When was the last time you heard someone talk in detail about their grief?
For many of us, it could be rarely or never. There are several reasons for this.
Grieving people often avoid raising the topic in conversation because they want to avoid upsetting or burdening people. Family and friends of grieving people often feel unsure or uncomfortable about asking them to talk about it, fearing they will infringe on the person’s privacy. One study of grieving adults in Australia and Ireland showed nearly one-third said they didn’t receive the support they would have liked. Some experts note we tend to deny or minimise others’ grief, increasing their isolation.
Actor Andrew Garfield, best known for playing Spiderman, appeared on Sesame Street last week and spoke with Elmo in moving and affirming ways about grieving his mother’s death. Clips of their short conversation have been widely shared on social media. It presents a great example of communicating well about grief.
Sadness can be a gift explains Garfield, ‘a lovely thing to feel in a way because it means you really loved somebody when you miss them.’
Kids grieve too
Issues around grief and isolation can be the same for children and young people as for older people.
In fact, grief in young people is recognised as “the last taboo in public health”. By the age of 18, around one in 20 children have a parent die. Even more will experience grief following the deaths of other close people such as siblings and grandparents. Children also grieve the deaths of pets. Yet we struggle to acknowledge, let alone understand and help them with the grief.
Due to a desire to protect them from harm or distress, adults are often reluctant to talk about dying and death with children. We also underestimate their abilities to understand such difficult topics. My recent work with Lionheart Camp for Kids shows such good intentions leave grieving children with many unanswered questions.
So it was great to see Andrew Garfield (who has discussed the topic before on talk shows and in interviews) share his experience on children’s television.
Losing the person who gave you life is bizarre tells Anderson Cooper. ‘It doesn’t make sense.’
Their exchange begins with the character of Elmo checking in with Garfield, to see if he’s OK. He asks in a warm and open-ended way.
What Garfield communicates well is checking if Elmo is willing and comfortable to hear him talk about his thoughts and feelings. He conveys his feelings of grief and speaks about how missing someone is due to love. He shares his understanding about the comforting role memories can bring to the bereaved, and about recognising a deceased person can be celebrated and missed at the same time.
Elmo also does a great job of listening. He normalises Garfield’s thoughts and feelings, and gently affirms his memories of his deceased mother. Importantly, Elmo doesn’t make the conversation about himself or resort to tired clichés like “this shall pass” or “she’d want you to move on”. He doesn’t minimise his discomfort with jokes or provide unsolicited advice on how to feel or behave.
Social support in the wake of loss helps grieving people – if it’s done right. Too often, however, it’s not, and can leave grieving people more distressed.
Though an almost universal need, providing effective social support for grieving people is a complex process. It must involve:
a potential supporter recognising the bereaved person’s need for support
support that is available, sufficient and offered to the bereaved
But in daily life, it’s rare to hear anyone talk openly about these feelings. That’s why it’s so refreshing when people in the public eye break the taboo that surrounds grief and loss. It is important for grieving people of all ages to be able to talk about their grief and be listened to. For potential supporters, it is enriching to think about they can listen, validate and support.
As Garfield and Elmo show, grieving people and their support people can work together to develop a compassionate connection in a conversation that benefits both parties.
Lauren Breen receives funding from Healthway and has previously received funding from Wellcome Trust, Australian Research Council, Department of Health (Western Australia), Silver Chain, iCare Dust Diseases Board (New South Wales), and Cancer Council (Western Australia). She is on the board of Lionheart Camp for Kids and is a member of Grief Australia and the Australian Psychological Society.
Almost one in three have been sexually abused as a child, generally more than once, and often with significant and lifelong impacts.
The National Centre for Action on Child Sexual Abuse has released findings from more than 4,000 adults in a new study examining the community’s attitudes towards, knowledge of, and responses to child sexual abuse.
The data reveal some troubling findings, with pervasive and harmful community norms and attitudes that act to enable child sexual abuse to continue.
What are social norms?
Social norms are “rules” shared among people in a particular society, community, or group, and define what is considered “normal” and appropriate behaviour within the group.
These rules are often unwritten and not openly discussed.
These norms influence what people do (and don’t do) in many aspects of life, including preventing and responding to child sexual abuse.
Why do they matter?
Some cultures’ norms and attitudes limit disclosure of abuse.
In our study, 62% were pretty sure they knew someone who had been sexually abused as a child.
Yet only 9% had directly been told by a child about being sexually abused, while 35% had been told by an adult about historical child sexual abuse.
These low rates suggest there are forces at play that limit talking about child sexual abuse.
Some in the community believe it’s not acceptable to discuss child sexual abuse. In response to a hypothetical disclosure by an adult friend, about one in ten thought it was very/extremely important to tell their friend that it’s best not to talk about it at all.
Some (5%) reported they would try to avoid their friend.
What else did the research reveal?
There was also evidence community members didn’t think child sexual abuse was an important problem or that it affected them directly.
Around two in three adults felt they were not directly affected or were unsure if they were affected by child sexual abuse. More than half didn’t think child sexual abuse happened where they live.
One in ten thought child sexual abuse receives too much media coverage.
Some norms and attitudes also limit intervention to stop child sexual abuse.
We found that of those who discovered or received a child’s disclosure about sexual abuse, less than half had a supportive conversation with the child (about 40%) and/or reported to authorities like police or child protection agencies (about 30%).
Also, almost one in three adults were “not at all” confident about how to talk to the parent/carer of a child they suspected had been sexually abused. More than a quarter (28%) felt “not at all” confident about how to start a conversation with the child they suspected had been sexually abused.
Not having these conversations or not reporting maintains secrecy around child sexual abuse. It can send a message to victims and survivors not to talk about it, or that nothing will be done to stop the abuse.
Though the lack of intervention may be due to a lack of confidence, we also found adults held attitudes that children can’t always be believed (22%) or were too unreliable to take their word over an adult’s (18%).
These attitudes mean many children won’t be believed and protected if they disclose sexual abuse.
Some norms and attitudes increase acceptance of child sexual abuse, or blame victims, especially adolescents.
Alarmingly, 40% of respondents in the study thought older children were responsible for actively resisting an adult’s sexual advances, and 12% believed adolescent girls who wear very revealing clothing are “asking” to be sexually abused.
Adding to this, 13% believed children who act “seductively” are at least partly to blame if an adult responds sexually, while 8% thought obedient children are less likely to experience child sexual abuse, implying “good” children won’t be sexually abused.
These harmful attitudes misdirect the blame for the abuse onto the victim, making it unsafe for them to disclose and at the same time, making it acceptable for adults to stay silent.
Blaming victims maintains the status quo of unacceptably high levels of child sexual abuse and causes further harm.
Where to from here?
Putting an end to the sexual abuse of children in Australia requires concerted and co-ordinated action at all levels of society.
Global initiatives offer some guidance on how shifting entrenched and harmful attitudes and norms can change behaviours.
At a minimum, we must challenge gender inequality and power imbalances, promote equitable relationships and shared responsibilities. Mobilisation programs intervening directly at the community level and initiatives with specific populations who hold harmful and problematic attitudes are also promising in preventing child sexual abuse.
Now we have benchmarks on the community’s attitudes towards child sexual abuse, we can measure the effectiveness of Australia’s efforts for change.
It is everyone’s responsibility to know the signs, listen, believe and act in response to child sexual abuse.
Andrea de Silva works for the National Centre for Action on Child Sexual Abuse who conducted this study. The National Centre is funded by the Department of Social Services. The National Centre is a partnership between the Australian Childhood Foundation, Blue Knot Foundation and the Healing Foundation.
Amanda L. Robertson works for the National Centre for Action on Child Sexual Abuse who conducted the study with funding from the Department of Social Services.
While the killing of Hamas leader Yahya Sinwar could have provided an off-ramp for the conflict in Gaza, Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu’s ongoing vows of “total victory” make this seem unlikely.
The concept of “total victory”, however, is extremely problematic. Every time Israel declares an area cleared of Hamas and then withdraws, Hamas, which carried out the horrific attack on southern Israel on October 7 2023, has quickly returned to reestablish control.
As a result, there has been a marked Israeli escalation in northern Gaza in recent days, and much discussion about a so-called “general’s plan” being pushed by some right-wing members of Netanyahu’s government.
Concocted by a former Israeli general, Giora Eiland, the plan is, in essence, to forego negotiations, bisect the enclave and give northern Gaza’s 400,000 inhabitants the bleak choice between leaving and dying.
We don’t know whether Netanyahu will officially endorse the plan. Israeli leaders reportedly told US Secretary of State Antony Blinken this week they are not implementing it. However, it nonetheless has broad support among Israel’s political and military elite.
The Israeli military has already issued expulsion orders to the people of northern Gaza. The government has said anyone who remains would be considered a military target and will be deprived of food and water.
While Israel denies obstructing humanitarian aid, the World Food Program said no food aid entered northern Gaza for two weeks in early October. While some aid has been entering since then, thousands are still at risk of starvation and outbreaks of preventable diseases.
Moreover, many Palestinians, including the sick, elderly and wounded, are unable to move and have nowhere to go. The prospect of the overcrowded and unprotected tent cities of the south is hardly enticing.
Israeli human rights groups say the military had been deliberately blocking aid to give the population no choice but to leave northern Gaza. Israel may now be backtracking under pressure from the United States, which has given Netanyahu’s government a 30-day deadline to increase the amount of aid it allows into Gaza or risk losing US weapons funding.
Undermining international norms and rules
Israel’s war against Gaza, and now Lebanon, has repeatedly challenged the foundations of the liberal international rules-based order set up after the second world war, as well as the tenets of international law, multilateral diplomacy, democracy and humanitarianism.
The norms of the liberal world order are expressed in various institutions, such as:
the UN Charter
the UN Security Council, with its notionally legally binding resolutions
the International Court of Justice (ICJ) in The Hague
the Geneva Conventions governing the rules of war
the Universal Declaration of Human Rights
and the Rome Statute of the International Criminal Court (ICC), among many others.
Recently, the ICJ ruled Israel’s occupation of the West Bank, Gaza Strip and East Jerusalem is illegal and ordered it to withdraw. In response, Netanyahu said the court had made a “decision of lies”.
In a separate case, South Africa brought a charge to the ICJ, alleging Israel has committed genocide against the Palestinian people over the past year. The world’s top court has preliminarily ruled there is a “plausible” case for a finding of genocide, and said Israel must take measures to ensure its prevention.
At this juncture, however, human rights groups and others have argued that Israel has failed to comply with this order, thereby undermining one of the key institutions of the liberal world order.
This is compounded by the fact that few major democratic states have been willing to strongly condemn Israel’s failure to comply with international law in Gaza – or have done so belatedly – let alone intervened in any concrete fashion.
In addition, the UN Security Council has failed – primarily due to the veto power exercised by the US – to take any tangible measures to enforce its own resolutions against Israel, as well as the rulings of the ICJ.
This is fuelling widespread perceptions of hypocrisy in relation to the accountability of notionally democratic states for alleged violations of humanitarian law, compared with other nations that don’t have great power patrons.
In the early 1990s, for instance, the UN Security Council unanimously passed several resolutions against Iraq’s invasion of Kuwait, followed a decade later by resolutions demanding Saddam Hussein’s regime comply with weapons inspection mandates. The US and its allies used these resolutions as the legal justification for their invasion of Iraq. Ultimately, no weapons of mass destruction were found. Then UN Secretary General Kofi Annan later said the invasion of Iraq was illegal and contrary to the UN Charter.
The prosecutors of the ICC have also requested arrest warrants for Netanyahu and Defence Minister Yoav Gallant for alleged crimes against humanity (in addition to several Hamas leaders, now dead). The warrants for Netanyahu and Gallant were met with indignation by some Western politicians. Yet, the West broadly praised the ICC’s arrest warrant against Russian President Vladimir Putin.
Furthermore, the US Congress attempted to sanction the court over the Netanyahu arrest warrant, once again underscoring the often selective way in which international law is applied by nation states.
A crisis of legitimacy for the world order
Democratic states like to present themselves as the protectors, and sometimes enforcers, of the liberal world order, ensuring continued international peace and security.
Indeed, Israel and its supporters often characterise its military actions as the forward defence of the democratic world against tyrannical larger powers, as a means of protecting itself from adversaries that want to destroy it. The problem is Israel’s actions often directly contradict the liberal world order it purports to defend, thereby undermining its legitimacy.
Failure to rein in Israel’s actions has led to accusations of “double standards” regarding international law. The US and Germany provide Israel with 99% of its arm imports and diplomatic cover. Although Germany has stopped approving new weapons exports to Israel, both countries certainly have more leverage to stop the carnage in Gaza if they wish.
The West’s self-abrogated moral superiority is arguably in tatters as it continues to undermine the principles of the liberal world order. The question is: if this world order falls, what will the new world order look like?
Tristan Dunning has signed a statement of solidarity with Palestine from academics in Australian universities.
Shannon Brincat has signed a statement of solidarity with Palestine from academics in Australian universities.
Martin Kear does not work for, consult, own shares in or receive funding from any company or organisation that would benefit from this article, and has disclosed no relevant affiliations beyond their academic appointment.
Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Rod Sims, Professor in the practice of public policy and antitrust, Crawford School of Public Policy, Australian National University
Meta’s announcement nearly eight months ago that it would no longer do commercial deals under the News Media Bargaining Code has led to much speculation as to how the government would respond.
The code became law in 2021. Facing the threat of designation under it – which would involve further legal obligations platforms may wish to avoid – both Google and Facebook (now Meta) did deals with news media businesses worth up to A$250 million per year.
Google did deals with essentially all qualifying news media business, large and small – the criteria largely being that their journalists provide news. Facebook did deals with news businesses likely employing up to 85% of Australian journalists
With little response from the government so far, a new report from a federal parliamentary committee investigating the impact of social media on Australian society provides welcome focus on this issue.
Key recommendations
The committee makes 11 recommendations, three of which in particular are worth focusing on.
Recommendation two says the Australian government should explore alternative revenue mechanisms to supplement the code, such as a digital platform levy. But it also says “exploration should include consideration for preserving current and future commercial deals”, presumably under the code.
Recommendation three says the Australian government should develop an appropriate mechanism to guide the fair and transparent distribution of revenue arising from any new revenue mechanisms. In particular, this would support the:
sustainability of small, independent and digital only publishers, as well as those operating in underserved communities and rural, regional and remote areas.
Recommendation six says the Australian government “should investigate the viability and effectiveness of ‘must carry’ requirements for digital platforms in relation to Australian news content”.
Coalition members provided a different perspective on some of the committee’s recommendations. They expressed concern about the lack of action from the government in response to Meta’s decision to not do more deals under the code. Further, they read the report as saying that the code is “no longer fit for purpose” – a view they strongly disagree with.
the realities of how our platforms work, the preferences of the people who use them, and the value we provide news publishers who choose to post their content on our platforms.
Meta, parent company of Instagram and Facebook, is strongly opposed to paying a levy to fund news media. QubixStudio/Shutterstock
Not so simple
The committee’s recommendations raise many questions.
First, how would the levy sit with wanting to maintain existing and future deals under the code? In any solution to dealing with Meta it would seem silly to damage the current arrangements with Google, which has committed to continue supporting news organisations under the code, and who are paying the majority of the up to $250 million per year?
Second, biasing any revenue to smaller and/or rural and regional publishers may mean that, despite most news stories coming from the larger media companies, they would not benefit in accordance with their content being used. The code did see benefit to large, medium and small media businesses. But, of course, the larger companies gained most money as they provided most content.
Some smaller media businesses did miss out on funding. But it was often judged that they do not provide news journalism, which was what the code is seeking to promote.
In 2018, the Australian Competition and Consumer Commission (of which I was then chair) made a number of recommendations to the government. These included the code. They also included government funding for journalism in underserved areas and support for other objectives, such as boosting smaller news media companies. A different objective requiring a different policy instrument.
Third, the problem that arose with Meta’s decision to not do further deals under the code saw many calls for Meta to be designated under the code. This would have meant they would be forced to do deals and potentially face arbitration if the news media businesses were not happy with the outcome.
As the parliamentary committee would be aware, when Canada largely copied the code, it automatically designated Meta. In response, Meta took all news and links to news off its platform. This allows Meta to escape the Canadian version of the code as it only applies to platforms that carry news.
One solution to this is to insist the tech platforms “must carry” news, as suggested in recommendation six. Then they would be back under the code and could be successfully designated and forced to negotiate. It is unclear in the report whether the “must carry” idea, which would make the code relevant to all platforms, is an alternative to the levy.
A way through
Overall, the report provides welcome renewed focus on this topic. By recommending the government “explore” a levy or “investigate” must carry obligations, the committee appears to recognise the potential difficulties with these options.
Would there be international trade implications from a levy? How would money from a levy be distributed? It is one thing to have a fund to help small players in underserved markets; quite another for the government to be distributing money to large media players.
And how would the “must carry” provision be enforced given that carrying content may not be the same as users discovering it?
But there may be a way through these problems. Allow Google to continue as they are under the code, look at what other platforms need to be covered by the code, and threaten that if Meta or another platform were to take news off their site, then a levy or a must carry provision would be introduced. In the case of Meta, such threats, which must be real, could see them revert to doing deals under the code.
To help new and emerging news journalism, particularly in underserved areas, this would seem to require government funding, as the Australian Competition and Consumer Commission recommended all the way back in 2018.
Rod Sims is a former chair of the Australian Competition and Consumer Commission.
For its recent Spring/Summer 2025 show, fashion brand Diesel filled a runway with mounds of denim offcuts, making a spectacle of its efforts to reduce waste.
Haunting yet poetic, the “forgotten” byproducts of fashion production were reclaimed and repurposed into something artful. But the irony isn’t lost, given fashion shows like this one demand significant resources.
Diesel’s event is an example of a growing trend towards the “spectacle of sustainability”, wherein performative displays are prioritised over the deeper, structural changes needed to address environmental issues.
Can the fashion industry reconcile its tendency towards spectacle with its environmental responsibilities? The recent spacesuit collaboration between Prada and Axiom Space is one refreshing example of how it can, by leaning into innovation that seeks to advance fashion technology and rewrite fashion norms.
Performance art instead of substantive change
The fashion industry has always relied on some form of spectacle to continue the fashion cycle. Fashion shows mix art, performance and design to create powerful experiences that will grab people’s attention and set the tone for what’s “in”. Promotional material from these shows is shared widely, helping cement new trends.
However, the spectacle of fashion isn’t helpful for communicating the complexity of sustainability. Fashion events tend to focus on surface-level ideas, while ignoring deeper systemic problems such as the popularity of fast fashion, people’s buying habits, and working conditions in garment factories. These problems are connected, so addressing one requires addressing the others.
It’s much easier to host a flashy event that inevitably feeds the problem it purports to fix. International fashion events have a large carbon footprint. This is partly due to how many people they move around the world, as well as their promotion of consumption (whereas sustainability requires buying less).
The pandemic helped deliver some solutions to this problem by forcing fashion shows to go digital. Brands such as Balenciaga, the Congolese brand Hanifa and many more took part in virtual fashion shows with animated avatars – and many pointed to this as a possible solution to the industry’s sustainability issue.
But the industry has now largely returned to live fashion shows. Virtual presentations have been relegated to their own sectors within fashion communication, while live events take centre stage.
Many brands, including Prada, held fashion shows without guests during lockdowns in 2021.
Towards a sustainable fashion future
Technology and innovation clearly have a role to play in helping make fashion more sustainable. The recent Prada-Axiom spacesuit collaboration brings this into focus in a new way.
The AxEMU (Axiom Extravehicular Mobility Unit) suits will be worn by Artemis III crew members during NASA’s planned 2026 mission to the Moon. The suits have been made using long-lasting and high-performance materials that are designed to withstand the extreme conditions of space.
By joining this collaboration, Prada, known for its high fashion, is shifting into a highly symbolic arena of technological advancement. This will likely help position it at the forefront of sustainability and technology discussions – at least in the minds of consumers.
Prada itself has varying levels of compliance when it comes to meeting sustainability goals. The Standard Ethics Ratings has listed it as “sustainable”, while sustainability scoring site Good on You rated it as “not good enough” – citing a need for improved transparency and better hazardous chemical use.
Recently, the brand has been working on making recycled textiles such as nylon fabrics (nylon is a part of the brand DNA) from fishing nets and plastic bottles. It also launched a high-fashion jewellery line made of recycled gold.
Innovating for a changing world
Prada’s partnership with Axiom signifies a milestone in fashion’s ability to impact on high-tech industries. Beyond boosting Prada’s image, such innovations can also lead to more sustainable fashions.
For instance, advanced materials created for spacesuits could eventually be adapted into everyday heat-resistant clothing. This will become increasingly important in the context of climate change, especially in regions already struggling with drought and heatwaves. The IPCC warns that if global temperatures rise by 1.5°C above pre-industrial levels, twice as many mega-cities are likely to become heat-stressed.
New innovations are trying to help consumers stay cool despite rising temperatures. Nike’s Aerogami is a performance apparel technology that supposedly increases breathability. Researchers from MIT have also designed garment vents that open and close when they sense sweat to create airflow.
Similarly, researchers from Zhengzhou University and the University of South Australia have created a fabric that reflects sunlight and releases heat to help reduce body temperatures. These kinds of cooling textiles (which could also be used in architecture) could help reduce the need for air conditioning.
One future challenge lies in driving demand for these innovations by making them seem fashionable and “cool”. Collaborations like the one between Prada and Axiom are helpful on this front. A space suit – an item typically seen as a functional, long-lasting piece of engineering – becomes something more with Prada’s name on it.
The collaboration also points to a broader potential for brands to use large attention-grabbing projects to convey their sustainability credentials. In this way they can combine spectacle with sustainability. The key will be in making sure one doesn’t come at the expense of the other.
Alyssa Choat does not work for, consult, own shares in or receive funding from any company or organisation that would benefit from this article, and has disclosed no relevant affiliations beyond their academic appointment.
Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Adrian Beaumont, Election Analyst (Psephologist) at The Conversation; and Honorary Associate, School of Mathematics and Statistics, The University of Melbourne
The Queensland state election is this Saturday, with polls closing at 7pm AEDT. There are 93 single-member seats, with Queensland having no upper house. At the 2020 election, Labor won 52 of the 93 seats, the Liberal National Party (LNP) 34 and all others seven. Labor won the two-party statewide vote by an estimated 53.2–46.8.
There have been two recently released Queensland polls, with both showing a reduction in the LNP lead from landslide margins the last time the same polls were released. However, the LNP is still very likely to win on Saturday.
A YouGov poll for The Courier Mail, conducted October 10–16 from a sample of 1,503, gave the LNP a 54.5–45.5 lead, a 2.5-point gain for Labor since the previous YouGov poll in July. Primary votes were 41% LNP (down two), 31% Labor (up five), 11% Greens (down three), 11% One Nation (down two) and 6% for all Others (up two).
Labor premier Steven Miles had a net approval of -10, up three points, with 44% dissatisfied and 34% satisfied. LNP leader David Crisafulli’s net approval slumped 11 points to +6. Crisafulli led Miles by 37–36 as better premier, down from a 40–29 lead in July.
A Resolve poll for The Brisbane Times, conducted October 14–19 from a sample of 1,003, gave the LNP a 53–47 lead by respondent preferences and a 52–48 lead by 2020 election preference flows. This is the first time Resolve has given a two-party result for its Queensland polls.
Primary votes were 40% LNP (down four since the previous Resolve poll that was conducted over four months from June to September), 32% Labor (up nine), 11% Greens (down one), 9% One Nation (up one), 2% independents (down seven) and 5% others (up one).
In its previous polls, Resolve asked all respondents if they would vote for independents. In this poll that was taken after nominations closed, they only asked for independents where independents were standing, so the independent vote crashed.
Crisafulli led Miles by 39–37 as preferred premier (40–27 in September). Miles had a +8 net approval (47% good, 38% poor), while Crisafulli was at net +7 approval. On issues, the LNP led Labor by 22 points on crime, with the two parties were within two points on cost of living, housing and health.
The key reasons why Labor is likely to be defeated are an “it’s time” factor as Labor has governed since winning the January 2015 election, the federal Labor government tending to hurt state Labor parties and Queensland easily being the most pro-Coalition state at the 2022 federal election.
At that election, Queensland was the only state where the Coalition won the two-party vote (by 54.1–45.9). The second best state for the Coalition was New South Wales, where Labor won the two-party vote by 51.4–48.6.
US election still very close, but Harris’ national lead drops
The United States presidential election will be held on November 5. In analyst Nate Silver’s aggregate of national polls, Democrat Kamala Harris leads Republican Donald Trump by 48.8–47.2, a gain for Trump since Sunday, when Harris led by 49.1–46.8. Harris’ national lead peaked on October 2, when she led by 49.4–45.9.
The US president isn’t elected by the national popular vote, but by the Electoral College, in which each state receives electoral votes equal to its federal House seats (population based) and senators (always two). Almost all states award their electoral votes as winner-takes-all, and it takes 270 electoral votes to win (out of 538 total).
Relative to the national popular vote, the Electoral College is biased to Trump, with Harris needing at least a two-point popular vote win to be the narrow Electoral College favourite in Silver’s model.
In Pennsylvania (19 electoral votes), there’s now a 48.0–48.0 tie in Silver’s poll averages. Harris remains barely ahead in Michigan (15 electoral votes) by 0.5 points, Wisconsin (ten) by 0.7 and Nevada (six) by 0.4. But without Pennsylvania, Harris leads in states
worth 257 electoral votes and Trump in states worth 262, down from a 276–262 Harris lead on Sunday.
On the current numbers, whoever wins Pennsylvania would win the presidency. Trump leads in North Carolina (16 electoral votes) by one point, Georgia (16) by 1.5 and Arizona (11) by two.
Silver’s model now gives Trump a 53% chance to win the Electoral College, up from 51% on Sunday, but the race remains very close to a 50–50 chance for either candidate. There’s a 27% chance Harris wins the popular vote but loses the Electoral College. The FiveThirtyEight forecast gives Trump a 51% win probability.
While the polls have trended to Trump recently, that doesn’t mean he will continue to gain. There are still two weeks before the election, and either candidate could win decisively if there’s late movement or poll error in their favour.
With the seven swing states currently all within two points, the two most likely outcomes are for either Trump or Harris to sweep all seven swing states. A Trump sweep occurs 24% of the time and a Harris sweep 15% of the time.
Silver has a list of 24 reasons why Trump could win. I think the most important reasons are the economy and the Electoral College bias. These reasons may explain Trump’s recent poll gains.
Adrian Beaumont 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.
While the New Zealand government plans to review 28 pieces of legislation with a view to changing or repealing references to the Treaty of Waitangi, the science sector is embracing engagement with Māori and leading the way in linking science and Indigenous knowledge at a national scale.
We surveyed 316 researchers from research organisations across New Zealand on their engagement with Māori and their attitudes towards mātauranga Māori (Indigenous knowledge system). We found the majority agree engagement is important and mātauranga Māori is relevant to their research.
Our preliminary findings show most of the surveyed researchers engaged with Māori to some degree in the past and expect to keep doing so in the future. A majority agreed mātauranga Māori should be valued on par with Western science.
But New Zealand has been at the forefront of developing a nationwide approach through the 2007 Vision Mātauranga policy. This science-mātauranga connection has given New Zealand a global lead in how to meaningfully and practically mobilise science and Indigenous knowledge at a national scale.
The merging of Indigenous and Western knowledge is particularly important in the high-tech innovation field. Here, New Zealand’s approach is starting to have real impacts, including supporting innovations and capabilities that would not have happened otherwise.
Through years of engagement with the research and innovation sector, Māori are increasingly expecting the sector to work differently. This means both engaging beyond the laboratory and being open to the possibility that science and mātauranga Māori together can create bold innovation. Examples include supporting Māori businesses to create research and development opportunities in high-value nutrition, or using mātauranga to halt the decline of green-lipped mussels in the Eastern Bay of Plenty.
Mātauranga Māori has been key to restoring green-lipped mussels at Ōhiwa Harbour in the Eastern Bay of Plenty. Getty Images
Some media reports give the impression of a divided research community when it comes to mātauranga Māori. There have also been anecdotal reports suggesting scientists feel “pressured” to include “irrelevant” mātauranga Māori in science applications to win funding.
We questioned whether this divide was real and as widespread as was being reported. We investigated how non-Māori researchers view engagement and collaboration, in particular the role of mātauranga Māori within that engagement.
We examined the responses of the 295 non-Māori scientists in our survey and found 56% agreed mātauranga Māori should be valued on par with Western science. Only 25% disagreed. Moreover, 83% agreed scientists had a duty to consult with Māori if the research had impacts on them.
However, there was a significant gender difference: 75% of women compared to 44% of men agreed mātauranga Māori should be valued on par with science. Only 8% of women disagreed with that statement compared to 34% of men.
Gender differences
As social scientists researching New Zealand’s innovation system, these results quantified our earlier observations in two important respects.
First, it seems that exposing researchers to engagement with Māori communities may create a more open attitude to mātauranga Māori. A key aspect of the past few years has been to broaden the science sector’s engagement with various communities, including Māori.
The Vision Mātauranga policy has been explicit about this in the innovation sector and research and development areas. It appears likely this approach has, at least for some non-Māori researchers, created an openness to consider mātauranga Māori as an equivalent, although different, knowledge framework.
This policy push and Māori community pull has seen scientists in this survey overwhelmingly agree that Māori should be consulted about the impacts research may have on their communities.
Second, while we disagree with the anecdotal evidence that the science community as a whole is split when it comes to mātauranga and engagement with Māori, our results suggest there is a difference between genders. Women researchers in this survey are very positive when it comes to valuing mātauranga Māori, whereas men are relatively less so. We need to study this more deeply to find out why this might be the case.
Shifts in how researchers work
New Zealand’s science, research and innovation sector is in the middle of a structural transition with reviews of its priorities, policy, funding and organisational arrangements.
While central government re-arrangements can happen relatively quickly, the interface between the laboratory, community and industry can take years to adjust. Embedding new practices is complex and not easily done.
The 2007 Vision Mātauranga policy was initially slow, uneven and bumpy in its implementation. But our results suggest its impact has accelerated over the past few years. This includes recognising that working alongside different knowledge systems is valuable for innovation.
Whatever New Zealand’s current restructure of the science sector prioritises, the way researchers work has changed. New Zealand is now at the forefront of global shifts when it comes to links between Indigenous knowledge and science.
Anecdotes aside, accelerating the engagement between Māori and the science sector will be key to delivering the impact Māori and wider New Zealand expect.
Katharina Ruckstuhl received funding from Science for Technological Innovation, National Science Challenge.
Madeline Judge received funding from Science for Technological Innovation, National Science Challenge.
Urs Daellenbach received funding from Science for Technological Innovation, National Science Challenge.
For jobseekers these days, staying on benefits is about accumulating points.
It used to be cruder. Until 2022, unemployed Australians who wanted to stay on benefits had to apply for up to 20 jobs per month, a requirement a parliamentary inquiry found
burdens employers, who are receiving masses of poor quality applications often from people who are not suited for the position.
Since July 2022, jobseekers have instead been required to collect points.
Creating or updating a profile earns five points, applying for a job earns five points, attending a job interview earns 25 points, attending a jobs expo earns 25 points, starting a job earns 50 points, and so on.
For most jobseekers the target is 100 points per month. The target can be eased by 20 points for jobseekers who live in locations that have fewer opportunities to work and by 40 points for jobseekers who are carers, have a reduced capacity to work or who are over 55.
Jobseekers who fail to report enough points or who fail to include four job applications per month in total face automatic suspension of benefits.
Workforce Australia.
41% of jobseekers are being failed
New data released by the Department of Employment and Workplace Relations show 41.1% of participants are being tripped up by the system.
In the quarter between April 1 and June 30, 410,485 of the 999,470 jobseekers enrolled in the scheme failed to meet its requirements. And 212,915 of them reported no points whatsoever.
It’s an improvement on the previous year. For April to June 2023, 45.3% of participants failed to get enough points.
First Nations people, refugees, people with disabilities and young people are over-represented among those who fail to get enough points.
My calculations using the department’s data show 58% of Indigenous participants in the program, 49% of participants without a Year 12 education and 47% of participants on youth allowance are failing to meet the requirements.
Around two-thirds of breaches lead to suspensions. Between July 2022 and September 2023 1,838,410 payments were suspended.
My research just published in the Australian Journal of Social Issues finds that a shift away from face-to-face help to online interactions is partly responsible.
When jobseekers find it difficult to talk to humans about why they are unable to accumulate points their payments are more likely to be suspended.
Jobseekers’ fault or the system’s fault?
The Department of Employment has been working hard to increase understanding of the points system. Among other things, it has produced a series of fact sheets aimed at First Nations Australians.
But an independent evaluation of the system prepared for the department in June found two-thirds of the participants in it had little or no knowledge about how it worked.
This suggests the 41% failure rate might be an indictment of the system as much as the jobseekers who use it.
It might even be an indictment of the idea of points to quantify compliance with mutual obligations.
While the committee supported the use of points, it wanted the default requirement halved to 50 points, with human case managers given discretion to vary the target up or down based on their professional judgments.
Simone Casey is employed as a policy advisor at Economic Justice Australia, the peak organisation for community legal centres providing specialist advice to people on their social security issues and rights. The research and analysis for this article was completed in her academic capacity as recently published in the Australian Journal of Social Issues.
Industrial relations will be hotly contested at next year’s election.
Labor has introduced a raft of new worker protections and pushed for wage increases for lower paid workers.
Business groups have argued against further red tape and claimed the government’s new regulations have contributed to rising costs.
The union movement, meanwhile, has been mired in the fallout from the CFMEU controversy, with some union leaders angry over the government and ACTU’s tough treatment of that union after revelations of its infiltration by criminals.
To talk about these issues and more, we’re joined by ACTU secretary Sally McManus and Innes Willox, the head of the Australian Industry Group, one of the peak employer groups.
On how to fix the construction industry, Willox advocates an oversight body but not the reintroduction of the Australian Building and Construction Commission,
We believe that the construction sector does require its own oversight. We had the ABCC previously. We’re not saying go back to that. You don’t have to replicate that model entirely. But the sector has shown that it does require an oversight body that has the ability to launch both civil and criminal claims for poor behaviour. You’re not going to clean it up through sort of task forces and the like, which actually don’t do anything on the ground to change and moderate behaviour.
What other changes to industrial relations would employers want from a Coalition government?
I think what we can expect or hope that the Coalition will look long and hard at things like the right to disconnect. Which came from nowhere. It came out of left field right at the end of a process. It’s created huge uncertainty in workplaces. It’s a bit of a minefield both for employers and employees.
The definition of’casual’ is now a 17-page manual that employers have to work through, rather than a straightforward definition. We’d hope that the Coalition would look at that. And, of course, union right-of-entry powers which have now tilted the balance totally in favour of unions. They’re the sort of things we think that they should look at as a priority and examine what they can do to take off the rough edges that have been put in place there.
On the unions’ wish list from Labor, McManus says they are talking with the government about further action on the issue of equality.
At the moment, the gender pay gap is at the lowest ever recorded. So that’s a good thing. But in terms of equality in the workplace, that issue is still a big one, and there is a big push that we are making for reproductive leave. This isn’t just for women, it’s also for men.
So many women suffer from things like painful periods. Of course, there’s a whole issue of menopause.
For men, there’s a whole lot of issues to do with reproductive issues as well. […] So this is something that we are talking to the government about and campaigning around.
Another issue is that of youth wages:
It’s really totally outrageous that 19, 20-year-olds are paid discount wages in Australia. It’s not acceptable in 2024-2025 and should be fixed. The union movement’s taking it up at the moment and have got rid of it in a lot of industries, and we want to finish the job. So we’re going to try and achieve that through campaigning and through the industrial commission. But if we don’t, if there’s no way of fixing it that way, there’ll be no option then other than to say to the government, listen, ball’s in your court now.
On the split in the union movement over the government and ACTU actions against the construction division of the CFMEU, McManus says the ACTU will continue to keep its door open,
Look, no one likes what’s happened. No one likes the fact that, obviously, that union was infiltrated by organised crime, outlaw motorcycle gangs. And no one supports corruption. The other construction union who works with the CFMEU all the time, which is the ETU, the Electrical Trades Union – they’re the ones who have disaffiliated from the ACTU.
They’re mates, they’re all mates, right? And so, obviously, they’re also not happy with what’s happened. And obviously we will always keep the door open and encourage unity. The ACTU is a place where truck drivers and community workers and teachers and nurses and road workers, everyone of every profession, gets together and talks. It’s always a good thing because you’re listening to other people and you’re stronger together.
Michelle Grattan does not work for, consult, own shares in or receive funding from any company or organisation that would benefit from this article, and has disclosed no relevant affiliations beyond their academic appointment.
The U.S. Supreme Court recently weighed in on these debates with its 2024 decision in Grants Pass v. Johnson. The court’s ruling grants cities the authority to prohibit individuals from sleeping and camping in public spaces, effectively condoning the use of fines and bans to address rising rates of homelessness.
East Atlanta Village, a historically Black neighborhood in Atlanta with about 3,000 residents, is trying something different. In the fall of 2023, with support from the Atlanta City Council, the mayor’s office and Intown Cares, a local nonprofit that works to alleviate homelessness and hunger, the neighborhood hired a full-time social worker to support people experiencing homelessness.
Michael Nolan, an Intown Cares social worker, is trained in an approach that emphasizes individual autonomy and dignity, recognizes that being homeless is a traumatic experience, and prioritizes access to housing. His role includes helping individuals get the documentation they need to move off the streets, such as copies of their birth certificates and Social Security cards. He also has a dedicated phone line that community members can use to alert him about dangerous situations that involve homeless people.
Michael Nolan, East Atlanta Village’s social worker, spends 40-plus hours weekly providing supplies, services and other help to people experiencing homelessness.
I am a researcher at the University of Washington studying programs and technologies that help urban neighborhoods flourish. I’m also a resident of East Atlanta Village and have helped the neighborhood organize and evaluate this experiment.
For the past year, my colleagues and I have collected data about the neighborhood social work program to understand how well it can support both people without housing and the broader community. Our preliminary findings suggest that neighborhood social work is a promising way to address challenges common in many neighborhoods with homelessness.
I believe this approach has the potential to provide long-term solutions to homelessness and improve the health and safety for the entire neighborhood. I also see it as a sharp contrast with the punitive approach condoned by the Supreme Court.
Resolving conflicts over public space
One of the people I interviewed while evaluating this initiative was Rebecca, a resident of East Atlanta Village who walks her dog in the local park every day. In the fall of 2023, she noticed that a man had moved into the park and set up a tent. At first, the area was clean, but within a few weeks there was garbage around the tent and throughout the park.
Rebecca felt that the trash was ruining one of the few green spaces in the neighborhood. She decided to contact Nolan. Nolan told her that he knew the unhoused man, was working with him to secure permanent housing and in the meantime would help him move his tent to a less-frequented space.
Such negotiations around public spaces are common challenges for neighborhoods with large homeless populations, especially in dense urban areas. Other examples in our data included conflicts when a homeless person began sleeping in his car outside another resident’s home, and when a homeless man wandered into a homeowner’s yard.
The standard approach in these situations is to fine, ban or imprison the unhoused individual. But those strategies are expensive, can prolong homelessness and do little to actually resolve the issues.
In contrast, hiring a social worker has enabled East Atlanta Village to resolve conflicts gently, through conversation and negotiation. The solutions address concerns about public health and safety and also offer people without homes an opportunity for long-term change.
Meeting basic needs
Over the past year, this program has helped 13 people move into housing. Nolan has facilitated over 180 medical and mental health care visits for people living on the street.
Eighty-six people have been connected to Medicaid, food assistance or Social Security benefits. Thirty-five people have health care for the first time, and six people have started receiving medication for their addictions.
Research shows that addressing people’s basic needs by helping them obtain food, medicine, housing and other necessities not only supports those individuals but also produces cascading benefits for the entire community. They include reduced inequality, better health outcomes and lower crime rates.
Managing mental and behavioral health
Studies have found that about two-thirds of unhoused individuals struggle with mental health challenges. Unmet mental and behavioral health needs can contribute to unsafe and illegal behavior.
The United States does not have a comprehensive system in place for supporting people who are living on the street and struggling with chronic mental and behavioral health challenges. While much more infrastructure is needed, in East Atlanta Village, Nolan is able to check in on people experiencing homelessness, work with clinics to deliver medication for addiction and mental health needs and alert community members about dangerous situations.
As an example, in December 2023 a homeless man was arrested in East Atlanta Village for trespassing, stealing mail and other erratic behavior. When concerned residents posted to the neighborhood Facebook group, Nolan responded that he knew the man well, that this behavior was not typical and that he would look into the situation.
Nolan later updated his post, commenting that the man had been arrested but that he would “continue to follow up and ensure that his current behaviors do not return upon his release.”
In other examples, Nolan has helped de-escalate situations when people experienced mental health episodes in local coffee shops and churches.
A model for other cities
Cities around the U.S. have decisions to make about addressing homelessness and its associated challenges. Neighborhood social work is not a magic bullet, but my colleagues and I see it as a promising approach to address the most common challenges that neighborhoods with high rates of homelessness face.
East Atlanta Village is currently working with the Atlanta City Council to renew funding for this program, which cost US$100,000 in its initial year. We hope that other neighborhoods also consider this strategy when deciding how to address homelessness in their own areas.
Ishita Chordia is affiliated with the East Atlanta Neighborhood Association. She volunteers for the neighborhood association and has helped organize and evaluate the neighborhood social work program.
Scurvy is is often considered a historical ailment, conjuring images of sailors on long sea voyages suffering from a lack of fresh fruit and vegetables.
Yet doctors in developed countries have recently reported treating cases of scurvy, including Australian doctors who reported their findings today in the journal BMJ Case Reports.
What is scurvy?
Scurvy is a disease caused by a severe deficiency of vitamin C (ascorbic acid), which is essential for the production of collagen. This protein helps maintain the health of skin, blood vessels, bones and connective tissue.
Without enough vitamin C, the body cannot properly repair tissues, heal wounds, or fight infections. This can lead to a range of symptoms including:
fatigue and weakness
swollen, bleeding gums or loose teeth
joint and muscle pain and tenderness
bruising easily
dry, rough or discoloured skin (reddish or purple spots due to bleeding under the skin)
cuts and sores take longer to heal
anaemia (a shortage of red blood cells, leading to further fatigue and weakness)
increased susceptibility to infections.
It historically affected sailors
Scurvy was common from the 15th to 18th centuries, when naval sailors and other explorers lived on rations or went without fresh food for long periods. You might have heard some of these milestones in the history of the disease:
in 1497-1499, Vasco da Gama’s crew suffered severely from scurvy during their expedition to India, with a large portion of the crew dying from it
from the 16th to 18th centuries, scurvy was rampant among European navies and explorers, affecting notable figures such as Ferdinand Magellan and Sir Francis Drake. It was considered one of the greatest threats to sailors’ health during long voyages
in 1747, British naval surgeon James Lind is thought to have conducted one of the first clinical trials, demonstrating that citrus fruit could prevent and cure scurvy. However, it took several decades for his findings to be widely implemented
In the new case report, doctors in Western Australia reported treating a middle-aged man with the condition. In a separate case report, doctors in Canada reported treating a 65-year old woman.
There’s an abundance of vitamin C in our food supply, but some people still aren’t getting enough. Rebecca Kate/Pexels
Both patients presented with leg weakness and compromised skin, yet the doctors didn’t initially consider scurvy. This was based on the premise that there is abundant vitamin C in our modern food supply, so deficiency should not occur.
On both occasions, treatment with high doses of vitamin C (1,000mg per day for at least seven days) resulted in improvements in symptoms and eventually a full recovery.
The authors of both case reports are concerned that if scurvy is left untreated, it could lead to inflamed blood vessels (vasculitis) and potentially cause fatal bleeding.
Last year, a major New South Wales hospital undertook a chart review, where patient records are reviewed to answer research questions.
This found vitamin C deficiency was common. More than 50% of patients who had their vitamin C levels tested had either a modest deficiency (29.9%) or significant deficiency (24.5%). Deficiencies were more common among patients from rural and lower socioeconomic areas.
Now clinicians are urged to consider vitamin C deficiency and scurvy as a potential diagnosis and involve the support of a dietitian.
Why might scurvy be re-emerging?
Sourcing and consuming nutritious foods with sufficient vitamin C is unfortunately still an issue for some people. Factors that increase the risk of vitamin C deficiency include:
poor diet. People with restricted diets – due to poverty, food insecurity or dietary choices – may not get enough vitamin C. This includes those who rely heavily on processed, nutrient-poor foods rather than fresh produce
food deserts. In areas where access to fresh, affordable fruits and vegetables is limited (often referred to as food deserts), people may unintentionally suffer from a vitamin C deficiency. In some parts of developing countries such as India, lack of access to fresh food is recognised as a risk for scurvy
the cost-of-living crisis. With greater numbers of people unable to pay for fresh produce, people who limit their intake of fruits and vegetables may develop nutrient deficiencies, including scurvy
Capsicums are a good source of vitamin D but they’re not cheap. Pexels/Jack Sparrow
weight loss procedures and medications. Restricted dietary intake due to weight loss surgery or weight loss medications may lead to nutrient deficiencies, such as in this case report of scurvy from Denmark
mental illness and eating disorders. Conditions such as depression and anorexia nervosa can lead to severely restricted diets, increasing the risk of scurvy, such as in this case report from 2020 in Canada
isolation. Older adults, especially those who live alone or in nursing homes, may have difficulty preparing balanced meals with sufficient vitamin C
certain medical conditions. People with digestive disorders, malabsorption issues, or those on restrictive medical diets (due to severe allergies or intolerances) can develop scurvy if they are unable to absorb or consume enough vitamin C.
How much vitamin C do we need?
Australia’s dietary guidelines recommend adults consume 45mg of vitamin C (higher if pregnant or breastfeeding) each day. This is roughly the amount found in half an orange or half a cup of strawberries.
When more vitamin C is consumed than required, excess amounts leave the body through urine.
Signs of scurvy can appear as early as a month after a daily intake of less than 10 mg of vitamin C.
Eating vitamin C-rich foods – such as oranges, strawberries, kiwifruit, plums, pineapple, mango, capsicum, broccoli and Brussels sprouts – can resolve symptoms within a few weeks.
Vitamin C is also readily available as a supplement if there are reasons why intake through food may be compromised. Typically, the supplements contain 1,000mg per tablet, and the recommended upper limit for daily Vitamin C intake is 2,000mg.
Lauren Ball receives funding from the National Health and Medical Research Council, Queensland Health and Mater Misericordia. She is a Director of Dietitians Australia, a Director of Food Standards Australia and New Zealand, a Director of the Darling Downs and West Moreton Primary Health Network and an Associate Member of the Australian Academy of Health and Medical Sciences.
Australia now has a government and parliament wanting timely transition to net zero. We have a government and parliament wanting to build Australia as the renewable energy superpower of the zero-carbon world economy. For the time being, we have favourable international settings for using our opportunity.
The government of Australia has embraced this superpower narrative, taken some big steps towards supporting its emergence, and articulated sound principles for guiding further policy development.
But Australians in business and the community wanting to make large efforts to turn opportunity into reality find themselves in a tangle of policy uncertainty and contradiction.
The source of the problem is the abolition of carbon pricing in 2014. Since then, the Commonwealth government has worked within constraints that rule out success.
We can make a start towards net zero and becoming a renewable energy superpower without moving the constraints, but we can’t get far. This is a problem for any government of Australia, and not only for the current Labor government. We will not rise sustainably out of the post-pandemic dog days until we get energy policy right.
Striking the right balance
Striking the right balance between state intervention and market exchange is always essential for successful economic development, in all places.
The market generally delivers goods and services more cost-effectively than the state where there is genuine competition among suppliers and purchasers of goods and services.
The difference is especially large and important at a time of structural change and uncertainty. State decisions inevitably tend towards continuation on established paths and slow response to new opportunities.
Australia will not make use of more than a small fraction of the superpower opportunities available to it without immense contributions from an innovative, competitive private business sector.
So we have to design energy and related markets that provide the widest possible scope for competition among enterprises within clear rules understood in advance of investment decisions by all market participants.
The state has to do well the things that only the state can do. Because government capacity is a finite resource, it is much more likely that it will do the essential things well if it doesn’t try to do the things that markets do well.
The state must define the boundaries between the services that it delivers and those to be delivered by the market.
In the electricity sector, government must take responsibility for design of the market rules and compliance with them. It must provide the natural monopoly services of electricity transmission and hydrogen transportation and storage. It must take ultimate responsibility for system security and reliability.
For any market to work, individual market participants must be blocked by regulation from damaging others through their business decisions, or subject to a tax equal to the costs they impose on others. And they must be rewarded for large benefits that they confer on others.
This is essential economics. Its understatement in Productivity Commission and financial media commentary on energy and climate policy discussion over the past decade reveals the debasement of Australian political culture that gave us the dog days.
It has been politically incorrect to tell the truth out loud.
It’s time for carbon pricing
A crucial element of post-2030 market design is introduction of a green premium for zero-carbon energy.
It is obviously necessary for low-cost decarbonisation and expansion of the electricity sector and building Australia as a renewable energy superpower. The green premium is crucial for securing international market access for the zero-carbon export industries.
One of the dog days constraints on policy is that there should be no mandatory demands on private investors. Those constraints must be broken for the green premium to reflect the social cost of carbon, as it must if we are to achieve net zero by 2050 and build Australia as the renewable energy superpower.
The economically efficient way of achieving the premium is carbon pricing. It would be most efficient within an economy-wide system, although it could be introduced initially for the electricity sector and extended to other industries later.
Investors now need to know soon that there will be a premium reasonably related to the social cost of carbon after the Renewable Energy Target ends in 2030.
What matters for the superpower industries is the green premiums for which they are eligible in other countries. Pending the emergence of appropriate premiums, the Commonwealth is proposing payments from the budget.
That is appropriate. It can get the early movers started. It would be expensive if it continued for long. The superpower industries will grow rapidly if they have access to premiums corresponding to the social cost of carbon. Over time, payments from the Australian budget will be replaced by market premiums in destination countries.
There are several possible forms of carbon pricing. The system operating in Australia from 2012 to 2014 was economically and environmentally efficient.
It would have been linked to the EU Emissions Trading System from July 1 2014 if it had not been abolished the day before. The Australian carbon price would be equal to the European price. We would be introducing a European-type Carbon Border Adjustment Mechanism to ensure that Australian producers were not disadvantaged by competition in the domestic market from suppliers who were not subject to similar carbon constraints. The ETS (emissions trading scheme) would be contributing around 2% of GDP to public revenues – going a substantial part of the way to answering the daunting budget challenge to restoration of Australian prosperity.
Part of that increased revenue could support payments to power users to ensure there was no increase in power prices to users until expansion of renewable generation and storage had brought costs down – along the lines of the A$300 per household introduced in the 2024 budget, but larger.
The arrangements would provide automatic access for zero-carbon Australian goods to the high-priced European market. There would be no need to provide for a green premium for sales to Europe from the Australian market. The green premiums in other markets would at first need to be covered, as they are now, from the Australian public revenue.
A carbon solutions levy
Rod Sims (former chair of the Australian Competition and Consumer Commission) and I have suggested a carbon solutions levy. It is administratively simpler than the ETS. It would initially raise much more revenue.
We propose exemption for coal and gas exports to countries in which Australian zero-carbon exports attract a premium comparable to the EU carbon price, even if it is not generated through an ETS.
We would hope that if the carbon solutions levy were to be introduced from 2030, our major trading partners would by that time have introduced green premiums that justify exemption from the levy for coal and gas exports to those countries.
The European Union would be exempt from the beginning. The Northeast Asian economies are moving towards eventual justification of exemption. China now has a country-wide emissions trading system.
The carbon price in July 2024 is about A$21 per tonne, having increased by 50% since early in the year. The price is expected to continue rising until it is playing a major role in transformation of Chinese industry.
Incidentally, China undertook to the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change that its emissions would peak by 2030, but its rapid expansion of renewable energy generation, electric vehicles and zero-carbon industrial technologies suggest that the peak may have come in 2023.
Japan is working on direct budgetary support for importers of zero-carbon products which could pass through into a premium for zero-carbon exports from Australia.
During a visit in April 2024, I was advised that the Japanese government is working towards issue of “green bonds” to pay for the premium. A carbon tax from 2035 would meet the cost of servicing and retiring the bonds.
Korea and Taiwan are introducing their own mechanisms for supporting premiums for zero-carbon imports.
One initial criticism of the carbon solutions levy is that it would cause leakage of Australian exports to competing suppliers of gas and coal. There would be some leakage, alongside substantial transfers from rents to the public revenues, and for metallurgical coal in particular, some increase in export prices.
The price increase would introduce an element of green premium for Australian green iron exports. The Superpower Institute (a non-profit research organisation founded by Sims and I) has commissioned the Centre of Policy Studies at Victoria University to quantify the extent of leakage, transfers from rent and higher export prices. The results will be available for public discussion early in 2025. The study will also calculate the effect of the levy on Australian public finances, real incomes and real consumption.
Regional considerations
Australia’s main competitor in regional coal markets is Indonesia. Its main competitors in gas markets are Papua New Guinea, East Timor, Indonesia, Brunei and the Middle East petroleum producers.
No informed person would suggest that there could be an economic problem with leakage to the Middle East: Saudi Arabia and the small Gulf states extract revenue from petroleum exports at much higher rates per dollar than Australia would after imposition of the levy.
There is a case in the Australian national interest for not seeing expansion of export sales from Papua New Guinea and East Timor as being entirely a waste.
But in their national interest and ours, I suggest that we seek to negotiate a four-way agreement on climate and energy with Indonesia, East Timor and Papua New Guinea.
We would all impose carbon solutions levy-type levies at similar rates. This would be a major source of revenue for all of us.
Participation of Indonesia removes leakage of coal exports. Indonesia already has an emissions trading scheme, although it generates a carbon price of only a few dollars per tonne.
It may choose to remove other imposts on fossil carbon exports at the time of introduction of new carbon-related measures – such as the requirement to make 35% of coal exports available at prices well below international prices for domestic power generation.
Participation of the four countries removes the leakage issue for gas. The four neighbours would cooperate in major development programs based on expansion of zero-carbon energy supply and goods production.
There is active discussion in Indonesia of archipelago-wide electricity transmission infrastructure to allow the superior renewable energy resources of the outer islands – Papua, Nusa Tenggara, Sulawesi, Kalimantan, Sumatra – to contribute to decarbonisation and growth of zero-carbon industry everywhere, including in the Java heartland.
The Indonesian grid would run close to neighbouring Australia, Papua New Guinea, East Timor, East and West Malaysia and the Philippines. It would be the geopolitically practical means of linking Australia and Singapore, as envisaged in the SunCable project in the Northern Territory.
The Indonesian national grid could link to the Australian Sungrid discussed in my book The Superpower Transformation in Darwin and the Pilbara.
The alternatives to carbon pricing are weak
The alternatives to economy-wide carbon pricing are likely to turn out to be short-lived expedients that lead sooner rather than later to the return of today’s incoherence and underperformance in energy and climate policy and performance.
The state must provide reliability of power supply to the general population.
The Commonwealth government can do this without distorting competitive electricity markets by establishing an energy reserve I have proposed in my book The Superpower Transformation.
The superpower industries depend on electricity and hydrogen markets operating efficiently and embodying carbon prices. Otherwise the market design issues relevant to their development are similar to those for electricity.
Negative carbon externalities need to be corrected by taxation or alternative carbon pricing mechanisms. Positive externalities from innovation should be rewarded.
Positive innovation externalities are important in the introduction of new industries, technologies and business models for the zero-carbon economy.
Economy-wide carbon pricing at the social cost of carbon is essential to getting the balance right between state intervention and market exchange.
Once it is in place with fiscal rewards for innovation, the government can let businesses decide which new industries and technologies warrant investment.
Once carbon pricing is known to be coming into place reasonably soon, there is no further need for government underwriting of investment in power generation.
There is no need to include a climate trigger in assessment of a project of any kind: if it emits carbon, it will pay for the climate damage it does.
There is no need for government to take a view on climate grounds about the merits of nuclear power generation. It is zero-emissions generation and, like renewable energy, not subject to the carbon price. If it can compete with other forms of generation, it will find a place in private investment decisions on the energy mix.
There is no need for government investment in nuclear power generation. Private investors will have the same incentives to invest in nuclear as in other zero-carbon generation technologies.
There will be no need for the government to take a view on incentives for carbon capture and storage. If it is effective and emissions are actually reduced, carbon payments will be correspondingly reduced.
The carbon price will allow private investors to get on with the job of expanding renewable energy supply at a rapid pace and decarbonising the economy more generally.
Ross Garnaut is a Director and shareholder of Zen Energy. Together with Rod Sims, Ross is a co-founder and Director of The Superpower Institute, a not for profit think tank.
Every year, 7.6 million tonnes of food is lost or wasted in Australia. When we think about this, we might picture mouldy fruit, stale bread and overly full fridges. But in fact, almost half of this waste happens before food ever gets to us. Waste is common in food production, processing and transportation.
For example, the process of making cheese from milk results in a comparatively small amount of cheese and a lot of whey – up to 90% the mass of the raw milk.
Whey is useful, as it still has about half the nutrients of milk. But whey remains one of the largest sources of food loss and waste in Australia’s large dairy sector. Every year, about 350 million litres goes down the drain, costing businesses over A$580 million to dispose of it and wasting some of the resources it takes to make milk.
In our new research, we interviewed cheesemakers from 42 companies – representing almost a third of Australia’s cheese industry.
We found cheesemakers knew what waste whey could be used for but were put off by practical challenges.
You can already buy whey products such as fermented drinks and protein powders. Infant formula may contain the highly valuable lactoferrin, which would be usually left in whey. A popular Swiss soft drink, Rivella, is also made from whey.
In Australia, some producers have begun making alcoholic spirits by fermenting the lactose in whey. Researchers have found whey-based alcohol can emit less greenhouse gases than traditional grains.
Our research found over half of our cheesemakers were using multiple methods to reduce whey going to waste, from making animal feed to making ricotta to irrigating paddocks. Even so, there is still room to make much more use of whey.
What did we find?
Every year, 43% of all milk produced in Australia is used to make cheese – about eight billion litres a year. When we did this research, there were 132 cheesemakers, using cow, goat, sheep, and camel milk to make cheese. The industry is characterised by a few large manufacturers (about 2% of companies) and many small manufacturers (about 90% of the total). Cheesemakers are largely concentrated in Australia’s southeast.
To understand the challenge of avoiding whey waste, we spoke to cheesemakers, big and small, right across Australia between November 2022 and June 2023.
All of our cheesemaker respondents knew of at least one whey-based product.
But there were barriers to using whey themselves by a range of things, from the set-up cost of a new facility to the challenge of scale, competing priorities and the distance to potential partners. As one respondent said:
Every single part of the business would have to be changed, upgraded, or increased to accommodate using the whey in any way
Another said:
We’re all doing 60 to 70-hour weeks and you [need] someone to actually drive it
How can we overcome the barriers?
Based on our interviews, we found four possible ways to encourage cheesemakers to put their whey to use:
turning whey into value-added products in-house. This could be quite effective – one of our respondents reported making more money from whey-based products than cheese. But setting it up requires time and money.
engaging other companies to take the waste. Partnering with outside companies can help overcome time and money issues – but everyone needs to agree on a price for a product previously considered waste.
starting joint ventures, such as teaming up with other cheesemakers. This method suits cheesemakers wanting to keep the value of the whey. Successful ventures require clear leadership and transparent business plans.
scaling up. Some cheesemakers are already using their own whey. If they move to accept whey from other makers, they can scale up – as long as the new whey sources can meet their specifications.
We found giving Australian cheesemakers the full range of options greatly increased how willing they were to find ways to use whey.
When they only had in-house options, 33% of respondents said they would find ways to use way. This rose to 79% when all four options were available.
Even once the cheese has been made, the whey left behind contains proteins and other nutrients. guys_who_shoot/Shutterstock
Which whey forward?
Our research shows there’s no silver bullet to solve whey waste. We’ll have to come at it from different angles and focus on collaboration between cheesemakers, governments, industry bodies and consumers.
One crucial thing is to make sure there there is demand for these changes. In separate research, we found there is currently little expectation from consumers and retailers about what happens to whey waste. Increasing demand for whey-based products and setting expectations for cheesemaking practices could drive this change. But food safety regulations and taxes on alcohol can make it more challenging still for makers.
In regions with a cluster of cheesemakers, it might make more sense for one or two makers to take all the whey waste and turn it into value-added products to benefit from the scale. While many cheesemakers told us they felt isolated from potential partners, we found a potential partner was right around the corner – just one or two kilometres in most cases.
This is where decision support tools may be able to help in future. These software tools help you lay out your options so you can compare them and pick the best one. They can take into account financial outlay, risks and environmental impacts.
The good news is, there is an abundant, nutrient rich byproduct able to be converted into other products. The challenge now is to find ways of boosting collaboration between cheesemakers and other companies – and ensuring whey-based products have a market.
Jack Hetherington’s PhD project receives funding from the End Food Waste Cooperative Research Centre, CSIRO and the University of Adelaide. Jack is currently the Treasurer for the Landcare Association of South Australia and a member of the SA Crawford Fund committee.
Adam James Loch has received funding from the Australian Research Council, the South Australian Department for Environment and Water, and the European Commission.
Pablo Juliano does not work for, consult, own shares in or receive funding from any company or organisation that would benefit from this article, and has disclosed no relevant affiliations beyond their academic appointment.
A large communications satellite has broken up in orbit, affecting users in Europe, Central Africa, the Middle East, Asia and Australia, and adding to the growing swarm of space junk clouding our planet’s neighbourhood.
The Intelsat 33e satellite provided broadband communication from a point some 35,000km above the Indian Ocean, in a geostationary orbit around the equator.
Initial reports on October 20 said Intelsat 33e had experienced a sudden power loss. Hours later, US Space Forces-Space confirmed the satellite appears to have broken up into at least 20 pieces.
So what happened? And is this a sign of things to come as more and more satellites head into orbit?
A space whodunnit
There are no confirmed reports about what caused the breakup of Intelsat 33e. However, it is not the first event of its kind.
What we do know is that Intelsat 33e has a history of issues while in orbit. Designed and manufactured by Boeing, the satellite was launched in August 2016.
In 2017, the satellite reached its desired orbit three months later than anticipated, due to a reported issue with its primary thruster, which controls its altitude and acceleration.
More propulsion troubles emerged when the satellite performed something called a station keeping activity, which keeps it at the right altitude. It was burning more fuel than expected, which meant its mission would end around 3.5 years early, in 2027. Intelsat lodged a US$78 million insurance claim as a result of these problems.
However, at the time of its breakup, the satellite was reportedly not insured.
Intelsat is investigating what went wrong, but we may never know exactly what caused the satellite to fragment. We do know another Intelsat satellite of the same model, a Boeing-built EpicNG 702 MP, failed in 2019.
More importantly, we can learn from the aftermath of the breakup: space junk.
30 blue whales of space junk
The amount of debris in orbit around Earth is increasing rapidly. The European Space Agency (ESA) estimates there are more than 40,000 pieces larger than 10cm in orbit, and more than 130,000,000 smaller than 1cm.
The total mass of human-made space objects in Earth orbit is some 13,000 tonnes. That’s about the same mass as 90 adult male blue whales. About one third of this mass is debris (4,300 tonnes), mostly in the form of leftover rocket bodies.
Tracking and identifying space debris is a challenging task. At higher altitudes, such as Intelsat 33e’s orbit around 35,000km up, we can only see objects above a certain size.
Visualisation of debris around the Earth.
One of the most concerning things about the loss of Intelsat 33e is that the breakup likely produced debris that is too small for us to see from ground level with current facilities.
The past few months have seen a string of uncontrolled breakups of decommissioned and abandoned objects in orbit.
In June, the RESURS-P1 satellite fractured in low Earth orbit (an altitude of around 470km), creating more than 100 trackable pieces of debris. This event also likely created many more pieces of debris too small to be tracked.
It is not yet known whether this most recent event will affect other objects in orbit. This is where continuous monitoring of the sky becomes vital, to understand these complex space debris environments.
Who is responsible?
When space debris is created, who is responsible for cleaning it up or monitoring it?
In practice, there is often little accountability. The first fine over space debris was issued in 2023 by the US Federal Communications Commission.
It’s not clear whether a similar fine will be issued in the case of Intelsat 33e.
Looking ahead
As the human use of space accelerates, Earth orbit is growing increasingly crowded. To manage the hazards of orbital debris, we will need continuous monitoring and improved tracking technology alongside deliberate efforts to minimise the amount of debris.
Most satellites are much closer to Earth than Intelsat 33e. Often these low Earth orbit satellites can be safely brought down from orbit (or “de-orbited”) at the end of their missions without creating space debris, especially with a bit of forward planning.
In September, ESA’s Cluster 2 “Salsa” satellite was de-orbited with a targeted re-entry into Earth’s atmosphere, burning up safely.
Of course, the bigger the space object, the more debris it can produce. NASA’s Orbital Debris Program Office calculated the International Space Station would produce more than 220 million debris fragments if it broke up in orbit, for example.
Accordingly, planning for de-orbiting of the station (ISS) at the end of its operational life in 2030 is now well underway, with the contract awarded to SpaceX.
Christopher Fluke works for Swinburne University of Technology. He has previously received funding from the SmartSat CRC, including funding to support a research collaboration with CGI Australia (Space, Defence and Intelligence). He is a member of the International Astronomical Union.
Sara Webb and Tallulah Waterson do not work for, consult, own shares in or receive funding from any company or organisation that would benefit from this article, and have disclosed no relevant affiliations beyond their academic appointment.
Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Mark Patrick Taylor, Chief Environmental Scientist, EPA Victoria; Honorary Professor, School of Natural Sciences, Macquarie University
Most of us are fortunate that, when we turn on the tap, clean, safe and high-quality water comes out.
But a senate inquiry into the presence of PFAS or “forever chemicals” is putting the safety of our drinking water back in the spotlight.
Lidia Thorpe, the independent senator leading the inquiry, says Elders in the Aboriginal community of Wreck Bay in New South Wales are “buying bottled water out of their aged care packages” due to concerns about the health impacts of PFAS in their drinking water.
So, how is water deemed safe to drink in Australia? And why does water quality differ in some areas?
Here’s what happens between a water catchment and your tap.
Human intervention in the water cycle
There is no “new” water on Earth. The water we drink can be up to 4.5 billion years old and is continuously recycled through the hydrological cycle. This transfers water from the ground to the atmosphere through evaporation and back again (for example, through rain).
Humans interfere with this natural cycle by trapping and redirecting water from various sources to use. A lot happens before it reaches your home.
The quality of the water when you turn on the tap depends on a range of factors, including the local geology, what kind of activities happen in catchment areas, and the different treatments used to process it.
The guidelines set acceptable water quality values for more than 250 physical, chemical and bacterial contaminants. They take into account any potential health impact of drinking the contaminant over a lifetime as well as aesthetics – the taste and colour of the water.
The guidelines are not mandatory but provide the basis for determining if the quality of water to be supplied to consumers in all parts of Australia is safe to drink. The guidelines undergo rolling revision to ensure they represent the latest scientific evidence.
From water catchment to tap
Australians’ drinking water mainly comes from natural catchments. Sources include surface water, groundwater and seawater (via desalination).
adjusting pH to balance the chemistry of the water and to aid filtration.
This water is delivered to our taps via a reticulated system – a network of underground reservoirs, pipes, pumps and fittings.
In areas where there is no reticulated system, drinking water can also be sourced from rainwater tanks. This means the quality of drinking water can vary.
There are many impacts of poor regional water quality. These include its implication in elevated rates of tooth decay in First Nations people. This occurs when access to chilled, sugary drinks is cheaper and easier than access to good quality water.
What about PFAS?
There is also renewed concern about the presence of PFAS or “forever” chemicals in drinking water.
A review by the National Health and Medical Research Council (NHMRC) proposed lowering the limits for four PFAS chemicals in drinking water: PFOA, PFOS, PFHxS and PFBS.
The review used publicly available data and found most drinking water supplies are currently below the proposed new guideline values for PFAS.
However, “hotspots” of PFAS remain where drinking water catchments or other sources (for example, groundwater) have been impacted by activities where PFAS has been used in industrial applications. And some communities have voiced concerns about an association between elevated PFAS levels in their communities and cancer clusters.
Importantly, assessment of exposure levels from all sources in the population shows PFAS levels are falling meaning any exposure risk has also reduced over time.
How about removing PFAS from water?
Most sources of drinking water are not associated with industrial contaminants like PFAS. So water sources are generally not subject to expensive treatment processes, like reverse osmosis, that can remove most waterborne pollutants, including PFAS. These treatments are energy-intensive and expensive and based on recent water quality assessments by the NHMRC will not be needed.
While contaminants are everywhere, it is the dose that makes the poison. Ultra-low concentrations of chemicals including PFAS, while not desirable, may not be harmful and total removal is not warranted.
Mark Patrick Taylor is a full-time employee of EPA Victoria, appointed to the statutory role of Chief Environmental Scientist. He is also an Honorary Professor at Macquarie University. EPA Victoria has previously received funding from the Department of Energy, Environment and Climate Action and Victorian water authorities to understand the presence of contaminants waste water. He has previously received funding from the Australian Government, ARC and other government agencies for environmental pollution research.
Antti Mikkonen is a full-time employee of EPA Victoria, in the role of Principal Health Risk Advisor for chemicals. Antti has previously received funding from the Australian Government Department of Education for research to understand PFAS bioaccumulation in livestock and models for risk management.
Minna Saaristo is a full-time employee of EPA Victoria, appointed to the role of Principal Scientist – Ecological Risk and Emerging contaminants. She is affiliate of the School of Biological Sciences at Monash University. EPA Victoria has previously received funding from the Department of Energy, Environment and Climate Action and Victorian water authorities to understand the presence of emerging contaminants in recycled water. She has previously received funding from the Australian Government, ARC and other government agencies for environmental pollution research.
Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Adrian Beaumont, Election Analyst (Psephologist) at The Conversation; and Honorary Associate, School of Mathematics and Statistics, The University of Melbourne
The Labor Party has won a seventh consecutive ACT election.
The ACT uses the Hare Clark proportional representation method with five five-member electorates, for a total of 25 seats. A quota is one-sixth of the vote or 16.7%.
For Saturday’s election, the ABC is calling
ten Labor seats, eight Liberals, two Greens, one Independent for Canberra (IfC) and one other independent, with three still undecided.
Labor has won a seventh consecutive term, having governed in the ACT since 2001, often in coalition with the Greens. At the 2022 federal election, the ACT gave Labor a 67–33 two-party win, easily the most pro-Labor jurisdiction. This strong left lean makes it difficult for the Liberals to win ACT elections.
Vote shares were 34.5% Labor (down 3.3% since the 2020 election), 33.0% Liberals (down 0.9%), 12.5% Greens (down 1.0%), 8.5% Independents for Canberra (new) and 11.5% for all Others (down 3.3%). Postal votes have not yet been counted, and these should help the Liberals.
Nearly all pre-poll votes and some election day votes were cast electronically. Provisional preference distributions for these votes were published on election night, with paper ballots to be added to these electronic votes in the coming days.
Analysis of each of the five electorates follows. The final seat result will probably be ten Labor (steady since 2020), ten Liberals (up one), three Greens (down three), one IfC (new) and one other independent (up one). If this occurs, Labor and the Greens will retain their combined majority with 13 of the 25 seats.
In Brindabella, the Liberals won 2.57 quotas, Labor 2.05, the Greens 0.55 and IfC 0.45. Analyst Kevin Bonham says the Liberals are likely to win the last seat after postals are counted.
In Ginninderra, Labor has 2.26 quotas, the Liberals 1.52, the Greens 0.89 and IfC 0.45. Bonham says the Greens and Liberals easily win the final two seats on the provisional distribution.
In Kurrajong, Labor has 2.20 quotas, the Liberals 1.41, the Greens 1.07 and IfC 0.83. IfC easily wins the last seat on the provisional distribution.
In Murrumbidgee, the Liberals have 2.06 quotas, Labor 2.02, independent Fiona Carrick 0.78 and the Greens 0.57. Carrick easily wins the last seat.
In Yerrabi, the Liberals have 2.19 quotas, Labor 1.86, the Greens 0.71 and IfC 0.58. The Greens easily defeat IfC on the provisional distribution.
Harris dips in polls, but US presidential contest remains tight
The United States presidential election will be held on November 5. In analyst Nate Silver’s aggregate of national polls, Democrat Kamala Harris leads Republican Donald Trump by 49.1–46.8, a gain for Trump since last Monday, when Harris led by 49.3–46.5. Harris’ national lead peaked on October 2, when she led by 49.4–45.9.
Joe Biden’s final position before his withdrawal as Democratic candidate on July 21 was a national poll deficit against Trump of 45.2–41.2.
The US president isn’t elected by the national popular vote, but by the Electoral College, in which each state receives electoral votes equal to its federal House seats (population based) and senators (always two). Almost all states award their electoral votes as winner-takes-all, and it takes 270 electoral votes to win (out of 538 total).
Relative to the national popular vote, the Electoral College is biased to Trump, with Harris needing at least a two-point popular vote win to be the narrow Electoral College favourite in Silver’s model.
In Silver’s state poll aggregates, Harris leads by just 0.4 points in Pennsylvania (19 electoral votes) and Wisconsin (ten). She leads by about one point in Michigan (15 electoral votes) and Nevada (six). Trump leads by 0.8 points in North Carolina (16 electoral votes), 1.4 points in Georgia (16) and 1.8 points in Arizona (11).
If Harris holds her current leads in Pennsylvania, Wisconsin, Michigan and Nevada, she likely wins the Electoral College by at least 276–262. But Harris’ margins in these states are now very narrow.
While Silver’s model is still effectively a 50–50 toss-up, Trump is now the slight favourite with a 51% chance to win the Electoral College, up from 48% last Monday. Harris’ Electoral College win probability had peaked at 58% on September 27. There’s a 26% chance that Harris wins the popular vote but loses the Electoral College.
While Trump was the favourite in Silver’s model between late August and mid-September, this is his first lead in FiveThirtyEight since early August.
Silver said on Friday that current economic conditions imply Harris should win the national popular vote by about one point, so the contest is trending towards this outcome. But Trump would be likely to win the Electoral College with just a one-point Harris advantage in the popular vote.
Liberals lose Pittwater to teal at NSW state byelections
Byelections occurred Saturday in the New South Wales state Liberal-held seats of Epping, Hornsby and Pittwater. Labor did not contest any of these byelections. In Pittwater, The Poll Bludger’s projections give teal independent Jacqui Scruby a 54.1–45.9 lead over the Liberals, a 4.8% swing to Scruby since the 2023 state election.
Current primary votes are 53.7% Scruby (up 17.3%), 42.4% Liberals (down 2.6%) and 3.9% for a Libertarian. The Greens had won 6.8% in 2023, but did not contest, presumably to stop left-wing votes exhausting under NSW’s optional preferential system.
The other two byelections were easy Liberal holds, with the Liberals beating the Greens by 61.6–38.4 in Hornsby (58.0–42.0 against Labor in 2023). The Liberals won Epping by 65.8–34.2 against the Greens (54.8–45.2 against Labor in 2023).
Federal Morgan poll and NT redistribution
A national Morgan poll, conducted October 7–13 from a sample of 1,697, had a 50–50 tie, unchanged from the September 30 to October 6 Morgan poll.
Primary votes were 37.5% Coalition (steady), 30% Labor (down 1.5), 14% Greens (up 1.5), 6% One Nation (up 0.5), 9% independents (steady) and 3.5% others (down 0.5).
The headline figure uses respondent preferences. By 2022 election preference flows, Labor led by 51–49, a one-point gain for the Coalition.
The Northern Territory has two federal electorates: Lingiari and Solomon. It had been seven years since the last NT redistribution, so a new redistribution was required, and this was released Friday.
ABC election analyst Antony Green said Labor’s margin in Lingiari was increased from 0.9% to 1.7%, but decreased in Solomon from 9.4% to 8.4%. This is a draft redistribution, but there are not expected to be any changes before finalisation.
Adrian Beaumont does not work for, consult, own shares in or receive funding from any company or organisation that would benefit from this article, and has disclosed no relevant affiliations beyond their academic appointment.
Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Tim Lindsey, Malcolm Smith Professor of Asian Law and Director of the Centre for Indonesian Law, Islam and Society, The University of Melbourne
Former General Prabowo Subianto will be sworn in as Indonesia’s eighth president today. Twenty-five years ago he was a pariah, and for good reason.
He faced accusations of human rights abuses in Papua and East Timor, and in 1998, special forces troops under his command had abducted democracy activists in Jakarta, 13 of whom have never been seen again. Those who did return had been tortured.
The students had been calling for the resignation of President Soeharto, Prabowo’s father-in-law, who finally stepped down in May 1998 after widespread rioting that many believe Prabowo helped engineer. Then, backed by troops under his command, Prabowo tried to storm the presidential palace, gun in hand, to threaten the new president, BJ Habibie.
Prabowo never went on trial for the disappearances of the activists, though he was banned from travelling to the United States for two decades.
And his cherished military career quickly ended – he was dismissed from the army for “misinterpreting orders”. Disgraced, and seen as embodying the violence and repression of Soeharto’s regime, Prabowo went into voluntary exile in Jordan. It seemed he had no future in the democratic Reformasi (reformation) system that began to emerge from the ruins of the repressive New Order.
But Prabowo was far from finished. His rehabilitation and extraordinary climb to the presidency may now signal the end of Indonesia’s fragile, aspirational liberal democracy and a return to the New Order model.
The end of Reformasi?
It is clear enough that Prabowo has no enthusiasm for democracy. He has said, for example, that it “very, very tiring” and “very, very messy and costly”.
Gerindra, the political party he founded and leads, even has, as its number one mission statement, a return to the Constitution “as stipulated on 18 August 1945”. This is the authoritarian original version of the Constitution that Soeharto relied on to rule. It did not guarantee human rights or a separation of powers, and it gave huge power to the president, who was not elected and had no term limit.
This Constitution was amended after Soeharto fell to bring in a liberal, democratic model. So, a return to the original 1945 Constitution would in itself likely end Indonesia’s hard-won, if troubled, democracy.
But Prabowo may not need to go this far to enjoy the sweeping power his former father-in-law exercised. Many of the elements of the New Order are already in place. Much of the work of dismantling Indonesia’s liberal democracy has already been done by the outgoing president, Joko Widodo (Jokowi), whose son, Gibran Rakabuming Raka, is now Prabowo’s vice president.
For example, a key pillar of the New Order was “dual function”, a doctrine that allowed serving military members to take civilian posts, allowing them to dominate the government. This was abolished after Soeharto fell.
But amendments to the civil service law passed last October again allow active members of the army and police to occupy civilian positions. Proposed amendments to the Indonesian National Army (TNI) Law now being debated could expand this. When questioned about the army’s return to civilian life, the armed forces commander welcomed the changes, saying the army would not be exercising a “dual function” but a “multi-function”.
Likewise, under Soeharto, repressive laws tightly restricted press freedom. Now, a controversial new criminal code that comes into force in 2026 will reinstate prohibitions on criticising the government that the Constitutional Court had previously struck out. A proposed new Broadcasting Law would also ban “broadcasting investigative journalism content”.
Under the New Order, civil society activism was also harshly restricted. In the last ten years under Jokowi, there has been a steady escalation of defamation actions and threats against government critics. And a law passed in 2017 allows the government to dissolve non-governmental organisations without any judicial process. Already, three NGOs have been banned.
Many activists now speak openly of their fear of being targeted and intimidated by government trolls or even the intelligence agencies. Others fear Prabowo will use his links to Muslim civil society organisations to pressure or delegitimise other groups he sees as critics.
Prabowo is also following in the footsteps of Soeharto and Jokowi by building a massive coalition in the national legislature, the DPR. More than 80% of members are already on board, with only one party holding out.
Prabowo will also expand his cabinet, allowing him to award places to supporters and co-opt others, including members of civil society. This will further weaken the opposition.
This kind of government of elite “unity” makes politics opaque. Political fights take place behind the scenes, resolved by power plays and deals before measures go to a vote. It would make the national legislature not much more than a rubber stamp, as it was under Soeharto.
This assumes Prabowo can manage Indonesia’s powerful political bosses – especially the feuding former presidents Megawati Soekarnoputri and Jokowi. Together, they now control the two biggest parties in the legislature (PDI-P and Golkar, respectively).
The still hugely popular Jokowi backed his former bitter enemy Prabowo in the February elections because he saw this as a way to maintain influence after he left office. But Prabowo will be reluctant to share real power with anyone for long. His relationship with Jokowi is likely to be one the biggest challenges to his rule.
Dealing with an obstructive court
One of the few remaining obstacles to Prabowo acquiring the sort of dictatorial powers Soeharto exercised is the Constitutional Court, which has the power to strike out laws. Prabowo will not want a non-compliant and obstructive (that is, independent) Constitutional Court. Already politicians are openly discussing the need to “assess its performance”.
If the legislature passes laws to weaken the court, the court could just strike them out, as it has done in the past.
But the court was established by the amendments to the original 1945 Constitution. This means that if government cannot pass laws to weaken the court, stack the court or intimidate independent judges, a return to the 1945 Constitution could be used to eliminate it.
Prabowo would need to feel his rule is secure and that he has the rock-solid support of the elites before doing this, but it is certainly possible. Returning to the original Constitution would simply require a two-thirds vote in the MPR, Indonesia’s highest representative assembly.
Bold promises on the economy
Soeharto’s system was based on a Faustian bargain that allowed him to rule corruptly and oppressively in return for high economic growth and development that lifted millions out of poverty.
Prabowo is likely to adopt the same approach. He campaigned on an annual GDP growth target of 8%, a rate reached under Soeharto, but never by subsequent governments. Jokowi also placed great emphasis on development (infrastructure in particular), but never got much above 5% growth per year.
Many are optimistic about the economy under the new president. Prabowo’s father was a prominent economist and a finance minister. Prabowo has also asked Jokowi’s highly-regarded finance minister, Sri Mulyani, to stay in her role.
However, Prabowo comes to office with some enormously expensive commitments that would make Sri Mulyani’s job extremely difficult. These include his free school lunches program (upwards of US$30 billion, or A$45 billion), which Sri Mulyani has publicly questioned, and Jokowi’s signature new capital city, Nusantara, currently under construction. (The initial phase alone will cost at least US$35 billion, or A$52 billion).
Moreover, Prabowo’s main priority will be to keep the elites happy and maintain his enormous coalition. His supporters and allies – including his brother, tycoon Hashim Djojohadikusumo who has funded his political career – will all demand access to concessions and lucrative appointments for their cronies to make good the vast amounts spent on the February elections. Rational economic policy-making will therefore be highly constrained.
Foreign investment has always been the key to high growth in Indonesia, but despite the constant rhetoric about Indonesia being open for business, it will undoubtedly remain protectionist in practice under Prabowo. That will likely make the 8% GDP annual growth target impossible.
More active foreign relations
Prabowo, who was educated overseas and speaks English fluently, feels comfortable on the global stage. He will want a more prominent place in world affairs for his country, reflecting its vast size and new status as a middle-income country.
As Jokowi’s defence minister, he was active internationally, even attempting to broker a peace deal between Russia and Ukraine. And, to his obvious delight, countries like the US that had previously denied him entry have congratulated him on his victory.
Prabowo’s main foreign affairs challenge will be the same as his predecessor’s: managing the difficult relationship with China.
Indonesians are deeply suspicious of China, an attitude driven by a potent mixture of deeply rooted racist attitudes, fear of communism and anxiety about China’s hegemonic ambitions. However, Indonesia is a major recipient of Belt and Road investments and the elite rely heavily on Chinese trade and investment.
Like Jokowi, Prabowo will have to manage this difficult balance.
Back to the future
Indonesian civil society leaders are already talking about the new administration as “New Order Volume II” or “neo-New Order”, and it is easy to see why. All the signs point to a continuation under Prabowo of the process begun under Jokowi: a slide towards something that looks much more like Soeharto’s system than the liberal democracy reformers tried to construct 25 years ago.
There is nothing in Prabowo’s past or his campaign promises to suggest otherwise. Perhaps the only question is how quickly it happens and how far he will go.
Tim Lindsey receives funding from the Australian Research Council.
Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Peter Yongqi Gu, Associate Professor, School of Linguistics and Applied Language Studies, Te Herenga Waka — Victoria University of Wellington
Getty Images
There is a belief widely held across the Western world: Chinese students are schooled through rote, passive learning – and an educational system like this can only produce docile workers who lack innovation or creativity.
We argue this is far from true. In fact, the Chinese education system is producing highly successful students and an extremely skilled and creative workforce. We think the world can learn something from this.
In the US, you could have a meeting of tooling engineers, and I’m not sure we could fill the room. In China you could fill multiple football fields.
To which Tesla CEO Elon Musk quickly responded on X: “True”.
When South African President Cyril Ramaphosa visited the Shenzhen headquarters of electric vehicle manufacturer BYD earlier this year, he was surprised to learn the company was planning to double its 100,000-strong engineering taskforce within the coming decade.
He might not have been so surprised had he known Chinese universities are producing more than ten million graduates every year – the foundation for a super-economy.
The ‘paradox of the Chinese learner’
Chinese learners achieve remarkable success levels compared to their Western – or non-Confucian-heritage – counterparts.
Since Shanghai first participated in the PISA educational evaluation in 2009, 15‑year-olds in China have topped the league table three out of four times in reading, mathematics and science.
How can a supposedly passive and rote Chinese system outperform its Western counterparts? A number of Australian scholars have been studying this “paradox of the Chinese learner” since the 1990s.
Their research shows those common perceptions of Chinese and other Asian learners are wrong. For example, repetition and meaningful learning are not mutually exclusive. As one Chinese saying goes:
书读百遍其意自现 – meaning reveals itself when you read something many times.
What can Western education learn?
An emphasis on education is a defining feature of Chinese culture. Since Confucianism became the state-sanctioned doctrine in the Han Dynasty (202BCE–220CE), education has entered every fabric of Chinese society.
This became especially true after the institutionalisation of the Keju system of civil service examinations during the Sui Dynasty (581CE–618CE).
Today, the Gaokao university entrance examination is the modern Keju equivalent. Millions of school leavers take the exam each year. For three days every July, Chinese society largely comes to a standstill for the Gaokao.
While the cultural drive for educational excellence is a major motivation for everyone involved in the system, it is not something that is easily learned and replicated in Western societies.
However, there are two principles we believe are central to Chinese educational success, at both the learner and system levels. We use two Chinese idioms to illustrate these.
The first we call “orderly and gradual progress” – 循序渐进. This principle stresses patient, step-by-step and sequenced learning, sustained by grit and delayed gratification.
The second we call “thick accumulation before thin production” – 厚积薄发. This principle stresses the importance of two things:
a comprehensive foundation through accumulation of basic knowledge and skills
assimilation, integration and productive creativity only come after this firm foundation.
Technique to art: weekly calligraphy lessons have been mandatory in Chinese primary and middle schools since 2013. Getty Images
Knowledge, skill and creativity
The epitome of orderly and gradual progress is the way calligraphy is learned. It goes from easy to difficult, simple to complex, imitating to free writing, technique to art. Since 2013, it has been a mandatory weekly lesson in all primary and middle schools in China.
The art of Chinese writing embodies patience, diligence, breathing, concentration and an appreciation of the natural beauty of rhythm. It teaches Chinese values of harmony and the aesthetic spirit.
“Thick accumulation” can be illustrated in the way students study extremely hard for the national Gaokao examination, and also during tertiary education. This way they accumulate the basic knowledge and skills required in a modern society.
“Thin production” refers to the ability to narrow or focus this accumulated knowledge and skill to find and implement creative solutions in the workplace or elsewhere.
Ways of learning
On the face of it, the emphasis on gradual and steady progress, and on accumulation of basic knowledge and skills, may look like a slow, monotonous and uninspiring process – the origin of those common myths about Chinese learning.
In reality, it boils down to a simple argument: without a critical mass of basic knowledge and skills, there is little to assimilate and integrate for productive creativity.
Of course, there are problems with Chinese learning and education, not least the fierce competitiveness and overemphasis on examinations. But our focus here is simply to show how two basic educational principles underpin Chinese advances in science and technology in a modern knowledge economy.
We believe these principles are transferable and potentially beneficial for policymakers, scholars and learners elsewhere.
The authors do not work for, consult, own shares in or receive funding from any company or organisation that would benefit from this article, and have disclosed no relevant affiliations beyond their academic appointment.
Federal Environment Minister Tanya Plibersek’s recent decision to approve expansion plans for three New South Wales coal mines disappointed many people concerned with stabilising the global climate.
Two of these mines, Narrabri and Mount Pleasant in New South Wales, featured in the high-profile but ultimately unsuccessful Living Wonders court case, intended to force the federal government to take account of climate damage done by coal mine approvals. A lawyer involved in the case said Plibersek’s decision showed a refusal to “recognise their climate harms”.
The emissions from these projects will be considered by the minister for climate change and energy under the government’s strong climate laws.
But these laws apply only to emissions produced in Australia, which in this case will be from extracting and transporting coal and the relatively small amount of coal burned here. Most of the coal will be exported and burned overseas. Australian laws do not count those much larger emissions.
The government is effectively washing its hands of the far larger emissions created when the coal is burned overseas. Since taking office, the Albanese government has approved seven applications to open or expand coal mines. Just this week, NSW Treasurer Daniel Mookhey said his state would keep exporting coal into the 2040s.
This reasoning doesn’t stack up. If we stopped expanding coal mines, coal would get more expensive – and we would accelerate the global shift to clean energy.
How can more coal be compatible with net zero?
Under the 2015 Paris Agreement on climate action, nations must publicly commit to domestic emissions reductions goals and are expected to steadily ramp up ambition.
But these emissions cuts are domestic only – we don’t measure the emissions we enable by exporting coal and gas.
The Albanese government has increased domestic ambition by committing to a 43% reduction on 2005 figures by 2030. This seems to be a substantial advance on the 26-28% commitment made by the previous government. In reality, internal tensions in the Morrison Coalition government handed Labor an unintentional gift.
In 2021, estimates suggested Australia was already on track for a 35% reduction. But internal opposition among Coalition backbenchers stopped Morrison announcing this as a target. As a result, Labor’s change looks about twice as impressive as it should.
Still, progress is happening. Domestically, Australia is now burning less and less coal.
But in terms of exports, the government’s position – clear in Plibersek’s decision as well as the government’s plan to keep gas flowing for decades – is as long as there is a demand for coal and gas from other countries, Australia will be ready and willing to meet it.
Most of the coal unlocked by Plibersek’s decision will go overseas, given NSW exports 85% of its coal to partners such as Japan, China, South Korea and Taiwan.
How does the government defend this?
Expanding coal mines while maintaining a public commitment to net zero is a consistent theme between this government and its predecessor, which also committed to net zero. It meets a minimal interpretation of our legal obligations under the Paris Agreement, but maintains the planet’s path towards dangerous warming.
In her statement of reasons given in 2023 as to why the Mount Pleasant mine expansion should be permitted, Plibersek and the Labor government offer several defences.
The first is she is simply acting in accordance with Australian law, as the project would comply with “applicable Commonwealth emissions reduction legislation”. This is a weak reed, to put it mildly. The Albanese government, with the support of Greens and independents, can change the law whenever it chooses.
In reality, the government has steadfastly resisted pressure to include a “climate trigger” in Australia’s environmental approval processes. Their resistance is relatively new – as recently as 2016, Labor policy included a climate trigger for land clearing.
Labor’s second defence has often been dubbed the “drug dealer’s defence”. That is, if Australia didn’t export coal, other producers would take our place. As Prime Minister Anthony Albanese has put it:
policies that would just result in a replacement of Australian resources with resources that are less clean from other countries would lead to an increase in global emissions, not a decrease.
As I’ve argued previously, this defence doesn’t work. Coal is subject to a rising cost curve – if we stopped exporting it, new or expanded production from other sources would cost more to extract and hence be priced higher. More expensive coal would, in turn, accelerate the global energy transition. We do have agency – we could choose not to unlock more coal.
Finally, Plibersek claims emissions from burning Mount Pleasant coal – estimated at over 500 million tonnes of carbon dioxide equivalent over the mine’s extended lifetime – would not be “substantial” relative to total global emissions. For context, Australia’s total emissions are now less than 500 million tonnes a year.
This “litterbug’s defence” suggest Australia’s emissions – whether produced domestically or exported – are not big enough to make a difference. This is not true – we are now the second largest exporter of emissions globally, after Russia. That is due largely to coal.
Are fossil fuel exports untouchable?
There’s a huge gap between global pledges to cut emissions and the reductions needed to actually achieve the Paris targets. Most countries we export coal and gas to are not yet on a path to achieve the reductions in emissions necessary to stabilise the global climate – though China’s emissions may, remarkably, be about to decline.
That’s why we need to press for decarbonisation at every stage of the energy system, from extraction of coal, oil and gas to the financing of new carbon-based projects as well as at the point where the fuel is burned and emissions produced generated.
The problem for Australia is we sell a lot of coal and gas – more than ever before. So even as solar and wind energy begins to displace coal and gas in domestic power generation, our coal and gas exports seem all but untouchable.
We should be saddened but not surprised at this pattern. The Albanese government seems guided by the principle of doing nothing to generate substantial opposition – and to count on the fact a Dutton Coalition government would do even less.
John Quiggin is a former member of the Climate Change Authority
Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Jongkil Jay Jeong, Senior Research Fellow in the School of Computing and Information System, The University of Melbourne
Despite huge advances in cyber security, one weakness continues to overshadow all others: human error.
Research has consistently shown human error is responsible for an overwhelming majority of successful cyber attacks. A recent report puts the figure at 68%.
No matter how advanced our technological defences become, the human element is likely to remain the weakest link in the cyber security chain. This weakness affects everyone using digital devices, yet traditional cyber education and awareness programs – and even new, forward-looking laws – fail to adequately address it.
So, how can we deal with human-centric cyber security related challenges?
Understanding human error
There are two types of human error in the context of cyber security.
The first is skills-based errors. These occur when people are doing routine things – especially when their attention is diverted.
For example, you might forget to back up desktop data from your computer. You know you should do it and know how to do it (because you have done it before). But because you need to get home early, forgot when you did it last or had lots of emails to respond to, you don’t. This may make you more exposed to a hacker’s demands in the event of a cyber attack, as there are no alternatives to retrieve the original data.
The second type is knowledge-based errors. These occur when someone with less experience makes cyber security mistakes because they lack important knowledge or don’t follow specific rules.
For example, you might click on a link in an email from an unknown contact, even if you don’t know what will happen. This could lead to you being hacked and losing your money and data, as the link might contain dangerous malware.
Many cyber attacks are successful because people click on unknown links in emails and text messages. ParinPix/Shutterstock
Traditional approaches fall short
Organisations and governments have invested heavily in cyber security education programs to address human error. However, these programs have had mixed results at best.
This is partly because many programs take a technology-centric, one-size-fits-all approach. They often focus on specific technical aspects, such as improving password hygiene or implementing multi-factor authentication. Yet, they don’t address the underlying psychological and behavioural issues that influence people’s actions.
The reality is that changing human behaviour is far more complex than simply providing information or mandating certain practices. This is especially true in the context of cyber security.
Public health campaigns such as the “Slip, Slop, Slap” sun safety initiative in Australia and New Zealand illustrate what works.
Since this campaign started four decades ago, melanoma cases in both countries have fallen significantly. Behavioural change requires ongoing investment into promoting awareness.
The same principle applies to cyber security education. Just because people know best practices doesn’t mean they will consistently apply them – especially when faced with competing priorities or time pressures.
New laws fall short
The Australian government’s proposed cyber security law focuses on several key areas, including:
combating ransomware attacks
enhancing information sharing between businesses and government agencies
strengthening data protection in critical infrastructure sectors, such as energy, transport and communications
expanding investigative powers for cyber incidents
These measures are crucial. However, like traditional cyber security education programs, they primarily address technical and procedural aspects of cyber security.
A greater emphasis is needed on human-centered approaches to cybersecurity where people’s needs, motivations, behaviours, and abilities are at the forefront of determining the design, operation, and security of information technology systems.
3 rules for human-centric cyber security
So, how can we adequately address the issue of human error in cyber security? Here are three key strategies based on the latest research.
Minimise cognitive load. Cyber security practices should be designed to be as intuitive and effortless as possible. Training programs should focus on simplifying complex concepts and integrating security practices seamlessly into daily workflows.
Foster a positive cyber security attitude. Instead of relying on fear tactics, education should emphasise the positive outcomes of good cyber security practices. This approach can help motivate people to improve their cyber security behaviours.
Adopt a long-term perspective. Changing attitudes and behaviours is not a single event but a continuous process. Cyber security education should be ongoing, with regular updates to address evolving threats.
Ultimately, creating a truly secure digital environment requires a holistic approach. It needs to combine robust technology, sound policies, and, most importantly, ensuring people are well-educated and security conscious.
If we can better understand what’s behind human error, we can design more effective training programs and security practices that work with, rather than against, human nature.
Jongkil Jay Jeong 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.
In September 2023, an Australian Senate committee released a landmark report on concussions and repeated head trauma in contact sports.
The committee made 13 recommendations to improve outcomes for past, present and future players.
The report emphasised shared responsibility and transparency in developing a national approach, with the government to lead nine of the recommendations.
As of October 2024, no official government update has been provided.
We’ve assessed the status of the recommendations – of the publicly available sources, we found evidence of action in some areas but no national strategy in directly addressing the focus of several key recommendations.
We approached the Senate committee secretary and the Department of Health and Aged Care for more information but neither was able to comment.
We acknowledge there is likely more work going on behind the scenes, and these processes take time.
Here’s what we found.
Progress being made
In the past year, there has been progress made with several recommendations including those addressing community awareness, education and guidelines for amateur and youth sports.
The AIS continues to engage in health-led efforts with a suite of resources aimed at increasing community awareness and education.
In June this year, the institute published a new set of return-to-play guidelines specifically targeting community and youth athletes.
This represents a tangible response from a federally funded sporting body.
However, these guidelines must be easily implemented by clubs. To date, there is no indication the government plans to increase funding or resources to clubs to help do so.
The committee also called for national sporting organisations to “further explore rule modifications to prevent and reduce the impact of concussions and repeated head trauma, prioritising modifications for children and adolescents”.
Several major sporting codes have modified their rules and we expect them to remain focused on rule modifications to ensure the longevity of their sports.
General practitioners (GPs) are often the first port of call after a concussion, and the committee recommended the development of standardised guidelines for GPs and first aid responders.
This addresses concerns that GPs may require additional training in treating sport-related brain trauma.
There appears to be work in progress or a lack of progress elsewhere, including key recommendations for a National Sports Injury Database (NSID) and professional sport data sharing.
The inquiry highlighted how patchy data collection had contributed to evidence gaps in understanding sports injury management and surveillance. The committee’s most urgent recommendation therefore was for the government to establish the NSID.
This would work closely with another recommendation that called for professional sport codes to collect and share de-identified concussion and sub-concussive event data with the NSID.
As of October 2024, the Australian Institute of Health and Welfare reports the NSID is still under development and is not yet ready to receive data.
Other recommendations related to research – establishing an independent research pathway, ongoing funding commitments and a co-ordinated and consolidated funding framework.
These recommendations called for the government’s existing agencies, or a newly created body, to coordinate research on the effects of concussion and repeated head trauma.
No new dedicated sports-related concussion research pathways have emerged since the inquiry.
In terms of funding commitments, in April this year – after former rugby league star Wally Lewis’s National Press Club appearance – Dementia Australia reported the government had pledged $A18 million for concussion and CTE support services and education.
The May 2024 federal budget allocated $132.7 million to boost sports participation from grassroots to high performance. But this did not address concussion and repeated head trauma, and we haven’t been able to find evidence of a co-ordinated and consolidated funding framework.
Our view is concussion funding pools should be primarily focused on supporting independent research projects. However, sporting bodies clearly need to be involved – they provide access to athlete populations and most people in these organisations have a genuine care for athlete welfare.
Another recommendation called for a national concussion strategy. This should focus on binding return-to-play protocols and rules to protect participants from head injuries.
The recommendation included a role for government and whether any existing government bodies would be best placed to monitor, oversee and/or enforce concussion-related rules and protocols.
In our view, this recommendation involves much more than producing guidelines. It requires a more comprehensive national strategy, with consideration to monitoring compliance and enforcement.
We could not find any evidence indicating the current status of this recommendation.
Increased funding and support for affected athletes were also focus areas.
These recommendations called for a review to address barriers to workers’ compensation and ensure adequate insurance arrangements remain in place.
We could not find any evidence of whether state and territory governments are involved in the reviews of workers compensation to apply to professional athletes.
The committee recommenced the government consider measures to increase donations to brain banks for scientific research.
We couldn’t find any evidence of steps taken to implement this recommendation.
Moving forward
There has been progress in education and guidelines but a lack of the coordinated, transparent approach the committee envisioned.
A formal government response, as demonstrated in Canada and the United Kingdom, is essential to establish trust and chart a clear path forward.
The Australian government, as guardian of the Australian public’s health, has an opportunity to do the same.
Annette Greenhow receives funding from SSHRC Partnership Development Grant. Annette is a Board Member of the Australian and New Zealand Sports Law Association. The views expressed in this article are her own.
Stephen Townsend 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 nature of humanity, its essence, is to feel another’s pain as one’s own, and to act to take that pain away.
For most of our history, we believed empathy was a uniquely human trait – a special ability that set us apart from machines and other animals. But this belief is now being challenged.
As AI becomes a bigger part of our lives, entering even our most intimate spheres, we’re faced with a philosophical conundrum: could attributing human qualities to AI diminish our own human essence? Our research suggests it can.
Digitising companionship
In recent years, AI “companion” apps such as Replika have attracted millions of users. Replika allows users to create custom digital partners to engage in intimate conversations. Members who pay for Replika Pro can even turn their AI into a “romantic partner”.
Physical AI companions aren’t far behind. Companies such as JoyLoveDolls are selling interactive sex robots with customisable features including breast size, ethnicity, movement and AI responses such as moaning and flirting.
While this is currently a niche market, history suggests today’s digital trends will become tomorrow’s global norms. With about one in four adults experiencing loneliness, the demand for AI companions will grow.
The dangers of humanising AI
Humans have long attributed human traits to non-human entities – a tendency known as anthropomorphism. It’s no surprise we’re doing this with AI tools such as ChatGPT, which appear to “think” and “feel”. But why is humanising AI a problem?
For one thing, it allows AI companies to exploit our tendency to form attachments with human-like entities. Replika is marketed as “the AI companion who cares”. However, to avoid legal issues, the company elsewhere points out Replika isn’t sentient and merely learns through millions of user interactions.
Some AI companies overtly claim their AI assistants have empathy and can even anticipate human needs. Such claims are misleading and can take advantage of people seeking companionship. Users may become deeply emotionally invested if they believe their AI companion truly understands them.
This raises serious ethical concerns. A user will hesitate to delete (that is, to “abandon” or “kill”) their AI companion once they’ve ascribed some kind of sentience to it.
But what happens when said companion unexpectedly disappears, such as if the user can no longer afford it, or if the company that runs it shuts down? While the companion may not be real, the feelings attached to it are.
Empathy – more than a programmable output
By reducing empathy to a programmable output, do we risk diminishing its true essence? To answer this, let’s first think about what empathy really is.
Empathy involves responding to other people with understanding and concern. It’s when you share your friend’s sorrow as they tell you about their heartache, or when you feel joy radiating from someone you care about. It’s a profound experience – rich and beyond simple forms of measurement.
A fundamental difference between humans and AI is that humans genuinely feel emotions, while AI can only simulate them. This touches on the hard problem of consciousness, which questions how subjective human experiences arise from physical processes in the brain.
Science has yet to solve the hard problem of consciousness. Shutterstock
While AI can simulate understanding, any “empathy” it purports to have is a result of programming that mimics empathetic language patterns. Unfortunately, AI providers have a financial incentive to trick users into growing attached to their seemingly empathetic products.
The dehumanAIsation hypothesis
Our “dehumanAIsation hypothesis” highlights the ethical concerns that come with trying to reduce humans to some basic functions that can be replicated by a machine. The more we humanise AI, the more we risk dehumanising ourselves.
For instance, depending on AI for emotional labour could make us less tolerant of the imperfections of real relationships. This could weaken our social bonds and even lead to emotional deskilling. Future generations may become less empathetic – losing their grasp on essential human qualities as emotional skills continue to be commodified and automated.
Also, as AI companions become more common, people may use them to replace real human relationships. This would likely increase loneliness and alienation – the very issues these systems claim to help with.
AI companies’ collection and analysis of emotional data also poses significant risks, as these data could be used to manipulate users and maximise profit. This would further erode our privacy and autonomy, taking surveillance capitalism to the next level.
Holding providers accountable
Regulators need to do more to hold AI providers accountable. AI companies should be honest about what their AI can and can’t do, especially when they risk exploiting users’ emotional vulnerabilities.
Exaggerated claims of “genuine empathy” should be made illegal. Companies making such claims should be fined – and repeat offenders shut down.
Data privacy policies should also be clear, fair and without hidden terms that allow companies to exploit user-generated content.
We must preserve the unique qualities that define the human experience. While AI can enhance certain aspects of life, it can’t – and shouldn’t – replace genuine human connection.
The authors do not work for, consult, own shares in or receive funding from any company or organisation that would benefit from this article, and have disclosed no relevant affiliations beyond their academic appointment.
Australia’s fertility rate has fallen to a new record low of 1.5 babies per woman. That’s well below the “replacement rate” of 2.1 needed to sustain a country’s population.
On face value, it might not seem like a big deal. But we can’t afford to ignore this issue. The health of an economy is deeply intertwined with the size and structure of its population.
Australians simply aren’t having as many babies as they used to, raising some serious questions about how we can maintain our country’s workforce, sustain economic growth and fund important services.
So what’s going on with fertility rates here and around the world, and what might it mean for the future of our economy? What can we do about it?
Are lower birth rates always a problem?
Falling fertility rates can actually have some short-term benefits. Having fewer dependent young people in an economy can increase workforce participation, as well as boost savings and wealth.
Smaller populations can also benefit from increased investment per person in education and health.
But the picture gets more complex in the long term, and less rosy. An ageing population can strain pensions, health care and social services. This can hinder economic growth, unless it’s offset by increased productivity.
Other scholars have warned that a falling population could stifle innovation, with fewer young people meaning fewer breakthrough ideas.
In the short term, lower birth rates can mean more is able to be spent per-person on services like education. Jandrie Lombard/Shutterstock
A global phenomenon
The trend towards women having fewer children is not unique to Australia. The global fertility rate has dropped over the past couple of decades, from 2.7 babies per woman in 2000 to 2.4 in 2023.
However, the distribution is not evenly spread. In 2021, 29% of the world’s babies were born in sub-Saharan Africa. This is projected to rise to 54% by 2100.
There’s also a regional-urban divide. Childbearing is often delayed in urban areas and late fertility is more common in cities.
In Australia, we see higher fertility rates in inner and outer regional areas than in metro areas. This could be because of more affordable housing and a better work-life balance.
But it raises questions about whether people are moving out of cities to start families, or if something intrinsic about living in the regions promotes higher birth rates.
Fewer workers, more pressure on services
Changes to the makeup of a population can be just as important as changes to its size. With fewer babies being born and increased life expectancy, the proportion of older Australians who have left the workforce will keep rising.
One way of tracking this is with a metric called the old-age dependency ratio – the number of people aged 65 and over per 100 working-age individuals.
In Australia, this ratio is currently about 27%. But according to the latest Intergenerational Report, it’s expected to rise to 38% by 2063.
An ageing population means greater demand for medical services and aged care. As the working-age population shrinks, the tax base that funds these services will also decline.
An ageing population can mean more pressure on tax-payer funded services like healthcare. Chinnapong/Shutterstock
Unless this is offset by technological advances or policy innovations, it can mean higher taxes, longer working lives, or the government providing fewer public services in general.
What about housing?
It’s tempting to think a falling birth rate might be good news for Australia’s stubborn housing crisis.
The issues are linked – rising real estate prices have made it difficult for many young people to afford homes, with a significant number of people in their 20s still living with their parents.
This can mean delaying starting a family and reducing the number of children they have.
At the same time, if fertility rates stay low, demand for large family homes may decrease, impacting one of Australia’s most significant economic sectors and sources of household wealth.
Governments worldwide, including Australia, have long experimented with policies that encourage families to have more children. Examples include paid parental leave, childcare subsidies and financial incentives, such as Australia’s “baby bonus”.
Many of these efforts have had only limited success. One reason is the rising average age at which women have their first child. In many developed countries, including Australia, the average age for first-time mothers has surpassed 30.
As women delay childbirth, they become less likely to have multiple children, further contributing to declining birth rates. Encouraging women to start a family earlier could be one policy lever, but it must be balanced with women’s growing workforce participation and career goals.
Research has previously highlighted the factors influencing fertility decisions, including levels of paternal involvement and workplace flexibility. Countries that offer part-time work or maternity leave without career penalties have seen a stabilisation or slight increases in fertility rates.
Any solutions to falling fertility rates must balance other important factors such as women’s increased workforce participation. Halfpoint/Shutterstock
The way forward
Historically, one of the ways Australia has countered its low birth rate is through immigration. Bringing in a lot of people – especially skilled people of working age – can help offset the effects of a low fertility rate.
However, relying on immigration alone is not a long-term solution. The global fertility slump means that the pool of young, educated workers from other countries is shrinking, too. This makes it harder for Australia to attract the talent it needs to sustain economic growth.
Australia’s record-low fertility rate presents both challenges and opportunities. On one hand, the shrinking number of young people will place a strain on public services, innovation and the labour market.
On the other hand, advances in technology, particularly in artificial intelligence and robotics, may help ease the challenges of an ageing population.
That’s the optimistic scenario. AI and other tech-driven productivity gains could reduce the need for large workforces. And robotics could assist in aged care, lessening the impact of this demographic shift.
The authors do not work for, consult, own shares in or receive funding from any company or organisation that would benefit from this article, and have disclosed no relevant affiliations beyond their academic appointment.
Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Daryl Higgins, Professor & Director, Institute of Child Protection Studies, Australian Catholic University
An ABC report on Monday revealed a concerning rise in peer-on-peer sexual abuse within Australian primary schools.
Data on Victorian schools shows hundreds of such incidents were reported in 2022 and 2023, with many involving children under the age of ten.
The Australian Child Maltreatment Study also showed rates of sexual abuse inflicted by peers has been increasing. Overall, 18.2% of participants aged 16 to 24 reported being sexually abused by a peer during their childhood, compared to 12.1% of those aged 45 years and over.
Parents may be wondering how they can protect their children at school.
One of the most effective tools parents have is open, regular and age-appropriate conversations with their kids.
It is crucial for parents to talk with their children about boundaries and consent from an early age. For younger children, this can be as simple as teaching them their body belongs to them and no one else has the right to touch them without permission. Asking if its OK for a hug, and respecting when children say “no” is a great start.
When discussing consent, it is important to highlight consent is not just about saying “no”, but also recognising and respecting others’ boundaries.
Peer relationships and trusted adults play a crucial role in a child’s life. Helping children identify adults they can trust if they need to talk about something is also very important. Peers are often the first to hear of concerns or are often the recipients of disclosures, so fostering healthy friendships and teaching children to report to trusted adults is crucial.
Addressing peer pressure and secrecy
Children may feel pressured by peers or may be told to keep certain behaviours secret.
It is essential for parents to emphasise no matter who asks them to keep a secret, they should always share concerns or things they are unsure about with a trusted adult.
Parents can reinforce the message that if someone tells them not to tell, it is a “red flag”.
Children can often feel unsure or scared of whether what has happened is wrong. This is why encouraging openness and creating a nonjudgmental space for children to share is important.
Discussing online safety
Research shows exposure to harmful material, like pornography, is a contributing factor to inappropriate sexual behaviour among peers.
Being aware of your child’s internet use and educating them on how to keep themselves safe online is crucial.
What else can parents do?
While conversations with your children are vital, parents can also take practical steps to ensure their child’s safety at school. These include:
familiarising yourself with school policies: understand the school’s procedures for reporting bullying, harassment and sexual abuse. Parents should ask about how teachers manage supervision during breaks or other occasions where children may be less well unsupervised
getting involved in your child’s social world: knowing who your child’s friends are and staying connected with teachers can offer insight into troubling dynamics. Create opportunities for your child to talk about their friendships and school experiences regularly. And as they start navigating the digital world, it’s even more important to know who they are engaging with
teach assertiveness and confidence: find ways to empower your child to speak up for themselves when they are unsure, or something feels wrong. Don’t leave this up to a class teacher to deal with in respectful relationship education. At home, you can encourage assertiveness in expressing their preferences and boundaries. You can also model how to stand up to peer pressure. Children can learn and be encouraged to say simple phrases such as, “stop, I don’t like it” or “no, I don’t want to”.
If there is a problem
If you do come across an issue or problem, try and work with your school. Despite your distress, try not to be adversarial – rather pitch your conversation to the teacher or principal as “How can I help us work through this together?”
Prevention requires vigilance, communication and support from both parents and schools. Parents play a crucial role in shaping their child’s understanding of what’s OK, what’s harmful, as well as boundaries, safety and consent.
By having ongoing conversations, staying informed, and working with schools, parents are the first step to creating safety for children – and supporting them if something goes wrong.
Daryl Higgins receives funding from the Australian Research Council, the National Health and Medical Research Council and a range of government departments, agencies, and service providers, including Bravehearts. He was a Chief Investigator on the Australian Child Maltreatment Study.
Gabrielle works with the Australian Child Maltreatment Study (ACMS) team as part of her PhD Candidature. She has also previously worked for Bravehearts in various roles, including for the Turning Corners program, which provides support to young people who have displayed harmful sexual behaviours.
The Australian National Health and Medical research Council (NHMRC) has today released draft guidelines for acceptable levels of per- and polyfluoroalkyl substances, or PFAS, in drinking water.
PFAS chemicals are also known as “forever chemicals”, because they don’t break down easily and can persist in the environment, including drinking water supplies.
The new guidelines – which are not mandatory but will inform state and territory policy – are expected to be finalised in April 2025. They propose a reduction in the maximum levels previously considered safe for four key PFAS chemicals: PFOS, PFOA, PFHxS and PFBS.
Continually scrutinising and updating our PFAS regulations is important to ensure Australians’ safety. However, these updated guidelines are unlikely to have a significant impact on Australia’s drinking water. The majority of potable water supplies in Australia either have no detectable PFAS, or have levels already below the new limits.
What are PFAS chemicals?
PFAS are highly fat-soluble compounds that are very slow to break down. They are basically long chains of carbon atoms studded with fluorine molecules.
PFAS chemicals are inert, water-repellent and heat-resistant. These properties make them ideal for industrial usage and they have been used in firefighting foams and fire-retardant material. They have also been used in common household items such as nonstick pans and stain-resistant fabrics.
Unfortunately, their useful industrial stability means they persist in the environment and can accumulate in the human body. It can take five years for half an ingested dose of PFAS to be removed.
Given PFAS chemicals have the potential to mimic the body’s own fats, there has been concern they could harm our health if sufficient amounts accumulated in the body.
What sorts of health effects are they linked to?
The buildup of a chemical that’s hard to remove from our bodies is always of concern. Despite this, the potential health risks appear to be low. In 2018 the Australian Expert Health Panel for PFAS looked in detail at the evidence.
One of the largest concerns was PFAS chemicals’ ability to increase levels of cholesterol in the blood, potentially increasing heart disease risk. However, studies of people who have been chronically exposed to significant levels of PFOA have not shown statistically significant increases in heart disease.
In 2018, the report from Australia’s expert health panel stated:
Evidence to date does not establish whether PFAS at exposure levels seen in Australia might increase risks of cardiovascular disease… Established risk factors … are likely to be of a much greater magnitude than those potentially caused by PFAS.
Cancer has also been a concern. However the expert panel found no consistent evidence that PFAS chemicals are associated with cancer. One study even found exposure to PFOA decreased the incidence of bowel cancer.
However, the impact of PFAS on human health is continuously reviewed as new evidence comes to light.
Why has Australia revised its drinking water guidelines?
Australia began to phase out PFAS chemicals in the early 2000s. Since then, the levels of PFAS detected in the Australian population have steadily dropped.
Now that industrial use is being phased out, the main way we are exposed to PFAS is through things like persistent environmental contamination. While drinking water is not a major source of PFAS, water can be contaminated from environmental sources, for example, if contaminated dust or ground water makes its way into reservoirs.
Most drinking water levels in Australia either have no detectable PFAS or are already below the new levels. Juergen_Wallstabe/Shutterstock
The NHMRC periodically reviews the health evidence around PFAS used to develop these guidelines, which were last updated in 2018. The latest review looks at additional evidence available since then.
A few developments were of particular interest in this review: studies about the influence of PFAS on thyroid function. Altering thyroid function can be problematic because thyroid hormones regulate our metabolism, growth and development.
The International Agency for Cancer Research’s (IARC) recent ruling on PFAS and cancer also needed to be investigated. The IARC has classified PFOS – one of the four key chemicals Australia is regulating – as “possibly carcinogenic to humans”. However the IARC noted there was “inadequate” evidence PFOS directly causes any type of cancer in people.
This agency can rule on the probability that a chemical can cause cancer under any possible exposure, no matter how extreme. But it doesn’t evaluate the risk of cancer from ordinary exposure.
This means the NHMRC needed to reevaluate the evidence that the levels present in drinking water would constitute a risk.
What are the new PFAS limits?
The NHRMC considered evidence about PFAS exposure in animal studies, and by looking at human epidemiology.
In studies involving animals, the NHMRC review paid particular attention to what concentration of PFAS exposure had no effect on their health. This threshold is used to determine limits for humans, by adding a safety buffer usually a hundred times lower than the level that was safe for animals.
The limits are set are carefully considering the evidence about impact on human health, as well as evaluating how much PFAS exposure is likely from sources beyond drinking water, such as food and inhaled dust.
The proposed limits are:
Note: PFOS and PFHxS are now regulated separately. NHMRC
These guidelines are unlikely to have a significant impact on health. As the NHMRC report shows, majority of potable water supplies in Australia have no detectable PFAS, or levels are already below these new limits.
For example, drinking water sampling for WaterNSW found PFOS levels were between 1.2ng/L and undectable. Similar results were found for PFHxS (between 1.4 and 0.1ng/L) and PFOA (basically undetectable).
While the concentration of PFAS in bores near contamination sites are higher, these are typically not used as sources of drinking water.
The Australian guidelines differ from some international guidelines. The draft guidelines note that different jurisdictions place different weighting on animal and human evidence, and this will affect these regulatory levels.
The draft guidelines are now open to public consultation, with submissions closing on November 22 2024. Final guidelines are expected to be released in April 2025.
Ian Musgrave has received funding from the National Health and Medical Research Council to study adverse reactions to herbal medicines and has previously been funded by the Australian Research Council to study potential natural product treatments for Alzheimer’s disease. He has collaborated with SA Water on studies of cyanobacterial toxins and their implication for drinking water quality.
Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Mona Krewel, Senior Lecturer in Comparative Politics, Te Herenga Waka — Victoria University of Wellington
Getty Images
Companies and shareholders associated with the government’s fast-track projects gave more than $500,000 in donations to National, ACT and New Zealand First, according to a recent analysis by RNZ.
While it is impossible to say whether these companies were listed for consideration because of their donations, allegations of possible “undue influence” are inevitably made.
New Zealand’s reputation as a country with little to no corruption owes nothing to our lack of rigour in the regulation of party donations. As Philippa Yasbek, the author of a report by the Helen Clark Foundation calling for tougher rules to combat the risk of political corruption, said:
Our political integrity and honesty have largely evolved from social norms over many decades. Politicians by and large knew the conduct that was expected of them by New Zealand society. Sadly, today, we’re naive to think that’s enough.
Some political parties seem to take little heed of the existing rules. The Electoral Commission has issued warnings to several parties about large donations being declared too late.
The Independent Electoral Review released early this year recommended parties give up access to corporate donations in exchange for greater public funding. Other recommendations included a cap on political donations set at NZ$30,000, and a much lower threshold for disclosing donors’ names.
As one might expect, the political parties disagree about how funding should be regulated, as their main income sources vary. Labour approves of the proposals, although analysis indicates its revenue streams would suffer most if such policies were in place.
ACT is strongly opposed to the principle of public funding, although there are already significant public funds supporting parliament and party advertising during election campaigns.
What New Zealanders think
But what about public opinion? Do people believe large donors have “undue influence”?
The latest New Zealand Election Study, conducted after the 2023 election, included a module of questions that give insights into New Zealanders’ attitudes to potential party funding reforms. The study is a representative sample of nearly 2,000 eligible voters.
What stands out? Many people answered “don’t know” to the questions – which is quite reasonable. The laws that regulate political party activity in New Zealand are complex and of little relevance to most.
Nonetheless, some clear messages emerge. In general, a near majority of people were concerned about the influence of “big interests”. When asked if they agreed with the statement “The New Zealand government is largely run by a few big interests”, 45% agreed and 27% disagreed.
Drilling deeper into the data, about 35% of business owners agreed, compared to just under half of people who don’t own a business.
Asked whether they believed donors exert “undue influence” on politicians, 43% agreed. Only 18% disagreed. Almost 40% had no opinion on this topic and either didn’t know or took a neutral position.
While Labour, Green and NZ First voters leaned heavily to “undue influence”, National and ACT voters were evenly divided between “undue” and “not undue”.
National voters also strongly opted for “don’t know”. About a third of business owners perceived undue influence, compared with about 45% of non-owners.
The 2023 Election Study also included a question on the recommendation made by the Electoral Review that corporate groups and trade unions should be prohibited from making direct donations to political parties: 53% supported this change, while only 17% opposed it.
The Independent Electoral Review also recommended a limit of $30,000 for any individual donation: 57% agreed, compared to 14% who disagreed. While support was strongest on the left and among New Zealand First voters, significant numbers of National and ACT voters also agreed (47% and 44%).
Finally, we asked for people’s views on anonymity of “promoter donations”. Promoters are people or groups registered to advertise during an election campaign for an issue, or for or against a political party. They can collect anonymous donations that are not subject to the same disclosure requirements as parties.
Only 14% of respondents believed in continued promoter donation anonymity on the basis of privacy, and 47% preferred greater transparency. Breaking this down by party vote, some National and ACT voters prefer transparency over privacy, although more were either neutral or answered “don’t know”.
Support for reform
These results show public perceptions of undue influence by donors are widespread. While these perceptions are strongest on the left, they also penetrate deeply into groups who vote for the parties on the right, and into the business community.
And while the political parties have conflicts of interest, there is significant support for the recommendations of the Independent Electoral review across party lines among the New Zealand public, and inside the business community.
Assuming political parties in a democracy should be responsive to voters’ concerns and demands, this should give them food for thought when it comes to potential party funding reform.
This article is based on our submission to the Justice Select Committee inquiry into the 2023 general election.
The New Zealand Election Study (NZES) has been funded by Te Herenga Waka-Victoria University of Wellington, the New Zealand Electoral Commission, the Gama Foundation, and the University of Auckland.
Australian mining giant BHP is at the centre of one of the world’s largest class actions, the trial for which started this week in London.
The Fundão Dam in Mariana, Brazil, co-owned by BHP, collapsed in 2015 spilling a gigantic wave of toxic mud across 700 kilometres of land. Nineteen people were killed, villages and livestock wiped out, vast areas of land rendered uninhabitable and rivers and water supplies contaminated.
Corporate accountability
The class action has renewed questions about the responsibilities multibillion-dollar corporations have to local communities.
Leaders of the traditional people groups impacted by the disaster visited Australia with their lawyer Tom Goodhead from international legal firm Pogust Goodhead to raise awareness of the case two weeks ago.
Goodhead told a public forum at Macquarie University this was a case of corporate negligence and putting profit before safety. He said the operators were warned of the risk of dam collapse and continued to push operations beyond what was safe.
The class action is brought on behalf of more than 600,000 claimants. The trial is expected to run for 12 weeks and will be heard in the UK, because this is where BHP was headquartered at the time of the disaster.
The UK courts will apply the Brazilian laws, which say environmental polluters must pay for the damage they cause.
Can BHP fix this?
The claimants’ lawyers say the case is valued at more than A$68.8 billion. The figure is based on an estimation of the impact of the disaster on land, culture and sacred places, as well as some form of recompense for the lost lives.
[the] river has always been there for us to guarantee our livelihoods. It is a sacred space for us. The river is where we carry out our sacred practices. That’s where we sing, where we dance, where we gather. The new leaders, [our] children, have to learn how to swim in a water tank of a thousand litres.
But Thatiele Monic, president of the Vila Santa Efigênia and Adjacências Quilombola Association said the victims don’t trust the foundation.
In the same way that the mining company invades our land, the Renova Foundation also is invading our space and our territories. They do not respect our land. They do not respect our people, and they are creating more and more conflict. So that people are essentially giving up pursuing this.
Poor human rights record
Australian corporations operating overseas have a poor record on human rights.
The gold and copper mine triggered a brutal civil war between 1988 and 1998. Despite decades passing since the mine was decommissioned, the recent report confirms the mine continues to pose risks to life and safety due to the collapsing mine and ongoing contamination down rivers and into new areas.
The UNGPs say states should set out clearly the expectation that corporations in their jurisdiction respect human rights in all their operations – even those occurring overseas.
The Human Rights Law Centre found in a 2018 report on this topic that the Australian government was not doing enough to hold corporations to account.
It found Australian corporations operating overseas did so with impunity. Efforts to seek justice locally is often thwarted by corruption, lack of resources or ineffective legal process. At the same time, attempts by overseas communities to take legal action in Australian courts face enormous hurdles and rarely succeed.
This is why cases like the class action for claimants in Mariana are crucial for corporate accountability.
In my 2023 report with colleagues Surya Deva and Justine Nolan, we found this kind of litigation can raise awareness, facilitate broader industry developments and shape laws and policy.
Our report also found litigation needs to be supported by strong regulatory responses from governments, and complementary advocacy like shareholder or consumer engagement.
Cost of litigation
Litigation comes with significant risks to victims and their allies.
In a controversial development for corporate accountability in Australia, oil and gas giant Santos is using legal processes to challenge environmental groups who supported traditional owners opposing their Barossa gas project. Santos’ tactics, if allowed to continue, could limit public interest litigation in the future.
Thatiele Monic ended her speech at the Macquarie University event with a question worth repeating
This has happened in Brazil, but it has happened in many other places, and if we don’t do anything about it, and we don’t talk about it, it will continue to happen in many more other places. This is not the future I want for myself and for my people. I’d like to know. What future do you want for yourselves?
Ebony Birchall is affiliated with Macquarie University’s B&HR Access to Justice Lab.
Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Matthew Hole, Professor, Mathematical Sciences Institute and School of Computing, Australian National University
The source of all nuclear power is the binding energy of an atom. The energy stored in an atom can be released in two main ways: fission or fusion. Fission involves splitting big heavy atoms into smaller, lighter ones. Fusion involves combining little atoms together into bigger ones.
Both processes release a lot of energy. For example, one nuclear fission decay of U235, an isotope of uranium typically used as the fuel in most power plants, produces more than 6 million times the energy per single chemical reaction of the purest coal. This means they are great processes for generating power.
What is fission?
Fission is the process behind every nuclear power plant in operation today. It occurs when a tiny subatomic particle called a neutron is slammed into an uranium atom, splitting it. This releases more neutrons, which continue colliding with other atoms, setting off a nuclear chain reaction. This in turn releases a tremendous amount of energy.
To convert this energy to electricity a heat exchanger is installed, which turns water to steam, driving a turbine to produce power.
The fission reaction can be controlled by suppressing the supply of neutrons. This is achieved by inserting “control rods” which soak up neutrons. Historically, nuclear accidents such as Chernobyl have occurred when the control rods fail to engage and quench the neutron supply, and/or coolant circulation fails.
So called “third generation” designs improve on early designs by incorporating passive or inherent safety features which require no active controls or human intervention to avoid accidents in the event of malfunction. These features may rely on pressure differentials, gravity, natural convection, or the natural response of materials to high temperatures.
An unresolved challenge for fission is that the byproducts of the reaction are radioactive for a long time, in the order of thousands of years. If reprocessed, the fuel source and waste can also be used to make a nuclear weapon.
Fission power is a demonstrated technology. It is also scalable from large scale (the largest is the 7.97 gigawatt Kashiwazaki-Kariwa Nuclear Power Plant in Japan) through to small-to-medium reactors that produce around 150 megawatts of electricity, as used on a ship or nuclear submarine. These are the reactors that will power Australia’s eight nuclear submarines promised as part of a trilateral security partnership with the United Kingdom and the United States.
What is fusion?
Fusion is the process that powers the Sun and stars. It is the opposite process to fission. It occurs when atoms are fused together.
The easiest reaction to initiate in the laboratory is the fusion of isotopes of hydrogen, deuterium and tritium. Per unit mass, the reaction produces 4 times more energy than the fission of U235.
The fuel ion deuterium is incredibly abundant on Earth and in the universe. Tritium is radioactive with a half-life of 12 years, so is very rare on Earth. The universe is 13.8 billion years old; the only isotopes of light nuclei (hydrogen, helium and lithium) found in nature are those that are stable on those time scales.
In a fusion power plant, tritium would be manufactured using a “lithium blanket”. This is a solid lithium wall in which fusion neutrons slow and ultimately react to form tritium.
However, at present it’s very difficult for scientists to create a fusion reaction outside of the laboratory. That’s because it requires incredibly hot conditions to fuse: the optimal conditions are 150 million degrees Celsius.
At these temperatures the fuel ions exist in the plasma state, where electrons and (nuclear) ions are dissociated. The byproduct of this process isn’t radioactive; rather, it’s helium, an inert gas.
The leading technology path to demonstrate sustained fusion is called “toroidal magnetic confinement”. This is when the plasma is confined at extreme temperatures in a very large doughnut-shaped magnetic bottle.
Unlike fission, this technology path requires continuous external heating to reach fusion conditions and a strong confining field. Terminate either and the reaction stops. The challenge is not uncontrolled meltdown, but getting the reaction to occur at all.
A major unresolved challenge for toroidal magnetic confinement fusion, which attracts the majority of research interest, is the demonstration of a burning self-heated plasma. This is when the heating power produced by the reaction itself is primary. This is the objective of the publicly funded multi-national ITER project, the world’s largest fusion experiment, and the privately funded SPARC experiment at Massachusetts Institute of Technology.
However, the consensus of much of the scientific community is that fusion will not be commercially viable until at least 2050.
A climate solution?
I am often asked if nuclear power could save Earth from climate change. I have many colleagues in climate science, and indeed my late wife was a high-profile climate scientist.
The science is clear: it is too late to stop climate change. The world needs to do everything it can to reduce carbon dioxide emissions and minimise catastrophic damage, and it needs to have done it decades ago.
For the planet, fission is part of that global solution, together with widespread rollout and adoption of renewable sources of power such as wind and solar.
On a longer time scale, one hopes that fusion might replace fission. The fuel supply is much larger and ubiquitously distributed, the waste problem is orders of magnitude smaller in volume and timescale, and the technology cannot be weaponised.
Matthew Hole receives funding from the Australian government through the Australian Research Council and the Australian Nuclear Science and Technology Organisation (ANSTO), and the Simons Foundation. He is also affiliated with ANSTO, the ITER Organisation as an ITER Science Fellow, and is Chair of the Australian ITER Forum.
Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Pandanus Petter, Research Fellow School of Politics and International Relations, Australian National University
On Saturday October 26, Queensland Premier Steven Miles’ Labor is vying for a fourth consecutive term in government, up against David Crisafulli’s Liberal National Party (LNP).
Although Labor won the previous election in 2020 comfortably, opinion polls in the lead up to this election have consistently pointed to an LNP win.
Recent Queensland history shows voters can produce dramatic election results, such as the 2012 wipeout of Labor, and its equally dramatic return to government in 2015. With no upper house to provide a check on government power, whoever wins will likely have a relatively free hand to enact their policy agenda.
A continuing trend of increased early voting means many Queenslanders have already made their judgement. But what have been the big issues dominating the campaign, and what priorities will the next government be working toward?
The usual suspects
The big issues of concern to voters in Queensland are likely familiar to people in other states:
cost of living
housing
crime
health
to a lesser extent, economic management.
However, the two main parties have different emphases and approaches.
A campaign on crime and crises
The LNP is focused on attacking Labor’s record. Crisafulli has largely tried to keep the party firmly on-message, highlighting what they describe as “crises” in housing, youth crime, cost of living, health and government integrity for at least the last year.
The extent of youth crime, what causes it and what solves it are a matter of debate.
But the LNP has been keen to present themselves as proposing tougher solutions than their opponents. They’ve made promises to change youth sentencing laws to deter offenders under the slogan “adult crime, adult time”.
They’ve also promised to provide “tough love” to at-risk youth with mandatory re-training camps.
On other issues, they’ve been promising more efficient health services, incentives to home ownership and greater government transparency.
However, they’ve been careful to try to avoid more controversial issues and present a “small target” on economic management. Interestingly, the LNP has largely confirmed they’ll adopt many of Labor’s budgetary priorities on cost of living relief.
Despite this, a last minute emphasis on the possible reversal of legislation decriminalising abortion and voluntary assisted dying has threatened to derail their careful messaging.
Crisafulli has walked back earlier support for Treaty with Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander people.
If they win government, the LNP would also likely shut down the freshly minted Truth Telling and Healing Inquiry, claiming they will focus on “practical” help for Indigenous communities instead.
They’re also promising electoral reform with a longstanding commitment to remove “corrupt” compulsory preferential voting and the reversal of laws that banned property developer donations.
Progressive balancing act
Steven Miles took over from Annastacia Palaszczuk as Labor leader and premier less than a year ago.
Labor has also been focused on using incumbency to address key issues, while trying to stake out a position as a force for progressive change.
They have warned of the potential “hidden” dangers of the LNP, pointing to unpopular cuts to the civil service last time the LNP governed.
On cost of living, they’ve given direct relief to households, with 50 cent fares for public transport, $1000 household energy rebates and promised free lunches for public school students.
They have been keen to say this is a dividend from increased royalties charged to coal mining companies.
On housing, they have continued their focus on addressing the undersupply of social and affordable housing alongside modest reforms to renters’ rights (although ruling out any caps on prices).
They’re promising a new era of state intervention to improve competition in petrol and energy retail.
On crime, Labor has followed the LNP’s lead in some matters, such as investing in extra police resources. They’ve also controversially ignored the Human Rights Act to keep youth imprisoned while emphasising diversion over punishment.
Of more comfort to progressive voters, they have positioned themselves as firmly committed to keeping their abortion and voluntary assisted dying legislation intact. Labor will also continue the transition to renewable energy.
Disenchantment with the major parties
Despite their efforts, or perhaps because of Crisafulli’s disciplined messaging, it doesn’t look as if voters have been swayed to keep the government. There’s a clear mood for change.
However, it should be noted this isn’t exactly a ringing endorsement of Crisafulli or the LNP’s whole agenda, as opinion polls show neither is particularly popular.
After trailing for most of the campaign, Miles is still behind, but has made up a lot of ground in the past week.
Whoever wins, they will have to govern in an era when more people are disenchanted with the mainstream parties.
Among those vying to hold or increase their crossbench seats in regional Queensland are the socially conservative Katter’s Australian Party, as well as some popular local mayors running as independents.
The minor parties are campaigning hard on persistent problems in housing, cost of living, health and crime. These are all hard to solve quickly and not necessarily helped by rushed responses.
The next parliament will have to find a way to represent a state divided in public opinion between those in the city and those in regional areas across all of the key issues.
Pandanus Petter receives funding from the Australian Research Council to study public opinion polling, democratic responsiveness and the idea of ‘the Fair Go’ in public policy.
Cats have lived with humans for thousands of years. And long before cat memes and viral TikToks took over the internet, they’ve been comforting us with their purrs and making us laugh with their weird antics.
But what does the research say – are cats good for us?
Living with a cat can have a profound – and sometimes surprising – effect on our physical and mental health. Still, living with cats is not without risks.
Part of the family
You may have heard cats don’t have owners, they have “staff”. In fact, multiple studies show the humans who live with them feel more like beloved relatives.
In a study of 1,800 Dutch cat owners, half said their cat was family. One in three viewed their cat as a child or best friend and found them loyal, supportive and empathetic.
Another US study developed a “family bondedness” scale and found cats were just as important a part of families as dogs.
In fact we’ve adapted to each other. Cats are more likely to approach human strangers who first give a “kitty kiss” – narrowing your eyes and blinking slowly. And research suggests cats have developed specific meows that tune into our nurturing instincts.
What does this close relationship mean for health outcomes?
Owning a pet is associated with less social isolation. And some cat owners say “providing for the cat” increases their feelings of enjoyment and sense of purpose.
But the benefits of the relationship may depend on how you relate to your cat.
One study looked at different relationship styles between humans and cats, including “remote”, “casual” and “co-dependent”. It found people whose relationship with their cat was co-dependent or like a friend had a higher emotional connection to their pet.
Links to heart health
People who own – or have owned – a cat have a lower risk of dying from cardiovascular diseases such as stroke or heart disease. This result has been repeated in several studies.
However a problem interpreting population studies is they only tell us about an association. This means while people with cats have lower risk of dying from cardiovascular diseases, we can’t say for sure cats are the cause.
People who own a cat – or have in the past – are at lower risk of stroke and heart disease. Ruth McHugh-Dillon, CC BY-NC
Cat ownership has also been associated with some positive changes in the gut microbiota, especially in women, such as improved blood glucose control and reduced inflammation.
Helping mental health
Having cat or dog is also associated with higher psychological well-being. For people with depression, patting or playing with their cat has been shown to reduce symptoms (although this was over a short, two-hour period and can’t be extrapolated longer-term).
Another way to find out about the health impact of cats is qualitative research: asking people what their cats mean to them, beyond the numbers.
When colleagues and I surveyed veterans, we found people more attached to their pets actually had poorer mental health scores. But their survey responses told a different story. One respondent said, “my cats are the reason I get up in the morning”.
Another wrote:
I consider my pet to be a service animal. My cat helps me to relax when I’m dealing with my anxiety, depression or when I wake during the night from the frequent nightmares I have. My cat isn’t just a pet to me, my cat is a part of me, my cat is part of my family.
It may be that veterans were more attached to their cats because they had worse mental health – and relied on their cats more for comfort – rather than the other way around.
Mental health downsides
It is possible being attached to your cat has downsides. If your cat becomes sick, the burden of caring for them may have a negative impact on your mental health.
In our study of owners whose cats had epilepsy, around one third experienced a clinical level of burden as caregivers that was likely to interfere with their day-to-day functioning.
Cats can also carry zoonotic diseases, which are infections which spread from animals to humans.
They are the main host for toxoplasmosis, a parasite excreted in cat faeces which can affect other mammals, including humans. The parasite is more likely to be carried by feral cats that hunt for their food than domestic cats.
Most people have mild symptoms that may be similar to flu. But infection during pregnancy can lead to miscarriage or stillbirth, or cause problems for the baby including blindness and seizures.
Pregnant women and people with lowered immunity are most at risk. It is recommended these groups don’t empty cat litter trays, or use gloves if they have to. Changing the litter tray daily prevents the parasite reaching a stage that could infect people.
Allergies
Up to one in five people have an allergy to cats and this is increasing.
When cats lick their fur, their saliva deposits an allergen. When their fur and dander (flakes of skin) come loose, it can set off an allergic reaction.
People without severe allergies can still live with cats if they regularly wash their hands, clean surfaces and vacuum to eliminate dander. They can also exclude cats from areas they want to be allergen-free, such as bedrooms.
People with allergies can live with cats if their symptoms aren’t severe. Ruth McHugh-Dillon, CC BY-NC
While cats can provoke allergic reactions, there is also evidence contact with cats can have a protective role in preventing asthma and allergic reactions developing. This is because exposure may modify the immune system, making it less likely allergic reactions will occur.
Susan Hazel is affiliated with the Dog & Cat Management Board of South Australia, Animal Therapies Ltd and the RSPCA South Australia.
