EVs do what cars with internal combustion engines (ICE) have always done to our urban areas. They make it possible to put greater distances between the places we live, work and shop. But ever expanding cities are unsustainable.
Building endlessly into greenfield areas and swapping forests or agricultural land for low-density housing uses exorbitant amounts of limited resources. The further out our cities grow, the less interest there is in building up to achieve the scale our urban areas need for the efficient use of infrastructures like water, sewerage, electricity and public transport.
Electric cars are still cars
Electric cars make our cities less attractive and less efficient for more sustainable modes of transport. No matter the type of propulsion, people driving cars kill 1.35 million people globally, including more than 300 in New Zealand, every year.
More cars in cities mean more space taken for parking, less room and more danger for active modes and less efficient public transport. Plugging in a car doesn’t stop it from being a lethal machine or causing congestion.
There is still no clear and sustainable pathway to manage the e-waste generated by EVs. Electric cars are not “green”. They still use tyres which create massive waste streams. Tyre wear produces microplastics that end up in our waterways and oceans.
Although EVs use regenerative braking, which is better than traditional internal-combustion cars, they still use brake pads when the brakes are applied. Braking generates toxic dust composed of heavy metals like mercury, lead, cadmium and chromium. These heavy metals make their way to our streams and rivers, embedding themselves in these waterways forever.
Driving less, switching to active transport
Even if EVs were great for the planet, we may not get to a level of use in New Zealand to meaningfully reduce transport emissions to merit our climate goals.
New Zealand introduced subsidies in July this year, but at this point less than 0.5% of the vehicle fleet is fully electric. At the current rate of EV adoption, it will take many decades before enough electric motors propel our vehicle fleet to reduce greenhouse gas emissions.
According to the Climate Change Commission’s advice to the government, to achieve New Zealand’s 2050 net zero target, at least 50% of imported light vehicles would need to be fully electric by 2029, with no light internal-combustion vehicle imports from the early 2030s. The report goes on to concede that:
Even with the rapid switch to EVs, roughly 80% of the vehicles entering the fleet this decade would still be ICE vehicles.
The current rates of EV adoption reflect uptake by the wealthiest in our society. Once those with the greatest disposable income purchase electric cars, we can expect the adoption curve to flatten.
It is unfair to expect middle and lower-income people to replace their current vehicles with more expensive electric cars. Mitigating emissions through consumerism is highly inequitable. We are placing the most significant burden on the most vulnerable groups.
Those who push technology like EVs make big promises that lull us into a false sense that we can live our lives in virtually the same way we do now and not worry about the planet. In reality, our lifestyles need to undergo significant changes to make a meaningful impact.
Despite all this, there is good news. The changes needed to move us closer to a sustainable future are many of the things a lot of us love about living in a community. It’s about bringing different land uses closer together to make it possible to live, work and shop in your neighbourhood. It’s about connecting communities with cycling and public transport infrastructure for longer trips.
Life as we know it will have to change, but that change could be for the better. We don’t need to ditch the more than three million fossil fuel cars we already have, but we should drive them a lot less. Though it sounds nice, buying a new electric car won’t save the planet.
Timothy Welch 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.
Anthony Albanese is promising a Labor government would invest $2.4 billion to boost the NBN, expanding full-fibre access to 1.5 million homes and businesses.
With the faux election campaign in full swing, although the election isn’t until next year, Albanese on Wednesday will release a policy designed to push fibre deeper into the suburbs and regional areas.
Labor will pledge that more than 90% of premises across Australia in the fixed line footprint – more than 10 million premises – would have access to “world-class gigabit speeds” by 2025.
“Labor will also keep the NBN in public hands, keeping internet costs for families affordable while ensuring improvements in the network,” Albanese and shadow communications minister Michelle Rowland say in a statement.
The opposition says its proposed investment would be funded by a combination of Commonwealth loans, free cash flows and equity if deemed appropriate. The mix would be determined in government.
The plan would run fibre into the street, giving those relying on copper wire the choice of having fibre connected by NBN without extra cost to their premises to get faster speed.
“Owners of these properties, mainly in the outer suburbs of our cities and in regional areas, were dudded by the Coalition when it took an axe to Labor’s original NBN design in 2013,” the policy says.
“It is estimated 660,000 premises in the regions will benefit under this plan, and 840,000 in the suburbs.”
The policy says 7.5 million households and businesses would be on a full-fibre connection or have access to one, and nearly seven in eight premises in the fibre to the node footprint would have fibre access.
Labor says its plan would create 12,000 jobs for construction workers, engineers and project managers in the regions and suburbs.
Albanese and Rowland condemn the Coalition’s oversight of the NBN as “a masterclass in technological incompetence and mismanagement causing Australia to trail behind other developed countries, slipping to 59th in the world on average broadband speeds”.
They say this has been “a drag on our economy. It has undermined the competitiveness of small businesses and left our health care and education sectors reliant on patchy, outdated technology”.
Under Labor’s original plan, unveiled by the Rudd government in 2009, the NBN was set to install fibre-optic cables to 93% of Australian homes and businesses, as part of a wholesale replacement of the existing copper network.
This “fibre to the premises” network would have delivered speeds of 100 megabits per second and above to almost the entire population, with wireless and satellite internet connections covering the remote areas not covered by the new network.
But the plan was significantly scaled back by the Abbott government in response to concerns the $37.4 billion price tag, including $30.4 billion of public funding, was too high.
The replacement NBN plan involved a mixed approach in which , while others would make do with “fibre to the node” – optical cables to a central hub from which the existing copper network would service individual premises.
The rollout of the revised plan was beset with technical problems in many areas, while some experts decried the mixed-technology plan as short-sighted (see https://theconversation.com/expert-panel-the-state-of-the-national-broadband-network-56073).
While other nations have uniform 100Mbps broadband, Australia has languished in the international league tables, offering speeds of 25Mbps across much of the NBN. Telecommunications firms such as AT&T in the United States have begun designing networks capable of delivering 1 gigabit per second (1,000Mbps) as part of efforts to future-proof their infrastructure for the coming decades.
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.
Support for a quantum commercialisation hub is part of a plan for “critical technologies” that Scott Morrison will unveil on Wednesday.
The government will invest more than $100 million in quantum technology, including $70 million over a decade for the hub to pursue partnerships with “likeminded” countries to commercialise Australia’s quantum research and help businesses find markets and investors.
The government has already signed a co-operation agreement with the United States.
Chief Scientist Cathy Foley will lead the development of a quantum strategy.
Quantum technology has vast potential in computing, defence, and cryptography.
The government’s “blueprint” says critical technologies – which can be digital, such as artificial intelligence or non-digital, such as synthetic biology – are those able “to significantly enhance or pose risk to our national interest”.
“They are fundamental to Australia’s economic prosperity, social cohesion and national security, and are increasingly the focus of international geopolitical competition,” the document says.
Although the blueprint does not spell it out, it is clear that the danger posed by China is one central consideration in the government’s thinking about the need to both advance and protect Australia’s critical technologies.
“Critical technologies confer a strategic edge, and at a time of intensifying geostrategic competition, this can be used to threaten our values, interests and way of life,” the blueprint says.
The critical technologies plan includes a list of 63 technologies but the government is focusing on nine.
These are critical minerals extraction and processing; advanced communications (including 5G and 6G); artificial intelligence; cyber security technologies; genomics and genetic engineering; novel antibiotics, antivirals and vaccines; low emission alternative fuels; quantum technologies; and autonomous vehicles, drones, swarming and collaborative robotics.
In a speech to the Australian Strategic Policy Institute, released ahead of delivery, Morrison says one goal in the government’s blueprint is to “maintain the integrity of our research, science, ideas, information and capabilities – to enable Australian industries to thrive and maximise our sovereign IP”.
Morrison says “quantum science and technology has the potential to revolutionise a whole range of industries, including finance, communications, energy, health, agriculture, manufacturing, transport, and mining.
“Quantum sensors, for example, could improve the discovery of valuable ore deposits and make groundwater monitoring more efficient; and quantum communications could provide for secure exchange of information to better secure financial transactions.
“Quantum technologies will also have defence applications, like enabling navigation in GPS denied environments and helping to protect us from advanced cyber attacks.”
Morrison says Australia leads globally in several aspects of quantum technology, and has a foundation for a thriving quantum industry. The national quantum strategy would better integrate the activities of industry and government.
“I’m confident the new strategy will help position Australia as a quantum technology leader in the Indo-Pacific.”
Morrison says technology reflects the values of the society that creates and uses it.
“We want technology to protect our citizens’ autonomy, privacy and data.
“Australia, like the United States, is committed to playing our part so that rules and norms around technology reflect the values of our open societies.
“But … not all governments see technology the same way,” he says.
“We cannot shy away from the ethical implications of new technologies.
“We need to be asking ourselves what should be done with technology — not just what can be done.
“Ensuring our citizens understand that technologies are safe and secure and working in their interest is fundamental in providing the enabling environment necessary to support deployment.”
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.
The survey subjects across 10 countries and territories were asked what they thought about corruption, if they have directly experienced it, and whether things could change.
Transparency International says the result is the most extensive public opinion data on corruption ever gathered in the region.
Corruption was perceived to be worst in Solomon Islands (97 percent) and Papua New Guinea (96 percent), followed closely by the Federated States of Micronesia (80 percent). It is also bad in Vanuatu (73 percent), Fiji (68 percent) and Tonga (62 percent).
Despite more than half of respondents reporting a “fair amount” or a “great deal” of trust in their government to do a good job and treat people fairly, 61 percent believe corruption is a significant problem in their government and 56 percent think it is getting worse.
Impunity also appears to be a problem, with less than a fifth of respondents (18 percent) believing that corrupt officials frequently face appropriate consequences for their actions.
Added to this, only 14 percent believe their government regularly considers them when making decisions.
Bribery common About one in three paid a bribe
“One of the most significant results was how often ordinary people in the Pacific directly encounter corruption in their daily lives,” says the report.
“Thirty-two percent of interviewees recently paid a bribe to receive public services – a higher rate than any other region surveyed by Transparency International.”
However, rates differ widely by country.
The most common reason given across the region for bribery is to receive a quicker or better public service.
Bribery appears to be a problem across a range of government services, from applying for official government documents to dealing with the police.
Only 13 per cent of those who paid a bribe for a public service reported it. This rises to around 30 percent in Fiji and Kiribati.
‘Sextortion’ also a problem “Even more worrying is that 38 percent of respondents say they or someone they know have personally experienced ‘sextortion’, where an official requests sexual acts in exchange for an essential government service,” says the report.
About a quarter of respondents have been offered a bribe for their votes. This has serious consequences for the integrity of national and local elections.
In addition, 15 percent of people have received threats of retaliation if they do not vote in a specific way.
It is not only their governments which Pacific Islanders are concerned about. A majority of people interviewed feel that corruption is a big problem in business, too.
“A corruption ‘hotspot’ appears to be government contracts, which more than two thirds of respondents believe businesses secure through bribes and connections,” the report says.
“Almost half of the people we surveyed think there is little control over companies [which] extract natural resources, which is of particular concern given that this is one of the largest industries in the region.”
The good news, says Transparency International, is that “more than 70 percent of respondents say that ordinary people can help to fight corruption”.
“More than 60 percent also think their government is doing a good job at combating corruption”
How Pacific Islanders in the 10 surveyed countries perceive corruption … French Pacific believed to have the least corruption. Graph: Transparency International
Opposition National Federation Party leader Professor Biman Prasad has hit out at the Fiji government, calling on Prime Minister Voreqe Bainimarama and Attorney-General Aiyaz Sayed-Khaiyum to tell the Fijian people who funded the 36-member Fiji delegation to the Glasgow COP26 climate summit.
Professor Prasad said Fiji’s failure to achieve anything tangible from its agenda at COP26 proved that the donor-funded trip was a “junket”.
He said human rights activist Shamima Ali was right to ask the government to tell Fiji’s people who funded the delegation to Glasgow.
“Bigger countries than Fiji, such as New Zealand, sent fewer than 10 people,” he said.
“The Marshall Islands made a bigger impact than Fiji at COP26. It had a delegation of just five.
“But instead of sending a small, effective delegation that Fiji could afford — and lowering Fiji’s own carbon footprint — Fiji put out the begging bowl for three dozen people to travel.
“But which donors donated the money? Were these donors aligned with Fiji’s interests at COP26? Or were they big polluters such as China or Australia?
“Was the Fiji government compromised? Whose tune were the Prime Minister and Aiyaz Sayed-Khaiyum dancing to in Glasgow?
How The Fiji Times reported the COP26 funding controversy today. Image: Fiji Times screenshot APR
“And regardless of who was paying, the Prime Minister Voreqe Bainimarama and Attorney-General Aiyaz Sayed-Khaiyum should tell the people of Fiji what per diem allowances they collected for the duration of the trip?”
Professor Prasad said tens of thousands of people had had their jobs and lives ruined by covid-19 and could barely keep their families fed.
“Perhaps our elected leaders are too ashamed to tell us what money they have been able to receive in their two weeks away from the country.”
Questions sent to Bainimarama and Sayed-Khaiyum by The Fiji Times remained unanswered when it went to press last night.
Luke Naceiis a Fiji Times reporter. Republished with permission.
Fiji Prime Minister Voreqe Bainimarama being briefed on Pacific priority areas at COP26. Image: FT/Fiji govt
New Zealand reported a record 222 new community cases of covid-19 and one virus-related death today.
There are now 91 people in hospital and seven in ICU across the country, reports the Ministry of Health.
More than 21,000 doses of vaccine were administered yesterday.
Of today’s official cases, 197 cases are in Auckland, 20 are in Waikato, two are in Taupō, two are in Wairarapa, and one is in Northland.
Public health officials said they were investigating a common link between cases reported in Taupō, Tararua and Masterton.
Patient in 70s dies In a statement this afternoon, the ministry confirmed a patient in her late 70s had died at Auckland City Hospital after she was admitted on November 11 and had subsequently tested positive for the virus.
This takes the total of deaths from covid-19 in New Zealand to 35.
Public health staff in Auckland are now supporting 4416 people to isolate at home around Auckland. This includes 2023 covid-19 cases.
There are 18 community testing centres available across Auckland today.
The ministry said 21 residents and four staff members of Edmonton Meadows Care Home in Henderson had tested positive since the start of the outbreak.
Five residents who tested positive are receiving appropriate ward-level care at Auckland hospitals, it added.
This article is republished under a community partnership agreement with RNZ.
About 2000 New Zealand district health board workers had not been vaccinated 15 hours before the deadline to lose their jobs.
From today no one can work in healthcare unless they have had at least one dose of the covid-19 vaccine or are exempt from the government mandate.
Unite Union’s Gerard Hehir represents six Waikato Hospital orderlies who have decided to quit.
They had a last minute meeting with the district health board (DHB) yesterday, one of a series over the past few weeks.
“People have been given the opportunity to think about it, respond, have some time, offered more information,” he said.
Even though they could not work from today, they would have one more meeting this week, a chance to change their minds before their contracts were terminated, he said.
Other DHBs also met with workers yesterday, with most offering the chance for last minute vaccinations.
Numbers unclear It was still unclear how many people have made the same choice as the Waikato orderlies.
A spokesperson representing all district health boards said at 9am yesterday they estimated there were about 2 percent or 3 percent of their 80,000 staff nationally who were unvaccinated — between 1600 and 2400 people.
But it would be a few days before they knew the final number, she said.
That estimate did not count the tens of thousands of contractors who worked at hospitals, doing jobs like carpentry, food preparation or patient transport.
Counties Manukau DHB managers have been told they are responsible for checking every contractor who is coming on site to do work for their team.
The mandate went beyond DHBs to people working in the community – GPs, physiotherapists, psychologists, midwives, chiropractors and more.
The College of GPs medical director Dr Bryan Betty said it was also trying to get a gauge on how many of the country’s 5000 GPs were not vaccinated.
He knew of about 20, but also of nurses and receptionists who would lose their jobs.
Awaiting DHB figures Nurse and midwife organisations were also waiting on DHB figures to find out how their professions were impacted.
Nurses Organisation Kaiwhakahaere Kerri Nuku said there was a small number out of the roughly 50,000 nurses working around the country.
She knew personally of six who were still holding out but also of some who had been reluctant then realised their jobs were more important and got vaccinated.
College of Midwives chief executive Alison Eddy said she worried about losing any midwife from the workforce, because it was already so stretched.
Hehir said the union was supporting its workers but it did back the mandate.
When it surveyed its DHB workers, for every vaccine hesitant response, there were many more from those who said they would be uncomfortable working with unvaccinated people.
“It is a real serious issue with people losing their jobs but it is also a very serious issue for people concerned about their health and the health of their families,” he said.
This article is republished under a community partnership agreement with RNZ.
As well as Michelle Grattan’s usual interviews with experts and politicians about the news of the day, Politics with Michelle Grattan now includes “Word from The Hill”, where all things political will be discussed with members of The Conversation’s politics team.
This week they discuss Morrison’s fall in ratings on character qualities in the latest Newspoll, published in The Australian . The poll ranks Scott Morrison and Anthony Albanese on traits such as trustworthiness, likeability, and care for people. On all but three, Morrison fared worse than Albanese.
They also canvass Australia’s position post COP26, with nations already gearing up for next year’s conference and how australia has refused to increase its 2030 targets in line with other countries.
Campaigning has started for the 2022 election, and Morrison has already launched his scare against Labor, with claims of rising interest rates and petrol prices under an ALP government. This tactic has drawn comparisons with the 2004 election, when John Howard ran on similar lines.
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.
A fresh fight has broken out between the national broadcaster and the Coalition government. This time, it is over a Senate inquiry, instigated by a Liberal senator, into the way the ABC handles complaints.
ABC chair Ita Buttrose has sensationally labelled the inquiry an act of “political interference designed to intimidate the ABC and mute its role”. She is calling on the senate to block the inquiry, when parliament returns next week.
Prime Minister Scott Morrison dismissed the comments on Monday, arguing a parliamentary investigation is just “business as usual” and the ABC is “not above scrutiny for how they conduct themselves using taxpayers’ money”.
We have been researching ABC-government relations for our upcoming book, Who Needs the ABC? Is there more to this simple senate inquiry than meets the eye?
What will the inquiry do?
The latest stoush broke out after NSW Liberal senator Andrew Bragg announced an inquiry into the ABC’s complaints-handling process.
examine the adequacy of the existing arrangements to provide a framework that is accessible, responsive, efficient, accountable and fit-for-purpose.
However, in October, the ABC announced its own inquiry into the complaints-handling process. It has 11 terms of reference and is an external, independent review by former Commonwealth ombudsman, John McMillan, and former news and current affairs executive for SBS and Ten, Jim Carroll.
The Senate committee is due to report by February 2022, with the McMillan/Carroll inquiry due to come back to the ABC board by March.
Complaints handling and the ABC
The ABC set up its inquiry following criticism of the way it handled complaints about editorial decisions.
This includes comments by communications minister, Paul Fletcher, who told The Australian in September:
If viewers or listeners have a concern about a program on the ABC they should have access to a robust, independent complaints process. Yet it’s clear that this is far from the universal experience of those who complain to the ABC about a program.
Andrew Bragg was elected to the Senate at the 2019 federal election and has recently been made chair of the Senate’s communications committee. Sean Davey/AAP
Bragg has suggested a “litany” of people are unhappy with complaints-handling, including Jewish groups and veterans. Former editor of The Sydney Morning Herald Milton Cockburn has also complained regarding the Luna Park documentary Ghost Train.
News Corp has been particularly hostile towards the ABC after Four Corners programs in August investigated the Murdoch-owned Fox News and its conduct around the 2020 US elections.
There may be merit in some of these concerns, but there is also a dollop (or should that be a wallop) of politics and ideology.
Any system can be improved, but there is no compelling evidence the ABC’s system is broken. In any case, its board has already acted to improve it.
Anyone unhappy with the ABC’s internal process can already take their complaint to the Australian Communications and Media Authority, which is responsible for regulating broadcast media.
The ABC’s complaints-handling process was also reviewed by then director of editorial policies, Paul Chadwick, and the ABC chair, Maurice Newman, in 2009. They found the processes to be “fundamentally sound” and “transparent” when compared to other media organisations. In 2018, the Australian National Audit Office reviewed the ABC and found it “effectively manages complaints” and that its system was responsive to its audience and easy to navigate.
The ‘forever war’
This latest episode should be seen in the context of what seems like a “forever war” waged by the Coalition against the ABC. Put simply, the Coalition believes the ABC is irretrievably biased against it (and pro Labor), even though we have not been able to find a properly conducted academic study that supports their belief.
Examples range from former Prime Minister Tony Abbott breaking an election eve promise not to cut the public broadcaster’s funding, to his full-frontal attacks on ABC reporting.
There are also the Turnbull government attacks on the work of senior journalists Emma Alberici and Andrew Probyn and the Liberal Party’s federal council voting to privatise the ABC in 2018.
Ita Buttrose was appointed as ABC chair by Scott Morrison in 2019. Lukas Coch/AAP
Coalition cabinet ministers distanced themselves from the motion, pointing out it was not government policy. But that did not stop Morrison, then treasurer, from saying some Australians “may think the Labor Party already owns it”.
This Senate inquiry is also the latest in a long line of parliamentary investigations into the national broadcaster. Remember the 2018 inquiry into whether the ABC was breaching rules around competitive neutrality? (It wasn’t.)
There has also been the push to include the words “fair and balanced” in the ABC Act. This not only doubles up on the “objective”, “accurate” and “fair” requirements spelled out in the ABC’s comprehensive code of editorial policies, it opens the door to Holocaust and climate change deniers and anti-vaxxers to be given an equal platform.
The bill to amend the act was listed in the autumn 2020 sittings, but has not been brought on for debate.
A critical point
The ABC is at a critical point in its history, as we discuss in our coming book.
Its content reaches more people, in more ways, than at any time in its near 90-year existence. It is routinely judged by audiences to be the most respected news and current affairs provider in the country.
Yet it is enduring probably the worst relations with any government, and that includes the Howard Coalition governments of 1996-2007 whose communications minister, Richard Alston, took ABC to the broadcasting regulator, complaining about its reporting of the 2003 Iraq war (he largely lost).
All of which give the prime minister’s recent words “business as usual” an unintentionally ironic flavour.
As to his invocation that no one is above scrutiny, well, yes of course they are not. But isn’t the ABC’s scrutiny of his government, whether on Four Corners or elsewhere, exactly what has so irritated Morrison and his colleagues?
Matthew Ricketson is the Media Entertainment and Arts Alliance’s representative on the Australian Press Council.
He will receive a fee for three feature writing training sessions he has been conducting for the ABC’s Asia Pacific Newsroom.
Patrick Mullins does not work for, consult, own shares in or receive funding from any company or organization that would benefit from this article, and has disclosed no relevant affiliations beyond their academic appointment.
The action has generated widespread international condemnation, including from the US Space Command, US State Department and UK Ministry of Defence. And rightly so; it was an irresponsible and menacing action in the context of recent progress towards global agreements on the responsible use of outer space.
NASA condemned the “irresponsible and destabilizing” missile test, too, saying it had also placed China’s Tiangong Space Station and crew at risk.
Harm to the space environment
The destruction of the COSMOS 1408, a defunct Russian spy satellite, generated more than 1,500 pieces of trackable debris and likely thousands more that are too small to be tracked.
Russia’s space agency, ROCOSMOS, dismissed concerns regarding the debris field, tweeting:
The orbit of the object, which forced the crew today to move into spacecraft according to standard procedures, has moved away from the ISS orbit. The station is in the green zone.
As commercial uses of space have expanded in recent years, access to the low Earth orbit – roughly the altitude zone less than 1,000 kilometres above Earth – has become increasingly important.
The ISS orbits the Earth in this zone, at an altitude of about 420km. The station shares the low Earth orbit with mega constellations of satellites – including the many satellites that form SpaceX’s Starlink internet network.
But there has been growing recognition that our use of outer space is threatened by increasing space debris, much of which has been created by anti-satellite (ASAT) missile tests, generally conducted to demonstrate technological power.
Russia and the US have also undertaken ASAT tests in the past. Before this week, India had conducted the most recent test in 2019, becoming the fourth country to do so.
The issues of space debris and destructive uses of outer space (both of which are linked) pose significant environmental and national security concerns.
The effects of Russia’s latest test will be felt for some time. Although smaller pieces of debris will no doubt degrade and burn up in the atmosphere, the ongoing threat to the ISS and other operators in low Earth orbit will remain.
Studies have estimated 79% of the debris created by China’s 2007 test will remain in orbit until 2108. It’s time to bring an end to these needless displays of power.
Since the formation of key UN Space Treaties between 1967 and 1984, there has been little international consensus with respect to peaceful uses of outer space. Also, the last of these treaties, the Moon Agreement, received few ratifications.
After decades of stalemate in the UN, progress was achieved last year with the UK sponsoring a draft resolution for the Prevention of an Arms Race in Outer Space.
This month, the draft resolution was approved by the UN First Committee (Disarmament and International Security) by a vote of 163 countries in favour to eight against, with nine abstentions. Notably, Russia voted no.
Despite Russia’s opposition, this resolution was the first success in international efforts towards space security in several decades. Prior failed initiatives included a draft treaty sponsored by Russia and China and another draft treaty sponsored by the EU.
A shifting discussion
The 1967 UN Outer Space Treaty requires states to conduct their activities in space in accordance with international law and in the interest of maintaining international peace and security. However, the extent of these obligations have remained largely untested.
It says states must “undertake appropriate international consultations” before proceeding with any activity or experiment that may create harmful interference to the activities of another state. Yet, such consultations are rarely held. And a US Department of Defense spokesperson confirmed no such warning was provided by Russia prior to yesterday’s test.
Concern over Russia’s latest action is noteworthy. Even though international space law doesn’t explicitly prohibit ASAT tests (and countries have previously been reluctant to condemn such behaviour by other states), this development seems different.
Voices are being raised and human missions have been placed in jeopardy. Perhaps recognition is dawning that space is a fragile and finite resource worthy of protection.
Melissa de Zwart is a Board Member and Deputy Chair of the Space Industry Association of Australia and the Space Law Council of Australia and New Zealand.
The above chart plots estimates of vaccine-induced immunity to Covid19, for five countries, including three in Europe currently in the news for their most recent wave of covid infections and deaths.
Essentially, I give a score of 0.5 for each vaccine shot; and I assume that immunity wanes by 0.4% per day, starting 20 days after receipt of a vaccine shot.
On 9 November, in this story, Covid-19: Experts at odds over move to traffic light system, Melbourne-based New Zealand epidemiologist Tony Blakely refers to ‘the community’s “peak immunity”‘. Essentially, he was referring to vaccination-induced immunity, where there is a waxing as ‘jabs’ are given, and a waning (especially) in the period between second and third vaccine doses.
The chart shows Germany and Austria attaining peak vaccination immunity in August, soon after the ‘delta variant’ became the dominant variant of Covid19 in Europe. For Ireland, the peak was in early September.
Australia and New Zealand are just approaching ‘peak immunity’ now, so early December is precisely the ideal time to ‘open up’, as Blakely argues. Further, as third doses roll out from the end of November, New Zealand stands to maintain that peak through the summer holiday period, and into the risky period in February and March when secondary and tertiary education gets underway.
That vaccination-induced immunity will be topped up, also, by a degree of natural immunity arising from increased exposure to the virus, and not just to the vaccine.
Austria, Germany and Ireland are all countries which imposed substantial border restrictions, lockdowns and mask mandates; their immunity arising from natural exposure is – like New Zealand and Australia – comparatively low. Though Austria and Germany did have some residual natural immunity from the ‘alpha strain’ wave which hit Europe in March and April. They missed out on a major wave of ‘delta’ mainly because they were at peak immunity in August. (See chart below, for German cases and deaths.)
But all three of these countries are now facing waning immunity – fading vaccination immunity as well as fading immunity from the alpha wave. It is that immunity loss, plus the onset of winter, that appears to be driving their current covid emergencies; not the delta strain. (While the delta strain is still the dominant strain, waning immunity rather than the delta strain would appear to be the driving force.)
Of note here was a report from Ireland in the TVNZ 6pm News (Saturday 13 Nov). One health professional there commented, Jacinda Ardern style, that the new covid wave was “expected”; however, he said, what did surprise was “how rapidly” immunisation was waning. Ireland’s vaccination immunity was indeed waning – as the above chart shows – though was still higher than Austria and Germany. However, Ireland – like New Zealand and Australia – was unusually reliant on vaccines, given that its last substantial covid outbreak was in January and that it had endured a very long period of immunity-sapping public health restrictions.
Chart by Keith Rankin.Chart by Keith Rankin.
Germany is an interesting case study, in large part because it was reputed to have managed Covid19 best among European countries in 2020. (Refer to my Covid19 deaths, the German case, 30 Oct 2021.) Germany looks bad in 2021, with deaths consistently and significantly above what they would have been in the absence of the pandemic.
In this new chart for Germany, we see four episodes of excess deaths which do not match the recorded Covid19 deaths: August 2020, May 2021, August 2021, October 2021. The last three episodes probably do relate to Covid19, probably cases of under-recording of covid deaths. The 2020 episode was in August, and matches a pattern through which some kind of infectious disease has a summer peak. This death peak may have been linked to a non-covid virus. (There was an unusual death peak in Belgium, France and Netherlands at the same time.)
We also note that there were three periods in which public health measures significantly brought down Germany’s death rate: July 2020, February/March 2021, and May 2021. We can understand higher later death rates as ‘postponed deaths’.
Germany’s situation is worrying; as are those of Austria and Ireland. The second Germany chart above shows that daily covid cases are now at a record high, and well above the reported world average.
Nevertheless, I am confident that concerted – albeit late – revaccinations will see these countries avoid the carnage that is taking place further east in Europe. We wait and see, however, whether obstinate vaccine-resistant behaviour sees another prolonged winter wave in west Europe. We would like to see vaccination-induced immunity in the European Union reaching Australasian levels.
Keith Rankin (keith at rankin dot nz), trained as an economic historian, is a retired lecturer in Economics and Statistics. He lives in Auckland, New Zealand.
From 2020 each manufacturer’s cars are limited to an average emissions of 95 grams of carbon dioxide emitted per kilometre, and vans to an average of 147 grams emitted per kilometre.
It’s up to the companies how they achieve this. They could do it by selling more low-emission and fewer higher emission conventionally-powered cars, or they could do it by selling more electric cars.
If they haven’t sold enough electric cars to get under their brand’s emissions ceiling, they’ll have to discount them to sell more in order to get average emissions down.
In Europe, electric sales are valuable
In the first year of the new European standard, average emissions from new passenger cars registered in Europe fell 12%. The share of electric cars tripled.
In 2025 the standard will become tougher again, requiring a further 15% cut in average emissions, and then from 2030 (for cars) a further 35%.
The big car manufacturers are finding it hard. It’ll make every electric car they sell valuable for them, valuable enough to sell cheaply, but only in Europe (and Canada, China, India, Japan, Korea, Mexico and the United States, which have similar standards, sometimes called fuel economy standards).
The International Energy Agency says four in five of the cars sold worldwide are subject to such standards.
In places where they are not (such as Australia) there is no particular reason for an international manufacturer to go all out to sell an electric car. It won’t help them meet the standard.
Not that Australia doesn’t have standards, of a sort. Since 2008 all new cars sold have had to display a sticker quoting fuel economy and emissions per kilometre.
The standards for actual CO₂ emissions are voluntary. The Grattan Institute kindly says they are “lacking in ambition and have often not been met”.
Faced with one of the few big markets in the world in which there is no particular imperative to sell electric cars, international manufacturers direct them elsewhere and sell higher emission cars here.
Their local arms want to sell better cars here, but are overruled.
clear and consistent direction from governments is a critical signal to car makers to prioritise the importation of the latest low and zero-emissions vehicles
Every six months we do an update with a board meeting on the electric vehicle environment in Australia. They are sitting in waiting for something to change, you know, but nothing ever changes. I guess the way I would put it is that it is embarrassing
It isn’t just that there is no particular incentive to discount an electric car sold in Australia. It is that there’s an incentive to charge more.
Without standards, we are an unattractive market
It harms a manufacturer’s profits to sell an electric car here that could be used to lower its average emissions profile in (say) Europe. It makes sense to do as much as is needed to keep it out of Australia.
Fixing the anomaly would be easy and would actually bring prices down, as well as increasing the limited range on offer. And it would help buyers of conventional vehicles worried about the price of petrol. New cars would use less.
Australians able to buy electric cars because of the change would find they used no petrol at all.
Introducing international-grade standards would not require a tax and would not require a tax concession. It would merely require regulations of the kind in place elsewhere.
Business won’t object. The Business Council asked for the change four years ago. Australian car makers won’t object. We no longer have any.
Petrol refiners won’t object. They are finding it hard to reduce the sulphur and other pollutants that kill hundreds of Australians each year. The government has advanced them up to A$250 million to help.
But carbon dioxide is different. We don’t need good quality fuel to reduce it, merely good quality cars. We are able to put them in the hands of more Australians near-costlessly.
Peter Martin 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.
For good legal and ethical reasons, the media are generally wary of calling someone a liar.
It is a serious slur on a person’s reputation, implying that he or she is untrustworthy, unreliable, duplicitous and deceitful.
These are the kinds of meanings lawyers draw from the word “liar” when preparing a writ for defamation. Unless a media outlet is confident it can defend these meanings, it is foolhardy to make the accusation.
From an ethical standpoint, such a serious slur on a person’s reputation ought not be made without solid evidence and good reason.
Up to the point when French President Emmanuel Macron accused him of lying over the submarine contract, the media had generally avoided calling Morrison a liar, while many times accusing him of playing fast and loose with the truth.
One was a statement about the risk that asylum seekers would bring diseases such as typhoid to Australia, followed by a denial that he had said anything about the risk. Another was perpetuating the lie that the Uluru Statement from the Heart included a proposal for a third chamber of parliament. A third was when he declared Australia was “at the front of the queue” for COVID-19 vaccines when it clearly was not.
The significance of the Macron accusation is that it gave the media legal cover to call Morrison a liar by quoting the French president. Then Morrison’s predecessor, Malcolm Turnbull, said Morrison had lied to him often. This is all useful evidence.
“Oh, he’s lied to me on many occasions,” Turnbull was reported as saying. “Scott has always had a reputation for telling lies.”
Then Neil Mitchell on Melbourne radio 3AW put the accusation of lying directly to Morrison. Mitchell asked him whether he had ever told a lie in public life. Morrison replied: “I don’t believe I have, no.”
No one is in a position to refute Morrison’s belief. If he says he believes he has never lied, then that’s that. But it is not conclusive.
Morrison’s belief is subjective: it comes from within the person concerned.
The public, however, is entitled to an objective response – what his words convey to the ordinary reasonable person. The media are entitled to hold Morrison to account for the objective meaning, regardless of what he might have believed he was saying.
The media and the public are under no obligation to accept his beliefs. They can look at the facts, at the words he used, and ask: what would an ordinary reasonable person think Morrison was saying?
Take the submarine deal. Morrison’s office leaked a text message from Macron in which Macron asked: “Should I expect good or bad news for our joint submarines ambitions?”
Morrison, when asked about it, said:
[Macron] made it pretty clear he was concerned that this would be a phone call that could result in a decision by Australia not to proceed.
Morrison’s subjective interpretation is that this amounted to telling the French the deal was off. Objectively, it is nothing of the kind. It is obvious Macron did not know what the government’s decision was.
Now, under the legal cover provided by Macron and Turnbull, there has been a cascade of media stories about Morrison’s alleged lying.
The Guardian has listed five topics on which it says Morrison has made false or incorrect statements: electric vehicles, the submarines, the vaccination roll-out, Australia’s policy on Taiwan, and his calling the former Labor senator, Sam Dastyari, “Shanghai Sam”.
The Australian Financial Review’s Phil Coorey commented that there were now questions about Morrison’s integrity and this meant he was carrying baggage into the election that he had not had to carry in 2019.
Even Morrison’s media allies on Sky News are joining in. After Morrison’s about-face on electric vehicles, Andrew Bolt said Morrison was exacerbating exactly the criticism he has been getting, “of being a fake, of being untrustworthy, of not telling the truth”. Bolt went on to call Morrison a fake and a fool.
At a time when democracies are being weakened by disinformation and misinformation, the conduct that Morrison is accused of is pernicious. The world saw what happened to the American democracy when the big lie about a stolen election took hold.
This places an extra responsibility on journalists not only to be sure they tell the truth themselves but to call out lies and falsehoods when they see them.
There is a vast literature stretching back to Machiavelli’s The Prince on the subject of truth and lying in public life. Machiavelli argued that a lie was justified if it succeeded in accomplishing a political goal, wrong if it failed. Morality did not enter the calculation.
The contemporary ethicist Sissela Bok takes a radically different view. She begins by asking under what circumstances does lying in public life undermine trust most grievously?
She also argues for a broad definition of what constitutes lying. She rejects a definition that requires both that a statement be made with the intention to deceive others and that the statement itself be false.
It is sufficient, in her view, that there be an intention to deceive – for example, by making a statement that might not be entirely false but which is couched in such terms as to mislead.
The risk Morrison takes is that if the media continue to focus on his integrity, as they have for the past couple of weeks, a stereotype will develop of him as untrustworthy. In the run-up to an election, that would be bad news for him.
Denis Muller 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.
Cameron Webb/NSW Health Pathology, Author provided
Mosquitoes will be loving the wet weather that’s hit the east coast of Australia over the last week.
Mosquito populations naturally increase in spring, especially when there is plenty of water left around to complete their breeding cycle. So it’s a good time to start thinking about where water might be collecting around your backyard.
The bites of backyard mozzies aren’t just annoying – they can also make us sick. So what pathogens, or bugs, can mosquitoes transmit to humans? And how do they do it?
What types of mosquito are found in our backyard?
Hundreds of mosquitoes are found across the country but only a few regularly breed in our backyards. The larvae of these mosquitoes were originally found in natural water-filled receptacles like tree holes.
Now they’re commonly found in water-holding containers around our homes such as bird baths, damaged rainwater tanks, potted plant saucers and roof gutters. Neglected swimming pools can be a great place for mosquitoes too.
The most common of these mosquitoes is Aedes notoscriptus. It’s likely every Australian has been bitten by this “home grown” mosquito at least once. As well as being found in every corner of the country, it has also found its way to New Zealand and North America.
The common backyard mosquito, Aedes notoscriptus. Cameron Webb
Aedes aegypti is also found in Australia. This mozzie is widespread in tropical regions of the world and loves water-filled containers around the home.
Aedes aegypti is currently only found in central and far north Queensland, but it has a habit of popping up elsewhere if given the chance.
Like most mosquitoes, these backyard mozzies need blood. When they bite, there is a chance that can spread the pathogens that make us sick.
But it isn’t just that they bite that determines if we’ll get sick. The mosquitoes need to pick up the pathogen first and that typically means they have to bite an animal or a person who has the pathogen circulating in their blood.
Dengue is the most significant mosquito-borne viral disease globally. In Australia, we’re fortunate very few local cases are reported.
The mosquito that spreads dengue viruses is Aedes aegypti. As it isn’t widespread in Australia, the risks are limited to parts of Queensland and transmission only occurs when these viruses are introduced by an infected traveller.
Ross River and Barmah Forest viruses are responsible for most mosquito-borne disease notifications in Australia. More than 5,000 cases are reported each year across the country, mostly in Queensland and New South Wales.
In the cities, suburbs and towns of Australia, Aedes notoscriptus may well be playing an important role in spreading these viruses. There is still lots to learn about these mosquitoes, their biology, and risk to human health.
Newly published research from investigators in Queensland has identified a diverse range of viruses found within Aedes notoscriptus collected throughout the suburbs of Brisbane.
After testing more than 6,600 mosquitoes, the researchers identified a number of viruses, including those of potential human health concern. The results suggest these backyard mosquitoes may pose much more than a nuisance disrupting our time in the backyard.
The researchers also discovered a diverse range of lesser known “insect-specific” viruses. These viruses only infect mosquitoes and they’re not spread to people or animals.
Interestingly, related “insect-specific” viruses are being used to develop diagnostic tests and vaccines to combat the viruses that make humans sick. This highlights the importance of identifying viruses in wild mosquito populations.
Water left in even the smallest of quantity can be home to mosquitoes. Cameron Webb/NSW Health Pathology
Routinely tip out, throw away, or cover up any water-holding containers. This includes discarded tyres, buckets, and bottles. Neglected children’s toys have lots of nooks and crannies that catch water too and can be a great place for mosquitoes.
Ensure your roof gutters, and other drains around the home, are regularly cleaned and your rainwater tank should be correctly installed and screened, too.
Cameron Webb and the Department of Medical Entomology, NSW Health Pathology, have been engaged by a wide range of insect repellent and insecticide manufacturers to provide testing of products and provide expert advice on mosquito biology. Cameron has also received funding from local, state and federal agencies to undertake research into mosquito-borne disease surveillance and management.
Andrew van den Hurk has received funding from local, state and federal agencies to study the ecology of mosquito-borne pathogens, and their surveillance and control. He is an employee of the Department of Health, Queensland Government.
Remote Indigenous communities in Australia will experience the impacts of climate change disproportionately to the rest of the country.
Take the Aṉangu Pitjantjatjara Yankunytjatjara (APY) Lands in northwest South Australia, where maximum temperatures are increasing. The summer periods of sustained high temperatures are starting earlier and lasting longer.
A rapidly warming planet provides a significant challenge to design, deliver, and maintain habitable housing across Australia. Yet, few analyses consider Indigenous housing and climate change together.
Exploring sustainable housing for First Nations communities
This new report examines the role of housing in remote and regional communities, given the increasing pressures of climate change. It shows existing and new housing can and should be better maintained for these communities. We found that Indigenous-run tenancy management is part of the solution.
In Gunnedah, we partnered with Gunida Gunyah Aboriginal Corporation, an Aboriginal community housing provider in New South Wales. The houses that Gunida Gunyah manage vary in age and quality, which all housing organisations must negotiate as they assume responsibility for ongoing maintenance.
Unfortunately the legacies of inadequate construction in housing do not belong to the past. What is built or refurbished today could haunt residents for decades. So, will attempts to revive old housing using existing national construction guidelines be enough to ensure future habitability?
We used simulation software to understand the impact of climate change, especially of increasing heat, on Indigenous housing. This software considered the effectiveness of strategies for refurbishing existing housing to improve thermal performance and energy efficiency. This simulation was modelled for Australia’s tropical, dry, and hot/mild climate zones.
After 366 simulations, our results showed modifying or refurbishing existing housing and even building new homes to meet recommended standards are not adequate measures for current or future climate changes. Even if existing housing was improved or new housing was built to current national construction code standards, at best, benefits will be short term.
Further, whether houses are old or new, crowding is a critical limitation for “thermal comfort” – the technical term for not too hot, not too cold. So, even if housing was greatly improved on the design front, crowding would cancel out the benefits.
The solution is a combination of better design and construction standards, increased housing and restorative work on existing housing, with well-funded repair and maintenance programs to ensure ongoing function.
As Healthabitat has long demonstrated, basic needs for householders, such as the ability to wash themselves, wash clothes and bedding, and store and prepare food, requires things to work inside and outside the house.
Decades of data shows the impact of restoring function to health hardware (washing facilities, safe food storage systems, and so on) and reveals the key reasons for housing dysfunction are poor original construction and inadequate repairs and maintenance.
Some governments respond to evidence of poor maintenance by claiming that the rent they can collect is not enough to cover the expenses involved, or that the record-keeping systems for showing what needs to be repaired are at fault, especially in remote areas.
However, our case material from the APY Lands shows the holy grail of proactive and planned maintenance of housing is perfectly doable and can generate savings.
A preventive maintenance program is economical. It minimises major hardware failures, bundles work orders (so more is fixed in less time) and reduces travel costs.
By spending three-quarters of its maintenance budget for APY Lands housing on planned works, and working closely with the Indigenous community-controlled Nganampa Health Council, Housing SA keeps repair and maintenance travel expenses for APY Lands housing to under 11%.
This contrasts with national research revealing travel costs consume up to 96% of per-unit costs for emergency repairs in Indigenous housing, leaving only 11% to 37% of budgets for planned repairs and maintenance.
Greater national funding is needed for better housing designs, related construction and ongoing maintenance work to provide year-round seasonal comfort and protection, and to alleviate crowding in residences.
Australia could lead the way in meeting these needs, but first the policy challenge to meet housing, health, heat, and climate change together must be openly acknowledged.
This is the path to achieve climate mitigation rather than forced migrations. Housing, health, maintenance, and climate must be thought about together, to enable people to stay on or near their Country and sites of connection now and into the future.
Tess Lea received funding from the Australian Housing and Urban Research Institute (AHURI 20/PRO/73237). She is affiliated with Healthabitat, a not-for-profit organisation which urges increased attention to health hardware functionality in Indigenous and other public housing. She is otherwise an anthropologist who studies policy and bureaucracy.
This research was funded by the Australian Housing and Urban Research Institute (AHURI) – 20/PRO/73237.
Arianna Brambilla and John Singer 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.
Due to the COVID-19 extended lockdowns this year, as well as greater accessibility on streaming services, many adults have been returning to their childhoods via nostalgic kids’ TV viewing.
As part of our research project, Australian Children’s Television Cultures, we surveyed over 600 adults about their viewing habits — and it turns out some viewers never forget the joy of the television shows that they raced home to watch after school.
Many survey participants confessed they had simply never stopped watching children’s shows in the first place. Australia’s own Dance Academy (2010-2013) was frequently mentioned in the responses as a show that even adult viewers “can watch… anytime and feel connected with,” as one respondent put it.
Australia’s Dance Academy (2010-2013) is popular with adults today. IMDB
Streaming Nostalgia
For those who didn’t keep their old VHS tapes or DVDs, it has been the advent of streaming services, from YouTube to Netflix, that has enabled viewers to rediscover their cherished kids’ shows of old. Nearly two thirds of adult respondents have revisited Australian children’s shows in recent years, most often via online clips and streaming services.
In our survey, Round the Twist (1989-2001) emerged as the favourite Australian children’s television show to revisit, with Lift Off! (1992-1995), Lockie Leonard (2007-2010) and Play School (1966-) also highly placed.
Lift Off! (1992-1995) is a popular show for adults to find clips from on YouTube. IMDB
While there’s nothing new about adults getting swept up in nostalgia for childhood viewing, the streaming era has made it even easier to pass on these family viewing traditions.
The heightened nostalgic urge to return to old TV shows has also been linked to the COVID-19 lockdowns many of us have recently been through, or indeed are still experiencing.
In our survey, many respondents mentioned the lockdown made them more likely to revisit children’s TV from their youth. As one survey respondent noted, “in these strange and chaotic COVID-19 times, I’ve been really feeding into the nostalgia.”
Nostalgia emerged as a term in 1688 to describe a disease primarily associated with soldiers longing to return home, even though upon their return, home was never quite the same. The word itself reflected this bittersweet combination, forged from the Greek nostos (homecoming) and algos (pain). In popular culture, nostalgia is frequently associated with warm and fuzzy feelings, but, as Svetlana Boym influentially suggests, nostalgia is also a type of grieving for a past that has been lost.
Returning to kids’ TV is a way of both grieving for and celebrating our own past childhood, as well as a pre-COVID world we used to enjoy. In other words, nostalgia is not as simple as we might at first assume.
Family viewing
Our survey responses indicate families have been uniting across the divide of lockdown restrictions and closed borders to watch old kids’ TV shows together:
“In lockdown, it’s provided a connection point for my family” by rewatching Round the Twist and Sky Trackers (1994), one respondent noted. They explained, “we talk about what we remember, and tell jokes about it consistently through messaging services.”
Not only parents but also grandparents and babysitters revealed they enjoy sharing beloved shows from their childhood with the next generation. This strategy isn’t always successful given tastes and expectations have changed, with today’s kids finding some old shows “bonkers” or describing the special effects as dated. As one parent from the survey notes, “having children now, I want to show them some of the shows I loved (whether they like it or not!)”
Many of our survey participants discussed this shared viewing across generations, but also just among other adults. So as it happens, kids’ TV isn’t just for kids.
Unifying a generation
Beyond family members, our participants are finding connections with their own generation on social media through old kids’ shows they still enjoy. Even young adults are already feeling nostalgic.
“I have loved watching on TikTok people recreating some of the iconic scenes” from H2O: Just Add Water (2006-2010) and Blue Water High (2005-2008), one participant told us. They explained, “When scrolling through the comments of these videos there’s often hundreds of other young Australians that relate as they had the same fond memories of these shows which I feel unites us.”
H2O: Just Add Water (2006-2010 has become a popular worldwide meme on TikTok, and has spurred many people to revisit the series. IMdB
With so much content now spread across broadcasting, cable and streaming television services, it’s uncertain whether today’s kids’ TV will offer this same sense of communal nostalgia to future generations — though Bluey (2018-) is surely a contender. Bluey is already the focus of popular memes and a successful recap podcast, so perhaps the show is a contemporary vehicle for adult viewers’ nostalgia about growing up in Australia, albeit in a new guise.
Ultimately, our research indicates that engaging nostalgically with kids’ TV has been an important means of social connection during the pandemic, both between adults and within and across different generations.
Although nostalgia was initially defined as a ‘disease’, today it is combating the division the pandemic has created, with locked down audiences using streaming services to reconnect with their favourite kids’ TV and each other.
Djoymi Baker receives funding from the Australian Children’s Television Foundation (ACTF)
Jessica Balanzategui receives funding from the Australian Children’s Television Foundation.
Joanna McIntyre receives funding from the Australian Children’s Television Foundation (ACTF).
Liam Burke receives funding from the Australian Children’s Television Foundation (ACTF).
While working as a nurse in a busy hospital I began to use a magnifying glass, as I could no longer read the small print on medication vials. I regarded this adaptation as a part of my professional responsibility to keep patients safe.
Others didn’t see it the same way. I was asked to stop using the magnifying glass because it apparently reduced public trust in the care I provided patients and families.
This is just one personal example of how those with a disability are often forced to confront negative language, values and beliefs to engage with the world personally and professionally.
This goes right to conventional definitions of the word “disability” itself, which stem from a medical model that promotes the disability over the person, manifesting in the kinds of attitudes I and many others encounter in everyday life.
Minister for Disability Issues Carmel Sepuloni says the new ministry will ‘replace a fragmented system where there is no single agency responsible’. GettyImages
Shifting attitudes
Historically, disability was identified as an individual health problem, rendering invisible the variety and normality of living with a disability. So the creation of a Ministry for Disabled People, and the principles set out in the Accelerating Accessibility in New Zealand cabinet paper, offer a unique opportunity for progress.
The new ministry aims to place disability alongside gender, age and ethnicity in terms of state representation. It should help raise the profile of disabled people while normalising their need for access to things others take for granted.
But while the ministry can potentially change the narratives around disability at a structural level, the challenge will be in shifting societal and individual attitudes.
As Workbridge CEO Jonathan Mosen has stressed, disabled people face an employment crisis due to their low “visibility” in the community and consequently low societal expectations that in turn reduce their opportunities.
Better design for disability
Improving visibility and accessibility at a practical level will depend to a large extent on good design. Take the NZ COVID Tracer app, for example, where accessibility relies on the environment in which it’s used.
How often have you seen the QR code for shops or cafes placed high up on a window or counter? For those with restricted mobility these are impossible to scan independently. Similarly, people who are blind or have low vision have difficulty finding the QR code and lining up their smartphones to scan.
While guidelines for the placement of QR codes are specific, the environment they’re used in often precludes better accessibility.
Improvements such as near field communication (NFC) technologies (currently being tested by the Ministry of Health) and size reduction of QR codes all help. But imagine a world in which the built environment was designed from the outset for accessibility.
Everyday activities like scanning a QR code should not be a challenge for disabled people. GettyImages
Harnessing lived experience
Meeting recently with several app project managers to discuss accessibility, I was reminded of the need for accessible design to be considered from the inception of a project. While intentions were good, the lack of guidelines and limited lived experience of disability were evident.
Good results are overly dependent on the motivation of the project team, rather than on established rules and goals. Many industries include the input of the eventual end users in the design process, but other user subsets – such as disabled people – have long been overlooked.
Separating disability from the health sector at a socio-political level is a good start because it turns traditionally negative perceptions into ones of possibility. But is it enough to overcome both structural barriers and unconscious bias in the community?
I believe harnessing the lived experience of disabled people is key to changing the face of disability and design at both a societal and personal level.
As the Global Centre of Possibility’s Minnie Baragwanath explains, tackling some of the limitations of dominant design practices will be key. New design paradigms will be required that respond to the complexity, volatility, uncertainty and ambiguity that disabled people often navigate in the contemporary world.
New Zealand could learn from the UK and US, where equity for the disabled is being pursued through regulation and legislation. In 2019 I attended several conferences in London and travelled to meet friends and family. While accessible design was not always perfect, the acceptance and normalisation of disability at community and professional levels was profound.
So, while it’s exciting to see the new ministry’s plans to change the narrative around disability, it remains to be seen how this will filter down to reach everyday New Zealanders.
Perhaps now is the time to take the government at its word and expect opportunities for people with disabilities to participate meaningfully in reshaping that narrative. With this in mind, perhaps the new ministry could be renamed the Ministry for Possibility.
Sally Britnell 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.
Editor’s Note: Here below is a list of the main issues currently under discussion in New Zealand and links to media coverage. You can sign up to NZ Politics Daily as well as New Zealand Political Roundup columns for free here.
Homing pigeons are known for their uncanny ability to find their way home – navigating complex and changing landscapes. In fact, they do this so well they were used as a source of secure communication more than 2,000 years ago.
Julius Caesar reportedly sent news of his conquest of Gaul back to Rome via pigeons, as did Napoleon Bonaparte following his defeat by England in the 1815 Battle of Waterloo.
We know pigeons use visual cues and can navigate based on landmarks along known travel routes. We also know they have a magnetic sense called “magnetoreception” which lets them navigate using Earth’s magnetic field.
But we don’t know exactly how they (and other species) do this. In research published today in the Proceedings of National Academy of Sciences, my colleagues and I tested a theory that attempts to link magnetoreception in homing pigeons with tiny lumps of iron-rich material found in their inner ears.
By using a new kind of magnetic microscope, we confirmed this isn’t the case. But the technology has opened the door for us to investigate the phenomenon in several other species.
The current hypotheses
Scientists have spent decades exploring the possible mechanisms for magnetoreception. There are currently two mainstream theories.
The first is a vision-based “free-radical pair” model. Homing pigeons and other migratory birds have proteins in the retina of their eyes called “cryptochromes”. These produce an electrical signal that varies depending on the strength of the local magnetic field.
This could potentially allow the birds to “see” Earth’s magnetic field, although scientists have yet to confirm this theory.
The second proposal for how homing pigeons navigate is based on lumps of magnetic material inside them, which may provide them with a magnetic particle-based directional compass.
We know magnetic particles are found in nature, in a group of bacteria called magnetotactic bacteria. These bacteria produce magnetic particles and orient themselves along the Earth’s magnetic field lines.
Scientists are now looking for magnetic particles in a range of species. Potential candidates were found in the upper beak of homing pigeons more than a decade ago, but subsequent work indicated these particles were related to iron storage and not magnetic sensing.
The new search is now underway in the inner ear of pigeons, where iron particles known as “cuticulosomes” were first identified in 2013.
Single cuticulosomes have been located within distinct regions in the pigeon inner ear where other known sensory systems exist (such as for hearing and balancing during flight). In theory, if there were a magnetic sensing system in pigeons, it should be located close to other sensory systems.
But to determine whether iron cuticulosomes can act as magnetoreceptors in pigeons, scientists need to determine their magnetic properties. This is no mean feat, since cuticulosomes are 1,000 times smaller than a grain of sand.
What’s more is they are only found in 30% of the hair cells within the inner ear, making them difficult to identify and characterise.
We conducted quantum magnetic imaging of iron-organelles in the pigeon inner ear. Robert W de Gille, Author provided
To tackle this problem our group at the University of Melbourne, together with colleagues from Vienna’s Institute of Molecular Pathology and the Max Planck Society in Bonn, turned to a new imaging technology to explore the magnetic properties of iron cuticulosomes in the pigeon inner ear.
We developed a magnetic microscope that uses diamond-based sensors to visualise delicate magnetic fields emanating from tiny magnetic particles.
Disproving the theory
We carefully studied thin sections of the pigeon inner ear placed directly onto the diamond sensors. By applying magnetic fields of varying strengths to the tissue, we were able to gauge the magnetic susceptibility of single cuticulosomes.
Our results showed the magnetic properties of the cuticulosomes were not strong enough for them to act as a magnetic particle-based magnetoreceptor. In fact, the particles would need to be 100,000 times stronger to activate the sensory pathways required for magnetoreception in pigeons.
However, despite the search for the elusive magnetoreceptor coming up short, we are extremely excited by the potential of this magnetic microscope technology.
We hope to use it study a host of magnetic candidates across a variety of species including rodents, fish and turtles. And by doing so we can focus not only on cuticulosomes, but a range of other potentially magnetic particles.
David Simpson receives funding from the Australian Research Council.
Doctors and health experts have expressed shock on social media recently about the number of ICU patients on ECMO treatment, especially in Victoria.
ECMO, which stands for extra corporeal membrane oxygenation, is the life support of last resort for patients with severe heart and lung failure.
At any one time, a busy ECMO hospital would normally have three to five patients supported with ECMO. The number of patients on ECMO at the Alfred Hospital in Melbourne is hovering around 20, almost all because of COVID. In the US, hospitals report more requests for ECMO for teenagers and young adults and severely stretched resources.
ECMO is a vital tool but it requires highly trained staff and a huge amount of hospital resources. Patients who survive ECMO support may have long term health complications related to their critical illness.
In lay terms, ECMO is a heart or lung bypass machine. A pump and artificial lung, both sitting outside the body, provide a level of support the sick organs can no longer provide. This way, the rest of the body’s functions are maintained.
The meaning of each of the letters of the ECMO acronym is:
Extracorporeal: outside the body
Membrane: the artificial lung is referred to as a “membrane”, or thin layer of material that keeps blood flowing on one side and oxygen on the other. This thin and porous membrane allows oxygen in and carbon dioxide out
Oxygenation: when oxygen enters the blood it is equivalent to breathing in. The process equivalent to breathing out, the removal of carbon dioxide, also occurs.
As well as the oxygenator, the ECMO machine includes cannulae – or tubing – to drain the blood from the patient and return it once oxygen has been added and carbon dioxide removed, a pump and a control panel.
ECMO evolved from cardiopulmonary bypass (heart-lung bypass) machines used to perform open heart surgery. But ECMO equipment is optimised for support lasting days to weeks rather than hours.
ECMO can be connected to the patient in two main ways: veno-venous (to replace just the function of the patient’s lungs) and veno-arterial (to do the work of both the heart and lungs).
ECMO is the highest level of life support that can be provided, with a machine wholly or partly replacing the function of the patient’s own heart and/or lungs.
Only a small number of facilities in the world, and in Australia, are able to provide ECMO. In Australia, all ECMO services are located in large city intensive care units (ICUs), though some ECMO retrieval services can initiate ECMO support in smaller hospitals before moving patients to an ECMO ICU for ongoing care.
Highly specialised equipment and staff are required to provide ECMO.
Around-the-clock care is provided by highly trained ECMO nurses. Many ECMO ICUs have one nurse to look after the ECMO machine and another to look after the patient, who remains critically ill and usually on a full suite of other life support measures in addition to ECMO. These might include a ventilator to support the lungs, a dialysis machine to support the kidneys and many different types of drugs continuously delivered to keep the patient alive.
Medical care in the ICU is provided by large specialised teams. A broader allied health team including physiotherapists, dietitians, social workers and pharmacists help provide holistic care. Perfusionists, who specialise in extracorporeal life support, provide vital expert guidance.
Life-threatening problems with bleeding, clotting and infection are common when managing ECMO patients. Patients frequently require highly specialised support from cardiothoracic surgical teams, haematology and specialised blood bank services, radiology and interventional radiology, general surgical services, infectious diseases, cardiology, and respiratory medicine.
Some patients require weeks to months of ECMO support, which can raise ethical issues regarding resources, allocation and deaths. Some COVID patients are on ECMO for more than 100 days. The COVID pandemic has severely tested the ability of our health-care services to provide ECMO care.
A patient’s time on ECMO represents only one early phase of their critical illness recovery and, even if they survive their initial illness, most require ongoing hospital care and rehabilitation for many months afterwards. It is vital that a full suite of specialised hospital and rehabilitation services are available to maximise the patient’s chances of good quality survival.
Despite ECMO being the most complex form of life support available, the simple maxim that “prevention is better than cure” still applies.
Avoiding COVID infection by getting vaccinated, wearing a mask and paying attention to ventilation and air quality all remain vitally important to protect yourself and our healthcare system.
Greg Kelly is a Staff Specialist, Paediatric Intensive Care, Sydney Children’s Hospital Network and affiliated with OzSAGE.
Josh Ihle is Senior Intensive Care Physician and Deputy Head of Cardiothoracic ICU at the Alfred Hospital.
