The UK and north-western Europe have had a particularly wet 2024. Extreme weather patterns caused by climate change are nothing to celebrate, but there is one group of organisms that will have appreciated all the rain.
Numerous languages have a saying to the effect of “growing like mushrooms after the rain”. Indeed, rainfall across the year is a major factor in the prevalence of mushrooms. These are the short-lived structures we see poking above the soil that fungi use for reproduction. The rest of the fungus is actually there all the time, growing within the soil in a web of filaments known as mycelium.
Similar to the way plants spread their offspring via seeds, fungi produce mushrooms to release spores that can be carried on the wind or spread by animals. As with any organism’s reproduction, it costs the fungus a lot of energy to make mushrooms, so its decision to make this investment will be attuned to when it is likely to have the best chance of success.
Spores need moisture to germinate, and it generally helps if it’s not too cold. Autumn in the temperate climate found across much of Europe usually provides these conditions in abundance. Add in a mild, wet summer to get things started and that’s why we’re probably looking at a bumper autumn for wild mushrooms in 2024.
Do the seasons feel increasingly weird to you? You’re not alone. Climate change is distorting nature’s calendar, causing plants to flower early and animals to emerge at the wrong time.
This article is part of a series, Wild Seasons, on how the seasons are changing – and what they may eventually look like.
How to make the most of it
Some of the most prized gourmet mushrooms can be foraged in autumn, like chanterelles or porcini. When done responsibly, it’s a great hobby. But foragers beware: there has been an influx of mushroom identification books written by generative-AI and riddled with (potentially deadly) errors, so always get information about edible mushrooms from a safe and reliable source.
Chanterelle mushrooms are edible (and delicious). lzf/Shutterstock
If you ever feel tempted to pick something without being certain what it is, remember the adage: “there are old mushroom hunters and there are bold mushroom hunters, but there are no old bold mushroom hunters”. Never munch on a hunch.
Autumn is the most productive season for mushrooms in temperate regions, though spring is fruitful too; St George’s mushroom was named for its tendency to appear around April 23. It’s also not only mushroom-forming fungi that have these seasonal and weather-driven patterns. Cases of a nasty lung infection called valley fever in the south-western US are caused by the microscopic Coccidioides soil fungi. They peak in the autumn, with particular surges in years following wet winters.
Considering fungi are so dependent on weather and temperature, it’s not surprising that the timing and overall length of mushroom production is being affected by climate change. This mirrors the shifts in seasonal patterns for plants and animals.
While an extended mushroom season could sound like good news to foragers, unfortunately, changing conditions may make fungal diseases like valley fever a bigger problem. And as extreme floods become more common, exposure to mould fungi will probably become a more pressing health issue in homes.
Fungi aren’t just rain-lovers, though, they’re actually also rain-makers. Spores released into the atmosphere from fungi can act as a surface on which moisture in the air can form water droplets, and when this happens on a large scale it can contribute to the formation of clouds.
This is just one example of the many underappreciated ways that fungi support our environment. Come rain or shine, I hope that you have the opportunity to get out into nature this autumn and enjoy the fungi.
Rowena Hill 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.
Prime Minister Keir Starmer has promised to “rip out the bureaucracy that blocks investment” in the UK. He was speaking at his government’s first international investment summit, an attempt to encourage the finance and business worlds to put more money into the country.
But the government will need much more investment – by both the private and public sectors – than can be drummed up with one summit and an intent to slash red tape if it is to meet its economic goals. So Labour’s upcoming first budget on October 30 presents a vital opportunity to lay the foundations for an investment boost over the coming years.
A major, long-term aim is to get the UK’s annual growth back to its pre-2008 banking crisis rate, when it was around 2% a year. The UK has been growing at about half that rate since then.
This slower economic growth has damaged people’s living standards as well as the tax receipts the government needs to fund public services, particularly since the pressures of the COVID pandemic.
Slow growth could be turned around by increasing investment in things like infrastructure. The UK has lagged behind comparable economies in this regard – it has had the lowest rate of investment in the G7 group of major economies for 24 of the last 30 years.
Last year, the UK’s GDP per capita (a measure of the average income) was nearly £11,000 lower than it would have been had the economy continued to grow at its pre-2008 rate.
Rather unusually, despite the UK’s debt recently reaching 100% of GDP – the highest amount in more than half a century – the usually fiscally conservative International Monetary Fund (IMF) has said the UK should consider focusing on investment. This, it says, could potentially boost GDP growth and thus stabilise the debt-to-GDP ratio.
And the UK’s spending watchdog, the Office for Budget Responsibility (OBR), believes it is possible to raise economic growth through more investment. The OBR estimates that a sustained 1% of GDP increase in public investment could increase the level of potential national output by just under 0.5% after five years, and around 2.5% in 50 years.
So, there will undoubtedly be a number of investment measures in the Budget. But how many depends, in part, on whether the chancellor, Rachel Reeves, revises some restrictions on borrowing, known as the fiscal rules. There could be adjustments such as offsetting government debt with its assets, including student loans. Reeves is reportedly looking at this possibility – which could create as much as £50 billion of additional fiscal headroom.
She could also re-institute the previous Labour government’s golden rule: only borrow to invest. This could separate out capital investment (spending on things like roads and other infrastructure), which is needed to support long-term growth, from day-to-day spending on public services. It would also increase the transparency of what the borrowing is for, and whether it can deliver growth that can help stabilise the debt-to-GDP ratio.
These changes would prevent public investment from being cut in order to meet one of the current fiscal rules Reeves is adhering to. That is, that debt must be falling as a percentage of GDP over a rolling five-year period. As it stands, this rule restricts how much Reeves can borrow – even if that is what the country needs to grow economically.
A change to this rule could help the government fund its two new initiatives to promote public investment: the National Wealth Fund, which requires just over £7 billion over the parliament, and GB Energy, which needs about £8 billion.
Convincing investors
Investments in the National Wealth Fund and GB Energy could further raise economic growth by “crowding in” private investment. For example, investing in infrastructure like a road entices private firms to invest too, perhaps in new premises or more staff, because a better transport link will make these firms’ investments more profitable.
The government’s aim is to bring in three times the public investment in the National Wealth Fund to invest in infrastructure and key sectors. GB Energy likewise intends to bring in private investors to support the green transition that can generate new output and jobs.
But targeting growth will take more than just finding the money. It also requires a regulatory approach and planning system that generates confidence among private investors to put their money in alongside the government.
The impending Budget won’t set out all of the details that investors are looking for, but they will expect to see the growth strategy and assess whether it is credible. For instance, successive governments have struggled with planning reform, so investors will be justified in wondering what will be different this time.
Rachel Reeves could potentially give herself an extra £50 billion to spend if she changes the fiscal rules. Fred Duval/Shutterstock
Investors will also be on the lookout for a more certain regulatory regime over several years. The main impediments to investment tend to be uncertainty, including over regulation and planning, as well as being able to find workers with the right skills. This Budget is an opportunity to set out what the government plans to do in both areas over its five-year parliament.
One positive signal to investors would be if the Budget sets out a broad definition of “capital”. For physical capital like a factory to be properly used, it requires people (human capital). And we hear a lot about green assets and digital assets, which essentially means that capital can be physical, human or green, as well as digital.
By outlining its policies around infrastructure and skills, as well as its environmental and digital policies, any proposed growth strategy would be more holistic and likelier to have a positive impact on growth.
But the difference between a strategy and a great strategy is in its execution. The Budget will almost certainly set out various fiscal policies to support growth. But the ability to deliver this strategy will determine whether it is truly a budget for growth.
Linda Yueh does not work for, consult, own shares in or receive funding from any company or organisation that would benefit from this article, and has disclosed no relevant affiliations beyond their academic appointment.
Source: The Conversation – UK – By Duncan Large, Professor of European Literature and Translation; Executive Director, British Centre for Literary Translation, University of East Anglia
Han Kang, the South Korean winner of the 2024 Nobel prize in literature, made her breakthrough in the English-speaking world with her first translated novel (her third in Korean), The Vegetarian. Published in English in 2015, it was an immediate success, making the Evening Standard bestseller list. It went on to win the Man Booker international prize the following year for Han and her young English translator, Deborah Smith.
In the summer of 2015, Han spent a week at the University of East Anglia (UEA) where she was the resident author for the Korean-English literary translation workshop at the annual summer school of the British Centre for Literary Translation (BCLT). She was already a prize-winning writer in Korea and had recently published the controversial novel that Smith would go on to translate as Human Acts.
As part of the summer school in July 2015, Deborah Smith led a workshop with Han for six emerging translators of Korean, sponsored by the Literature Translation Institute of Korea. Han later commented that the event as a whole was “on a larger scale and more intensive than any other translation program I had previously heard about or experienced”.
It was already clear that Han was a major figure, and the power of her writing was reinforced by the quiet authority of her presence. For workshop participant Roxanne Edmunds: “The great thing about the workshops was that we were able to work on the translation with the author. It was a little intimidating at first, but Han put us at ease with her enthusiasm.”
I remember that in the workshop we spent an hour or so moving around a comma, adding it to the sentence, taking it out. And spent a long time discussing the colour and feel and look of a cardigan one of the characters wore and how it signified. I was quite amazed at how we could do this in all seriousness – labouring over such details (not even there on the page), when I had been working until then on tight deadlines and weekly translation quotas. But Han’s work stood up to that scrutiny and expansive kind of reading.
Victoria Caudle, another of the workshop participants and now a doctoral candidate at UCLA, added:
Working with Han, I experienced a writer who respected translation as its own process of writing. She was fascinated by how we would agonise over how to express the slightest movement or smallest image in the text. Overall, I remember how generous she was, how softly she spoke and how strong her words were.
After a week of intensive discussion, the group produced a translated extract from Han’s short story Europa that was barely a page in length, but the value of such activities always lies at least as much in the process as in the product.
The workshop culminated in a joint reading of the translated text as part of the Summer School’s finale at Dragon Hall in Norwich, the beautiful medieval home of BCLT’s partner the National Centre for Writing.
Bowman and Caudle went on to found the Smoking Tigers, a Korean-English literary translator collective, together with several other alumni. Buoyed by the success of her translation of The Vegetarian, Smith founded Tilted Axis Press, which in turn won the International Booker prize in 2022 for Tomb of Sand, written by Geetanjali Shree and translated from the Hindi by Daisy Rockwell.
In response to Han’s Nobel win, the president of the Literature Translation Institute of Korea, Sooyoung Chon, remarked: “Han Kang’s Nobel prize in literature is a pivotal moment that highlights LTI Korea’s efforts to introduce Korean literature to the world.” BCLT has continued to collaborate closely with LTI Korea on several other summer school workshops, but the inaugural 2015 edition has proved particularly consequential.
Looking for something good? Cut through the noise with a carefully curated selection of the latest releases, live events and exhibitions, straight to your inbox every fortnight, on Fridays. Sign up here.
Duncan Large works for the British Centre for Literary Translation at the University of East Anglia, which received funding from the Literature Translation Institute of Korea for its 2015 Summer School.
The desire to have our own biological children is hard-wired into many of us. And the desire is often felt more keenly in those struggling with infertility. So the promise of a simple solution is hard to ignore – which may be why “the Mucinex method” is trending on social media.
Many women on TikTok are attributing successful conception to their use of the widely available cough and cold medicine Mucinex – or similar over-the-counter decongestant medicines containing the active ingredient guaifenesin.
Why would a medicine designed to relieve cough and cold symptoms help women get pregnant? During unprotected sexual intercourse, sperm are deposited at the top of the vagina. To reach and fertilise the egg, the sperm must first traverse the cervix, a small canal that connects the vagina and the womb.
The cervix plays a critical role in regulating the passage of sperm through its production of cervical mucus. During a woman’s menstrual cycle, the quantity and consistency of the cervical mucus changes, becoming optimal around the time of ovulation.
If there is too much mucus, or it is too thick, it can stop the sperm from reaching the egg. So, the idea goes that by taking Mucinex, a woman would thin her cervical mucus and make it easier for the sperm to reach the egg.
The rising popularity of fertility tracking apps has increased awareness of signs of the fertile window among users, including through monitoring of cervical mucus quantity and consistency. Once familiar with their individual signs, it follows that women who are trying or, indeed, struggling to conceive might start considering how to optimise their chances of conception in any given cycle.
A simple over-the-counter product such as Mucinex could well seem like a quick and simple solution with potentially more rapid results than dieting or a change in other lifestyle factors.
Not surprisingly, questions are being asked over the validity of taking Mucinex, or other guaifenesin-containing medicines, as fertility aids.
The fact is, there is scant scientific evidence proving that Mucinex can help with fertility. The most cited scientific study is from 1982 and was published in the journal Fertility and Sterility. Here, scientists studied 40 couples whose infertility was defined as being a “cervical issue”.
The women in the study were given 200mg of guaifenesin, three times a day starting on the fifth day of their menstrual cycle. By the end of the study, 15 out of the 40 couples had become pregnant, which some may see as supporting the use of guaifenesin.
However, as there was no group that didn’t take guaifenesin (a control group), it is not possible to attribute these pregnancies solely to guaifenesin.
In a separate case study, a man took 600mg of guaifenesin, twice a day, for two months. The study reported a dramatic increase in sperm production and motility. However, as this study was conducted on a single 32-year-old man, the researchers could not confirm that guaifenesin was the cause of the change.
It should be noted that Reckitt, the makers of Mucinex, said in a statement that Mucinex should “only be used as intended in line with label directions”. And that taking Mucinex for infertility “constitutes off-label use”.
Is there any harm in taking guaifenesin to conceive?
While no associations between guaifenesin and birth defects have been identified, there is still no solid data on how guaifenesin might affect embryo development.
For those seeking to become parents, the idea of boosting your chances with a widely available medication is understandably enticing. However, there is not enough evidence to support taking guaifenesin to improve fertility.
There are a range of other simple, lifestyle changes that have been shown to help with getting pregnant. These include maintaining a healthy weight and diet, reducing alcohol intake, giving up smoking and lowering stress. For those experiencing difficulties in becoming pregnant, the best, and possibly simplest advice is to talk to your doctor.
Adam Watkins receives funding from the Biotechnology and Biological Sciences Research Council under grant BB/V006711/1.
Emma Lucas is a council member of the Society for Reproduction and Fertility.
Source: The Conversation – UK – By Liam Lachs, Postdoctoral Research Associate in Climate Change Ecology and Evolution, Newcastle University
The authors working in their ‘coral nursery’ in the Pacific.Liam Lachs
Our research group has bred corals able to better survive marine heatwaves. Our work, now published in Nature Communications, shows that it is possible to improve coral heat tolerance even within a single generation.
We did this using selective breeding: a technique used by humans for thousands of years to produce animals and plants with desirable characteristics. Selective breeding is how humans turned wolf-like dogs into St Bernards, chihuahuas and everything in between.
Now, selective breeding is being considered as a tool for nature conservation, particularly for coral reefs. The Coralassist Lab (of which we are part) and the Palau International Coral Reef Center have been working on coral heatwave survival specifically. Our latest results are the culmination of seven years’ work.
Marine heatwaves trigger mass coral bleaching and mortality, with 2023-2024 declared as the fourth global mass bleaching event. Assisted evolution methods — like selective breeding — aim to boost natural adaptation to buy time for corals under climate change.
Yet the improvement in heat tolerance in our selectively bred corals was modest compared to the intensity of marine heatwaves expected in the future. While selective breeding is feasible, it is likely not a panacea. We’ll still need to tackle the cause of mass coral bleaching by reducing greenhouse gas emissions in order to mitigate warming and give assisted evolution programmes time to take effect.
How to breed corals for heat tolerance
The first step was to determine the heat tolerance of many potential parent corals on the reef. Then, we chose specific individuals to breed two separate families of offspring, selected for either high or low heat tolerance. We reared these offspring for three to four years until they reached reproductive maturity, and then tested their heat tolerance.
Some of the selectively-bred coral at the nursery in the Pacific island nation Palau. Jesse Alpert
We conducted selective breeding trials for two different traits, either the tolerance to a short, intense heat exposure (temperatures 3.5°C above normal for ten days) or a less intense but long-term exposure more typical of natural marine heatwaves (2.5°C above average for a month). This enabled us to estimate the heritability of each trait, the response to selective breeding, and whether both traits have a shared genetic basis.
Selecting parents for high- rather than low-heat tolerance enhanced the tolerance of their adult offspring for both traits tested.
a) Overview of the experimental design and examples of (b) Acropora digitifera parents and (c) their offspring at the nursery in Palau. Coralassist lab
Heritability was roughly 0.2 to 0.3 on a scale of 0 to 1, which means about a quarter of the variability in offspring heat tolerance was due to genes passed from their parents. In other words, these traits have a substantial genetic basis on which natural and artificial selection can act.
However, even this level of enhancement may not be enough to keep pace with ever more intense heatwaves. Depending on climate action, the intensity of heatwaves is expected to rise in the coming decades by around 3°C-weeks per decade, faster than the enhancement achieved in our study.
Interestingly, corals selectively bred for high- rather than low, short-stress tolerance were no better at surviving the long heat stress exposure. With no genetic correlation detected, it is plausible that these traits are driven by independent sets of genes, and corals that are good at surviving the short sharp heat stress aren’t necessarily the best at surviving longer term marine heatwaves.
This would have important implications, as work like this would benefit from cheap and rapid tests that can effectively identify heat tolerant colonies for breeding. However, if these tests can’t predict which coral colonies will survive month-long heatwaves, it presents a serious challenge.
Coral fragments during a long-term simulated marine heatwave, with some remaining relatively healthy throughout (upper) and others bleaching (lower) or dying (not shown). Liam Lachs
Scaling up selective breeding
Since it is possible to selectively breed corals for increased heat tolerance, the next step is to conduct large-scale trials in the wild. This will likely require considerable numbers of selectively bred corals to be deployed, perhaps by directly seeding coral larvae on reefs, or planting corals reared in an aquaculture facility.
For this to work, outplanted corals must become reproductive themselves and contribute to the wild population gene pool. Doing this at very large scales will be challenging, but it may not be necessary to replenish the coral coverage of large areas.
Instead, it may be sufficient to create a network of fewer strategically located larval production hubs, containing selectively bred corals at high densities to maximise fertilisation success. These hubs would serve to seed other reefs and could provide further broodstock for targeted actions.
A lot more research and development is still needed, with many critical questions remaining unanswered. How many corals need to be outplanted to have the desired effect? Can we ensure there are no trade-offs that could compromise populations (evidence so far suggests this is not a large risk)? How can we avoid dilution of selected traits once added to the wild? How can we maximise responses to selection?
Given the pace of ocean warming, optimisation and implementation of assisted evolution will need to happen soon for them to have a chance at success, even if only on small scales. Above all, the survival of coral reefs still depends on urgent climate action.
Liam Lachs received funding from the Natural Environment Research Council ONE Planet Doctoral Training Partnership (NE/S007512/1).
James Guest received funding from European Research Council Horizon 2020 project CORALASSIST (725848). He is affiliated with SECORE International as a science advisory board member.
Adriana Humanes 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.
Artificial intelligence (AI) is getting personal. Chatbots are designed to imitate human interactions, and the rise of realistic voice chat is leading many users to form emotional attachments or laugh along with virtual podcast hosts.
And that’s before we get to the really intimate stuff. Research has shown that sexual roleplaying is one of the most common uses of ChatGPT, and millions of people interact with AI-powered systems designed as virtual companions, such as such as Character.AI, Replika, and Chai.AI.
What does this mean for the future of (human) romance? The prospects are alarming.
Better be nice to your AI overlord
The most prominent AI companion service is Replika, which allows some 30 million users to create custom digital girlfriends (or boyfriends).
While early studies indicate most Replika users are male, Caucasian and under 30, other demographics are catching up. Male sex robots have been in the making for some years. And they’re more than just vibrators with integrated jar openers.
For a subscription fee, users can exchange intimate messages or pictures with their AI partners. Over half a million users had subscribed before Replika temporarily disabled its “erotic roleplay” module in early 2023, fearing regulatory backlash — a move that users dubbed “The Lobotomy.”
The Replika “lobotomy” highlights a key feature of virtual companions: their creators have complete control over their behaviour. The makers of apps can modify or shut down a user’s “partner” – and millions of others – at any moment. These systems also read everything users say, to tailor future interactions and, of course, ads.
AI is coming to the physical sexbot industry too. Shutterstock
However, these caveats don’t appear to be holding the industry back. New products are proliferating. One company, Kindroid, now offers voice chats with up to ten virtual companions simultaneously.
The digital world isn’t the limit either. Sex doll vendors such as Joy Love Dolls offer interactive real-life sexbots, with not only customisable skin colour and breast size, but also “complete control” of features including movement, heating, and AI-enabled “moans, squeals, and even flirting from your doll, making her a great companion”.
For now, virtual companions and AI sexbots remain a much smaller market than social media, with millions of users rather than billions. But as the history of the likes of Facebook, Google and Amazon has taught us, today’s digital quirks could become tomorrow’s global giants.
Towards ethically sourced AI girlfriends?
The availability of AI-driven relationships is likely to usher in all manner of ethically dubious behaviour from users who won’t have to face the real-world consequences.
Soon, you might satisfy any kink with your AI girlfriend for an extra fee. If your AI wife becomes troublesome, just ask the corporate overlord to deactivate her envy module — for a price, of course. Or simply delete her and start fresh with as many AI mistresses as you like in parallel.
The way people form relationships has already been disrupted by dating apps such as Tinder and Bumble.
What will happen if, in the future, people looking for love are competing against perfect synthetic lovers that are always available and horny? Well, at least they’ll be able to create virtual replicas of those hot dates they didn’t land.
And for those who lack the skills to create their own virtual companions, there will be plenty of off-the-shelf alternatives.
An ABC investigation revealed the use of generative AI to create fake influencers by manipulating women’s social media images is already widespread. This is generally done without consent to sell pornographic content. Much of this content depicts unattainable body ideals, and some depicts people who appear to be at best barely of consenting age.
Another likely application? Using AI sexbot technology to bring celebrities such as Marilyn Monroe and Clara Bow back to life. After all, dead people cannot deny consent anymore.
The potential for emotional manipulation by inventive catfishers and dictators is alarming. Imagine the havoc if figures like Russia’s Vladimir Putin or North Korea’s Kim Jong-un harness this technology to complement their nations’ already extensive cyber-espionage operations.
Perhaps before long we will see corporations offering “responsibly sourced” AI girlfriends for the more ethical consumer – organically grown from consensually harvested content, promoting socially acceptable smut.
Society and the state must act now
With loneliness rising to epidemic levels — surveys suggest up to one in four people in OECD countries lack human connection — the demand for sexbots is only going to grow. Corporations will meet this demand unless society and the state set clear boundaries on what’s acceptable.
Sex and technology have always co-evolved. Just as prostitution is “the oldest profession”, porn sites are some of the oldest corners of the internet. However, the dystopian potential of sexbots for mass-customised, corporate-controlled monetisation of our most intimate sphere is unprecedented.
Users aren’t entirely blameless, either. There’s something vicious about replacing a real human being with a totally submissive lust machine.
Early studies suggest narcissism is prevalent among users of this technology. Normalising harmful sexual behaviours such as rape, sadism or paedophilia is bad news for society.
However, going after users isn’t likely to be the best way to tackle the issue. We should treat sexbot use like other potentially problematic behaviours, such as gambling.
As with other problematic behaviours where the issue lies more with providers than users, it’s time to hold sexbot providers accountable. As our links to AI are growing ever more intimate, there’s not much time to waste.
Raffaele F Ciriello does not work for, consult, own shares in or receive funding from any company or organisation that would benefit from this article, and has disclosed no relevant affiliations beyond their academic appointment.
It 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)
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.
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
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.
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.
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.
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.
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 aestheticmerits. 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-profileexhibitions 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.
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.
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.
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.
But in the Kimberley region, the Gooniyandi peoples call galahsgirlinygirliny. 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 nameyirlinkirrkkirr 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.
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
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.)
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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”.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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:
Secret Sounds Group, which promotes Splendour in the Grass and Falls Festival in addition to touring, sponsorship, PR and artist management businesses (the acquisition excluded Secret Sounds record labels and venues)
Moshtix, billed as Australia’s leading provider of general admission tickets for unreserved or standing-room events
Mellen Events, a leading Western Australian concert promoter
Face to Face Touring, a regional promoter with events including Red Hot Summer, SummerSalt and By the C.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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:
take-home pay for those in employment has begun to rise
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.
Highly unequal countries typically suffer higher levels of stress, crime and violence, often resulting in violent responses by the state against marginalised communities to quell protests.
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.
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.
