NewzIntel.com

Category: Academic Analysis

  • MIL-Evening Report: Two decades after decriminalisation, NZ’s sex workers still need protection from discrimination

    Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Lynzi Armstrong, Senior Lecturer in Criminology, Te Herenga Waka — Victoria University of Wellington

    It has been two decades since New Zealand decriminalised sex work. And while sex workers have workplace rights, they still worry about the risks of discrimination in everyday life.

    In my recent research, local sex workers explained the benefits of decriminalisation – and what still needs to change. Their experiences highlight that while much has changed for the better, stigma remains an issue. Further change is needed to better protect sex workers from it.

    New Zealand’s experience is relevant right now, as a number of governments elsewhere are reviewing their laws around sex work.

    Scotland, for example, is considering a proposal that would criminalise the purchase of sex – known as the Nordic model due to its initial adoption in some Nordic countries.

    Supporters argue this will help sex workers and extend gender equality. But evidence suggests the Nordic model actually harms sex workers: it impedes safety strategies, increases the risk of violence, limits access to justice, and enables discrimination.

    What is decriminalisation?

    The other options are decriminalisation and legalisation. While these terms are often used interchangeably, they are different. Legalisation of sex work (in Germany and the Netherlands, for example) means legalising an act that was previously against the law.

    For sex workers, this means restrictive government regulation and control, which may include mandatory registration with authorities, compulsory sexual health checks, and permission to work in specific areas only.

    Decriminalisation, on the other hand, means repealing laws that make an act or behaviour a crime, but not necessarily introducing restrictive regulations specific to the sex industry.

    That said, decriminalisation does not mean there is no regulation. Instead, regulations are comparable to other businesses. The focus is not on regulating sex workers, but providing them with rights.

    Under New Zealand’s Prostitution Reform Act (2003) it is an offence to induce or compel a person to do sex work. Sex workers have the right to refuse to see clients for any reason at any time. If a sex worker wishes to stop doing sex work, they can access unemployment benefits immediately (rather than having the normal stand down period ).

    Impacts of decriminalisation in New Zealand

    Research three years after the law came into force found a majority of participants felt they had more rights and were more able to refuse to see clients than before. Several participants felt police attitudes towards them had improved.

    Subsequent research found relationships between street-based sex workers and police had improved. Decriminalisation supported the safety strategies of these sex workers better.

    There have also been several high-profile cases where sex workers have exercised their legal rights. Brothel-based sex workers won sexual harassment cases against business owners, and convictions of rape against two clients who covertly removed condoms during their bookings.

    Among the 26 sex workers we interviewed in New Zealand, participants described feeling fortunate to work in the decriminalised context. They also felt working conditions for sex workers were better than in other countries.

    One participant said:

    I also feel that we shouldn’t have to say “oh we’re so lucky” but we are compared to other people in other countries.

    Another felt decriminalisation gave sex workers a “protective layer”.

    This meant, as one participant put it, “we have rights, full stop”.

    Participants appreciated sex work being defined as work and the rights that accompany this. Decriminalisation was considered both ideal and normalised. As another explained,

    it’s been decriminalised for a long time now, like it’s part of our reality.

    Room for improvement?

    While participants felt grateful to work in the decriminalised context, this doesn’t mean there weren’t issues.

    Decriminalisation in New Zealand doesn’t include legal protection from discrimination. Sex workers have little recourse if they are treated unfairly because of their job.

    The sex workers we spoke with believed the social stigma of sex work was gradually fading, and instances of discrimination described by participants were rare. But they still feared the consequences of discrimination (such as being denied accommodation or premises to work from if their work became known to a landlord).

    They supported further legal protection from discrimination. For one participant this meant,

    I could tell people my job without […] any fear of backlash, and that would be fantastic.

    Participants also wanted the protections of decriminalisation extended to temporary migrants. People who hold temporary visas face deportation if they are found to be working in the sex industry, making them vulnerable to exploitation.

    Falling behind

    After two decades of decriminalisation, New Zealand risks falling behind as more jurisdictions (such as Victoria and Queensland in Australia) adopt decriminalised frameworks that build in protection from discrimination.

    Such protections mean it is no longer legal to deny a person accommodation or a job based on their sex work experience, or deny them a bank loan or mortgage.

    To keep up, New Zealand needs to follow suit. The next step is therefore to strengthen and expand the rights sex workers have.

    Perhaps then, in another 20 years, the country will still be seen as one that put the human rights of sex workers first and showed the rest of the world what equality really looks like.

    Lynzi Armstrong received funding from the Royal Society of New Zealand Marsden Fund (2019-2024)

    – ref. Two decades after decriminalisation, NZ’s sex workers still need protection from discrimination – https://theconversation.com/two-decades-after-decriminalisation-nzs-sex-workers-still-need-protection-from-discrimination-240787

    MIL OSI Analysis – EveningReport.nz –

  • MIL-Evening Report: Lessons for the next pandemic: where did Australia go right and wrong in responding to COVID?

    Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Adrian Esterman, Professor of Biostatistics and Epidemiology, University of South Australia

    Igor Corovic/Shutterstock

    With COVID still classified as an ongoing pandemic, it’s difficult to contemplate the next one. But we need to be prepared. We’ve seen several pandemics in recent decades and it’s fair to expect we’ll see more.

    For the final part in a series of articles on the next pandemic, we’ve asked a range of experts what Australia got right and wrong it its response to COVID. Here they share their thoughts on the country’s COVID response – and what we can learn for the next pandemic.

    Quarantine

    The federal government mandated 14 days of quarantine for all international arrivals between March 2020 and November 2021. During that period, 452,550 people passed through the system.

    The states and Northern Territory were given just 48 hours to set up their quarantine systems. The states chose hotel quarantine, while the Northern Territory repurposed an old miner’s camp, Howard Springs, which had individual cabins with outdoor verandas. The ACT had very few international arrivals, while Tasmania only had hotel quarantine for domestic travellers.

    During the first 15 months of the program, at least 22 breaches occurred in five states (New South Wales, Victoria, Queensland, Western Australia and South Australia). An inquiry into Victoria’s hotel quarantine found the lack of warning and planning to set up the complex system resulted in breaches that caused Victoria’s second COVID wave of 2020, leading to almost 800 deaths. A breach at Sydney airport led to the introduction of the Delta variant into Australia.

    In the next pandemic, mistakes from COVID need to be avoided. They included failure to protect hotel residents and staff from airborne transmission through ventilation and mask usage. Protocols need to be consistent across the country, such as the type of security staff used, N95 masks for staff and testing frequency.

    These protocols need to be included in a national pandemic preparedness plan, which is frequently reviewed and tested through simulations. This did not occur with the pre-COVID preparedness plan.

    Dedicated quarantine centres like Howard Springs already exist in Victoria and Queensland. Ideally, they should be constructed in every jurisdiction.

    Michael Toole

    Treatments

    Scientists had to move quickly after COVID was discovered to find effective treatments.

    Many COVID treatments involved repurposing existing drugs designed for other viruses. For example, the HIV drug ritonavir is a key element of the antiviral Paxlovid, while remdesivir was originally developed to treat hepatitis C.

    At the outset of the pandemic, there was a lot of uncertainty about COVID treatment among Australian health professionals. To keep up with the rapidly developing science, the National Clinical Evidence Taskforce was established in March 2020. We were involved in its COVID response with more than 250 clinicians, consumers and researchers.

    Unusually for evidence-based guidelines, which are often updated only every five years or so, the taskforce’s guidelines were designed to be “living” – updated as new research became available. In April 2020 we released the first guidelines for care of people with COVID, and over the next three years these were updated more than 100 times.

    While health-care professionals always had access to up-to-date guidance on COVID treatments, this same information was not as accessible for the public. This may partly explain why many people turned to unproven treatments. The taskforce’s benefits could have been increased with funding to help the community understand COVID treatments.

    COVID drugs faced other obstacles too. For example, changes to the virus itself meant some treatments became less effective as new variants emerged. Meanwhile, provision of antiviral treatments has not been equitable across the country.

    COVID drugs have had important, though not game-changing, impacts. Ultimately, effective vaccines played a much greater role in shifting the course of the pandemic. But we might not be so fortunate next time.

    In any future pandemic it will be crucial to have a clear pathway for rapid, reliable methods to develop and evaluate new treatments, disseminate that research to clinicians, policymakers and the public, and ensure all Australians can access the treatments they need.

    Steven McGloughlin and Tari Turner, Monash University

    Vaccine rollout

    COVID vaccines were developed in record time, but rolling them out quickly and seamlessly proved to be a challenge. In Australia, there were several missteps along the way.

    First, there was poor preparation and execution. Detailed planning was not finalised until after the rollout had begun.

    Then the federal government had overly ambitious targets. For example, the goal of vaccinating four million people by the end of March 2021 fell drastically short, with less than one-fifth of that number actually vaccinated by that time.

    There were also supply issues, with the European Union blocking some deliveries to Australia.

    Unfortunately, the government was heavily reliant on the AstraZeneca vaccine, which was found, in rare cases, to lead to blood clots in younger people.

    Despite all this, Australia ultimately achieved high vaccination rates. By the end of December 2021, more than 94% of the population aged 16 and over had received at least one dose.

    This was a significant public health achievement and saved thousands of lives.

    But over the past couple of years, Australia’s initially strong vaccine uptake has been waning.

    The Australian Technical Advisory Group on Immunisation recommends booster doses for vulnerable groups annually or twice annually. However, only 30% of people aged 75 and over (for whom a booster is recommended every six months) have had a booster dose in the past six months.

    There are several lessons to be learned from the COVID vaccine rollout for any future pandemic, though it’s not entirely clear whether they are being heeded.

    For example, several manufacturers have developed updated COVID vaccines based on the JN.1 subvariant. But reports indicate the government will only be purchasing the Pfizer JN.1 booster. This doesn’t seem like the best approach to shore up vaccine supply.

    Adrian Esterman, University of South Australia

    Mode of transmission

    Nearly five years since SARS-CoV-2 (the virus that causes COVID) first emerged, we now know airborne transmission plays a far greater role than we originally thought.

    In contrast, the risk of SARS-CoV-2 being transmitted via surfaces is likely to be low, and perhaps effectively non-existent in many situations.

    Early in the pandemic, the role contaminated surfaces and inanimate objects played in COVID transmission was overestimated. The main reason we got this wrong, at least initially, was that in the absence of any direct experience with SARS-CoV-2, we extrapolated what we believed to be true for other respiratory viruses. This was understandable, but it proved to be inadequate for predicting how SARS-CoV-2 would behave.

    One of the main consequences of overestimating the role of surface transmission was that it resulted in a lot of unnecessary anxiety and the adoption of what can only be viewed in retrospect as over-the-top cleaning practices. Remember the teams of people who walked the streets wiping down traffic light poles? How about the concern over reusable coffee cups?

    Considerable resources that could have been better invested elsewhere were directed towards disinfecting surfaces. This also potentially distracted our focus from other preventive measures that were likely to have been more effective, such as wearing masks.

    We now understand COVID spreads predominantly through the air.
    Kate Trifo/Pexels

    The focus on surface transmission was amplified by a number of studies published early in the pandemic that documented the survival of SARS-CoV-2 for long periods on surfaces. However, these were conducted in the lab with little similarity to real-world conditions. In particular, the amounts of virus placed on surfaces were greater than what people would likely encounter outside the lab. This inflated viral survival times and therefore the perception of risk.

    The emphasis on surface transmission early in the pandemic ultimately proved to be a miscalculation. It highlights the challenges in understanding how a new virus spreads.

    Hassan Vally, Deakin University

    National unity

    Initially, Commonwealth, state and territory leaders were relatively united in their response to the COVID pandemic. The establishment of the National Cabinet in March 2020 indicated a commitment to consensus-based public health policy. Meanwhile, different jurisdictions came together to deliver a range of measures aimed at supporting businesses and workers affected by COVID restrictions.

    But as the pandemic continued, tensions gave way to deeper ideological fractures between jurisdictions and individuals. The issues of vaccine mandates, border closures and lockdowns all created fragmentation between governments, and among experts.

    The blame game began between and within jurisdictions. For example, the politicisation of quarantine regulations on cruise ships revealed disunity. School closures, on which the Commonwealth and state and territory governments took different positions, also generated controversy.

    These and other instances of polarisation undermined the intent of the newly established National Cabinet.

    The COVID pandemic showed us that disunity across the country threatens the collective work needed for an effective response in the face of emergencies.

    The COVID response inquiry, due to release its results soon, will hopefully help us work toward national uniform legislation that may benefit Australia in the event of any future pandemics.

    This doesn’t necessarily mean identical legislation across the country – this won’t always be appropriate. But a cohesive, long-term approach is crucial to ensure the best outcomes for the Australian federation in its entirety.

    Guzyal Hill and Kim M Caudwell, Charles Darwin University

    This article is part of a series on the next pandemic.

    Adrian Esterman receives funding from the NHMRC, MRFF and ARC.

    Michael Toole receives funding from the National Health and Medical Research Council.

    Steven McGloughlin works with the Australian Living Evidence Collaboration and is a consultant for the World Health Organisation Health Emergencies Program.

    Tari Turner receives funding from MRFF; NHMRC; the Victorian, WA and Commonwealth governments; and philanthropy.

    Guzyal Hill, Hassan Vally, and Kim M Caudwell do not work for, consult, own shares in or receive funding from any company or organisation that would benefit from this article, and have disclosed no relevant affiliations beyond their academic appointment.

    – ref. Lessons for the next pandemic: where did Australia go right and wrong in responding to COVID? – https://theconversation.com/lessons-for-the-next-pandemic-where-did-australia-go-right-and-wrong-in-responding-to-covid-239819

    MIL OSI Analysis – EveningReport.nz –

  • MIL-Evening Report: The government spent twice what it needed to on economic support during COVID, modelling shows

    Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Chris Murphy, Visiting Fellow, Economics (modelling), Australian National University

    ChristieCooper/Shutterstock

    The independent inquiry into the government’s COVID response is due to report on October 25.

    As part of its investigation into the government’s economic responses, I briefed it on the findings of my economic modelling, using the sort of model I helped design for the Australian Treasury and consulting firms including Econtech and Independent Economics, specially customised for this study.

    I found that government responses such as JobKeeper and the Jobseeker Supplement were initially successful. They reduced the peak rate of unemployment by two percentage points, or by more if we count workers who are stood down as employed.

    But they lingered too long, ultimately providing $2 of compensation for every $1 of private income lost to COVID.

    Government support was essential

    Some parts of the economy were deeply affected by the COVID shutdowns which began in early 2020, others much less so.

    It is widely accepted that the best response to that (unusual) circumstance is to replace the income those workers and businesses lose. This means, for example, when movie theatres close, the government should replace the incomes of their workers.

    This has two benefits. The first is to allow movie theatre workers to maintain their normal spending, stopping the downturn spreading to unrestricted industries. The second is to ensure movie theatre workers don’t have to bear an unfair share of the cost of measures put in place to protect everyone’s health.

    Around one sixth of the Australian economy was severely restricted by government measures in the early months of COVID.

    This made measures such as JobKeeper, the Boosting Cash Flow for Employers program and the JobSeeker Supplement appropriate.

    Too much support for some, too little for others

    The government spent $144 billion on these three programs, and my modelling finds the total was about right to compensate for the early losses of income.
    But the pattern of compensation was wide of the mark, with a mix of overcompensation and undercompensation.

    JobKeeper was designed to guarantee workers a minimum income rather than compensate them for lost income. This meant typical full-time workers were undercompensated while typical part-time workers were overcompensated.

    For businesses, the compensation for lost profits depended on workers being active, which meant the firms that lost the most because they had suspended their entire operations got no compensation for losing their entire profits even though some of their expenses continued.

    Better programs were put in place in 2021 when the Delta wave of COVID struck. A COVID disaster payment more accurately compensated workers for lost hours, and programs such as NSW JobSaver more accurately targeted lost profits.

    Extra support for the entire economy wasn’t needed

    In principle, well-designed compensation for the parts of the economy that were actually shut down would have been enough to support the rest of the economy, but despite this, the government also announced broader supports aimed at the entire economy.

    Among them were bringing forward the so-called Stage 2 tax cuts and allowing businesses to immediately expense equipment.

    These general stimulus measures almost doubled the size of stimulus from $219 billion to $428 billion. Besides being large and unnecessary, most of the general stimulus was delivered late, after the worst of the pandemic was over.

    How it could have been done better

    I have modelled what could have happened if the government had only spent on the health measures that were clearly warranted and had limited its compensation to income actually lost at the time it was lost.

    This so-called shorter stimulus scenario also includes a more usual response to economic recovery by the Reserve Bank in which it began lifting interest rates one year earlier, in May 2021 instead of May 2022.

    In the shorter stimulus scenario, the Reserve Bank’s cash rate would by now be 2.85% instead of 4.35% because of lower inflation. Equally, in two or three years interest rates are similar in both scenarios once the economy has stabilised.

    Australia’s unemployment rate would be higher than it is now at about 5.1% instead of 4.2% as it glides towards a sustainable equilibrium rather than having been pushed below it.

    This glide path keeps inflation lower by avoiding a boom and bust and results in the same endpoint for unemployment.

    Inflation would have peaked much lower at about 5% instead of about 7%.

    About 1.4% percentage points of the reduction would have been due to better fiscal (spending and taxing) policy and about 0.7 points due to better management of interest rates.

    In addition, the government would have saved about $209 billion in avoidable spending and government debt.

    Nevertheless, even if the government had limited its response to the more targeted measures modelled in the shorter stimulus scenario, inflation would have reached 5% and interest rates and government debt would have still climbed, but by less.

    Hindsight can help

    The government’s responses to COVID were developed quickly at a time when no one knew what was going to happen, which makes some overcompensation understandable.

    But this doesn’t mean we shouldn’t examine what happened in order to work out how it could have been done better.

    Australia will be hit by future pandemics and pandemic-like crises, which means it’s important to learn from our mistakes. Next time the government should concentrate on replacing income where and when it is lost.

    Chris Murphy assisted the COVID-19 Response Inquiry.

    – ref. The government spent twice what it needed to on economic support during COVID, modelling shows – https://theconversation.com/the-government-spent-twice-what-it-needed-to-on-economic-support-during-covid-modelling-shows-240999

    MIL OSI Analysis – EveningReport.nz –

  • MIL-Evening Report: 100 years of surrealism: how a French writer inspired by the avant-garde changed the world forever

    Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Alexander Howard, Senior Lecturer, Discipline of English and Writing, University of Sydney

    Andre Breton

    A century ago, French writer André Breton published a manifesto that would go on to become one of the most influential artistic texts of the 20th century. Breton’s Manifesto of Surrealism launched a movement that transformed not only visual art, but also literature, theatre and film.

    Surrealism drew on developments in psychology to herald a revolutionary new way of doing, seeing and being. It is, as art critic Jonathan Jones once noted, “the only modern movement that changed the way we talk and think about life”.

    Surrealism also fundamentally changed the way we make art. Its cultural impact and legacy can be felt in, to pluck three random examples, the cinematic dreamscapes of David Lynch, the lyrical cut-ups of Bob Dylan and the monumental sculptures of Louise Bourgeois.

    The term itself has entered our everyday lexicon. By the same token, some question its significance and aesthetic merits. Moreover, to borrow a couple of rhetorical questions posed by Mark Polizzotti in a book marking the movement’s centenary: “Does Surrealism still matter? Has it ever mattered?”

    These questions are hardly new. They’ve been around since the movement’s inception – and continue to be asked in our historical moment of catastrophe. As Polizzotti writes:

    young people of the 21st century could hardly be faulted for wondering what a bunch of eccentric writers and artists showing off their dream states could have to do with such pressing concerns as social and racial injustice, a faltering job market, gross economic inequities, the decimation of our civil liberties, questions of gender identity and equality, environmental devastation, education reform, or, once again […] the spectre of world war.

    The answer, Polizzotti points out, is simple: “Surrealism engaged with all of these crises.”

    While Surrealism started as a literary movement, it quickly evolved into a formidable platform for critiquing dominant sociopolitical inequalities and systems of oppression.

    In both word and deed, the surrealists opposed warmongering and colonial expansion. They railed against religious dogma and championed the freedom of sexual expression.

    Breton perhaps put it best in 1935. “From where we stand,” he said, while tipping his hat to Karl Marx, “we maintain that the activity of interpreting the world must continue to be linked with the activity of changing the world.”

    WWI and meeting Jacques Vaché

    Born in Normandy in 1896, André Breton was the only child of a policeman and a seamstress.

    While studying medicine, Breton developed an interest in mental illness. He also had a passion for poetry. At an early age, he started exchanging letters with the prominent avant-gardist Guillaume Apollinaire, who coined the term “surrealism” in 1917.

    André Breton, a founder of the surrealist movement, died in Paris in 1966.
    Wikimedia

    Breton’s interests were disrupted when he was conscripted into the French army in 1914. During World War I, he served as a stretcher bearer, dealing firsthand with shellshocked soldiers. He also worked as a nurse in Nantes, France, where he met a wounded Jacques Vaché.

    According to art historian Susan Laxton, the dandyish Vaché was in equal measure “disdainful and deeply cynical”, seeming to live “in a perpetual state of insubordination”. His unconventional approach to life and creativity had a profound impact on Breton’s thinking about Surrealism.

    Vaché had little patience for most writers and artists. He was, however, a big fan of Alfred Jarry – best known for his scandalous drama Ubu Roi (1896). Jarry is frequently cited as an influence on Dadaism, an anarchic art movement that was developed in Europe in 1915 and led by Tristan Tzara.

    The Dadaists thumbed their noses at convention and embraced chaos, irrationality and spontaneity. As Tzara explained, Dadaism was vehemently opposed to “greasy objectivity, and harmony, the science that finds everything in order”.

    Breton was impressed. Keen to establish his credentials as an artist, he set out to build his own avant-garde coalition.

    The rise of automatism

    Enlisting Louis Aragon and Philippe Soupault, Breton set up Littérature. Running from 1919 to 1924, this review published many key surrealist works, including excerpts of Breton and Soupault’s book The Magnetic Fields (1920).

    Drawing on Sigmund Freud’s concept of the unconscious, this groundbreaking collaboration marked the first sustained use of a practice called surrealist automatism.

    The Magnetic Fields was written in secret over the course of a single spring week in 1919. The guidelines Breton and Soupault established for themselves were simple. They would engage in writing sessions that could last for several hours at a time – often inducing a state of shared euphoria – without any chance for reflection or correction.

    The aim was to bypass rational modes of thinking and tap directly into the imagination, thereby producing a revolutionary new kind of poetry. In the words of art historian David Hopkins, this practice “was predicated on the conviction that the speed of writing is equivalent to the speed of thought”.

    Following this breakthrough, Breton and the surrealists continued to refine the technique, pushing it further into new, untrammelled realms of creative possibility. With the subsequent publication of the Manifesto of Surrealism, Breton solidified the movement’s core principles. In it, he offers a definition:

    Surrealism is based on the belief in the superior reality of certain forms of previously neglected associations, in the omnipotence of dreams, in the disinterested play of thought. It tends to ruin once and for all all other psychic mechanisms and to substitute itself for them in solving all the principle problems of life.

    In other words, Surrealism was not just an artistic endeavour, but a philosophical stance that sought to radically rethink experience and existence.

    One example of early surrealist filmmaking.

    Elsewhere in the manifesto, Breton introduces the key surrealist concept of “the marvellous”. For the surrealists, the marvellous could be found in poems, paintings, photographs and everyday objects. It was experienced as a shock or jolt, a moment of recognition that allowed one to transcend the ordinary and glimpse the sublime hidden within the apparently mundane.

    By rejecting traditional modes of understanding and embracing the unconscious, the surrealists attempted to upend the established order of things. They viewed automatism and the marvellous as ways to access deeper truths, free from the constraints of rationality which they believed had long dominated Western thought.

    A movement transcending borders

    The events that followed the publication of Breton’s Manifesto of Surrealism supported his claim, made during a 1934 lecture, that the movement had “spread like wildfire, on pursuing its course, not only in art but in life”.

    Surrealism’s public profile expanded internationally, along with its adherents. Luis Buñuel, Frida Kahlo, Aimé Césaire, Lee Miller, Salvador Dalí and Leonor Fini are just some of the important figures who embraced the movement.

    Salvador Dalí’s 1931 painting The Persistence of Memory is one of the most famous surrealist artworks.
    Salvador Dali

    And as the raft of high-profile exhibitions currently taking place confirms, the surrealist spirit lives on, decades after the movement wound down. Unabated, the search for the marvellous continues.

    Alexander Howard does not work for, consult, own shares in or receive funding from any company or organisation that would benefit from this article, and has disclosed no relevant affiliations beyond their academic appointment.

    – ref. 100 years of surrealism: how a French writer inspired by the avant-garde changed the world forever – https://theconversation.com/100-years-of-surrealism-how-a-french-writer-inspired-by-the-avant-garde-changed-the-world-forever-237464

    MIL OSI Analysis – EveningReport.nz –

  • MIL-Evening Report: Giving First Nations names to our bird species is a lot more complex – and contentious – than you might think

    Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Stephen Garnett, Professor of Conservation and Sustainable Livelihoods, Charles Darwin University

    Shuterstock

    First Peoples’ names for animals and plants undeniably enrich Australian culture. But to date, few names taken from a language of Australia’s First Peoples have been widely applied to birds.

    About 2,000 Australian bird species and subspecies occur in Australia and its territories. However, just 35 of these have common names taken directly from First Peoples’ languages. These names are variations of just a handful of First Peoples words: galah, gang-gang, budgerigar, currawong, brolga, kookaburra, chowchilla, Kalkadoon and mukarrthippi.

    By contrast, many more bird names promote colonial power, by memorialising (mostly male) foreign explorers, naturalists, administrators or royalty – some of whom never even visited Australia.

    There is growing interest in the use of First Peoples’ words, as a global movement to decolonise the common names of species gathers pace. But as we and our colleagues explain in a paper published today, the practice is far more complex, and sometimes contentious, than it might appear.

    Budgerigar is one of eight First Peoples words used for Australian bird names.
    Shutterstock

    A bird by many names

    In Aoteoroa/New Zealand, many birds are known by their Māori names. Kiwis have never been known by any other name, and nor have kākāpō or kākā.

    It seems natural to assume using Indigenous names for our flora would help recognise First Peoples’ rights and knowledge, and their important role in Australian bird conservation.

    But we should proceed with both caution and respect.

    More than 250 First Peoples languages exist in Australia. This is unlike New Zealand where there is one Māori language (though many dialects).

    Most Australian birds occur on Country of more than one First Peoples’ group, and each group is likely to have at least one name for each species.

    The galah is a good example. For the first 100 years after Europeans arrived, naturalists most commonly used the name rose-breasted cockatoo.

    Gradually, however, the name used by the Yuwaarlaraay of north-western New South Wales – gilaa – took hold. In 1926, the Royal Australasian Ornithologists Union, now BirdLife Australia, adopted a variant of this, galah, as the official Australian name for the species.

    Since then, galahs have become deeply embedded into the national psyche. When Home and Away character Alf Stewart calls someone a “flamin’ galah” most Australians knows he is being uncomplimentary.

    Similarly, there could be no mistaking which species a survey respondent was referring to when they stated their favourite bird was a “glar”.

    But in the Kimberley region, the Gooniyandi peoples call galahs girlinygirliny. In the NSW Riverina, the Wemba-Wemba name is wilek-wilek.

    Galahs are known by myriad names.
    Shutterstock

    Likewise, the white-throated grasswren is known by the name yirlinkirrkkirr or yirrindjirrin in the Kunwinjku dialect. It’s also known as djirnidjirnirrinjken in the Kune dialect, from the Bininj Kunwok language group. The Jawoyn name for the same species is nyirrnyirr.

    The situation is even more complicated for birds shared with other countries.

    These multiple words for a species mean governments and other organisations could be seen as favouring one group over another if they recognise a particular First Peoples’ name.

    So sometimes it’s best to keep the English name, even though First Peoples’ names exist. This was the case with the endangered golden-shouldered parrot, known by Queensland’s Olkola people as alwal.

    The bird is highly significant in the Olkola creation story. However, a team working on the species’ recovery, chaired by an Olkola representative, decided to stick with the English name because neighbouring language groups refer to the bird by other names.

    Sadly, the parrots themselves no longer occur on the Country of some First Peoples, and only the name of the bird remains.

    Golden-shouldered parrots no longer occur on the Country of some First Peoples.
    Shutetrstock

    Protecting the secret and sacred

    The words First Peoples use to describe species may have special cultural significance.

    First Peoples’ names for birds, and other species, are often built around the birds’ relationships with people, kin and with Country. For example, the name may describe:

    • a connection between a person and a species
    • a group of people’s relationship with each other which is related to a shared ancestor
    • relationships between people and a sacred site or Dreaming track.

    Sometimes the names have sacred or secret meanings – and these can change with the place or with the speaker.

    For these reasons, First Peoples may not want names from their language to be publicly available or used in official documents without their consent.

    Permission is key

    There are cases where English names should and can be replaced by a First Peoples’ name.

    For example, in 2020 the bird now known as the mukarrthippi grasswren was recognised as a separate subspecies and needed its own common name. Australia’s rarest bird, it is known from just a few sand dunes on Country of the Ngiyampaa people in western New South Wales.

    Ngiyampaa elders together settled on the name mukarrthippi. It is a combination of Ngiyampaa words – mukarr or spinifex (the spiny grass in which the grasswrens live) and thippi which means little bird.

    Across Australia, 14 other bird subspecies have only ever been known from Country of a single First Peoples group. This means conversations with elders could be had about ascribing a First Peoples’ name to these birds.

    In other cases, language users from multiple First Peoples groups could decide together on a name.

    Where First Peoples offer alternative names for animal and plant species, governments should embrace the change. But no new First Peoples’ names should be adopted for species without explicit permission of the speakers of the language.

    Stephen Garnett receives funding from the Australian Research Council. He is affiliated with BirdLife Australia where he is a board member.

    Sophie is a proud Alywarr woman currently working at CSIRO

    – ref. Giving First Nations names to our bird species is a lot more complex – and contentious – than you might think – https://theconversation.com/giving-first-nations-names-to-our-bird-species-is-a-lot-more-complex-and-contentious-than-you-might-think-238432

    MIL OSI Analysis – EveningReport.nz –

  • MIL-OSI Global: Why FEMA’s disaster relief gets political − especially when hurricane season and election season collide

    Source: The Conversation – USA – By Jennifer Selin, Associate Professor of Law, Arizona State University

    President Joe Biden delivers remarks on the effects of Hurricane Milton on Oct. 10, 2024, in Washington, D.C. Anna Moneymaker/Getty Images

    Rumors and lies about government responses to natural disasters are not new. Politics, misinformation and blame-shifting have long surrounded government response efforts.

    When Hurricane Harvey hit Houston in 2017, for example, rumors and misinformation both originated from and were spread by government, news and individual user accounts on social media. And after Hurricane Sandy in 2012, rumors about the storm were so widespread that even CNN’s live coverage of the event was inaccurate.

    Those rumors don’t usually come from former presidents. Yet in the wake of hurricanes Helene and Milton, former President Donald Trump spread falsehoods about the federal government’s response to the disaster. Misinformation on the topic became so widespread that the Federal Emergency Management Agency, known as FEMA, set up a webpage to debunk the rumors spawned by Trump.

    President Joe Biden responded angrily, calling the falsehoods that Trump and his followers spread “reckless, irresponsible” and “disturbing.” He also suggested Trump’s claims undermined the rescue and recovery work being done by local, state and federal authorities.

    Disaster relief often becomes political because so many people are affected – and because there is a lot of media coverage surrounding hurricanes, floods and other major weather events. Additionally, relief requires a lot of money and coordination by high-profile elected officials.

    The rhetoric around federal emergency management is made only more complicated because most people do not know that much about the federal law that governs disaster relief. Indeed, even state and local officials find navigating the details of the law and accompanying regulations difficult.

    And finally, the law’s design and the timing of hurricane season can lead to politicization. Elected officials – politicians – are always involved in coordinating government response efforts, adding a layer of politics to disaster relief. The fact that hurricane and election seasons coincide only heightens the politics of such relief.

    Former President Donald Trump saying falsely that the Biden administration “stole a billion dollars” meant for disaster relief and used it to help immigrants.

    Explaining government responses to natural disasters

    The Disaster Relief Act of 1974, as amended and now known as the Stafford Act, is the law that governs how the federal government responds to natural disasters and other emergencies.

    But the act does not guarantee federal assistance to the communities affected by hurricanes or other natural disasters.

    Instead, the governor of an affected state or the chief executive of an affected tribal government must ask the president for a disaster declaration. The request can be made before or after a storm hits but must show that the disaster is of such a severity and magnitude that the state, local or tribal governments cannot respond on their own.

    Responding to such requests, Biden issued declarations covering eight states before and after Helene. He also issued a declaration for the Seminole Tribe and the state of Florida in response to Milton.

    After the president issues a declaration, the federal government can begin to assist state, local and tribal governments. This includes coordinating all disaster relief assistance – from evacuations to recovery – provided by federal agencies, private organizations such as the Red Cross, and state and local governments.

    Federal assistance can be financial or logistical. It covers everything from help repairing roads and restoring utility services to providing assistance and services, such as temporary housing, legal services and crisis counseling, to the people who have been affected by the disaster.

    The number of federal agencies and employees involved in disaster relief is astounding. For example, thousands of federal personnel from FEMA, the Coast Guard, Army Corps of Engineers, Environmental Protection Agency and the departments of Defense, Energy, Health and Human Services, Housing and Urban Development, and Transportation are helping respond to Helene and Milton.

    Several state and local officials also play key roles after a disaster declaration. Each state’s governor or tribe’s chief executive serves as the leading official for coordination of state and federal efforts. That person also designates an officer to serve as a liaison between the federal government and the state or tribe. And in each affected community, a local elected official leads the response on the ground. This is usually a city or town’s mayor.

    Federalism in action

    Implementation of the Stafford Act requires cooperative, healthy relationships between the president, federal agencies and state, local and tribal governments.

    When done well, government disaster response is a prime example of what’s called “federalism” in action. Federalism involves the sharing of power between the national and state governments. The framers of the United States Constitution created this system of shared power so that the national government could solve coordination and capacity problems among the states, and the state governments could respond to the nuances of local circumstances.

    In response to state government requests in the wake of Hurricane Helene, for example, Biden directed federal efforts to help those most affected. The federal government’s response has so far included working with over 450 state and local officials to ensure that those affected by the hurricane have everything from housing assistance to financial support for medical and funeral expenses.

    Politics in the mix

    The very things that the framers designed the federalist constitutional system to do, however, can create opportunities for political manipulation. The Stafford Act creates a system of emergency management that is highly decentralized and responsive to local needs.

    But that decentralization also means that, because of their different perspectives, the officials involved in disaster response prioritize different things, which can lead to conflict.

    For example, various officials involved in the response to Hurricane Helene have advocated for federal resources such as money and personnel to go toward restoring utilities, law enforcement, fire, health, communications and transportation services. How can the national government possibly choose between all of these necessary services?

    Everything is made more complicated because, as studies have shown, on average, the officials in charge of making such decisions – elected officials and their appointees – have less experience in government than the career civil servants who work on a daily basis with the people affected by natural disasters.

    As a result, the Stafford Act’s decision to place elected officials and their appointees in charge of emergency management could reduce the quality of government response.

    Members of the FEMA Urban Search and Rescue task force search a flood-damaged area in Asheville, N.C., in the aftermath of Hurricane Helene on Oct. 4, 2024.
    Mario Tama/Getty Images

    Debating size and role of government

    Elected officials’ different political leanings add another wrinkle. Debates over disaster response often reflect larger political debates such as those over the size and role of government.

    The history of the Stafford Act provides an illustrative example. Traditionally, disaster relief was the responsibility of state and local government. But a series of natural disasters, including the Alaska earthquake in 1964 and hurricanes Betsy in 1965 and Camille in 1969, were so large in scale that the federal government had to step in and help.

    In the aftermath of Camille, accusations of racial discrimination in the relief process and partisan squabbling over who was to blame for the ineffectiveness of the government’s response to the disaster mounted. Media and congressional attention on government mismanagement of the relief effort created a window for the expansion of the federal government’s role in the process and ultimately led to the passage of the first version of the Stafford Act.

    Fast-forward 35 years and many of the same issues – racial discrimination, government mismanagement and politicization of relief – arose in 2005 in the aftermath of Hurricane Katrina in New Orleans. Media and congressional attention led to legislation that amended the Stafford Act and restructured FEMA and how the federal government responds to state and tribal requests for assistance.

    Trump’s lies are from the same playbook – false claims about money being diverted to migrants and that relief efforts are being used only to help areas where Democrats live.

    Yet the devastation left by Helene and Milton do raise questions about local and federal coordination in preparation for and response to natural disasters and has led to calls for Congress to pass reforms to improve equity, efficiency and effectiveness in government responses to natural disasters. Whether this reform is possible in such a contentious political climate remains an open question.

    Jennifer L. Selin has received funding and/or support for her research on the executive branch from the Administrative Conference of the United States. The views in this piece are those of the author and do not represent the position of the Administrative Conference or the federal government.

    – ref. Why FEMA’s disaster relief gets political − especially when hurricane season and election season collide – https://theconversation.com/why-femas-disaster-relief-gets-political-especially-when-hurricane-season-and-election-season-collide-241092

    MIL OSI – Global Reports –

  • MIL-Evening Report: This year’s Nobel prize in economics awarded to team that examined what makes some countries rich and others poor

    Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By John Hawkins, Senior Lecturer, Canberra School of Politics, Economics and Society, University of Canberra

    Daron Acemoglu, Simon Johnson and James A. Robinson Nobel Prize Outreach

    The 2024 Nobel Prize in Economics has been awarded to three US-based economists who examined the advantages of democracy and the rule of law, and why they are strong in some countries and not others.

    Daron Acemoglu is a Turkish-American economist at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology, Simon Johnson is a British economist at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology and James Robinson is a British-American economist at the University of Chicago.

    The citation awards the prize “for studies of how institutions are formed and affect prosperity”, making it an award for research into politics and sociology as much as economics.

    At a time when democracy appears to be losing support, the Nobel committee has rewarded work that demonstrates that, on average, democratic countries governed by the rule of law have wealthier citizens.


    Johan Jarnestad/Nobel Prize Outreach

    The committee says the richest 20% of the world’s countries are now around 30 times richer than the poorest 20%. Moreover, the income gap is persistent; although the poorest countries have become richer, they are not catching up with the most prosperous.

    Acemoglu, Johnson and Robinson have connected this difference to differences in institutions, and they find this derives from differences in the behaviour of European colonisers in different parts of the world centuries ago.

    The denser the indigenous population, the greater the resistance that could be expected and the fewer European settlers moved there. On the other hand, the large indigenous population – once defeated – ofered lucrative opportunities for cheap labour.

    This meant the institutions focused on benefiting a small elite at the expense of the wider population. There were no elections and limited political rights.



    Read more:
    Sidelined no longer, Claudia Goldin wins the 2023 Nobel Prize in Economics for examining why gender pay gaps persist

    In the places that were more sparsely populated and offered less resistance, more colonisers settled and established inclusive institutions that incentivised hard work and led to demands for political rights.

    The committee says, paradoxically, this means the parts of the colonised world that were the most prosperous around 500 years ago are now relatively poor. Prosperity was greater in Mexico under the Aztecs than it was at the same time in the part of North America that is now called Canada and the United States.


    Johan Jarnestad/Nobel Prize Outreach

    More so than in previous years, this year’s winners have written for the public as well as the profession. Acemoglu and Robinson are probably best known for their 2013 best-seller Why Nations Fail: The Origins of Power, Prosperity and Poverty.(It has pictures and no equations.)

    Last year Acemoglu and Johnson published Power and Progress: Our Thousand-Year Struggle Over Technology and Prosperity.

    In May this year Acemoglu wrote about artificial intelligence, putting forward the controversial position that its effects on productivity would be “nontrivial but modest”, which is another way of saying “tiny”. Its effect on wellbeing might be even smaller and it was unlikely to reduce inequality.

    Royal Swedish Academy of Sciences.

    This year’s award makes the cohort of Nobel winners a little less US-dominated.

    Although all three are currently working at American universities, Acemoglu is from Turkey and the others are British. There is even an Australian link. Robinson taught economics at The University of Melbourne between 1992 and 1995.

    Winning the prize is life-changing for more reasons than the 11 million Swedish kroner (about $A 1.5 million) the winners share. As Nobel winners, they will have a higher profile. Their opinions will be accorded more respect by most but not all.

    Sixteen former winners recently issued a widely reported statement saying they were “deeply concerned about the risks of a second Trump administration for the US economy”. Rather than address their arguments, the Trump campaign called them “worthless out-of-touch Nobel prize winners”.

    The new winners might get the same treatment. Johnson has critiqued Trump’s proposal to raise tariffs. Acemoglu has called Trump “a threat to democracy”.

    John Hawkins does not work for, consult, own shares in or receive funding from any company or organisation that would benefit from this article, and has disclosed no relevant affiliations beyond their academic appointment.

    – ref. This year’s Nobel prize in economics awarded to team that examined what makes some countries rich and others poor – https://theconversation.com/this-years-nobel-prize-in-economics-awarded-to-team-that-examined-what-makes-some-countries-rich-and-others-poor-240890

    MIL OSI Analysis – EveningReport.nz –

  • MIL-Evening Report: Albanese government has surcharges in its sights, as it pursues the votes of consumers

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

    The Albanese government has announced a first step in what it says is a crackdown on excessive card surcharges and threatened a ban on surcharges for debit cards from early 2026.

    In the latest of its cost-of-living measures, the government will provide $2.1 million for the Australian Competition and Consumer Commission “to tackle excessive surcharges”.

    The government also says it is prepared to ban debit card surcharges from January 1 2026, subject to further work by the Reserve Bank and “safeguards to ensure both small businesses and consumers can benefit from lower costs”.

    The government is not considering a ban on credit card surcharges, although the ACCC scrutiny will cover both debit and credit cards.

    The bank is reviewing merchant card payment costs and surcharging. Its first consultation paper will be released on Tuesday.

    The government said in a statement: “the declining use of cash and the rise of electronic payments means that more Australians are getting slugged by surcharges, even when they use their own money”.

    “The RBA’s review is an important step to reduce the costs small businesses face when processing payments. We want to ease costs for consumers without added costs for small businesses, or unintended consequences for the broader economy,” the statement from the prime minister, treasurer and assistant treasurer said.

    Funding for the ACCC “will enable the consumer watchdog to crack down on illegal and unfair surcharging practices and increase education and compliance activities”.

    The Reserve Bank required card providers such as Visa and Mastercard to remove their no‐surcharge rules in 2003 allowing retailers to directly pass on the costs of accepting card payments.

    With the spread of payments by card, surcharges have become ubiquitous.

    In a parliamentary hearing in August the head of the National Australia Bank Andrew Irvine complained about having to pay a 10% surcharge when he bought a cup of coffee in Sydney.

    He told an inquiry it was “outrageous”, saying he didn’t like “the lack of transparency and lack of consistency”.

    The ACCC regulates surcharges and can require merchants prove a surcharge is justified. It can take merchants to court to enforce the regulations governing surcharges, and has done so. But many charges are still higher than they are supposed to be.

    The European Union bans surcharges.

    Treasurer Jim Chalmers said: “Consumers shouldn’t be punished for using cards or digital payments, and at the same time, small businesses shouldn’t have to pay hefty fees just to get paid themselves”.

    The total cost to Australian consumers of surcharges is disputed – the RBA review will look at the likely cost.

    Michelle Grattan does not work for, consult, own shares in or receive funding from any company or organisation that would benefit from this article, and has disclosed no relevant affiliations beyond their academic appointment.

    – ref. Albanese government has surcharges in its sights, as it pursues the votes of consumers – https://theconversation.com/albanese-government-has-surcharges-in-its-sights-as-it-pursues-the-votes-of-consumers-241251

    MIL OSI Analysis – EveningReport.nz –

  • MIL-Evening Report: Do people trust AI on financial decisions? We found it really depends on who they are

    Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Gertjan Verdickt, Lecturer, Business School, University of Auckland, Waipapa Taumata Rau

    When it comes to investing and planning your financial future, are you more willing to trust a person or a computer?

    This isn’t a hypothetical question any more.

    Big banks and investment firms are using artificial intelligence (AI) to help make financial predictions and give advice to clients.

    Morgan Stanley uses AI to mitigate the potential biases of its financial analysts when it comes to stock market predictions. And one of the world’s biggest investment banks, Goldman Sachs, recently announced it was trialling the use of AI to help write computer code, though the bank declined to say which division it was being used in. Other companies are using AI to predict which stocks might go up or down.

    But do people actually trust these AI advisers with their money?

    Our new research examines this question. We found it really depends on who you are and your prior knowledge of AI and how it works.

    Despite the growing sophistication of artificial intelligence, investors prefer human expertise when it comes to stock market predictions, according to a new study.

    Trust differences

    To examine the question of trust when it comes to using AI for investment, we asked 3,600 people in the United States to imagine they were getting advice about the stock market.

    In these imagined scenarios, some people got advice from human experts. Others got advice from AI. And some got advice from humans working together with AI.

    In general, people were less likely to follow advice if they knew AI was involved in making it. They seemed to trust the human experts more.

    But the distrust of AI wasn’t universal. Some groups of people were more open to AI advice than others.

    For example, women were more likely to trust AI advice than men (by 7.5%). People who knew more about AI were more willing to listen to the advice it provided (by 10.1%). And politics mattered – people who supported the Democratic Party were more open to AI advice than others (by 7.3%).

    We also found people were more likely to trust simpler AI methods.

    When we told our research participants the AI was using something called “ordinary least squares” (a basic mathematics technique in which a straight line is used to estimate the relationship between two variables), they were more likely to trust it than when we said it was using “deep learning” (a more complex AI method).

    This might be because people tend to trust things they understand. Much like how a person might trust a simple calculator more than a complex scientific instrument they have never seen before.

    Trust in the future of finance

    As AI becomes more common in the financial world, companies will need to find ways to improve levels of trust.

    This might involve teaching people more about how the AI systems work, being clear about when and how AI is being used, and finding the right balance between human experts and AI.

    Furthermore, we need to tailor how AI advice is presented to different groups of people and show how well AI performs over time compared to human experts.

    The future of finance might involve a lot more AI, but only if people learn to trust it. It’s a bit like learning to trust self-driving cars. The technology might be great, but if people don’t feel comfortable using it, it won’t catch on.

    Our research shows that building this trust isn’t just about making better AI. It’s about understanding how people think and feel about AI. It’s about bridging the gap between what AI can do and what people believe it can do.

    As we move forward, we’ll need to keep studying how people react to AI in finance. We’ll need to find ways to make AI not just a powerful tool, but a trusted advisor that people feel comfortable relying on for important financial decisions.

    The world of finance is changing fast, and AI is a big part of that change. But in the end, it’s still people who decide where to put their money. Understanding how to build trust between humans and AI will be key to shaping the future of finance.

    Gertjan Verdickt does not work for, consult, own shares in or receive funding from any company or organisation that would benefit from this article, and has disclosed no relevant affiliations beyond their academic appointment.

    – ref. Do people trust AI on financial decisions? We found it really depends on who they are – https://theconversation.com/do-people-trust-ai-on-financial-decisions-we-found-it-really-depends-on-who-they-are-240900

    MIL OSI Analysis – EveningReport.nz –

  • MIL-OSI Global: Thatcher, Blair and a brief history of class in British politics – podcast

    Source: The Conversation – UK – By Laura Hood, Host, Know Your Place podcast, The Conversation

    When Tony Blair came to power in 1997 as the first Labour prime minister in a generation, his government became associated with the phrase “we’re all middle class now”.

    In the second part of Know Your Place: what happened to class in British politics, a podcast series from The Conversation Documentaries, we look back at a century of class in British politics to understand why Blair’s decision to move Labour away from the working class was such a watershed moment.

    The British Labour party was created in 1900 by trade unionists who wanted to give a voice to working class people. At the time, the class structure was rigid and only property-owning men over the age of 21 could vote.

    But the rupture of the first world war ushered in universal adult suffrage, and with it, says Mark Garnett, senior lecturer in politics at Lancaster University, a feeling among opponents of the Labour party that it would eventually become the main electoral force. He says:

    When we get to the middle part of the 20th century, being a supporter of the Labour party was something that one inherited almost … it would certainly be very peculiar if you were a very conscious member of the working class who didn’t also see yourself as a Labour party supporter.

    After the second world war and the election of Clement Attlee as Labour prime minister, class still looked firmly cemented into British political allegiances, as Martin Farr, senior lecturer in contemporary British history at Newcastle University explains.

    The most dramatic illustration of class I can give you is in the 1951 general election: 98% of voters voted Conservative or Labour. No other parties mattered.

    Thatcher’s greatest achievement

    For Farr, the political and economic turmoil of the 1970s, ending in the winter of discontent under the Labour government of James Callaghan, marked the beginning of the end of this political arrangement, paving the way for the election of Margaret Thatcher as Conservative prime minister.

    Margaret Thatcher said that her greatest achievement was Tony Blair. The Thatcher years created a different sort of Labour Party … which necessarily wasn’t the party of trade unions to the same extent because there were weaker trade unions and fewer trade unionists.

    After 17 years of Conservative rule, Blair’s election in 1997 brought Labour back into power. But its attitude toward its working class base had changed.

    Tim Bale, professor of politics at Queen Mary University of London, says Blair’s advisers realised that the working class in Britain was shrinking and that, unlike the past, Labour couldn’t put together a winning electoral coalition based purely on working-class voters. But he also says they wanted to build a cross-class coalition.

    They spent more time rhetorically appealing to the middle-class votes and thought the working-class vote will look after itself as long as they got the economy and public services right. And perhaps they should have done more … to appeal to both sides of that electoral coalition, that cross-class coalition that they hoped to build. 

    For more analysis, listen to the full episode of Know Your Place: what happened to class in British politics on The Conversation Documentaries, which also includes interviews with the former Labour MPs Reg Race and David Hanson, who is now a member of the House of Lords and minister of state for the Home Office.

    A transcript is available on Apple Podcasts.

    Know Your Place: what happened to class in British politics is produced and mixed by Anouk Millet for The Conversation. It’s supported by the National Centre for Social Research.

    Newsclips in the episode from AP Archive, New Labour, British Movietone, British Pathé, SirEdwardHeath and ITN Archive.

    Listen to The Conversation Documentaries via any of the apps listed above, download it directly via our RSS feed or find out how else to listen here.

    Tim Bale has previously received funding for research on the Conservative Party and party members from the Leverhulme Trust and from the Economic and Social Research Council. Martin Farr and and Mark Garnett do not work for, consult, own shares in or receive funding from any company or organisation that would benefit from this article, and have disclosed no relevant affiliations beyond their academic appointment. Know Your Place: what happened to class in British politics is supported by the National Centre for Social Research.

    – ref. Thatcher, Blair and a brief history of class in British politics – podcast – https://theconversation.com/thatcher-blair-and-a-brief-history-of-class-in-british-politics-podcast-240738

    MIL OSI – Global Reports –

  • MIL-OSI Global: Tito Mboweni: South African Minister and Reserve Bank governor who drove significant economic reforms

    Source: The Conversation – Africa – By Roy Havemann, Research Associate, Stellenbosch University

    Tito Mboweni, former South African Reserve Bank Governor, Minister of Finance, and Minister of Labour was arguably one of the country’s most consequential economic policymakers and drove several significant economic
    reforms.

    Mboweni passed away on 12 October 2024 after a short illness.

    Born on 16 March 1959, he received a Bachelor of Arts in Economic and Political Science from the National University of Lesotho in 1985. He had attended the University of the North between 1979 and 1980 but left South Africa to go into exile in his second year of studies. In 1987, he obtained a Master of Arts in Development Economics from the University of East Anglia in the UK.

    He began his career in government as Minister of Labour in President Nelson Mandela’s 1994 administration. As the first Minister of Labour in the new democratic South Africa, he took several steps to improve the relationship between business and labour.

    Among these were major legislative reforms, including the Basic Conditions of Employment Act, Labour Relations Act, Mines Health Safety Act and the NEDLAC Act, designed to improve cooperation between different “constituencies” – labour, business, and government.

    He was appointed as the Eighth Governor of the South African Reserve Bank in
    1999. In this role he introduced inflation targeting and presided over the first monetary policy committee meetings. This substantially modernised the Bank’s approach. For instance, Mboweni introduced a monetary policy statement outlining the reasons for the Bank’s decisions. These were televised, bringing new transparency to the conduct of monetary policy. Before this, the bank’s targeted monetary policy aggregates, and its communications, were made through printed documents.

    Monetary Policy Forums took monetary policy to many parts of the country, bringing a new openness and engagement between the Bank and ordinary South Africans.

    He held the position of Governor until 2009. But his legacy endures. The South African Reserve Bank is highly regarded across the world, with an inflation rate that is firmly within the target range and well-anchored inflation expectations.

    As finance minister

    Shortly after Cyril Ramaphosa was inaugurated as President of the Republic of South Africa in 2018, the then Finance Minister Nhlanhla Nene resigned. The President appointed Mboweni as Minister of Finance in October 2018.

    Mboweni made three consequential decisions in South Africa’s economic policy
    trajectory.

    The first was the decision, in 2019, to freeze government wages from 2020. He was alarmed by the rapid and unsustainable increase in government wages. Together with slowing economic growth, this led to a fiscal position that was deteriorating at an alarming pace. The wage freeze ultimately started the slow return to the fiscal rectitude that had been the hallmark of the period of government before Jacob Zuma became president in 2009.

    The second, also in 2019, was the publication of a paper on economic growth. It was known officially as “Economic transformation, inclusive growth, and competitiveness: Towards an Economic Strategy for South Africa”.

    Unofficially it was known as the “Tito Paper”.

    This set out a programme of much-needed economic reforms – including steps to lift the restrictions on private power generation. In the six years since the publication of the policy paper (and the subsequent reforms), a total of 6 GW of non-Eskom electricity has been added to the grid, saving South Africa six stages of load-shedding.

    Other recommendations of the paper are being followed, including those for rail, telecommunications and ports.

    The third was the introduction of a comprehensive response to the COVID-19 pandemic. This included a significant expansion of the grants system, with a Social Relief of Distress grant pegged at R350 per person per month. Research by the NIDS-CRAM initiative, led by Dr Nic Spaull of Stellenbosch University, has highlighted how the grant positively affected millions of people’s lives.

    Enduring legacy

    It is difficult to think of any other economic policymaker who has left such an enduring legacy.

    Stellenbosch University awarded him an honorary doctorate in 2010 and appointed him Professor Extraordinary of Economics from 2002 to 2005 . He was a frequent participant at Bureau for Economic Research conferences. There, his engaging speaking style made him a popular drawcard.

    His love of red wine and engaging conversation made him a popular visitor at the university. In 2010, he spent time at the Stellenbosch Institute for Advanced Studies as part of a research group working on the global financial crisis and its consequences for democracy.

    This is an edited version of a tribute published by the Bureau for Economic Research, Stellenbosch University.

    Roy Havemann is a senior economist at the Bureau for Economic Research where he leads the Impumelelo Economic Growth Lab. He was previously at the National Treasury where, amongst other things, he was Tito Mboweni’s speechwriter.

    – ref. Tito Mboweni: South African Minister and Reserve Bank governor who drove significant economic
    reforms – https://theconversation.com/tito-mboweni-south-african-minister-and-reserve-bank-governor-who-drove-significant-economic-reforms-241236

    MIL OSI – Global Reports –

  • MIL-OSI Global: The remarkable career of Tito Mboweni: from South African freedom fighter to central bank governor and trusted politician

    Source: The Conversation – Africa – By Jannie Rossouw, Visiting Professor at the Business School, University of the Witwatersrand

    It is sad to write about Tito Mboweni in the past tense.

    Tito Titus Mboweni, who was born on 16 March 1959 in Tzaneen, a town in South Africa in what was then the Transvaal, passed away after a short illness in Johannesburg on 12 October 2024.

    After the announcement of his death, tributes poured in for this South African leader. Many have been touched by his legacy in politics, business, governance and the economy of South Africa.

    While not without some shortcomings, his career from being a freedom fighter to becoming a trusted and popular public figure serves as an enduring example to others in leadership.

    A career in service of society

    During his lifetime, Mboweni managed to achieve multiple accomplishments. The first period of his career was as member of the African National Congress (ANC) liberation movement in exile, where he served as deputy head of the Department of Economic Policy in the ANC.

    Political and public service was a second part of his career.

    After the democratic elections of 1994, Mboweni served as minister of labour in the first cabinet of Nelson Mandela. In a surprise announcement in 1998, Mboweni was appointed as an advisor to the then governor of the South African Reserve Bank, Chris Stals. This was to prepare Mboweni for appointment as governor after the retirement of Stals.

    Mboweni could not move directly into the position as governor, as section 4(2)(a) of the South African Reserve Bank Act states that the “governor shall be a person of tested banking experience”.

    By serving as an advisor to Stals for a little over a year, Mboweni met this legal requirement. He was appointed as the eighth governor of the central bank on 8 August 1999.

    At the time there were concerns about his commitment to the continuation of a policy of controlling inflation, ushered in successfully by Stals in the preceding decade. But Mboweni soon showed his commitment to the continued control of inflation.

    He replaced the previous structure used for monetary policy decisions by Stals by establishing the Monetary Policy Committee in October 1999. This was in preparation for the adoption of inflation targeting as a policy objective for the bank.

    After his retirement from the Reserve Bank, Mboweni commenced with the next stages of his career: a successful stint in business, which was interrupted by his return to politics. He served as minister of finance from 9 October 2018 to 5 August 2021. In this role he made it very clear that South Africa had to adopt a more prudent fiscal policy to avoid a too rapid growth in government debt. But this viewpoint made him unpopular with many cabinet and ANC colleagues, trade unions and others.

    Once he left politics, Mboweni resumed his career in business. He also served the South African community in different ways. He held a number of appointments as honorary professor and was also a patron of the arts. He was also well-known for his enthusiasm for cooking, which he often posted about on social media.

    Challenges

    Mboweni had to withstand political pressure on the issue of the role of the Reserve Bank. He was exemplary in his protection of the autonomy and independence of bank, which is set out in sections 223 to 225 of the South African Constitution.

    In this respect, he followed in the footsteps of Stals.

    Politicians favour lower interest rates, particularly during election periods. But Mboweni was not afraid of being unpopular. He was steadfast in protecting the autonomy and independence of the South African Reserve Bank. Mboweni also led the central bank during the global financial crisis of 2008 . South Africa was one of the countries that did not suffer a banking crisis or collapse during that period.

    Achievements

    Mboweni’s single biggest achievement was his successful transition from an ANC freedom fighter in exile to his roles as senior politician, central bank governor and businessman.

    His successful adoption of a policy of inflation targeting despite opposition was also a major achievement. Under Mboweni’s leadership the South African Reserve Bank showed critics that South Africa can make a continuous commitment to a low rate of inflation.

    Other than establishing the Monetary Policy Committee, Mboweni also played a major role in bringing monetary policy closer to the people. Under his leadership, the bank was one of the first central banks in the world to announce monetary policy decisions about interest rates at a media conference. He also introduced the central bank’s Monetary Policy Forums, where the public can engage the senior leadership of the central bank on monetary policy.

    Shortcomings

    Mboweni had many successes in business, central banking and politics. He also a few shortcomings. One was that he did not insist on the readoption of the lower inflation target (3%-5%) announced in 2001, that was later abandoned. A lower inflation target some 20 years ago would have anchored South Africa’s inflation rate and inflation expectations on a lower trajectory.

    It is difficult to judge whether Mboweni’s somewhat untimely (though not necessarily unexpected) resignation as finance minister can also be regarded as a failure. However, a finance minister can only function optimally with the support of the head of state. Such support was clearly lacking.

    Legacy

    Mboweni leaves a legacy of a successful transformation from a freedom fighter to a businessman, central banker and politician. If more former freedom fighters made this successful transition, South Africa’s prospects would look considerably better.

    Another legacy is honesty and integrity. Mboweni was never embroiled in scandals or questionable business dealings. If other ANC cadres could follow this example, South Africa would also offer a better future for all its citizens.

    As an NRF-rated researcher, Jannie Rossouw received research funding from the NRF. He serves as independent non-executive Board member of Finbond Mutual Bank, Noordelike Helpmekaar Study Fund and Satsanga Fintech Holdings.

    – ref. The remarkable career of Tito Mboweni: from South African freedom fighter to central bank governor and trusted politician – https://theconversation.com/the-remarkable-career-of-tito-mboweni-from-south-african-freedom-fighter-to-central-bank-governor-and-trusted-politician-241234

    MIL OSI – Global Reports –

  • MIL-Evening Report: Is Australia’s trade war with China now over? The answer might be out of our hands

    Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Peter Draper, Professor, and Executive Director: Institute for International Trade, and Jean Monnet Chair of Trade and Environment, University of Adelaide

    YULIYAPHOTO/Shutterstock

    Finally, Australia’s rock lobster industry will be able to export to China again, following a deal struck on the sidelines of the ASEAN summit in Laos last week.

    It will take some weeks to finalise the paperwork, but Chinese diners can expect to eat our high-quality crustaceans as we devour our Christmas roast turkeys.

    The breakthrough brings a particularly nasty chapter in Australia-China trade relations to a close. Tariffs on rock lobsters were the only remaining major restriction of a raft of trade barriers imposed by China in 2020.

    It might be tempting to celebrate, but we should tread carefully. Our situation remains hostage to Beijing’s relationship with Washington. Whether Australia’s trade woes with China are actually over may ultimately be out of our hands.



    Read more:
    China removes block on Australian lobster, in last big bilateral trade breakthrough

    Australia’s reversal of fortunes

    The past couple of years have been a whirlwind.

    The Albanese government has seen China systematically undo the export restrictions it had imposed on Australia in 2020 – including on barley, wine, beef, and now lobster – without giving away much of substance in return.

    Yes, Australia suspended two cases it had brought against China at the World Trade Organization, concerning barley and wine duties China had imposed. But those cases can be resumed if the Chinese government backslides.

    China will resume imports of Australian lobster by the end of this year.
    Abdul Razak Latif/Shutterstock

    And true, the Albanese government did not oppose China’s bid to join the Comprehensive and Progressive Agreement for Trans-Pacific Partnership – an important regional free trade agreement of which Australia is a founding member. But neither did it endorse China’s bid.

    It seems we’ve come a long way since 2020, when China tabled its infamous “14 grievances” against Australia. This deliberately leaked document publicly criticised Australia on a whole range of fronts, including foreign investment decisions, alleged interference in China’s affairs, research funding and media coverage.

    A more sobering picture elsewhere

    This reopening of trade might make it seem like things are looking up for Australia. In some cases, our business community has bounced back with gusto, notably wine exports to China.

    Zooming out, however, paints a more sobering picture of global trade relations. In the near term, the decisions of our key allies – namely the United States – may come to matter more than our own.

    The Biden administration has long hoped to place a “floor” under America’s geopolitical competition with China. Neither side wants things to get ugly.

    But in Washington, strong bipartisan consensus remains that China must be confronted. The US has continued to take coercive actions against Chinese exports and investment.

    For example, the US recently imposed a 100% import duty on electric vehicles produced by Chinese-owned companies. Similarly, it imposed a 25% import duty on imports of Chinese container cranes. Strategic distrust will escalate no matter who wins the White House on November 5.

    This animosity is mirrored in Beijing. China’s security state is expanding ever more into business, while its private sector retreats. China’s own coercive activities are also escalating in regional disputes over the South and East China seas, as well as in its trade retaliations against Western markets.

    Widening tensions

    These tensions are also playing out in Europe and the Middle East. International relations scholars worry that the West must now confront an authoritarian axis comprising Russia, Iran, North Korea and China.

    China’s “no limits” partnership with Russia has spooked most European elites. Western sanctions on Russia, meant to erode the Kremlin’s war machine, are likely being circumvented by China’s unmatched industrial capacities.

    Iran’s military support for Russia supplements the Kremlin’s war-fighting capacities at Ukraine’s expense.

    Unsurprisingly, economic security concerns are rapidly eclipsing free trade considerations for the US.

    Advanced manufacturing capabilities – such as semiconductor production – are increasingly important strategic assets.
    genkur/Shutterstock

    When US National Security Advisor Jake Sullivan introduced the 2022 National Security Strategy, he adopted a selectively restrictive approach he called “small yard, high fence”.

    He was talking about export controls and inward restrictions on investment, applied to high-technology products.

    Since then, the “yard” has grown wider, and the “fence” has expanded. More sectors and products are being thrown into the mix, from energy security, through critical minerals, to food production.

    The challenge with digital technologies, able to be used for both military and civilian purposes, is that the yard can be very large indeed.

    Middle power problems

    The US has the economic and military weight to confront China. As the European Union is learning, having the economic weight is necessary. But being politically united is essential, and they remain far from that.

    Australia is a middle power, without the necessary economic weight or military heft to confront China. That means we must support the rules-based multilateral trading system – preserving the authority of institutions like the World Trade Organisation (WTO) – to constrain the actions of the great powers and preserve as much of our open trade posture as possible.

    Washington, however, increasingly expects its allies to fall into line. How else can one explain Canada’s decision to follow the US and impose 100% import duties on electric vehicles produced by Chinese owned companies?

    Like Australia, Canada is also a middle power. It is also a strong supporter of the rules-based multilateral trading system. But Canada’s action violates WTO rules.

    The fact that Washington’s actions also violate these rules is taken for granted these days.

    Australia must pay attention

    Global trade cooperation is deteriorating, and the world is fracturing into two “values-based” trading blocs. While there could be positive upswings in our bilateral trade relations with China, the medium term trend is down.

    As Napoleon Bonaparte is reputed to have said:

    China is a sleeping giant; let him sleep, for if he wakes he will shake the world.

    China has changed, and the world with it.

    Australian business needs to pay attention. Our East Asian partners, notably Japan and South Korea, have long spoken of the need for a “China plus one” (or more) business strategy – making sure trade and investment is diversified into other countries, as well.

    Such diversification will be increasingly important in the years to come.

    Peter Draper does not work for, consult, own shares in or receive funding from any company or organisation that would benefit from this article, and has disclosed no relevant affiliations beyond their academic appointment.

    – ref. Is Australia’s trade war with China now over? The answer might be out of our hands – https://theconversation.com/is-australias-trade-war-with-china-now-over-the-answer-might-be-out-of-our-hands-241117

    MIL OSI Analysis – EveningReport.nz –

  • MIL-Evening Report: The US isn’t the only country voting on Nov 5. This small Pacific nation is also holding an election – and China is watching

    Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Graeme Smith, Associate professor, Australian National University

    The Capitol building in the Pacific island nation of Palau.
     Erika Bisbocci

    The United States isn’t the only country with a big election on November 5. Palau, a tourism-dependent microstate in the north Pacific, will also vote for a new president, Senate and House of Delegates that day.

    Why does this election matter? Palau is one of the few remaining countries that has diplomatic relations with Taiwan.

    In addition, elections in the Pacific – and the horse-trading to form government that follows – often present a chance for China to steal an ally away from Taiwan in its efforts to further reduce the self-ruling island’s diplomatic space.

    For example, there was speculation Tuvalu could flip its allegiance from Taipei to Beijing based on the outcome of January’s election, but the government decided to remain in Taiwan’s camp.

    Another Pacific nation, Nauru, did flip from Taiwan to China in January, less than 48 hours after Taiwan’s own presidential election.

    I recently visited Palau as part of a research project examining China’s growing extraterritorial reach, and was curious to see if the balance is shifting towards Beijing in the lead-up to this year’s election.

    What’s at stake in Palau’s election?

    Palau, a nation of 16,000 registered voters, has close ties to the US. It was under US administration after the second world war and recently signed a “Compact of Free Association” with the US. Palau also has a similar presidential system of government, with a president directly elected by the people every four years.

    However, there are also some key differences: there are no political parties in Palau, nor is there any replica of the absurd Electoral College voting system.

    The archipelago also has extremely polite yard signs (“Please consider[…]”, “Please vote for […]” and “Moving forward together”). Alliances are based more on clan and kinship relations than ideology (although that’s not entirely dissimilar to the US).

    This year’s presidential race is between the “two juniors”: the incumbent, Surangel Whipps Junior, and the challenger, Tommy Remengensau Junior. If either man were facing a different opponent, he would win easily. Nearly all of Palau’s political insiders deem this contest too close to call.

    Whipps has been in office since 2021. Accompanied by his beloved father, a former president of the Senate and speaker of the House in Palau, he is expected to door-knock each household at least four times.

    Remengensau isn’t a political newbie, either. He’s been president for 16 of Palau’s 30 years as an independent state. In the comments section of the YouTube live feed of a recent presidential debate, one person asked, “you’ve had four terms, how many more do you need?”

    Whipps copped flak for his tax policy, but the comments and the debate itself reached Canadian levels of politeness. As the debate wound up, the rivals embraced warmly – befitting their closeness (they are actually brothers-in-law) and their lack of discernible ideological differences.

    2024 Palau presidential debate.

    A ‘pro-Beijing’ candidate in the race?

    However, there is one issue that has the potential to drive a wedge between the two candidates: the China–Taiwan rivalry.

    In a recent article for the Australian Strategic Policy Institute (ASPI), Remengensau was described as a “pro-Beijing” candidate who might be inclined to switch Palau’s diplomatic relations to Beijing, cheered on by the “China-sympathetic” national newspaper, Tia Belau.

    Remengensau’s reaction to the ASPI piece was genuine fury, and aside from a few fly-in lobbyists from the US, no one in the country has taken the characterisation seriously. Yes, he is less pro-US than Whipps, reciting the “friends to all, enemies to none” mantra beloved by Pacific leaders in the debate. But that’s some distance from being “pro-Beijing”.

    Other outside commentators have also weighed in with similar viewpoints. Recent pieces by right-wing think tanks, the Heritage Foundation and the Federation for the Defence of Democracies, have pushed a similar line that every Pacific nation is just “one election away from a [People’s Republic of China]-proxy assuming power and dismantling democracy”.

    What’s really behind concerns of Chinese influence

    The basis for both allegations in the ASPI piece is a fascinating investigation by the Organized Crime and Corruption Reporting Project (OCCRP). The story detailed an influence attempt led by a local businessman from China, Hunter Tian, to set up a media conglomerate in Palau with the owner of the newspaper Tia Belau, a man named Moses Uludong. (I played a small part in the investigation.)

    The proposed conglomerate had eyebrow-raising links to China’s secret police and military. But COVID killed the deal, and today, the newspaper runs press releases from Taiwan’s embassy without changing a word.

    Palau’s media is also ranked as the most free in the Pacific, and Tia Belau is a central part of this healthy media ecosystem.

    Uludong is a pragmatic businessman who’s no simple cheerleader for Beijing, explaining to OCCRP’s journalists last year:

    The Chinese, they have a way of doing business. They are really not open.

    This doesn’t mean Chinese operations in Palau will stop, though. Representatives of the Chinese government like Tian, who is the president of the Palau Overseas Chinese Federation and has impressive family links to the People’s Liberation Army, will keep trying to influence Palau’s elites and media.

    Evidence uncovered by Palau’s media suggests some of their elites are vulnerable to capture. In recent months, the immigration chief stepped down for using his position “for private gain or profit”, while the speaker of the House of Delegates was ordered to pay US$3.5 million (A$5.2 million) for a tax violation, in part due to an irregular lease to a Chinese national.

    Chinese triads are also now involved in scam compounds and drug trafficking in Palau, which has done little to burnish China’s image among Palauans.

    Playing into China’s hands

    So, can we expect a dramatic Palau diplomatic flip after November’s election? Not anytime soon.

    But labelling respected leaders and media outlets as “pro-Beijing” with no basis, and fabricating a Manichean struggle in a nation where there’s plenty of goodwill for the US, won’t cause China’s boosters in Palau to lose sleep.

    Egging on US agencies to “do something” to counter Chinese influence in the Pacific, such as a poorly thought-out influence operation run by the Pentagon in the Philippines during the pandemic, will just play into Beijing’s hands. In the Pacific, secrets don’t stay secret for long. And if you call someone “pro-China” for long enough, one day you might get your wish.

    Graeme Smith works for the Australian National University’s Department of Pacific Affairs, which is partially funded by DFAT through the Pacific Research Programme.

    – ref. The US isn’t the only country voting on Nov 5. This small Pacific nation is also holding an election – and China is watching – https://theconversation.com/the-us-isnt-the-only-country-voting-on-nov-5-this-small-pacific-nation-is-also-holding-an-election-and-china-is-watching-237321

    MIL OSI Analysis – EveningReport.nz –

  • MIL-Evening Report: The federal government has left Indigenous Treaties to the states. How are they progressing?

    Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Bartholomew Stanford, Lecturer in Political Science/Indigenous Politics (First Peoples), Griffith University

    Since the Voice to Parliament referendum last year, there has been a lack of leadership on Indigenous policy from the Australian government.

    With this absence, the states and territories now present greater opportunity for Indigenous groups in seeking rights recognition. This is the level where agreements are being made and Treaty proposed.

    It is important to take stock of the progress that is being made in agreement-making and Treaty in Australian states and territories. While this is an area of Indigenous policy that has been set aside of late, it has great potential to deliver self-determination for First Nations people.

    First Nations agreement-making in Australia

    Agreement-making is relatively new in the context of First Nations relations with the Australian state.

    The recognition of Indigenous land rights in law has enabled First Nations people and Australian governments to enter legally binding agreements across matters such as:

    • land use and access

    • Indigenous cultural heritage protection

    • co-management of land and sea

    • economic development

    • employment

    • resolving land claims.

    First Nations groups in Australia have made hundreds of these agreements with Australian governments at all levels.

    However, there is a type of agreement that these parties are entering that is advancing the cause more generally. They are called settlement agreements.

    What is a settlement agreement?

    Victoria and Western Australia have been signing settlement agreements with First Nations groups since 2010.

    These agreements are more comprehensive than other agreements, including terms that cover numerous matters like those listed above, and often include financial packages aimed at supporting First Nations governance institutions.

    In Victoria, settlement agreements are made under state legislation. So far, four First Nations groups have entered these agreements with the Victorian government.

    In Western Australia, three settlement agreements have been made between the WA government and First Nations under Commonwealth native title legislation. The largest of these, known as the Noongar Settlement, is worth $1.3 billion and has been characterised by legal scholars as “Australia’s first Treaty”.

    Victoria and WA are the only jurisdictions that have these agreements and there are two main reasons why they were successfully signed. The first is the success of First Nations groups in mobilising political power to lobby the state. The second is the willingness of governments to enter negotiations because of economic and political motivations.

    A crucial question is whether existing settlement agreements will form an important basis for developing Treaty in the states and territories.

    How is Treaty different?

    According to legal academics Harry Hobbs and George Williams, Treaty involves three elements:

    • recognition of First Nations as distinct polities

    • negotiation in good faith

    • a settlement that deals with claims and that enables Indigenous self-government.

    Treaties are different from other agreements, as they provide scope to recognise Indigenous sovereignty, enable some limited forms of autonomy, and create a framework for Indigenous/government relations.

    Australia has not signed treaties with Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander peoples. Canada, New Zealand and the United States began signing treaties centuries ago, so why is Australia so far behind?

    There are several reasons why Indigenous treaties were never signed in Australia.

    First, Australia was colonised in different circumstances, established as a penal colony and not initially a part of European expansionism.

    In North America, numerous European powers were competing for control over the continent. The British, French, Spanish and others fought against each other and procured First Nations warriors for their military ranks through treaties.

    Trade was also a motivating factor for Treaty-making in North America. Europeans coveted the animal pelts produced by First Nations people for sale in the European fashion markets.

    Today, it is arguable that Australia stands out as uniquely opposed to Indigenous rights recognition relative to other British settler states. This idea is supported by our most recent referendum result.

    So why are Australian governments engaging in Treaty discussions now?

    What’s happening across the country?

    There is currently a combination of Indigenous political action and leverage enabled through Indigenous land rights recognition. Some governments are also beginning to see value in Indigenous Knowledge, especially with regard to environmental management.

    Treaty, however, is deeply political in Australia, and since the referendum last year it has come under increased political scrutiny and attack.

    Days after the referendum result, the Queensland Liberal National party walked back support for a state-based Treaty.

    If the LNP wins government at this month’s election (as polls are predicting), Treaty will likely be shelved.

    This move would undo the years of work the state government has undertaken as part of its Tracks to Treaty initiative.

    Victoria has made the most progress on Treaty of any Australian state or territory. This is due to the leadership of the First Peoples’ Assembly of Victoria, which has spearheaded Treaty in the state.

    A Treaty negotiation framework has been developed by the assembly and Victorian government. This will guide negotiations towards a state-wide Treaty in the near future.

    Other Australian jurisdictions have made far less progress. The referendum result seems to have stalled any momentum that existed prior.

    In the Northern Territory, there’s been no progress since the NT Treaty Commission lodged a report with government in 2022. As the newly elected Country Liberal government doesn’t support a Treaty, it won’t happen anytime soon.

    In South Australia, the First Nations Voice to Parliament is expected to lead the development of Treaty. The first election was held in March of this year, and First Nations elected members had their first meeting in June 2024.

    New South Wales recruited Treaty commissioners earlier this year. They’re now embarking on a 12-month consultation process before reporting back to government.

    Governments in Tasmania and the ACT have committed to Treaty, but haven’t made any meaningful progress yet, while WA has made no formal commitment.

    Where to from here?

    Although there are notable setbacks emerging from the referendum result, it has not discouraged First Nations from working towards agreements and Treaty with Australian governments.

    With the proliferation of native title determinations, there is grounds for agreement-making, whether that be through settlement agreements or Treaty.

    There is also growing interest in how Indigenous Knowledge can inform our responses to climate change, food security and foreign relations. Accessing this knowledge will require governments to formalise relations with First Nations through agreements.

    Bartholomew Stanford does not work for, consult, own shares in or receive funding from any company or organisation that would benefit from this article, and has disclosed no relevant affiliations beyond their academic appointment.

    – ref. The federal government has left Indigenous Treaties to the states. How are they progressing? – https://theconversation.com/the-federal-government-has-left-indigenous-treaties-to-the-states-how-are-they-progressing-240552

    MIL OSI Analysis – EveningReport.nz –

  • MIL-Evening Report: Does drinking coffee while pregnant cause ADHD? Our study shows there’s no strong link

    Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Gunn-Helen Moen, Post-doctoral research fellow in genetic epidemiology, The University of Queensland

    Velishchuk/Shutterstock

    International guidelines recommend people limit how much coffee they drink during pregnancy. Consuming caffeine – a stimulant – while pregnant has been linked to how the baby’s brain develops.

    Some studies have shown increased coffee consumption during pregnancy is associated with the child having neurodevelopmental difficulties. These may include traits linked to attention-deficit hyperactivity disorder (ADHD), such as difficulties with language, motor skills, attention, hyperactivity and impulsive behaviour.

    But is coffee the cause? Our new research aimed to clear up the sometimes confusing advice about drinking coffee during pregnancy.

    We studied tens of thousands of pregnant women over two decades. The results showed – when other factors like genes and income were accounted for – no causal link between drinking coffee during pregnancy and a child’s neurodevelopmental difficulties. That means it’s safe to keep drinking your daily latte according to current recommendations.

    What we were trying to find out

    Past research has identified a link between drinking coffee during pregnancy and a child’s neurodevelopmental difficulties. But it hasn’t been able to establish caffeine as the direct cause.

    Biological changes during pregnancy reduce caffeine metabolism. This means the caffeine molecules and metabolites (the molecules produced while breaking down the caffeine) take longer to be cleared from the body.

    Additionally, past studies have shown caffeine and its by-products can cross the placenta. The fetus does not have the necessary enzymes to clear them, and so it was thought that caffeine metabolites may impact the developing baby.

    However it can be hard to identify whether coffee directly causes changes to the fetus’s brain development. Pregnant women who drink coffee may differ from those who don’t in a number of other ways. And it could be these variables – not coffee – that affect neurodevelopment.

    These variables, known as “confounding factors” might include how much people drink or smoke while pregnant, or a parent’s income and education. For example, we know people who tend to drink coffee also tend to drink more alcohol and smoke more cigarettes than those who don’t drink coffee.

    Our study aimed to look at the effect of drinking coffee on neurodevelopmental difficulties, isolated from these confounding factors.

    What we did

    We know genes play a role in how many cups of coffee a person consumes per day. Our study used genetics to compare the development of children whose mothers did and did not carry genes linked to increased coffee consumption.

    The study looked at tens of thousands of families registered in the Norwegian Mother, Father and Child Cohort Study. All pregnant women in Norway between 1999 and 2008 were invited to participate and 58,694 women took part with their child.

    Parents reported how much coffee they drank before and during pregnancy. Mothers also completed questionnaires about their child’s neurodevelopmental traits between six months and eight years of age.

    The questions covered many traits, including difficulties with attention, communication, behavioural flexibility, regulation of activity and impulses, as well as motor and language skills.

    The parents and children also provided genetic samples. This allowed us to control for genetic variants shared between mother and child and isolate the behaviour of coffee drinking.

    The study used reports from mothers about their child’s neurodevelopmental traits over more than seven years.
    Ann in the uk/Shutterstock

    What we found

    We were able to look at causality through this method of adjusting for potential confounding factors in the environment (the mother smoking or drinking alcohol, the parents’ education and income).

    The results showed no strong causal link between increased maternal coffee consumption and children’s neurodevelopmental difficulties.

    The difference in findings between our and previous studies may be explained by our work separating the effect of coffee from the effect of other variables, as well as genetic predisposition to neurodevelopmental conditions.

    Our study has limitations. Importantly, we were only able to rule out strong effects of coffee on neurodevelopmental difficulties, and it is possible small effects may exist.

    We only investigated offspring neurodevelopmental traits, and coffee consumption during pregnancy could impact the mother or child in other ways.

    However we have previously shown coffee consumption during pregnancy did not have strong causal effects on birth weight, gestational duration, risk of miscarriage or stillbirth. But other outcomes – such as mental health or a child’s risk for heart disease and stroke later in life – should be investigated.

    Overall, our study supports current clinical guidelines that state low to moderate consumption of coffee during pregnancy is safe for the mother and developing baby.

    For most people, that means sticking below 200mg of caffeine per day – usually equivalent to one espresso or two instant coffees – should be safe. If you have concerns, it’s best to speak to your clinician.

    Gunn-Helen Moen receives funding from the Australian Research Council and the Research Council of Norway.

    Shannon D’Urso does not work for, consult, own shares in or receive funding from any company or organisation that would benefit from this article, and has disclosed no relevant affiliations beyond their academic appointment.

    – ref. Does drinking coffee while pregnant cause ADHD? Our study shows there’s no strong link – https://theconversation.com/does-drinking-coffee-while-pregnant-cause-adhd-our-study-shows-theres-no-strong-link-241015

    MIL OSI Analysis – EveningReport.nz –

  • MIL-Evening Report: Winston Peters’ $100 billion infrastructure fund is the right idea. Politics-as-usual is the problem

    Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Timothy Welch, Senior Lecturer in Urban Planning, University of Auckland, Waipapa Taumata Rau

    New Zealand’s infrastructure woes are a constant political pain point. From ageing water systems to congested roads and assets increasingly threatened by climate change, the country faces mammoth upgrading and future-proofing challenges.

    Enter Winston Peters and NZ First with a surprise proposal for a NZ$100 billion “Future Fund” dedicated to infrastructure investment. Sounds promising – but the proposal’s success will hinge on getting the details right and, more importantly, getting the politics out of infrastructure planning.

    Unveiled at NZ First’s annual convention last weekend, the idea bears striking similarities to challenges previously highlighted by urban planning and infrastructure experts.

    The country currently has an estimated infrastructure deficit of over $100 billion, which aligns eerily with the scale of Peters’ proposed fund.

    The Future Fund proposal sounds impressive on paper. Ring-fenced from political meddling and focused on national interests, it’s billed as a silver bullet for infrastructure funding problems.

    Peters claims he’s taken a page from the Singapore and Ireland playbooks – potentially breaking New Zealand’s habit of treating big infrastructure projects like they’re part of a three-year plan.

    Long-term savings

    As always, the devil is in the details – and the Future Fund is light on them. How exactly would this fund be financed? How would projects be selected and prioritised? And, crucially, how would it be insulated from the political interference it claims to avoid?

    The potential benefits are significant. Research suggests that a stable, long-term approach to infrastructure investment and better utilisation of existing assets could unlock substantial savings – potentially up to 40% of total project costs.

    A well-managed $100 billion fund could provide the certainty and consistency needed to achieve these efficiencies.

    The scale of the fund also aligns with the urgent need for a comprehensive infrastructure overhaul. From modernising water systems to expanding road and rail networks, and ensuring resilience against climate change, the required investment is indeed massive.

    Politics is the problem

    Yet the proposal faces significant hurdles, not the least of which is from NZ First’s own coalition partners.

    The National Party’s previous commitments to curb borrowing seem at odds with a fund of this magnitude. Peters argues that debt for wealth creation and infrastructure differs from debt for consumption.

    That’s a valid point, but one that may struggle to gain traction in a political environment focused on reducing overall government debt.

    The proposal also raises questions about how it would interact with existing initiatives, such as the National Investment Agency set up by Infrastructure Minister Chris Bishop. It’s unclear whether these entities would complement each other or create redundancies and inefficiencies.

    Perhaps the most critical question is whether this fund, despite its claimed independence, can rise above the political cycle. We have a long and exhausting history of proposing infrastructure for political gain, where one government’s “vital infrastructure” becomes the next’s “wasteful spending”.

    Time for a 30-year plan

    While the Future Fund could be a big move in the right direction, we must also rethink how we plan (and pay) for infrastructure completely.

    A good start would be a 30-year plan that all political parties can get behind, like the United Kingdom’s National Infrastructure Assessment. This would give us a real long-term vision rather than promises that change with each election cycle.

    We should also look at more innovative ways to fund projects. Value capture, which leverages rising property values near new infrastructure to help finance its development, helped build London’s Crossrail. And Australia is “asset recycling” from old infrastructure into new projects.

    These aren’t just theoretical ideas. They could change how we build what New Zealand needs without the risks of entirely relying on taxpayers.

    Ending the boom-bust cycle

    Efficiency must also be a priority. Time-of-use charges for roads, already implemented in cities such as Stockholm and Singapore and proposed for Auckland, could reduce congestion and wasteful spending on unnecessary road expansions.

    Volumetric charging for water, as seen in the Kāpiti Coast, can significantly reduce water waste without massive new investments.

    New Zealand could also break free from its boom-bust infrastructure cycle by establishing an agency outside the political realm to manage the cash Winston Peters is proposing.

    A truly independent infrastructure body, similar to Infrastructure Australia, could provide the continuity and expertise needed to see projects through political cycles.

    Money isn’t the only issue here. Politics is the real roadblock. Right now, every election cycle, priorities change, projects fly out the window, and the bill for desperately needed infrastructure only gets bigger.

    The Future Fund seems like a step in the right direction. But without also overhauling how we make decisions about infrastructure, it could end up being just another political football.

    Timothy Welch does not work for, consult, own shares in or receive funding from any company or organisation that would benefit from this article, and has disclosed no relevant affiliations beyond their academic appointment.

    – ref. Winston Peters’ $100 billion infrastructure fund is the right idea. Politics-as-usual is the problem – https://theconversation.com/winston-peters-100-billion-infrastructure-fund-is-the-right-idea-politics-as-usual-is-the-problem-241346

    MIL OSI Analysis – EveningReport.nz –

  • MIL-Evening Report: Are market giants endangering Australia’s live music scene? Industry veterans and local artists are worried

    Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Ben Green, Research Fellow, Centre for Social and Cultural Research, Griffith University

    Multinational concert promoter Live Nation Entertainment has come under fire, with an ABC Four Corners investigation saying its unprecedented market power is open to abuse.

    The report follows concerns about the introduction of dynamic pricing – where ticket prices change according to demand – to the Australian concert market. A parliamentary inquiry into the live music sector is also underway.

    Industry luminaries such as Peter Garrett and Michael Chugg told the ABC that Australia’s music scene is under threat, echoing the concerns of frustrated bands and fans. Live Nation issued a statement ahead of the program, calling it inaccurate and unbalanced.

    So what is Live Nation and how is market concentration affecting our music scene?

    The business

    Live music is one of our most popular forms of cultural participation, engaging almost half of Australians over 15. In the decade before COVID, ticket buying and revenue for contemporary music doubled.

    Ticket revenue doubled again in the year 2022–23 to well above pre-pandemic levels. How can such growth be squared against widespread talk of a sector in crisis, with venues closing and festivals cancelled?

    This is because the growth is top-heavy. Overall figures have been boosted by an influx of stadium concerts by international superstars such as Taylor Swift and Ed Sheeran. Rising revenue outpaced attendance growth by almost three to one, with average ticket prices rising 47.4% to A$128.21. Market power is increasingly concentrated in a few corporate hands, notably Live Nation Entertainment.

    ‘We’re in an extinction event right now.’

    What is Live Nation?

    Live Nation began in the United States as a concert promoter. Traditionally, a promoter funds and arranges live events, negotiating with artists, their agents, venues and ticketing services. But Live Nation has integrated many such components into its operations. Now, everything from artist management to venues and merchandise can be done in-house.

    In 2010, the US Department of Justice allowed the merger of Live Nation with major ticketing company Ticketmaster. The resulting entity, Live Nation Entertainment, has since acquired a growing set of interests internationally.

    Live Nation’s acquisitions over the past decade in Australia include:

    Live Nation Entertainment also acquired venues, leasing Melbourne’s Palais Theatre for 30 years from 2017 and Festival Hall. The group purchased Anita’s Theatre in Thirroul in 2022 and opened Brisbane’s Fortitude Music Hall (2020) and Adelaide’s Hindley Street Music Hall (2022) in partnership with local entities.

    Ticketmaster is the authorised ticketing agency for Melbourne’s Marvel Stadium and for Australian tours promoted by Live Nation. These include concerts by Oasis, Green Day, P!nk and Red Hot Chili Peppers.

    Live Nation has also acquired several Australian booking agencies, including Village Sounds, which represents Bernard Fanning, Courtney Barnett and Vance Joy.

    The only competitors are TEG (which owns Ticketek) and AEG-Frontier. Music industry stakeholders are concerned about the oversized influence of these three “corporate giants”.

    Keeping the shareholders happy

    For consumers, a lack of competition can mean higher prices. Dynamic pricing made headlines, but Four Corners also alleged there were a range of “hidden fees” in the price of tickets ordinarily sold by Ticketmaster and Ticketek.

    Artists are at a disadvantage when negotiating with a mass of connected businesses that are often owned by one entity and which sometimes includes their own agent.

    South Australian rock band Bad//Dreems told the ABC they were left with just $9,000 from a tour that grossed $100,000.

    Veteran promoter Michael Chugg complained major artists were being overpaid, skewing the sector to the detriment of local musicians. While Australian promoters, including Chugg and the late Michael Gudinski, have a history of consolidating interests and crowding out competition, they also had skin in the Australian music game. Live Nation is a publicly listed company with duties to its shareholders, including US hedge funds and Saudi royalty.

    Midnight Oil singer and former politician Peter Garrett said this meant there was “no loyalty” to Australian artists. A multinational promoter with a shareholder-driven approach might be more likely to cancel a festival after weak opening sales, instead of weathering short-term losses to preserve the brand and relationships.

    That cancellation might even consolidate demand for the company’s upcoming headline tours. But opportunities are lost for Australian artists, businesses and culture.

    What can be done?

    Federal Arts Minister Tony Burke told Four Corners he has put Live Nation on notice and warned the company not to use its power in an anti-competitive way. But he did not commit to legislative change.

    In the United States, the Department of Justice and dozens of states have sued Live Nation for antitrust, seeking “to break up Live Nation-Ticketmaster’s monopoly and restore competition for the benefit of fans and artists”.

    Australian courts currently have no power to break up monopolies without new legislation. However, the Australian Competition and Consumer Commission can investigate and prosecute misuse of market power, as alleged by some in this case.

    Fair trading authorities in the United Kingdom and Europe are examining Ticketmaster’s dynamic pricing in the wake of the Oasis ticket-pricing controversy. However, Burke said surge pricing is something consumers have always dealt with, and “not something we’re looking at, at the moment”.

    Governments could also regulate more transparency in ticket fees, as well as the rights of artists, who sit uncomfortably between employees and small businesses. Their union, MEAA’s Musicians Australia, is currently advocating about these matters.

    Those passionate about Australia’s live music scene fear that if the sector isn’t better regulated, it’ll soon be too late to save it.

    Ben Green receives research funding from the Australian Research Council and the Australasian Performing Right Association.

    Sam Whiting receives funding from RMIT University and the Winston Churchill Trust.

    – ref. Are market giants endangering Australia’s live music scene? Industry veterans and local artists are worried – https://theconversation.com/are-market-giants-endangering-australias-live-music-scene-industry-veterans-and-local-artists-are-worried-241244

    MIL OSI Analysis – EveningReport.nz –

  • MIL-Evening Report: Speakers, vacuums, doorbells and fridges – the government plans to make your ‘smart things’ more secure

    Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Abu Barkat ullah, Associate Professor of Cyber Security, University of Canberra

    gorodenkoff/Shutterstock

    The Australian government has introduced its first-ever standalone cyber security act. Along with two other cyber security bills, it’s currently being reviewed by a parliamentary committee.

    Among the act’s many provisions are mandatory “minimum cyber security standards for smart devices”.

    This marks a crucial step in defending the digital lives of Australians. So what devices would it apply to? And what can you do right now to protect your smart devices from cyber criminals?

    Smart devices are everywhere

    The new legislation aims to cover a wide range of smart devices – products that can connect to the internet in some way.

    This includes “internet-connectable” products – think smartphones, laptops, tablets, smart TVs and gaming consoles. It also includes indirect “network-connectable” products, which can send and receive data. This means things like smart home devices and appliances, wearables (smart watches, fitness trackers), smart vacuums and many more.

    Simple electronic devices that don’t connect to the internet or can’t store or process sensitive data are not included.

    According to one study, 7.6 million Australian households – more than 70% – had at least one smart home device by the end of 2023, and 3 million of those households had more than five.

    To work as well as they do, smart devices typically collect, store and share data. This can include sensitive personal information, health data and geo-location data, making them attractive targets for cyber criminals.

    A notorious example is the Mirai botnet in 2016, when cyber criminals infected more than 600,000 devices such as cameras, home routers, and video players globally to use them in massively disruptive network attacks, known as a distributed denial-of-service (DDoS).

    Even implantable medical devices, such as pacemakers and insulin pumps, can have security flaws that could be exploited.

    Just last week, the ABC reported that one of the world’s largest home robotics companies has failed to address security issues in its robot vacuums despite warnings from the previous year.

    The consequences of such vulnerabilities can be even more dangerous when smart devices are part of critical infrastructure. As these devices become more interconnected, a breach in one can compromise entire networks, amplifying the security risks.

    What will be the ‘minimum’ security standards?

    The new cyber security act provides for “mandatory security standards” for smart devices. It establishes the legal framework for enforcing these standards, but doesn’t explicitly outline the technical details smart devices must meet. In the past the Department of Home Affairs has suggested that Australia consider adopting an international security standard, such as ETSI EN 303 645.

    The bill’s focus is on securing connected devices to protect users from internet-based threats, vulnerabilities and risks.

    In practice, this means manufacturers will have to ensure their products meet these minimum security standards and provide a statement of compliance. And suppliers will have to include statements of compliance with the product, and will be forbidden from selling non-compliant products.

    All this will be enforced through the Secretary of Home Affairs, who can issue compliance, stop, or recall notices for violations of these rules.

    You can do your bit to stay safe

    The proposed cyber security act is a significant step forward in protecting Australians from the growing threat of cyber attacks on smart devices.

    But this may only apply to new devices or ones still receiving updates from manufacturers. Exact details on how the legislation will apply to existing devices will be determined by the government agency responsible for its implementation.

    “Legacy” devices with outdated software – older products that are no longer supported and don’t receive the latest security patches – are particularly vulnerable to cyber attacks.

    While the government works on introducing the new cyber security laws, there are several things you can do to protect your smart devices:

    • set up a strong wifi password to prevent unauthorised access to your home network
    • create a dedicated, more secure wifi network for smart home devices
    • always install security patches and updates promptly
    • create unique and complex passwords for each account
    • where possible, use two-factor authentication to add an extra layer of security
    • disable unnecessary features or permissions, and be mindful of the information you share with apps and devices
    • make sure you understand how your data is collected and used by apps and devices.

    By mandating minimum cyber security standards and providing for effective enforcement mechanisms, Australia’s new cyber security act will help keep consumer devices safer.

    However, it’s important to note that as technology continues to evolve rapidly, the cyber crime ecosystem is also expanding. The global cost of cyber crime is projected to reach US$9.5 trillion in 2024.

    Given the dynamic nature of cyber threats, relying solely on standards may not be sufficient to address all potential risks. New vulnerabilities are discovered regularly, and it’s essential for every one of us to remain vigilant and practice good cyber hygiene by following the tips above.

    Abu Barkat ullah does not work for, consult, own shares in or receive funding from any company or organisation that would benefit from this article, and has disclosed no relevant affiliations beyond their academic appointment.

    – ref. Speakers, vacuums, doorbells and fridges – the government plans to make your ‘smart things’ more secure – https://theconversation.com/speakers-vacuums-doorbells-and-fridges-the-government-plans-to-make-your-smart-things-more-secure-241057

    MIL OSI Analysis – EveningReport.nz –

  • MIL-Evening Report: Queensland Premier Steven Miles is promising to hold a vote on nuclear power. Here’s why

    Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Anne Twomey, Professor Emerita in Constitutional Law, University of Sydney

    Tarong power station Stanwell

    Queensland Premier Steven Miles this week declared his party would hold a plebiscite on nuclear power if it returns to office at the forthcoming state election.

    The move is in response to plans by the federal Coalition to build and operate seven nuclear plants around Australia if elected to government. Opposition Leader Peter Dutton says the facilities would be built at sites of coal power stations scheduled for closure. Two are slated for Queensland, at the Callide and Tarong power stations.

    Queensland has state laws banning the construction or operation of a nuclear facility and requiring the state government to hold a plebiscite if there are Commonwealth plans to build a nuclear plant in the state. A plebiscite is a referendum-style vote to gauge voters’ views on an issue.

    Unlike a referendum, the results are not binding. There’s also very little chance a plebiscite could be held on or before the date of the next federal election, as Miles has suggested, as the laws do not allow for a plebiscite on an opposition policy.

    Who has the constitutional power over nuclear facilities?

    While the Commonwealth Constitution does not refer to nuclear energy, the federal parliament has passed laws to regulate nuclear matters. To do so, it relies on a web of constitutional powers, including the trade and commerce power, the corporations power, the external affairs power and the territories power.

    The Commonwealth can also compulsorily acquire land for public purposes. This makes the land a “Commonwealth place” over which it can exercise full and exclusive legislative power.

    The federal government has previously engaged in commercial matters by establishing trading corporations, such as NBN Co and Snowy Hydro Ltd, to deal with nation-building infrastructure.

    It seems likely, therefore, that the federal parliament could pass laws to authorise and regulate the operation of nuclear power plants in Australia.

    In doing so, its laws would override inconsistent state laws, such as those that prohibit nuclear facilities, under section 109 of the Constitution.

    But state governments could still make it difficult for the Commonwealth to give effect to its nuclear policies. You only have to look at how state governments have successfully opposed Commonwealth efforts to create a nuclear waste facility to see the problems.

    Plebiscite as booby trap

    The development of a nuclear power industry in Australia has been debated before – most recently in 2006 when the Howard Coalition government commissioned the Switkowski report on the use of nuclear energy in Australia.

    This report suggested the Commonwealth could act to establish 25 nuclear power stations across Australia. In response, Queensland’s parliament, under a Labor government, enacted the Nuclear Facilities Prohibition Act 2007. It banned the construction or operation of certain types of nuclear facilities in Queensland. New South Wales and Victoria had also previously done the same.

    The Queensland government recognised the Commonwealth probably had the power to override such a ban. So it included a political booby trap in section 21 of the law.

    It says that if the relevant Queensland minister is satisfied the Commonwealth government has taken, or is likely to take, any step supporting or allowing the construction of a prohibited nuclear facility in Queensland, the minister:

    must take steps for the conduct of a plebiscite in Queensland to obtain the views of the people of Queensland about the construction of a prohibited nuclear facility in Queensland.

    Unlike a referendum, which changes the Constitution, a plebiscite operates as an opinion poll.

    It would not prevent a nuclear power plant being built, or stop the federal parliament overriding the state ban. But it could create a political impediment.

    During the debate over the state law in 2007, then-Premier Peter Beattie made this point clearly:

    If the Howard government wants to use its powers to override the strong position of Queenslanders […] this government will make certain that Queenslanders have a chance to have their say.

    This was important, he claimed, because it would “put political pressure on the federal government to not go down this road”. In other words, the law can be used to apply political pressure.

    Of plebiscites and federal elections

    Miles suggested the plebiscite could be held the same day as the next federal election “to save people going to the polls twice”.

    This could affect voting in the federal election by highlighting the impact of nuclear policies on Queensland. But if this is the tactic, Miles faces two problems.

    First, Queensland law only triggers the plebiscite requirement when the relevant state minister is “satisfied the government of the Commonwealth” is likely to take a step in supporting or allowing the construction of a prohibited nuclear facility in Queensland.

    But the minister could not legally be satisfied of this before the election outcome is known, as a policy of an opposition party does not amount to a proposed action of the “government of the Commonwealth”.

    Second, section 394 of the Commonwealth Electoral Act 1918 says no state or territory election, referendum or vote can be held on the day of a Commonwealth election without the authority of the governor-general.

    This ban was introduced in 1922, after holding state votes at the same time as federal elections resulted in a high informal vote due to different voting instructions.

    The governor-general has given this permission only once, when the Northern Territory held a plebiscite on becoming a state on the same day as the 1998 federal election.

    It’s doubtful the federal government would advise the governor-general to permit a partisan state plebiscite to be held on the same day as a federal election.

    Queensland’s ageing Callide Power Station opened nearly 60 years ago. It’s been flagged as a possible location for a nuclear power station under opposition leader Peter Dutton’s plan.
    Queensland State Archives

    Where does this leave us?

    It’s unlikely Queensland could hold such a plebiscite at or before the next federal election.

    But if the Coalition wins the next federal election and proceeds with its nuclear policy, Queensland would be obliged to hold a plebiscite – regardless of who wins the state election, unless its law was changed.

    This would make clear how much support there was for nuclear power. A clear rejection wouldn’t have any legal effect, but could well achieve the same outcome through political pressure. We might also see other states follow suit to hold plebiscites on nuclear power, although none currently are legally obliged to do so.

    Anne Twomey has received funding from the Australian Research Council and sometimes does consultancy work for governments, Parliaments and inter-governmental bodies.

    – ref. Queensland Premier Steven Miles is promising to hold a vote on nuclear power. Here’s why – https://theconversation.com/queensland-premier-steven-miles-is-promising-to-hold-a-vote-on-nuclear-power-heres-why-241254

    MIL OSI Analysis – EveningReport.nz –

  • MIL-Evening Report: Banning debit card surcharges could save $500 million a year – if traders don’t claw back the money in other ways

    Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Angel Zhong, Associate Professor of Finance, RMIT University

    Galdric PS/Shutterstock

    In a move that could reshape how Australians pay for everyday purchases, the federal government is preparing to ban businesses from slapping surcharges on debit card transactions.

    This plan, pending a review by the Reserve Bank of Australia (RBA), promises to put money back into consumers’ pockets.

    The RBA, which is accepting submissions until December, released its first consultation paper on Tuesday to coincide with Prime Minister Anthony Albanese and Treasurer Jim Chalmers’ joint announcement.

    But as with any significant policy shift, it’s worth taking a closer look to see what it really means for all of us.

    How much are we really saving?

    Based on RBA data, the potential savings are huge – up to $500 million a year if surcharges on debit cards are banned.

    And if the government goes one step further and includes credit card transaction fees in the ban, those savings could hit a massive $1 billion annually.

    While these figures sound impressive, when you break it down, the savings per cardholder would amount to around $140 annually.

    It’s not a life-changing amount, but for frequent shoppers or anyone making larger purchases, it could add up.

    Of course, not everyone will benefit equally. Those who shop less might not notice the difference.

    How does Australia stack up globally?

    RBA data shows Australians are paying more in merchant service fees than people in Europe, but less than consumers in the United States.

    These fees are what businesses pay to accept card payments, and they get passed on to us in the form of surcharges.

    The proposed ban on debit card surcharges occupies a middle ground in the global regulatory landscape. The European Union, United Kingdom and Malaysia have implemented comprehensive bans on surcharges for most debit and credit card transactions.

    But in the US and Canada, businesses can still charge you for using a credit card, though debit card surcharges aren’t allowed.

    The merchant’s perspective

    While the surcharge ban seems like a clear win for consumers, it’s essential to consider the impact on merchants, especially small businesses. The reality is not all merchants are created equal when it comes to card payment fees.

    In Australia, there’s a significant disparity between the fees paid by large and small merchants. In fact, RBA data shows small businesses pay fees about three times higher than what larger businesses pay.

    It all comes down to bargaining power. Bigger businesses can negotiate better deals on fees. This difference is primarily driven by the ability of larger merchants to thrash out favourable wholesale fees for processing card transactions.

    For small businesses, the cost of accepting cards can range from under 1% to more than 2% of the transaction value, which can eat into profits, especially for those working with tight margins.

    While the ban may sound like good news for consumers, there’s still a need to fix the bigger issues in the payment system. Innovations like “least-cost routing”, which allows businesses to process transactions at the lowest possible cost, could potentially help level the playing field.

    How businesses might exploit the loopholes?

    If payment costs are entirely passed on to merchants, they might find ways to recover those expenses through other means. We’ve seen this happen in other countries that abolished surcharges. Some potential strategies include

    • slightly raising overall prices to cover lost surcharge revenue
    • implementing or increasing minimum purchase requirements for card payments
    • introducing new “service” or “convenience” fees for all transactions, or increasing weekend and holiday surcharges.

    Most of these tactics have been around for a while. The challenge for regulators will be to monitor and address any new practices that emerge in response to the new rules.

    Credit cards: the elephant in the room

    While the ban on debit card surcharges is a step in the right direction, it raises an obvious question: why not extend it to credit cards?

    The option to ban credit card surcharges along with debit cards is proposed in the RBA’s review consultation paper. The answer lies in the complex web of interchange fees and merchant costs associated with credit card transactions.

    Credit card transactions cost merchants more to process because of additional services and rewards programs offered by credit card issuers.

    Banning surcharges on these could potentially lead to merchants increasing their base prices to cover these costs. This could effectively result in users of lower-cost payment methods subsidising those opting for premium cards.

    The absence of surcharges could also reduce the competitive pressure on card networks to keep their fees in check, potentially leading to higher costs in the long run.

    Some countries have managed to ban surcharges on credit cards, but they usually have stricter regulations around interchange fees than we do in Australia.

    As policymakers grapple with this complex issue, they must weigh the benefits of consumer simplicity against the risk of distorting market signals and potentially increasing costs for both merchants and consumers alike.

    Angel Zhong does not work for, consult, own shares in or receive funding from any company or organisation that would benefit from this article, and has disclosed no relevant affiliations beyond their academic appointment.

    – ref. Banning debit card surcharges could save $500 million a year – if traders don’t claw back the money in other ways – https://theconversation.com/banning-debit-card-surcharges-could-save-500-million-a-year-if-traders-dont-claw-back-the-money-in-other-ways-241354

    MIL OSI Analysis – EveningReport.nz –

  • MIL-Evening Report: Fair-minded, down to earth and unusually gifted: George Negus dies at 82

    Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Denis Muller, Senior Research Fellow, Centre for Advancing Journalism, The University of Melbourne

    George Negus, who has died at the age of 82, belonged to the nomenclatura of Australian television current affairs journalism.

    He first came to prominence as a member of the team that produced the groundbreaking nightly ABC TV current affairs program, This Day Tonight. That team was made up of others who were also to become household names: presenter Bill Peach and reporters Peter Luck, Gerald Stone and Mike Willesee.

    The program became a burr under the saddle of senior ABC management. On its second day it broke the story that the then chair of the ABC, James Darling, was not to be given a third term. The story incurred the chairman’s displeasure. The fallout went on interminably, a rehearsal for many tumults that were to follow throughout TDT’s 11-year existence.

    This kind of fearless, sometimes irreverent, public-interest journalism was meat and drink to Negus. He practised it from both sides of the chasm that traditionally separates journalists from political staffers.

    During the term of the Whitlam government, he became press secretary to the attorney-general, Lionel Murphy. He leaked to the media Murphy’s plan to raid the headquarters of the Australian Security Intelligence Organisation (ASIO) in 1973 because Murphy believed the agency was withholding from him information about domestic terrorism.

    However, it was as a television journalist that Negus made his name. In 1979 he joined the founding team of the Nine Network’s 60 Minutes program, alongside Ray Martin, Ian Leslie and, later, Jana Wendt.

    In 1992 he became the founding host of ABC TV’s Foreign Correspondent program and worked there until 1999. He developed a reputation as a well-informed and courageous reporter specialising in the Middle East. In 2004, he published a bestselling book, The World from Islam: A Journey of Discovery through the Muslim Heartland, in which he defended Islam against the stereotype that it was inherently violent.

    In 2005 he became host of the SBS program Dateline, which also had a foreign affairs focus, and in 2011 began hosting 6.30 with George Negus on the Ten network.

    In 2012, Negus and a fellow panellist on the Ten network show The Circle, Yumi Stynes, became embroiled in a controversy concerning remarks they made about Ben Roberts-Smith, many years before he was found by a federal court judge to have committed war crimes, a finding that is now on appeal.

    There was severe public blowback on Negus and Stynes, who then apologised to Roberts-Smith. They in turn received apologies from Australia’s major newspapers for misconstruing the original remarks.

    In 2015 he was made a Member of the Order of Australia for services to media and environmental conservation.

    Although he acquired a knockabout image, he was described by two women who worked with him as disarmingly approachable.

    Nehida Barakat was the senior producer for the ABC’s 7.30 program in about 2000 when Negus stood in as the summer presenter. She was apprehensive when he rang to discuss an intro she had written. “This gentlemanly voice asked: ‘Would you mind if I changed just a couple of words?’”

    Nicole Chvastek, who worked with him at Nine, said he was a big star who generated an air of excitement, a mixture of the intelligent, well-travelled journalist and “a sort of approachable larrikin everyman”.

    It was his down-to-earth approach to storytelling that viewers related to so readily. This, coupled with unshakeable fairmindedness on the issues he reported on, marked him out as an unusually gifted journalist.

    He is survived by his partner, Kirsty, and two sons, Ned and Serge. The family released a statement saying he had “passed away peacefully surrounded by loved ones after a gracious decline from Alzheimer’s disease, all the while with his trademark smile”.

    Denis Muller does not work for, consult, own shares in or receive funding from any company or organisation that would benefit from this article, and has disclosed no relevant affiliations beyond their academic appointment.

    – ref. Fair-minded, down to earth and unusually gifted: George Negus dies at 82 – https://theconversation.com/fair-minded-down-to-earth-and-unusually-gifted-george-negus-dies-at-82-241367

    MIL OSI Analysis – EveningReport.nz –

  • MIL-OSI Global: IDF actions against UN peacekeepers suggest Israel may be considering occupying part of southern Lebanon

    Source: The Conversation – UK – By Vanessa Newby, Assistant Professor, Institute of Security and Global Affairs, Leiden University

    The United Nations security council has expressed strong concern for the safety of peacekeepers in Lebanon after a series of incidents over the past week in which UN positions have come under fire from the Israel Defense Forces as they continue their push in the south of the country.

    “UN peacekeepers and UN premises must never be the target of an attack,” the security council said on October 14 in a statement adopted by consensus of the 15-member council. It urged all parties to respect the security and safety of the United Nations Interim Force in Lebanon (Unifil) operating in south Lebanon.

    In recent days, the Israel Defense Forces (IDF) have struck the Unifil on several occasions, damaging cameras, shooting directly at peacekeepers and, on October 13, two Israeli tanks entered a UN compound for 45 minutes and set off smoke bombs.

    The same day Israel requested that Unifil withdraw five kilometres back from the blue line which constitutes the de facto border between Israel and Lebanon, to keep them “out of harm’s way”.

    On each occasion, the IDF has either claimed it was acting in self-defence against Hezbollah or that its actions were accidental. These explanations have failed to convince the rest of the world.

    The US, several European countries and the EU have all stated that UN peacekeepers must not be harmed. The UN secretary general, António Guterres, contends these attacks may constitute war crimes and are a breach of both international law and international humanitarian law.



    Read more:
    UN peacekeepers at risk as they deliver protection for civilians in southern Lebanon

    Since 1978, Unifil has lost 337 peacekeepers, making Lebanon the most costly, in human terms, of all the UN peacekeeping operations. But despite these risks it has remained in post. Throughout Unifil’s deployment, IDF has put it under pressure both directly and through a proxy force, the South Lebanon Army (SLA). As such Unifil has a strong institutional memory of staying put in the direst of circumstances which makes it unlikely to recommend a drawdown.

    What’s more, the security council is aware that if Unifil leaves the area, another UN-led conflict resolution mechanism is likely to be required in future. This logic is why Unifil mandates have always been renewed – albeit sometimes for three months or less.

    The biggest threat to Unifil’s deployment is if one or more troop contributing countries decide the risks are too high and withdraw their contingents. The post-2006 Unifil mission comprises the highest number of European troop contingents of all peace operations worldwide with the main contributors being Italy, Spain, Ireland, and France.

    The two sectors that comprise the mission – sector west and sector east – are led by Italy and Spain respectively. The biggest non-EU contributors are India, Ghana, Indonesia and Malaysia. If one or more of these countries were to decide to withdraw troops, this could trigger a reevaluation of the mission’s ability to deploy.

    If Unifil were to leave, it is worth noting that their compounds have a large amount of expensive equipment – much of it owned nationally by the troop contributing countries. The logistical challenge of moving troops and equipment in a battle zone would be very difficult and dangerous.

    Despite the intense fighting, many civilians still remain. The death toll from the hostilities is now estimated to be 2,306 dead and 10,698 wounded. Unifil’s presence remains crucial to monitor the hostilities and wherever possible, provide civilian protection and humanitarian assistance. But for that to be possible, Israel’s allies must continue to exert pressure to ensure that the IDF ceases all attacks on Unifil.

    A new ‘zone of security’?

    One possible reason for the attacks is that the IDF believes ridding the area of Unifil exposes Hezbollah and will enable the IDF to continue their incursion unhindered by the watchful eyes of an international observer.

    Israel’s ground offensive in southern Lebanon, October 13 2024.
    Institute for the Study of War

    But there’s another possibility. During the Lebanese civil war, the IDF occupied a section of Lebanese land bordering Israel that was known as the “zone of security”. Its purpose was to serve as a buffer zone for northern Israel, initially designed to protect Israeli citizens from Palestinian militia, and later also from the Shia resistance groups Amal and Hezbollah.

    The Israeli request for Unifil to move five kilometres back from the blue line could mean Israel is considering reestablishing some kind of buffer zone. Several factors point to this being a possibility – although the IDF and the Israeli government may not be aligned on this issue as recent tensions suggest.

    First, the IDF has now deployed units from at least four divisions into Lebanon. The volume of troop numbers deployed is upwards of 15,000 suggesting this incursion is more than a limited operation.

    Second, 29 Unifil compounds lie along the blue line. Were they to be evacuated by the UN, there would be nothing to stop the IDF from moving in and developing them into their own strongholds. While UN positions would need reinforcement and protection equipment, they would nonetheless remain useful.

    Third, in 2006 the IDF tried to destroy Hezbollah from the air and deployed limited haphazard ground incursions. These tactics failed and the prevailing view may now be that the only way to guarantee the safe return of 65,000 Israelis to their homes in northern Israel is through an occupation.

    But unlike the previous occupation, where the IDF was aided by the SLA, Israel currently has no partner in Lebanon, and it is unlikely to find a willing accomplice among the Lebanese population to help them manage the security of a buffer zone. This means IDF troops would directly bear the brunt of attacks from resistance groups, and the northern Israeli villages would be unlikely to remain secure.

    The Netanyahu government’s continued use of military solutions to solve political problems has worrying implications for Israel, Lebanon and the Middle East as a whole. At this stage, Israel looks as if it might be settling back into a conflict that could become another “forever war”.

    Thus far, the tactics used by the IDF would imply they are not thinking ahead to “the day after” and the cost to Israel that would come with the prolonged occupation of a buffer zone.

    This article was written with assistance from John Molloy, lt. col. (rtd.) Irish Defence Forces and former senior Unifil political & civil affairs officer, 2008-2017.

    Chiara Ruffa receives funding from the Swedish Research Council, the Fulbright Commission and the European Commission.

    – ref. IDF actions against UN peacekeepers suggest Israel may be considering occupying part of southern Lebanon – https://theconversation.com/idf-actions-against-un-peacekeepers-suggest-israel-may-be-considering-occupying-part-of-southern-lebanon-241297

    MIL OSI – Global Reports –

  • MIL-OSI Global: South Africa’s unity government won’t dent poverty and inequality if it follows the same old policies – sociologist

    Source: The Conversation – Africa – By Roger Southall, Professor of Sociology, University of the Witwatersrand

    A recent poll by the Social Research Foundation, a think thank, found that 60% of South Africans thought the government of national unity was working well. It also reported that support for the unity government’s anchor political parties, the African National Congress (ANC) and the Democratic Alliance (DA), had risen since 29 May 2024 when elections were held.

    The poll results came out at the same time as the business press was reporting increased collaboration between business and government, fostered by the unity government. Corporations have reportedly pledged up to R250 million (about US$14.3 million to assist the state to address various logistics crises and help the National Prosecuting Authority prosecute corruption.

    Although we should be cautious about taking such news at face value, it is worth noting that the arrival of the unity government has been accompanied by other good news. For example:

    This adds up to new shoots which suggest a better harvest to come.



    Read more:
    South Africa has a huge gap between the rich and poor – 4 urgent reasons to tackle inequality

    Still, it is wise not to get too excited unless any upturn in the economy benefits the majority of South Africans. As Frans Cronje, director of the Social Research Foundation, has observed, while the unity government may be good for the middle class, there is no sign yet that it is addressing the needs of the poor and the people on the periphery of the economy.

    Unless its benefits become socially inclusive, it might well collapse. We need to take Cronje’s reservations seriously. Note, however, that although the unity government is a coalition, it is led by the African National Congress. And, while all parties agree that they need to put the economy back on track and promote growth, there is little evidence yet that the government is pursuing distinctively new policies.

    Beware complacency

    We are often told that “a rising tide lifts all boats”.

    But this claim owes more to ideology than careful analysis of economic data. In any case, it is a catchphrase which condones inequality. It suggests that as long as living standards increase for the poor, it does not matter if the wealthy gain even more. Indeed, one version is that the more the well-off benefit, the more likely they are to spend and invest their money – that is, to create wealth for others.

    Such complacency is dangerous. Apart from being contentious economically, it poses risks to both democracy and political stability. This is particularly the case in South Africa, which is widely recognised as the most unequal country in the world.

    • High rates of inequality erode social cohesion and trust in democracy. In the May general election, the lowest level of voter turnout since 1994 reflected a worrying decline in support for democracy: from 72% in 2011 to just 43% by 2023.

    • Extremes of inequality are unlikely to lead to the formation of governing coalitions committed to pursuing developmental strategies of benefit to all. As a result, populist parties that tout simplistic solutions may find it easier to win support. As suggested by the unheralded performance of Jacob Zuma’s umKhonto we Sizwe Party in the 2024 election, this is a particular danger in South Africa. Here, the poorer black majority possess potential political power in an economy which remains largely controlled and owned by a richer, white minority. The French economist Thomas Piketty in his latest blockbuster, Capital and Ideology, warns that in such situations, the dangers of a lurch towards authoritarianism are much increased.



    Read more:
    South Africa’s unity government could see a continuation of the ANC’s political dominance – and hurt the DA

    Little prospect of reduction of inequality

    The issue is not whether the unity government is blind to these dangers, but whether the policies it is pursuing are likely to make a dent in the staggering level of inequality.

    If investment and growth do occur, there will be good news down the line – possibly the creation of some 2 million jobs and more financial room for the government to fund social benefits for the poor. But it’s unlikely to have a marked effect on the level of inequality.

    First, the unity government is not promising any great change from policies that have been pursued since 1994, only more efficient implementation. Those policies have somewhat decreased racial disparities, notably by promoting a black middle class, but they have not reduced the overall level of inequality. Indeed, as Piketty shows, this has increased, not decreased, since 1994.

    Second, the unity government’s policies may continue to focus on the reduction of poverty. But this is unlikely to shift the proportions of income between the different classes. As Cronje has hinted, the new government is underpinned by a middle-class coalition, and for this to hang together, the middle class will want to reap its reward.



    Read more:
    South Africa’s new unity government must draw on the country’s greatest asset: its constitution

    Third, history doesn’t offer much hope. Former settler colonies stand out for their exceptionally high levels of inequality. In South Africa, white people always dominated the top earners before 1994. Now they have been joined by high-earning black people, many of them public officials. The top decile’s share of total earning has increased since the end of apartheid. Today it is close to 70%, compared with around 35% in Europe.

    Fourth, we live in an age which Piketty describes as “hyper-capitalism”, in which money and ultra-rich elites are highly mobile. This makes it hard for national governments to tax the rich more. They can leave, or threaten to withdraw their investments to earn higher returns elsewhere. South Africa has already been leaking its millionaires. The unity government will not want to scare any more of them away. So, it’s unlikely to adopt aggressive tax policies in the cause of narrowing inequality.

    The unity government may well promote high growth and if successful, may ameliorate poverty, but it seems unlikely that it will either attempt or succeed in reducing inequality. It may be good for the elite and middle class, but not necessarily for the health of democracy.

    Roger Southall does not work for, consult, own shares in or receive funding from any company or organisation that would benefit from this article, and has disclosed no relevant affiliations beyond their academic appointment.

    – ref. South Africa’s unity government won’t dent poverty and inequality if it follows the same old policies – sociologist – https://theconversation.com/south-africas-unity-government-wont-dent-poverty-and-inequality-if-it-follows-the-same-old-policies-sociologist-240697

    MIL OSI – Global Reports –

  • MIL-OSI Global: Alex Salmond: Scotland’s first nationalist leader and a tireless campaigner for independence

    Source: The Conversation – UK – By Murray Leith, Professor of Political Science and Director of the Centre for Migration, Diaspora, Citizenship and Identity, University of the West of Scotland

    Alex Salmond, possibly one of the most famous Scottish politicians of recent decades, and certainly the best-known face of the Scottish National Party (SNP), has died at the age of 69.

    The former first minister of Scotland, a long-standing member of the Westminster parliament and a member of the Scottish parliament, he led the SNP from a small, fringe party within Westminster to become the ruling party of the Scottish government. He was the first Scottish nationalist first minister of Scotland, a post he would hold from 2007 to 2014.

    Salmond was born, raised and educated in Scotland. It was while he was a student at St Andrews University that he joined the university branch of the Federation of Student Nationalists in December 1973. As one of only two fully paid-up members of the SNP at the university, he became the branch president.

    After graduation, and a couple of years as a civil servant, Salmond moved to the Royal Bank of Scotland and became an economics expert, with a focus on oil. Yet, throughout this career he remained an active and committed member of the SNP.

    Leftwing in his views, he was part of the 79 Group, a small faction of the SNP that was very critical of the then leadership, and which advocated a more leftwing stance for the party as a whole. He, along with others, was briefly expelled from the SNP in 1982, but was allowed back in a month later.

    By 1985, Salmon was a senior figure in the SNP. His political career truly began in 1987, when he defeated the incumbent Conservative in Banff and Buchan in 1987 to become the consituency’s Westminster MP. He would win re-election four times, and then be elected to Holyrood, all from the north-east of Scotland, for the next three decades.

    SNP leadership and independence referendum

    Salmond first became leader of the SNP in 1990, and he showed his significant skills as a political strategist on the UK-wide stage. From here, he would become a very visible and recognisable face for the SNP, and for Scotland.

    It would be the advent of devolution in 1997, and the creation of the Scottish parliament in 1999 that would change the face of Scottish politics and allow Salmond to reach new heights. But there were many bumps along the way. Just a year into the life of the brand new parliament, Salmond suddenly stood down as SNP leader. There were rumours of fallouts with other leading figures.

    Salmond would, however, return as leader in 2004, replacing John Swinney (currently the first minister) after a poor showing for the SNP in Scottish parliament elections. As he was an MP and not an MSP at the time, the party at Holyrood was led by Nicola Sturgeon, at the time a longtime ally.

    Not only did he return as an MSP, but the SNP became the largest party in the Scottish parliament by one seat in 2007. It formed a minority government with Salmond as first minister and Sturgeon as his deputy.

    Another milestone was reached in 2011, when Salmond would lead the SNP in winning a majority within the Scottish parliament, a task everyone thought impossible given the voting system was, arguably, specifically designed to avoid such outcomes. This win led Salmond to begin negotiations with the UK government of David Cameron to hold a referendum on Scottish independence.

    In perhaps one of Salmond’s most effective moments, he came away with an agreement that allowed him many of his specific objectives – a single question on the ballot and a long lead in, of two years, before the referendum itself. Only ten years after he had returned as leader, he led the SNP to a referendum outcome where 45% of voters said yes to independence, a much larger figure than many thought possible.

    However, this was still a loss, and Salmond resigned as party leader the next day. He then returned to Westminster in 2015 but lost his seat in 2017.

    Further problems arose for Salmond in 2018, when allegations of sexual assault were made, and he resigned from the SNP after being a member for 45 years. Despite being cleared at a trial in 2020 of 14 charges, his relationship with the SNP, and his personal relationships with Sturgeon and other leading SNP figures, were badly damaged.

    He directly blamed Sturgeon and her husband, SNP chief executive Peter Murrell, for the way in which he was treated. He took the Scottish government to court over the handling of the accusations and won a substantial payout of half a million pounds.

    Establishing a new party

    Whether it was because of his treatment by the SNP, his disquiet at what he saw as the wrong priorities, or the inability for him to find a role after leaving as first minister, Salmond decided to establish a new political party, Alba, in 2021, only three years after leaving the SNP.

    After being on the national, and international, stage for several decades, Salmond remained committed to the political fight for Scottish independence. There were several defections from the SNP – two MPs, one MSP, and a few local councillors – but the party has never won an elected seat at any level.

    Salmond also presented a television show on Russian state broadcaster RT, a decision unpopular with many in the SNP. He also wrote as a tipster on horse racing for newspapers for many years.

    There can be little doubt that Salmond’s professional and personal lives were characterised by ups and downs. Yet the fact remains that he led the SNP to many victories, and saw them challenge the status quo and the British state in a manner unthinkable when he first became an SNP MP.

    Those present during the last few days of the 2014 referendum will remember the distinct feeling that maybe, just maybe, the SNP could pull off a win, and an independent Scotland – a dream he shared with millions of others – could be a possibility.

    Salmond reshaped the SNP, he reshaped the political landscape of Scotland, and his legacy cannot be overstated.

    Murray Leith has previously received funding from the European Union, the Scottish Government, and the UK Government. He is a member of the Electoral Reform Society.

    – ref. Alex Salmond: Scotland’s first nationalist leader and a tireless campaigner for independence – https://theconversation.com/alex-salmond-scotlands-first-nationalist-leader-and-a-tireless-campaigner-for-independence-241222

    MIL OSI – Global Reports –

  • MIL-OSI Global: 2024 US presidential election: can we believe the polls?

    Source: The Conversation – France – By Jérôme Viala-Gaudefroy, Spécialiste de la politique américaine, Auteurs historiques The Conversation France

    Nationwide polls are often of limited relevance, considering the unique structure of the US electoral system. To gain a better understanding of the upcoming presidential election, we need to focus on surveys conducted in the pivotal battlegrounds – the so-called swing states. After the missteps in previous elections, it’s hard to place too much confidence in these polls, as many rely on unrepresentative samples.

    As we head toward the 2024 US presidential election, media large and small frequently fall into the trap of “horse race” journalism. Policy questions are rarely treated in depth, and the emphasis is often on the latest polls. One week they announce Kamala Harris as moving ahead, and the next, Donald Trump still has an edge. But how reliable are these polls?

    In the United States, rather than being elected by direct popular vote, the president is chosen indirectly through the Electoral College, an institution inscribed in the country’s constitution. Each state is assigned a number of electors based in part on its population, but also on its number of senators. As a result, smaller states get a larger voice than their population would indicate.

    One of the implications is that national election polls can be deceiving. In most states with established partisan majorities, the outcomes are predictable due to the winner-takes-all approach. This system awards all of a state’s electoral votes to the candidate who wins the popular vote in that state (with the exception of Maine and Nebraska, which use a proportional system). As a result, the most relevant polls are those conducted in “swing states”, where neither party holds a consistent advantage.

    According to recent analyses, around ten states are expected to be in play for 2024. Based on recent trends, there are seven swing states to watch: Nevada, Arizona, Wisconsin, Michigan, Pennsylvania, North Carolina, and Georgia. In the 2016 and 2020 elections, victory margins in these states were razor-thin, often less than 1%.

    With both Harris and Trump within striking distance of the 270 Electoral College votes needed to win the presidency, these swing states, with a combined 91 votes, will determine the outcome.

    Map published on 18 August 2024 by CNN. The number of electors for each state are show. The colors indicate the states that appear to be strongly (dark blue) or probably (light blue) leaning toward Kamala Harris, and strongly (red) or probably (pink) leaning toward Donald Trump. In yellow are the seven pivotal states where victory is likely to come down to a small number of votes. Click to zoom.

    The 2016 and 2020 polling failures: flukes or systemic issues?

    When the margins are so tight in these key states, accurately measuring voter intentions is an enormous challenge. In 2016, national polls correctly predicted Hillary Clinton’s popular-vote win – she had nearly 3 million more than Trump. However, they failed to foresee Trump’s Electorial College victories in critical states, which ultimately put him over the top.

    The American Association for Public Opinion Research (AAPOR) pointed out several reasons for these errors, including underrepresentation of Republican voters, over-representation of college-educated voters (who tend to lean Democratic), and an underestimation of undecided voters who eventually voted for Trump or third-party candidates.

    Despite efforts to fix these problems, other biases showed up in 2020. While graduate voters were not over-represented and undecideds were evenly split between Biden and Trump, the Covid-19 pandemic had made the pollsters’ task more complicated. AAPOR points out that the states with a higher proportion of Covid-19 cases were the ones with the highest polling errors. As a result, pollsters underestimated Trump’s vote share in key swing states and also overestimated Biden’s national lead, making the 2020 polls the least accurate in 40 years.

    Proportion of polling errors in presidential elections since 1936. Click to zoom.
    Pew Reseach Center

    Despite these errors, Biden still triumphed, winning 4 percent more of the popular vote and taking home 306 electoral votes to Trump’s 232. Biden’s victories in the swing states of Arizona, Georgia, Michigan, Nevada, Pennsylvania, and Wisconsin make all the difference.

    Polling errors and public distrust

    Errors of this magnitude naturally increase the public’s scepticism of polling, especially among Republicans, who are already wary of establishment institutions. Contrary to initial assumptions, Trump voters didn’t hesitate to express their preferences in 2016 and 2020. However, they were less likely to participate in polls due in part to their distrust of mainstream institutions. As a result, working-class white voters – and their opinions – were underrepresented in many polls.

    Pollsters also face technical challenges. Getting a respondent on the phone now requires calling hundreds of people, thanks to caller ID and call screening. Polls with smaller samples (fewer than 1,000 respondents) are less reliable. To deal with these hurdles, many pollsters are now using a mix of methods, including e-mail, online surveys, and robocalls.

    Though cheaper, online surveys often draw voluntary participants who are compensated, which leads to issues of accuracy and representation. This growing reliance on online polling has contributed to a doubling of polling companies from 2000 to 2022, according to Pew Research Center.

    Margin of error and identifying “likely” voters

    The margin of error is a critical component of polling that is often misunderstood by the public and media. It typically falls between 3 and 4 percentage points, but for smaller demographic groups (for example, young people, white men, or Hispanics), it can be even higher. Media headlines, however, frequently imply a candidate is leading, even when the difference is within the margin of error. University of California, Berkeley researchers suggest that to ensure 95% accuracy, the margin of error should be closer to 6%.

    However, the media sometimes amplify results, particularly in headlines, by implying that a candidate is ahead, even when the difference is within the margin of error. Moreover, researchers at the University of Berkeley have shown that to guarantee 95% accuracy, this margin should be increased to at least 6%. This means a candidate projected to receive 54% of the vote is likely, in reality, to secure anywhere between 48% and 60%, reflecting an actual margin of error of 12 percentage points.

    Another significant challenge for pollsters is identifying likely voters. Only around two-thirds of citizens eligible to vote actually go to the polls. In 2016, turnout on the Democratic side was overestimated, giving the false impression that Clinton was a lock for victory. This likely caused some of her supporters to stay home, while Trump’s base showed up in force when polls suggested he was behind. Accurately predicting who will turn out to vote is crucial to polling accuracy.

    Lessons from the 2022 midterms: A glimmer of hope for 2024?

    Polling showed notable improvements during the 2022 midterm elections, with the results being the most accurate since 1998. Importantly, there was no significant bias toward either party. However, midterm elections operate differently than presidential elections, and the dynamics for 2024 may be very different. That said, many polling institutions have adapted since 2016: as of 2022, 61% of polling firms had changed their methods, such as refining sampling techniques and improving question wording. More than a third have changed their methods after 2020.

    While these changes are positive, challenges remain, especially in predicting turnout and combating low response rates.

    What good are polls, then?

    At the end of the day, election polls offer snapshots – often imprecise – and can only provide general trends. Polling methods vary across firms, introducing biases that make it difficult to compare results.

    Survey aggregators offer averages that might be more reliable than individual polls, but they still come with a degree of uncertainty. This is true for FiveThirtyEight, the well-known website founded by statistics guru Nate Silver. After ABC took over in 2023, Silver left, taking his forecasting model with him to his new platform, Silver Bulletin, which continues to attract significant media attention.

    With the unpredictability of polls, political betting markets have become popular as polling alternatives. Platforms like Polymarket, which recently hired Silver, have multiplied rapidly. Some people, like Elon Musk, argue that markets provide better forecasts than traditional polls, though this claim is unproven. There are also concerns that these markets could be manipulated to sway public opinion.

    While opinion polls aren’t the best tools for predicting elections – as this could be one of the closest in recent history – their value lies in gauging public opinion on key issues. However, even in this role, polls can still be biased, often influenced by how questions are phrased.

    For example, in 2019 USA Today ran the headline “Poll: Half of Americans say Trump is victim of a ‘witch hunt’ as trust in Mueller erodes”. This was in reference to Special Counsel Robert Mueller’s investigation into Russian interference in the 2016 election. The question asked by the poll was:

    “President Trump has called the special counsel’s investigation a ‘witch hunt’ and said he has been investigated more than previous presidents for political reasons. Do you agree?”

    The problem with this wording is that it combined two different ideas: whether the investigation was a “witch hunt” and whether Trump had been unfairly targeted for political reasons. On top of that, the question lacked neutrality, presenting only his perspective.

    Naturally, Trump used the result to his advantage, even though other polls from sources such as The Washington Post, CBS News, and NPR-PBS told a different story.

    To use polling data wisely during this election, it’s crucial to recognize these limitations and pay attention to the fine print – details like the sample size, polling date, margin of error, and methodology. Additionally, consider the poll’s sponsors, who may only release results that align with their particular agenda.

    Ultimately, the best way to interpret polling data is with caution, focusing on general trends rather than any single poll. And always remember, election outcomes can be full of surprises.

    Jérôme Viala-Gaudefroy ne travaille pas, ne conseille pas, ne possède pas de parts, ne reçoit pas de fonds d’une organisation qui pourrait tirer profit de cet article, et n’a déclaré aucune autre affiliation que son organisme de recherche.

    – ref. 2024 US presidential election: can we believe the polls? – https://theconversation.com/2024-us-presidential-election-can-we-believe-the-polls-240834

    MIL OSI – Global Reports –

  • MIL-Evening Report: Can listening to music make you more productive at work?

    Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Anna Fiveash, ARC DECRA Fellow (Researcher), Western Sydney University

    Gorodenkoff/Shutterstock

    Listening to music can enhance our lives in all kinds of ways – many of us use it during exercise, to regulate our mood, or in the workplace.

    But can listening to background music while you work really make you more productive?

    It’s a controversial topic. Some people swear by it, others find it painfully distracting. The research agrees there’s no one-size-fits-all answer to this question.

    The best way to use music in the workplace depends on several factors, including your personality traits, what you’re doing, and what kind of music you’re listening to.

    Here’s how to find out what works best for you.

    Who you are

    Your personality has a key influence on whether background music can boost productivity or be distracting in the workplace, which relates to your unique optimal level of arousal.

    Arousal in this context relates to mental alertness, and the readiness of the brain to process new information. Background music can increase it.

    Research suggests that being at an optimal level of arousal facilitates a state of “flow”, enhancing performance and productivity.

    Introverts may need less external stimulus – such as music – to focus well.
    Ground Picture/Shutterstock

    Introverts already have a high baseline level of internal arousal.

    Adding background music might push them over their optimal level, likely reducing productivity.

    Extroverts, on the other hand, have lower baseline levels of internal arousal, so need more external stimulation to perform at their optimal level.

    This is why introverts may perform worse than extroverts with background music, especially when the music is highly arousing.

    What you’re doing

    Research has shown the nature of the task you’re doing can also have an important effect.

    Because of connections between music and language in the brain, trying to read and write at the same time as listening to complex music – especially music with lyrics – can be particularly difficult.

    However, if you’re doing a simple or repetitive task such as data entry or a manual task, having music on in the background can help with performance – particularly upbeat and complex music.

    These findings could be related to music’s effects on motivation and maintaining attention, as well as activating reward networks in the brain.

    Complex music may increase performance on some simple or manual tasks.
    Krakenimages.com/Shutterstock

    The type of music itself

    One important and often overlooked influence is what kind of music you choose to listen to.

    Research has shown that fast and loud music can be more detrimental to complex tasks, such as reading comprehension, than soft and slow music.

    Other research found that listening to calming music can have benefits for memory, while aggressive and unpleasant music can have the opposite effect.

    However, these effects also depend on your personality, your familiarity with the music, and your musical preferences, so the type of music that works best will be different for everyone.

    Music can be very rewarding and can benefit attention, mood and motivation.

    Choosing music that is meaningful, rewarding and makes you feel good will likely help boost your performance, especially when performing simple tasks.

    The type of music you listen to can have an effect.
    Samuel Sianipar/Unsplash

    What about complex tasks?

    It largely seems that the more complex or demanding the task is, the more distracting background music can be.

    One way to harness the motivational and mood-boosting effects of music to help with your workplace productivity is to play music before doing your work.

    Using music to boost your mood and enhance attention before starting a work task could help you be more productive in that task.

    Playing music right before a task can provide benefits while reducing the risk of distraction.
    XiXinXing/Shutterstock

    Playing music before a demanding task has been shown to boost language abilities in particular.

    So if you’re about to do a cognitively demanding task involving reading and writing, and you feel that music might distract you if played at the same time, try listening to it just before doing the task.

    Find what works for you

    Music can be both helpful and detrimental for workplace productivity – the best advice is to experiment with different tasks and different types of music, to find out what works best for you.

    Try to experiment with your favourite music first, while doing a simple task.

    Does the music help you engage with the task? Or do you get distracted and start to become more absorbed in the music? Listening to music without lyrics and with a strong beat might help you focus on the task at hand.

    If you find music is distracting to your work, try scheduling in some music breaks throughout the day. Listening to music during breaks could boost your mood and increase your motivation, thereby enhancing productivity.

    Moving along with music is suggested to increase reward processing, especially in social situations.

    Dancing has the added bonus of getting you out of your chair and moving along in time, so bonus points if you are able to make it a dance break!



    Read more:
    An education in music makes you a better employee. Are recruiters in tune?

    Anna Fiveash receives funding from The Australian Research Council.

    – ref. Can listening to music make you more productive at work? – https://theconversation.com/can-listening-to-music-make-you-more-productive-at-work-241123

    MIL OSI Analysis – EveningReport.nz –

  • MIL-Evening Report: 30 years ago, Tarantino’s Pulp Fiction shook Hollywood and redefined ‘cool’ cinema

    Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Ben McCann, Associate Professor of French Studies, University of Adelaide

    IMDB

    What might be the most seismic moment in American cinema? Film “speaking” for the first time in The Jazz Singer? Dorothy entering the Land of Oz? That menacing shark that in 1975 invented the summer blockbuster?

    Or how about that moment when two hitmen on their way to a job began talking about the intricacies of European fast food while listening to Kool & The Gang?

    Directed by Quentin Tarantino, Pulp Fiction (1994) celebrates its 30th birthday this month. Watching it now, this story of a motley crew of mobsters, drug dealers and lowlifes in sunny Los Angeles still feels startlingly new.

    Widely regarded as Tarantino’s masterpiece, the director’s dazzling second film was considered era-defining for its memorable dialogue, innovative narrative structure and unique blend of humour and violence. It was nominated for seven Academy Awards, made stars of Samuel L. Jackson and Uma Thurman, and revitalised John Travolta’s career.

    Pulp Fiction is dark, often poignant, and very funny. It is, as one critic describes it, an “intravenous jab of callous madness, black comedy and strange unwholesome euphoria”.

    Tarantino’s trademark style includes plenty of violence and gore.
    IMDB

    A Möbius strip plot

    Famous for its non-linear narrative, Pulp Fiction weaves together a trio of connected crime stories. The three chapters – Vincent Vega and Marsellus Wallace’s Wife, The Gold Watch and The Bonnie Situation – loop, twist and intersect but, crucially, never confuse the viewer.

    Tarantino has often paid tribute to French filmmakers Jean-Luc Godard and Jean-Pierre Melville, whose earlier films also presented their narratives out of chronological order and modified the rules of the crime genre.

    By inviting audiences to piece Pulp Fiction together like a puzzle, Tarantino laid the way for subsequent achronological films such as Memento (2000), Go (1999) and Lock, Stock and Two Smoking Barrels (1998).

    Pop culture meets postmodernism

    In his influential essay Postmodernism, or the Cultural Logic of Late Capitalism, first published in 1984, political theorist Frederic Jameson coined the term “new depthlessness” to describe postmodern culture.

    Jameson perceived a shift away from the depth, meaning and authenticity that characterised earlier forms of culture, towards a focus on surface and style.

    Pulp Fiction’s iconic movie poster shows character Mia Wallace (Uma Thurman) smoking a cigarette.
    IMDB

    Pulp Fiction fits Jameson’s definition of depthlessness. It is stuffed with homages to popular culture and a vivid array of character types drawn from other B-movies – hitmen, molls, mob bosses, double-crossing boxers, traumatised war veterans and tuxedo-wearing “fixers”. It is a film of surfaces and allusions.

    Jackson, Travolta and Thurman feature alongside established 1990s box-office stars including Bruce Willis and industry stalwarts Harvey Keitel and Christopher Walken, both of whom have brief but memorable cameos.

    The film’s most iconic scene takes place at the retro 1950s-themed Jack Rabbit Slim’s diner. Thurman’s twist contest with Travolta fondly echoes Travolta’s earlier dancing in Saturday Night Fever (1977) and pays homage to other dance scenes in films such as 8 ½ (1963) and Band of Outsiders (1964).

    Words and music

    Film critic Roger Ebert once noted how Tarantino’s characters “often speak at right angles to the action”, giving long speeches before getting on with the job at hand.

    Pulp Fiction is full of witty and quotable monologues and dialogue, ranging from the philosophical to the mundane. Conversations about foot massages and blueberry pie bump up against Bible verses and reflections on fate and redemption.

    The film’s 1995 Oscar for Best Original Screenplay was a fitting achievement for Tarantino, who many regard as the snappiest writer in film history. Countless other filmmakers have looked to replicate Pulp Fiction’s mashup of cool and coarse.

    Needle drops are just as important in establishing Pulp Fiction’s mood and tone. The film’s eclectic soundtrack pings between surf rock, soul and classic rock ‘n’ roll.

    The soundtrack peaked at No. 21 on the Billboard 200 in 1994 and stayed in the charts for more than a year.

    Dividing the critics

    Though it was officially released in October 1994, Pulp Fiction had already made a stir earlier that by winning the prestigious Palme d’Or at the Cannes Film Festival.

    Many expected Krzysztof Kieślowski’s Three Colours: Red to take the top prize. Tarantino himself seemed stunned, telling the Cannes audience: “I don’t make the kind of movies that bring people together. I make movies that split people apart.”

    The film has divided critics ever since.

    Many adored Pulp Fiction for its intoxicating allure and sheer adrenaline-fuelled pleasure. To this day it maintains a 92% critic score on Rotten Tomatoes. Film critic Todd McCarthy called it a film “bulging with boldness, humour and diabolical invention”.

    But the backlash was equally robust. Some criticised the film for its excessive gore and irresponsible use of racial slurs. Screenwriting guru Syd Field felt it was too shallow and too talky. Jean-Luc Godard, once one of Tarantino’s idol, apparently hated it.

    Nonetheless, its financial success (a box office return of US$213 million from an $8 million budget) signalled the growing importance and cultural prestige of independent US films. Miramax, the studio that backed it, went on to become a major force in the industry.

    The 1994 film made stars of Samuel L. Jackson and Uma Thurman.
    IMDB

    A lasting legacy

    Shortly after Pulp Fiction’s release, the word “Tarantinoesque” appeared in the Oxofrd English Dictionary. The entry reads:

    Resembling or imitative of the films of Quentin Tarantino; characteristic or reminiscent of these films Tarantino’s films are typically characterised by graphic and stylized violence, non-linear storylines, cineliterate references, satirical themes, and sharp dialogue.

    Pulp Fiction has since been parodied and knocked off countless times. Hollywood suddenly began mass-producing low-budget crime thrillers with witty, self-reflexive dialogue. Things to Do in Denver When You’re Dead (1995), 2 Days In The Valley (1996) and Very Bad Things (1998) are just some example.

    Graffiti artist Bansky even stencilled the likeness of Jules and Vincent all over London, with bananas in place of guns. The Simpsons got in on the act too.

    Tarantino once summed up his working method as follows:

    Ultimately all I’m trying to do is merge sophisticated storytelling with lurid subject matter. I reckon that makes for an entertaining night at the movies.

    I’d say there’s no better way to describe Pulp Fiction.

    Ben McCann does not work for, consult, own shares in or receive funding from any company or organisation that would benefit from this article, and has disclosed no relevant affiliations beyond their academic appointment.

    – ref. 30 years ago, Tarantino’s Pulp Fiction shook Hollywood and redefined ‘cool’ cinema – https://theconversation.com/30-years-ago-tarantinos-pulp-fiction-shook-hollywood-and-redefined-cool-cinema-236877

    MIL OSI Analysis – EveningReport.nz –

  • MIL-Evening Report: Election anniversary: a year into 3-party coalition government, can the centre hold?

    Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Richard Shaw, Professor of Politics, Te Kunenga ki Pūrehuroa – Massey University

    Getty Images

    Nearly a year on from its formation, it’s clear a three-party coalition is not quite the same as the two-party versions New Zealand is accustomed to.

    Normally, the primary dynamic has been clear: the major party sets the pace while the smaller governing partner receives a bauble or two for supporting the lead act. There may be occasional concerns about tails wagging dogs, but the dog is clearly in charge.

    With the present National-ACT-NZ First coalition, however, things are more complex and less predictable. The dog has two tails, both of which are more than capable of vigorous wagging.

    On the anniversary of the 2023 election, which produced the first three-party coalition government since the MMP system was adopted in 1996, we are perhaps beginning to get a picture of where dog ends and tails begin.

    Speed wobbles

    If that picture has been a little blurry until now it’s partly because of the speed with which the government has moved – not always to its own advantage.

    In the process of ticking off the 49 items on its plan for the first 100 days, Prime Minister Christopher Luxon’s administration has kept some election promises but broken or fudged others, having to backtrack as a result.

    It has delivered tax cuts, but been forced to trim and cap spending in areas (like health and infrastructure) crying out for extra investment.

    It has given the impression of urgency and action with its Fast-track Approvals Bill. But it had to scrap the policy’s core element of granting three ministers unprecedented constitutional authority over which projects to fast-track.

    Concerns about executive overreach and potential conflicts of interest have dogged other policy areas, too. These range from the repeal of ground-breaking smoke-free legislation to firearms control – both the responsibility of junior coalition party ministers.

    This sense of a government somewhat at odds with itself extends to the swingeing cuts made to the public service workforce. Marketed as freeing up resources for front-line staff, the cuts are increasingly likely to be affecting actual service delivery in health, police, defence and elsewhere.

    Executive overreach? A protest march in Auckland against the government’s fast-track consenting legislation.
    Getty Images

    An ‘executive paradise’

    Some of this can be put down to a new government’s distrust of a public service inherited from its predecessor, and a desire to make the most of its first year before the shadow election campaign kicks off mid-term.

    But the coalition’s vigorous embrace of the executive authority baked into New Zealand’s constitutional arrangements has still been something to behold. As constitutional lawyer and former prime minister Geoffrey Palmer put it, the fast-track legislation risked turning New Zealand into “an executive paradise, not a democratic paradise”.

    The government has used parliamentary urgency more frequently than any other contemporary administration. It has been rattling legislation through the House faster than the wheels of parliamentary democracy are meant to turn.

    Submitters on the Māori wards legislation, for example, were given just three working days to prepare their arguments. Those wanting to comment on the Crown Minerals Amendment Bill had four days.

    And the government has been making less use of parliament’s expert select committees than is standard practice. This has limited public participation and constrained scrutiny of proposed legislation.

    Ministers have also been prepared to ignore public service advice while paying plenty of attention to operational matters in the departments that furnish that advice.

    New Zealand’s system of public management distinguishes between ministers’ responsibility for policy outcomes and senior officials’ responsibility for the operational decisions required to deliver those outcomes.

    Nonetheless, Cabinet has commandeered oversight of operational matters in Whaikaha/Ministry of Disabled People, following botched communications over changes in disability funding. And civil servants have recently been told to stop working from home and return to the office.

    The government will be betting this tactical disposition bolsters its “getting stuff done” narrative. But no one wants a concern with short-term operational details to come at the expense of long-term policy thinking.

    Treaty principles pantomime

    Nowhere is the coalition’s internal tension more evident, however, than in its confrontational approach to Māori and te Tiriti o Waitangi/Treaty of Waitangi issues.

    Having courted voters already sceptical or disgruntled about Māori cultural assertiveness, the coalition moved fast to disestablish Te Aka Whai Ora/Māori Health Authority, repeal legislation supporting Māori wards in local government, row back on official use of te reo Māori, and cut funding for Māori language revitalisation.

    But its proposed Treaty Principles Bill – an ACT Party initiative – looks set to be especially constitutionally fraught and politically divisive.

    National and NZ First have indicated they will not support the bill beyond its first reading, but have agreed it will receive a full six months in front of a select committee.

    This only raises the question of why any parliamentary time and money should be spent on the proposal at all – especially given the government’s supposed “laser focus” on cost and efficiency elsewhere.

    Can the centre hold?

    The politics around the Treaty Principles Bill also reveal just how much the prime minister has had to cede to ACT, for whom the proposed legislation was a bottom line during the government formation process.

    And it inevitably casts doubt on the extent and exercise of prime ministerial authority under three-way governing arrangements. ACT leader and soon-to-be deputy prime minister David Seymour has questioned Christopher Luxon’s authority more than once.

    And Luxon’s apparent unwillingness to at least censure an under-performing minister from another party (NZ First’s Casey Costello, for example) contrasts starkly with his firmer treatment of those in his own National Party (Melissa Lee and Penny Simmons, both demoted).

    One year into a three-year term, these issues can perhaps be dismissed as part of the process of bedding down a new government. But politics never rests. Winston Peters hands the deputy prime minister role to David Seymour at the end of next May. Both NZ First and ACT will want to distinguish themselves from National.

    As the next election nears and the jockeying for attention begins, the prime minister’s authority over his administration, and the coalition’s coherence, will be tested further.

    Richard Shaw does not work for, consult, own shares in or receive funding from any company or organisation that would benefit from this article, and has disclosed no relevant affiliations beyond their academic appointment.

    – ref. Election anniversary: a year into 3-party coalition government, can the centre hold? – https://theconversation.com/election-anniversary-a-year-into-3-party-coalition-government-can-the-centre-hold-240189

    MIL OSI Analysis – EveningReport.nz –

  • MIL-Evening Report: The science of happier dogs: 5 tips to help your canine friends live their best life

    Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Mia Cobb, Research Fellow, Animal Welfare Science Centre, The University of Melbourne

    Bigzumi/Shutterstock

    When you hear about “science focused on how dogs can live their best lives with us” it sounds like an imaginary job made up by a child. However, the field of animal welfare science is real and influential.

    As our most popular animal companion and coworker, dogs are very deserving of scientific attention. In recent years we’ve learned more about how dogs are similar to people, but also how they are distinctly themselves.

    We often think about how dogs help us – as companions, working as detectors, and keeping us safe and healthy. Dog-centric science helps us think about the world from a four-paw perspective and apply this new knowledge so dogs can enjoy a good life.

    Here are five tips to keep the tails in your life wagging happily.

    1. Let dogs sniff

    Sniffing makes dogs happier. We tend to forget they live in a smell-based world because we’re so visual. Often taking the dog for a walk is our daily physical activity but we should remember it could be our dogs’ only time out of the home environment.

    Letting them have a really good sniff of that tree or post is full of satisfying information for them. It’s their nose’s equivalent of us standing at the top of a mountain and enjoying a rich, colour-soaked, sunset view.

    Dogs live in a world of smells, so it’s important to let them sniff until their heart’s content.
    Pawtraits/Shutterstock

    2. Give dogs agency

    Agency is a hot topic in animal welfare science right now. For people who lived through the frustration of strict lockdowns in the early years of COVID, it’s easy to remember how not being able to go where we wanted, or see who we wanted, when we wanted, impacted our mental health.

    We’ve now learned that giving animals choice and control in their lives is important for their mental wellbeing too. We can help our dogs enjoy better welfare by creating more choices and offering them control to exercise their agency.

    This might be installing a doggy door so they can go outside or inside when they like. It could be letting them decide which sniffy path to take through your local park. Perhaps it’s choosing which three toys to play with that day from a larger collection that gets rotated around. Maybe it’s putting an old blanket down in a new location where you’ve noticed the sun hits the floor for them to relax on.

    Providing choices doesn’t have to be complicated or expensive.

    3. Recognise all dogs are individuals

    People commonly ascribe certain personality traits to certain dog breeds. But just like us, dogs have their own personalities and preferences. Not all dogs are going to like the same things and a new dog we live with may be completely different to the last one.

    One dog might like to go to the dog park and run around with other dogs at high speed for an hour, while another dog would much rather hang out with you chewing on something in the garden.

    We can see as much behavioural variation within breeds as we do between them. Being prepared to meet dogs where they are, as individuals, is important to their welfare.

    As well as noticing what dogs like to do as individuals, it’s important not to force dogs into situations they don’t enjoy. Pay attention to behaviour that indicates dogs aren’t comfortable, such as looking away, licking their lips or yawning.

    Just like humans, different dogs have different personalities.
    Daria Shvetcova/Shutterstock

    4. Respect dogs’ choice to opt out

    Even in our homes, we can provide options if our dogs don’t want to share in every activity with us. Having a quiet place that dogs can retreat to is really important in enabling them to opt out if they want to.

    If you’re watching television loudly, it may be too much for their sensitive ears. Ensure a door is open to another room so they can retreat. Some dogs might feel overwhelmed when visitors come over; giving them somewhere safe and quiet to go rather than forcing an interaction will help them cope.

    Dogs can be terrific role models for children when teaching empathy. We can demonstrate consent by letting dogs approach us for pats and depart when they want. Like seeing exotic animals perform in circuses, dressing up dogs for our own entertainment seems to have had its day. If you asked most dogs, they don’t want to wear costumes or be part of your Halloween adventures.

    5. Opportunities for off-lead activity – safely.

    When dogs are allowed to run off-lead, they use space differently. They tend to explore more widely and go faster than they do when walking with us on-lead. This offers them important and fun physical activity to keep them fit and healthy.

    Demonstrating how dogs walk differently when on- and off-lead.

    A recent exploration of how liveable cities are for dogs mapped all the designated areas for dogs to run off-leash. Doggy density ranged from one dog for every six people to one dog for every 30 people, depending on where you live.

    It also considered how access to these areas related to the annual registration fees for dogs in each government area compared, with surprising differences noted across greater Melbourne. We noted fees varied between A$37 and $84, and these didn’t relate to how many off-lead areas you could access.

    For dog-loving nations, such as Australia, helping our canine friends live their best life feels good. Science that comes from a four-paw perspective can help us reconsider our everyday interactions with dogs and influence positive changes so we can live well, together.

    Mia Cobb does not work for, consult, own shares in or receive funding from any company or organisation that would benefit from this article, and has disclosed no relevant affiliations beyond their academic appointment.

    – ref. The science of happier dogs: 5 tips to help your canine friends live their best life – https://theconversation.com/the-science-of-happier-dogs-5-tips-to-help-your-canine-friends-live-their-best-life-236952

    MIL OSI Analysis – EveningReport.nz –