If you’re found guilty of a crime, it’s a basic principle of Australian law that you have a right to appeal.

But having a right and being able to exercise it are two different things, especially when it comes to fresh evidence casting doubt on your conviction.

In Australia, your ability to challenge a conviction with fresh evidence depends on where you live, because each state and territory has different rules. Too often, it also depends on the resources someone can access, including money and knowledge of the legal system.

Everyone should have the same opportunities to clear their name, so how can we make accessing appeals more equitable?

State by state

Direct pathways to appeal differ between the states and territories.

In all postcodes, it’s difficult to get appeal courts to consider fresh evidence in the first instance.

South Australia, Tasmania, Victoria, Western Australia, Queensland and the ACT allow multiple appeal applications if “fresh and compelling” evidence emerges after your first appeal. Since 2013, six convictions have been quashed this way, including Henry Keogh’s in SA after the state coroner recanted trial evidence.

Tasmania and WA allow subsequent appeals only for serious offences, while SA has no such restriction.

New South Wales and the Northern Territory don’t allow subsequent appeals, so people there have less direct access to the courts if wrongly convicted.

There are, however, indirect ways people can seek an appeal with fresh evidence.

In all states, you can ask the government to refer your case back to an appeal court. For example, the Victorian Attorney-General referred Faruk Orman’s case after evidence emerged about his lawyer’s misconduct. Referral decisions are made in secret and not reviewable.

In the ACT, you can ask the Supreme Court for a judicial inquiry into your conviction. If you get an inquiry, the inquiry officer can refer your case back to the appeal court if they find reasonable doubt. This led to David Eastman’s conviction being quashed.

These inquiries are only available if the issue can’t be properly addressed in an appeal, for example because the time for filing an appeal has lapsed. But, the ACT introduced subsequent appeals in 2024 which have no time limit, so it is unclear whether this pathway is still usable.

In NSW, you can ask the government for an inquiry, but decisions are made in secret and open to political and media influence. This pathway led to Kathleen Folbigg’s acquittal.

You can also ask the NSW Supreme Court for an inquiry or direct referral of your case back to the appeal court. This path is available for all offences and sentences and decisions are public. Since 2014, 59 conviction review applications to the NSW Supreme Court have resulted in one inquiry order and six referrals, with three successful appeals.

The inquiry (currently underway) involves the Croatian Six, convicted in 1981 for conspiracy to bomb sites in Sydney. After many failed attempts, they finally secured an inquiry with fresh evidence casting doubt on police and witnesses’ trial evidence.

These different pathways across the country create an uneven playing field, where some wrongfully convicted people may have more opportunities to clear their name than others.

The right resources

Access to appeals doesn’t just depend on location. It’s also about resources.

To succeed in getting an appeal via any of the above pathways, you need the power to obtain documents and the resources to gather other evidence. You also need the ability to prepare a strong case. That’s before you even get to court.

Judicial inquiries have investigatory powers and resources, but are expensive. For example, the Eastman inquiry cost the ACT government $12 million.

The United Kingdom and New Zealand have independent bodies called Criminal Cases Review Commissions. Scotland has its own version.

These commissions have the power to compel evidence and resources to investigate claims of wrongful conviction at no cost to applicants. They also have the power to refer cases back to the courts. While these commissions don’t refer many cases overall, about 70% of of cases referred in the UK are successful on appeal.

But, even for commissions, a strong initial application is important. In the UK, the Cardiff University Innocence Project engages law students to investigate claims of innocence and prepare applications for claims with merit.

Canada and the United States don’t have criminal case review commissions. Innocence Projects there review claims of innocence and help prepare applications for government or court review.

This is similar to the work of the few innocence clinics in Australia, such as those at RMIT and Griffith universities.

Innocence initiatives around the world work with limited investigatory resources and powers compared with those of a review commission. In the absence of a such a commission in Australia, second appeals are useful, but they are expensive to run, hard to access and don’t address the resource issue.

The free NSW Supreme Court pathway doesn’t address the resource issue either. But it can lead to an inquiry or referral, is open and accountable, and comes with guiding criteria and discretion to make short shrift of baseless applications.

My research suggests free pathways to appeal are important justice mechanisms for the wrongly convicted, but they work best when applicants have legal help to prepare a clear and concise application. Involving law students to help edit applications could make it easier for decision-makers to review cases and help applicants without lawyers get a fairer chance to be heard.

Kylie Lingard, Senior lecturer, University of Wollongong

This article is republished from The Conversation under a Creative Commons license. Read the original article.

Support Our Journalism

Global Indian Diaspora and Australia’s multicultural communities need fair, non-hyphenated, and questioning journalism, packed with on-ground reporting. The Australia Today – with exceptional reporters, columnists, and editors – is doing just that. Sustaining this needs support from wonderful readers like you.

Whether you live in Australia, the United Kingdom, Canada, the United States of America, or India you can take a paid subscription by clicking Patreon and support honest and fearless journalism. LINK: https://tinyurl.com/TheAusToday

The Israel-Iran conflict is showing no signs of de-escalation as the Israel Defense Forces (IDF) launched precise strikes deep within Iranian territory, marking a dramatic turning point in the conflict’s intensity and scale.

On the early morning of 26^th October, Israeli jets and drones surged across Iran’s skies, executing a well-coordinated assault that battered Iranian air defences and obliterated vital missile and drone production facilities. This three-hour barrage targeted the heavily fortified Parchin military complex near Tehran, a key site for Iran’s missile programs.

Experts analysing the damage estimate that these strikes have significantly curtailed Iran’s capacity to mass-produce missiles, thus striking a blow not only to Iran’s immediate military capabilities but also to its long-term deterrent strategies against adversaries in the region. For the first time, Israel openly acknowledged hitting Iran, underlining the attack as a direct response to “relentless attacks” orchestrated by Iran and its proxies—a stark shift from Israel’s previous stance of calculated ambiguity.

As West Asia braces for the reverberations of this escalation, the political and humanitarian costs are glaringly apparent, prompting urgent calls for restraint.

India, a key diplomatic force in the conflict, issued a grave statement on 26^th October, cautioning against the spiralling violence that “benefits nobody” and emphasising the untenable plight of innocent hostages and civilians caught in the crossfire. With a clear-eyed concern for regional stability, India warned of the wider implications for peace, subtly reminding the international community of the fragility that underpins the delicate balance in West Asia.

The above statement underscores India’s longstanding diplomatic stance of non-alignment and prudent restraint, echoing its hopes for de-escalation even as the situation teeters on the brink of a more expansive, unpredictable conflict that could plunge the region—and perhaps even the world—deeper into chaos.

After the heinous October 7 terror attack on Israel, the terror group Hamas has sustained some serious blows in the form of its top leadership being assassinated. Whether the Hamas leadership genuinely miscalculated the intensity of Israeli retaliation or they intentionally sacrificed the lives of countless Palestinian civilians to gain sympathy and funding is a question no one can answer.

The reason is that the October 7 terror attack contributed absolutely nothing constructive for the Palestinian people or, as they themselves put it, their cause. Soon, the Lebanese militant group, Hezbollah, too jumped into the conflict and arguably sustained even bigger blows to its foundations.

The assassination of Hamas leader Ismail Haniyeh in Iran, followed swiftly by the elimination of key operatives like Yahya Sinwar in Gaza and Fatah Sharif in Lebanon, demonstrates that their brazen tactics are leading only to their own undoing. Meanwhile, Hezbollah, with its founder and head Hassan Nasrallah and prominent figures like Ali Karaki and Nabil Kaouk taken out in calculated Israeli strikes, finds its very foundation destabilised.

India’s official position in this complicated scenario is driven both by geo-political pragmatism as well as humanitarian concerns; however, these incidents have given birth to a curious phenomenon within certain sections of Indian intelligentsia: the glorification of terror outfits and their leadership.

This needs to be understood that asking Israel to exercise restraint is completely different from glorifying terrorists on the other side. One can take a humanitarian position for the people of Palestine without branding the likes of Yahya Sinwar as heroes of resistance; in fact, this can be argued that militant outfits like Hamas are the biggest enemies of Palestinian people and their rights. There are documented proofs of Hamas militants using Palestinian civilians as human shields and deliberately constructing their hideouts in heavily populated civilian areas, putting them at risk.

This manipulation is a calculated move, one designed to garner international sympathy by presenting images of devastation without exposing the underlying tactical choices that led to it. The people of Gaza, therefore, become pawns in a propaganda war, their suffering amplified by the very organisation claiming to defend their rights. Moreover, Hamas’ recruitment and indoctrination of minors, training them in militant activities and encouraging martyrdom, further underscores the extent to which the group prioritises its ideological goals over human life.

With significant financial support flowing in from sympathetic nations and organisations, these leaders have settled into lavish residences in places like Qatar and Kuwait, enjoying the fruits of a war economy that thrives on perpetual conflict. Instead of directing resources toward the welfare of the Palestinian people, much of this funding is funnelled into constructing terror tunnels, acquiring weapons, and enhancing military capabilities—priorities that starkly contrast with the urgent needs for education, healthcare, and infrastructure improvements in Gaza.

Given the current circumstances, the remarks from various Indian commentators are profoundly troubling. Journalist Arfa Khanum Sherwani made an attempt at wit with her statement: “Why exactly are Indian fascists celebrating the assassination of Hamas leader Yahya Sinwar? Begaani shaadi mein ye Abdullah kyun deewane ho rahe hain?” Beyond being utterly un-amusing, her comment reveals a concerning admiration for a terrorist figure.

Similarly, actress Swara Bhasker posted on X: “I didn’t know anything about Yahya Sinwar till I saw the footage of his last moments & assassination by the Zionist State and now I think he’s a revolutionary hero. Listen to his will, his last words and tell me that you are unmoved. #FreePalestine”

The usual suspect, Arundhati Roy, wrote an extremely troubling piece in Dawn wherein she asserted: “I am expected to equivocate to protect myself, my ‘neutrality’, my intellectual standing. This is the part where I am meant to lapse into moral equivalence and condemn Hamas, the other militant groups in Gaza and their ally Hezbollah, in Lebanon, for killing civilians and taking people hostage. And to condemn the people of Gaza who celebrated the Hamas attack… I refuse to play the condemnation game. Let me make myself clear. I do not tell oppressed people how to resist their oppression or who their allies should be.”

This is not just apologia for terror outfits, it’s their glorification. It is allegedly provoking people to get recruited into terror outfits, kill civilians, take people hostage if they can fit themselves into the very vague definition of “oppressed”.

Several politicians, specifically in Kashmir, also gave extremely troubling statements. PDP chief Mehbooba Mufti called off her political campaign in “solidarity” with ‘martyrs’ of Lebanon and Gaza. “Cancelling my campaign tomorrow in solidarity with the martyrs of Lebanon & Gaza, especially Hassan Nasarullah. We stand with the people of Palestine & Lebanon in this hour of immense grief & exemplary resistance,” she tweeted.

Aga Syed Ruhullah Mehdi, Member of Parliament, Srinagar called Nasrallah a spirit of resistance and expressed complete solidarity with him. Sajad Lone, MLA from Handwara, Kashmir tweeted: “Mourning the supreme martyrdom of Shaheed Syed Hassan Nasrallah. May Allah (SWT) bless his soul & grant us strength to carry forward his legacy against oppressors.”

It is extremely concerning that these observations have been made by individuals on responsible positions; journalists, political commentators and elected representatives that not only influence masses within the national framework but whose words also carry international weight.

We also saw huge masses protesting the killing of Nasrallah in the streets of Lucknow and Kashmir, singing eulogies and expressing condolences for the head of the terror outfit.

Any viable solution to the Israel-Palestine conflict would only begin with the realisation of a two-state framework. Slogans like “From the river to the sea, Palestine will be free” may sound revolutionary but, in reality, carry disturbing genocidal and anti-Semitic undertones.

Organisations like Hamas and Hezbollah have shown no interest in peaceful solutions; rather, their agendas hinge on radicalising Palestinian youth for the sake of sustaining their own power and influence. The Palestinian people deserve leaders who put the future of their children first, choosing dialogue over militancy and channelling resources into Gaza’s development instead of fuelling cycles of violence through terror tunnels and weapon stockpiles.

Palestinian leaders like Mahmoud Abbas, Hanan Ashrawi, and the late Saeb Erekat have long championed a peaceful two-state solution as the viable path forward, envisioning a future where Israel and Palestine coexist side by side.

Abbas, as President of the Palestinian Authority, has consistently advocated for diplomacy over violence, while Erekat, one of the most recognised Palestinian negotiators, dedicated his life to the peace process. Figures like Ashrawi and Mustafa Barghouti, both known for their unwavering commitment to nonviolent resistance, have called for international support and human rights as pillars of the Palestinian cause.

Additionally, Salam Fayyad’s pragmatic governance style—focused on state-building and economic stability—offered a blueprint for Palestinian self-sufficiency. Collectively, these leaders embody a vision of Palestinian statehood grounded in diplomacy, rights, and resilience, striving to overcome the barriers of conflict with a focus on long-term coexistence and peace.

Therefore, between Abbas and Ashrawi, who advocate for a peaceful resolution and a two-state solution, and Sinwar and Nasrallah, whose militant ideologies perpetuate violence and conflict, Indian commentators and observers face a clear choice. This decision reflects not only their stance on the Israel-Palestine issue but also their commitment to the broader principles of peace, coexistence, and the protection of human rights.

By aligning with leaders like Abbas and Ashrawi, who prioritize dialogue and diplomacy, commentators can contribute to a narrative that seeks constructive engagement and the betterment of Palestinian lives. Conversely, endorsing figures like Sinwar and Nasrallah only serves to amplify extremism and hinder the prospects for a sustainable peace, further entrenching cycles of violence that have plagued the region for decades.

Contributing Author: Omer Ghazi is a proponent of religious reform and identifies himself as “an Indic Muslim exploring Vedic knowledge and cultural heritage through music”. He extensively writes on geo-politics, history and culture and his book “The Cosmic Dance” is a collection of his poems. When he is not writing columns, he enjoys playing drums and performing raps.

Support Our Journalism

The global Indian Diaspora and Australia’s multicultural communities need fair, non-hyphenated, and questioning journalism, packed with on-ground reporting. The Australia Today—with exceptional reporters, columnists, and editors—is doing just that. Sustaining this requires support from wonderful readers like you.

Whether you live in Australia, the United Kingdom, Canada, the United States of America, or India you can take a paid subscription by clicking Patreon and support honest and fearless journalism. LINK: https://tinyurl.com/TheAusToday

It is with profound sadness and a heavy heart that I share the news of the passing of my dear friend, Prof. Amar Nath Dwivedi, who departed this mortal world on October 29, 2024. Born on January 3, 1943, in the small village of Kothiyahi in Pratapgarh district, Uttar Pradesh, India, he led a life marked by intellectual achievement and dedication.

Prof. Dwivedi pursued his higher education at the University of Allahabad (now Prayagraj). After completing his postgraduate studies, he earned a PhD in English from Meerut University. Following his doctoral work, he taught in Rajasthan and later at Gurukul Kangri University in Haridwar.

Prof. Dwivedi then joined the Department of English at the University of Allahabad, where he taught for over three decades and retired as a senior professor. Later, he served as a Senior Consultant in English at UP Rajarshi Tandon Open University in Prayagraj and also undertook an official assignment in Yemen as Professor and Chairman of the Department of English at Taiz University.

As a teacher, Prof. Dwivedi left a lasting impression on his students. He was widely respected as a literary critic, essayist, and poet of English, garnering recognition from students and scholars in India and abroad.

An author of more than two dozen books and over a hundred research articles, Prof. Dwivedi made commendable contributions to Indian Writing in English and literary theory. His journey, from a rural village to significant academic achievements, reflects his resilience and determination.

Prof. Dwivedi found immense joy in writing poetry, a passion that kept him creatively engaged well into his later years. His poetry collections are the subject of ongoing PhD research, and his work earned admiration from celebrated authors such as Kamala Das, Keki N. Daruwalla, and Tabish Khair.

Poetry, for him, became a bridge between life and death, as he completed and submitted his final poetry collection to the publisher just three hours before his passing. In 2016, he served as a jury member for the Sahitya Akademi Award in English.

Prof. Dwivedi was a steadfast adherent of human values, embodying qualities of humility, simplicity, and sincerity. As his colleague, I was deeply influenced by his gentle and unassuming nature, which reflected the spiritual and human values that defined his character. His passing is an irreplaceable loss to the academic community.

I pray that his soul finds union with the Divine, the Light of lights (“Jyotisaam Jyoti”).

Contributing Author: Prof. O.P. Budholia is a retired Professor of English from Sanchi University of Buddhist-Indic Studies, Madhya Pradesh, India.

Support Our Journalism

The global Indian Diaspora and Australia’s multicultural communities need fair, non-hyphenated, and questioning journalism, packed with on-ground reporting. The Australia Today—with exceptional reporters, columnists, and editors—is doing just that. Sustaining this requires support from wonderful readers like you.

Whether you live in Australia, the United Kingdom, Canada, the United States of America, or India you can take a paid subscription by clicking Patreon and support honest and fearless journalism. LINK: https://tinyurl.com/TheAusToday

Apps such as Google Maps, Apple Maps and Waze can tell drivers when they are approaching speed cameras or random breath testing stations. Countries such as Germany, France and Switzerland have banned apps from displaying these enforcement locations.

But what effect are these apps having in Australia – are they helping drivers break road rules?

Our new paper, published in the journal Safety Science, examined this question.

We found this technology can, in some cases, contribute to people thinking they are invincible on the roads. However, we also found they can sometimes help people drive more safely.

Being made aware of enforcement can help road safety

We conducted focus groups and interviews with a total of 58 drivers from Queensland, to understand how the use of this technology influences perceptions of being caught for breaking road rules.

One driver told us:

If I know it’s coming up, I’ll put my phone down. If I was, say, texting or checking something, but then like once a good few 100 metres away, I sort of pick it up again, depending though.

Another said:

It sort of depends where I am driving, I guess. Like, if I am driving on a country road and there is a speed camera there I would probably slow down for the speed camera and then sort of speed up again once I am sort of past that; it sort of depends on the circumstances.

We also found that, for some people, being made aware of enforcement locations can help drivers better regulate their speed. This helped them comply with road rules more consistently.

Waze also shows the speed limit in the area, which further assisted some drivers to stick to the speed limit. One driver told us:

I’m a bit careful if I just look at the speedo and just double check that I’m on the right amount of speed.

Another said:

It just gives you a warning like, ‘OK, you need to check your speed.’ Just to double-check you’re going on the right speed perhaps or when it’s a camera coming up.

Concerning behaviours

Concerningly, we also found some drivers who use these apps are looking at and touching their screens more than they otherwise would. This can distract drivers and increase their risk of crashing.

One driver told us they post traffic updates on the app they use while driving, “which I know is wrong.”

Another said:

Just hit the button on the phone. Just two steps after I go past the camera.

Another driver told us:

It’s so helpful […] Especially if it’s, say, late night and I’m coming home from a party, and I don’t want to end up getting arrested.

One driver said:

I probably feel slightly more invincible, which is probably not a good thing.

When asked why these apps are used, one driver said:

I guess the drug and the drink-driving.

Apps can help and hinder road safety

We know breaking road rules significantly contributes to crashes and road fatalities, with deaths on Australian roads continuing to increase over time.

On the one hand, when drivers are aware of enforcement measures like cameras and police, they are more likely to stop breaking the rules in those areas. That’s particularly true for behaviours such as speeding and using a phone while driving, we found.

Using apps that flag where cameras and police are located also means drivers would be more exposed to enforcement activities than they otherwise would be on a normal drive.

On the other hand, our results suggest some drivers are using these applications to break road rules more often in places where they think they won’t be caught.

These apps are also not always completely accurate.

For instance, even though Waze can display some police operation locations such as roadside breath testing, it can’t capture all on-road police activities. Further, camera locations are not always up to date or accurate.

Weighing benefits against risks

While these apps do have some benefits, it’s important to weigh these against the risks.

It’s also important to recognise traffic enforcement isn’t just there to make you comply with road rules at a specific point; it is meant to remind you of the constant risk of being caught and to encourage consistent rule compliance.

The goal is to ensure that drivers are following the traffic rules across the entire network, not just in isolated spots.

With road fatalities at some of the highest rates we’ve seen in recent years, we need everyone to work together to stop more preventable deaths and injuries.

Verity Truelove, Senior Research Fellow in Road Safety Research, University of the Sunshine Coast; Michelle Nicolls, PhD Candidate, University of the Sunshine Coast, and Oscar Oviedo-Trespalacios, A/Professor Responsible Risk Management, Delft University of Technology

This article is republished from The Conversation under a Creative Commons license. Read the original article.

Support Our Journalism

Global Indian Diaspora and Australia’s multicultural communities need fair, non-hyphenated, and questioning journalism, packed with on-ground reporting. The Australia Today – with exceptional reporters, columnists, and editors – is doing just that. Sustaining this needs support from wonderful readers like you.

Whether you live in Australia, the United Kingdom, Canada, the United States of America, or India you can take a paid subscription by clicking Patreon and support honest and fearless journalism. LINK: https://tinyurl.com/TheAusToday

On July 13, shortly after Donald Trump was targeted by an assassination attempt, Elon Musk, the billionaire owner of X (formerly Twitter), tweeted to his more than 200 million followers:

I fully endorse President Trump and hope for his rapid recovery.

Musk’s efforts to influence who wins next week’s US presidential election have continued. For example, over the past three months, he has donated more than US$100 million to a political action committee called America PAC that’s promoting Trump.

But our new research (currently available in preprint form) indicates Musk may be wielding influence in other more subtle ways as well. However, the platform’s increasing opacity to researchers makes this difficult to say for certain.

Shortly after Musk endorsed Trump’s presidential campaign, there was a statistically anomalous boost in engagement with his X account. Suddenly, his posts were getting much higher views, retweets and likes in comparison to other prominent political accounts on the platform.

This raises suspicions as to whether Musk has tweaked the platform’s algorithm to increase the reach of his posts in advance of the US presidential election. It also demonstrates the problems with how social media platforms like X are currently regulated around the world.

Not the first time

Musk has history when it comes to tweaking X’s algorithms so his own content reaches more people.

Last year, he reportedly mobilised a team of around 80 engineers to algorithmically boost his posts. This came after his tweet supporting the Philadelphia Eagles during the Super Bowl was outperformed by a similar one from President Joe Biden. Musk seemed to confirm this happened, posting a picture depicting one woman labelled “Elon’s tweets” forcibly bottle feeding another woman labelled “Twitter”.

To see whether Musk has done this again in the leadup to the US election, we compared Musk’s engagement metrics – such as the number of views, retweets and likes – with a set of other prominent political accounts on the social media platform. The data spans the period from January 1 2024 to October 25 2024.

Other political accounts that served as a basis of comparison include those of right-wing commentators Jack Posobiec, Tucker Carlson and Donald Trump Jr. Our study also examined accounts at the other end of the political spectrum, including those of US Representative Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez, US Senator Bernie Sanders and Vice-President Kamala Harris.

A sudden and significant increase

Since July, engagement with Musk’s X account has seen a sudden and significant increase.

The view counts for his posts increased by 138%, retweets by 238%, and likes by 186%.

In contrast, other prominent political accounts on X saw more moderate increases: 57% in view counts, 152% in retweets, and 130% in likes.

This suggests that while engagement went up for all accounts after July, Musk’s metrics saw a particularly large boost, particularly in retweets and likes.

The research further found that since July, other conservative and right-wing X accounts have performed better in terms of visibility of posts compared to progressive and left-wing accounts.

The Conversation sought comment from X about the research, but did not receive a reply before deadline.

Without backstage access to the workings of the company, it is impossible to know for sure whether changes to its curation system are boosting its owner’s posts. The platform has limited the access it provides to researchers since Musk took over. This means there are restrictions on the amount of data we were able to collect for this study.

However, the Washington Post recently found that tweets from Republicans are far more likely to go viral, receiving billions more views than those from Democrats. Similarly, an investigation by the Wall Street Journal revealed that new users to the platform “are being blanketed with political content” that disproportionately favours Trump.

Since Musk’s purchase of the platform, it has become more congenial to figures on the right, including people who were previously banned for spreading harmful and false information.

The myth of neutrality

The findings raise the question of the extent to which Musk’s influential social media platform is reinforcing its owner’s political agenda.

Musk, whose businesses have extensive government contracts, has made a public and financial spectacle of his unabashed support of Trump. The billionaire tech tycoon is reportedly Trump’s second-biggest financial donor. He also promoted Trump in a glitchy live interview on X and authored a stream of tweets promoting Trump’s campaign.

Musk is also handing out $1 million a day to selected registered voters. This plan (which has met with questions over its legality) apparently aims to boost voter registration among sympathisers in swing states.

Musk’s actions have torpedoed the fantasy that social media platforms such as X are neutral. Given he has previously tweaked X’s algorithm to amplify the reach of his posts, it would be surprising if he were not tilting the platform in favour of Trump, whom he believes is “the path to prosperity”.

For too long, social media platforms have enjoyed immunity for the information they selectively inject into users’ feeds. It’s time for governments to reconsider their approach to regulating the oligopolistic power over our information environment wielded by a handful of tech billionaires.

Timothy Graham, Associate Professor in Digital Media, Queensland University of Technology and Mark Andrejevic, Professor, School of Media, Film, and Journalism, Monash University, Monash University

This article is republished from The Conversation under a Creative Commons license. Read the original article.

Support Our Journalism

Global Indian Diaspora and Australia’s multicultural communities need fair, non-hyphenated, and questioning journalism, packed with on-ground reporting. The Australia Today – with exceptional reporters, columnists, and editors – is doing just that. Sustaining this needs support from wonderful readers like you.

Whether you live in Australia, the United Kingdom, Canada, the United States of America, or India you can take a paid subscription by clicking Patreon and support honest and fearless journalism. LINK: https://tinyurl.com/TheAusToday

Lower petrol prices and an electricity rebate have contributed to a further fall in the quarterly measure of inflation, the Consumer Price Index.

The rate in the September quarter dropped to 2.8%, putting it for the first time within the Reserve Bank’s target range of two-point-something since the March quarter of 2020.

The fall was broadly in keeping with market expectations, and keeps low the likelihood of an interest rate cut this year. The next Reserve Bank meeting is scheduled for Tuesday.

The bank pays more attention to the long-running quarterly measure of the CPI than the more volatile monthly version which already dropped into its target range in August.

The monthly measure dropped further, to 2.1%, in September.

https://datawrapper.dwcdn.net/QQ6io

The quarterly CPI is also more important because it is included in all sorts of workplace and other contracts and indexation formulas.

The main reason for the fall in inflation was the electricity rebates announced in the federal budget and by some states.

Also helping were the falls in petrol prices, mainly reflecting declines in global oil prices. Cheaper or free public transport in Brisbane, Canberra, Hobart and Darwin also contributed.

https://datawrapper.dwcdn.net/wzK9S

Preventing a larger fall were the continuing strong growth in insurance costs and rent. The rise in insurance costs reflects a series of extreme weather events such as bushfires and floods. It is a way in which climate change is exacerbating inflation.

Contrary to what many people think, the increase in rents is not due to landlords passing on higher interest rates. Landlords may want to do this but they are only able if vacancy rates are low, otherwise tenants just move elsewhere.

History shows it is low vacancy rates that drive up rent regardless of the level of interest rates. The inability of landlords to pass on interest rate increases has been confirmed by a study just published by the Reserve Bank using tax return data.

It showed that only three cents of every dollar in extra interest costs is passed on.

The fall in inflation to a rate significantly below the 4% at which wages are increasing means that the cost of living crisis is abating, although not yet over.

The dramatically lower inflation rate puts Australia in a comparable position to the United States, whose inflation rate is 2.4%, the United Kingdom, whose inflation rate is 1.7% and New Zealand where it is 2.2%.

The US, UK and New Zealand all have inflation targets (or midpoints) of 2%, so inflation is now only slightly above the target in the US and New Zealand. It is actually below it in the UK. In response all three have cut their key policy interest rates.

Yet it is unlikely that the Reserve Bank will follow their lead until next year, despite growing pressure.

One reason is that, even after their cuts, interest rates in our three peers are still higher than in Australia, at around 4.75% to 5%.

But more importantly, the Bank has stressed recently that it pays more attention to the “underlying” rate of inflation, which looks through temporary measures such as the electricity subsidies. The Bank will only cut interest rates when they are “confident that inflation was moving sustainably towards the target range”.

The bank’s preferred measure of underlying inflation, the so-called trimmed mean, has also fallen.

But at 3.5%, it is still above the target. A positive aspect is that it has reached 3.5% ahead of the Bank’s most recent forecast which had 3.5% only being reached by the end of 2024.

https://datawrapper.dwcdn.net/GxU7K

Monetary policy, however, has in Milton Friedman’s famous words “long and variable lags”.

As the then future governor Glenn Stevens remarked back in 1999, “the long lags associated with the full impact of monetary policy changes mean that policy changes today must be made with a view not just to what is happening now, but what is likely to be happening in a year’s time and even beyond then”.

In other words we want to drive by looking ahead rather than just at the rear view mirror. The Bank is like a footballer who needs to head to where the ball will be rather than where it is now.

There is therefore a risk that if the Reserve Bank keeps interest rates high until inflation reaches the middle of the target, it will be too late to prevent the economy slowing too much and inflation will undershoot the target. This would likely be associated with unnecessarily high unemployment.

That is why the Reserve Bank board faces a difficult balancing act in taking its decisions.

John Hawkins, Senior Lecturer, Canberra School of Politics, Economics and Society, University of Canberra

This article is republished from The Conversation under a Creative Commons license. Read the original article.

Support Our Journalism

Global Indian Diaspora and Australia’s multicultural communities need fair, non-hyphenated, and questioning journalism, packed with on-ground reporting. The Australia Today – with exceptional reporters, columnists, and editors – is doing just that. Sustaining this needs support from wonderful readers like you.

Whether you live in Australia, the United Kingdom, Canada, the United States of America, or India you can take a paid subscription by clicking Patreon and support honest and fearless journalism. LINK: https://tinyurl.com/TheAusToday

Celebrated in different corners of the world, each festival holds deep significance, yet the convergence of these two on the same night invites communities to navigate how to respectfully balance both.

Recently, a friend forwarded a message that underscores the sentiments of many Hindu households in the Indian diaspora on this rare coincidence:

“Please don’t decorate your homes for Halloween, as we are welcoming Lakshmi Mata on this day. Also, please avoid dressing your children in scary costumes and sending them out after sunset. Amavasya is not an ideal day to send kids out in scary costumes!”

While, the social media is buzzing with memes, featuring everything from Pennywise the Clown performing aarti to Diwali-meets-Halloween outfit mashups, like sarees paired with vampire makeup. This blend of horror and tradition has inspired creative costumes and memes, turning the day into a potential new, unofficial holiday tradition.

It’s a also reminder of the meaning Diwali holds, especially on Amavasya, the new moon night, which is traditionally spent in prayer, lighting diyas (lamps), and surrounding oneself with positive energy. But it also raises an interesting question: How can communities observe the excitement of Halloween while preserving the sacred atmosphere of Diwali?

Diwali marks the victory of light over darkness, good over evil, and knowledge over ignorance, and it holds immense cultural, spiritual, and emotional significance for Hindus across the globe. Coinciding with this is Halloween, a Western celebration where costumes, especially those inspired by ghosts and the supernatural, are common as people enjoy an evening of treats and playful frights.

For Diwali, particularly in 2024 when it aligns with Halloween, the day has an even deeper resonance. The night of Diwali is also Amavasya, or the new moon, which is spiritually significant. Hindu households are traditionally decorated with oil lamps (diyas) and floral decorations to welcome Lakshmi, the goddess of wealth, and seek her blessings for prosperity and harmony. Each diya is seen as a beacon for Lakshmi, who is believed to bring fortune to those who keep their homes open, warm, and inviting.

On this night, Hindus refrain from wearing dark or “scary” clothing, as it could be seen as disrespectful. Additionally, with the significance of Amavasya, it is not considered auspicious to be outdoors with symbolic darkness or ghostly costumes. Instead, the emphasis is on family gatherings, prayers, and the lighting of the home to embrace positive energy.

Halloween, meanwhile, is a beloved festival in the West. Rooted in ancient Celtic traditions, Halloween began as Samhain, a festival marking the end of harvest season and the beginning of winter, with people dressing in costumes to ward off roaming spirits. Over time, it evolved into a holiday of community spirit, playful frights, and creative expression, with children dressed in costumes collecting treats from door to door. Halloween brings joy to millions, especially in Australia, where more families join in the fun each year. It is a time for communities to celebrate shared experiences, marking the onset of the holiday season with a sense of unity.

However, this year, the overlap of Halloween and Diwali calls for a nuanced approach, especially in the Indian diaspora. For Hindus, decorating homes with Halloween imagery on Diwali could disrupt the sacred ambience intended for the goddess Lakshmi.

Similarly, sending children out after sunset in costumes associated with darkness could feel jarring within the context of Diwali’s values. This doesn’t mean that one celebration is incompatible with the other, but rather, it suggests an opportunity to find a respectful balance that honours the spirit of both traditions.

Indian communities in the diaspora can foster understanding and harmony by accommodating the significance of each festival, celebrating Halloween in a way that feels true to its joyful spirit without encroaching upon Diwali’s sacred evening.

To me, in our increasingly multicultural world, moments like this remind us of the importance of cultural respect. Each festival brings its unique light and values, and in respecting the significance of both, we build communities that honour shared joy, diversity, and respect for tradition.

Support Our Journalism

Global Indian Diaspora and Australia’s multicultural communities need fair, non-hyphenated, and questioning journalism, packed with on-ground reporting. The Australia Today – with exceptional reporters, columnists, and editors – is doing just that. Sustaining this needs support from wonderful readers like you.

Whether you live in Australia, the United Kingdom, Canada, the United States of America, or India you can take a paid subscription by clicking Patreon and support honest and fearless journalism. LINK: https://tinyurl.com/TheAusToday

The primary impetus for much of the contemporary focus on the relationship between Australia’s aid and its wider geopolitical goals has been the perceived increase in the use of various forms of development finance by China as a key part of Beijing’s own influence efforts, particularly those directed toward Australia’s Pacific Island Country neighbours. Indeed, in a justification of the Australian government’s own approach, Foreign Minister Penny Wong has explicitly cited the example of China’s statecraft, including in relation to aid:

China understands national interest as being advanced by favourable outcomes, by reducing the possibility of unfavourable outcomes — and by reducing the space for disagreement or dissent.

This understanding is coordinated through its persistent statecraft. A great power like China uses every tool at its disposal to maximise its own resilience and influence — its domestic industry policy; its massive international investment in infrastructure, diplomacy, and military capability; access to its markets.

This statecraft illustrates the challenge for middle powers, like us and our partners in Southeast Asia and the Pacific. Yet we need not waste energy with shock or outrage at China seeking to maximise its advantage. Instead, we channel our energy in pressing for our own advantage.

According to AidData, the most comprehensive global aid database, over the last decade Beijing has emerged as the world’s single largest source of development finance, with over 21,000 individual projects in 165 low- and middle-income countries valued at an estimated US$1.34 trillion. Since 2013, this finance has mainly come in the form of concessional loans and export credits for infrastructure projects.

For many experts and commentators, these investments represent a key component of China’s integrated statecraft, “backed by a comprehensive, well resourced, and disciplined operational strategy” focused on building Beijing’s “influence and leverage” in the global South. Others have highlighted the infrastructure and other aid investments associated with programs like the Belt and Road Initiative (BRI) as a key element of China’s “developmentalist” foreign policy which aims to “present the country as a leader of economic development on the global stage”. Critics of the US and its Western allies have welcomed China’s disruption of so-called “neo-liberal” development models, arguing that Beijing’s aid provides the global South with more choice and more leverage.

According to other assessments, analyses that ascribe uniform motivations, whether malign or benign, to China’s aid have tended to overstate the degree of coordination in Beijing’s version of economic statecraft. This is due the variety of bureaucratic agencies, state-owned companies and banks, and semi-commercial entities involved in the delivery of China’s foreign aid. These actors have sometimes pursued agendas independent of, and sometimes contrary to, Beijing’s priorities and preferences. Empirical studies have highlighted domestic imperatives such as preserving internal political stability and absorbing excess economic capacity, rather than geopolitical goals, as the primary drivers of the allocation of China’s foreign aid. The core challenge remains ascribing intentions to a country “whose government agencies and firms often lack transparency and whose development strategy prescribes the co-presence of a complex set of state and non-state actors abroad”.

To the extent that China’s development finance can be said to reflect a deliberate and coherent strategy aimed at advancing its “influence” in the global South, the results appear to have been mixed. A 2022 assessment published by the influential US think tank the RAND Corporation concludes that notwithstanding Beijing’s substantial investment in infrastructure and technology projects in the global South, “the short-term appeal of China’s approach to developing countries does not necessarily generate longer-term positive [public] perceptions of China …”.  Instead, “many governments have begun to reassess the terms of their arrangements with China and, in some cases, to express new ill-will toward China”. A 2023 multi-region study of sentiment toward the BRI among 148 countries found that although average sentiment was positive, attitudes towards the BRI had deteriorated between 2017 and 2021/22. Among 27 surveyed countries in Central, South and Southeast Asia, public sentiment towards the BRI improved in only three: Brunei, Mongolia, and Cambodia.

Exploring these kinds of results through several case studies in a working paper, Audrye Wong has argued that the influence effects of China’s “subversive carrots” — forms of economic inducement designed to avoid political processes and expectations about appropriate political behaviour in recipient states — is mediated by domestic political institutions in these states. Comparing recipient elites’ responses to China’s economic statecraft in a low public accountability state (Cambodia), a higher public accountability state (the Philippines) and a “transition state” (pre-coup Myanmar), she argues that how responsive these elites are to their citizenry and how constrained they are by domestic institutions ultimately determines the effectiveness of Beijing’s external economic inducements in terms of their influence on behaviour.

Where public accountability is higher, this impedes the utility of such methods as it is harder for leaders to avoid domestic scrutiny and/or public backlash over the terms of inducements. Audrye Wong concludes that, “despite the apparent ease and rapidity at which China has attempted to buy over political leaders with large-scale investment and infrastructure projects … its strategy of subversive carrots is not as uniformly successful as commonly assumed … [and] the level of public accountability in target countries can facilitate or constrain the effectiveness of subversive carrots”. Similarly, Courtney Fung et al. draw from another set of country case studies to argue that “variations across domestic institutions can help explain differences in receptivity or resistance toward Chinese influence”.

Such findings pose something of a paradox for Western aid donors. This is because they suggest a trade-off between aid goals like democracy promotion and improved governance — whether pursued as objectives in their own right, or as part of broader efforts to constrain China’s influence — and their own influence goals, which are also likely to be constrained by more accountable institutions in recipient countries.

Early empirical research suggests that this kind of analytic lens is relevant to the Pacific. This is a region that comprises countries with largely open — albeit in some cases small and often fragile ­– domestic political institutions and one in which China has increased its aid effort over the last decade.

While China appears to have been successful in using aid and other economic inducements to help persuade several Pacific island countries (PICs) to shift their diplomatic recognition from Taiwan to the People’s Republic of China in recent years, its ability to extract more “expensive” policy concessions has been limited. In 2022, China failed in what was reported as a concerted and sustained attempt to secure a region-wide policing and security deal with the Pacific Islands Forum countries. The announcement of a non-public bilateral security and policing agreement between China and Solomon Islands earlier that year became the focus of a subsequent domestic political backlash against the government of former Prime Minister Manasseh Sogavare. The newly elected government of Fiji downgraded its own policing cooperation with China in the wake of the Solomon Islands agreement. These examples may reflect China’s inability to date to secure a wider “social licence” from local communities in PICs, despite the substantial aid effort it has directed at elites. Some Pacific elites have also proven adept at instrumentalising China’s aid narratives to suit their own domestic and foreign policy goals. The fact that Beijing’s aid effort in the Pacific peaked in monetary terms in the mid-2010s and has declined in recent years may reflect not only changing economic conditions within China. It may also indicate a reduced appetite on the part of Pacific elites to take on large Chinese-funded projects due to concerns about increased domestic backlash and unsustainable debt.

Even when it comes to more autocratic political settings, China has sometimes struggled to translate development and financial support into alignment with its foreign policy preferences. For example, China is one of the few providers of bilateral aid (primarily in form of food aid and energy supplies), as well as foreign direct investment and trade, to totalitarian North Korea. The contemporary relationship between Beijing and Pyongyang has been described, however, by one set of experts as one characterised by “growing investments and diminishing returns”. Despite the volume of Chinese aid provided to North Korea over the decades, these experts point specifically to Beijing’s inability to achieve one of its primary foreign goals – curbing Pyongyang’s nuclear weapons and ballistic missile programs.

In other cases, it is the weakness of potential client states that poses the biggest constraint to China’s influence. In the case of Pakistan — a country which has accepted a large amount of Chinese infrastructure finance under the framework of the China-Pakistan Economic Corridor (CPEC) — successive economic crises and political violence in regions that are part of the CPEC have “tied China irrevocably into Pakistan’s complicated, and sometimes hostile, political landscape”. As a result, “[China’s] centralising visions could not be simply imposed on a receptive (or captive) periphery but [has] required difficult negotiations with local interests”. This has, in turn, “exert[ed] a transformative pressure back on China itself” when it comes to the costs, threats and risks generated by the unintended effects of its economic statecraft. This suggests that attempts to link aid with policy change are not unidirectional and can affect donors as well as recipients. Following Myanmar’s reversion to military rule in 2021, China — one of the dictatorship’s few remaining external benefactors — has also struggled to exert influence over the fledging State Administration Council junta as lawlessness and conflict threaten key Chinese infrastructure investments and criminal gangs further embed themselves in the sensitive China-Myanmar border regions.

China’s use of various types of debt instruments as a primary modality through which it delivers its development finance has been a particular source of contention with some Belt and Road Initiative (BRI) recipients. While charges from the West of “debt trap diplomacy” have been largely discredited as overstated, the opacity of China’s BRI lending has generated backlash from recipient elites and publics in several high-profile cases, including in Sri Lanka and Malaysia. In the case of Africa, “the indebtedness generated by BRI loans coupled with their emphasis on facilitating infrastructural changes for outflow of primary commodities has raised memories of colonialism for many African observers”. In these and other cases, the use of debt instruments has generated new sources of conflict between China and potential client states. Along with the growing risks to China’s economy and state-owned banks from the moral hazard associated with unsustainable BRI loans, this has resulted in Beijing significantly reducing its global infrastructure lending and re-orienting its focus toward so-called “small and beautiful” projects and multilateral aid.

These examples suggest that, as well as domestic institutions, the type of finance provided may itself have an independent effect on the extent to which bilateral donors are able to use aid to achieve wider foreign policy goals, including as a result of unintended effects. That is, the mere coercive potential of debt, whether realised or perceived, may itself invite a backlash on the part of recipient elites and/or publics against donors, regardless of the latter’s motives.

This is relevant to Australia given its newfound position as a leading source of infrastructure lending to the Pacific — a position that could generate unintended effects in terms of Canberra’s own regional relationships, particularly given the increased level of indebtedness of several PICs and the risk of a lack of attention to project quality and fiscal sustainability relative to geopolitical objectives. This highlights the potential perils of unsophisticated narratives regarding the causes and consequences of China’s “economic statecraft” and the need to engage with the kinds of research canvassed here.

Disclosure: This research was undertaken with the support of the Gates Foundation. The views are those of the author only.

This article was first published in the Australian National University’s DevpolicyBlog and has been republished here with the kind permission of the editor(s). The Blog is run out of the Development Policy Centre housed in the Crawford School of Public Policy in the ANU College of Asia and the Pacific at The Australian National University.

Contributing Author: Cameron Hill is Senior Research Officer at the Development Policy Centre. He has previously worked with DFAT, the Parliamentary Library and ACFID.

Support Our Journalism

Global Indian Diaspora and Australia’s multicultural communities need fair, non-hyphenated, and questioning journalism, packed with on-ground reporting. The Australia Today – with exceptional reporters, columnists, and editors – is doing just that. Sustaining this needs support from wonderful readers like you.

Whether you live in Australia, the United Kingdom, Canada, the United States of America, or India you can take a paid subscription by clicking Patreon and support honest and fearless journalism. LINK: https://tinyurl.com/TheAusToday

Gambling, especially sports and race betting, is a hot political issue at the moment.

This is largely due to the recommendations from a 2023 report from a nonpartisan federal government committee, chaired by the late Peta Murphy, called You Win Some, You Lose More.

This report recommended that “the Australian government, with the cooperation of the states and territories, implement a comprehensive ban on all forms of advertising for online gambling”.

This has led to lots of debate and controversy.

Recently, Peter V’landys, head of the NRL and Racing NSW, claimed lotteries were more harmful than race and sports betting combined, citing independent statistics.

Let’s explore the relative harm of different types of gambling and see if this claim holds up.

Australians love a punt

Gambling is widespread in Australia, with more than half of adults engaging in at least one form each year.

According to the latest national data, lotteries are the most common type (40% of Australians buy a ticket annually), followed by race betting (17%), pokies (16%), scratchies (15.7%) and sports betting (9.6%).

However, the popularity of a gambling form doesn’t necessarily reflect its harm. Different gambling activities have distinct characteristics.

Two key factors mean that some gambling forms are more harmful than others: the speed of gambling and bet size.

Pokies allow for frequent, small bets, with spins every three seconds. Race and sports betting can involve much larger sums and betting that is relatively fast, but still slower than pokie spins.

Sports betting, in particular, is getting faster with in-play betting and microbetting.

Lotteries, on the other hand, are much slower-paced.

People typically spend a small amount on tickets and wait for a draw to find out if they’ve won.

Although it’s possible to spend a lot on tickets, people tend not to, unlike with faster gambling forms.

The average spend on pokies among the 16% who play them is around $4,782 per year, compared to an average spend on lotteries of $377 per year. These are averages. Most won’t spend these amounts but some will spend far more, which raises the average amount.

V’landys’ claim about lotteries being more harmful than race and sports betting was based on “independent statistics”.

He said that of 100 people seeking help from a gambling hotline, 70 had issues with pokies, 15 with lotteries, eight with race betting, four with sports betting, and three with casinos.

We were unable to verify these figures – if anyone has the data, we’d love to see the research to assess them.

However, we do have publicly available data.

What the data say

The NSW GambleAware website’s 2020-21 report shows that of 2,886 people seeking help, 73.3% identified pokies as their primary form of gambling, while only 13 people (less than 1%) listed lotteries. Race betting accounted for 13.1%, and sports betting for 7.9%.

These patterns were consistent with previous years.

People who experience problems also usually take part in more than one form of gambling, as the NSW report showed.

When these secondary gambling activities were considered, sports betting was cited by 35.5%, race betting by 33.5%, pokies by 19.5%, and lotteries by 13.7%.

What we discovered

The best evidence on gambling problems and harm comes from large-scale prevalence studies, typically commissioned by governments and conducted by independent researchers.

These studies offer high-quality insights into how each gambling form contributes to problems.

While one prevalence study is great, our team recently combined data from seven national and state-based prevalence studies. This resulted in a very high-quality dataset that we can use to study this question.

In our analysis, we used statistical techniques to show how strongly each gambling form is associated with problems.

These techniques give us regression coefficients, which are just numbers that tell us how strong the association is. A higher number means a stronger association between that form and gambling problems.

The most problematic form was pokies (coefficient = 0.147), followed by casino games (0.136), sports betting (0.068) and race betting (0.038).

Lotteries, with a coefficient of 0.001, were the least problematic and were not statistically significant even in our large sample.

As you might guess from such a low number, there’s very little relationship between lotteries and gambling problems.

What about prevalence?

Prevalence matters too – while pokies were most strongly associated with problems, the number of people participating in each gambling form is also important.

Let’s consider an analogy – a car that gives out a lot of exhaust fumes. That car is harmful, but if virtually no one owns one, then it’s not going to account for much pollution.

The same idea applies for gambling forms. If a gambling form is very harmful but very few people do it, it doesn’t account for many problems in the population.

It works the other way, too – if there is a very clean type of car that many people drive, they also won’t add up to much pollution.

Similarly, if we have gambling forms that have very little association with problems, it won’t add up to many problems in the population, even if lots of people take part.

The regression coefficients tell us how problematic each gambling form is. Prevalance tells us how many people do it.

When we combine these two bits of information, we can work out the degree of problems in the community that come from each form.

When we did this, pokies were responsible for 52-57% of gambling problems in the community.

Sports and race betting each contributed 9-11%, with a combined total of around 20%.

Lotteries accounted for just 0.1-1% of problems.

Even if we include scratchies as part of lotteries, this only adds another 2-5% of problems, still far below sports and race betting.

The real issue

What’s the takeaway?

Lotteries are widely played but are not typically associated with much harm.

Sports and race betting, despite having fewer participants, are more harmful due to their faster pace and the potential for large, frequent bets.

Lotteries involve slower betting and lower spending, making them much less risky.

If we aim to reduce gambling harm in our community, the focus should be on pokies, which are widespread in pubs and clubs outside WA, casino games and race and sports betting.

These forms have features that make them far more harmful than slower-paced gambling like lotteries.

Alex Russell, Principal Research Fellow, CQUniversity Australia; Matthew Browne, Senior Lecturer in Statistics, CQUniversity Australia, and Matthew Rockloff, Head, Experimental Gambling Research Lab, CQUniversity Australia

This article is republished from The Conversation under a Creative Commons license. Read the original article.

Support Our Journalism

The global Indian Diaspora and Australia’s multicultural communities need fair, non-hyphenated, and questioning journalism, packed with on-ground reporting. The Australia Today—with exceptional reporters, columnists, and editors—is doing just that. Sustaining this requires support from wonderful readers like you.

Whether you live in Australia, the United Kingdom, Canada, the United States of America, or India you can take a paid subscription by clicking Patreon and support honest and fearless journalism. LINK: https://tinyurl.com/TheAusToday

Early entry schemes for university – where students get an offer before their final exams – are increasingly popular.

For example, more than 27,000 students applied to the Universities Admissions Centre (which mostly deals with New South Wales and Australian Capital Territory unis) for an early offer in 2024. This was a record number and an almost 19% increase on 2023.

On the one hand, early offers are seen as a way to reduce pressure on Year 12 students. But they are also increasingly criticised, with concerns students may stop trying once they receive an offer.

Our new research shows applying for an early offer does not make a significant difference to how hard a student tries leading up to their final exams or their final results.

What are early offers?

The main round of university offers is in December-January, after students have done their final exams in the previous October and November and have their final results or ATAR.

With early entry offer schemes, universities assess students using criteria other than (or on top of) final results.

Amid concerns about students reducing their efforts, in February this year, federal and state education ministers agreed there would be no university offers until September. Federal Education Minister Jason Clare is pushing for a new, national approach to early entry by 2027.

Our research

Our new study investigated the role of early entry offers on Year 12 students’ academic and personal wellbeing.

We looked at three types of students: students applying for and receiving an early offer, students applying for but not receiving an early offer, and students who did not apply for an early offer.

We then looked at multiple forms of academic and personal wellbeing, including:

• the ATAR
• motivation at school (their interest, energy, and drive to learn) and enjoyment of school
• how students dealt with academic challenges (also called “academic buoyancy”)
• study burnout
• overall life satisfaction, mental health and self-esteem.

Who did we study?

The study involved Year 12 students in 2022 from schools in New South Wales.

The average age for participants was 17, most (68%) were female, the majority (69%) lived in an urban area, just under a quarter (23%) were from a non-English speaking background, and just over half were from government schools (52%).

We tracked the ATARs of 1,512 students for whom we had early offer data.

We also surveyed a subset of 525 students from this group. We surveyed them in term 2 of Year 12 and then followed up with a second survey in term 4, about 2 weeks before their final exams.

The surveys included questions about their academic and personal wellbeing. Both surveys were done online.

What we found

In terms of early entry status, 16% did not apply for an early offer, 21% applied but were unsuccessful, and 63% received an early offer.

Using statistical modelling to control for prior differences in achievement and motivation between the groups, as well as age, gender, school type and learning difficulties, we found an early offer did not appear to have an impact on a student’s ATAR.

We also found no impact on their motivation, effort, burnout or mental health.

In fact, the best predictors of students’ final results were their previous results and their efforts earlier in Year 12.

As our research showed, the findings for these predictors were statistically significant, meaning we can have confidence the results were not due to chance.

This mirrors other research that suggests you can predict a student’s ATAR from their Year 11 results.

One important difference

We did find one statistically significant effect. Those receiving an early offer scored about 10% higher in academic buoyancy than the other two groups.

This means these students reported they were better able to overcome academic challenges, such as difficult assessment tasks and competing deadlines, as they approached their final exams.

We found this difference even after controlling for any prior group differences in academic buoyancy.

But we note it was only a relatively small effect.

Why was there so little difference?

Some possible explanations about why early offers did not appear to make much difference include:

• Year 12 is a busy year full of activities (from formals and other events, to plans for life after school). It could be early entry status is quickly absorbed in all the demands of the final year and becomes normalised
• the joy or relief of an early offer is short-lived and students return to their emotional equilibrium or their typical “set point” in terms of outlook on life
• the ATAR looms large in students’ lives, so they may still want to do as well as they can – regardless of whether they get an early offer or not.

What does this mean?

Our study suggests receiving an early offer for university does not make much of a difference to final outcomes.

So this suggests students can apply for an early entry offer if they want to.

But once the application is submitted, they need to return their focus to factors that are influential in final outcomes — such as their learning, motivation, and engagement through Year 12.

Helen Tam, Kim Paino, Anthony Manny, Mitch Smith and Nicole Swanson from the Universities Admissions Centre helped with the research on which this article is based.

Andrew J. Martin, Scientia Professor and Professor of Educational Psychology, UNSW Sydney

This article is republished from The Conversation under a Creative Commons license. Read the original article.

Support Our Journalism

Global Indian Diaspora and Australia’s multicultural communities need fair, non-hyphenated, and questioning journalism, packed with on-ground reporting. The Australia Today – with exceptional reporters, columnists, and editors – is doing just that. Sustaining this needs support from wonderful readers like you.

Whether you live in Australia, the United Kingdom, Canada, the United States of America, or India you can take a paid subscription by clicking Patreon and support honest and fearless journalism. LINK: https://tinyurl.com/TheAusToday

New data from the Australian Bureau of Statistics (ABS) reveals one in seven adult Australians have been stalked in their lifetime: one in five women and one in 15 men.

While shocking to many, for those of us who work in the field, there is nothing surprising about these figures.

The ABS has conducted similar surveys roughly every five years since 2005, which reveal basically the same results each time.

About 3-4% of women and 1-2% of men are victims of stalking every year.

These rates are consistent with those reported in research from the United Kingdom and United States, with small variations depending on definition.

Stalking rates have remained stubbornly consistent despite the same ABS survey showing reductions in the rates of intimate partner violence and general violence over the past decade.

The reasons for this are unclear, though there are obvious differences in the level of government and community investment in countering intimate partner violence versus awareness of and attention to stalking.

What exactly is stalking?

Stalking is a pattern of repeated and unwanted behaviour in which one person pushes their way into the life of another where they have no legitimate right to be, causing the target distress and fear.

The most common methods are unwanted communication (by phone or digital media) and unwanted contacts (such as following someone or loitering nearby).

Threats of violence and assault occur in at least a quarter of cases.

Stalking that persists for more than two weeks is more likely to continue and cause significant harm.

The impact of stalking

Victims of persistent stalking have described it as “psychological rape”, with the stalker invading every part of their life.

The cumulative impact of seemingly never-ending intrusions, and their social and financial toll, is probably why stalking victims report high rates of depression, anxiety and traumatic stress disorders.

Researchers have estimated being stalked for 14 months costs victims approximately $A140,000, including direct costs from lost work and legal expenses and indirect costs of physical and mental harm.

Who stalks?

Most stalking is perpetrated by people who are known to the victim, either as an acquaintance or an ex-partner, with strangers responsible for about 20-25% of stalking.

Stalking usually starts either because the person feels mistreated and stalks to take revenge or right the wrong, or they stalk to start or enact a relationship with the victim that does not exist. In a small number of cases, stalking has a sexual motivation and can sometimes be part of planning or preparation for a sexual assault.

Regardless of motivation, most stalking is communicative – the stalker wants the victim to know they exist and to feel like they must respond.

However, responding to a stalker is not advisable as it usually just adds fuel to the emotional fire that drives them.

Ex-partners account for just under half of all stalking cases and many more women than men are stalked by an ex.

Stalking in this context is a type of intimate partner violence and it receives by far the most attention and response.

Research suggests that intimate partner stalking is more often identified as being perpetrated by former rather than current partners.

Psychological abuse or coercive control during a relationship might be linked to increased potential for stalking after a break-up.

Physical violence is much more common in cases of ex-partner stalking, with the ABS survey and earlier research finding half of intimate partner stalkers used physical violence.

Thankfully, most stalking-related violence does not cause severe physical harm and homicide is extremely rare.

Although prior stalking is common in ex-partner homicides, recent Victorian research showed that of 5,026 intimate partner violence reports to police involving stalking, only nine involved fatal or near fatal violence in the following 12 months.

This means the presence of stalking is not a useful risk factor for trying to predict intimate partner homicide.

Strategies against stalking

Numerous strategies have been identified to prevent and reduce stalking-related harms. Among those tried largely outside Australia:

• stalking awareness campaigns
• training and specialist responses by police and courts
• education for young people in schools
• providing psychological treatment for people who stalk.

The Victorian Law Reform Commission’s 2022 review of stalking laws recommended adoption of several of these strategies, though to date the state government has committed only to revising the stalking law.

A simple but powerful strategy

Stalking is a complicated problem and a comprehensive response needs multi-faceted systemic change that will be costly and take much effort and time.

Currently, there doesn’t seem to be an appetite in Australia for the work required.

However, there is one relatively straightforward thing the federal, state and territory governments could do right now to help: establish a national stalking helpline that can provide specialist information, advice and advocacy for all victims.

Such a helpline was established in the UK in 2010 and has supported more than 65,000 people.

The helpline provides online and telephone advice to potential stalking victims, including basic risk assessment, advocacy and links to local support services. It also provides advice to mental health professionals and others who are supporting stalking victims.

The helpline serves all people, regardless of their gender or relationship with the stalker. Nearly half (45%) of its clients are stalked by a stranger or acquaintance, not an ex-partner. This highlights the importance of a specialised stalking response separate to existing services for family and intimate partner violence.

An Australian equivalent would provide immediate support for victims and a focal point for necessary research and evaluation into what works to stop stalking.

An Australian national stalking helpline would be a practical, relatively inexpensive and immediately helpful strategy that governments could implement to support the hundreds of thousands of Australians who are stalked every year.

Troy McEwan, Professor of Clinical and Forensic Psychology, Swinburne University of Technology

This article is republished from The Conversation under a Creative Commons license. Read the original article.

Support Our Journalism

Global Indian Diaspora and Australia’s multicultural communities need fair, non-hyphenated, and questioning journalism, packed with on-ground reporting. The Australia Today – with exceptional reporters, columnists, and editors – is doing just that. Sustaining this needs support from wonderful readers like you.

Whether you live in Australia, the United Kingdom, Canada, the United States of America, or India you can take a paid subscription by clicking Patreon and support honest and fearless journalism. LINK: https://tinyurl.com/TheAusToday

Many Australians are victims and survivors of child sexual abuse.

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, Adjunct professor, Monash University and Amanda L. Robertson, Adjunct Research Fellow – Griffith Criminology Institute, Griffith University

This article is republished from The Conversation under a Creative Commons license. Read the original article.

Support Our Journalism

Global Indian Diaspora and Australia’s multicultural communities need fair, non-hyphenated, and questioning journalism, packed with on-ground reporting. The Australia Today – with exceptional reporters, columnists, and editors – is doing just that. Sustaining this needs support from wonderful readers like you.

Whether you live in Australia, the United Kingdom, Canada, the United States of America, or India you can take a paid subscription by clicking Patreon and support honest and fearless journalism. LINK: https://tinyurl.com/TheAusToday

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 a viral video earlier this year, Apple CEO Tim Cook highlighted the unique concentration of skilled labour that attracted his manufacturing operations to China:

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.

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.

Peter Yongqi Gu, Associate Professor, School of Linguistics and Applied Language Studies, Te Herenga Waka — Victoria University of Wellington and Stephen Dobson, Professor and Dean of Education and the Arts, CQUniversity Australia

This article is republished from The Conversation under a Creative Commons license. Read the original article.

Support Our Journalism

Global Indian Diaspora and Australia’s multicultural communities need fair, non-hyphenated, and questioning journalism, packed with on-ground reporting. The Australia Today – with exceptional reporters, columnists, and editors – is doing just that. Sustaining this needs support from wonderful readers like you.

Whether you live in Australia, the United Kingdom, Canada, the United States of America, or India you can take a paid subscription by clicking Patreon and support honest and fearless journalism. LINK: https://tinyurl.com/TheAusToday

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.

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.

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.

Can governments turn the tide?

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.

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.

Jonathan Boymal, Associate Professor of Economics, RMIT University; Ashton De Silva, Professor of Economics, RMIT University, and Sarah Sinclair, Senior Lecturer in Economics, RMIT University

This article is republished from The Conversation under a Creative Commons license. Read the original article.

Support Our Journalism

Global Indian Diaspora and Australia’s multicultural communities need fair, non-hyphenated, and questioning journalism, packed with on-ground reporting. The Australia Today – with exceptional reporters, columnists, and editors – is doing just that. Sustaining this needs support from wonderful readers like you.

Whether you live in Australia, the United Kingdom, Canada, the United States of America, or India you can take a paid subscription by clicking Patreon and support honest and fearless journalism. LINK: https://tinyurl.com/TheAusToday

A Queensland tribunal has ruled it is not discriminatory for a school to require girls to wear a skirt at formal events.

The private high school said girls needed to wear skirts for occasions including excursions, ceremonies and class photographs.

A female student had complained to the Queensland Civil and Administrative Tribunal about different treatment for boys and girls.

While the tribunal acknowledged there was “different treatment between the sexes”, it found there was not enough evidence to show this was “unfavourable”.

Why are female students still made to wear skirts and dresses? And why is this a problem?

Who decides?

In Australia, uniform rules are largely determined by individual schools.

Schools have some obligations to their communities, governing bodies (such as state education departments and independent school peak bodies) and anti-discrimination legislation.

For example, Victoria’s Education Department requires policies to include an exemption process and “support inclusion”.

But ultimately, it’s up to the school to decide how their uniform looks, who can access different items, where and when items may be worn, and what non-uniform items are regulated.

The pants question

Pants occupy an odd space here. For public schools, most state education departments require girls to have the option of pants (which can include shorts or trousers), for both sport and regular uniforms.

This is a relatively new standard. For example, Queensland introduced this in 2019 and New South Wales allowed it from mid-2018.

Often, these changes were prompted by sustained campaigning by families and lobby groups.

However private schools do not have the same obligations. Some are starting to update their policies and allow girls to wear shorts or pants if they choose.

Others, however, have been met with conservative backlash when they do.

So, when can girls wear pants?

Girls’ access to pants is not as straightforward as a school including them within the uniform policy.

As researchers note, simply allowing girls to wear pants may not be enough. If school cultures are not welcoming, or if the design is uncomfortable, girls may still avoid them.

Or, as can be the case with private schools, a school may offer pants on a limited basis, such as only during winter. Alternatively, there may be a special order process for pants, making them difficult to obtain.

Or schools may permit their use, except on special occasions such as photo days or excursions, like the Queensland case.

Why does it matter?

The skirt itself isn’t the issue. The element of choice is.

As researchers note, skirts and dresses are linked to outdated expectations of modesty and femininity. They can be targets of fetish and harassment, and entrench binary ideals of gender.

Flexible policies support gender-diverse youth and enable all students to select uniform items based on their body rather than their gender. Research shows offering students pants or shorts can also promote physical activity.

These school uniform debates are also taking place amid concerns about misogyny and harassment of female students and teachers in schools and concern for queer young people’s wellbeing.

The longer gender-normativity is baked into school policies, the longer students are denied their right to equitable education. And the longer that schools promote the idea of “girl” and “boy” as opposite and concrete categories, the harder it will be to combat schoolyard misogyny and queerphobia.

Kayla Mildren, PhD Candidate in the politics of school uniform policies, Griffith University

This article is republished from The Conversation under a Creative Commons license. Read the original article.

Support Our Journalism

Global Indian Diaspora and Australia’s multicultural communities need fair, non-hyphenated, and questioning journalism, packed with on-ground reporting. The Australia Today – with exceptional reporters, columnists, and editors – is doing just that. Sustaining this needs support from wonderful readers like you.

Whether you live in Australia, the United Kingdom, Canada, the United States of America, or India you can take a paid subscription by clicking Patreon and support honest and fearless journalism. LINK: https://tinyurl.com/TheAusToday

Climate change is increasing the risk of extreme weather events for Australian households. Floods and bushfires are becoming more likely and severe. As a result, household insurance costs are soaring – tripling in some cases. High-risk areas might even become uninsurable.

The national housing crisis is pushing low-income households in particular to seek affordable housing in areas at risk of flooding. There they can become trapped in a vicious cycle. Unable to pay soaring insurance premiums in these areas, they also can’t afford housing elsewhere.

The regulation of housing in Australia traditionally relies on well-informed buyers being responsible for managing the risks. But our new study found home buyers are often not aware of the long-term risks.

Only after they’ve bought the home do they start thinking about these risks. When faced with unexpected high insurance costs, many opt to take the risk of being underinsured or even uninsured. This leaves them highly vulnerable.

The National Strategy for Disaster Resilience promotes a shared-responsibility concept. However, we found the main responsibility still lies with households. And they are not equipped to cope with the increasing complexity, impacts and costs of extreme weather events.

What’s wrong with the current approach?

The uncertain knowledge about future extreme weather events is challenging the traditional prioritising of individual responsibility. It’s becoming even harder for households to make informed decisions based on past experiences.

Government efforts to regulate increasing flooding events might not be effective when households do not want to relocate or cannot afford housing elsewhere.

Governments are also under pressure to jump in to compensate households for the costs of extreme weather damage.

Our research found a number of issues prevent efficient regulation:

• stakeholders such as the insurance industry and home lenders face legal hurdles to sharing data and giving financial advice for housing in high-risk areas
• well-intended measures such as buybacks and planned relocations can fail when they do not relate to people’s experiences and life situation, such as limited financial resources and deep connections to a place and community
• households’ motivation to insure themselves might decrease if they can expect government to provide compensation as a de facto last insurer.

Who is responsible for what?

In Australia, responsibility for managing extreme weather events is roughly divided among three main stakeholders: the three levels of government, businesses and households.

Within the three levels of government, states and territories bear the main responsibility for managing extreme weather events. They do so through disaster risk management plans and policies, hazard prevention and land-use planning.

Yet housing is still built in flood-prone regions. It happens where commercial interests conflict with regional planning, and governments are under pressure to deliver housing for growing populations.

After extreme weather hits, house and contents insurance cover is key for a household to recover. But insurance costs are based on the risk of events such as flooding. As these risks rise, premiums may also increase and become unaffordable. The Climate Council estimates one out of 25 properties will even become uninsurable by 2030.

When housing is built in at-risk areas, under the current system home buyers are largely responsible for informing themselves about the risks of floods, bushfires and other natural disasters. Our research suggests many are struggling to estimate what insurance is likely to cost them.

To prepare for these costs before they invest in a home, they must assess their own risk, know the value of their house and contents and calculate the costs of rebuilding after a disaster. They must also take into account increasing costs for builders and materials after an extreme weather event.

Climate change is making these already complex calculations even more difficult.

Our study is based on interviews with 26 insurance, legal, financial, policy and urban planning experts. Despite the National Strategy for Disaster Resilience’s concept of shared responsibility, we found most of the burden still falls on households.

Yet households often lack the knowledge to assess the risks. The data and information are either unavailable, or hard to access and understand.

These difficulties, coupled with the complex language of insurance contracts, contribute to high numbers of underinsured and uninsured households.

The Australian government responded in 2022 by setting up a cyclone reinsurance pool. Its aim is to keep premiums for households and businesses affordable.

There are also government buyback programs or relocation plans to move people out of high-risk regions. As noted above, though, these don’t always suit households when offered away from their communities or full costs aren’t adequately covered.

Governments must take on more responsibility

According to the experts we interviewed, households are no longer able to carry the main responsibilities for managing the risks of climate change. Government must take on more responsibility.

At the local level, councils need to better educate their staff on climate change risks. They should ban housing development in at-risk areas.

Better information and data sharing among stakeholders such as insurers and governments will also be crucial. Such data and information also need to be made more accessible and easier for households to understand.

In a climate change world, increasing extreme weather events result in new complexities. Households are not able to assess these new risks and complexities to make well-informed decisions.

Australia needs stronger sharing of responsibilities between different stakeholders such as insurers, governments and households. This includes changes to laws on information and data sharing between insurers, governments and households, bans on building in high-risk areas, and better advice about the costs of buying in high-risk regions.

Jens O. Zinn, T.R. Ashworth Associate Professor in Sociology, The University of Melbourne and Julia Plass, Scientific Assistant, Bayreuth University

This article is republished from The Conversation under a Creative Commons license. Read the original article.

Support Our Journalism

Global Indian Diaspora and Australia’s multicultural communities need fair, non-hyphenated, and questioning journalism, packed with on-ground reporting. The Australia Today – with exceptional reporters, columnists, and editors – is doing just that. Sustaining this needs support from wonderful readers like you.

Whether you live in Australia, the United Kingdom, Canada, the United States of America, or India you can take a paid subscription by clicking Patreon and support honest and fearless journalism. LINK: https://tinyurl.com/TheAusToday

In Australia, it’s scam victims who foot the bill for the overwhelming majority of the money lost to scams each year.

A 2023 review by the Australian Securities and Investments Commission (ASIC) found banks detected and stopped only a small proportion of scams. The total amount banks paid in compensation paled in comparison to total losses.

So, it was a strong statement this week when it was revealed the Australian Financial Conduct Authority (AFCA) had ordered a bank – HSBC – to compensate a customer who lost more than $47,000 through a sophisticated bank impersonation or “spoofing” scam.

This decision was significant. An AFCA determination is binding on the relevant bank or other financial institution, which has no direct right of appeal. It could have implications for the way similar cases are treated in future.

The ruling comes amid a broader push for sector-wide reforms to give banks more responsibility for detecting, deterring and responding to scams, as opposed to simply telling customers to be “more careful”.

Here’s what you should know about this landmark ruling, and what it might mean for consumers.

A highly sophisticated ‘spoofing’ scam

You might be familiar with “push payment” scams that trick the victim into paying money to a dummy account. These include the “mum I’ve lost my phone” scam and some romance scams.

The recent case concerned an equally noxious “bank impersonation” or “spoofing” scam. The complainant – referred to as “Mr T” – was tricked into giving the scammer access to his HSBC account, from which an unauthorised payment was made.

The scammer sent Mr T a text message, purportedly asking him to investigate an attempted Amazon transaction.

In an effort to respond to the (fake) unauthorised Amazon purchase, Mr T revealed security passcodes to the scammer, enabling them to transfer $47,178.54 from his account and disappear with it.

The fact Mr T was dealing with scammers was far from obvious – scammers had information about him one might reasonably expect only a bank would know, such as his bank username.

On top of this, the scam text message appeared in a thread of other legitimate text messages that had previously been sent by the real HSBC.

AFCA’s ruling

HSBC argued to AFCA that having to pay compensation should be ruled out under the ePayments Code, a voluntary code of practice administered by ASIC.

Under this code, a bank is not required to compensate a customer for an unauthorised payment if that customer has disclosed their passcode. The bank argued the complainant had voluntarily disclosed these codes to the scammer, meaning the bank didn’t need to pay.

AFCA disagreed. It noted the very way the scam had worked was by creating a sense of urgency and crisis. AFCA considered that the complainant had been manipulated into disclosing the passcodes and had not acted voluntarily.

AFCA awarded compensation covering the vast majority of the disputed transaction amount, lost interest charged to a home loan account, and $5,000 towards Mr T’s legal costs.

It also ordered the bank to pay compensation of $1,000 for poor customer service in dealing with the matter, including communication delays.

Other cases may be more complex

In this case, the determination was relatively straightforward. It found Mr T had not voluntarily disclosed his account information, so was not excluded from being compensated under the ePayments Code.

However, many payment scams fall outside the ePayments Code because they involve the customer directly sending money to the scammer (as opposed to the scammer accessing the customer’s account). That means there is no code to direct compensation.

Still, AFCA’s jurisdiction is broader than merely applying a code. In considering compensation for scam losses, AFCA must consider what is “fair in all the circumstances”. This means taking into account:

• legal principles
• applicable industry codes
• good industry practice
• previous AFCA decisions.

Relevant factors might well include whether the bank was proactive in responding to known scams, as well as the challenges for individual customers in identifying scams.

Broader reforms are on the way

At the heart of this determination by AFCA is a recognition that, increasingly, detecting sophisticated scams can be next to impossible for customers, which can mean they don’t act voluntarily in making payments to scammers.

Similar reasoning has informed a range of recent reform initiatives that put more responsibility for detecting and responding to scams on the banks, rather than their customers.

In 2023, Australia’s banking sector committed to a new “Scam-Safe Accord”. This is a commitment to implement new measures to protect customers, including a confirmation of payee service, delays for new payments, and biometric identity checks for new accounts.

Changes on the horizon could be more ambitious and significant.

The proposed Scams Prevention Framework legislation would require Australian banks, telcos and digital platforms to take reasonable steps to prevent, detect, report, disrupt and respond to scams.

It would also include a compulsory external dispute resolution process, like AFCA’s, for consumers seeking compensation for when any of these institutions fail to comply.

Addressing scams is not just an Australian issue. In the United Kingdom, newly introduced rules make paying and receiving banks responsible for compensating customers, for scam losses up to £85,000 (A$165,136), unless the customer is grossly negligent.

Jeannie Marie Paterson, Professor of Law, The University of Melbourne and Nicola Howell, Senior lecturer, Queensland University of Technology

This article is republished from The Conversation under a Creative Commons license. Read the original article.

Support Our Journalism

Global Indian Diaspora and Australia’s multicultural communities need fair, non-hyphenated, and questioning journalism, packed with on-ground reporting. The Australia Today – with exceptional reporters, columnists, and editors – is doing just that. Sustaining this needs support from wonderful readers like you.

Whether you live in Australia, the United Kingdom, Canada, the United States of America, or India you can take a paid subscription by clicking Patreon and support honest and fearless journalism. LINK: https://tinyurl.com/TheAusToday

Queenslanders vote on October 26 when, according to the polls, the almost decade-long Labor government is expected to be defeated.

Last year, in a bid to improve its chances, Labor dumped long-time premier Annastacia Palaszczuk in favour of Steven Miles.

Miles has handed out or promised extensive and expensive cost-of-living support, including $1000 rebates on electricity bills, 50-cent fares, and now promising free school lunches.

But even all this seems to have failed to drastically change the mood in the electorate.

To discuss what’s happening on the ground, the potential outcome and what that could mean for the federal Labor government, we’re joined by the ABC’s election specialist, Antony Green and The Australian’s Queensland editor, Michael McKenna.

Green says:

The swing has shifted from being catastrophic to just being very bad.[…] the odds are the government’s going to lose.

All the government’s marginal seats are in the regions, in the regional cities in the north of the state. If it’s a 5 or 6% swing uniform, then all those regional city seats will be knocked out. And once they’ve lost a couple of seats in Brisbane’s belt as well, they’re out of government. So they’re in a very difficult position.

On what a poor result for the Labor Party could mean federally, Green says:

Labor won the last federal election without doing well in Queensland – [there] was always a view that they couldn’t win an election without doing well in Queensland. They did well in WA instead.

Can Labor do worse in Queensland at the next federal election? Well that’s a tough ask, it’s hard to see how.

You would have to be back to the level of the defeat of the Whitlam government or the Keating government to do worse in Queensland, and I’m not sure that it’s that level of disaster for the Labor Party.

I think there will be a lot of comment on that. But I mean this is a Queensland election and it’s fought on and very much based around sort of Queensland issues.

Michael McKenna says of the general mood:

I think for the first time in a few years, I’m seeing a real mood for change in government. Labor is seeking a fourth term on the trot. You can see it in the published polling, which for about the last two years has shown that Labor’s support is sliding and the Liberal National Party has the momentum. I think there’s a real ‘it’s time’ factor.

What we’ve seen is that Labor’s brand is still seemingly on the nose, particularly in the regions. And Steven Miles, […] he’s given a red hot go, but so far, I’m not seeing much evidence that he’s going to pull out a miracle win.

McKenna highlights Opposition Leader David Crisafulli’s strategy:

There’s no doubt that he has adopted a small target strategy to, in one way, focus people’s attention on the failings of a government which has a record of ten years, and there’s always going to be failings and things that are going to make people angry. But I would say that this is arguably the smallest of small target strategies that we’ve ever seen.

David Crisafulli really only wants to talk […] about the issues that he wants to talk about, and those are crime, particularly youth crime, cost of living, housing and health. But he doesn’t like to be pushed onto any other issues, and he’s done a good job in one sense in that he’s probably the most disciplined conservative party leader I’ve seen in decades in Queensland.

Michelle Grattan, Professorial Fellow, University of Canberra

This article is republished from The Conversation under a Creative Commons license. Read the original article.

Support Our Journalism

Global Indian Diaspora and Australia’s multicultural communities need fair, non-hyphenated, and questioning journalism, packed with on-ground reporting. The Australia Today – with exceptional reporters, columnists, and editors – is doing just that. Sustaining this needs support from wonderful readers like you.

Whether you live in Australia, the United Kingdom, Canada, the United States of America, or India you can take a paid subscription by clicking Patreon and support honest and fearless journalism. LINK: https://tinyurl.com/TheAusToday

The Australian Human Rights Commission wants to see schools address racism, as part of a broader push to address the problem across Australian society.

As it says in a recent report,

People are not born with racist attitudes or beliefs […] Addressing racism in schools is crucial to ensure that victims do not leave education facing lifelong disadvantage, and perpetrators do not enter adulthood believing racist behaviours are acceptable […].

But racism is hardly mentioned in the Australian Curriculum – for example, it is noted in passing in the health and physical education curriculum for years 5 to 8. However, there is no consistent approach across subject areas, or at the state level.

This means teaching about racism is largely left up to individual schools and teachers.

Yet research shows they can be reluctant to speak about these issues with students. This is for a range of reasons, such as worrying they will say the wrong thing.

How should school systems, schools and teachers address racism? Here are four ways.

1. Teach racial literacy

We know children demonstrate stereotyping and prejudice from an early age and students from racial minorities are frequently targets of racism and discrimination at school.

In Australia, racism debates can also involve dangerous and ill-informed opinions.

So we need to start teaching children and young people about racial literacy skills from the first year of schooling. This means they grow up to have the knowledge and language to talk about and confront racism.

Some of these skills include:

• being able to identify how racism appears in everyday interactions, the media and society more broadly
• debunking common myths about racism, such as it is a “thing of the past”. Or “everyone has equal access to the same opportunities and outcomes if they work hard enough”
• understanding the impacts of racism, including on people’s opportunities, education and their health and wellbeing
• understanding how our own backgrounds, privilege and bias can influence how we confront or don’t confront racism.

Students also need to learn how racism can be structural, systemic and institutional. This means racism is not just about an individuals’ beliefs or actions. Laws, policies, the way organisations are run and cultural norms can all result in inequitable treatment, opportunities and outcomes.

2. Teach students how to react

We also need to teach children how to react when they witness racism with age-appropriate tools.

For both primary and secondary students, the first question should always be, “Is it safe for me to act?”, followed by “Am I the best person to act in this situation?”. Depending on their answers, they could:

• report the incident to an appropriate adult or person in authority
• show solidarity with the victim by comforting them and letting them know what happened was not OK
• interrupt, distract or redirect the perpetrator
• seek help from friends, a passerby or teacher.

3. Create safe classrooms and playgrounds

Teachers need to ensure classrooms and schools are safe spaces to discuss racism.

This can include:

• acknowledging how our own experiences, biases and privileges shape our world views
• clearly defining the purpose of a discussion and the ground rules
• using inclusive language.

In particular, schools have a unique duty of care for minority students, who need to know they can talk openly about these issues with their peers and teachers without fear or judgement.

This includes addressing sensitive topics like how they might experience or witness racism, the effect it can have on their health and wellbeing and those around them, and the consequences of talking about or reporting racism.

4. Develop teachers’ skills

As part of creating safe classrooms, teachers need to be able to confidently discuss tricky topics in an age-appropriate way.

Our work has shown some teachers deny racism or perpetuate racist stereotypes. Others may avoid the topic, worrying they will say or do the wrong thing.

Our current (as yet unpublished) research on anti-racism training with classroom teachers suggests they can increase their confidence to talk and teach about racism if given appropriate, and sustained training.

What needs to happen now?

We need anti-racism education to be an official part of school curricula. To accompany this, we need genuine commitments and modelling from policymakers, school leaders, teachers, parents and carers to address racism in schools.

We need to talk openly about racism in schools. That means explicitly naming it, calling it out, and not getting defensive when it is identified and action is required.

Aaron Teo, Lecturer in Curriculum and Pedagogy, University of Southern Queensland and Rachel Sharples, Researcher, Challenging Racism Project and Diversity and Human Rights Research Centre, Western Sydney University

This article is republished from The Conversation under a Creative Commons license. Read the original article.

Support Our Journalism

Global Indian Diaspora and Australia’s multicultural communities need fair, non-hyphenated, and questioning journalism, packed with on-ground reporting. The Australia Today – with exceptional reporters, columnists, and editors – is doing just that. Sustaining this needs support from wonderful readers like you.

Whether you live in Australia, the United Kingdom, Canada, the United States of America, or India you can take a paid subscription by clicking Patreon and support honest and fearless journalism. LINK: https://tinyurl.com/TheAusToday

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

The European Union bans surcharges.

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

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

Michelle Grattan, Professorial Fellow, University of Canberra

This article is republished from The Conversation under a Creative Commons license. Read the original article.

Support Our Journalism

Global Indian Diaspora and Australia’s multicultural communities need fair, non-hyphenated, and questioning journalism, packed with on-ground reporting. The Australia Today – with exceptional reporters, columnists, and editors – is doing just that. Sustaining this needs support from wonderful readers like you.

Whether you live in Australia, the United Kingdom, Canada, the United States of America, or India you can take a paid subscription by clicking Patreon and support honest and fearless journalism. LINK: https://tinyurl.com/TheAusToday

On Thursday, federal Education Minister Jason Clare introduced a school funding bill to parliament.

The bill aims to set a new “floor” for how much the federal government contributes towards public school funding in Australia.

It would mean the Commonwealth has to contribute at least 20% of the schooling resource standard (how much funding a school needs to meet students’ educational needs) for public schools each year in all states and territories from 2025.

Clare argues it will provide “certainty” to schools, but it also comes in the middle of a standoff between the federal government and some states over school funding policy.

What’s in the bill?

The bill proposes to change the current arrangement, under which the Commonwealth contributes 20% to the schooling resource standard of public schools. As the government explains:

This means the 20 per cent will become the minimum, not the maximum, the Commonwealth contributes to public schools.

The Albanese government says the bill will increase “transparency and accountability” and ensure funding cannot go backwards.

But it cannot be certain of parliamentary support – Greens and independent senators are among those pushing for the government to provide more funding for public schools than is currently on the table.

The bigger picture

The bill also comes as the federal government is still trying to sign off new deals with some of the states and territories about their public school funding for next year.

The current agreements will run out at the end of the year. While the new proposed arrangements would increase the federal contribution, it’s not by as much as some states want.

So far, Clare has made agreements with Western Australia and Tasmania to increase the federal contribution from 20% to 22.5%. For the Northern Territory it will increase funding to a 40% contribution by 2029.

So far, it has not signed deals with New South Wales, Victoria, Queensland, and South Australia, which are pushing for a federal contribution of 25%.

The Australian Capital Territory is also yet to sign, despite its public schools receiving at least 100% of the schooling resource standard (via both federal and its own funds) for several years now.

Clare set a deadline of September 30 for the holdout states to sign on for the 2.5% funding boost, or risk losing an extra A$16 billion in funding. But that has passed without any compromise from either side.

Progress and politics

At the very least, the introduction of the bill to federal parliament is symbolically significant, particularly in light of the Commonwealth’s willingness to increase its contribution to the school resource standard of public schools.

But politics is never far away in school funding policy. Critics could argue the bill is more of a box-ticking exercise, rather than substantive reform. Indeed, the change in wording to a 20% minimum was inevitable given the specifics of the funding agreements already signed with Western Australia, Tasmania and the Northern Territory.

Critics might also point out national school funding policy is currently a bit of a mess, with four of the five most populous Australian states ignoring the government’s new funding deal. And they could remind us this agreement has already been delayed by a year. The previous one expired at the end of 2023 and was extended for 12 months by the Albanese government.

What happens to schools next year?

The bill does nothing to bring the holdout states any closer to signing on to the new funding agreement.

But this does not mean the federal government will withdraw its funding when school starts next year. Instead, the current funding arrangements will continue for another 12 months. This is why Clare says $16 billion in “additional investment” is on the table for public schools.

With a federal election due next year, it is even possible there will be no resolution before Australians go to the polls. This continues the fight over the schooling resource standard funding for public schools, which has has been ongoing since the so-called Gonski Review was made public in 2012.

Matthew P. Sinclair, Lecturer and Researcher of Education Policy, School of Education, Curtin University

This article is republished from The Conversation under a Creative Commons license. Read the original article.

Support Our Journalism

Global Indian Diaspora and Australia’s multicultural communities need fair, non-hyphenated, and questioning journalism, packed with on-ground reporting. The Australia Today – with exceptional reporters, columnists, and editors – is doing just that. Sustaining this needs support from wonderful readers like you.

Whether you live in Australia, the United Kingdom, Canada, the United States of America, or India you can take a paid subscription by clicking Patreon and support honest and fearless journalism. LINK: https://tinyurl.com/TheAusToday

Australia’s child support system can not only increase women’s poverty, but can actually facilitate financial abuse, according to our recent research.

Child support is an important system that aims to share the financial burden of raising children between separated parents.

But there are some serious problems with the way it operates, putting already vulnerable women further at risk.

Drawing on the experiences of 675 single mothers, we sought to examine women’s experience with the child support system from start to finish.

Our research suggests four key changes could improve both women’s safety and financial wellbeing.

How does child support work?

Where deemed necessary, child support arrangements typically require one separated parent to make payments to the other, on a regular basis.

How much is paid and how it is collected can vary in different circumstances.

In some families, a child support recipient’s income will be too high to receive the family tax benefit – a key payment that assists with the costs of raising children.

In this instance, a family can decide for itself how much will be paid, to whom, and how.

This is called self management, but it is very difficult to navigate when abuse is present in a relationship.

For families that do collect the family tax benefit, separated parents can use Services Australia to calculate the amount that will be paid.

Services Australia will consider factors including what it costs to care for and educate a child, as well as the difference in income between the two parents.

Once the amount has been calculated, separated parents can transfer payments privately between themselves, an approach called “private collect”.

Alternatively, this group can also use a service called “agency collect” to manage the transfer. Here, Services Australia collects the funds from the paying parent, then gives it to the agreed recipient.

For parents using agency collect, payments can also be “garnisheed” – deducted from a paying parent’s salary.

The system is failing the most vulnerable

Government reports reveal that across the agency collect system, a staggering $1.7 billion is owed to a third of single-parent households, representing 475,000 children.

The vast majority of this money is owed to women, two-thirds of whom have children in their care 86% or more of the time.

Losing out on payments

Across the child support system, 28% of paying parents fail to submit tax returns on time, reducing the accuracy of assessments.

Centrelink’s Family Tax Benefit A (the first part of a two-part payment) is linked to child support, with every dollar of child support above a certain threshold reducing this payment by 50 cents.

Concerningly, while reports indicate that 60% of single mothers receiving income support have experienced violence prior to separation, less than 15% receive exemptions from having to seek child support on the basis of this violence.

By not applying for either child support or an exemption, single mothers could lose a significant portion of their Family Tax Benefit A payments.

These sobering statistics are only part of the picture. Others remain invisible.

There are another 500,000 or so children in the private collect system. Many of their situations are a mystery. Services Australia doesn’t know how much those women and children are owed, as they don’t trace this amount and assume that payments are fully compliant.

What we uncovered

Our mixed methods survey of 675 single mothers asked women about their experiences in the child support system from start to finish.

We asked women how they made various decisions about child support, such as when to apply for it and when to change how it is collected and calculated.

78% of women reported experiencing some form of violence at the time of separation.

But the research also showed how the nature of this abuse can change post-separation, when financial abuse becomes the primary mechanism.

Just over half the women reported currently experiencing either emotional or psychological abuse, and 60% financial abuse.

Women shared they were often fearful of retaliation from their ex-partner if they applied or changed child support payment arrangements.

I was advised not to apply at the time because of the family violence and he had made threats to kill me so [it] was recommended I didn’t give him any reason to act on this so I went without child support for some period of time.

Others had to ask for an exemption to apply.

A Centrelink social worker changed my son’s father to unknown so I wouldn’t be murdered.

The results show how the current system’s logic can force women to risk their financial welfare to ensure their own safety.

I withdrew my application to avoid further conflict by telling CSA [Child Support Agency] there was a private agreement but there isn’t and he doesn’t pay anything.

Often, women are paying back debts to Centrelink due to retrospective changes in their ex-partner’s income or level of care, at the same time they themselves are owed thousands of dollars in child support arrears.

I’ve at times been living on as little at $72 a week of FTB [Family Tax Benefit] as my sole income to feed, house, clothe and educate myself and two children. I don’t understand how that is possible.

How could we fix it?

Based on our findings, our report makes four recommendations that could bring about meaningful improvements, give women choices to suit their family, and create a system that is safe.

1. De-link family payments from child support.
2. Co-design family violence processes in the child support system.
3. Move all payment collections back to being handled by the tax office.
4. Make all payment debts owed to and enforced by the Commonwealth.

Any meaningful solution to this problem will need to include the voices of victim survivors, advocates, researchers and social support organisations to co-design an effective system.

The authors would like to acknowledge the assistance of Terese Edwards, chief executive of Single Mother Families Australia (SMFA), in the preparation of the report.

Terese and SMFA provided in-kind support in the form of survey design feedback and recruitment assistance. Terese also contributed to writing the report.

Kay Cook, Professor and Research Director, School of Arts, Social Sciences and Humanities, Swinburne University of Technology; Adrienne Byrt, Postdoctoral Research Fellow, Swinburne University of Technology; Ashlea Coen, PhD Candidate, School of Design and Architecture, Swinburne University of Technology, and Marg Rogers, Senior Lecturer, Early Childhood Education; Post Doctoral Fellow, Manna Institute, University of New England

This article is republished from The Conversation under a Creative Commons license. Read the original article.

Support Our Journalism

Global Indian Diaspora and Australia’s multicultural communities need fair, non-hyphenated, and questioning journalism, packed with on-ground reporting. The Australia Today – with exceptional reporters, columnists, and editors – is doing just that. Sustaining this needs support from wonderful readers like you.

Whether you live in Australia, the United Kingdom, Canada, the United States of America, or India you can take a paid subscription by clicking Patreon and support honest and fearless journalism. LINK: https://tinyurl.com/TheAusToday

India’s post-colonial journey has been deeply influenced by Western ideological frameworks, particularly those of the colonial and capitalist West. From science, medicine, and technology to governance and education, these Western-centric paradigms have often been employed as the yardsticks by which the nation measures its progress. Even the Indian Constitution, a document hailed for its inclusivity and foresight, reflects the intellectual currents of Western political thought.

In effect, though having fought hard for her independence, India has, at least in various aspects, been tethered to the principles of its former colonial masters. This reflects a broader pattern across the Global South, where the political and economic forces of the Global North have greatly influenced nations like India. This emulation of Western models has long been a subject of contention.

Perhaps there is an innate tendency for an emerging nation to borrow from the tested and proven strategies of established powers; but despite being a controversial nomenclature, the categorization of “developing country” has survived. However, the basic development and independence of a nation can be achieved only when it transcends the resources and philosophies borrowed from others to eventually develop a unique historical, philosophical, and cultural identity.

In fact, amid these convulsions of ideological introspection, Mann Ki Baat — a radio show that broadcasts into hundreds of millions of homes across India monthly and is hosted by the Prime Minister himself, Narendra Modi — has become one of the most important engines for such self-reflection. In so doing, PM Modi has used this platform to address an India which does not have to replicate models brought from abroad and instead revel in its own unique past and inherent potential. His speeches are laced with quotes from Indian philosophy, history and culture calling the nation to celebrate the past, respect it for its vast body of knowledge as India charts its future course.

A particularly emblematic episode of Mann Ki Baat aired on 3rd October 2014, during the occasion of Vijaya Dashami. PM Modi recounted a powerful story from the Upanishads – that of a lion cub raised by a flock of sheep, who grew up believing himself to be one. When the cub encounters a full-grown lion, he insists that he, too, is a sheep. The lion, puzzled, leads him to a waterhole and urges him to “know thyself.”

PM Modi used this ancient parable to urge India to recognise its inherent potential, rather than continue to define itself by Western metrics of success. The story served as a poignant metaphor for India’s own journey of self-realisation – a call to the nation to rediscover its identity, strengths, and purpose. Like the lion cub in the fable, India, he argued, must reclaim its true nature and forge a path forward that is grounded in its own philosophical and cultural heritage.

This theme of self-discovery and self-reliance has been a recurrent theme in Mann Ki Baat. In the year 2015, the PM Modi launched the “Make in India” program aimed at enhancing domestic production and innovation along with restricting imports. This was not just an economic initiative; it was inititated as a part of the broader ideological agenda of Atmanirbhar Bharat (Self-Reliant India) in which growth of the nation was to be fostered through the country’s own industries, technology, and skills. This vision of self-reliance was presented as a natural continuation of India’s ancient traditions of craftsmanship and ingenuity, asserting that the nation has always possessed the capability to create and innovate from within.

In another notable episode in 2016, he highlighted the Swachh Bharat Abhiyan (Clean India Mission). Although one may relate cleanliness and sanitation to modern sanitary measures which are largely associated with Western advancements, PM Modi adopted a distinctly Indian perspective. He reminded the audience that cleanliness is embedded in Indian traditions, citing its spiritual and societal significance in ancient texts.

Swachh Bharat, therefore, was not merely a scheme of the government but a revival of the languished but core Indian traditions and values. PM Modi sought to describe that the objective of the mission is to restore ‘cleanliness’ and ‘purity’ which has been a part and parcel of the Indian way of life for ages. Thus, he explained, there is no conflict between modernity and tradition: they do not exclude but complement and support each other.

The global development alongside the preservation of the culture was further developed in Mann Ki Baat while handpicking the issue of promoting local and indigenous crafts. He has drawn attention on the lives of artisans, weavers, and craftsmen whose generations have been practicing the art for several episodes.

PM Modi did not advocate for the local crafts to just support/encourage the small market activities, but the entire wisdom which placed importance on sustainable and traditional over western industrialization. His idea of discouraging the practice of outsourcing and promoting indigenous people’s activities and industries was a way of promoting development that was not only eco-friendly but consistent with the Indian reverence for the environment and conservation of resources.

Another dimension to this rediscovery that is quite significant has been PM Modi’s revival of the ancient Indian modalities of wellness which include yoga and ayurveda. Over the past few decades, practices rooted in Indian philosophy have particularly yoga attracted considerable attention around the world. His call for the observance of International Yoga Day every year starting from the year 2015 was more of a deliberate attempt to brand Yoga most appropriately as a petitioner of the intellectual power of India as much as it is a healing activity.

While bringing back yoga, and yoga therapy, PM Modi has underlined the necessity for India to take the position of a country that is not only economically or technologically advanced but one that is at the forefront of spirituality and philosophical ideation as well. Further expanding on the aspect of India’s global leadership, Mann Ki Baat has also ensured that the country has positioned itself at the center of environmental concern.

PM Modi has presented the idea that Indian’s have always had such philosophies that encourage a man-nature co-existence and a sustainable development in this modern age. In one of the episodes of the series in 2018, he spoke about the universal partnership called the International Solar Alliance that India leads, whose basic aim is to tackle climate change. The linkage of environmental activism with how India has treated nature in the past works to build the narrative that the Indian cultural and spiritual domes are in a place where they can enhance the country’s efforts into global issues today.

In this context, Mann Ki Baat unpacks modern Indian engagement with globalization hand in hand with an exploration into the concept of India itself — what is its identity and future role? The most contentious nationalist streak in PM Modi’s speeches — one that compels him to invoke cultural glory, self-reliance, and indigenous wisdom more often than not — effectively calls on India to shift its gaze from the West towards itself as a measure of progress.

Mann Ki Baat, in other words, is a roadmap to the India of tomorrow — rooted in our culture but looking ahead; and where growth is not measured by what the world exemplifies as progress, but from within. The process of rediscovery that India orients itself to does not mean the rejection of modernity and globalization. It rather means finding the middle ground – the best of all the global advancements and the wealth of India’s own heritages and values.

PM Modi’s exhortation to the country to understand herself is, in the end, an urge to form a new vision of the country that does not reject its historical past, but instead – even more so – utilizes it in the present and the future, restoring its leadership among countries not only in terms of economics or politics but as a nation that offers a uniquely philosophical approach to development and growth.

Contributing Author: Priyanka Tripathi teaches English and Gender Studies at the Indian Institute of Technology Patna. She can be reached at priyankatripathi@iitp.ac.in

Support Our Journalism

Global Indian Diaspora and Australia’s multicultural communities need fair, non-hyphenated, and questioning journalism, packed with on-ground reporting. The Australia Today – with exceptional reporters, columnists, and editors – is doing just that. Sustaining this needs support from wonderful readers like you.

Whether you live in Australia, the United Kingdom, Canada, the United States of America, or India you can take a paid subscription by clicking Patreon and support honest and fearless journalism. LINK: https://tinyurl.com/TheAusToday

This week, Australia hosts the inaugural Global Nature Positive Summit in Sydney. It comes at a crucial time: biodiversity loss and ecosystem collapse is one of the biggest risks the world faces in the next decade.

The event, which begins tomorrow, brings together leaders from government, business, academia, environment groups and Indigenous Peoples. Together, they will seek ways to drive investment in nature and improve its protection and repair.

More than half the world’s economy directly depends on nature. Biodiversity loss threatens global financial stability, putting at least US$44 trillion (A$64 trillion) of economic value at risk.

Industries such as agriculture, fishing, forestry, tourism, water and resources rely heavily on nature. But ultimately, all of humanity depends on the natural world – for clean air, water, food, and a liveable climate.

In Australia significant investment is needed to reverse the decline in our natural environment. It will require action from governments, landholders and the private sector.

That’s why this week’s summit is so important. Nature conservation and restoration is expensive and often difficult. The task is beyond the capacity of governments alone.

What’s going on at the summit?

According to the World Economic Forum, “nature positive” is an economic worldview that goes beyond limiting environmental damage and aims to actually improve ecosystems.

Under the Kunming-Montreal Global Biodiversity Framework, to which almost 200 countries have signed up, at least 30% of land and waters must be protected or restored by 2030. The summit is exploring ways to realise this global commitment, which is also known as the 30×30 target.

The federal and New South Wales governments are co-hosting the event.

Federal Environment Minister Tanya Plibersek will address the summit on day one, outlining her government’s Nature Positive Plan. It commits to the 30×30 target as well as “zero new extinctions”. Achieving these commitments involves environmental law reform, setting up a Nature Repair Market and establishing a national Environment Protection Agency.

Delegates are expected to demonstrate their commitment and progress towards the 30×30 goal. They will then turn to the main point of the summit: building consensus on the economic settings needed to increase private investment in nature.

Finance models and corporate partnerships are on the agenda, along with how to make this work, including how to measure, monitor and report on progress and manage risk.

Sessions will focus on specific sectors of the environment such as agriculture and farming, cities, oceans and forests. On Thursday, delegates will visit nature sites around Sydney.

Investing in a market for nature repair

Substantial co-investment from the private sector, including landholders, will be required to repair and protect nature at the scale required.

Market-based approaches can drive private investment in natural resources. But most existing environmental markets focus on water and carbon. A more holistic approach, including nature repair, is needed.

Australia’s Nature Positive Plan includes building a nature repair market. This world-first measure is a legislated, national, voluntary biodiversity market in which individuals and organisations undertake nature repair projects to generate a tradeable certificate. The certificate can be sold to generate income. Demand for certificates is expected to grow over time.

But the role the government will take remains unclear. For example, will the government both regulate market prices and decide what, in a scientific sense, amounts to repairing nature?

On day two, the summit explores how nature markets can unlock new sources of finance. We can expect this discussion to include ways carbon and biodiversity markets can work together: so-called “carbon-plus” outcomes.

For example, when landholders conserve vegetation, the plants can both draw carbon dioxide from the atmosphere and provide habitat for animals, preventing biodiversity loss. Markets could be designed so landholders are rewarded for achieving these dual results.

Significant economic returns

Under optimistic estimates, the global nature-positive transition will unlock business opportunities worth an estimated US$10 trillion (almost A$15 trillion) a year and create 395 million jobs by 2030.

The potential benefits for Australia are also substantial. They include benefits to nature such as restoring habitat for wildlife, while storing carbon. It can also provide returns for agriculture, by improving land value, yield and quality.

A strong nature-positive stance from Australia will also help safeguard our access to global markets. For example, the European Union has already established trade barriers to imports that damage forests. This could have serious consequences for the Australian beef industry.

So the potential benefits have to be weighed against the risks of not doing anything. The summit is a chance to get a wide range of people on board, working towards a shared vision of a more positive future.

It’s time for a nature-positive mindset

The Albanese Labor government came to power promising to overhaul Australia’s national environment laws, following a scathing independent review.

When the summit was conceived, the government may have envisaged having cause for celebration by now. But some proposed reforms stalled in the Senate.

Nonetheless, the Nature Repair Market, a significant government win, is taking shape.

This week’s summit offers Australia an opportunity to show the world we have embraced the nature-positive mindset. There really is no time to waste.

Australia, the sixth most biodiverse country in the world, has listed 2,224 species and ecological communities as threatened with extinction. These losses are predicted to escalate if we continue business as usual and allow continued decline of ecosystems.

Despite having pledged to end deforestation by 2030, Australia is the only deforestation hotspot among developed nations. Land clearing continues apace in northern Australia, often without being assessed under national environmental laws.

We desperately need to reverse the decline in nature, once and for all.

Andrew Lowe, Director, Environment Institute, University of Adelaide

This article is republished from The Conversation under a Creative Commons license. Read the original article.

Support Our Journalism

Global Indian Diaspora and Australia’s multicultural communities need fair, non-hyphenated, and questioning journalism, packed with on-ground reporting. The Australia Today – with exceptional reporters, columnists, and editors – is doing just that. Sustaining this needs support from wonderful readers like you.

Whether you live in Australia, the United Kingdom, Canada, the United States of America, or India you can take a paid subscription by clicking Patreon and support honest and fearless journalism. LINK: https://tinyurl.com/TheAusToday

When Iran fired more than 180 ballistic missiles at Israel this week in retaliation for the Israeli assassinations of the Hamas and Hezbollah leaders, some were surprised by Tehran’s forceful response.

Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu immediately announced his country would harshly retaliate at a time of its own choosing. He said as his security cabinet gathered for a late-night meeting, “whoever attacks us, we attack them”.

The Biden administration strongly condemned Iran’s aggression and reiterated its commitment to defending Israel. The White House said Iran would suffer “severe consequences”, though President Joe Biden urged against attacks on Iran’s nuclear facilities.

So, what could Israel’s retaliation look like, and is a full-scale war between Iran and Israel, and perhaps even the United States, now likely?

A regional war is already here

A regional war is no longer imminent – it is here. The conflict that began in Gaza nearly a year ago has expanded across the Middle East, with Israel fighting countries and groups far from its borders. It also has global implications.

As this week’s Iranian strike demonstrates, the conflict has become a direct confrontation between Israel and its Western allies on one side, and Iran and its proxies, backed by Russia and China, on the other.

Washington has played a key role in supplying Israel with military aid and diplomatic cover, while Moscow has pledged to send Iran fighter jets and air defence technology. It is also purchasing Iranian weapons for its own war in Ukraine, providing Tehran with much-needed cash.

Moreover, Israel is currently engaged on multiple fronts.

First, its war continues in Gaza, where more than 40,000 Palestinians have been killed. Hamas has been reduced to a low-functioning guerrilla organisation but still retains some control over the displaced Palestinian population.

In the West Bank, the Israel Defense Forces (IDF) are conducting military operations to counter a rise in terrorist attacks, fuelled by Iranian weapons and funds directed to local militants.

Meanwhile, Iran’s other proxy groups, the Shi’a militias in Iraq and Syria and Houthi rebels in Yemen, are still launching missile and drone attacks against Israel. Both Israel and the US have struck back at the Houthis in Yemen.

The most significant battle, however, is in Lebanon. On October 8 2023, a day after Hamas’ rampage through southern Israel that resulted in 1,200 deaths and more than 200 Israelis abducted into Gaza, Hezbollah began firing rockets and other weapons at Israel, without provocation, in solidarity with Hamas. This has forced more than 60,000 Israelis near the border to flee their homes.

Two weeks ago, Israel made a decisive move. Netanyahu reportedly ordered the detonation of thousands of booby-trapped pagers and walkie-talkies used by Hezbollah, fearing the operation was at risk of being exposed.

The IDF followed with a massive air campaign aimed at diminishing Hezbollah’s estimated arsenal of 150,000 missiles, rockets and drones.

It then launched a ground incursion into Lebanon, targeting positions fortified by Hezbollah’s elite Radwan force. The goal is to prevent Hezbollah from invading northern Israel and replicating the October 7 Hamas atrocities there.

Up to one million Lebanese people have been forced to flee their homes as a result of the Israeli operations.

Israel’s options for striking back

And now, Iran has become directly involved in the fighting with its launching of ballistic missiles at Israel this week, allegedly targeting military bases. Israel’s advanced anti-missile defence systems, assisted by the US, Jordan and other nations, intercepted most of the projectiles. A few landed inside Israel, with shrapnel killing one Palestinian in the West Bank.

It was the second direct attack by Iran against Israel in recent months. The first resulted in a limited Israeli retaliation on an Iranian air defence system allegedly protecting a nuclear facility in Isfahan.

The full scope and impact of Israel’s retaliation this time remains unknown at the time of writing.

One scenario that deeply worries Tehran is that Israel, in coordination with the US, might target its critical infrastructure. This could include its communications and transportation networks, financial institutions and oil industry (especially the facilities that are part of the funding mechanism of the powerful Islamic Revolutionary Guards Corp). This could create chaos within Iran, threatening the regime’s survival.

While forcing regime change in Tehran would be extremely difficult, the Iranian leadership isn’t taking any chances. It has reportedly rushed Supreme Leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei to a secure location to prevent any assassination attempt.

Iran’s rapidly advancing nuclear program remains the jewel in the crown for the Iranian regime, which the US and its allies believe serves as cover for its pursuit of atomic bombs.

Iranian leaders may now fear Israel and the US could seize the opportunity to severely damage its nuclear infrastructure, as has long been urged by some conservative voices in both countries. Biden, however, is urging a “proportional” response instead.

Destroying Iran’s air defence systems is also considered an option to signal to the regime that it would become “blind” in any future attack on Israel. Other possibilities are also on the table.

A narrow window for Israel

In an attempt to de-escalate tensions, Iranian officials hastily declared their desire to end hostilities following the missile attack.

However, the conflict has come full circle. Hamas believed Israel would collapse after its October 7 2023 attack. However, instead, Israel responded with a devastating war on Gaza, dismantling much of Hamas’ capabilities but also causing widespread casualties and destruction.

Similarly, the decisions by Hezbollah and Iran to strike Israel have proved to be grave miscalculations, underestimating Israel’s determination to retaliate with overwhelming impact.

The ball is now in Israel’s court. While any retaliation must take account of the fact the IDF are already stretched thin across multiple fronts, Iran’s “axis of resistance” has also never appeared more vulnerable.

Israel has a narrow window to inflict a major blow against it – and Netanyahu is unlikely to let this moment pass.

Ran Porat, Affiliate Researcher, The Australian Centre for Jewish Civilisation, Monash University

This article is republished from The Conversation under a Creative Commons license. Read the original article.

Support Our Journalism

Global Indian Diaspora and Australia’s multicultural communities need fair, non-hyphenated, and questioning journalism, packed with on-ground reporting. The Australia Today – with exceptional reporters, columnists, and editors – is doing just that. Sustaining this needs support from wonderful readers like you.

Whether you live in Australia, the United Kingdom, Canada, the United States of America, or India you can take a paid subscription by clicking Patreon and support honest and fearless journalism. LINK: https://tinyurl.com/TheAusToday