Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By James Leibold, Associate Professor of Politics and Asian Studies, La Trobe University

As China grows more powerful and influential, our New Superpower series looks at what this means for the world – how China maintains its power, how it wields its power and how its power might be threatened. Read the rest of the series here.

In China’s far western region of Xinjiang, Chinese Communist Party officials are persecuting one of the worst human rights abuses of our time, what I labelled an act of cultural genocide in last week’s ABC Four Corners report.

Pressure is mounting on the Australian government to go beyond statements of concern and challenge China over its treatment of the Uyghur minority, particularly those Australian citizens and permanent residents being held in the vast network of “re-education camps” in Xinjiang.

Two Australian Uyghur men are meeting federal politicians in Canberra today to push for the government’s assistance in helping family members trapped in China.

Australia was one of 22 countries to sign a recent letter to the UN High Commissioner for Human Rights expressing concern about the “arbitrary detention” of Uyghurs, but otherwise, its response has been muted.

In recent days, the Chinese government has defended its actions with a dubious propaganda report claiming that Uyghurs were historically forced to become Muslims and have been an integral part of China for thousands of years.

China repeatedly makes false and anachronistic claims like this about the ancient unity of the “Chinese people,” which includes ethnic minorities like the Uyghurs. Its aim is to project modern notions of sovereignty, nationhood and fixed borders back through history.

In reality, the 11 million or so Uyghurs are an indigenous Turkic-speaking people who have inhabited what they call “East Turkestan” for over a millennium. Along with the Tibetans, the Uyghurs have born the brunt of China’s settler colonial project, which seeks to assert its control over remote regions that are closer to Moscow and Tehran than Beijing.

Since March 2017, the Chinese government has interned over a million Uyghurs and other Muslim minorities in massive, prison-like camps (including possibly 17 Australian residents), where they are subjected to coercive ideological remoulding.

Detainees are forced to denounce their religion, forbidden to speak their language, and taught how to adopt the norms of China’s Han ethnic majority, while praising President Xi Jinping and the Communist Party for salvation.

In their own words, party officials are “washing brains” and “cleansing hearts” in order to “cure” those bewitched by extremist thoughts. In Xinjiang today, non-Han thoughts and behaviour are pathologised as deviant and thus in need of urgent transformation.

What is genocide?

A litany of words and phrases have been used to describe this process. The Chinese government calls the camps free “vocational education and training centres” where Uyghurs willingly learn Chinese language and employment skills in order to assist with their “rehabilitation and reintegration”.

Scholars, journalists and rights defenders have spoken about cultural and religious “persecution” in Xinjiang, arguing the party-state’s policies amount to mass ethnic cleansing, cultural re-engineering, forced assimilation, brainwashing, or even ethnocide.

In August 2018, Gay McDougall, the vice chair of UN Committee on the Elimination of Racial Discrimination, referred to Xinjiang as a “no-rights zone”.

Yet, I believe the scale, sophistication and intent of China’s policies in Xinjiang merits a stronger description.

Read more: The world has a hard time trusting China. But does it really care?

The term genocide was coined by lawyer Rafael Lemkin in 1944 in reaction to Nazi Germany’s coordinated strategy to annihilate the Jews, gypsies and other non-Aryan peoples. Four years later, the UN General Assembly adopted the Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of Genocide, with Australia one of the first counties to ratify it. The People’s Republic of China ratified it in 1983.

The convention defines genocide as

acts committed with intent to destroy, in whole or in part, a national, ethnical, racial or religious group

It also obligates signatories to punish those who engage in genocidal acts through a “competent” domestic or international penal tribunal.

Whether genocide includes only physical acts or can extend to attacks on cultural heritage has elicited intense debate, but for Lemkin, the term includes

drastic methods aimed at the rapid and complete disappearance of the culture, moral and religious life of a group of human beings.

Genocide also requires specific intent. In the words of political scientists Kenneth J. Campbell, genocide is a

premeditated, calculated, systematic, malicious crime authorised by the state’s political leaders.

This is exactly what Communist Party officials did when they authorised and then legalised the mass internment of Uyghurs and other Muslim minorities in “concentrated transformation-through-education centres,” ripping more than 10% of the population away from their communities so they could be deliberately re-programmed.

Various methods for erasing culture

Yet, facts arguably matter more than words when it comes to China’s policies in Xinjiang.

We now have ample evidence (including internal party documents) of the deliberate efforts to destroy Uyghur culture and identity. Everyday actions like avoiding pork, speaking Uyghur, wearing a headscarf or praying quietly are now labelled “manifestations of religious extremism,” or what party officials call “malignant tumors” requiring urgent excising in a radical form of cultural surgery.

In the city of Kashgar, for example, a party document highlights the need to sever the lineages, roots and cultural connections of Uyghurs in order to eliminate the fountainhead of potential extremism.

German researcher Adrian Zenz has uncovered evidence of the party’s efforts to separate Uyghur children from their parents in state institutions, where they can be assimilated and indoctrinated by officials. In these institutions, cultural, religious, and linguistic knowledge is intentionally ruptured.

Read more: Explainer: who are the Uyghurs and why is the Chinese government detaining them?

In some parts of Xinjiang, mosques and shrines are being bulldozed, while others are transformed into empty sites guarded by facial recognition cameras and imams on the party payroll.

In the name of strengthening “bilingual education”, Chinese is now the language of instruction across Xinjiang, from preschool to university. The use of Uyghur language, script, signs and pictures prohibited. Speaking Uyghur is now considered unpatriotic and can get one sent off for re-education.

Perhaps most disturbing, inter-ethnic marriages are being actively promoted to slowly breed out Uyghurness, with cash and other material inducements offered to Han men who take a Uyghur bride.

One can find numerous videos and messages promoting Han-Uyghur inter-marriage on Chinese social media, asserting Xinjiang is now safe and home to many beautiful and eligible Uyghur women who would appreciate a doting Han husband.

Finally, the Chinese government has intensified its family planning regime in Xinjiang to slow the growth of the Uyghur population and eliminate what party officials call “low quality births”.

Beginning in 2017, the region adopted a uniform two children policy that nullified preferential rules allowing rural Uyghur women to have additional births. In the past, Uyghur women were given 3,000 RMB (roughtly A$620) to forgo a third birth and agree to some sort of “long-term contraceptive measure.”

The Communist Party’s calculated war on Uyghur identity is quite literally tearing families and communities apart, while the rich tradition of diversity and tolerance in China is left in tatters.

The resilient nature of culture and memory means that attempts at genocide, thankfully, are rarely successful. Yet the pain they inflict is real.

– ref. Despite China’s defences, its treatment of the Uyghurs should be called what it is: cultural genocide – http://theconversation.com/despite-chinas-defences-its-treatment-of-the-uyghurs-should-be-called-what-it-is-cultural-genocide-120654

Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Renee Knake, RMIT Fulbright Distinguished Chair in Entrepreneurship and Innovation; Professor of Law at the University of Houston, RMIT University

In this series, we look at under-acknowledged women through the ages.

When Grata Flos Matilda Greig walked into her first law school class at the University of Melbourne in 1897, it was illegal for women to become lawyers. But though the legal system did not even recognise her as a person, she won the right to practice and helped thousands of other women access justice. In defying the law, Greig literally changed its face.

That she did so is a story worthy of history books. And how she achieved this offers key insights for women a century later as they navigate leadership roles in the legal profession and beyond.

Flos, as she was known, grew up in a household full of possibilities unlimited by gender boundaries. Born in Scotland, as a nine-year-old she spent three months sailing to Australia with her family to settle in Melbourne in 1889. Her father founded a textile manufacturing company. Both parents believed that Flos and her siblings – four sisters and three brothers – should be university educated at a time when women rarely were.

She grew up firm in the knowledge that women could thrive in professional life, and witnessed that reality unfold as older sisters Janet and Jean trained to become doctors. Another sister, Clara, would go on to found a tutoring school for university students. The fourth sister, Stella, followed Flos to study law.

Women could not vote or hold legislative office, let alone be lawyers, when 16-year-old Flos began to study law. Yet she did not let this deter her. As she approached graduation she focused on, “the many obstacles in the path of my full success. I resolved to remove them”.

Other feminine aspirants, she noted, had previously wished to enter the profession, “but the impediments in the way were so great, that they concluded, after consideration, it was not worthwhile”.

Flos felt otherwise. She declared, even in 1903 when women were largely excluded from public life: “Women are men’s equals in every way and they are quite competent to hold their own in all spheres of life.”

‘The Flos Greig Enabling Bill’

Six years after entering the University of Melbourne, Flos witnessed the Victorian Legislative Assembly’s passing of the Women’s Disabilities Removal Bill, also known as the Flos Greig Enabling Bill. Suddenly, women could enter the practice of law. How had she made this happen?

While childhood had provided Flos with role models from both sexes, she did have to rely upon a series of men to navigate her entry into the exclusively male club of the legal profession. Her male classmates had initially questioned the capabilities of a woman lawyer and resisted her presence, but she soon persuaded them otherwise.

Not only did Flos graduate second in her class, but the men took a vote to declare – affirmatively – that women should be allowed to practice law. Their support undoubtedly fuelled her ambitions.

Next, Flos turned to one of her lecturers, John Mackey, who happened to also be a member of the Victorian Legislative Assembly. Together they worked with other supporters to craft the legislative change. Mackey argued that by passing the law, Parliament could ease the concerns of women who believed they could not get justice from a legislative body made up only of men.

Still, Flos needed to complete a period of supervised training known as “articling” before she could be sworn into the bar. No Australian woman had ever engaged in the “articles of clerkship” before. A Melbourne commercial law solicitor Frank Cornwall employed her, and she was officially admitted to the practice of law on August 1, 1905.

At her swearing-in ceremony, Chief Justice John Madden described Flos as “the graceful incoming of a revolution”. He also expressed some scepticism about her future success:

Women are more sympathetic than judicial, more emotional than logical. In the legal profession knowledge of the world is almost if not quite as essential as knowledge of the law, and knowledge of the world, women, even if they possess it, would lie loth to assert.

Flos would prove him wrong about her knowledge of the world, both in law and in her other passion, travel.

‘What did I wear? Don’t ask me!’

At the ceremony, her name was the third called – in alphabetical order – before what was reportedly an “unusually large gathering of lawyers, laymen, and ladies … seldom seen in halls of justice”. Attendees noticed smiles that “flickered over the faces of the judges as they entered the crowded chamber” at the sight of Flos among her “somberly-clad male” counterparts.

News accounts focused more on the physical attributes of the first lady lawyer than her qualifications. When questioned by a reporter about her clothing choice for the occasion, Flos blushed, “What did I wear? Don’t ask me!” But then confessed, “Well, if you insist! I wore grey, with a greenish tinted hat, trimmed with violets!”

Another news reporter critiqued the flower-adorned hat as “a most unlegal costume”. As if there was any basis for making such an assessment – until that moment the nation had never seen the “costume” of a female lawyer. The media’s fixation with female lawyers’ appearance endures more than a century later.

Flos soon established a solo practice in Melbourne focusing on women and children. Among other endeavours, she represented the Women’s Christian Temperance Union in lobbying to establish the Children’s Court of Victoria.

Media fascination with Flos’s attire did not diminish once admitted to practice. She delivered a speech in 1905 to the third annual National Congress of Women of Victoria on a paper she wrote titled, “Some Points of the Law Relating to Women and Children”.

The reporter noted that Flos “treated her subject in a masterly manner, and gave an immense amount of useful and, at times, startling information”. But Flos’s “stylish, yet simple, gown of grey voile, with cream lace vest” was equally newsworthy as were “her pretty black hat and white gloves”. The fashion choices of other (male) speakers went unmentioned.

Flos also helped open the legal profession to other women. She founded The Catalysts’ Society in 1910. Two years later it became the prestigious Lyceum Club in Melbourne, devoted to advancing the careers of women and offering networking opportunities.

After the launch of the Women’s Law Society of Victoria in 1914, Flos was elected its first president. She cared deeply about the right of all women to vote, arguing in a 1905 debate that if “politics were not fit” for women, “the sooner they were made so the better.” (In 1908 Victorian women won the right the vote.)

Law was not Flos’s only pursuit. She travelled extensively. Two decades after graduating from law school, she took a lengthy trip through Asia, spending time in Singapore, China, Bali, Java, Malaysia and two weeks in the Burma jungle. She stayed in local homes and on her return, spoke to audiences about the experience, delighting them with tales of “leopards, tigers, wild pigs, peacocks, … and wild jungle fowl”. She lectured publicly and on radio stations about the geography, religion and race.

The end of her career took Flos to Wangaratta in Northern Victoria. She practised at a law firm headed by Paul McSwiney, and was known to explore the countryside in a “Baby Austin” tourer. She remained an activist, supporting higher education for women and the Douglas Credit Party, a political party that aimed to remedy the economic hardships of the 1930s depression.

Flos died in 1958. While she did not live to see other female firsts, such as the appointment of the first female Chief Justice of the Supreme Court of Victoria in 2003, Flos’ capacity to envision women as equals under the law places her among the profession’s greatest innovators.

Renee Newman Knake’s book Shortlisted: Women, Diversity, the Supreme Court & Beyond will be published by New York University Press in 2020.

– ref. Hidden women of history: Flos Greig, Australia’s first female lawyer and early innovator – http://theconversation.com/hidden-women-of-history-flos-greig-australias-first-female-lawyer-and-early-innovator-119990

Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Michelle Grattan, Professorial Fellow, University of Canberra

After a bruising election outcome, GetUp is regrouping around a batch of issues – with press freedom the big ticket item. The activist group’s national director Paul Oosting, who has been in Canberra for the parliamentary week, says this is “deeply, deeply important to our members right now. It’s absolutely the number one issue that they care about”.

We’re absolutely in this campaign for the long haul. How we protect press freedoms, as of today – [it] isn’t entirely clear how we get there from a parliamentary and political point of view, but we’ve absolutely got to find a way because press freedom is central to our democracy.

Post-election, GetUp has faced strong critics, most recently the Liberal member for the South Australian seat of Boothby, Nicole Flint, who has accused it and unions of “creating an environment where abuse, harassment, intimidation, shouting people down and even stalking became the new normal”.

Oosting says these claims “aren’t true” – they are “very much self-serving from the Coalition in an attempt to to muddy our brand”.

He admits GetUp made some mistakes – in a “calling script” in one electorate, and a wrong “tone” in some advertising, notably depicting a Tony Abbott figure refusing to help a drowning person.

In terms of our internal processes and how we think more broadly around those things[…][we]absolutely will carry those lessons through to future campaigns.

But in Boothby, Oosting says, “Nicole Flint doesn’t really have a high profile. So our campaign wasn’t centred on her, it was centred on issues like climate change”.

New to podcasts?

Podcasts are often best enjoyed using a podcast app. All iPhones come with the Apple Podcasts app already installed, or you may want to listen and subscribe on another app such as Pocket Casts (click here to listen to Politics with Michelle Grattan on Pocket Casts).

You can also hear it on Stitcher, Spotify or any of the apps below. Just pick a service from one of those listed below and click on the icon to find Politics with Michelle Grattan.

Additional audio

A List of Ways to Die, Lee Rosevere, from Free Music Archive.

Image:

AAP/ Joel Carrett

– ref. Politics with Michelle Grattan: Paul Oosting responds to GetUp’s critics – http://theconversation.com/politics-with-michelle-grattan-paul-oosting-responds-to-getups-critics-120886

Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Bruce Mountain, Director, Victoria Energy Policy Centre, Victoria University

Last week the body that governs Australia’s energy market released a draft proposal to introduce a demand response mechanism to the wholesale electricity market.

It argues the proposal will unearth some electricity users’ “latent flexibility” to prices in the extremely volatile wholesale market, and that this will potentially promote more efficient use of electricity, more secure power systems, and lower prices.

The move comes after nearly two decades of sustained campaigning, which prompts the question: why doesn’t such a useful-sounding mechanism already exist?

Read more: Managing demand can save two power stations’ worth of energy at peak times

It’s a good question. If this demand-response mechanism does what it is claimed to do, it could be a significant development for the electricity markets in southern and eastern Australia. But the actual proposal is eye-wateringly complex and there is reason to be circumspect.

What is proposed and how does it work?

The Australian Energy Market Commission’s determination is that new market participants, to be known as “Demand Response Service Providers” (DRSPs), will be allowed to offer hypothetical demand reductions into the wholesale market at prices they determine. If the price they offer for such reductions is less than the price at which the market clears, the DRSPs will be paid the market price, as if they were a generator, for these hypothetical reductions.

One obvious difficulty here is the fact that the reductions are hypothetical. They are the difference between the customers’ demand if they did not respond to an enticement to reduce demand – the “baseline” – and their actual demand. Customers (and DRSPs) have an incentive to overstate the baseline, as this increases the volume of the reductions they offer and, if accepted, get paid for.

DRSPs profit from the demand reductions they sell, and so they have an incentive to seek out customers who are willing to reduce demand relative to the baseline.

Retailers that sell electricity to DRSPs’ customers will buy (from the wholesale market) the actual volume of electricity consumed and also the hypothetical demand reduction, and pay the wholesale price for both. The retailer charges the customer for the actual demand and charges the DRSR for the demand reduction at a regulated price equal to the 12-month average wholesale price.

Read more: Baffled by baseload? Dumbfounded by dispatchables? Here’s a glossary of the energy debate

This will typically leave the retailer out of pocket by an amount equal to the difference between the average wholesale price at which they have “bought” the demand reductions, and the 12-month average wholesale price (which will almost certainly be lower, because demand reductions will occur when wholesale prices are higher than average).

Retailers will seek to recover the shortfall from the DRSRs’ customers or, more likely, from all their customers. To the extent that they are unable to recover the shortfall, retailers are likely to try to offload those of their customers that are paid to reduce demand.

This is a simplified description of the arrangement. The complexity of the actual data and money flows between customers, DRSPs, retailers, the energy market operator, network service providers and regulators is enough to provoke a nose-bleed from the most seasoned corporate lawyers.

By now, I am sure you are wondering why all the bother with baselines and hypothetical reductions. Why not simply pay customers for actual load reductions? The answer, in short, is that the pool of possible directly contracted customers is small.

If demand response is to be extended to thousands of customers – as this proposal seeks to do – setting baselines and hence hypothetical demand reductions, with all their unwelcome consequences, is unavoidable.

Will it work?

I am not sure. It is certainly punishingly complex. The energy market operator and regulator will have their hands full ensuring that baselines are not set at a level that prints money for DRSRs and their customers, at the expense of retailers and other electricity users. If the market operator and regulator achieve this without imposing undue cost and administrative burden, this demand-response proposal has promise.

Read more: South Australia’s experience contradicts Coalition emissions scare campaign

It will be fascinating to see whether DRSRs can indeed flush out the “latent flexibility” in a manner that is advantageous to themselves, the latently flexible, and the rest of us. Like many others, I will be watching with interest.

– ref. New demand-response energy rules sound good, but the devil is in the (hugely complicated) details – http://theconversation.com/new-demand-response-energy-rules-sound-good-but-the-devil-is-in-the-hugely-complicated-details-120676

Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Belinda Nicholson, Lecturer, University of Southern Queensland

Curious Kids is a series for children. If you have a question you’d like an expert to answer, send it to curiouskids@theconversation.edu.au You might also like the podcast Imagine This, a co-production between ABC KIDS listen and The Conversation, based on Curious Kids.

Does the Sun spin as well as the planets? – Max, Ebony, Calissa, Daniel, Mason, Jewels, Ever, Ludah, Tyler, Finbar, Enda, Riley, ages 5 – 8, Australia.

Yes, the Sun absolutely spins.

In fact, everything in the universe spins. Some things spin faster than the Sun, some are slower than the Sun, and some things spin “backwards”.

How did the Sun start to spin? Well, when the Sun was born, it formed from a big cloud of swirling gas. This gas fell inwards and began to tighten into a ball shape to form the star. The small swirling motion turned into a lot of swirling motion and gave the Sun its spin.

And here’s another interesting Sun spin fact: the middle part of the Sun – its equator – spins more quickly than the top and bottom parts, which are called the Sun’s poles. It can do that because the Sun isn’t solid, it’s a ball of gas.

Read more: Curious Kids: how is the Sun burning?

When it was young, the Sun spun fast – very fast. It would do one rotation in a just a few Earth days.

But as it got older, the Sun slowed down. Now it spins once every 25 days at the equator and once every 35 days at the poles. That means we have to wait for nearly a month to go by here on Earth before most of the Sun finishes one complete spin.

The reason it slowed down is hard to explain, but it’s got to do with its magnetic fields. When it was young and hyperactive, Sun spun fast and had a super strong magnetic field. This big magnetic field dragged through space, acting like a brake and slowing the Sun down. The slower spin then made the magnetic field much smaller too, so today the Sun is slowing down by only a very little bit.

Some things in space spin really fast

Have you ever heard of a pulsar? That’s what’s left when a huge star dies. They spin super fast. In fact, they can do one whole rotation in a fraction of a second.

How do we know that? Well, pulsars shoot out a big beam of energy and we can pick up a flash of that beam as it goes past, rotating like this lighthouse light, only faster.

The flashes of energy from the pulsar go past very fast and very often, so we know it is spinning incredibly fast.

So as you can see, lots of things in space are spinning. Our galaxy, the Milky Way, is also spinning.

With all of this spinning, why don’t we get dizzy? Humans have evolved here so we are used to the spinning, but if everything stopped spinning (which is not likely to happen) we would really feel it!

Read more: Curious Kids: What’s going to happen to the Sun in the future? Will it explode?

Hello, curious kids! Have you got a question you’d like an expert to answer? Ask an adult to send your question to curiouskids@theconversation.edu.au Please tell us your name, age and which city you live in. We won’t be able to answer every question but we will do our best.

– ref. Curious Kids: does the Sun spin as well as the planets? – http://theconversation.com/curious-kids-does-the-sun-spin-as-well-as-the-planets-119877

Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Ray Markey, Emeritus Professor, Macquarie University

One of the Coalition government’s first priorities in the new parliament is the passage of its Ensuring Integrity Bill, aimed at tightening regulations on unions and union officials.

Similar legislation was introduced in 2017, but rejected in the Senate. This time around, the government is more optimistic of its chances, given the current makeup of the Senate after the May election and the recent controversy over John Setka, the Victorian state secretary of the Construction, Forestry, Mining, Maritime and Energy Union (CFMMEU).

The bill would give the minister for industrial relations, as well as the Registered Organisations Commission and any party deemed to have “sufficient interest”, the power to apply to the Federal Court to deregister a union. Union officials are particularly concerned about the extension of this power to anyone with “sufficient interest,” as this could conceivably include employers.

Read more: Politics podcast: Brendan O’Connor on Labor’s industrial relations agenda

The disqualification of union officials would also be automatic for anyone who has committed serious criminal offences punishable by five or more years of jail time. In addition, the Federal Court could disqualify officials for breaking industrial laws or failing to stop their organisation from breaking the law, or otherwise not being a “fit and proper person.”

A public interest test would also be introduced to prevent future union mergers, such as the “super union” merger last year of the Construction, Forestry, Mining and Energy Union (CFMEU), the Maritime Union of Australia (MUA) and the Textile, Clothing and Footwear Union of Australia (TCFUA).

In introducing the bill, Christian Porter, the attorney-general and industrial relations minister, made clear that the newly named CFMMEU was one of the bill’s main targets.

He noted that the union had been levied with penalties over A$16 million for more than 2,000 contraventions of industrial law in recent years.

This repeated lawbreaking, particularly in our vital building and construction sector, hampers the delivery of goods and services and increases the cost of vital infrastructure projects like roads, schools and hospitals.

Ammunition provided by Setka

Setka was recently convicted after pleading guilty to harassment of his then-estranged wife. Earlier, he was accused of saying at a CFMMEU executive meeting that Rosie Batty’s campaigning against domestic violence had led to a reduction in men’s rights. However, this account has been contested by Setka and others present at the meeting.

Following the report detailing Setka’s comments about Batty, Labor leader Anthony Albanese moved quickly to suspend Setka’s ALP membership. He said Setka

undermines the credibility of the trade union movement through the position he holds and the public views he’s expressed.

Sally McManus, the Australian Council of Trade Unions secretary, also urged Setka to consider the harm he was doing the union movement and resign.

There is no place for perpetrators of domestic violence in leadership positions in our movement.

Setka has often attracted negative media attention. He famously threatened to expose all Australian Building and Construction Commission (ABCC) inspectors and make their children “ashamed of who their parents are.” On social media, he posted a picture of his children holding a placard saying “go get fu#ked” in reference to the ABCC.

Setka is a major contributor to the CFMMEU’s numerous breaches of industrial law. He has numerous convictions for theft, assault and criminal damage, mainly associated with industrial disputes.

Former Prime Minister Bob Hawke is reported to have previously counselled Labor leader Bill Shorten to sever the ALP’s ties with the CFMMEU.

Labor’s fears may be realised

The government is relishing the difficulties this situation has created for Albanese and Labor.

Government members have previously highlighted that the CFMMEU is Labor’s biggest electoral donor. And Porter has challenged Albanese to back the Ensuring Integrity Bill after his condemnation of Setka:

Now is the time for Mr. Albanese and Labor to prove they’re not all talk and back their words with action.

Albanese’s swift call for Setka’s expulsion from the ALP was designed to limit damage to the party. However, Setka’s court challenge prevented a quick expulsion, and now it appears it could be blocked altogether.

Read more: Setka furore opens division within the labour movement – and there is no easy solution

McManus’s worst fears of increased union regulation following the Setka controversy also are being fulfilled.

In addition to the Ensuring Integrity Bill, the government has reintroduced a bill that would impose tighter regulatory controls on workers’ entitlement funds.

According to the bill’s language, it would prevent the “coercion” of employers to pay into particular funds for their employees’ superannuation, training or insurance. This bill also would require registered organisations (unions and employer bodies) to maintain financial management plans, keep credit card records and disclose their loans and grants to individuals or other entities.

Senate crossbenchers remain the key

The Ensuring Integrity Bill has been referred to a Senate committee, which is due to report in October.

The bill should have an easier time passing in the new Senate. Independent Senator Tim Storer, who strongly opposed the 2017 bill, is no longer in the Senate. Of the crossbench, Cory Bernardi and the two One Nation senators are likely to support it. That leaves only one more vote required from either of the Centre Alliance senators or Jacqui Lambie.

The bill has been somewhat watered down from its 2017 version to make it amenable to the crossbench and test Labor’s opposition to it.

It also more closely follows the provisions of the Corporations Act. However, questions remain as to whether membership-based organisations like unions should be expected to operate like corporations, or if unions breaching industrial laws should be treated similarly to corporations or individuals breaking criminal laws.

Read more: Where to now for unions and ‘change the rules’?

The ACTU is lobbying Senate crossbenchers to oppose the bill.

The UK-based International Centre for Trade Union Rights has also come out against the bill, arguing it is “incompatible” with Australia’s commitments under two key conventions of the International Labour Organisation. The ICTUR says it interferes with workers’ rights to establish their own organisations, set their own rules and elect officials, saying it found

no precedent for the degree of state interference in the functioning and establishment of trade unions in comparable industrialised liberal democracies.

It also compared the bill to oppressive legislation in Turkey and under the military dictatorship in Brazil in the 1940s.

– ref. Fall-out from Setka affair could give Coalition easier passage of union bill – http://theconversation.com/fall-out-from-setka-affair-could-give-coalition-easier-passage-of-union-bill-120586

Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Peter Koval, Academic, Melbourne School of Psychological Sciences, University of Melbourne

How does a woman feel when a man wolf-whistles at her from across the street? Or when a male coworker gives her body a fleeting once-over before looking her in the eye?

These examples may seem relatively innocent to some, but our research has found they can have negative consequences for women’s emotional well-being.

We asked women to record any incidents of sexual objectification on a smartphone app, alongside rating their feelings several times each day for a week.

When women experienced sexual objectification, in many cases it led them to scrutinise their physical appearance, which negatively impacted their emotional well-being.

Read more: Hey, sexy: objectifying catcalls occur more frequently than you might think

A cycle of objectification

The process by which sexual objectification is psychologically harmful to women was first described by psychologists Barbara Fredrickson and Tomi-Ann Roberts in the mid-1990s.

According to this theory, when women are treated as objects, they momentarily view their own bodies from the perspective of the person objectifying them. In turn, they become preoccupied with their physical appearance and sexual value to others.

This process of “self-objectification” leads women to experience unpleasant feelings such as shame and anxiety. If repeated, it can eventually lead to long-term psychological harm.

Despite hundreds of studies on the psychology of sexual objectification, convincing evidence of the process described by Fredrickson and Roberts has been lacking until now.

Read more: Explainer: what does the ‘male gaze’ mean, and what about a female gaze?

We believe our research, conducted with colleagues in the United States, is the first to demonstrate that when women are exposed to sexually objectifying events in their everyday lives, they become more preoccupied with their physical appearance.

This, in turn, leads to increased negative emotions like anxiety, anger, embarrassment and shame.

Our research

We asked 268 women aged 18 to 46 in Melbourne and St Louis (in the US) to install an app on their smartphones.

Several times each day, the app prompted them to rate their emotions, how preoccupied they were with their physical appearance (a measure of self-objectification), and whether they had recently been targeted by sexually objectifying behaviour – or had witnessed such treatment of other women.

Using smartphones to track women’s everyday experiences of sexual objectification has several advantages over other approaches used in most previous objectification research.

First, we can be sure we captured “real world” examples of sexual objectification rather than artificial scenarios that may not represent life outside the lab.

Second, instead of relying on potentially unreliable memories of past events and feelings recorded in surveys or journals, by using frequent smartphone surveys we could gather more accurate “real time” reports of sexual objectification.

Finally, repeatedly sampling women’s daily experiences enabled us to observe the psychological processes triggered by sexual objectification.

Read more: Rape, sexual assault and sexual harassment: what’s the difference?

What we found

More than 65% of women in our study were personally targeted by sexually objectifying behaviour at least once during the monitoring period. This might have included being ogled, catcalled or whistled at.

Our findings were consistent with Fredrickson and Roberts’s theory: women reported being preoccupied with their physical appearance roughly 40% more when they had recently been targeted by sexually objectifying behaviours, compared to when they had not.

Importantly, these momentary spikes in self-objectification predicted subsequent increases in women’s negative emotions, particularly feelings of shame and embarrassment.

Although these increases were small, they were reliable, and appear to be indirectly caused by exposure to sexually objectifying behaviours.

Women may think about their appearance independent of experiencing sexual objectification. Interestingly, we found when women self-objectified, they sometimes reported feeling slightly happier and more confident.

So when women think about themselves in an objectified manner, they can feel both positive and negative emotions. But self-objectification that arises as a result of being objectified by someone else appears to have an exclusively negative impact on emotions.

Read more: Women can build positive body image by controlling what they view on social media

It’s important to note that in our results, experiencing sexual objectification on its own didn’t directly lead to increases in women’s negative feelings. Rather, the harmful effects of sexual objectification occurred when it resulted in women objectifying themselves.

Seeing other women objectified

Our participants reported witnessing the objectification of other women on average four times during the week-long study period.

Witnessing the objectification of other women was also followed by reliable (albeit weaker) increases in self-objectification, with similar negative downstream consequences for emotional well-being.

Just as passive smoking is harmful to non-smokers, second-hand exposure to sexual objectification may reduce the emotional well-being of women, even if they are rarely or never objectified themselves.

Read more: Universities unveil plan to reduce sexual harassment and sexual assault on campus

Overall, our study confirms previous research showing sexual objectification of women remains relatively common.

But importantly, we’ve shown these everyday objectifying experiences are not as innocuous as they may seem. Though subtle, the indirect emotional effects of objectifying treatment may accumulate over time into more serious psychological harm for women.

This article is a co-publication with Pursuit.

– ref. Sexually objectifying women leads women to objectify themselves, and harms emotional well-being – http://theconversation.com/sexually-objectifying-women-leads-women-to-objectify-themselves-and-harms-emotional-well-being-120762

Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Daniel Edwards, Research Director, Australian Council for Educational Research

Australia spent A$111.8 billion on education in 2015, the most recent year for which the full dataset for all levels of education spending is available. A report from the Australian Council for Educational Research (ACER) released today shows this was an increase of nearly 80% from 2000 spending.

The federal government contributed A$47.2 billion (42%) of the overall funding. State, territory and local governments spent A$39.1 billion (35%). A further A$25.5 billion (23%) came from private sources.

The ACER report is the first to capture data on education spending at all levels of education – from early childhood to higher education – from all funding sources.

The analysis separates funding into three sources: federal government; state, territory and local governments; and private sources (the latter includes contributions by students in the form of fees, as well as contributions by private businesses and non-profit organisations).

The report also organises spending by education sector and levels, as defined in Australia.

Spending by education level

Education funding goes through a range of transfers between the three sources. At different points in the funding cycle, the contributions by government sources are transferred to other funding sources.

Read more: Explaining Australia’s school funding debate: what’s at stake

For instance, the federal government transferred A$14 billion of its initial education funding to private sources in 2015, mainly in the form of student loans. It transferred a further A$17.7 billion to state, territory and local governments which then fund schools and other areas of education.

The final distribution of national education spending, after the transfers, was A$15.5 billion (14%) from the federal government, A$55.4 billion (49%) from state, territory and local governments and A$40.9 billion (37%) from private sources.

The bulk of Australia’s education spending is directed to three levels of education: primary schools (27%), secondary schools (28%) and higher education (26%).

The remaining 19% is spread between early childhood education, preschool, vocational education and training (VET) certificates, diplomas and advanced diplomas.

Spending as a percentage of GDP

In 2015, Australia spent A$102.4 billion on primary school and above. In real terms this spending has grown substantially since the beginning of the century and faster than student numbers.

While spending on education increased by 79% between 2000 and 2015, the number of students in the Australian education system increased by only 22%. As a result, education spending per student (primary and above) increased by 46% over this period.

Read more: Yes, education funding has increased – but not everyone benefits

Australia’s spending on education as a proportion of GDP has also increased, from 5.1% in 2000 to 5.9% in 2015.

This increase has largely been driven by private sources of funding, rather than government funds, indicating an increasing willingness by people to invest in their own (or their children’s) education.

The share of private spending on education (primary and above) after transfers increased from 26% of total education spending in 2000 to 34% in 2015.

The fastest period of growth in private spending has been since 2012. This coincided with the introduction of the higher education sector’s demand-driven funding arrangements (where universities didn’t have a cap on the number of bachelor degree students they could take).

But it’s important to remember the government allocates a significant amount of its initial funding (before transfers) to student loans.

Spending as a percentage of total government spending

Government spending on education before transfers increased by 67% in real terms between 2000 and 2015. At the same time, total government spending rose by 65%.

So, government spending on education before transfers, as a percentage of total government spending, was 1% higher in 2015 than in 2000. It peaked in 2010 due to the global financial crisis stimulus spending and fell in the interim.

Australia’s government spends a relatively large proportion of its budget on education compared to other OECD countries. In total, government spending on education is 13.5%, which ranks Australia ninth of the 39 countries in the OECD reporting.

But Australia’s total government spending for all services (including health, education, social protection, defence, public order and safety) is relatively low.

Read more: FactCheck: is Australia below the international average when it comes to school funding?

ACER’s analysis is drawn from annual expenditure data the Australian Government Department of Education submits for the joint UNESCO Institute for Statistics, OECD and Eurostat (UOE) data collection on education statistics – which the OECD releases as the Education at a Glance publication.

The Education at a Glance reports are good for obtaining a snapshot of Australian education spending in relation to other OECD countries. But until now the data have not been organised in a useful way for further examining the Australian context.

To fully appreciate the nuances of the data, we need increased expertise in the economics of education in Australia. More emphasis on this would enable long-term forecasting of the policy implications of Australia’s investment in education and would offer an additional objective voice at the education policy table.

– ref. Three charts on: how much Australia spends on all levels of education – http://theconversation.com/three-charts-on-how-much-australia-spends-on-all-levels-of-education-120076

Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Neil Sipe, Professor of Urban and Regional Planning, The University of Queensland

While car parking was a non-negotiable amenity for baby boomers, it is an eyesore to millennials and the up-and-coming iGen. Newer generations want more city and fewer cars. Globally, scrapping car parking is the latest trend in urban planning.

Read more: Freeing up the huge areas set aside for parking can transform our cities

Between 2010 and 2015, Philadelphia removed 3,000 off-street parking spaces from its city centre. Copenhagen is following the same path. Zurich has implemented a city-wide cap to llimit parking spaces to 1990s levels.

Amsterdam has announced it will remove parking spaces at a rate of 1,500 a year. The city’s 2025 goal is to eliminate more than 11,000 parking spaces from its streets to make space for cycling.

San Francisco and New York have adopted the concept of “parklets”. These are mini parks or outdoor café seating areas that temporarily replace a few parking spots during low-demand periods.

Read more: A day for turning parking spaces into pop-up parks

The theory is that as the amount of parking decreases, the appeal of driving gives way to more environmentally friendly transport modes such as walking, cycling, ride-hailing, car pooling and public transport.

Some evidence suggests reducing or capping parking pays off. In cities that have implemented these measures, driving has declined and public transport use has increased.

What’s happening in Australia?

Among the largest Australian cities, Brisbane seems to be going backwards. The Courier Mail recently published a story stating that:

Suburban streets in two Brisbane suburbs have become all-day car parks as the new residents of apartments are forced to resort to on-street parking.

In response to such sentiments, Brisbane City Council proposes to increase the number of parking spaces required for future apartment buildings across the middle and outer suburbs. Parking increases have been framed as adding to the quality of life and safety of Brisbane suburbs.

Unfortunately, Brisbane does not track the existing supply of residential parking. This lack of clarity has created an imbalance of parking supply and provides opportunities for a sharing economy of parking. Operators such as Parkhound and KERB enable residents to lease their unused parking while their neighbours exhaust the public supply of on-street parking.

Meanwhile, Sydney has officially declared a “climate emergency”, following the lead of global cities including New York, London (and then all of the UK), Auckland and Vancouver (followed by Canada). While applauded by environmentalists, this declaration does not come with a firm commitment to reduce driving or parking.

Read more: UK becomes first country to declare a ‘climate emergency’

Read more: Cognitive dissonance: Canada declares a national climate emergency and approves a pipeline

Similarly, in Melbourne, outside the CBD – where there are plans to reduce parking – there is plenty of free, and largely unmanaged, on-street parking. Residents typically believe they are entitled to this parking space.

Clearly, Australian cities are stuck in the old-fashioned “predict and provide” model of parking supply. This model relies on the idea that there will always be enough parking if every site provides spaces for all residents, staff, customers and visitors during peak demand periods.

While this approach might have been suitable in the postwar period, it is unworkable for today’s growing, congested and warming cities. The challenge for planners is how to accommodate increasing numbers of urban residents within a reasonable distance from work and amenities. Cities are running out of space for cars – be they moving or parked.

Read more: Move away from a car-dominated city looks radical but it’s a sensible plan for a liveable future

Is there a better way?

Certainly. Some cities have begun to set maximum parking standards. In other words, the cities put an upper limit on how many car parks can be provided for a given project. Sometimes these complement minimum parking requirements; in other cases the latter are eliminated.

Selling parking spaces separately from housing units, referred to as “unbundling”, is another policy that’s becoming popular. It ensures the true cost of car storage is transparent rather than hidden. And it means car-free or one-car households don’t have to pay for parking they don’t need.

Some developers are providing car-sharing spaces in new construction, instead of individual car parks.

Some employers offer a parking “cash out” option – employees receive a payment in lieu of a parking space. Those employers that continue to offer parking charge fees daily rather than monthly to avoid the “sunk cost fallacy” – having paid for parking, employees want to get their money’s worth.

Other useful (but hardly new) planning concepts include the “30-minute city” and “transit-oriented development”. These approaches help reduce the need for driving and parking by concentrating people and land uses around public transport stops and corridors.

Read more: ‘The 30-minute city’: how do we put the political rhetoric into practice?

Will reducing spaces lead to parking shortages?

People are often concerned that if parking is reduced or capped, this will create a parking shortage. This can be avoided if parking is treated as a key component of the urban transport system and managed in coordination with other elements.

Australian cities need to prepare comprehensive parking strategies at the metropolitan level. These strategies must be integrated with general transport and land use plans. Unfortunately, this is often difficult to achieve because state governments are typically responsible for planning and building the transport system while local governments are responsible for parking.

The impacts of parking reductions on urban citizens need to be offset by providing a higher quality and quantity of public and active transport. This requires substantial investments in public and active transport.

Read more: Cycling and walking are short-changed when it comes to transport funding in Australia

Finally, no parking should be free. Revenues from parking fees should be returned to local communities in the form of improved public amenities.

– ref. What can our cities do about sprawl, congestion and pollution? Tip: scrap car parking – http://theconversation.com/what-can-our-cities-do-about-sprawl-congestion-and-pollution-tip-scrap-car-parking-118393

Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Peter Whiteford, Professor, Crawford School of Public Policy, Australian National University

Since parliament has resumed three Liberal members – Dean Smith, Russell Broadbent and Andrew Wallace – have joined a group of Nationals calling for an increase in the A$40 per day Newstart unemployment allowance.

Labor has already committed itself to both an inquiry and an increase, although it won’t specify the size of the increase. The Greens have introduced a bill that would increase Newstart by A$75 a week.

Defending the current level of Newstart on Monday, Finance Minister Mathias Cormann told the ABC’s Sabra Lane that the payment was “transitional”.

Most Australians were on it for only a “very short period”

LANE: Could you live on 40 bucks a day?

CORMANN: The Newstart allowance which is I guess, what you are now raising is a transitional payment for…

LANE: It is, and you’ve diverted straight away. Could you live on 40 bucks a day?

CORMANN: Newstart allowance is a transitional payment. It is a payment that is increased twice a year. It is indexed twice a year. Most Australians who are on Newstart allowance are on that payment for a very short period.

Greens senator Rachel Siewert actually did try to live on Newstart for a week in 2012.

She introduced the bill that would lift it (and the similarly-sized youth allowance, sickness allowance, special benefit, widow allowance, crisis payment and Austudy) by A$75 a week.

On Monday she asked the Senate to “not believe what the government says”

This is not a transition payment anymore. The employment situation in this country has changed from when the unemployment benefits first came in, and it’s certainly changed since 1994. People have to survive on this payment long-term.“

Liberal Wendy Askew responded:

These allowances are not designed as a long-term payment for people, and this is shown by the fact that around two-thirds of job seekers who are granted Newstart exit income support within 12 months.

So what’s the truth? Are most Australians who go onto Newstart on it for only a short time, or are most of those who are on Newstart on it for a long time?

Short term, or long term?

As it happens, both claims are sourced from the same Department of Social Services publication, DSS Payment Trends and Profile Reports.

It says 257,494 Australians went on to Newstart between June 2015 and June 2016. Most of them (191,6800) hadn’t previously been receiving income support.

In the same 12 month period, 274,113 Australians left Newstart, 212,320 of them out of the income support system altogether.

If most of those who went on it in that year also went off it in that year then the government would be correct in saying that “two-thirds of job seekers who are granted Newstart exit income support within 12 months”.

Read more: FactCheck Q&A: is a week’s worth of Newstart equal to what a politician can claim for one night in Canberra?

But it would leave most of the rest of the 732,100 Australians on Newstart on it for an increasingly long time.

The table below shows that in June 2016, 73% of Newstart recipients were classified as long-term (one year or more), up from 71% the previous June.

Graphically, it is possible to see that in June 2016, there were both

• fewer Australians on Newstart than in the previous year (more had left Newstart than taken it up), and

• a greater proportion of them on it for more than a year

Number of Newstart recipients by duration on income support, ‘000

The apparent contradiction between most of the people who enter Newstart quickly leaving it and most people who are on Newstart being on it for a long time appears to reflect a confusion between flows and stocks.

The International Encyclopedia of the Social Sciences illustrates the difference using a bathtub.

The level of water in the bathtub is a stock, the water coming from the faucet is an inflow, and the draining of the water through the drain is an outflow. If we plug the drain and turn on the faucet, the net inflow will be positive, and the stock of water in the bathtub will be rising. If, instead, we close the faucet and open the drain, the net inflow of water will be negative, and the stock of water in the bathtub will fall.

Between 2015 and 2016 about 260,000 people flowed in to and out of Newstart, and as it happened more flowed out than flowed in.

But those who remained were increasingly likely to have been on Newstart for a long time, probably due to the so-called “scarring” effect that makes people less job-ready (and less attractive to employers) the longer they have been out of work.

Most current Newstart recipients are long-term

The proportion of Newstart recipients on payments for more than a year has climbed from 69% in 2014 to 73% in 2016, and according to the latest Department of Social Services figures, to 76.5% in 2018.

Senator Siewert’s observation that most Newstart recipients have to survive on it long-term is correct.

At any one time the overwhelming majority of the people on the $40 per day have been on it for more than a year.

Read more: FactCheck: do 99% of Newstart recipients also receive other benefits?

What’s more, it appears that the decline in the total number of people on Newstart has not been because more of the people on Newstart have been able to get a job, but because the flow into Newstart has slowed.

That is probably a positive development, although there is also the possibility that it is happening because of the onerous compliance burdens of job search, together with the increasing inadequacy of Newstart.

– ref. Are most people on the Newstart unemployment benefit for a short or long time? – http://theconversation.com/are-most-people-on-the-newstart-unemployment-benefit-for-a-short-or-long-time-120826

Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Renee Knake, RMIT Fulbright Distinguished Chair in Entrepreneurship and Innovation; Professor of Law at the University of Houston, RMIT University

In this series, we look at under-acknowledged women through the ages.

When Grata Flos Matilda Greig walked into her first law school class at the University of Melbourne in 1897, it was illegal for women to become lawyers. But though the legal system did not even recognise her as a person, she won the right to practice and helped thousands of other women access justice. In defying the law, Greig literally changed its face.

That she did so is a story worthy of history books. And how she achieved this offers key insights for women a century later as they navigate leadership roles in the legal profession and beyond.

Flos, as she was known, grew up in a household full of possibilities unlimited by gender boundaries. Born in Scotland, as a nine-year-old she spent three months sailing to Australia with her family to settle in Melbourne in 1889. Her father founded a textile manufacturing company. Both parents believed that Flos and her siblings – four sisters and three brothers – should be university educated at a time when women rarely were.

She grew up firm in the knowledge that women could thrive in professional life, and witnessed that reality unfold as older sisters Janet and Jean trained to become doctors. Another sister, Clara, would go on to found a tutoring school for university students. The fourth sister, Stella, followed Flos to study law.

Women could not vote or hold legislative office, let alone be lawyers, when 16-year-old Flos began to study law. Yet she did not let this deter her. As she approached graduation she focused on, “the many obstacles in the path of my full success. I resolved to remove them”.

Other feminine aspirants, she noted, had previously wished to enter the profession, “but the impediments in the way were so great, that they concluded, after consideration, it was not worthwhile”.

Flos felt otherwise. She declared, even in 1903 when women were largely excluded from public life: “Women are men’s equals in every way and they are quite competent to hold their own in all spheres of life.”

‘The Flos Greig Enabling Bill’

Six years after entering the University of Melbourne, Flos witnessed the Victorian Legislative Assembly’s passing of the Women’s Disabilities Removal Bill, also known as the Flos Greig Enabling Bill. Suddenly, women could enter the practice of law. How had she made this happen?

While childhood had provided Flos with role models from both sexes, she did have to rely upon a series of men to navigate her entry into the exclusively male club of the legal profession. Her male classmates had initially questioned the capabilities of a woman lawyer and resisted her presence, but she soon persuaded them otherwise.

Not only did Flos graduate second in her class, but the men took a vote to declare – affirmatively – that women should be allowed to practice law. Their support undoubtedly fuelled her ambitions.

Next, Flos turned to one of her lecturers, John Mackey, who happened to also be a member of the Victorian Legislative Assembly. Together they worked with other supporters to craft the legislative change. Mackey argued that by passing the law, Parliament could ease the concerns of women who believed they could not get justice from a legislative body made up only of men.

Still, Flos needed to complete a period of supervised training known as “articling” before she could be sworn into the bar. No Australian woman had ever engaged in the “articles of clerkship” before. A Melbourne commercial law solicitor Frank Cornwall employed her, and she was officially admitted to the practice of law on August 1, 1905.

At her swearing-in ceremony, Chief Justice John Madden described Flos as “the graceful incoming of a revolution”. He also expressed some scepticism about her future success:

Women are more sympathetic than judicial, more emotional than logical. In the legal profession knowledge of the world is almost if not quite as essential as knowledge of the law, and knowledge of the world, women, even if they possess it, would lie loth to assert.

Flos would prove him wrong about her knowledge of the world, both in law and in her other passion, travel.

‘What did I wear? Don’t ask me!’

At the ceremony, her name was the third called – in alphabetical order – before what was reportedly an “unusually large gathering of lawyers, laymen, and ladies … seldom seen in halls of justice”. Attendees noticed smiles that “flickered over the faces of the judges as they entered the crowded chamber” at the sight of Flos among her “somberly-clad male” counterparts.

News accounts focused more on the physical attributes of the first lady lawyer than her qualifications. When questioned by a reporter about her clothing choice for the occasion, Flos blushed, “What did I wear? Don’t ask me!” But then confessed, “Well, if you insist! I wore grey, with a greenish tinted hat, trimmed with violets!”

Another news reporter critiqued the flower-adorned hat as “a most unlegal costume”. As if there was any basis for making such an assessment – until that moment the nation had never seen the “costume” of a female lawyer. The media’s fixation with female lawyers’ appearance endures more than a century later.

Flos soon established a solo practice in Melbourne focusing on women and children. Among other endeavours, she represented the Women’s Christian Temperance Union in lobbying to establish the Children’s Court of Victoria.

Media fascination with Flos’s attire did not diminish once admitted to practice. She delivered a speech in 1905 to the third annual National Congress of Women of Victoria on a paper she wrote titled, “Some Points of the Law Relating to Women and Children”.

The reporter noted that Flos “treated her subject in a masterly manner, and gave an immense amount of useful and, at times, startling information”. But Flos’s “stylish, yet simple, gown of grey voile, with cream lace vest” was equally newsworthy as were “her pretty black hat and white gloves”. The fashion choices of other (male) speakers went unmentioned.

Flos also helped open the legal profession to other women. She founded The Catalysts’ Society in 1910. Two years later it became the prestigious Lyceum Club in Melbourne, devoted to advancing the careers of women and offering networking opportunities.

After the launch of the Women’s Law Society of Victoria in 1914, Flos was elected its first president. She cared deeply about the right of all women to vote, arguing in a 1905 debate that if “politics were not fit” for women, “the sooner they were made so the better.” (In 1908 Victorian women won the right the vote.)

Law was not Flos’s only pursuit. She travelled extensively. Two decades after graduating from law school, she took a lengthy trip through Asia, spending time in Singapore, China, Bali, Java, Malaysia and two weeks in the Burma jungle. She stayed in local homes and on her return, spoke to audiences about the experience, delighting them with tales of “leopards, tigers, wild pigs, peacocks, … and wild jungle fowl”. She lectured publicly and on radio stations about the geography, religion and race.

The end of her career took Flos to Wangaratta in Northern Victoria. She practised at a law firm headed by Paul McSwiney, and was known to explore the countryside in a “Baby Austin” tourer. She remained an activist, supporting higher education for women and the Douglas Credit Party, a political party that aimed to remedy the economic hardships of the 1930s depression.

Flos died in 1958. While she did not live to see other female firsts, such as the appointment of the first female Chief Justice of the Supreme Court of Victoria in 2003, Flos’ capacity to envision women as equals under the law places her among the profession’s greatest innovators.

Renee Newman Knake’s book Shortlisted: Women, Diversity, the Supreme Court & Beyond will be published by New York University Press in 2020.

– ref. Hidden women of history: Flos Grieg, Australia’s first female lawyer and early innovator – http://theconversation.com/hidden-women-of-history-flos-grieg-australias-first-female-lawyer-and-early-innovator-119990

Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Lida Ayoubi, Lecturer, Auckland University of Technology

The New Zealand parliament seems closer to adopting a bill to amend copyright legislation to make it easier for visually impaired people to access published works.

An estimated 90% of all written works published worldwide are not available in formats accessible to people with a print disability. This barrier affects an estimated 168,000 New Zealanders.

The 2013 Marrakesh Treaty, which New Zealand joined in 2017, would help end the “global book famine” by allowing access to more written works in formats such as Braille, large print or audio. Bringing the treaty into effect in New Zealand requires changes to the Copyright Act 1994, and the amendment bill is due to go through its final reading this week.

Read more: Australia’s copyright reform could bring millions of books and other reads to the blind

Copyright law and the right to read

Currently, creating accessible formats from existing works is only possible with the permission of the copyright owner or if there are exceptions limiting the copyright owner’s rights. Combined with a lack of infrastructure and the high cost of producing accessible works, this has created a global “book famine” for visually impaired people.

This affects not only those who read for leisure but also students and researchers, especially in developing and least developed countries. This lack of access to books and other copyright material is a hurdle to the realisation of several human rights, including the right to education, access to information, the right to participate in culture and to enjoy scientific progress, as well as the rights to health and employment. This is reflected in the Marrakesh Treaty’s focus on human rights and equality for the visually impaired.

The treaty’s provisions are designed to address problems such as long waits for authorisation or accessible format copies from a copyright owner, unreasonable restrictions imposed on accessible formats, and barriers to cross-border exchange of available accessible works that often result in duplication of production efforts.

Access to copyright works and higher education

Australian research found that when universities provided their visually impaired students with access to essential or prescribed texts, students generally obtained readings late. For instance, only 50% of print disabled first-year students had access to prescribed textbooks before the semester started.

Some universities reported far more substantial delays. In such cases, students would receive their essential readings only very late in the semester or after the semester is over. The reasons for delays vary, with some students not notifying the university that they require assistance. Additionally, reading lists are often not finalised until the first week of semester and publishers fail to respond to requests to provide accessible texts in a timely manner.

Publishers generally require students to buy a print copy of the work before they will provide access to an electronic version. Some are willing to provide download links, while others, particularly in the United States, often prefer to mail disc copies. Sometimes works are only available as preprint versions, which require a considerable amount of editing before they can be provided to students. This is a drain on university resources.

Consequently, not all students who would benefit from accessible formats currently obtain them. This means their chances of demonstrating their full potential are often compromised.

Read more: It’s designers who can make gaming more accessible for people living with disabilities

New Zealand’s Marrakesh Treaty implementation bill

The bill is part of a broader review of New Zealand’s copyright legislation to ensure “the copyright regime keeps pace with technological and market developments” since its last significant amendment in 2008. It expands the reach of section 69 of the Copyright Act 1994 that addresses the reproduction and distribution of accessible works.

One of the main changes is to broaden the scope of current exceptions and improve access for visually impaired New Zealanders. The bill also introduces measures to facilitate international sharing of accessible works. These changes help realise visually impaired people’s “right to read”.

A contentious issue for the implementation of the treaty in New Zealand and elsewhere is the so called “commercial availability test”. The test is currently a requirement in New Zealand for an “authorised entity” to make reasonable efforts to obtain an accessible copy at an ordinary commercial price. By far the cheapest, fastest and most convenient means of obtaining accessible format works is if they are available for sale through the normal channels.

But in the absence of easily available accessible copies, the test creates uncertainty and imposes an administrative burden on institutions that provide the visually impaired with accessible copies. This is why after hearing submissions on the bill, a select committee recommended the removal of the test.

The proposed changes to copyright legislation would allow people with a print disability to make accessible format copies or to receive those made by an authorised entity in New Zealand or elsewhere, without infringing copyright. While broadening the scope of the current exceptions, the bill has checks and balances in place that protect reproduced accessible formats, contrary to a misconception of allowing free-riding on copyright works.

This is of significance to university students as some may self-declare disabilities while others are reluctant to disclose an impairment. Universities emphasise that they provide a safe place for disclosure, but speedy provision of services remains an issue.

The increase in the availability of electronic texts has helped to meet needs, but it is not keeping pace with student demand and expectation. As part of an increasingly technology savvy student population, students with impairments now request electronic versions of texts and use technology to adapt them to their needs. Students no longer want enlarged or scanned material as this is much harder to manipulate. The amendments in the bill would enable them to create their own accessible formats, or source them without having to identify as print disabled.

Overall, the proposed law change is a positive step towards improving access to copyright works for visually impaired New Zealanders. It also helps New Zealand maintain its good global citizen status by allowing an exchange of accessible works with other Marrakesh Treaty members.

– ref. NZ considers changes to copyright law as part of promise to help end global ‘book famine’ – http://theconversation.com/nz-considers-changes-to-copyright-law-as-part-of-promise-to-help-end-global-book-famine-117891

Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Michael Roderick, Professor, Research School of Earth Sciences and Chief Investigator in the ARC Centre of Excellence for Climate Extremes, Australian National University

The federal parliament has voted to funnel A$200 million to drought-stricken areas. What exactly this money will be spent on is still under consideration, but the majority will go to rural, inland communities.

But once there, what can the money usefully be spent on? Especially if there’s been a permanent decline in rainfall, as seen in Perth. How can we help inland communities?

Read more: Recent Australian droughts may be the worst in 800 years

Let’s look at the small inland town of Guyra, NSW, which is close to running dry. Unlike our coastal cities, Guyra cannot simply build a billion-dollar desalination plant to supply its water. Towns like Guyra must look elsewhere for its solutions.

Running dry isn’t just about rainfall

“Running dry” means there is no water when the tap is turned on. It seems to make sense to blame the drought for Guyra’s lack of water. But the available water supply is not only determined by rainfall. It also depends on amount of water flowing into water storage (called streamflow), and the capacity and security of that storage.

While Perth has had a distinct downturn in its rainfall since the 1970s and has built desalination plants to respond to this challenge, no such downturn is evident at Guyra. Indeed, to date, the driest consecutive two years on record for Guyra were 100 years ago (1918 and 1919).

Despite the differences, there are some similarities between Perth and Guyra. As a rule of thumb, in Australia, significant streamflow into water storages does not occur until annual rainfall reaches around 600mm. This occurs as streamflow is generally supplied from “wet patches” when water can no longer soak into the soil. Thus, if annual rainfall is around 600mm or below, we generally anticipate very little streamflow.

While Guyra has seen some rain in 2019, it is not enough to prompt this crucial flow of water into the local water storage. The same is true for Perth, with annual rainfall in the past few decades now hovering close to the 600mm threshold.

Importantly, rainfall and streamflow do not have a linear relationship. Annual rainfall in Perth has declined by around 20%, but Perth’s streamflow has fallen by more than 90%.

With little streamflow filling its dams, Perth had little choice but to find other ways of increasing its water supply. They built desalination plants to make up the difference.

Let’s return to Guyra in NSW and the current drought. The rainfall records do not indicate there is a long-term downward trend in rainfall. But even without a rainfall trend, there are still dry years when there is little streamflow. Indeed, in Guyra, the rainfall record shows that, on average, the rainfall will be 600mm or less roughly one year out of every ten years.

Build more storage

So how do the residents of Guyra ensure a reliable water supply, given that they cannot build themselves a desalination plant?

Well, in this case, you can simply get water from somewhere else if it is available. A pipeline is currently under construction to supply Guyra from the nearby Malpas Dam, and is expected to be in operation very soon.

But that’s not always an option. A made-in-Guyra water solution means one thing: expanding storage capacity.

Guyra can generally store around 8 months of their normal water demand (although of course demand varies with the seasons, droughts, water restrictions and price per litre).

To give a point of comparison, Sydney can store up to five years of its normal water demand, and has a desalination plant besides. Despite these advantages, Sydney residents are now under stage one water restrictions which happens when its storages are only 50% full. Yet, even when Sydney’s glass is only half-full, that city still has at least another two years of water left to meet the expected water demand even without using desalination.

By comparison, when water storages in Guyra are 50% full, they have less than six months normal water supply.

It is astonishingly difficult to find accurate data on small-town water supplies but in my experience Guyra is not unique among rural towns. There is a big divide between the water security of those living in Australia’s big cities compared to smaller inland towns. Many rural communities simply do not have sufficient water storage to withstand multi-year droughts, and in some cases, cannot even withstand one year of drought.

Read more: Droughts, extreme weather and empowered consumers mean tough choices for farmers

Nature, drought and climate change cannot be blamed for all of our water problems. In rural inland towns, inadequate planning and funding for household water can sometimes be the real culprit. Whether Australians live in rural communities or big cities, they should be treated fairly in terms of both the availability and the quality of the water they use.

– ref. There’s a simple way to drought-proof a town – build more water storage – http://theconversation.com/theres-a-simple-way-to-drought-proof-a-town-build-more-water-storage-120504

Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Michelle Grattan, Professorial Fellow, University of Canberra

Scott Morrison on Tuesday had a firm message for his troops in the Coalition party room. Don’t go freelancing in public.

Discipline is important in politics and Morrison is intent on trying to impose it – it’s not the first time since the election he’s made the point.

After he became PM in August the proximity of the poll put its own constraints on Coalition MPs (even if they were quite frequently breached). But now the rules have to be reset, and Morrison wants to whip the backbench into line early.

He told the party room everyone needed to be “mindful of what we took to the election and what we didn’t take”. Members shouldn’t run off on other matters, especially not publicly.

Backbenchers should use internal processes if they wanted to push issues – committees, approaches to ministers, the party room.

Going outside these processes was showing “disrespect to colleagues”, he said (a convenient high-minded pitch that probably carries little weight in the competitive environment of attention-seeking backbenchers clawing their way towards the front).

Morrison threw in a few examples where using these processes had led to positive results for advocates on issues, such as eating disorders and suicide.

Apparently he didn’t give instances of where people had been kicking over the traces.

He could have been thinking of Monday’s front page in The Australian where a number of Liberals MPs were urging the government to stop the legislated increase in the superannuation guarantee. One was Andrew Hastie, a prominent MP out to make a name for himself as a leader among the conservatives.

Then there were comments from Western Australian Liberal senator Dean Smith, who shot to prominence in the 2017 same-sex marriage debate. Smith told the Senate on Monday he thought Newstart should be increased. Liberals, he said, “should pay very, very close attention to the comments of former leader John Howard on this matter”.

Read more: Politics with Michelle Grattan: Centre Alliance’s Stirling Griff on Newstart

Howard is on record favouring a rise. The government’s talking points, in sharp contrast, are full of arguments (mostly spurious) against an increase.

With his authority as high as it will ever be in the foreseeable future, it’s not surprising Morrison, a disciple of discipline and control, is laying down markers. The question is the extent to which they’ll be heeded.

There are some incorrigibles, such as Barnaby Joyce, the frustrated former Nationals leader who’s never likely to take any notice of Morrison.

Beyond that, the siren call of opportunity for self-promotion presented by voracious news channels can be strong for backbenchers, regardless of counselling against it.

And then there are issues that go to ideology. The degree to which Morrison can restrain backbenchers as the religious freedom debate heats up will be a significant test.

As he moves to corral his own team, Morrison’s tactic against Labor has been hyper-aggressive. The kill Bill strategy has morphed into axe Albo. A nod to bipartisanship gives way to demands this week, whatever the issue, for Labor to say “whose side they are on”.

This kicking the ALP when it’s down – despite the exhausted voters looking for less conflict – is partly driven by Morrison believing in the need to keep your foot on your opponent’s neck from the start. He told the Coalition party room not to underestimate Labor.

Read more: Bills, banks and promises: here’s what you can expect as ‘government business’ starts again

There may have been a lot of talk about how Morrison is well set up for the next election, but he’s equally aware how quickly an opposition can come back.

At the moment the ALP can’t avoid looking rather discombobulated, with its policies in limbo and juggling what to support and what to oppose in parliament. It inevitably appears conflicted when it criticises legislation and then says it will back it, even though that might be the best course in the circumstances.

In caucus on Tuesday, Albanese called Morrison a “negative, nasty politician, where it’s all about tactics”.

But Albanese also highlighted his own tactics, on display in parliament on Tuesday, which have changed markedly from those of Bill Shorten. Pointed, short, no frills questions have contrasted with the more discursive, rhetorical approach under the former leader.

Energy minister Angus Taylor was the target, with questioning on rising emissions, nuclear power, and a controversy involving the clearing of endangered grasslands on a property in which he holds shares through his family investment company. Taylor, not a strong performer in the House, floundered.

It’s an effective question time approach, particularly where there are several fronts on which to attack a minister. Even when the questions are spread, the more specific they are, the greater the effort required from the government. Ministers will need to be better prepared. This is especially the case as Speaker Tony Smith is showing he is intent on being an enforcer of relevance.

Read more: The Morrison government’s biggest economic problem? Climate change denial

The opposition’s sharper tactic has the potential to improve question time, and even extract some government accountability during it.

Having had to sit through the pummelling of his minister, Morrison said at the end, “I would invite the opposition to ask me a question tomorrow. You didn’t do that today. Maybe tomorrow”.

A remark that suggested a little concern about his soft ministerial targets.

– ref. View from The Hill: Morrison cracks the whip – http://theconversation.com/view-from-the-hill-morrison-cracks-the-whip-120846

Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Simon Tormey, Professor of Politics, University of Sydney

To no-one’s great surprise, Boris Johnson has been elected by the members of the Conservative Party to be the new leader, and by extension prime minister of the United Kingdom, taking over from Theresa May.

Such a turn of events seemed highly improbable a few months ago. Johnson is a polarising figure not just for the country at large but for his own party. An instantly recognisable figure with his unruly blonde mop, rotund Billy Bunteresque figure and fruity Etonian accent, Johnson is political Vegemite. He delights those who look for “authenticity” in their political leaders, often code for plain speaking, unscripted rudeness and lack of civility. He appals those who expect politicians to abide by some basic principles, uphold integrity in public life and seek to defend the common interest through negotiation and compromise.

Those who detect similar qualities in Johnson to those characterising Donald Trump would not be wrong. Both are noted for improbable haircuts, but beyond that they share a penchant for seeing politics in simplistic and antagonistic terms. Politics is a zero-sum game.

Read more: Tory leadership race: it’s Jeremy Hunt (who?) vs Boris Johnson (yes, really), with the future of the UK at stake

For some to win, others must lose, and those others invariably include every shade of minority identity, whether it be Muslims, homosexuals, immigrants or otherwise feckless folk who need to try harder, do more, speak better English or in some other way accommodate themselves to the dominant majority.

For all of her faults (and there were many), Theresa May at least stood for a certain even-handedness, a recognition of the need for a centre-right party to build a coalition across disadvantage as well as advantage, and to respect differences. That accommodating rhetoric is likely to disappear with the end of her premiership.

But Johnson will succeed or fail on the back of the single dominant issue that dominates British politics: Brexit. How will his approach differ from that of his immediate predecessor?

Johnson has promised throughout his campaign to be leader of the Conservative Party that he will bring Britain out of the European Union by October 31, “do or die”. No going back to the withdrawal agreement. No compromise with the Northern Ireland backstop or with many other elements that so irritate the “hard Brexit” wing of the party.

So much for the rhetoric. The reality is that the EU is not going to change the withdrawal agreement. Nor will the House of Commons permit a no-deal Brexit. Only last week an amendment was passed that effectively demonstrated the strength of the anti-no deal majority in parliament.

This leaves very little room to manoeuvre. If Johnson remains true to the no deal rhetoric then we can expect a vote of no-confidence quite quickly in parliament, leading to elections perhaps as soon as November.

If, as seems more likely, Johnson manages to get the EU to change some words in the political declaration, such as the non-binding part of the withdrawal agreement, then he may seek to re-present what in essence was May’s deal back to the house in the hope that enough Labour MPs can be persuaded to join with the bulk of the Conservative Party (though not the hard-core European Research Group wing) to get it over the line. But this also seems improbable, likely leading again to an election.

A third possibility is that he recognises the intractability of the situation, and also the perils of calling an election as far as the prospects for his own party and premiership are concerned, and seeks a further period of negotiation with the EU. This might be for six months, a year or even more. Given Johnson’s well-documented desire to exercise power, such a scenario should not be ruled out.

But there is also fourth possibility, and this is the one that is exercising the greater speculation among the chattering classes in the UK. This is that recognising the lack of a majority for a no-deal Brexit in parliament, Johnson decides to “prorogue” parliament, a fancy term for suspending parliament in order to ram through an agreement on an executive basis.

Read more: Why Boris Johnson would be a mistake to succeed Theresa May

In effect, this is using the idea of “the will of the people” to overturn parliamentary democracy. The last time it was used in the UK was in the 1940s in order to undertake much-needed constitutional change to the status of the House of Lords.

The worry here, of course, is that this looks much more like the kind of “putsch”-style politics we are accustomed to seeing in banana republics than in one of the oldest democracies in the world.

So what many are wondering is whether behind the carefully confected image of a bumbling, playful figure so beloved of a certain wing of the conservative electorate, lies a neo-fascist figure willing and perhaps able to sacrifice democracy on the altar of English, as opposed to British, nationalism.

Let the games begin.

– ref. Boris Johnson, ‘political Vegemite’, becomes the UK prime minister. Let the games begin – http://theconversation.com/boris-johnson-political-vegemite-becomes-the-uk-prime-minister-let-the-games-begin-119467

Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Therese Keane, Associate Professor, Deputy Chair Department of Education, Swinburne University of Technology

A cute human-like robot taught students in a small, rural school how to code while also helping them learn their local Aboriginal language.

The Maitland Lutheran School is an independent, co-educational primary and middle school in the farming district of Maitland, Yorke Peninsula, in South Australia. It is located on the traditional lands of the Narungga people.

The school has around 240 students from Kindergarten to Year 9, and 16% of them are Aboriginal or Torres Strait Islander. Many of these students have Narungga heritage.

The school wanted to support its students to connect with the heritage of the Narungga people, in partnership with the local Aboriginal community.

Past research has shown digital technologies can help rediscover lost Indigenous languages. Technologies with culturally responsive ways of teaching have also been shown to improve engagement and learning among Indigenous students in STEM subjects.

Read more: Reviving Indigenous languages – not as easy as it seems

So, the school’s principal, David Field, decided to employ a small robot named Pink to help students understand their local culture and language. And it worked.

By learning to program a humanoid robot, students developed 21st-century skills while also engaging with an Indigenous culture and language. The project also strengthened the connection between school, home and Country.

Why did Pink work so well?

The Maitland Lutheran School had long wanted to connected its students with Narungga culture and language. About eight years earlier, the school bought paper dictionaries of Narungga, but children had shown little interest in them.

The principal engaged the only fluent speaker of Narungga to work with the school’s teachers and students. The aim was to engage the school’s Aboriginal and non-Aboriginal students in learning about both innovative technologies and Narungga culture.

Humanoid robots look like humans and have movements that are human-like. So students are drawn to them and want to make them function like a human, by making them talk, move their arms and walk.

Some research has shown school students feel more comfortable – less anxious and self-conscious – learning a new language when they can practise on a robot compared to a human.

Apart from the cuteness factor, students believe the robot is not judgmental when they make mistakes.

Read more: Why more schools need to teach bilingual education to Indigenous children

How it panned out

It didn’t take long for Pink to captivate the students. Students formed a relationship with the robot and became attached to it. One of the teachers said her students treated the robot like “they would a younger child”.

Another teacher said the students:

… humanised the robot within seconds, came and touched Pink’s hand to shake it and waved goodbye on leaving the room. All students wanted to be the first to talk, touch and engage with Pink.

As the students’ enthusiasm and confidence using the robot increased, they wanted Pink to have more functionality, so they started learning how to program her.

They wanted Pink to speak Narungga. But they discovered Pink could not pronounce the Narungga words when they typed the words correctly into the programming language.

So, using their problem-solving skills, students trialled the phonetic spelling of the words until they achieved the correct Narungga pronunciation.

A Year 1 and 2 teacher said:

Deep learning occurred in terms of cultural awareness and language acquisition. Most of the students knew very little, if any, Narungga words. (Some did not even know the word Narungga!) In terms of information technologies the students have truly grown from not understanding that Pink was programmable to programming her to do a variety of things.

So, the students at Maitland Lutheran School learnt not only the Narungga language but also how to use a programming language to control a humanoid robot. It was a steep learning curve to learn and understand two different ways of communicating, one old and one new.

The work with the robot turned into community engagement as students’ enthusiasm involved many teachers and the wider school community. Teachers observed students saying “Hello” in Narungga to other staff members.

The principal said the school community was starting to express pride in the traditional culture of the area, which was not evident before. The principal said:

This has not only engaged our students; it has engaged our staff as well. It has given them encouragement in what they have seen from the students to keep progressing with the [Narungga] language as well as the digital side of things.

It hasn’t just been for our Narungga students, it’s been across the board with all of our students. It’s been a great way of getting them to network together […] to work on something that has an Indigenous perspective but means a lot to everybody.

Emerging technologies can play a role in engaging young people with the languages and cultures of Australia’s First Peoples.

Read more: Robots likely to be used in classrooms as learning tools, not teachers

The educators in this school recognised the importance of coding and robotics for their students’ future and the far-reaching opportunities to integrate this technology in ways that build respect and understanding between cultures.

This project was part of a larger three-year study investigating the impact of humanoid robots on students’ learning and engagement.

This article was co-authored with Monica Williams, Educational Consultant at the Association of Independent Schools of South Australia.

– ref. How a robot called Pink helped teach school children an Aboriginal language – http://theconversation.com/how-a-robot-called-pink-helped-teach-school-children-an-aboriginal-language-119810

Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Michelle Grattan, Professorial Fellow, University of Canberra

The two Centre Alliance senators, Stirling Griff and Rex Patrick will often be pivotal to the fate of government legislation. The smaller non-Green Senate crossbench this term means that if the government can muster Centre Alliance support, it only needs one other crossbencher to pass bills, as was the case with the government’s tax package.

In this podcast Michelle Grattan talks with Stirling Griff about the party’s position on a range of issues – including the widespread pressure for an increase in Newstart.

Griff says Centre Alliance is willing to use its bargaining muscle to try to get the government to raise the payment.

We’ll exert as much pressure as we possibly can to, at the very least, have a minor increase from where [Newstart] is now.

Centre Alliance has struck up a consultative relationship with Tasmanian independent Jacqui Lambie. “Ahead of a sitting week, or a sitting fortnight, we share our thoughts on which way each of us intends to vote and if we can arrive at a common position we will do so.”

Meanwhile, Senate leader Mathias Cormann remains apparently well-placed to wrangle the cross-bench. “[Cormann] is held in very high regard by pretty much everyone in the chamber. Certainly, we have a very good relationship with him.”

New to podcasts?

Podcasts are often best enjoyed using a podcast app. All iPhones come with the Apple Podcasts app already installed, or you may want to listen and subscribe on another app such as Pocket Casts (click here to listen to Politics with Michelle Grattan on Pocket Casts).

You can also hear it on Stitcher, Spotify or any of the apps below. Just pick a service from one of those listed below and click on the icon to find Politics with Michelle Grattan.

Additional audio

A List of Ways to Die, Lee Rosevere, from Free Music Archive.

Image:

AAP/ Sam Mooy

– ref. Politics with Michelle Grattan: Centre Alliance’s Stirling Griff on Newstart – http://theconversation.com/politics-with-michelle-grattan-centre-alliances-stirling-griff-on-newstart-120830

Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Chongyi Feng, Associate Professor in China Studies, University of Technology Sydney

Australian authorities have been told to stop interfering in the case of the Chinese-Australian writer Dr Yang Hengjun who has been detained by China since January.

Amid reports last week that Yang was to be charged with endangering state security, Foreign Affairs Marise Paynee said he was being detained for his political views and should be released.

Yang is a member of the Australian media union, the MEAA, which backed calls for his release.

Read more: Australian writer Yang Hengjun is set to be charged in China at an awkward time for Australia-China relations

I’ve known Yang for many years – he is a former PhD student of mine – and I also believe he should be released.

I’ve seen reports sent to his wife, Yuan Xiaoliang, from Australian consul visits to Yang.

The reports say Yang is sealed off from the outside world without access to legal counsel or visits by relatives, and he has been subjected to interrogations twice a day.

A novel critic

So what has Yang done that has led to his detention for so long? In a nutshell, Yang is a political dissident no longer tolerated by the Chinese communist regime. He is paying a heavy price as a long-standing critic of the Chinese Communist Party (CCP).

Yang, aged 54, abandoned his career as a communist cadre to embrace freedom and democracy in his middle age.

He earned his first degree in politics from Fudan University in China in 1987 and was assigned to work in the Ministry of Foreign Affairs with connection to the Chinese secret police. He was eventually alienated by his job and developed a strong interest in literature.

He resigned from his post and moved to Australia with his wife and two sons in 1999 to pursue his dream of becoming a writer. In 2002-2005, he published a trilogy of spy novels, Fatal Weakness, Fatal Weapon and Fatal Assassination, in print and online.

These novels used his own experiences and those of his colleagues to tell the soul-stirring stories of a China-US double agent who ultimately serves the agenda for neither side but works for his own inspiration and conviction to serve the real interests of the people.

But the novels did not bring him the fame and wealth he expected, because they were published in Taiwan and banned in mainland China. An attempt to turn them into movies in Hong Kong also failed.

The rise of the blogger

At the end of 2005, Yang enrolled in a PhD in China Studies at the University of Technology Sydney under my supervision, starting his journey as a liberal scholar. By that time, I’d become a major contributor to the emergence of the Chinese liberal camp and Chinese liberal intellectuals.

Yang got his PhD in 2009 with a thesis titled The Internet and China: the Impacts of Netizen Reporters and Bloggers on Democratisation in China. The thesis was a timely, in-depth analysis of the complicated information warfare between the internet and the CCP regime.

As part of an experiment for his PhD thesis, Yang started his own blog (available now only on archive.org) and wrote commentaries on current affairs as a “citizen journalist”.

Yang is that rare combination of a scholar well trained in both China and the West, with a firm belief in the universal values of human rights, democracy and the rule of law.

He chose to devote his talent and passion to online journalism in Chinese, hoping to accelerate China’s transformation toward constitutional democracy. He has published more than ten million words of online articles on this theme, earning the nickname “democracy pedlar” with tremendous following in the Chinese speaking world.

Several collections of his online articles have been published to wide audience, such as Family, State and the World (2010), Seeing the World with Black Eyes: The World in the Eyes of a Democracy Pedlar (2011), Talking about China (2014), and Keeping You Company in Your Life Journey (2014).

Yang is extremely good at explaining the profound in simple terms, using moving examples in everyday life to expose the social ills of communist autocracy and promote democratic values and institutions.

In particular, he provides timely analysis on all sorts of events around the world reported in the news, revealing the stark contrast between the harsh reality and the official rhetoric of the CCP.

Yang rarely engages in social activism, although he has maintained extensive connections with some Chinese human rights and democracy activists.

Detained before

Yang has long been targeted by the Chinese security apparatus, which detained him in March 2011, taking him as one of the opinion leaders who has the capacity to mobilise nationwide social protests.

He was quickly released back to Australia due to the international media campaign and the diplomatic pressure of then Prime Minister Julia Gillard’s visit to China.

Why did he not learn his lesson? Well, he did tone down his voice after 2011. Since Xi Jinping’s rise to general secretary of the CCP in 2012, Yang adopted a soft strategy of packaging his advocacy for human rights and democracy as publicising “socialist core values” promoted by the CCP.

Yang was so successful with this new strategy that thousands of his followers organised support groups via the social media app WeChat in more than 50 cities around China. These include Beijing, Shanghai and Guangzhou in 2015, when human rights and democracy activists had met with brutal repression.

In 2016, when the political environment turned from bad to worse and Yang’s blogs were shut down one by one, he closed down all of the WeChat groups and substantially scaled down his online writing.

Moved to the US

He moved to New York as a visiting scholar at Columbia University in 2017. He was able to travel to China several times and Chinese authorities lifted the ban on several of his blogs in China towards the end of 2018. This gave him the impression it was safe for him to visit China.

But during his visit this January he was detained upon his arrival.

Thousands of Yang’s supporters have been in despair, engaging in heated debates about his ordeal and its implications for political development in China.

Read more: Avoiding the China trap: how Australia and the US can remain close despite the threat

Instead of following the international norm of presumption of innocence, the CCP regime continues Yang’s criminal detention despite the lack of evidence he’s done anything wrong.

This behaviour of political persecution and hostage diplomacy clearly demonstrates the contempt China has for human rights and international moral standards.

The Australian government and public are obligated to challenge the laws and practice of the CCP regime in safeguarding basic human rights of innocent citizens. The international community are also obligated to support this endeavour for human dignity, and thus the immediate release of Yang.

– ref. Why ‘Democracy peddler’ Yang Hengjun has been detained in China and why he must be released – http://theconversation.com/why-democracy-peddler-yang-hengjun-has-been-detained-in-china-and-why-he-must-be-released-120751

Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Tess Newton Cain, Adjunct Associate Professor, School of Political Science & International Studies, The University of Queensland

Papua New Guinea Prime Minister James Marape is visiting Australia this week, his first overseas trip since he was elevated to that office in June this year. And it’s the first time Scott Morrison has hosted an international leader in Australia since he was re-elected as prime minister in May.

This week’s visit has been positioned as the first of what will be an annual meeting between the leaders. It indicates a stepped up relationship, one that adds to Morrison’s growing focus on building personal relationships throughout the region: in Vanuatu, Fiji and Solomon Islands.

Read more: Yes, Morrison ‘showed up’ in the Pacific, but what did he actually achieve?

There are many things the two leaders have to discuss, from a naval base development to asylum seekers on Manus Island. But on arrival, Marape was clear that he did not plan to discuss his country’s relationship with China.

Marape restated PNG’s overall position on foreign policy: that of being “friends to all and enemies to none”. But that didn’t prevent the Australian media asking Marape questions about China during a joint press conference on Monday.

One journalist asked if Marape was concerned about potential governance problems associated with increased Chinese investment in his country. His response could not have been more straightforward:

Every businessman and woman is welcome in our country, and the Chinese investors will not receive any special treatment and preference, just like Australian investors will not receive any special favour or treatment.

Many in the Australian media and policy community would like to know much more about the relationship between PNG and China, as they wonder how it will affect Australia’s influence with their nearest neighbour.

Belt and Road Initiative

As we have seen elsewhere in the region, the relationship between PNG and China has become more developed in recent years.

Under the previous PNG prime minister, Peter O’Neill, PNG became the second Pacific Islands nation to sign on to the Belt and Road Initiative in June 2018.

O’Neill participated in the Belt and Road Initiate Forum earlier this year, and indicated that he foresaw PNG becoming even more involved in projects for the global infrastructure and trade strategy.

O’Neill resigned in May, and it’s yet to be seen whether Marape will participate in projects for Belt and Road Initiative.

Read more: Crisis? What crisis? A new prime minister in PNG might not signal meaningful change for its citizens

In any case, one thing Marape has made very clear during this visit to Australia is that he’s looking for opportunities to diversify the PNG economy beyond the resources sector. He is particularly focused on growing the agricultural sector, which will require additional investment in infrastructure to supply domestic and export markets adequately.

It’s not always easy to determine the extent of Chinese aid, investment and loans to countries like PNG. But Sarah O’Dowd, an Australian National University researcher, has calculated that at the end of 2018, PNG owed approximate A$588 million in external debt to China. This represented 23.7% of the total external debt.

Read more: For Pacific Island nations, rising sea levels are a bigger security concern than rising Chinese influence

Australia provides the largest amount of aid and investment into PNG in the world. But the perception in Canberra remains that Australia’s influence in its nearest neighbour is being diluted, and that this needs to be addressed for strategic purposes.

Asylum seekers and a naval base on Manus Island

Given the nature and importance of the relationship between Australia and PNG, it’s not surprising this bilateral meeting has been prioritised ahead of next month’s Pacific Islands Forum meeting in Tuvalu. Their meeting allows for Morrison and Marape spend some time getting to know each other before they meet with a larger group of Pacific leaders.

Of the various announcements made on Monday, not much was new. There was a dollar commitment (A$250,000) to last year’s joint announcement by PNG, Australia, New Zealand, the USA and Japan to bring electricity to 70% of Papua New Guinean people by 2030.

There was a passing reference to the joint redevelopment of the Lombrum naval base on Manus island by PNG, Australia and the USA, also announced last year at the APEC meeting held in Port Moresby.

Read more: Morrison’s Vanuatu trip shows the government’s continued focus on militarising the Pacific

It’s significant that the PNG delegation includes Charlie Benjamin, who is governor of the Manus province. He has already expressed strong reservations about this proposed redevelopment of the naval base. And he is not alone, with other commentators noting that such a development doesn’t necessarily sit well with PNG’s non-aligned status.

The development also provoked criticism from Beijing, which had apparently been seeking an agreement from the PNG government to develop the site.

Benjamin has a powerful voice, and he made good use of it during his own impromptu press conference on Monday.

He used the opportunity to hammer home what has been the biggest thrust of the PNG message to Australia during the visit so far: the ongoing presence of asylum seekers and refugees on Manus and elsewhere in PNG.

Benjamin has made it clear that the time has come for Australia to “step up” and resettle the refugees in his province to another country.

While Marape may feel he has secured some sort of commitment from Morrison to establish a timetable for bringing this bit of the “Pacific Solution” to an end, the lack of detail about what that timetable is may prove a tricky sell back home.

– ref. Everything but China is on the table during PNG prime minister’s visit – http://theconversation.com/everything-but-china-is-on-the-table-during-png-prime-ministers-visit-120754

Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Christine Grové, Educational Psychologist and Lecturer, Monash University

Curious Kids is a series for children. If you have a question you’d like an expert to answer, send it to curiouskids@theconversation.edu.au You might also like the podcast Imagine This, a co-production between ABC KIDS listen and The Conversation, based on Curious Kids.

Why do some people worry more than others? – Shifra, age 5, Melbourne.

You might think there are some people who never worry. But that’s not true. We all worry but at different times and about different things. A bit of worrying is normal and healthy.

It’s your brain telling you something helpful. It might be telling you there’s something you need to think more about. We couldn’t get rid of worries even if we really wanted to!

Read more: Curious Kids: why can’t we do whatever we want?

Why people worry

Some people worry more than others because they’re born that way. Some experts say your genes or personality can make a person more likely to be a worrier. Worries can run in families – maybe mum, dad, your sibling or grandparents could be worriers too.

Worries are actually really common. In your class, there’s a good chance that three or four other kids would know about worries because they’ve got them too. Maybe they’re thinking about a few worries right now.

Worrying has nothing to do with being brave, strong or your character.

Big worries and small worries

Worries can be helpful. There is a part of the brain called the amygdala. It’s not very big and it’s shaped like an almond. It switches on really quickly when it thinks you’re in danger. It’s there to protect you. Its job is to get you ready to run away from any danger.

But worries become a problem when they show up at unexpected times. Sometimes you can’t forget the worry. The worry stays on your mind, and maybe you feel sick in your tummy or have a headache. These worries can turn your brain’s amygdala on, and make it feel like you need to run even when there is no danger around.

Sometimes people can worry a lot because something in their life is hard.

If you are having a hard time in your life – like an illness, family or school issues, or problems with friends – that can make you feel worried. We could call these big worries.

Big worries can feel scary and confusing. Sometimes a little worry can feel like a big one, too.

Avoiding worries big or small doesn’t help. It can make them worse. But we can ease our big worries into smaller ones so they’re not on our mind all the time.

That way they don’t stop us from doing things or make us feel like we need to run away from danger when there is none there.

What can help with worrying too much?

If you feel like you worry too much, the most important thing you can do is make yourself the boss of your worries. Whether they are big or small, you can try:

• Hot Cocoa Breathing: Pretend you have a mug of hot cocoa in your hands. Smell the warm chocolatey smell for three seconds, hold it for one, blow it cool for three, hold it for one. Repeat three or four times;

• Grounding: Distract yourself from the worry by looking and finding:

• five things you can see
• four things you can touch
• three things you can hear
• two things you can smell
• one thing you can taste

• Talk to an adult you trust like a teacher, neighbour or parent.

Read more: Curious Kids: Why do tears come out of our eyes when we cry?

Hello, curious kids! Have you got a question you’d like an expert to answer? Ask an adult to send your question to curiouskids@theconversation.edu.au Please tell us your name, age and which city you live in. We won’t be able to answer every question but we will do our best.

– ref. Curious Kids: why do some people worry more than others? – http://theconversation.com/curious-kids-why-do-some-people-worry-more-than-others-119874

Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Neville Nicholls, Professor emeritus, School of Earth, Atmosphere and Environment, Monash University

This month the world has been celebrating the 50th anniversary of Neil Armstrong setting foot on the Moon. But this week sees another scientific anniversary, perhaps just as important for the future of civilisation.

Forty years ago, a group of climate scientists sat down at Woods Hole Oceanographic Institution in Massachusetts for the first meeting of the “Ad Hoc Group on Carbon Dioxide and Climate”. It led to the preparation of what became known as the Charney Report – the first comprehensive assessment of global climate change due to carbon dioxide.

Read more: What is a pre-industrial climate and why does it matter?

It doesn’t sound as impressive as landing on the Moon, and there certainly weren’t millions waiting with bated breath for the deliberations of the meeting.

But the Charney Report is an exemplar of good science, and the success of its predictions over the past 40 years has firmly established the science of global warming.

What is this ‘greenhouse gas’ you speak of?

Other scientists, starting in the 19th century, had already demonstrated that carbon dioxide was what we now call a “greenhouse gas”. By the 1950s, scientists were predicting warming of several degrees from the burning of fossil fuels. In 1972 John Sawyer, the head of research at the UK Meteorological Office, wrote a four-page paper published in Nature summarising what was known at the time, and predicting warming of about 0.6℃ by the end of the 20th century.

But these predictions were still controversial in the 1970s. The world had, if anything, cooled since the middle of the 20th century, and there was even some speculation in the media that perhaps we were headed for an ice age.

The meeting at Woods Hole gathered together about 10 distinguished climate scientists, who also sought advice from other scientists from across the world. The group was led by Jule Charney from the Massachusetts Institute of Technology, one of the most respected atmospheric scientists of the 20th century.

The Report lays out clearly what was known about the likely effects of increasing carbon dioxide on the climate, as well as the uncertainties. The main conclusion of the Report was direct:

We estimate the most probable warming for a doubling of CO₂ to be near 3℃ with a probable error of 1.5℃.

In the 40 years since their meeting, the annual average CO₂ concentration in the atmosphere, as measured at Mauna Loa in Hawaii, has increased by about 21%. Over the same period, global average surface temperature has increased by about 0.66℃, almost exactly what could have been expected if a doubling of CO₂ produces about 2.5℃ warming – just a bit below their best estimate. A remarkably prescient prediction.

Reception of the article

Despite the high regard in which the authors of the Charney Report were held by their scientific peers at the time, the report certainly didn’t lead to immediate changes in behaviour, by the public or politicians.

But over time, as the world has continued to warm as they predicted, the report has become accepted as a major milestone in our understanding of the consequences our actions have for the climate. The current crop of climate scientists revere Charney and his co-authors for their insight and clarity.

Strong science

The report exemplifies how good science works: establish an hypothesis after examining the physics and chemistry, then based on your assessment of the science make strong predictions. Here, “strong predictions” means something that would be unlikely to come true if your hypothesis and science were incorrect.

In this case, their very specific prediction was that warming of between 1.5℃ and 4.5℃ would accompany a doubling of atmospheric CO₂. At the time, global temperatures, in the absence of their hypothesis and science, might have been expected to stay pretty much the same over the ensuing 40 years, cooled a bit, possibly even cooled a lot, or warmed a lot (or a little).

In the absence of global warming science any of these outcomes could have been feasible, so their very specific prediction made for a very stringent test of their science.

The Charney Report’s authors didn’t just uncritically summarise the science. They also acted sceptically, trying to find factors that might invalidate their conclusions. They concluded:

We have tried but have been unable to find any overlooked or underestimated physical effects that could reduce the currently estimated global warmings due to a doubling of atmospheric CO₂ to negligible proportions or to reverse them altogether.

The report, and the successful verification of its prediction, provides a firm scientific basis for the discussion of what we should do about global warming.

Over the ensuing 40 years, as the world warmed pretty much as Charney and his colleagues expected, climate change science improved, with better models that included some of the factors missing from their 1979 deliberations.

Read more: Climate change or climate crisis? To really engage people, the media should talk about solutions

This subsequent science has, however, only confirmed the conclusions of the Charney Report, although much more detailed predictions of climate change are now possible.

– ref. 40 years ago, scientists predicted climate change. And hey, they were right – http://theconversation.com/40-years-ago-scientists-predicted-climate-change-and-hey-they-were-right-120502

Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Mark Giancaspro, Lecturer in Law, University of Adelaide

Viral photo app FaceApp has taken the world by storm. Launched in 2017, the app has recently enjoyed mass popularity due largely to Hollywood celebrities posting their humorous edited pictures online.

FaceApp uses “neural network” artificial intelligence technology to alter people’s faces with various filters. Users simply take or upload a photo from their phone and the app’s algorithms do the rest. You can make yourself look younger or older, swap your gender, or transform your expression.

The ageing filter is easily the most popular, with Drake, Hilary Duff, Gordon Ramsay, and LeBron James among the celebrities who showcased their future faces on social media.

Read more: Your headphones aren’t spying on you, but your apps are. Here is why

Last week, the app was in the headlines for all the wrong reasons, with keen-eyed observers pointing out that the app’s terms of use give its Russian parent company, Wireless Lab, a very broad, global and lifelong licence to use the images.

In short, once you sign up and use the app, the company can do pretty much whatever it likes with your photos. It could plaster a wrinkled version of your face across a billboard, website or the side of a skyscraper, and you would have no legal recourse.

Of course, as experts have correctly pointed out, this is extremely unlikely to happen. Russia’s only interest in your photo data would be for facial recognition software development. Wireless Lab has also publicly stated that most photos are deleted within 48 hours of upload and no information is sent to Russia, but rather is stored temporarily on the company’s American servers.

Other hidden dangers in the fine print

More concerning, however, is the range of other disturbing conditions users unwittingly sign up to with FaceApp. The terms of use comprise a legally binding contract, yet research tells us that virtually no one ever reads the fine print.

This is worrying, given that section 15 of FaceApp’s terms all but bans you from taking legal action against the company. You are only permitted to lodge small claims (up to certain limits) or seek specific court orders. You are otherwise required to resolve all legal disputes through confidential arbitration held in California.

Thankfully, you can opt out of this provision – but you only have 30 days from registration to do so, meaning most of the app’s 100 million existing users are already too late.

For those who have recently bought into the hype, the clock is ticking. You can opt out by sending written notification to:

Wireless Lab OOO

16 Avtovskaya 401

Saint-Petersburg, 198096, Russia

You must include your full name and indicate your clear intent to opt out of binding arbitration. If you do this, standard Californian law applies and you retain your legal right to sue if you want.

If you downloaded FaceApp within the past week and you’re based in Australia, you’ll want to act quickly, given that letters take up to 14 business days to reach Russia via international post.

Section 17 of the terms is also concerning. This clause gives Wireless Lab the right to change the terms at any time, and that the company “may” attempt to notify users but will otherwise simply post the updated terms online.

In theory, there would be nothing to stop the company suddenly imposing a usage charge, and the only way to find out would be to continuously check the terms of use for updates, or your App Store-linked bank account for withdrawals.

Section 10 also deserves a mention. It states that you will “indemnify, defend, and hold harmless” FaceApp and its “officers, directors, agents, partners and employees” from “any loss, liability, claim, demand, damages, expenses or costs” relating to your use of the app.

Basically, you cannot sue them for any loss or injury you suffer through the app (such as damaged reputation or embarrassment caused by Wireless Lab using your photos). It also means you agree to cover all legal fees for third-party claims against FaceApp arising from your use of the app, yet you surrender all control over the legal action.

In stark terms, this means you effectively can’t sue FaceApp, and if anyone else tries, you’re picking up the bill.

Is it worth it?

FaceApp is undeniably fun, and is currently the most popular free app in Australia, ahead of Instagram and YouTube. Downloads of the app to US iPhones have increased by 561% in the past month.

Read more: You may be sick of worrying about online privacy, but ‘surveillance apathy’ is also a problem

Any playful app that spreads joy can be a good thing. It is crucial, however, that users know what they are signing up for, otherwise many of their legal rights will vanish and their legal exposure will be extraordinary.

As if wrinkled skin and grey hair weren’t bad enough.

– ref. FaceApp’s fine print means you effectively can’t sue them, unless you send a letter to their Russian office within 30 days – http://theconversation.com/faceapps-fine-print-means-you-effectively-cant-sue-them-unless-you-send-a-letter-to-their-russian-office-within-30-days-120658

Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Greg Barton, Chair in Global Islamic Politics, Alfred Deakin Institute for Citizenship and Globalisation, Deakin University

A key element in the success of countering terrorism in Australia has been a series of new and amended pieces of legislation – at least 75 – developed to respond to an evolving threat.

This includes legislation produced in October 2014 (Section 119.2 and 119.3 of the Criminal Code) that declared areas of Iraq and Syria, including the city of Raqqa, the de facto capital of the so-called Islamic State (IS) caliphate, illegal for Australian citizens to enter. Anyone who has lived in this territory and seeks to return to Australia will have to prove they were not assisting IS or face prosecution and a possible punishment of up to 25 years in prison.

Innovative pieces of legislation like the proposed Temporary Exclusion Orders (TEO) bill introduced by Home Affairs Minister Peter Dutton are difficult to argue with. Existing national security laws already place Australia in a much stronger position than any other Western nation when it comes to managing the prosecution and detention of returning IS fighters.

Nevertheless, there is a limit to what legislation itself can do. Moreover, for every possible advantage, there are also possible disadvantages that need to be weighed up.

There is not a whole lot more the new TEO bill can be reasonably expected to achieve. And as the weight of legislation increases, there are reasonable questions to be asked about checks and balances and proportionate implementation.

In other words, the devil is very much in the detail.

Questions that need answering

Three questions need to be asked:

• First, what is the actual need for this bill? And what is the likelihood the proposed legislation can meet this need?

• Second, what are the potential downsides that might come with enacting this legislation?

• Third, in the light of the first two questions, what then should be done?

There is no question, that with at least 80 individuals who have fought with IS now in a position to possibly return, any legislative tool that can help manage this risk is worth considering.

Specifically, there is clearly a benefit to being able to delay somebody’s return by at least two years, and through a process of extensions perhaps many more years. There is also an advantage, when they do return, of being able to legally impose conditions on who they meet with and where they go.

Read more: There’s no clear need for Peter Dutton’s new bill excluding citizens from Australia

The government has pointed out that around 40 Australians have already returned from Syria and Iraq under suspicion of being involved with terrorist groups. To have been able to delay and then manage the return of these 40 fighters clearly would have been very useful.

But what has not been explained by the government is that these 40 individuals came back to Australia more than six years ago, and only a couple have so far been successfully prosecuted.

If the need was so urgent, why wasn’t a temporary exclusion order introduced in late 2014 when we first began to process a raft of counter-terrorism bills and amendments? Or in 2015 when the UK introduced similar legislation?

First line of defence

There is, in fact, no immediate crisis, and undue haste in passing further security legislation should be avoided because it is very dangerous to national security.

If TEOs are applied excessively, and without sufficient discrimination, a number of risks arise. Individuals currently detained in overcrowded detention centres in Syria or Iraq might be released if their repatriation to Australia is delayed by years.

Or, they could be broken out of detention by IS insurgents, who remain deadly and numerous. This happened on dozens of occasions when IS needed to replenish its ranks.

Allowing our citizens to be somebody else’s problem, out of sight and out of mind, does not actually make the security risk to Australians go away. Leaving them offshore leaves open the very real possibility that they will eventually slip away into the terrorist underground or rejoin the IS insurgency.

Read more: How Indonesia is dealing with the new threat posed by returning Islamic State fighters

Should they do so, they immediately become a risk through their ability to influence others online and via social media.

It is likely that TEOs will be also applied to women and children we really should be repatriating. This would pass the buck to others to look after and secure these women and children, such as the Syrian Democratic Forces (SDF), who are already overstretched and unable to deal with the burden of indefinitely detaining those who have fled the decaying IS caliphate.

There is also a real risk this legislation, much like other bills that allow Dutton to strip somebody of their citizenship on the grounds they potentially have access to alternative citizenship, could undermine confidence and trust within key communities in Australia.

As then-Prime Minister Malcolm Turnbull said after the murder of Sydney police accountant Curtis Cheng by a 15-year-old recruited by IS supporters in 2015, our first line of defence in fighting groups like Islamic State is the Muslim community.

Intelligence is key to countering terrorism and working with communities and families to encourage people to speak up when they see something of concern. To the extent that trust and confidence are eroded, national security will be directly diminished.

Amendments that could help

So what should be done?

Speaking last week at his farewell dinner, outgoing Labor Senator Doug Cameron spelled out the larger issues that need to be addressed.

Our existing oversight is inferior and, in my view, almost non-existent. This is unacceptable and we should ensure our inferior parliamentary oversight of security agencies is changed and oversight is enhanced.

Cameron is not the only one to express concerns. This bill was first introduced into the 45th Parliament. The Liberal-dominated Parliamentary Joint Committee on Intelligence and Security (PJCIS) produced an extensive review and a detailed report on the bill.

Read more: Why is it so difficult to prosecute returning fighters?

Labor Senator Kristina Keneally, a member of the PJCIS, has since complained that the government had

rejected four of the PJCIS recommendations in whole, rejected six in part and ignored one.

This, despite the fact that these recommendations came as a result of the considered reasoning of senior figures from both the Liberals and Labor.

One of the key amendments recommenced by the PJCIS is that the minister of home affairs should only be empowered to order a temporary exclusion order if he or she

reasonably suspects the person is, or has been, involved in terrorism-related activities outside Australia

And that a TEO should only be made

if it would substantially assist in preventing the provision of support for, or the facilitation of, a terrorist act.

The principle of being able to impose TEOs certainly bears consideration. While this is no “silver bullet”, there is a case for passing the bill after including the amendments thoughtfully proposed by the PJCIS.

Without a better system of oversight, we risk undermining community trust and confidence by setting in place policy that leads to dire consequences and diminishes our national security.

Now is not the time to make haste at the expense of national security, as well as the very values that define us as Australians.

– ref. Preventing foreign fighters from returning home could be dangerous to national security – http://theconversation.com/preventing-foreign-fighters-from-returning-home-could-be-dangerous-to-national-security-120752

Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Melissa Kang, Associate professor, University of Technology Sydney

Around one-quarter of the world’s population menstruate. That’s more than 1.9 billion people in the world who will bleed, on average, for 65 days a year.

The reusable menstrual cup and disposable tampon were both developed in the 1930s. But due to the tampon’s greater commercial potential, tampons were aggressively marketed, which is thought to be the reason behind their much greater uptake.

Growing concern about the environmental impact of disposable tampons and sanitary pads, as well as the need to offer more options for menstrual management in low- and middle-income countries, has led to a resurgence of menstrual cups.

A recent Lancet Public Health study found menstrual cups were a safe and effective alternative to manage periods.

Read more: Cups, lingerie and home-made pads: what are the reusable options for managing your period?

What is a menstrual cup?

The menstrual cup is a reusable device for collecting menstrual fluid. Most are bell-shaped and designed to sit low in the vagina.

Some cups are designed to sit up against the cervix, and have a flatter, disc shape.

The most comparable menstrual product is the tampon, as it also inserts into the vagina. The main differences in use between the two are:

• tampons are disposable (although reusable ones are available); menstrual cups are not (although disposable versions exist)
• tampons absorb menstrual fluid whereas menstrual cups collect it
• tampons hold about half the volume of menstrual fluid compared with cups, and therefore need to be changed more frequently.

Menstrual cups are made from medical-grade silicone, latex rubber or elastomer, and can hold 10–38ml of fluid.

Depending on the heaviness of menstrual flow and the cup itself, menstrual cups need to be emptied every 4-12 hours.

One cup can be used for up to ten years.

Similar levels of leakage

The Lancet study’s authors conducted an extensive search of academic and “grey” literature (documents published by various organisations such as government and industry and in a range of formats besides academic journals), as well as websites with information about cost and availability of menstrual cups.

The researchers found 199 brands of menstrual cup, with availability in 99 countries.

They analysed the findings from 43 research studies involving a total of 3,319 people. The studies varied in purpose, design and quality.

Four studies made direct comparisons in leakage between the menstrual cup and tampons or pads, and found that it was similar or lower for cups.

Safety issues and side effects

There was no increase in infection rate among menstrual cup users compared with other products in a range of studies across several countries.

Toxic shock syndrome, once associated with super-absorbent tampon use, was reported in five people, though only one of these was confirmed (where the cup had been in place for 18 hours).

One trial compared toxic shock syndrome between menstrual cup and pad use among several hundred schoolgirls in rural Kenya, and found zero cases of toxic shock syndrome in either group.

Read more: Toxic shock syndrome is rare. Be vigilant but not alarmed

Other studies found either no, or reduced, association of cup use with infections such as bacterial vaginosis and candidiasis (thrush).

One study reported on seven cases of IUD (intrauterine device) dislodgement during removal of the menstrual cup, which appeared to be related to the length of the IUD string and the pressure exerted when pulling the cup out.

This highlights the importance of releasing the vacuum seal of the cup before removing it. This can be done by placing a finger up the side of the cup towards its rim and squeezing gently. The cup can then be pulled out at an angle.

Other safety issues identified included difficulty removing the cup, vaginal or pelvic pain, vaginal irritation, and allergic reaction to silicone.

It takes time to get used to cups

Studies exploring the acceptability of menstrual cups among users found issues such as discomfort or pain with insertion or removal.

Overall, 11% discontinued use, while 73% of participants across 15 studies with relevant data wanted to continue to use it.

In addition, the review authors found that awareness of menstrual cups was low, and that information about cups was lacking on educational websites.

So it’s important that women and girls who are thinking about using the menstrual cup have access to good information and peer support while they familiarise themselves with how the menstrual cup works and feels. An adolescent anticipating their first period also deserves to know all the options available to them.

The review authors listed several websites dedicated to the menstrual cup, and while not endorsed by them, suggest Put a Cup In It FAQ and Cleveland Clinic as useful resources. CHOICE also compiled a useful product guide for Australian consumers earlier this year.

Read more: Period pain is impacting women at school, uni and work. Let’s be open about it

– ref. Menstrual cups vs tampons – here’s how they compare – http://theconversation.com/menstrual-cups-vs-tampons-heres-how-they-compare-120499

Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Therese Keane, Associate Professor, Deputy Chair Department of Education, Swinburne University of Technology

A cute human-like robot taught students in a small, rural school how to code while also helping them learn their local Aboriginal language.

The Maitland Lutheran School is an independent, co-educational primary and middle school in the farming district of Maitland, Yorke Peninsula, in South Australia. It is located on the traditional lands of the Narungga people.

The school has around 240 students from Kindergarten to Year 9, and 16% of them are Aboriginal or Torres Strait Islander. Many of these students have Narungga heritage.

The school wanted to support its students to connect with the heritage of the Narungga people, in partnership with the local Aboriginal community.

Past research has shown digital technologies can help rediscover lost Indigenous languages. Technologies with culturally responsive ways of teaching have also been shown to improve engagement and learning among Indigenous students in STEM subjects.

Read more: Reviving Indigenous languages – not as easy as it seems

So, the school’s principal, David Field, decided to employ a small robot named Pink to help students understand their local culture and language. And it worked.

By learning to program a humanoid robot, students developed 21st-century skills while also engaging with an Indigenous culture and language. The project also strengthened the connection between school, home and Country.

Why did Pink work so well?

The Maitland Lutheran School had long wanted to connected its students with Narungga culture and language. About eight years earlier, the school bought paper dictionaries of Narungga, but children had shown little interest in them.

The principal engaged the only fluent speaker of Narungga to work with the school’s teachers and students. The aim was to engage the school’s Aboriginal and non-Aboriginal students in learning about both innovative technologies and Narungga culture.

Humanoid robots look like humans and have movements that are human-like. So students are drawn to them and want to make them function like a human, by making them talk, move their arms and walk.

Some research has shown school students feel more comfortable – less anxious and self-conscious – learning a new language when they can practise on a robot compared to a human.

Apart from the cuteness factor, students believe the robot is not judgmental when they make mistakes.

Read more: Why more schools need to teach bilingual education to Indigenous children

How it panned out

It didn’t take long for Pink to captivate the students. Students formed a relationship with the robot and became attached to it. One of the teachers said her students treated the robot like “they would a younger child”.

Another teacher said the students:

… humanised the robot within seconds, came and touched Pink’s hand to shake it and waved goodbye on leaving the room. All students wanted to be the first to talk, touch and engage with Pink.

As the students’ enthusiasm and confidence using the robot increased, they wanted Pink to have more functionality, so they started learning how to program her.

They wanted Pink to speak Narungga. But they discovered Pink could not pronounce the Narungga words when they typed the words correctly into the programming language.

So, using their problem-solving skills, students trialled the phonetic spelling of the words until they achieved the correct Narungga pronunciation.

A Year 1 and 2 teacher said:

Deep learning occurred in terms of cultural awareness and language acquisition. Most of the students knew very little, if any, Narungga words. (Some did not even know the word Narungga!) In terms of information technologies the students have truly grown from not understanding that Pink was programmable to programming her to do a variety of things.

So, the students at Maitland Lutheran School learnt not only the Narungga language but also how to use a programming language to control a humanoid robot. It was a steep learning curve to learn and understand two different ways of communicating, one old and one new.

The work with the robot turned into community engagement as students’ enthusiasm involved many teachers and the wider school community. Teachers observed students saying “Hello” in Narungga to other staff members.

The principal said the school community was starting to express pride in the traditional culture of the area, which was not evident before. The principal said:

This has not only engaged our students; it has engaged our staff as well. It has given them encouragement in what they have seen from the students to keep progressing with the [Narungga] language as well as the digital side of things.

It hasn’t just been for our Narungga students, it’s been across the board with all of our students. It’s been a great way of getting them to network together […] to work on something that has an Indigenous perspective but means a lot to everybody.

Emerging technologies can play a role in engaging young people with the languages and cultures of Australia’s First Peoples.

Read more: Robots likely to be used in classrooms as learning tools, not teachers

The educators in this school recognised the importance of coding and robotics for their students’ future and the far-reaching opportunities to integrate this technology in ways that build respect and understanding between cultures.

This project was part of a larger three-year study investigating the impact of humanoid robots on students’ learning and engagement.

This article was co-authored with Monica Williams, Educational Consultant at the Association of Independent Schools of South Australia.

– ref. How a robot called Pink helped school children bring an Aboriginal language back to life – http://theconversation.com/how-a-robot-called-pink-helped-school-children-bring-an-aboriginal-language-back-to-life-119810

Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Will Rifkin, Chair in Applied Regional Economics and Director, Hunter Research Foundation Centre, University of Newcastle

News of evacuations from cracked apartment buildings in Sydney and the need to replace combustible cladding across Australia illustrate how uncertainty compounds problems for those affected. Who is responsible for the remedy? Residents have had to leave their homes indefinitely, not knowing when their buildings can be repaired and made safe. Others remain in at-risk buildings with the constant worry about what might happen if fire breaks out.

Some may also wonder whether the remedies really are “safe”. And how much they will be out of pocket? Some express concern about whether they will ever be able to sell their unit and what their financial fate will be given that their home is their largest investment.

The outcome of last Thursday’s Building Ministers’ Forum did little to end the uncertainty plaguing residents. More broadly, the uncertainty is hitting the construction industry, with insurance costs rising and some insurance being withdrawn altogether.

Read more: Flammable cladding costs could approach billions for building owners if authorities dither

Uncertainty gnaws away at us

How uncertainty plays a central role here can be seen in a little known but classic piece written 50 years ago by a cultural anthropologist. Professor Elizabeth Colson drafted “Tranquility for the Decision-maker” for a volume, Cultural Illness and Health.

Colson had studied the Gwemba Tonga of east-central Africa, in what is now Zambia. Villages of the Gwembe Tonga were faced with displacement due to the building of a dam on the Zambezi River. They were given a choice of where to settle.

However, the construction zone barred the villagers’ access to the ritual grounds where they traditionally made such decisions. An inability to arrive at a decision resulted in prolonged uncertainty. Colson witnessed behaviour that suggested the harm that uncertainty had on individual and community mental health.

Colson also told of how the group dealt with drought. Farmers had seed they could plant and then tend, but if they planted it too soon before the rains, the seed would be lost. If they planted it too late or failed to tend it, then the plants would not reach maturity, and they would have no crops for food and no seed for the next year.

Villagers figured that they could find a way to cope with having no crops; they had a “plan B”. However, each day they dithered about whether to plant, going out to the fields but then returning again. The uncertainty had harmful effects on the villagers, Colson explained. They lacked a way to determine whether to adopt “plan B” or stick with “plan A”.

Such an analysis suggests that we can deal with good fortune and bad fortune. What really drives us up the wall is uncertainty.

This uncertainty can be generated by the unpredictability of nature or the volatility of international markets. It’s made worse in situations where clear and unambiguous information is missing.

More problematic are complex and costly situations where delay results from blaming and manoeuvring to avoid paying the financial or political cost of a decision. These two elements can occur in unison: a lack of knowledge and potentially responsible parties evacuating the “blame avenue”.

Situations where uncertainty is playing a role include farmers facing drought, as in Colson’s case, and potential climate change impacts – such as severe weather events for coastal communities.

Read more: Coastal law shift from property rights to climate adaptation is a landmark reform

There are also effects on rural communities of changes in international prices for mining and agricultural exports. Similar dynamics around uncertainty and blame apply to interned asylum seekers awaiting a government decision, the debate about coal seam gas development in Narrabri, and communities with groundwater contaminated by chemicals like PFAS.

In these examples, costs to individuals and families are potentially great relative to their resources. Resolution often requires a central role for large institutions, whether government agencies or multinational corporations.

Uncertainty due to a lack of information is being addressed in certain arenas. For instance, mathematical models to predict the weather are improving. The same can be said for models to predict shifts in international commodity prices.

Institutional responses make uncertainty worse

Also needing attention are institutional decision-making processes. Decision-making is often fragmented, as it involves disparate organisations or silos in organisations. Add to that a propensity to avoid taking the blame and shouldering the financial or political cost or the potential impact to one’s career.

Read more: Buck-passing on apartment building safety leaves residents at risk

This domain falls under the banner of “allocation of responsibility”, an area addressed historically by social and cultural anthropologists looking at law and moral codes. Attempting to avoid blame can contribute to delay in decision-making, which prolongs and potentially deepens uncertainty.

Collaborative efforts can reduce such delays and uncertainty. Collaboration requires the building of trusting working relationships among agencies and organisations – a form of what is called “collective impact”. One also needs openness with affected individuals, families and communities – an element in procedural fairness.

These aspects are relatively easy to identify but challenging to implement and even more challenging to sustain for a prolonged period.

The point here is that the true impact on residents of cracks in their apartment block, flammable cladding, an uncertain migration status, or PFAS in the groundwater is not merely the inconvenience or out-of-pocket expense. The impact includes prolonged uncertainty about very significant elements of their well-being. That has an impact on individual and community mental health, with potential flow-on effects to physical health.

The remedy involves a greater willingness by organisations and agencies to take on responsibility without delay and improved institutional relationships to arrive at suitable resolutions for the long term. So, our concern should not only be about the cracks in the buildings but about the fissures separating those who together could implement remedies.

– ref. It’s not just the building cracks or cladding – sometimes uncertainty does even more harm – http://theconversation.com/its-not-just-the-building-cracks-or-cladding-sometimes-uncertainty-does-even-more-harm-120662

Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Andrew Podger, Honorary Professor of Public Policy, Australian National University

There is a case for not proceeding with, or at least further deferring, the legislated increase in employers’ compulsory superannuation contributions from 9.5% to 12%.

But the Grattan Institute’s latest analysis, published in The Conversation and elsewhere, does not make this case.

Rather, it demonstrates extremely well a totally different problem with our retirement incomes system, and falsely ties it to our 9.5% so-called “super guarantee”.

That problem is that the pension assets test, tightened in 2017.

The problem is the pension assets test

For a significant group of middle income earners, Grattan finds that an increase in savings through the super guarantee would lead to a reduction in lifetime incomes.

But that is equally true of a voluntary increase in savings, in any form other than increased investment in the family home.

A better designed assets test, preferably through a merging of the income and assets tests, would ensure that increased savings boosted at least retirement incomes. It would ensure that we didn’t penalise thrift.

Whether we should attempt to compulsorily increase in savings through the super guarantee is an entirely separate issue.

Grattan is right to point out that any increase in the guarantee would come at the expense of increases in wages. It falsely accuses proponents of an increase of insisting this would not be the case.

Read more: Productivity Commission finds super a bad deal. And yes, it comes out of wages

Perhaps some proponents of an increase do believe employers would or should bear much of the cost, but that is not consistent with the history of the super guarantee, one of whose strengths has been the sustainability of its funding by not adding to the cost of labour or inflation.

Those super ‘tax breaks’ scarcely exist

Another annoying aspect of the Grattan piece is the continued presentation of superannuation tax arrangements as “tax breaks”.

It is true that a shift in payments from wages to superannuation savings does, at that point in time, reduce tax revenue because of the difference between the contributions tax (generally 15%) and wage earners’ marginal tax rates (for most, at least 30%).

But what is the appropriate tax on savings, particularly savings that cannot be accessed until age 60?

The convention internationally is to exempt from tax entirely contributions and the earnings they generate, but to tax in full the benefits as they are paid out. If we did this, we would be imposing a greater immediate cost on the budget which would presumably be an even greater “tax break”. In reality we would be providing an appropriate tax regime for those looking to spread their lifetime earnings, in the knowledge that tax would be paid at the time they took money out.

Read more: ‘Catch up’ super contributions: a tax break for rich (old men)

Work done a few years ago for the Committee for Sustainable Retirement Incomes concluded that, after the Turnbull government’s superannuation tax reforms, our regime of a limited but progressive tax on contributions and earnings and no tax on benefits, produced very similar results to the conventional approach at all income levels, although it is implemented the other way around.

It means that by international standards there isn’t a tax break.

Moreover, as Grattan has demonstrated with its analysis of lifetime incomes, the impact of superannuation on age pensions disadvantages many people precisely because it saves the budget money in the long term.

The goal ought to be a comfortable retirement…

What would really help is if Grattan articulated what it considers to be the objective of the retirement incomes system, and focused its analysis on whether increasing the super guarantee would or would not help to achieve that objective, and at what cost.

The objective surely ought to be that Australians have secure and adequate incomes at and through retirement. “Adequacy” here has two components:

• sufficient to ensure no aged person lives in poverty (the role of the age pension); and

• sufficient to maintain pre-retirement living standards (which the role of superannuation and other savings, with the age pension contributing for people on less than average incomes)

There are legitimate debates about how to determine “adequacy”, particularly the second component.

Read more: Frydenberg should call a no-holds-barred inquiry into superannuation, now, because Labor won’t

Grattan claimed last year not only that the current 9.5% super guarantee would do the trick, but also that most current retirees (who have not accumulated anything like a lifetime of 9.5% of compulsory super savings) already receive adequate retirement incomes.

I remain convinced this is an extreme view, not consistent with international practice or analysis.

…which might mean contributions of more than 12%

For those not eligible for an age pension (likely to be at least 40% of retirees into the future), maintaining pre-retirement living standards will require contributions of 15-20% (18% is the OECD average); for those eligible for some age pension, the contribution rate required will be lower but, even at typical earnings, would most likely be more than 12% according to Committee for Sustainable Retirement Incomes analysis.

Whether such a contribution rate should be compulsory is a legitimate question.

Perhaps the current low rate of wages growth warrants a longer deferral of the next legislated increase (though it will be seven years since the last set of two 0.25% increases when the next increase of 0.5% is due to come into force in 2021, and real wages will have increased by much more than this in the meantime).

Perhaps the burden on some young families of increasing compulsory savings would be more than their circumstances allow (although there are other ways of assisting them).

A concern I have, however, is that Grattan seems to suggest not only that the super guarantee not be increased beyond 9.5% but that we would not then need to encourage most workers to voluntarily save more beyond that, including after their children grow older and become financially independent.

That seems to me short-sighted, and accepts a greater reliance on the age pension in the future than is desirable.

– ref. There is a problem with retirement incomes, but it isn’t the super guarantee – http://theconversation.com/there-is-a-problem-with-retirement-incomes-but-it-isnt-the-super-guarantee-120591

Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Susan Ostling, Adjunct Senior Lecturer, Queensland College of Art, Griffith University

Review: Margaret Olley: A Generous Life, and Quilty, QAGOMA

Margaret Olley’s exhibition at QAGOMA is titled A Generous Life, referring to her capacity to maintain enduring friendships, her support for her artist peers (it is said she would cover their fares to travel and publish books for them), her role as mentor to younger artists, and her enormous generosity as a philanthropist to galleries in Australia, as well as to other arts organisations like the Australian Chamber Orchestra.

Olley donated her own work (in the case of the Orchestra, to auction), that of her peers and younger artists, and works from her own collection. She also made major donations to public collections, such as a donation to the Art Gallery of New South Wales that included works by Cezanne and Picasso.

At the launch of Ben Quilty’s exhibition in the adjoining gallery two weeks after Olley’s, curator Lisa Slade said Quilty’s exhibition could also be called “A Generous Life”.

Slade was referring to Quilty’s passion for speaking out in support of human rights and against injustices. For example, his determination to address the ignorance around official versions of Australian history, which obscure the truth of violence to Indigenous people; his response as a War Artist in Afghanistan to the way the trauma of war seeps through all ranks; his amplifying the voices of refugee children in Greece, Syria and Lebanon, revealing the anguish of living with war.

And then there was his friendship and support for Myuran Sukumaran and Andrew Chan of the Bali Nine and the battle to turn public opinion and legal might against the death penalty, and his actions urging us not to ignore the tragedy of refugees and asylum seekers detained in our own waters. Quilty has made all these issues the subject for painting and activism.

Read more: A noisy, passionate show from an artist in a hurry, Quilty has just one emotional pitch

Quilty’s exhibition of works from the last seven years (travelling from the Art Gallery of South Australia) and Olley’s exhibition of 100 works from across her professional life (curated by QAGOMA’s Michael Hawker) are brought together by good planning. The artists are said to be an odd couple or as arts critic John McDonald says “a legendary Aussie duo” (the others he cites are Burke and Wills, and Kath and Kim!).

However the two exhibitions don’t so much fit together (the subject matter, the artistic approach and intent, could not be further apart) as somehow build together.

Perhaps not unlike the way Olley and Quilty’s friendship built. In 2002, Olley, a judge for the Brett Whiteley Travelling Scholarship, awarded the scholarship to Quilty. From then on, she was his mentor, buying his work and gifting it to state and regional gallery collections, and introducing him to her influential friends of the art world.

Their friendship grew such that towards the end of her life, Olley agreed to sit for Quilty for a 2011 Archibald Prize portrait, which Quilty won. Just as Olley’s artist career was affirmed through William Dobell’s winning portrait of her in the 1948 Archibald, so in an inverse sort of way, Quilty’s career has similarly been affirmed through his 2011 winning portrait of Olley.

Olley is the only person to have been the subject of an Archibald Prize winning portrait twice (excluding self portraits) – at the beginning of her artist life and at the conclusion. Olley died three months after Quilty’s win. Happily, both intriguing portraits of her are in the Olley exhibition.

In preparing viewers to navigate between these shows, Quilty has created on the North Gallery wall interfacing Olley’s exhibition large line drawings of Olley taken from his preparatory sketches for the Archibald portrait. Just as the finished oil paint portrait exists through the slightest suggestion of paint, so these chalk drawings are equally ethereal, with a presence that just lingers.

Interestingly, the chalk is created from red, pink and blue chalk casts of jugs, teapots and lidded jars – gifts from Olley’s vast collection to Quilty over the years. In their cast forms, these objects appear in the gallery as clusters of fragmented empty vessels below the wall.

On the opposite North Gallery wall adjoining Quilty’s exhibition, Quilty has reconfigured his work Inhabit (2010). This consists of 16 cell-like images that move us from abstracted matter to discernable images of James Cook, and then to Cook as a cadaver, to a cranium, to Quilty, and onto a mere spatial presence. In this iteration, these figures appear to be present at a dinner party. They are within two large tables with baroque flourishes created by black spray paint onto the wall.

Throughout Quilty’s exhibition there is an urgency to look deeper, to step back, to weigh up, to know more, to reassess, to unravel, to grieve and occasionally smile at the absurdities served up. Justin Paton, head curator of International Art at the Art Gallery of NSW, refers to recent Quilty work as “painterly-political grotesque”. He describes Quilty as a “painter of conflict, turbulence, knots, double binds, dark laughter and awkward resistance”. There are certainly demons and the macabre that won’t go away, nevertheless somehow there is empathy and compassion. It is this that holds us.

Olley’s inspiration

In Olley’s exhibition her family home of Farndon becomes the central site of inspiration and reference. We enter the exhibition past a huge (possibly dusty) flower arrangement, and into a dimly lit hallway with a wood detailed archway, familiar in old Queenslanders. Farndon is where Olley lived and worked for stretches of time after her father died and then from time to time between her stays in Sydney and Newcastle (keeping paintings and materials in all three locations), until the house burnt down in 1980.

Hawker says Farndon had a calming presence on Olley, with its high ceilings, generously sized rooms, and plays of latticed-light across the floors. It was surrounded by lush vegetation that we see, all but bursting in the room in her paintings Interior 1V, and VII (1970).

Olley is said to have avoided having her own work on white walls and in this spirit, the gallery walls are a distinct mood setter of rich green, grey and salmon. Just as in Olley’s paintings of interiors where paintings, artefacts, furniture and, of course, flowers, create her universe, so this effect is created in the exhibition in several places.

The exhibition charts Olley’s early work in Brisbane (1946-48) where she paints iconic buildings (Old Masonic Lodge, Treasury Building, Queensland Club), her delicate Boonah (Qld) landscapes, and then portraits of young Indigenous men (with guitars and bananas), and most interestingly Aboriginal women (with dazzling, jostling flowers) and as nude subjects.

To me, her figures always look a little uncomfortable – slightly halted, detached, even frozen. From the mid 60s, Olley left figure painting and focused more and more on still life.

Ironically, it is when Olley focuses on still life that I feel her subjects (in fact objects), create a highly animated world. Space became a keenly articulated interest for Olley. It is where the subtle dramas can be created or insinuated. “Space is the secret of life”, she has said. “[I]t is everything, and I have used it to suit me not only in my surroundings but over time.”

What ultimately brings both these exhibitions together in a satisfying way is that each artist has developed their own sense of direction and a studied sense of purpose.

At the exhibition opening, Quilty said that after Olley awarded him the Brett Whiteley travel scholarship, she asked him “Are you one of us or one of them?” He says he has never has worked out what she meant.

Given what we know about Olley, we could say she was asking Quilty – is art central to your life and the reason to be? It was for Olley, and it would appear to be for Quilty.

Margaret Olley: A Generous Life and Quilty are on at QAGOMA until October 13.

– ref. ‘Are you one of us or one of them?’ Margaret Olley, Ben Quilty and a portrait of a generous friendship – http://theconversation.com/are-you-one-of-us-or-one-of-them-margaret-olley-ben-quilty-and-a-portrait-of-a-generous-friendship-119528

Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Michelle Grattan, Professorial Fellow, University of Canberra

Martin Parkinson, secretary of the Prime Minister’s department, has cleared Christopher Pyne and Julie Bishop of breaching the government’s code of ministerial standards with their post-politics jobs. But it’s doubtful the average voter would take such a literal or generous view of their conduct.

Scott Morrison had flicked to Parkinson the row over the part-time positions the two high flyers have taken that clearly overlap their previous portfolios, when the rules provide for a longer separation period.

Pyne, former defence minister, is advising EY, which operates in the defence area. Bishop, former foreign minister, is joining the board of Palladium, a global group working in aid and development.

The code says:

Ministers are required to undertake that, for an eighteen month period after ceasing to be a Minister, they will not lobby, advocate or have business meetings with members of the government, parliament, public service or defence force on any matters on which they have had official dealings as Minister in their last eighteen months in office.

Ministers are also required to undertake that, on leaving office, they will not take personal advantage of information to which they have had access as a Minister, where that information is not generally available to the public.

The government on Monday was quick to gag an embarrassing opposition move in the lower House calling for Parkinson to probe further into the circumstances of Bishop, who told him she didn’t have any contact with Palladium while foreign minister. A video had been posted by the company, labelled “Australia’s Foreign Minister, Julie Bishop, commends Shared Value and Palladium’s Business Partnership Platform”. (Government sources said later that the video – in which Bishop did not use Palladium’s name – was a congratulatory one about a Foreign Affairs initiative.)

In the Senate, the government lacked the numbers to prevent the conduct of Pyne and Bishop being referred to a committee. The motion from Centre Alliance’s Rex Patrick won support from Labor, Greens and non-Greens crossbenchers, passing 35 to 29. The committee has three opposition members, two government senators and a One Nation representative. Pyne and Bishop will be invited to appear and could be required to do so.

The greyest area of the post-ministerial employment provision is the stipulation not to take advantage of private information acquired as a minister.

Parkinson says in his report to Morrison: “a distinction should be drawn between experience gained through being a minister and specific knowledge they acquire through performing the role. It is the latter which is pertinent to the Standards”.

Read more: Why Christopher Pyne and Julie Bishop fail the ‘pub test’ with their new jobs

In practice, however, this can fade into a distinction without a difference. As Parkinson also says: “It is not reasonable to think that former Ministers can or will ‘forget’ all information or knowledge gained by them in the course of their ministerial roles”.

Pyne initially said he would be “providing strategic advice to EY, as the firm looks to expand its footprint in the Defence Industry”. EY initially talked up his role but then quickly qualified it in the face of the controversy.

Parkinson spoke to both Pyne (who had already issued a long public written explanation) and Bishop.

In Parkinson’s account, Pyne seems to have done a lot of talking with EY about what he can’t do. EY is paying, of course, for what he can do.

Parkinson says he considers Pyne “has put in place mechanisms to ensure that, whilst his engagement with EY will appropriately draw on his 26 year experience as a parliamentarian, he will not impart direct or specific knowledge known to him only by virtue of his ministerial position”.

Bishop, who will have been out of the ministry for a year next month, has said little publicly about her non-executive directorship. She told Parkinson she had yet to attend a board meeting and that “Palladium does not expect her to engage on any Australian based projects”.

Patrick suggested the terms of reference given to Parkinson were limited – designed to fix a “political problem”.

Read more: Grattan on Friday: A kinder, gentler Senate – at least for now

This is not new ground. Former trade minister Andrew Robb took up employment (annual remuneration of $880,000) with the Chinese Landbridge Group soon after he was trade minister. He has strongly rejected criticism of his action (and since left the group).

Two former ministers with responsibility for resources, the Liberals’ Ian Macfarlane and Labor’s Martin Ferguson quickly accepted positions with the sector. Stephen Conroy, a former communications minister overseeing online gambling laws, came under fire on becoming a lobbyist for the gambling industry – he points out this was three years after he was a minister.

Going back further (when the ministerial code of conduct did not include a post-separation provision) Peter Reith segued from the defence portfolio into advising defence contractor Tenix.

The Senate inquiry, reporting by September 10, will look at “action taken by the Prime Minister and the Department of the Prime Minister and Cabinet to ensure full compliance by former Ministers” with the relevant section of the ministerial standards.

At the end of his letter to Morrison, Parkinson highlights the impotence of a PM once members of his team are out in the wide world.

“While there are certain actions available to you when considering the conduct of a current serving Minister, and a possible breach of the Standards, there are no specific actions that can be taken by you in relation to former Ministers once they have left the Parliament”.

Either some way should be found to make the code enforceable or, if that is too hard, let’s skip the hypocrisy and admit it is no more than an exhortation to departees to act properly – complying with not just its letter but its spirit.

– ref. View from The Hill: Senate decides Pyne and Bishop have a few more parliamentary questions to answer – http://theconversation.com/view-from-the-hill-senate-decides-pyne-and-bishop-have-a-few-more-parliamentary-questions-to-answer-120761

Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Anastasia Powell, Associate Professor, Criminology and Justice Studies, RMIT University

A Perth man who pleaded guilty to distributing an intimate image of his ex-girlfriend without her consent has been sentenced to a 12-month intensive supervision order, sparing him jail time.

According to media reports, Mitchell Brindley repeatedly created fake Instagram accounts under the name of his ex-girlfriend and posted nude photographs of her on the site.

Brindley is the first to be convicted under new laws that came into effect in Western Australia in April. The new laws carry a maximum possible sentence of three years in jail and fines of up to A$18,000.

What is image-based sexual abuse?

Image-based sexual abuse (or IBSA) is defined as the non-consensual creation, distribution or threats to distribute nude or sexual images (photos or videos) of a person. It also includes altered imagery in which a person’s face or identifying marks appear in a pornographic photo or video, known colloquially as “deep fakes.”

Also known as “non-consensual pornography” or “revenge porn”, IBSA is an invasion of a person’s privacy and a violation of their human rights to dignity, sexual autonomy and freedom of expression.

According to research we conducted for the Office of the eSafety Commissioner in 2017, one in ten Australian respondents had experienced a nude or sexual image of themselves being distributed to others or posted online without their consent. Young women aged 18 to 24 were among the most commonly victimised, as were Indigenous Australians and those with a mobility or communicative disability.

In a separate survey we conducted, we found the creation of nude or sexual images was even more prevalent. Of the 4,274 Australians aged 16 to 49 years that we surveyed, 20% said that someone had taken or created a nude or sexual image of them without their consent. Of those surveyed, 9% had experienced threats that a nude or sexual image of them would be shared.

Read more: How making ‘revenge porn’ a federal crime would combat its rise

When the creation, distribution and threats to distribute a nude or sexual image were combined, we found that more than one in five (23%) Australians had experienced at least one of these behaviours.

We also asked our survey participants whether they had ever perpetrated image-based sexual abuse. One in 10 reported they had taken, distributed or made threats to distribute a nude or sexual image of another person without that person’s consent. Men (13.7%) were almost twice as likely as women (7.4%) to admit to doing this.

How does IBSA impact victims?

Though the term “revenge porn” implies that the non-consensual sharing of nude or sexual images is based on the spiteful actions of jilted ex-lovers, research suggests the motivations for these behaviours – and the impacts on victims – are far more varied.

For instance, image-based sexual abuse is one way perpetrators of domestic violence attempt to coercively control a current or former intimate partner. Police and service providers have also described to us how images are used to threaten victims of sexual and domestic violence in order to prevent them from seeking help and reporting to police.

Read more: Revenge porn laws may not be capturing the right people

In other cases, nude and sexual images have been used as a form of bullying and harassment, particularly of young people. This can have severe impacts on a victim’s mental well-being, sometimes resulting in self-harm.

Many victims also experience high levels of psychological and emotional distress. In our study, we found approximately one in three people who experienced IBSA felt fearful for their safety – an indicator of potential stalking or intimate partner abuse being linked to the sharing of images online.

Justice responses to IBSA in Australia

Australian laws have come a long way in terms of responding to IBSA. Tasmania is the only state or territory in Australia not to have made it a specific criminal offence.

Several states and territories also allow victims of domestic or family violence to order their partners to destroy any intimate images they may have and prohibit them from distributing such images.

IBSA is also criminalised at the federal level under the Enhancing Online Safety (Non-consensual Sharing of Intimate Images) Act, which was passed last year.

Read more: FactCheck Q&A: are there laws to protect against ‘revenge porn’ in Australia?

Yet some victims of IBSA don’t want to go through the emotional burden of pursuing criminal charges against a perpetrator. They just want the abuse to stop and the images to be taken off the internet, removed or destroyed. In such cases, victims can report their case to the Office of the eSafety Commissioner, which can issue formal removal notices to social media companies and other online platforms.

Image-based sexual abuse remains a social, health, legal and criminal policy challenge. Sadly, our previous research has found that not all Australians take this form of harm seriously, though there is widespread support for a criminal justice response which reflects the harm image-based sexual abuse can cause.

It is therefore important we continue with a multifaceted approach including education, prevention and training, as well as support services and justice responses, in order to properly address this type of intimate harassment and abuse.

The Office of the eSafety Commissioner operates an online portal with information, advice and assistance for victims of image-based sexual abuse. Visit https://www.esafety.gov.au/image-based-abuse/

The National Sexual Assault, Family and Domestic Violence Counselling Line – 1800 RESPECT (1800 737 732) – is available 24 hours a day, seven days a week for any Australian who has experienced, or is at risk of, family and domestic violence and/or sexual assault.

– ref. 1 in 5 Australians is a victim of ‘revenge porn’, despite new laws to prevent it – http://theconversation.com/1-in-5-australians-is-a-victim-of-revenge-porn-despite-new-laws-to-prevent-it-117838

Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Piero Moraro, Lecturer in Criminal Justice, Charles Sturt University

The Morrison government has introduced new legislation responding to recent protests by animal rights activists in Australia. The bill –named The Criminal Code Amendment (Agricultural Protection) Bill 2019 – will tighten up existing laws, creating harsher penalties for those who incite others to trespass on farms.

Minister for Agriculture Bridget McKenzie and Attorney-General Christian Porter have said this legislation will deliver on the government’s

election commitment to protect the privacy of Australian farmers and primary producers […] from the unlawful actions of animal activists”.

The legislation may not affect the sanctions animal activists already face for protests like the recent unauthorised sit-in in Melbourne CBD. Instead, it would mean activists may have to be more careful about distributing evidence of animal cruelty online to encourage people to take action against the meat industry.

Read more: Here’s why well-intentioned vegan protesters are getting it wrong

But the legislation makes no mention of a farmer’s personal safety, instead targeting behaviour that would cause problems to a business. And it adds to a recent spate of legislation that prevents people from protesting with more than just symbolic actions.

Who does the bill target?

The legislation targets online actions of animal rights activist groups such as Aussie Farms, a charity that recently published a map of Australian farms allegedly engaged in animal cruelty.

The group’s professed goal is to

end commercialised animal abuse and exploitation by […] increasing industry transparency and educating the public about modern farming and slaughtering practices.

The charity contends most farms rely on secrecy and deceptive practices such as using images of happy animals rolling in the sunshine alongside words such as “free range” or “humanely slaughtered”. But secret footage reveals questionable slaughtering practices such as the use of gas chambers.

Read more: Animal activists v private landowners: what does the law say?

On the other hand, farmers have complained that the actions of Aussie Farms threaten their own privacy and safety, and the biosecurity of their sites.

What are the new offences?

The bill introduces two new criminal offences for cases where a person uses a carriage service, such as social media or a website, “to transmit, make available, publish or otherwise distribute material” with an intention to incite another person to

• trespass on agricultural land, or
• unlawfully damage or destroy property, or commit theft, on agricultural land.

“Agricultural land”, in this case, refers to land used for “primary production business”. This includes chicken farms, piggeries, and businesses operating as an abattoir or an animal saleyard.

The first offence carries a maximum of 12 months’ imprisonment, while the second offence may lead to up to five years’ imprisonment.

Importantly, the bill also specifies that the offences wouldn’t apply to a news report

which is in the public interest and is made by a person working in a professional capacity as a journalist.

Who does bill really protect?

The government claims this bill will protect farmers’ privacy and security, and avoid risks of biosecurity hazards posed by unauthorised entries of activists.

Read more: Animal rights activists in Melbourne: green-collar criminals or civil ‘disobedients’?

But if this were really the goal, we would not need a new bill. The use of “a carriage service to menace, harass, or cause offence” is already punishable under section 474.17 of the Criminal Code.

In fact, the legislation doesn’t even mention farmers’ personal safety. Rather, its target is behaviour that “would cause detriment to a primary production business”.

The bill’s Explanatory Memorandum (a document accompanying each bill to explain its intention) further states:

it is irrelevant if detriment to a primary production business actually occurs as a result of incited trespass. All that is needed […] is that the offender was aware there was a substantial risk that trespass could cause detriment to a primary production business.

So it isn’t clear how this bill will “protect” the well-being of farmers.

What is clear, however, is that this bill is part of a growing trend of creating heavy-handed “special offences” punishing protesters that go beyond merely symbolic actions. Meanwhile, the government claims to respect the freedom of assembly and right to protest.

Read more: In an Australian first, the ACT may legally recognise animals’ feelings

For instance, in response to growing anti-mining protests, the (now repealed) NSW Inclosed Lands, Crimes and Law Enforcement Amendment (Interference) Bill 2016 introduced the offence of “hindering the working of equipment belonging to a mine”, punishable by up to seven years in jail.

Last year, the NSW Crown Lands Management Regulation 2018 gave police officers the wide-ranging power to prevent individuals from “taking part in any gathering, meeting or assembly”.

And in 2015, the Border Force Act made it a crime to report on patients’ medical conditions in off-shore detention centres.

Rather than engaging with activists’ demand for more transparency in the meat industry, the government has now made it a crime for them to “demand” more transparency, when the latter might be detrimental to the business.

Read more: How do we weigh the moral value of human lives against animal ones?

What’s more, farmers aren’t the only ones facing personal threats. Activists who have taken action to denounce the unethical practices allegedly employed in Australian abattoirs have also been subject to serious threats because of their choice to criticise the meat industry.

But the government seems less concerned with the privacy and safety of citizens when their conduct may cause “detriment” to the interests of business.

– ref. It isn’t clear how the new bill against animal rights activists will protect farmers – http://theconversation.com/it-isnt-clear-how-the-new-bill-against-animal-rights-activists-will-protect-farmers-120588