Search

Resistance to mega-tourism is rising in the South Pacific – but will governments put words into action?

With COVID-19 travel restrictions largely a thing of the past for Australian and <a href="https://www.newshub.co.nz/home/travel/2022/12/fiji-more-popular-with-kiwi-tourists-than-it-was-pre-covid-19.html">New Zealand tourists</a>, Pacific destinations are enjoying the return of visitors – albeit at a <a href="https://devpolicy.org/the-pacific-emerging-from-covid-slowly-20221019/">slower pace</a> than in other parts of the world. Tourism in Fiji, Samoa, Vanuatu and the Cook Islands was <a href="https://www.imf.org/-/media/Files/Countries/ResRep/pis-region/small-states-monitor/pacific-islands-monitor-issue-17-october-2022.ashx">hit hard by the pandemic</a>, but <a href="https://www.massey.ac.nz/about/news/pacific-islands-resilient-as-covid-19-topples-tourism/">patience and resilience</a> are starting to pay off. Foreign dollars are once again circulating in those small economies. Recently, <a href="https://www.mvariety.com/business/kiribati-welcomes-first-cruise-ship-visit/article_30ca4be0-b0f7-11ed-9b9d-93619a4dfba6.html">Kiribati welcomed</a> its first international cruise ship since 2020. But this isn’t a simple case of returning to normal. The past three years have allowed time for reflection, leading to a rising awareness of <a href="https://southpacificislands.travel/pacific-sustainable-tourism-leadership-summit-calls-on-pacific-leaders-to-work-together-to-build-resilient-futures/">possible alternatives</a> to pre-pandemic tourism models. From senior levels within governments to grassroots tourism operators and citizens, there has been serious discussion about the resumption of business as usual, including several <a href="https://southpacificislands.travel/2021-ends-on-a-high-with-pacific-islands-tourism-research-symposium/">regional symposiums</a> hosted by the South Pacific Tourism Organisation. Issues of sovereignty and future resilience have been very much to the fore – quite untypical in a global tourism industry largely focused on <a href="https://etc-corporate.org/news/europes-tourism-rebound-predicted-to-continue-into-2023/">boosting numbers</a> as soon as possible. Questions remain, however, about the gap between rhetoric and reality. <h2>Flipping the narrative</h2> The <a href="https://southpacificislands.travel/2022-pacific-sustainable-tourism-leadership-summit/">Pacific Sustainable Tourism Leaders Summit</a> in November 2022 brought together tourism ministers and industry stakeholders to discuss the future of regional tourism. This led to a <a href="https://southpacificislands.travel/pacific-sustainable-tourism-leadership-summit-calls-on-pacific-leaders-to-work-together-to-build-resilient-futures/">regional commitment</a> signed by 11 countries focused on promoting sustainable tourism. Essentially, the aim is to flip the narrative: rather than Pacific nations being seen as dependent on tourism, regional tourism itself depends on the Pacific and its people surviving and thriving. Accordingly, Pacific countries are calling for fairer and more meaningful relationships with tourism partners. Cook Islands’ associate minister of foreign affairs and immigration, Tingika Elikana, urged other Pacific leaders at the summit to rebuild tourism in a way that was <a href="https://www.fijitimes.com/inclusive-pacific-summit-calls-on-regional-leaders-to-work-together/">equitable and inclusive</a>, "[it] is crucial that lessons are learned from recent crises and that steps are taken to embed long-term inclusivity, sustainability, and resilience into our tourism offering as it faces evolving challenges and risks." Vanuatu has been heading in this direction since early in the pandemic, when it made “destination wellbeing” <a href="https://www.traveldailymedia.com/vanuatu-tourism-adopts-well-being-approach-for-covid-19-recovery/">central to its tourism recovery</a>. The aim of “moving beyond solely measuring visitor arrivals and contribution to GDP” then fed into the country’s <a href="https://tourism.gov.vu/images/DoT-Documents/Presentations/Vanuatu_Sustainable_Tourism_Strategy_2020-2030-2020_.pdf">Sustainable Tourism Strategy</a>, launched at the height of the pandemic. <h2>Push-back on resorts and cruise ships</h2> This reappraisal of scale and priorities has perhaps been most evident in Fiji where there has been <a href="https://www.fijitimes.com/project-unoriginal/">strong opposition</a> to a US$300 million mega-project proposed by Chinese developers. The hotel, apartment and marina complex would be built in an area containing one of the last remaining remnants of mangrove forest near the capital, Suva. Conservationists and local residents have been critical of the <a href="https://www.rnz.co.nz/international/pacific-news/484141/conservationist-calls-on-fiji-govt-to-preserve-rare-mangrove">environmental</a> and <a href="https://www.fijitimes.com/how-can-fiji-supply-water-to-project/">infrastructural</a> impact of the proposed development, as well as the <a href="https://www.fijitimes.com/project-unoriginal/">authenticity of its design</a>. There is <a href="https://www.rnz.co.nz/international/pacific-news/484710/costly-development-of-suva-forest-may-now-not-happen">now doubt</a> about whether the government will renew the developer’s lease, due to expire in June. The minister for lands and mineral resources has said “there’s been a lack of transparency” from the developers, and that he “will continue to monitor the remaining conditions of the development lease”. A leading opponent of the project, Reverend James Bhagwan, <a href="https://www.rnz.co.nz/international/pacific-news/484710/costly-development-of-suva-forest-may-now-not-happen">told Radio New Zealand</a>, "we'’re not anti-development, but what we’re saying is we need to look at development from a perspective that places the environment at the centre, not at the periphery. There is a precedent here: approval for a multi-million-dollar resort and casino development on Malolo island was revoked in 2019 after another Chinese developer, Freesoul Investments, destroyed part of a reef, dumped waste and disrupted traditional fisheries. In 2022, the High Court fined the company <a href="https://www.newsroom.co.nz/resort-developers-found-guilty-over-fiji-island-disaster-1">FJD$1 million</a>. It was the first time a developer had been punished for an “environmental crime”. Environmental concerns are also causing other Pacific countries to resist a return to mass tourism. In Rarotonga, Cook Islands, annual visitor numbers before the pandemic were ten times the island’s local population. The ability to cope with that level of tourism has since been <a href="https://www.rnz.co.nz/international/pacific-news/443141/cook-islanders-considering-how-much-tourism-is-too-much">seriously questioned</a>. And in French Polynesia, the government has <a href="https://www.nzherald.co.nz/travel/french-polynesia-the-latest-country-to-ban-mega-cruise-ships/RXY2PDLCWPAIZRVNENLHJ6Z2N4/">banned port calls</a> for cruise ships with a capacity greater than 3,500 passengers. The decision was based on concerns about air pollution, stress on the marine environment and social impacts. Daily cruise arrivals to Bora Bora are now restricted to 1,200 passengers, much to the <a href="https://www.rnz.co.nz/international/pacific-news/407885/bora-bora-calls-for-ban-on-large-cruise-ships">relief of locals</a>. <h2>A new kind of tourism?</h2> In the face of uncertainties due to climate change and geopolitical tensions in the region, it’s encouraging to hear local voices being heard in debates about the future of Pacific tourism – and political leaders appearing to respond. The Pacific Island Forum leaders’ retreat in Fiji late last month discussed the tourism industry. The forum’s signature <a href="https://www.forumsec.org/2050strategy/">Blue Pacific Strategy</a> for regional co-operation recognises tourism is an important component of national development, and the need to balance economic pressures with environmental and cultural protection. But despite the apparent political will and regional focus on building resilience, tourism development will undoubtedly continue to challenge the desires and initiatives of Pacific peoples seeking more sustainable futures. While the policy rhetoric sounds good, it remains to be seen whether Pacific governments will remain steadfast and united under mounting pressures from major cruise operators, Chinese commercial interests and large hotels looking to maximise occupancy rates. Many Pacific people reported the natural environment – along with social, spiritual, physical and mental wellbeing – <a href="https://www.internationaljournalofwellbeing.org/index.php/ijow/article/view/2539">improved during the pandemic pause</a> in tourism. But the reality of putting local wellbeing ahead of profits and increased tax revenue is yet to be fully tested as tourism bounces back. Images: Getty <em style="box-sizing: border-box; color: #212529; font-family: -apple-system, 'system-ui', 'Segoe UI', Roboto, 'Helvetica Neue', Arial, sans-serif, 'Apple Color Emoji', 'Segoe UI Emoji', 'Segoe UI Symbol', 'Noto Color Emoji'; font-size: 16px; background-color: #ffffff;">This article originally appeared on <a href="https://theconversation.com/resistance-to-mega-tourism-is-rising-in-the-south-pacific-but-will-governments-put-words-into-action-201071" target="_blank" rel="noopener">The Conversation</a>.

International Travel

“Have a second phone”: Aussie spy chief’s warning on social media use

MPs have been urged to use a second phone if they want to access social media apps such as TikTok, after one of Australia’s top spy bosses spoke about how these apps use our personal information. Rachel Noble, the Director-General of the Australian Signals Directorate (ASD), recommended that politicians and their staff should adopt the practice during a Senate estimates hearing. She also said that having a phone without access to social media was the only way to have “absolute certainty” of data privacy. “Our advice was, frankly, for people who are members of parliament who might be particularly targets of espionage … that if you wanted absolute certainty that your social media app couldn’t have access to those things … would be to have a second phone which you exclusively use for that,” Ms Noble said. The warning comes after it was reported earlier this year that the ASD had confidential meetings with politicians and their staff to warn them that some apps undertake excessive data collection and request access to contact lists, location data and photos. Last year, the Department of Home Affairs restricted TikTok use on work phones, joining the Department of Defence in doing so. During the hearing, Ms Noble said that in some cases social media apps were collecting additional information extending “beyond the content of messages, videos and voice recordings”. “Social media apps are monetising what you do on your phone, what you access, what you look at for how long, who your friends are – they will seek to get demographics of your friends in order to push you the information and get you to buy things,” she said. With some apps headquartered outside Australia, such as China, Ms Noble said the information collected could be accessed legally or be subject to covert collection. Sectors of the Australian public service aren’t the only ones restricting use of social media apps on work phones, with parliaments in the United States and New Zealand warning against using TikTok on government devices. Image: Getty Images

Technology

‘Patently ridiculous’: State government failures have exacerbated Sydney’s flood disaster

For the fourth time in 18 months, floodwaters have inundated homes and businesses in Western Sydney’s Hawkesbury-Nepean Valley. Recent torrential rain is obviously the immediate cause. But poor decisions by successive New South Wales governments have exacerbated the damage. The town of Windsor, in the Hawkesbury region, has suffered a particularly high toll, with dramatic flood heights of 9.3 metres in February 2020, 12.9m in March 2021 and 13.7m in March this year. As I write, flood heights at Windsor have reached nearly 14m. This is still considerably lower than the monster flood of 1867, which reached almost 20m. It’s clear that standard flood risk reduction measures, such as raising building floor levels, are not safe enough in this valley. We’ve known about the risk of floods to the region for a long time. Yet successive state governments have failed to properly mitigate its impact. Indeed, recent urban development policies by the current NSW government will multiply the risk. <blockquote class="twitter-tweet"> BBC weather putting Sydney’s downpour into context. More rain there in 4 days than London gets in a year. <a href="https://t.co/FDkBCYGlK7">pic.twitter.com/FDkBCYGlK7</a> — Brett Mcleod (@Brett_McLeod) <a href="https://twitter.com/Brett_McLeod/status/1544071890431623169?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw">July 4, 2022</a></blockquote> We knew this was coming A 22,000 square kilometre catchment covering the Blue Mountains and Western Sydney drains into the Hawkesbury-Nepean river system. The system faces an <a href="https://theconversation.com/sydneys-disastrous-flood-wasnt-unprecedented-were-about-to-enter-a-50-year-period-of-frequent-major-floods-158427" target="_blank" rel="noopener">extreme flood risk</a> because gorges restrict the river’s seaward flow, often causing water to rapidly fill up the valley after heavy rain. Governments have known about the flood risks in the valley for more than two centuries. Traditional Owners have known about them for millennia. In 1817, Governor Macquarie lamented: <blockquote> it is impossible not to feel extremely displeased and Indignant at [colonists] Infatuated Obstinacy in persisting to Continue to reside with their Families, Flocks, Herds, and Grain on those Spots Subject to the Floods, and from whence they have often had their prosperity swept away. </blockquote> Macquarie’s was the first in a long line of governments to do nothing effective to reduce the risk. The latest in this undistinguished chain is the NSW Planning Minister Anthony Roberts. In March, Roberts <a href="https://www.smh.com.au/national/nsw/nsw-planning-minister-scraps-order-to-consider-flood-fire-risks-before-building-20220321-p5a6kc.html" target="_blank" rel="noopener">reportedly revoked</a> his predecessor’s directive to better consider flood and other climate risks in planning decisions, to instead favour housing development. Roberts’ predecessor, Rob Stokes, had required that the Department of Planning, local governments and developers consult Traditional Owners, manage risks from climate change, and make information public on the risks of natural disasters. This could have helped limit development on floodplains. <blockquote class="twitter-tweet"> Michael Greenway knows that as soon as he sees floodwater, it’s time to get the three boxes of family photos and move to higher ground. He’s lived in his Richards home for years and has experienced six floods - three of which have been this year <a href="https://t.co/t8Tgckc5lx">https://t.co/t8Tgckc5lx</a> <a href="https://twitter.com/hashtag/NSWFloods?src=hash&ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw">#NSWFloods</a> <a href="https://t.co/ErN6sf6hBn">pic.twitter.com/ErN6sf6hBn</a> — Laura Chung (@Laura_R_Chung) <a href="https://twitter.com/Laura_R_Chung/status/1543890156675276800?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw">July 4, 2022</a></blockquote> Why are we still building there? The Hawkesbury-Nepean Valley is currently home to 134,000 people, a population <a href="https://www.infrastructure.nsw.gov.au/expert-advice/hawkesbury-nepean-flood-risk-management-strategy/" target="_blank" rel="noopener">projected to</a> double by 2050. The potential <a href="https://theconversation.com/to-stop-risky-developments-in-floodplains-we-have-to-tackle-the-profit-motive-and-our-false-sense-of-security-184062?utm_source=twitter&utm_medium=bylinetwitterbutton" target="_blank" rel="noopener">economic returns</a> from property development are a key driver of the <a href="http://www.jstor.org/stable/26393302" target="_blank" rel="noopener">lack of effective action</a> to reduce flood risk. In the valley, for example, billionaire Kerry Stokes’ company Seven Group is <a href="https://www.smh.com.au/national/how-raising-the-warragamba-dam-wall-could-be-a-win-for-billionaire-kerry-stokes-20220222-p59yke.html" target="_blank" rel="noopener">reportedly a part owner</a> of almost 2,000 hectares at Penrith Lakes by the Nepean River, where a 5,000-home development has been mooted. Planning in Australia often uses the 1-in-100-year flood return interval as a safety standard. <a href="https://nccarf.edu.au/living-floods-key-lessons-australia-and-abroad/" target="_blank" rel="noopener">This is not appropriate</a>. Flood risk in the valley is increasing with climate change, and development in the catchment increases the speed of runoff from paved surfaces. The historical 1-in-100 year safety standard is particularly inappropriate in the valley, because of the extreme risk of rising water cutting off low-lying roads and completely submerging residents cut-off in extreme floods. What’s more, a “medium” climate change scenario will see a <a href="https://www.infrastructure.nsw.gov.au/expert-advice/hawkesbury-nepean-flood-risk-management-strategy/resources/publications-and-resources/" target="_blank" rel="noopener">14.6% increase</a> in rainfall by 2090 west of Sydney. This is projected to increase the 1-in-100 year flood height at Windsor from 17.3m to 18.4m. The NSW government should impose a much higher standard of flood safety before approving new residential development. In my view, it would be prudent to only allow development that could withstand the 20m height of the 1867 flood. No dam can control the biggest floods The NSW government’s primary proposal to reduce flood risk is to <a href="https://www.infrastructure.nsw.gov.au/expert-advice/hawkesbury-nepean-flood-risk-management-strategy/" target="_blank" rel="noopener">raise Warragamba Dam</a> by 14m. There are many reasons this <a href="https://www.giveadam.org.au/" target="_blank" rel="noopener">proposal should be questioned</a>. They include the potential inundation not just of <a href="https://www.smh.com.au/national/traditional-owners-launch-federal-bid-to-stop-raising-of-warragamba-dam-wall-20210128-p56xkt.html" target="_blank" rel="noopener">cultural sites</a> of the Gundungarra nation, but threatened species populations, and part of the Blue Mountains World Heritage Area. The <a href="https://www.infrastructure.nsw.gov.au/media/2855/infrastructure-nsw-resilient-valley-resilient-communities-2017-jan.pdf" target="_blank" rel="noopener">cost-benefit analysis</a> used to justify the proposal <a href="https://www.parliament.nsw.gov.au/committees/inquiries/Pages/inquiry-submission-details.aspx?pk=65507" target="_blank" rel="noopener">did not count</a> these costs, nor the benefits of alternative measures such as upgrading escape roads. Perversely, flood control dams and levee banks often result in higher flood risks. That’s because none of these structures stop the biggest floods, and they provide an illusion of safety that justifies more risky floodplain development. The current NSW transport minister <a href="https://www.smh.com.au/national/nsw/emergency-minister-says-raising-dam-wall-could-lead-to-more-development-on-floodplain-20210329-p57evo.html" target="_blank" rel="noopener">suggested such development</a> in the valley last year. Similar development occurred with the construction of the Wivenhoe Dam in 1984, which hasn’t prevented extensive flooding in <a href="http://www.jstor.org/stable/26393302" target="_blank" rel="noopener">Brisbane</a> in 2011 and 2022. These are among the reasons the NSW Parliament Select Committee on the Proposal to Raise the Warragamba Dam Wall <a href="https://www.parliament.nsw.gov.au/committees/listofcommittees/Pages/committee-details.aspx?pk=262#tab-reportsandgovernmentresponses" target="_blank" rel="noopener">recommended</a> last October that the state government: <blockquote> not proceed with the Warragamba Dam wall raising project [and] pursue alternative floodplain management strategies instead. </blockquote> What the government should do instead The NSW government now has an opportunity to overcome two centuries of failed governance. It could take substantial measures to keep homes off the floodplain and out of harm’s way. We need major <a href="https://www.parliament.nsw.gov.au/committees/inquiries/Pages/inquiry-submission-details.aspx?pk=65507" target="_blank" rel="noopener">new measures</a> including: <ul> <li>preventing new development</li> <li>relocating flood prone residents</li> <li>building better evacuation roads</li> <li>lowering the water storage level behind Warragamba Dam.</li> </ul> The NSW government should help residents to relocate from the most flood-prone places and restore floodplains. This has been undertaken for many Australian towns and cities, such as <a href="https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S2212420914000028" target="_blank" rel="noopener">Grantham</a>, Brisbane, and <a href="https://nccarf.edu.au/living-floods-key-lessons-australia-and-abroad" target="_blank" rel="noopener">along major rivers worldwide</a>. <a href="https://www.mdpi.com/2073-4441/5/4/1580/htm#B10-water-05-01580" target="_blank" rel="noopener">Relocating residents isn’t easy</a>, and any current Australian buyback and relocation programs are voluntary. I think it’s in the public interest to go further and, for example, compulsorily acquire or relocate those with destroyed homes, rather than allowing them to rebuild in harm’s way. This approach offers certainty for flood-hit people and lowers community impacts in the longer term. It is patently ridiculous to rebuild on sites that have been flooded multiple times in two years. In the case of the Hawkesbury-Nepean Valley, there are at least <a href="https://www.theaustralian.com.au/nation/politics/federal-government-insurers-stop-housing-in-floodrisk-zones/news-story/cba71269eff2b0ea00d93445ff0e9f73" target="_blank" rel="noopener">5,000 homes</a> below the 1-in-100-year flood return interval. This includes roughly <a href="https://www.hawkesburygazette.com.au/story/7657492/near-1000-flood-related-home-insurance-claims-already-in-hawkesbury/" target="_blank" rel="noopener">1,000 homes flooded</a> in March. The NSW government says a buyback program would be <a href="https://www.smh.com.au/politics/nsw/farcical-minister-shoots-down-flood-relocation-says-residents-know-the-risks-20220308-p5a2qg.html" target="_blank" rel="noopener">too expensive</a>. Yet, the cost would be comparable to the roughly $2 billion needed to raise Warragamba Dam, or the government’s $5 billion WestInvest fund. An alternative measure to raising the dam is to lower the water storage level in Warragamba Dam by 12m. This would reduce the amount of drinking water stored to supply Sydney, and would provide some flood control space. The city’s water supply would then need to rely more on the existing desalination plant, a <a href="http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S1364032116001817" target="_blank" rel="noopener">strategy assessed as cost effective</a> and with the added benefit of bolstering drought resilience. The flood damage seen in NSW this week was entirely predictable. Measures that could significantly lower flood risk are expensive and politically hard. But as flood risks worsen with climate change, they’re well worth it.<img style="border: none !important; box-shadow: none !important; margin: 0 !important; max-height: 1px !important; max-width: 1px !important; min-height: 1px !important; min-width: 1px !important; opacity: 0 !important; outline: none !important; padding: 0 !important;" src="https://counter.theconversation.com/content/186304/count.gif?distributor=republish-lightbox-basic" alt="The Conversation" width="1" height="1" /> <a href="https://theconversation.com/profiles/jamie-pittock-7562" target="_blank" rel="noopener">Jamie Pittock</a>, Professor, Fenner School of Environment & Society, <a href="https://theconversation.com/institutions/australian-national-university-877" target="_blank" rel="noopener">Australian National University</a> This article is republished from <a href="https://theconversation.com" target="_blank" rel="noopener">The Conversation</a> under a Creative Commons license. Read the <a href="https://theconversation.com/patently-ridiculous-state-government-failures-have-exacerbated-sydneys-flood-disaster-186304" target="_blank" rel="noopener">original article</a>.

Legal

Why doesn’t the government have a duty of care to children’s futures?

Federal judges <a href="https://www.bbc.com/news/world-australia-60745967" target="_blank" rel="noopener">have deemed</a> that the Australian government doesn’t have a duty of care to protect children from the harms of climate change, overturning last year’s landmark decision. Eight teenagers and an 87-year-old nun convinced Federal Court judges that Susan Ley, the Australian Environment Minister, had a duty of care to protect children from future harm caused by climate change when assessing fossil fuel projects. They <a href="https://www.sbs.com.au/news/article/the-australian-government-has-a-duty-of-care-to-protect-children-from-climate-harm-court-rules/grhgp8t8y" target="_blank" rel="noopener">initially</a> sought an injunction to stop the expansion of a coal mine in New South Wales, which is expected to add an extra 170 million tonnes of fossil fuels to the atmosphere. However, the injunction wasn’t issued since the judges believed the minister hadn’t yet violated her duty of care. The government appealed the court ruling and all three judges sided with the minister for various reasons, including that there wasn’t “sufficient closeness” between the minister’s decision to approve the mine and “any reasonably foreseeable harm” that comes from it. Despite the initial decision being successfully challenged, the teens could still take the case to the country’s highest court. “Today’s ruling leaves us devastated, but it will not deter us in our fight for climate justice,” 17-year-old Anjali Sharma said in a statement released by the teenagers’ lawyers in mid-March. 15-year-old Izzy Raj-Seppings, another of the teens involved in the case, said their lawyers would review the judgement, and that “we may have more to say in the coming weeks”. “While today’s judgement did not go our way, there is still much to celebrate. The court accepted that young people will bear the brunt of the impacts of the climate crisis.” Image: BBC News

Legal

Australian government appeals ruling protecting Aboriginals from deportation

The Australian government has made an appeal against a High Court decision that Aboriginal Australians can’t be aliens, claiming the decision threatens to confer “political sovereignty on Aboriginal societies”.Lawyers for the government made the claim in an appeal against the Love and Thoms decision, which bars the deportation of Indigenous non-citizens. They claim that the ruling threatened the position that Aboriginal sovereignty did not survive the colonisation of Australia.<a href="https://www.theguardian.com/law/2022/feb/01/aboriginal-spiritual-connection-to-land-no-bar-to-deportation-morrison-government-says" target="_blank" rel="noopener">The Guardian</a> reports that the submissions, lodged on Friday, also contain arguments that the spiritual connection Aboriginal Australians have with the land doesn’t create a “special relationship” to the commonwealth.What is the Love and Thoms decision?In February 2020, four out of the seven judges ruled that Aboriginal Australians were not aliens under the Australian constitution and couldn’t be deported, prompting the release of New Zealand-born man Brendan Thoms from detention.Thoms and Papua New Guinea-born Daniel Love, who both have one Indigenous parent, had their visas cancelled and faced deportation from Australia after serving time in prison.Lawyers for the two men, with support from the state of Victoria, argued that the government can’t deport Aboriginal or Torres Strait Islanders even if they don’t hold Australian citizenship.In separate judgements, justices Virginia Bell, Geoffrey Nettle, Michelle Gordon and James Edelman made the ruling based on the three-part test established by the Mabo native title cases that assess a person’s claim to be Aboriginal based on their biological descent, self-identification, and recognition by a traditional group.By April 2021, nine people were released from immigration detention as a result of the ruling, with Guardian Australia revealing the government was seeking to overturn the decision in October of the same year.Why is the government appealing the decision?In November 2021, the federal court ordered for the release of Shayne Montgomery, a New Zealand citizen whose visa was revoked by former home affairs minister Peter Dutton after he was convicted of a non-violent aggravated burglary in 2018. The court ruled that Mr Dutton “failed to give any degree of consideration” to Mr Montgomery’s claims of Aboriginality. Though he wasn’t biologically descended from an Aboriginal person, the court said it was “not reasonable” to conclude Mr Montgomery was not Aboriginal since he was culturally adopted by the Mununjali people in Queensland.In an appeal against that ruling, the federal government is now asking that the federal court overrule Love and Thoms.With the retirement of two of the four judges who originally made the decision, assistant attorney general Amanda Stoker has noted in a 2020 research paper that a challenge to the decision could see it get reconsidered by the new bench.In October, immigration minister Alex Hawke <a href="https://www.theguardian.com/australia-news/2021/nov/19/judge-orders-new-zealand-man-who-had-visa-revoked-by-peter-dutton-to-be-freed-from-detention" target="_blank" rel="noopener">said</a> the government had “no intent to deport an Aboriginal from Australia”, despite making an appeal alongside home affairs minister Karen Andrews to restore their power to do so.He said the case was about “a complex question of law, it’s not about an opinion of the government, and it has to be tested and resolved”.“That’s what the government is doing. Of course, there is no intent to deport an Aboriginal from Australia, ever.”Kristina Kenneally, the shadow home affairs minister, has said Labor “respects the decision of the high court” in Love and Thoms, and that the government should “abide by the ruling”.The matter is yet to be listed for a hearing.Image: Getty Images

Legal

What a disaster: federal government slashes COVID payment when people need it most

With Australia’s official COVID-19 infection numbers topping <a href="https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2021/world/australia-covid-cases.html">100,000 a day</a>, the federal government has slashed its last remaining pandemic support payment. The decision is ill-timed, irresponsible and heartless. It is stripping away support for those most affected by the pandemic at the time they need it most. It will place those in low paid and precarious work in further financial stress as they lose income to isolate when infected or in close contact with someone else with COVID-19. The Pandemic Leave Disaster Payment was introduced in August 2020 in response to concerns casual workers and others without sick or pandemic leave entitlements could not take time off work when infected or in contact with someone with COVID-19. The leave payment was initially available to those not qualifying for JobKeeper – or, after JobKeeper ended in March 2021, the “disaster payment” introduced in response to <a href="https://theconversation.com/support-package-for-sydney-better-and-more-fit-for-purpose-than-jobkeeper-164394">the Sydney lockdown</a> in July 2021. Since that payment ended the Pandemic Leave Disaster Payment is the only individual financial support the federal government provides. Available to people who had contracted COVID, were a close contact or needed to care for someone who had COVID, until this week it paid A$750 a week for two weeks. You could claim the payment regardless of the number of hours of paid work you lost. On January 18 the rules tightened – a move announced via a <a href="https://ministers.pmc.gov.au/mckenzie/2022/changes-pandemic-leave-disaster-payment">press release </a> on January 8 (a Saturday). Now it only pays $750 if you lose 20 hours or more of paid work a week. If you lose 8-19 hours you get just $450 a week. If you lose less than eight hours you get nothing. Getting the payment has also been made more difficult by imposing a 14-day time limit to apply, from the start of the isolation period. To qualify, you must show evidence of a positive PCR or rapid antigen test. Considering the difficulty of obtaining RATs, and delays in PCR test results <a href="https://www.smh.com.au/politics/victoria/test-samples-no-longer-suitable-after-seven-day-wait-20220108-p59ms1.html">of a week or more</a>, this is a unreasonable and unnecessary constraint. <h2>Flawed eligibility rules</h2> A major flaw in the eligibility rules for the leave payment it is not available to people receiving social security payments. This excludes all JobSeeker recipients, despite about <a href="https://data.gov.au/data/dataset/dss-payment-demographic-data/resource/80cc89a3-3208-4e0d-9745-598f7a882e28">one in four</a> being in some form of paid work – generally low-paid casual jobs. The leave payment has been a vital part of the economic supports to help people stay safe and protect their loved ones and the community. The peak body for the community services sector, the Australian Council of Social Service, has <a href="https://www.acoss.org.au/media-releases/?media_release=another-income-hit-for-casual-workers-massive-cut-to-pandemic-leave-disaster-payment">condemned this decision</a>. It says cutting the payment will leave people without enough to cover basic costs, let alone the extra costs of isolation such as delivery fees, rapid tests (if you can get them) and personal protective equipment. <h2>Worst time possible</h2> There could scarcely be a worse time to cut this payment, with Australia now in the worst stage of the pandemic. Between August 5 2020 and July 8 2021 the Pandemic Leave Disaster Payment provided <a href="https://www.aph.gov.au/About_Parliament/Parliamentary_Departments/Parliamentary_Library/pubs/rp/rp2122/Quick_Guides/COVID-19DisasterPayments">almost 15,000 grants</a> to support those in need. During this period the peak COVID case rate was just over 500 day, in August 2020. Consider, therefore, the likely need now we’re at more than <a href="https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2021/world/australia-covid-cases.html">100,000 a day</a>. With no other form of federal income support available you may apply for an unemployment or sickness payment like JobSeeker. But Services Australia advises this will be paid about <a href="https://www.servicesaustralia.gov.au/when-youll-get-your-first-jobseeker-payment?context=51411">two weeks after</a> a claim is granted. That is of little help to cover rent while you’re isolating with COVID. JobSeeker is also a maximum of $315 a week – inadequate to cover basic costs. This cut will affect many of the same people <a href="https://www.dailytelegraph.com.au/news/national/pm-announces-national-day-of-thanks-for-pandemic-heroes/news-story/174c8ccb94814aaa554d79eea0193e4f">lauded as the heroes of pandemic</a> – essential workers employed casually in health and aged care, supermarkets, hospitality venues and warehouses. It will also hurt temporary visa holders, who are entitled to the leave payment and do not qualify for any other federal income support. Last week <a href="https://www.acoss.org.au/media-releases/?media_release=community-sector-calls-for-collaboration-and-decisive-leadership-from-national-cabinet-to-deal-with-covid-debacle">ACOSS called for</a> the establishment of a civil society COVID Rapid Response Group to work alongside National Cabinet. We need the interests of people most at risk in the room at the highest levels when decisions like the future of the Pandemic Leave Disaster Payment are made. Cutting this payment now is effectively telling low-paid workers at the worst stage of the pandemic in Australia that they’re on their own.<img style="border: none !important; box-shadow: none !important; margin: 0 !important; max-height: 1px !important; max-width: 1px !important; min-height: 1px !important; min-width: 1px !important; opacity: 0 !important; outline: none !important; padding: 0 !important; text-shadow: none !important;" src="https://counter.theconversation.com/content/175146/count.gif?distributor=republish-lightbox-basic" alt="The Conversation" width="1" height="1" /> <a href="https://theconversation.com/profiles/cassandra-goldie-94635">Cassandra Goldie</a>, Adjunct Professor and UNSW Law Advisory Council Member, <a href="https://theconversation.com/institutions/unsw-1414">UNSW</a> This article is republished from <a href="https://theconversation.com">The Conversation</a> under a Creative Commons license. Read the <a href="https://theconversation.com/what-a-disaster-federal-government-slashes-covid-payment-when-people-need-it-most-175146">original article</a>. Image: Mick Tsikas/AAP

Retirement Income

Government funds bail out festival cancellations with Event Saver Fund

As another year of music festivals and summer events have been cancelled in the eleventh hour by the pandemic, the NSW government has put their hand up to help the arts. The state government recently announced the Event Saver Fund, which is aimed at financially supporting the state’s music industry that has been devastated by the latest wave of Omicron. At a recent press conference, NSW Treasurer Matt Kean revealed that a $43 million fund has been established for organisers of the cancelled events to be financially supported if they've been cancelled or may be affected by changes to public health orders. “This fund is a $43 million fund that will ensure that we will underwrite sunk costs for the festivals that could be impacted by changes to public health orders,” he said. The fund will help organisers to pay their staff and suppliers, as well as recoup other costs lost in the event planning that got cancelled or cut short due to lockdowns or border closures. Minister for the Arts Ben Franklin said the vital funding will give event organisers to continue to plan festivals without the stress of a last-minute cancellation costing them thousands. “Major events provide tremendous social benefits to the community, bringing us together to enjoy live performances,” he said. “As we look to rebound from the effects of the past two years, this funding will help support local jobs and ensure major event organisers can plan with confidence to safely deliver their events in 2022/23.” Australian Festivals Association chair Julia Robertson welcomed the Event Saver package, and emphasised how much the industry has suffered since the start of the pandemic. “This package is really great for building confidence,” she said. “For helping those festivals that have got events coming up — to maintain those festival lineups — but also to those events that have had to be cancelled over the last couple of weeks due to the Omicron variant. “We will be able to help those events recover some of those costs that they’ve lost. We’ve got a really long way to building that confidence for the festival industry, so thank you.” Image credits: Getty Images

Music

That reverse mortgage scheme the government is about to re-announce, how does it work?

Many Australians have never heard of the <a href="https://www.servicesaustralia.gov.au/pension-loans-scheme">Pension Loans Scheme</a>, and many more assume it’s just for pensioners, which is understandable given its name. That’s why the government is poised to rename it the Home Equity Access Scheme and make the interest rate it charges more reasonable, in the mid-year budget update on Thursday. The soon to be renamed scheme is best thought of as a <a href="https://www.investopedia.com/mortgage/reverse-mortgage/">reverse mortgage</a> where instead of paying down a home loan each month, the homeowner borrows more against the home each month, paying off what’s borrowed when the home is eventually sold. Although reverse mortgages have been provided commercially for some time, the number of providers has shrunk as large banks have <a href="https://download.asic.gov.au/media/4851420/rep-586-published-28-august-2018.pdf">left the field</a> in the face of increased scrutiny and compliance costs. The government version is misleadingly named the Pension Loans Scheme (PLS), even though it is available to all retirees with homes and not just pensioners. It was introduced by the Hawke government in <a href="https://www.aph.gov.au/About_Parliament/Parliamentary_Departments/Parliamentary_Library/FlagPost/2015/February/The_Pension_Loans_Scheme">1985</a>. The maximum amount that can be made available under the scheme and the age pension combined is <a href="https://www.servicesaustralia.gov.au/how-much-you-can-get-under-pension-loans-scheme?context=22546">150% of the full pension.</a> This means a retiree who is on the pension can get extra fortnightly payments from the scheme to bring their total payment up to 150% of the full pension. If the retiree is not on the pension they can get the entire amount of 150% of the pension via the PLS. The payments stop when the loan balance reaches a <a href="https://www.servicesaustralia.gov.au/maximum-loan-amount-under-pension-loans-scheme?context=22546">ceiling</a> which climbs each year the retiree gets older and climbs with increases in the value of the home. The ceiling for a 70-year old with a home worth $1,000,000 is $308,000. The key difference between the PLS and commercial reverse mortgages is that the size of its lump sum payments is limited. Payments under the PLS have no impact on the pension, whereas commercial reverse mortgages can trigger the means test. <a href="https://images.theconversation.com/files/437703/original/file-20211215-13-kxrv2s.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=1000&fit=clip"><img src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/437703/original/file-20211215-13-kxrv2s.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&fit=clip" alt="" /></a> Colin Zhang, Macquarie Business School As attractive as the PLS might appear, hardly any of the four million or so Australians aged 65 and over have taken it up, perhaps as few as <a href="https://newsroom.unsw.edu.au/news/business-law/budget-changes-make-pension-loans-scheme-more-attractive-senior-homeowners">5,000</a> – one in every 800. So in this year’s May budget the government announced two changes to make it more attractive. One was a “<a href="https://cdn.theconversation.com/static_files/files/1902/PLS_2021-22-budget-16_%281%29.pdf">no negative equity guarantee</a>”. Users would never be asked repay more than the value of their property, even if the property fell in value. The other was the ability to take out up to <a href="https://cdn.theconversation.com/static_files/files/1902/PLS_2021-22-budget-16_%281%29.pdf">two lump sums per year</a> totalling up to 50% of the full pension in addition to fortnightly payments. Total government payments would remain capped at 150% of the pension. <h2>New brand, same scheme</h2> That second change won’t begin until July 1, 2022 and is likely to be re-announced in Thursday’s mid-year budget update. Also announced in the budget was a decision to raise awareness of the scheme “through improved public messaging and branding” something which is also likely to be re-announced on Thursday along with the new name. The other change expected on Thursday is a lower interest rate charged on the sums borrowed. In January 2020, the rate was cut from 5.25% to 4.5% in accordance with cuts in other rates. From January next year it should reduce further to <a href="https://www.theaustralian.com.au/nation/politics/scott-morrison-opens-up-mortgage-loan-scheme-to-help-elderly-fund-their-own-retirements/news-story/9f8c56fbba899f6b76c72ce51ceb9331">3.95%</a>. <h2>Attractive, but not riskless</h2> There remain risks associated with taking advantage of the scheme. One is that if you live long enough you are likely to eventually hit the ceiling and be unable to take out any more money, suffering a loss of income. If you chose to sell your home and move to an aged care service, you need to use a big part of your sale proceedings to pay what’s owed. Other risks are that neither the interest rate nor home prices are fixed. Just as the government has cut the rate charged in line with cuts to lower general interest rates, it might well lift it when interest rates climb. And home prices can go down as well as up, meaning that, at worst, all of the value of your home (although no more) can be gobbled up in repayments.<img style="border: none !important; box-shadow: none !important; margin: 0 !important; max-height: 1px !important; max-width: 1px !important; min-height: 1px !important; min-width: 1px !important; opacity: 0 !important; outline: none !important; padding: 0 !important; text-shadow: none !important;" src="https://counter.theconversation.com/content/171671/count.gif?distributor=republish-lightbox-basic" alt="The Conversation" width="1" height="1" /> <a href="https://theconversation.com/profiles/colin-zhang-1234147">Colin Zhang</a>, Lecturer, Department of Actuarial Studies and Business Analytics, <a href="https://theconversation.com/institutions/macquarie-university-1174">Macquarie University</a> and <a href="https://theconversation.com/profiles/ning-wang-1297929">Ning Wang</a>, Associate Research Fellow, <a href="https://theconversation.com/institutions/university-of-wollongong-711">University of Wollongong</a> This article is republished from <a href="https://theconversation.com">The Conversation</a> under a Creative Commons license. Read the <a href="https://theconversation.com/that-reverse-mortgage-scheme-the-government-is-about-to-re-announce-how-does-it-work-171671">original article</a>. Image: Shutterstock

Real Estate

Health experts call for government ban on the sale of cigarettes and other tobacco products

Image: Getty Australia’s state governments must set an end date for the sale of cigarettes through retailers including supermarkets, according to public health experts. In an article published in the Medical Journal of Australia on Monday, researchers from the University of Queensland said anti-smoking measures such as plain-packaging laws and health warnings were no longer enough, insisting Australia now needed to address the supply side of tobacco consumption. The researchers said a product as harmful as cigarettes should not be available for purchase in supermarkets. “Despite tobacco’s legal status, it fails to meet consumer safety standards,” the authors wrote. “Consumer and drug regulatory systems would prohibit the sale of cigarettes as a new consumer product today. “Governments should set target end dates for tobacco sales and support retailers to transition to a smoke‐free society.” Lead author of the article and tobacco health expert Coral Gartner said Australia’s state governments were falling behind the general public in anti-smoking sentiment. “Most international governments, including Australia, are lagging behind the significant public support for ending tobacco retailing,” Dr Gartner said. “Research shows half of all adults in Australia, New Zealand, Canada, England and Hong Kong want tobacco sales phased out.” Last November, the Netherlands passed laws preventing supermarkets from selling cigarettes from 2024 and in April, the New Zealand government proposed several new measures that would significantly reduce the number of tobacco retail outlets. Dr Gartner said that setting a specific date for when the sale of cigarettes would end in Australian would provide tobacco retailers with certainty and assistance in future planning, make it easier for people to quit smoking, and assist the government to plan for reductions in tobacco tax revenue.

Caring

Museum calls on Dutch government for a $270 million helping hand

The Dutch government is backing an expensive venture by Amsterdam’s Rijksmuseum to purchase a $270 million Rembrandt self-portrait. The painting, known as The Standard Bearer (1636), is one of the last masterpieces by the Dutch artist still in the hands of a private collector. The artwork is going up for sale by the Rothschild family, who have had the painting in their possession since 1844, after it belonged to the King of England. Financial pledges have come from The Rembrandt Association, the Rijksmuseum Fund, the Dutch state and the museum’s acquisition fund in order to afford the artwork’s hefty price tag. According to the Rijksmuseum director Taco Dibbits, the organisation has been trying to procure the painting for almost five years. In a statement, the museum said that the 22 works by Rembrandt in the Hague’s collection provide an “overview of the artist’s life,” and that the present work, being “one of the first paintings that Rembrandt made after he established himself as an independent artist in Amsterdam … has so far been the missing link in this overview.” While the sale has yet to be closed, Dutch officials are already celebrating the new addition to the world-famous collection. Ingrid van Engelshoven, the Dutch minister of education, culture, and science, said in a statement, “After a journey of centuries, The Standard Bearer is now returning home for good.” Image credits: Getty Images

Art

We’re back!

<div class="post_body_wrapper"> <div class="post_body"> <div class="body_text redactor-styles redactor-in"> Facebook has finally removed the ban on news and other information sites in Australia, restoring hundreds of pages in an instant. The ban included local sites, such as ABC and The Guardian but also included international pages such as The Wall Street Journal and CNN. The ban lasted eight days and caught attention worldwide, but was lifted one day after the Australian Government passed its news media bargaining code, according to <a rel="noopener" href="https://www.dailytelegraph.com.au/technology/facebooks-australian-news-ban-remains-despite-senate-passing-news-code-changes/news-story/f1b8b029bc99a9d34c77c56a9a221ec3" target="_blank">The Daily Telegraph</a>. The code included amendments discussed in talks between Treasurer Josh Frydenberg and Facebook CEO Mark Zuckerberg. Facebook removed news content in response to the federal media bargaining code as it aims to force internet giants to pay news publishers for generating content that the websites host. Facebook's global affairs vice-president Nick Clegg argued that Facebook had no choice but to remove all news content from the platform to evade Australia's news code. Mr Clegg said executives felt they had only two responses to laws drafted by Australia’s competition watchdog: agree to “open-ended subsidies … or remove news from our platform in Australia”. “It wasn’t a decision taken lightly,” he said. “But when it came, we had to take action quickly because it was legally necessary to do so before the new law came into force, and so we erred on the side of over-enforcement. “In doing so, some content was blocked inadvertently. Much of this was, thankfully, reversed quickly.” </div> </div> </div>

News

Qatar airport confirm dumped baby is still alive

<div class="post_body_wrapper"> <div class="post_body"> <div class="body_text redactor-styles redactor-in"> Doha, capital of Qatar, airport officials have confirmed that a newborn located in one of its terminals is alive and well. Earlier in October at Hamad International Airport, staff discovered an infant, described as a premature baby, "abandoned" in the terminal bathroom. After this incident, female Australian passengers were allegedly invasively searched, and the Australian Government has since "formally registered our serious concerns" with Qatari authorities. Women at the airport, including 13 Australians, were allegedly removed from flights, detained and forced to undergo an invasive inspection in an ambulance on the tarmac. None of the women were told about the abandoned newborn before the strip searches began. An Australian Government spokesperson told 7NEWS that it is “deeply concerned” at the “unacceptable treatment of some female passengers on a recent Qatar Airways flight at Doha Airport”. “The advice that has been provided indicates that the treatment of the women concerned was offensive, grossly inappropriate, and beyond circumstances in which the women could give free and informed consent. “The Government has formally registered our serious concerns about this incident with Qatari authorities. “The Department of Foreign Affairs and Trade is engaged on this matter through diplomatic channels.” A Hamad International Airport spokesman told <a rel="noopener" href="https://7news.com.au/news/world/doha-airport-officials-confirm-dumped-baby-is-still-alive-c-1457385" target="_blank" class="editor-rtflink">7News</a> that the newborn infant was found on October 2. “The newborn infant was immediately provided with medical attention and care,” he said. “Medical professionals expressed concern to officials about the health and welfare of a mother who had just given birth and requested she be located prior to departing HIA. “Individuals who had access to the specific area of the airport where the newborn infant was found were asked to assist in the query.” The newborn remains unidentified, and “is safe under the professional care of medical and social workers”. However, Shadow Resources Minister Joel Fitzgibbons said that authorities should "await confirmation about the accuracy of the report". “If true, this effectively amounts to state-sanctioned sexual assault and we should all be very, very concerned,” he said. “And the government here in Australia should be most robust in its responses.” </div> </div> </div>

Travel Trouble

Paid parental leave needs an overhaul if governments want us to have “one for the country”

As Australia and New Zealand face the realities of slow growth, or even a decline in population, it’s time to ask if their governments are doing enough. Especially if they want to encourage people to have more babies. New Zealand’s fertility rate has hit an all-time <a href="https://www.scoop.co.nz/stories/PO2008/S00108/nz-fertility-rate-is-at-all-time-low.htm">low</a> of 1.71 children per woman. The opposition National Party <a href="https://www.stuff.co.nz/national/politics/122653707/election-2020-national-launches-first-1000-days-policy-promises-3000-for-new-parents">wants</a> to entice parents with a NZ$3,000 “baby bonus” to be spent on family services. Australia’s population growth rate is <a href="https://www.abc.net.au/news/2020-07-24/treasurer-josh-frydenberg-baby-boom-economy-recovery-coronavirus/12489678">forecast</a> to be 0.6% in 2021, its lowest since 1916. Federal Treasurer Josh Frydenburg urged Australians to have more children, reminding many of then treasurer Peter Costello’s <a href="https://www.theage.com.au/politics/federal/budget-bonus-for-mothers-and-families-20060508-ge29qi.html">encouragement to those who can</a> to have “one for mum, one for dad and one for the country”. But if governments want people to procreate for their nation, they must be prepared to help them, and that includes increases in paid parental leave. The current system New Zealand <a href="https://doi.org/10.26686/pq.v2i1.4189">introduced</a> <a href="https://www.employment.govt.nz/leave-and-holidays/parental-leave/types-of-parental-leave/">paid parental leave</a> in 1999, first as a tax credit then as a cash payment. Over time, the length was increased from 12 to 26 weeks, currently paid to <a href="https://www.employment.govt.nz/leave-and-holidays/parental-leave/parental-leave-payment/payment-amount/">a maximum of NZ$606.46 a week</a>. There is no paid parental leave offered to dads or partners (although they are legally entitled to two weeks’ unpaid leave). But mums may transfer a portion of the 26 weeks to the dad or partner. Ten years ago, Australia was one of the last countries in the developed world to adopt government-funded maternity leave. It offers the primary carer (<a href="https://grattan.edu.au/report/cheaper-childcare/">99.5% of the time, the mum</a>) <a href="https://www.fairwork.gov.au/leave/maternity-and-parental-leave/paid-parental-leave">18 weeks of paid leave at the minimum wage</a> (<a href="https://www.fairwork.gov.au/how-we-will-help/templates-and-guides/fact-sheets/minimum-workplace-entitlements/minimum-wages">currently A$753.80</a>). Only two weeks at the minimum wage is provided for the secondary carer. When you compare the payment rates of parental leave to average salaries in each country (table below), Australia’s 18 weeks drops to an equivalent of 7.9 weeks annual average salary and New Zealand from 26 weeks to 15.5 weeks. These low leave payments appear even less generous when compared to the <a href="https://www.wgea.gov.au/sites/default/files/documents/Parental-leave-and-gender-equality.pdf">OECD average</a> of 54.1 weeks of paid parental leave for mums and <a href="https://www.oecd.org/els/soc/PF2_1_Parental_leave_systems.pdf">eight weeks </a> for dads or partners. While employers often top up state-paid parental leave entitlements, this is not always the case. For example, Australia’s <a href="https://www.wgea.gov.au/sites/default/files/documents/Parental-leave-and-gender-equality.pdf">Workplace Gender Equality Agency</a> found more than 70% of financial services companies offered paid parental leave, but more than 80% of retail businesses did not. Earning or caring Given that dads or partners on both sides of the ditch face either no income for two weeks or less then half of the average income, it’s no wonder they choose to keep working to support their families financially. We know from an Australian Human Rights Commission <a href="https://humanrights.gov.au/sites/default/files/document/publication/SWP_Report_2014.pdf">study in 2014</a> that 85% of dads and partners surveyed took up to four weeks’ leave, and more than half said they would have liked to take more to spend time with mum and newborn. There are <a href="https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/full/10.1111/jftr.12363">substantial benefits</a> including an increase in the mental health and well‐being of fathers and their children as well as greater harmony for the couple. Motherhood <a href="https://theconversation.com/how-parenthood-continues-to-cost-women-more-than-men-97243">penalises</a> women, contributing to significantly <a href="https://www.abc.net.au/news/2019-07-30/superannation-young-women-fear-retirement-canberra-ywca-report/11365120">lower lifetime earnings</a>. Not to mention the “second shift” of domestic duties they do if they are balancing work and family. If dads and partners spend more time with their families earlier on in their children’s lives, this increases the likelihood that household chores and caring responsibilities will be more <a href="https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/abs/10.5172/jfs.2014.20.1.19">evenly distributed</a>. Womens’ employment has also <a href="https://www.abc.net.au/news/2020-06-10/women-have-lost-jobs-faster-than-men-during-coronavirus-but-are/12338598">been</a> hit harder by the COVID-19 pandemic. This includes receiving <a href="https://www.abc.net.au/news/2020-06-09/childcare-changes-to-disproportionately-affect-women/12333398">less government assistance</a>. The move to roll back free child care in Australia was <a href="https://www.theguardian.com/australia-news/2020/jun/08/australian-government-to-end-free-childcare-on-12-july-in-move-labor-says-will-snap-families">called</a> a “betrayal of Australian families” and “an anti-women move” by Greens Senator Mehreen Faruqi. In addition to the “second shift”, women bear the brunt of a “third shift” – known as <a href="https://www.theguardian.com/world/2017/may/26/gender-wars-household-chores-comic">the mental load</a>. The business of running the family is characteristically undervalued and unpaid emotional labour, which is <a href="https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/pdf/10.1080/15487733.2020.1776561?needAccess=true">mostly</a> taken care of by women. For many dual-income families, lockdown has changed the allocation of household chores and caring responsibilities. <a href="https://www.abc.net.au/news/2020-06-20/coronavirus-covid19-domestic-work-housework-gender-gap-women-men/12369708">Research</a> shows the gap between men and women has narrowed. More women in the workplace In the upcoming New Zealand election, it will be interesting to see how the different parties deal with supporting families, the gender pay gap and female workforce participation. If ever an example was needed to show how satisfying a non-traditional care arrangement can be for both parents, consider <a href="https://www.afr.com/politics/stayathome-dad-to-help-jacinda-ardern-be-pm--a-mum-20180119-h0kz9h">stay-at-home dad Clarke Gayford</a>, who supports Jacinda Ardern to be New Zealand’s prime minister. Our previous <a href="https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S1441358220300070">research</a> found government policy alone does not increase the uptake of dads or partners taking parental leave. Changing workplace norms to support them is a key factor in creating flexible work arrangements and increasing parental leave uptake. Working from home has made <a href="https://www.smh.com.au/business/the-economy/there-s-a-silver-lining-for-fathers-in-the-covid-crisis-20200424-p54n1z.html">fatherhood</a> more visible and increased the time some Australian dads <a href="https://www.abc.net.au/news/2020-06-20/coronavirus-covid19-domestic-work-housework-gender-gap-women-men/12369708">spend</a> caring for their children. In a post-pandemic world, care responsibilities can no longer be labelled a private matter. New Zealand and Australia both have parental leave policies that fail to offer families real choices about care arrangements. Dads and partners need their own leave entitlements and greater acceptance of their <a href="https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/jftr.12363">caring responsibilities</a> in the workplace. These changes will challenge caring as women’s work, ease the burden on women and may even boost the fertility rate. Written by Sarah Duffy, Western Sydney University; Michelle O'Shea, Western Sydney University, and Patrick van Esch, Auckland University of Technology. Republished with permission of <a href="https://theconversation.com/paid-parental-leave-needs-an-overhaul-if-governments-want-us-to-have-one-for-the-country-145627">The Conversation.</a>

Travel Tips

Lebanon's entire government resigns after Beirut explosion

<div class="post_body_wrapper"> <div class="post_body"> <div class="body_text "> Lebanese Prime Minister Hassan Diab has announced that his entire Government's resignation after the deadly explosion in Beirut that killed more than 150 people. In a fiery speech, Mr Diab slammed Lebanon’s ruling elite for allowing “an apparatus of corruption bigger than the state”, and compared the explosion to an “earthquake that rocked the country”. “We have fought valiantly and with dignity,” he said, referring to his cabinet. “Between us and change is big powerful barrier. “We have decided to stand with the people.” The entire resignation of the government comes after three cabinet ministers and seven members of parliament quit. The country's health ministry confirmed that at least 160 people were killed, with 6,000 wounded and around 20 people remaining missing. Lebanese protestors are asking how a massive amount of ammonium nitrate was left unsecured at the port for years, with the country's top officials have promised a thorough investigation. Protestors were also furious about security forces using tear gas against victims of the blast instead of helping them clean their homes and find a safe place to stay. “We need an international investigation and trial to tell us who killed our friends and all the other victims, because they might try to conceal the truth,” said Michelle. However, the country's top officials have stopped short of agreeing to an independent prove led by foreign experts, which is a demand of the protestors. </div> </div> </div>

News

Jacinda Ardern slams Australian government telling Kiwis to go home

New Zealand Prime Minister Jacinda Ardern has hit out at Australia’s new ruling on temporary visa holders after acting Immigration Minister Alan Tudge told those unable to support themselves or access government schemes “it’s time to go home”. The Australian government has advised to the 2.17 million people in Australia on temporary visas, including 672,000 New Zealand citizens on the 444 visa, that they should leave if they could not sustain themselves for six months outside the critical sectors. The sectors are health, aged and disability care, agriculture, food processing and childcare. “Temporary visa holders who are unable to support themselves under these arrangements over the next six months are strongly encouraged to return home,” Tudge said on Saturday. “For these individuals, it’s time to go home, and they should make arrangements as quickly as possible.” Ardern said she had been taken aback by Tudge’s statement. She said many Kiwis were not eligible to access the JobKeeper scheme despite making up “a key part” of the Australian workforce. “If they wish for Australia to be in a position to gear up in the aftermath of the outbreak then they will need a workforce to do that and New Zealand make up that workforce,” Ardern said. “They on average earn more and pay more taxes than others. They are a key part of the Australian economy and I would have thought they wouldn’t want to be so quick to lose them.” Kiwis who arrived in Australia before February 26, 2001 are eligible for Centrelink and JobKeeper benefits. The 444 visa holders who arrived after 2001 had access to the JobKeeper payments, but not the JobSeeker payments. However, others in casual work or without employment have no support, <a href="https://www.sbs.com.au/news/jacinda-ardern-hits-out-at-australia-s-time-to-go-home-temporary-visa-advice">SBS</a> reported. “New Zealanders should consider returning to New Zealand if they are unable to support themselves through these provisions, work or family support,” Tudge said.

Legal

Hackers are getting smarter by targeting councils and governments

In recent weeks, <a href="https://www.zdnet.com/article/city-of-johannesburg-held-for-ransom-by-hacker-gang/">Johannesburg’s computer network was held for ransom</a> by a hacker group called Shadow Kill Hackers. This was the <a href="https://www.bbc.com/news/technology-49125853">second time</a> in three months a ransomware attack has hit South Africa’s largest city. This time, however, hackers didn’t pose the usual threat. Rather than denying the city <a href="https://www.hkcert.org/ransomware.hk/ransomware-basic.html">access to its data</a>, the standard blackmail in a ransomware attack, they threatened to publish it online. This style of attack, known as <a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ransomware#Leakware_(also_called_Doxware)">leakware</a>, allows hackers to target more victims in a single attack – in this case the city’s citizens. The latest Johannesburg attack was the second leakware attack of this type ever recorded, and a similar attack could hit Australia soon. And although our current cyberattack defences are more advanced than many countries, we could be taken by surprise because of the unique way leakware operates. A new plan of attack During the Johannesburg attack, city employees received a computer message saying hackers had “compromised all passwords and sensitive data such as finance and personal population information”. In exchange for not uploading the stolen data online, destroying it and revealing how they executed the breach, the hackers demanded four bitcoins (worth about A$52,663) - “a small amount of money” for a vast city council, they said. <a href="https://images.theconversation.com/files/299645/original/file-20191031-187903-1ykyg4q.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=1000&fit=clip"><img src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/299645/original/file-20191031-187903-1ykyg4q.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&fit=clip" alt="" /></a> The hacker group operated a Twitter account, on which they posted a photo showing the directories they had access to. ShadowKillGroup/twitter In this case, access to data was not denied. But the threat of releasing data online can put enormous pressure on authorities to comply, or they risk releasing citizens’ sensitive information, and in doing so, betraying their trust. The city of Johannesburg decided <a href="https://coingeek.com/we-shall-not-pay-the-ransom-johannesburg-tells-hackers/">not to pay the ransom</a> and to restore systems on its own. Yet we don’t know whether the data has been released online or not. The attack suggests cybercriminals will continue to experiment and innovate in a bid to defeat current prevention and defence measures against leakware attacks. <a href="https://images.theconversation.com/files/299644/original/file-20191031-187898-hhld2p.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=1000&fit=clip"><img src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/299644/original/file-20191031-187898-hhld2p.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&fit=clip" alt="" /></a> This login screen message was displayed on computers in Johannesburg following the attack. pule_madumo/twitter Another notable leakware attack happened a decade ago against the US state of Virginia. <a href="https://www.govtech.com/security/Cyber-Criminal-Demands-10-Million.html">Hackers stole</a> prescription drug information from the state and tried obtaining a ransom by threatening to either release it online, or sell it to the highest bidder. When to trust the word of a cybercriminal? Ransomware attack victims face two options: <a href="https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S1361372316300367">pay, or don’t pay</a>. If they choose the latter, they need to try other methods to recover the data being kept from them. If a ransom is paid, criminals will often decrypt the data as promised. They do this to encourage compliance in future victims. That said, paying a ransom <a href="https://www.bleepingcomputer.com/news/security/paying-the-coverton-ransomware-may-not-get-your-data-back/">doesn’t guarantee the release or decryption of data</a>. The type of attack experienced in Johannesburg poses a new incentive for criminals. Once the attackers have stolen the data, and have been paid the ransom, the data still has extractive value to them. This gives them <a href="https://arxiv.org/pdf/1707.06247.pdf">duelling incentives</a> about whether to publish the data or not, as publishing it would mean they could continue to extort value from the city by targeting citizens directly. In cases where victims decide not to pay, the solution so far has been to have strong, separate and updated <a href="https://www.csoonline.com/article/3331981/how-to-protect-backups-from-ransomware.html">data backups</a>, or use one of <a href="https://www.nomoreransom.org/en/index.html">the passkeys available online</a>. Passkeys are decryption tools that help regain access to files once they’ve been held at ransom, by applying a repository of keys to unlock the most common types of ransomware. But these solutions don’t address the negative outcomes of leakware attacks, because the “<a href="https://www2.deloitte.com/content/dam/Deloitte/bm/Documents/risk/cayman-islands/2017%20Deloitte%20-%20Taking%20data%20hostage%20-%20The%20rise%20of%20ransomware.PDF">hostage</a>” data is not meant to be released to the victim, but to the public. In this way, criminals manage to innovate their way out of being defeated by backups and decryption keys. The traditional ransomware attack Historically, <a href="https://www.techopedia.com/definition/4337/ransomware">ransomware attacks denied users access to their data, systems or services</a> by locking them out of their computers, files or servers. This is done through obtaining passwords and login details and changing them fraudulently through the process of <a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Phishing">phishing</a>. It can also be done by encrypting the data and converting it to a format that makes it inaccessible to the original user. In such cases, criminals contact the victim and pressure them into paying a ransom in exchange for their data. The criminal’s success depends on both the value the data holds for the victim, and the victim’s inability to retrieve the data from elsewhere. Some cybercriminal groups have even developed complex online “<a href="https://www.computerworld.com/article/3173698/ransomware-customer-support-chat-reveals-criminals-ruthlessness.html">customer support</a>” assistance channels, to help victims buy cryptocurrency or otherwise assist in the process of paying ransoms. Trouble close to home Facing the risk of losing sensitive information, companies and governments often pay ransoms. This is <a href="https://www.synergetic.net.au/ransomware-attacks-on-the-rise-in-australia/">especially true</a> in Australia. Last year, 81% of Australian <a href="https://www.synergetic.net.au/ransomware-attacks-on-the-rise-in-australia/">companies</a> that experienced a cyberattack were held at ransom, and 51% of these paid. Generally, paying tends to <a href="http://www.rmmagazine.com/2016/05/02/ransomware-attacks-pose-growing-threat/">increase the likelihood</a> of future attacks, extending vulnerability to more targets. This is why ransomware is a rising global threat. In the first quarter of 2019, <a href="https://www.mcafee.com/enterprise/en-us/assets/reports/rp-quarterly-threats-aug-2019.pdf">ransomware attacks went up by 118%</a>. They also became more targeted towards governments, and the healthcare and legal sectors. Attacks on these sectors are now more lucrative than ever. The threat of leakware attacks is increasing. And as they become more advanced, Australian city councils and organisations should adapt their defences to brace for a new wave of sophisticated onslaught. As history has taught us, it’s <a href="https://www.theguardian.com/australia-news/2019/oct/01/systems-shut-down-in-victorian-hospitals-after-suspected-cyber-attack">better to be safe</a> than sorry.<img style="border: none !important; box-shadow: none !important; margin: 0 !important; max-height: 1px !important; max-width: 1px !important; min-height: 1px !important; min-width: 1px !important; opacity: 0 !important; outline: none !important; padding: 0 !important; text-shadow: none !important;" src="https://counter.theconversation.com/content/126190/count.gif?distributor=republish-lightbox-basic" alt="The Conversation" width="1" height="1" /> <a href="https://theconversation.com/profiles/roberto-musotto-872263">Roberto Musotto</a>, Cyber Security Cooperative Research Centre Postdoctoral Fellow, <a href="http://theconversation.com/institutions/edith-cowan-university-720">Edith Cowan University</a> and <a href="https://theconversation.com/profiles/brian-nussbaum-874786">Brian Nussbaum</a>, Assistant Professor at College of Emergency Preparedness, Homeland Security and Cybersecurity, <a href="http://theconversation.com/institutions/university-at-albany-state-university-of-new-york-1978">University at Albany, State University of New York</a> This article is republished from <a href="http://theconversation.com">The Conversation</a> under a Creative Commons license. Read the <a href="https://theconversation.com/hackers-are-now-targeting-councils-and-governments-threatening-to-leak-citizen-data-126190">original article</a>.

Technology

Call for independent watchdog to monitor NZ government use of artificial intelligence

New Zealand is a leader in government use of artificial intelligence (AI). It is part of a <a href="https://www.digital.govt.nz/digital-government/international-partnerships/the-digital-9/">global network of countries</a> that use predictive algorithms in government decision making, for anything from the optimal scheduling of public hospital beds to whether an offender should be released from prison, based on their likelihood of reoffending, or the <a href="https://www.acc.co.nz/about-us/news-media/latest-news/acc-speeds-up-claims-approval/">efficient processing of simple insurance claims</a>. But the official use of AI algorithms in government has been <a href="https://www.data.govt.nz/assets/Uploads/Algorithm-Assessment-Report-Oct-2018.pdf">in the spotlight in recent years</a>. On the plus side, AI can enhance the accuracy, efficiency and fairness of day-to-day decision making. But concerns have also been expressed regarding transparency, meaningful human control, data protection and bias. In a <a href="https://www.cs.otago.ac.nz/research/ai/AI-Law/NZLF%20report.pdf">report</a> released, we recommend New Zealand establish a new independent regulator to monitor and address the risks associated with these digital technologies. AI and transparency There are three important issues regarding transparency. One relates to the inspectability of algorithms. Some aspects of New Zealand government practice are reassuring. Unlike some countries that use commercial AI products, New Zealand has tended to build government AI tools in-house. This means that we know how the tools work. But intelligibility is another issue. Knowing how an AI system works <a href="https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s13347-018-0330-6">doesn’t guarantee</a> the decisions it reaches will be understood by the people affected. The best performing AI systems are often extremely complex. To make explanations intelligible, additional technology is required. A decision-making system can be supplemented with an “explanation system”. These are additional algorithms “bolted on” to the main algorithm we seek to understand. Their job is to construct simpler models of how the underlying algorithms work – simple enough to be understandable to people. We believe explanation systems will be increasingly important as AI technology advances. A final type of transparency relates to public access to information about the AI systems used in government. The public should know what AI systems their government uses as well as how well they perform. Systems should be regularly evaluated and summary results made available to the public in a systematic format. New Zealand’s law and transparency Our <a href="https://www.cs.otago.ac.nz/research/ai/AI-Law/NZLF%20report.pdf">report</a> takes a detailed look at how well New Zealand law currently handles these transparency issues. New Zealand doesn’t have laws specifically tailored towards algorithms, but some are relevant in this context. For instance, New Zealand’s Official Information Act (<a href="http://legislation.govt.nz/act/public/1982/0156/107.0/DLM65628.html">OIA</a>) provides a right to reasons for decisions by official agencies, and this is likely to apply to algorithmic decisions just as much as human ones. This is in <a href="http://classic.austlii.edu.au/au/journals/SydLawRw/2015/22.html">notable contrast to Australia</a>, which doesn’t impose a general duty on public officials to provide reasons for their decisions. But even the OIA would come up short where decisions are made or supported by opaque decision systems. That is why we recommend that predictive algorithms used by government, whether developed commercially or in-house, must feature in a public register, must be publicly inspectable, and (if necessary) must be supplemented with explanation systems. Human control and data protection Another issue relates to human control. Some of the concerns around algorithmic decision-making are best addressed by making sure there is a “human in the loop,” with a human having final sign off on any important decision. However, we don’t think this is likely to be an adequate solution in the most important cases. A persistent theme of research in industrial psychology is that humans become overly trusting and uncritical of automated systems, especially when those systems are reliable most of the time. Just adding a human “in the loop” will not always produce better outcomes. Indeed in certain contexts, human collaboration will offer false reassurance, rendering AI-assisted decisions <a href="https://researchportal.bath.ac.uk/en/publications/effective-forecasting-and-judgmental-adjustments-an-empirical-eva">less accurate</a>. With respect to data protection, we flag the problem of “inferred data”. This is data inferred about people rather than supplied by them directly (just as when Amazon infers that you might like a certain book on the basis of books it knows you have purchased). Among other recommendations, our report calls for New Zealand to consider the legal status of inferred data, and whether it should be treated the same way as primary data. Bias and discrimination A final area of concern is bias. Computer systems might look unbiased, but if they are relying on “dirty data” from previous decisions, they could have the effect of “baking in” discriminatory assumptions and practices. New Zealand’s anti-discrimination laws are likely to apply to algorithmic decisions, but making sure discrimination doesn’t creep back in will require ongoing monitoring. The report also notes that while “individual rights” — for example, against discrimination — are important, we <a href="https://scholarship.law.duke.edu/dltr/vol16/iss1/2/">can’t entirely rely on them</a> to guard against all of these risks. For one thing, affected people will often be those with the least economic or political power. So while they may have the “right” not to be discriminated against, it will be cold comfort to them if they have no way of enforcing it. There is also the danger that they won’t be able to see the whole picture, to know whether an algorithm’s decisions are affecting different sections of the community differently. To enable a broader discussion about bias, public evaluation of AI tools should arguably include results for specific sub-populations, as well as for the whole population. A new independent body will be essential if New Zealand wants to harness the benefits of algorithmic tools while avoiding or minimising their risks to the public. Alistair Knott, James Maclaurin and Joy Liddicoat, collaborators on the <a href="https://www.cs.otago.ac.nz/research/ai/AI-Law/">AI and Law in New Zealand</a>project, have contributed to the writing of this piece. Written by John Zerilli and Colin Gavaghan. Republished with permission of <a href="https://theconversation.com/call-for-independent-watchdog-to-monitor-nz-government-use-of-artificial-intelligence-117589">The Conversation</a>.

Technology

Facebook founder Mark Zuckerberg’s "new rules" for the internet

After years of rejecting calls for increased regulatory oversight of Facebook, <a href="https://www.facebook.com/zuck">founder and CEO Mark Zuckerberg</a> has now <a href="https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/mark-zuckerberg-the-internet-needs-new-rules-lets-start-in-these-four-areas/2019/03/29/9e6f0504-521a-11e9-a3f7-78b7525a8d5f_story.html">called for</a> more cooperation with government in dealing with problems posed by internet platforms and emergent internet technologies. But the social media giant needs to do more than just talk about a solution. What we’re waiting for now are some clear indications that Zuckerberg will take a role in making change real. It’s important that Facebook, an online platform with <a href="https://newsroom.fb.com/company-info/">more than two billion users</a>, navigates the complexities of platform governance by engaging users, governments and civil society groups in that process. Zuckerberg’s article followed <a href="https://www.bbc.com/news/technology-47255380">criticism</a> regarding how the social media platform is used by some for <a href="https://www.telegraph.co.uk/technology/2018/12/28/zuckerberg-facebook-can-never-fully-stop-use-platform-election/">political interference</a>, or to spread harmful material, such as the <a href="https://www.nzherald.co.nz/business/news/article.cfm?c_id=3&objectid=12214281">footage from the alleged gunman who live-streamed his attack</a> on two New Zealand mosques. In an opinion piece <a href="https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/mark-zuckerberg-the-internet-needs-new-rules-lets-start-in-these-four-areas/2019/03/29/9e6f0504-521a-11e9-a3f7-78b7525a8d5f_story.html">in the Washington Post</a> over the weekend (and available on <a href="https://www.facebook.com/zuck/posts/10107013839885441">his Facebook page</a>), Zuckerberg wrote: Every day, we make decisions about what speech is harmful, what constitutes political advertising, and how to prevent sophisticated cyberattacks. But he says companies alone should not be the ones to set up rules on what is acceptable. I believe we need a more active role for governments and regulators. By updating the rules for the Internet, we can preserve what’s best about it — the freedom for people to express themselves and for entrepreneurs to build new things — while also protecting society from broader harms. Four steps for change Zuckerberg argues that four areas warrant deeper cooperation: <ul> <li>harmful content</li> <li>election integrity</li> <li>privacy</li> <li>data portability.</li> </ul> To tackle harmful content, he suggests the creation of an independent body to review Facebook’s content moderation decisions. He also wants the formation of a set of standardised rules for harmful content. For election integrity, he bemoans the inconsistency and inadequacy of existing laws for electoral advertising and media. As for privacy, he points to the <a href="https://www.wired.co.uk/article/what-is-gdpr-uk-eu-legislation-compliance-summary-fines-2018">European Union’s General Data Protection Regulation</a> as a useful starting point. Finally, and perhaps most surprisingly <a href="https://techcrunch.com/2018/04/13/free-the-social-graph/facebook-free-the-social-graph/">given Facebook’s history</a>, Zuckerberg argues legislation should establish and protect data portability rights. This would empower users with access to their data, and give them the ability to choose to take that data to other platforms. Zuckerberg wrote: I believe Facebook has a responsibility to help address these issues, and I’m looking forward to discussing them with lawmakers around the world. We’ve built advanced systems for finding harmful content, stopping election interference and making ads more transparent. But people shouldn’t have to rely on individual companies addressing these issues by themselves. We should have a broader debate about what we want as a society and how regulation can help. These four areas are important, but, of course, there’s more to discuss. While there’s certainly more to say about each of the issues that Zuckerberg has highlighted, for now, let’s consider the prospect of increased cooperation, and the pursuit of better online governance. Worth seeking, even if it's difficult It’s welcome to see a new enthusiasm from Zuckerberg regarding engagement with government. His opinion article demonstrates some optimism for unification and standardisation for governance and policing of issues like harmful content and privacy. This is likely because a global unification of standards poses a significantly lower cost to Facebook for conforming to a standardised regulatory approach, rather than dealing with a patchwork of regulatory frameworks from dozens of countries and regulatory agencies. That said, we should hope Zuckerberg stays true to this commitment to increased cooperation, even in the absence of international agreement or standardisation. Whether it is convenient to Facebook or not, it has a duty to its users to operate responsibly. That responsibility should not be abrogated just because international regulatory compliance is difficult. While Zuckerberg has discussed the notion of greater cooperation with governments and regulatory agencies, it’s important this cooperation doesn’t stop at the offices of government and regulatory bodies. Governments may be the arbiters of what is legal in a country or territory, but the legislative demands that are made of Facebook and other internet platforms may not necessarily be just or fair to the people affected by those laws. As an example, I suspect neither Facebook nor its developers particularly want their platform to be used as a tool for the oppression of LGBTQIA+ people <a href="https://www.theguardian.com/world/2017/jul/27/gay-relationships-still-criminalised-countries-report">in countries where homosexuality is criminalised</a>. I’ve noted previously that the responsibilities to balance free expression with socio-cultural norms, personal desires, and local regulatory regimes is a <a href="https://theconversation.com/anxieties-over-livestreams-can-help-us-design-better-facebook-and-youtube-content-moderation-113750">particularly complex task</a>. Unfortunately for Facebook, deeper cooperation with government will not make this any easier. We must consider: when should we expect Facebook to follow the law? And when could we expect Facebook to defy what it considers unjust laws? As a balance to the demands of government, Facebook should also look to engage with civil society organisations like as the <a href="https://www.eff.org/">Electronic Frontiers Foundation</a> or the <a href="https://www.aclu.org/">American Civil Liberties Union</a>, as well as academic researchers to weigh the requests of government against appropriate criticism and discourse. Time to 'update the rules' Zuckerberg’s key argument here is that the current rules governing the internet have allowed a generation of entrepreneurs to “build services that changed the world”. <div class="grid-ten large-grid-nine grid-last content-body content entry-content instapaper_body"> This, he writes, has created a lot of value in people’s lives, but now it’s time for reform: It’s time to update these rules to define clear responsibilities for people, companies and governments going forward.“ It’s equally important that we hold Facebook’s feet to the fires of responsibility, reform, and regulation — to ensure that these latest commitments are more than just hot air. </div> <div class="grid-ten grid-prepend-two large-grid-nine grid-last content-topics topic-list">Written by Andrew Quodling. Republished with permission of <a href="https://theconversation.com/zuckerbergs-new-rules-for-the-internet-must-move-from-words-to-actions-114593">The Conversation</a>.</div>

Technology

Winston Peters' decision on a coalition with Jacinda Ardern as PM puts us in new territory

The price of power. Deputy Prime Minister, four ministers in Cabinet, one more outside Cabinet. And some big policy wins, including immigration. It was a price Jacinda Ardern was prepared to pay, and one that Bill English judged as too high. Over the coming days and hours we will find out more about what finally tipped Winston Peters hand in Labour's favour. But for now we know enough. After days of hard ball negotiation, and talks that Peters dragged out till the 11th hour, Ardern just wanted it more than English. So what can we expect from a Labour - NZ First Government? It won't be the Government many of its supporters thought they were voting for - the Greens are sidelined by Peters', who made it abundantly clear they won't be equal partners in a Labour-NZ First government. But Labour's supporters will take it regardless. Nine long years in the political wilderness is more than enough. And Ardern has sweetened the pill by giving the Greens a proportionate number of ministerial portfolios - though outside, rather than inside, Cabinet. So what was the tipping point? National was not prepared to go as hard or as far on curbing immigration as Labour - that much was made clear by English in a gracious concession speech. And while it's likely National was prepared to offer Peters the same plum roles - foreign affairs and deputy prime minister - it may have found some of NZ First's more interventionist economic demands harder to stomach. The deal with Labour is understood to put NZ First's hands on the economic tiller with a super-sized economic development portfolio, and responsibility for industries such as forest and fisheries, as well as transport and infrastructure. Economic development will likely go to former Labour minister Shane Jones, while NZ First deputy Ron Mark will likely pick up defence. NZ First education spokeswoman Tracey Martin will be the other Cabinet minster, while Fletcher Tabuteau is tipped for a ministerial portfolio outside Cabinet. There were cheers and tears of joy in the Labour caucus rooms when Peters streamed his announcement live. The mood in National would have been grim. But the dragged out negotiations and constant delays suggests they were in it till the end. So why did National not go the extra mile? Peters had tested the patience of National MPs - its demands sought influence disproportionate to NZ First's result of 7 per cent to National's 44 per cent. There was also wariness about history repeating after the disastrous 1996 coalition deal, which sparked National's defeat and nine years in Opposition. Some MPs had openly debated whether National should just sit this one out rather than cosy up to NZ First again. A decision to go with a four-term National government would have weighed just as heavily on Peters; the mood for change would likely have swept them both out. Peters is banking on NZ First being part of a generational change in New Zealand politics and sharing in some of Ardern's inevitable honeymoon. But that is not a given; if there is a honeymoon, it will be for the next generation of political leaders and the change of direction a Labour government and younger leader promises. Ardern will need every bit of that honeymoon to manage a Government that is a first under MMP - nearly one in two voters wanted National, which will enter Opposition with more resources and more MPs than its Labour opponent. It won't just be in the House where Ardern's mettle will be tested - she will need to lead an inclusive enough Government to manage the large number of National - and Green - voters who may feel robbed by Thursday's outcome. Written by Tracy Watkins. Republished with permission of <a href="http://www.stuff.co.nz/" target="_blank">Stuff.co.nz</a>.

News

Desperate plea for government to save the Great Barrier Reef

WWF Australia has issued a desperate plea for supporters to write to the government and urge Prime Minister Malcolm Turnbull to do more to <a href="http://www.oversixty.com.au/travel/domestic-travel/2016/10/5-australian-world-heritage-sites-everyone-should-visit/">save the Great Barrier Reef</a>. This follows research released in early April which suggest a “substantial loss” of coral was expected in 2017, with 90 per cent of the reef already covered in bleached coral. Professor Terry Hughes from the ARC Centre of Excellence for Coral Reef Studies at James Cook told Storyful, “Last year most of the severe bleaching was in the northern 700km stretch of the Great Barrier Reef. This year tragically, that damage has extended much further south. So in 2017 most of the bleaching is the central section of the Great Barrier Reef. “If we look at the last two years in combination, fully two-thirds of the Great Barrier Reef, the northern third and the middle third, is now severely damaged by global warming.” The video above depicts the incredible colourful ocean life on display in the reef, in comparison to the desolate bleached coral. It’s one thing to read about the damage to the reef, but seeing it makes you really understand the gravity of the situation. For more information on the damage to the reef and what you can do to help, <a href="http://www.wwf.org.au/what-we-do/oceans/great-barrier-reef#gs.T0dlAUY" target="_blank">click here</a>. Do you think Australia has done enough to protect the Great Barrier Reef? Video credit: WWF-Australia via Storyful

News

Over 60

News

Shop

Catalogues

Travel

Health

Lifestyle

Finance

Entertainment

Property

Information

Keep up to date

Search

Resistance to mega-tourism is rising in the South Pacific – but will governments put words into action?

“Have a second phone”: Aussie spy chief’s warning on social media use

‘Patently ridiculous’: State government failures have exacerbated Sydney’s flood disaster

Why doesn’t the government have a duty of care to children’s futures?

Australian government appeals ruling protecting Aboriginals from deportation

What a disaster: federal government slashes COVID payment when people need it most

Government funds bail out festival cancellations with Event Saver Fund

That reverse mortgage scheme the government is about to re-announce, how does it work?

Health experts call for government ban on the sale of cigarettes and other tobacco products

Museum calls on Dutch government for a $270 million helping hand

We’re back!

Qatar airport confirm dumped baby is still alive

Paid parental leave needs an overhaul if governments want us to have “one for the country”

Lebanon's entire government resigns after Beirut explosion

Jacinda Ardern slams Australian government telling Kiwis to go home

Hackers are getting smarter by targeting councils and governments

Call for independent watchdog to monitor NZ government use of artificial intelligence

Facebook founder Mark Zuckerberg’s "new rules" for the internet

Winston Peters' decision on a coalition with Jacinda Ardern as PM puts us in new territory

Desperate plea for government to save the Great Barrier Reef

News

Shop

Catalogues

Travel

Health

Lifestyle

Finance

Entertainment

Property

Information

Keep up to date

Search

Resistance to mega-tourism is rising in the South Pacific – but will governments put words into action?

“Have a second phone”: Aussie spy chief’s warning on social media use

‘Patently ridiculous’: State government failures have exacerbated Sydney’s flood disaster

Why doesn’t the government have a duty of care to children’s futures?

Australian government appeals ruling protecting Aboriginals from deportation

What a disaster: federal government slashes COVID payment when people need it most

Government funds bail out festival cancellations with Event Saver Fund

That reverse mortgage scheme the government is about to re-announce, how does it work?

Health experts call for government ban on the sale of cigarettes and other tobacco products

Museum calls on Dutch government for a $270 million helping hand

We’re back!

Qatar airport confirm dumped baby is still alive

Paid parental leave needs an overhaul if governments want us to have “one for the country”

Lebanon's entire government resigns after Beirut explosion

Jacinda Ardern slams Australian government telling Kiwis to go home

Hackers are getting smarter by targeting councils and governments

Call for independent watchdog to monitor NZ government use of artificial intelligence

Facebook founder Mark Zuckerberg’s "new rules" for the internet

Winston Peters' decision on a coalition with Jacinda Ardern as PM puts us in new territory

Desperate plea for government to save the Great Barrier Reef

Join Over60