Kategori: News in English

Former President Donald Trump is the president-elect. He is also a convicted felon, thanks to a jury verdict after a trial in New York state court for a hush money conspiracy before he became president the first time.

Normally, a president-elect gets access to highly classified information, including a version of the President’s Daily Brief on intelligence. And the sitting president has more access and authority over the nation’s secrets than anyone else.

A criminal conviction, however, is a long-standing disqualifier for holding a security clearance – a license to access national security secrets, including documents marked Top Secret. Just being charged criminally can mean denial or loss of clearance too.

Trump also was criminally charged in Georgia state court and the Washington, D.C., federal court in relation to his efforts to overturn the 2020 election, and he was criminally charged in federal court in Florida for obstruction of justice and wrongful retention of a trove of highly sensitive documents after his first term ended.

This dilemma is one that I, as a law professor who teaches and writes about secrecy and who earlier in my career handled classified information while working for the U.S. intelligence community and a U.S. Senate committee, would never have expected.

The good news is that the law has clear answers.

Access because of his elected position

Those answers start with this legal certainty: Presidents get access to classified information because of the office they hold, not because they meet criteria in executive orders and administrative rules. The president technically does not even have a clearance. Practically and legally speaking, the president also sits at the apex of the executive branch’s massive secrecy apparatus.

Therefore, because Trump was elected to a second term, he will again have expansive access to classified information and control over it as of noon on Jan. 20, 2025, when his term begins. He will also have control over secrets and clearances available to others. The American electorate made that decision.

Before Trump again takes office, his access to classified information is in the hands of the current and outgoing president, Joe Biden. Typically, a sitting president authorizes the major party nominees, including their opponent if the incumbent is running, to have access to classified briefings during the campaign. Although U.S. intelligence officials had planned to do the usual briefings this year despite Trump’s criminal record, Trump refused them. He said he worried that the briefers would leak them and blame him.

Now that the election has been decided, reports indicate that Trump will begin receiving intelligence briefings.

It is not yet completely clear, but Trump’s election does appear to be pushing aside his numerous criminal cases. In New York state court, the judge is considering whether to dismiss the case in which he has already been convicted. And the Georgia state case may face years of delay. Because of the Justice Department’s long-standing policy against prosecuting a sitting president, special prosecutor Jack Smith is moving to abandon both federal cases and resign in advance of Trump’s threat to fire him.

The US secrecy system

Most U.S. government employees and contractors do not have or need a security clearance. But those whose jobs involve handling sensitive information must apply for clearance. If their record suggests trustworthiness, they can receive permission to access one or more of the several levels of classified information, including Confidential, Secret and Top Secret.

Federal investigators carefully screen applicants for national security positions and security clearances. To assess a candidate’s trustworthiness, investigators interview the candidate, review their application and search databases. Some investigations involve a polygraph of the candidate and interviews of people they know. Once a clearance is granted, investigators continue to monitor clearance holders.

Key factors the investigators consider include loyalty to the United States, respect for rules and the rule of law, psychological stability, good judgment and good character in terms of trustworthiness and integrity. Substance abuse, marital infidelity or financial problems can suggest poor judgment and vulnerability to blackmail or other kinds of coercion.

The president’s broad power

The president oversees the country’s entire national security secrecy system. The president has the authority to read all classified documents, to classify and declassify almost any piece of information and to oversee the security clearance system. There is no other government official who decides whether the president should have access to the nation’s secrets.

The Supreme Court has held that authority over classification and clearances flows in part from the power the Constitution gives the president. In a dangerous international security environment, the president needs to be able to know secret information about foreign threats, communicate confidentially with foreign colleagues and subordinates, and act with what Alexander Hamilton called in the Federalist Papers “secrecy, and dispatch.”

Like the president, members of Congress get access to classified information by virtue of election, not by going through the regular security clearance process.

Stacks of boxes containing government documents sit in the ballroom of Donald Trump’s Mar-a-Lago estate in Palm Beach, Fla.
U.S. Department of Justice via Getty Images

Normally, Trump wouldn’t get clearance

The dilemma is obvious: Trump will lead a national security enterprise that surely would have denied him a security clearance if he had to follow the rules that apply to his former and future subordinates.

If someone has a criminal indictment or conviction, or a civil judgment involving fraud, they generally cannot get clearance. Such a court record suggests disrespect for the law, dishonesty and problems following rules, which are integral to protecting classified information.

No reasonable background investigator would ignore the staggering evidence against Trump if he were to apply in the normal way.

Under the commonly used SMICE rubric, for example, Trump is all red flags. SMICE stands for categories of temptations to put personal interests over one’s obligations to the nation and to protect classified information: sex, money, ideology, crime and contraband, and ego.

First, sex: There is extensive evidence that Trump committed sexual misconduct. Trump’s conviction on 34 felony counts resulted from prosecutors at trial convincing the jury of what Trump continues to deny: his participation in a conspiracy to falsify business records to facilitate hush money payments to a porn star with whom Trump had sex in 2008 while he was married and his wife was pregnant.

Even marital infidelity on its own can endanger a clearance, because it suggests disloyalty and deception. It creates a dirty secret, creating a risk of blackmail. The public record contains considerable evidence of Trump’s misconduct and infidelity. In recent civil cases, the writer E. Jean Carroll won judgments against Trump for sexually assaulting her in the 1980s and making knowing harmful false statements about it. There are other credible allegations, as well. In 2005, Trump bragged on tape about his sexual assaults, saying that he will “just start kissing” women without consent, and that “when you are famous they let you do anything.”

Second, one of the most common reasons for clearance denial or suspension is credit card debt or other financial problems. They create a motive for taking bribes or doing business deals in exchange for leaking secrets or other disloyalty.

Trump’s businesses have recorded six bankruptcies. A US$450 million fraud judgment from February 2024 has put Trump’s finances in jeopardy. There is credible evidence that his business finances have been linked with foreign governments, particularly Russia.

Third, there is abundant evidence that Trump is a political extremist. Trump told a violent militia before the 2020 election to “stand back and stand by.” The U.S. House Jan. 6 committee found in 2022 that Trump was part of a “multi-part conspiracy” to overturn the lawful results of the 2020 presidential election, an effort that included the violent attack on the U.S. Capitol spearheaded by that same militia, the Proud Boys. Even Trump’s own White House chief of staff, chairman of the joint chiefs of staff and secretary of defense have warned that Trump fits the definition of a fascist, meaning he is a violent authoritarian and a threat to democracy.

On contraband, the Justice Department presented overwhelming evidence that Trump knowingly retained thousands of pages of classified documents after the end of his term in office – at which point his authority to have them expired – and opposed lawful government efforts to retrieve them. That case was later dismissed for other reasons.

A White House staffer holds a folder with secret documents for President Barack Obama at the White House in 2009.
Brooks Kraft LLC/Corbis via Getty Images

Finally, ego: The public record is awash with testimonials from people who have worked closely with Trump that he is a narcissist. Although that kind of mental health assessment can be problematic for nonprofessionals to make without a formal assessment, the common claim here is that Trump has a grandiose sense of self-importance. Critics, including former colleagues, say he expects special treatment, avoids accountability and is so self-absorbed that he cannot act responsibly or with appropriate empathy.

For all of these reasons, there is no question: If he were treated like anyone else, Trump would never get clearance.

But the voters have decided to restore Trump to the White House and in the process again invest him with the central role in the government’s massive secrecy apparatus. That was their choice. It was an unusually informed one, too, thanks to the various court cases and other evidence in the public record. Appropriately, the Biden administration has respected the electorate’s judgment by moving to provide classified briefings during this presidential transition period.

This is a revised and updated version of an article originally published July 9, 2024. Läs mer…

In recent months, Brazilians have closely followed the US presidential campaign. Since 2016, whatever happens in American politics seems likely to unfold in Brazil. In many ways, the American political chasm reflects Brazil’s own political polarisation.

Trump’s latest win provoked immediate reactions in Brazilian politics. Former President Jair Bolsonaro and his supporters are ecstatic because they believe that the political tide will once again turn in their favour – with a little help from the White House.

The Brazilian left, for its part, is doing an examination of conscience. After suffering a major blow in the municipal elections of October 2024, Luiz Inácio Lula da Silva (Lula) and his allies can no longer count on the US to promote their agendas at home and abroad.

The new US government will present Brazil with several challenges. It’s not just a question of recognising the vitality of the global conservative wave. We now need to understand how the concrete decisions made by Trump will affect Brazilian politics – and how to respond to them.

Will Trumpism save Bolsonarism?

In October 2023, Brazil’s Superior Electoral Court barred Bolsonaro from running for public office for eight years due to accusations of abuse of political power in his bid for re-election. The court’s decision came as a shock to Bolsonarism, which was on the verge of losing momentum and electoral appeal.

Since then, pro-Bolsonaro congressmen began discussing with their pro-Trump colleagues how they could act together to reverse Bolsonaro’s ineligibility. Eduardo Bolsonaro, son of Jair, and other allies made official visits to Washington three times between November 2023 and May 2024.

The common narrative was that the Brazilian authorities were violating the fundamental rights of “conservative” activists and politicians. For the Republicans in the US, the framing of Lula’s Brazil as being on the verge of a dictatorship was useful to show what could happen to the US if the Democrats remained in office.

The cause of the far right gained even more momentum with the fight between Elon Musk and Brazil’s Supreme Court Justice Alexandre de Moraes. Musk’s criticism of censorship in Brazil energised Bolsonaro’s supporters, who saw a path to future sanctions against Brazilian authorities should Trump return to the White House.

Now Bolsonaro and his followers are convinced that the Trump administration, with Musk as its centrepiece, will help them return to power in Brazil. Eduardo Bolsonaro was at Mar-a-Lago celebrating Trump’s victory. In recent days, the former president has been giving interviews and writing op-eds as if it’s only a matter of time before he takes the presidency once again.

Is Trump about to take on Brazil?

Even if the White House considers sanctioning Brazil to put pressure on the authorities to allow Bolsonaro to run, there are other ways to help Trump’s staunchest ally. Through foreign policy, the US could harm Brazil and weaken the Lula government.

President Lula, of course, doesn’t want to antagonise Trump. Although he declared his support for Kamala Harris “as a safer bet for democracy”, Lula was quick to congratulate the Republican candidate on his victory and said he looked forward to a good working relationship between Brazil and the US.

Lula knows that Brazil is not a priority for Trump, but he is also aware that Bolsonaro’s promise of unconditional loyalty to the US president can be quite seductive.

Trump’s foreign policy could threaten Brazil in at least two ways. The first concerns tariffs. Protectionist policies could jeopardise exports of Brazilian industrial products to the US. If these policies slow down the Chinese economy, Brazil’s agribusiness sector will also find itself in difficulty.

In addition, the fear of high inflation in the US will keep interest rates high in both countries, leading to less foreign direct investment in Brazil and increasing the challenges for Lula to keep the Brazilian economy stable.

The second immediate threat has to do with Trump’s relationship with Argentina. Javier Milei has never hidden his antipathy towards Lula and promises to abandon long-standing commitments to Brazil, such as the South American trade bloc, Mercosur. A preferential alliance between the White House and Argentina will jeopardise Brazil’s efforts to drive South American integration.

On Wednesday 13th, Trump nominated Marco Rubio to be the next Secretary of State. Rubio is a hardliner, who recently called Lula a “far-left leader” and criticised the government’s decision to suspend the social network X in Brazil.

End of democracy in Brazil?

Times are tough for Brazil and the world – and they could become even more problematic from January next year. However, we can look at the glass half full and think of less apocalyptic ways forward for the Brazilian government.

The first task is to reinforce the basic institutional rules of Brazilian democracy. The list of possible criminal charges against Bolsonaro is long and involves planning a coup d’état, the most visible result of which was also an insurrection that took place on 8 January 2023 – and almost entirely inspired by the 6 January 2021 riots on Capitol Hill.

Despite all the enthusiasm among Brazil’s far right, there are no guarantees that Bolsonaro will be able to run for office – and that he won’t be convicted of crimes.

There may be pressure from the White House, but its effects will encounter political and legal limits. A recent failed attack on the Supreme Court building by a Bolsonaro supporter will almost certainly make any discussions on amnesty of the January 8 rioters (which could include a pardon to Bolsonaro) even murkier.

In addition, Brazil can capitalise on Trump’s isolationism by strengthening its leadership role on issues such as climate change, global governance reform and human rights. The current G20 presidency has allowed Brazil to find meaningful interlocutors and continue to push these agendas forward.

The tides may be turning, and the challenges are certainly increasing, but it is fundamentally up to the political actors to shape their own future. Are the Lula government and other defenders of democracy in Brazil up to the task? Läs mer…

United States President-elect Donald Trump has vowed to implement an across-the-board tariff of at least 10 per cent on all imports into the country.

While there could be some exemptions for American imports of oil, gas and other natural resources, it’s not yet clear whether Canada will be protected by the Canada-United States-Mexico Agreement (CUSMA).

In fact, when the deal comes up for a mandatory review in 2026, Trump has said: “I’m going to have a lot of fun.”

Read more:
Facing trade renegotiations, Canada can no longer count on free trade to protect it from U.S. power

Given that more than 77 per cent of Canada’s exports go to the United States, Canadians have understandably viewed Trump’s declarations with alarm.

And against the likely torrent of American protectionism, Canada has few good options. Responding in kind, for example, will likely lead to a rise in inflation.

Kicking out Mexico?

One idea, recently floated by Ontario Premier Doug Ford, is to abandon CUSMA’s trilateral framework and seek a bilateral Canada-U.S. trade deal. As Ford put it: “We must prioritize the closest economic partnership on Earth by directly negotiating a bilateral U.S.-Canada free trade agreement.”

The premier’s specific complaint is that the Mexican government has failed to prevent the trans-shipment of Chinese goods — especially auto parts and vehicles — through its country in order subvert tariffs imposed by the American and Canadian governments against China.

Ontario Premier Doug Ford at the Ontario legislature in October 2024.
THE CANADIAN PRESS/Chris Young

If Mexico won’t act to prevent trans-shipments or impose its own tariffs on Chinese goods, Ford explained, “they shouldn’t have a seat at the table or enjoy access to the largest economy in the world.”

Ford’s comments drew immediate criticism from Mexican trade officials, but Chrystia Freeland, Canada’s deputy prime minister and finance minister, was more sympathetic. Concerns about Mexican handling of Chinese goods “are legitimate concerns for our American partners and neighbours to have. Those are concerns that I share,” she said.

This is not the first time Canadians have expressed wariness about including Mexico in common North American arrangements.

Canada’s position on Mexico

In 1956, when U.S. President Dwight D. Eisenhower proposed a trilateral summit with Prime Minister Louis St. Laurent and Mexican President Adolfo Ruiz Cortines, Canadian diplomats expressed their opposition to anything that “would appear to equate the relations between the United States and Canada and the United States and Mexico.”

For Ottawa, it was essential to preserve the notion of a special relationship between Canada and the U.S.

Even though the three leaders eventually met in Warm Springs, Ga., the “summit” ultimately consisted of separate U.S.-Canada and U.S.-Mexico bilateral meetings.

Four decades later, Canada pressed to be included in what became the North American Free Trade Agreeement — known as NAFTA — not because of any fellowship with Mexico, but to ensure that its newly won market access to the United States (thanks to the 1988 Free Trade Agreement between the U.S. and Canada) was not undercut by a bilateral Mexico-U.S. deal.

Common front?

As we document in our new book, Canada First, Not Canada Alone, even if Canada’s suspicions of Mexico about trade matters aren’t out of the ordinary, they must be considered against the notion that in dealing with the U.S., there can be strength in numbers.

The author’s book on Canadian foreign policy.
(Public Domain)

Throughout the early phase of the CUSMA negotiations during the first Trump presidency, Freeland herself was adamant that Canada not abandon Mexico in favour of a bilateral deal.

Rather, she pointedly emphasized the need to work alongside Mexico to present a common front against the Trump administration’s efforts divide its two North American trading partners.

When faced with an overwhelming aggressor, she argued, it’s best not to stand alone.

U.S. made side deal

This position was backed by other ministers as well as by Ottawa’s trade negotiators even as prominent Canadians — including former prime minister Stephen Harper — called for ditching the Mexicans.

Prime Minister Justin Trudeau meets with Donald Trump, not shown, in London in December 2019.
THE CANADIAN PRESS/Sean Kilpatrick

At first, the Canadian approach appeared to succeed. Freeland herself earned a fearsome reputation among American officials, with Trump attacking her as a “nasty woman.”

Later, however, Canadian negotiators thought they saw an opening and offered the Americans a bilateral deal without notifying their Mexican colleagues.

Not only did Washington reject the offer, American officials approached Mexico City and concluded a separate side deal of their own. This time, it was Canada left unaware.

Warning signs

The threat of being cut out of a trade agreement was more imagined than real — the Trump administration could not replace NAFTA with a bilateral arrangement without congressional approval — but Canada still had to move quickly to restore a trilateral solution.

CUSMA subsequently came into effect on July 1, 2020.

The CUSMA negotiations should offer Ford and the entire Canadian negotiating team a warning.

If Canada is prepared to leave Mexico behind, Canadian officials should be prepared for their Mexican counterparts to do the same. And while it seems right now that the U.S. has problems with Mexico and its management of America’s porous southern border than it does with Ottawa, under the mercurial Trump, the situation can can change in an instant.

It’s therefore probably not in Canada’s interest to throw Mexico under the bus. Läs mer…

State and territory elections held in 2024 have not delivered the electoral and legislative gains the Greens would have hoped for or expected.

Of the elections conducted this year, the Greens’ performance was, at best, a mixed bag. At worst, it was flat. As the table below shows, the party experienced either slight declines or only modest growth in their first preference vote.

Heading into an election next year, there are potential portents for the federal Greens too.

A poll by Resolve Political Monitor for the Sydney Morning Herald found the party’s net likeability has declined from –11% in December 2023 to –19% in November 2024. Moreover, its national leader Adam Bandt is rated the third most unlikeable federal politician.

The 2022 Australian Election Study (AES) found Bandt ranked highly on trust. It is conceivable that voters can trust someone they don’t like, but this seems unlikely.

The Greens get a lot of attention – but is it turning voters off?

The Greens have been a particularly assertive presence in the 47th federal parliament. This, of course, is not without its rewards, if rewards are measured in terms of free media coverage. What is less clear is whether the events that have attracted media attention are to the Greens’ electoral advantage.

Take the cases of the Greens senators walking out of the chamber and holding up placards during Senate questions over the Albanese government’s decision not to call for an immediate ceasefire in Gaza.

While such acts might appeal to the base and younger voters, other segments of the electorate may regard such action as stunts, and behaviour unbecoming of a serious parliamentary party.

Consider also the Greens’ decision in June 2024 to delay the passage of the Albanese government’s Housing Fund, even after the government’s offer of an extra $2 billion in spending on social housing.

The Greens had several concerns about the house funding proposal, key among them its consequences for renters. They said they would not support the bill until Prime Minister Anthony Albanese managed to get the states and territories to agree to a rent freeze.

However, laws for renters are a state matter, not a federal concern. And while some economists agreed the Housing Fund may result in unintended effects for renters, polling suggested the initiative was popular, including among Greens voters.

By September, the Greens announced they would support the bill. The risk for the Greens is that the time it took to secure concessions, and the argy-bargy that surrounded negotiations, supported Labor’s narrative of the party being “inflexible” or a “party of protest”, which is code for “radical”.

With the final parliamentary session for 2024 underway, the Greens are keen to restart negotiations with the Albanese government over housing and the stalled Nature Positive bill.

However, they might have overplayed their hand by holding out for as long as they have. It is possible the party could secure additional concessions from the Albanese government in exchange for their support, but they also might not. In that case, the Greens would have to decide whether to vote down one or more bills, or capitulate. However it ends, and whether fairly or not, the Greens might have squandered any claim to being a constructive and responsible balance-of-power player.

The limits of a party as movement

The Greens’ approach to politics is consistent with the party’s movement origins, grounded in a more expressive and disruptive style of political action, both within and outside of parliament.

The question is whether that approach is an incongruous and counterproductive fit for a party that is now a longstanding fixture of the political establishment, and has made clear its desire (and intention) to be an alternative party of government.

The Greens must grow their support if they are to realise their ambitions to form government. There is significant opportunity for the party to expand its vote share. There has been persistent decline in voter support for the major parties, and upwards of 22% of voters claimed no partisanship or allegiance to any party in 2022.

The question for the Greens is whether they are positioning the party to take advantage of evident discontent with the major parties, and the growth in non-party identifiers.

The Greens may well succeed in growing their support among younger voters, but are they building too narrow an electoral coalition, and alienating a wider range of progressive voters? Around 18% of enrolled voters are aged 18–29, and the party already attracts strong support among younger voters.

The Greens should also expect that more community independents (such as the Teals) will contest an even more diverse range of seats at the 2024 election. Why does this matter? The most recent Australian Election Study found that Teal voters were more likely to be “tactical voters who see their preferred party as nonviable in the electorate and use this information to defeat the most viable party”.

The Greens cannot take for granted that disaffected major party voters, and more specifically disaffected Labor voters, will necessarily choose them. Läs mer…

Last week, the federal government announced a plan to roll out an anti-vaping program in schools across the country.

The education program, called OurFutures, aims to prevent young people taking up vaping. It has been developed by experts from the University of Sydney’s Matilda Centre for Research in Mental Health and Substance Use with input from educators and young people.

So why do we need this program, what will it involve, and will it be an effective way to stop young people taking up vaping? Let’s take a closer look.

Vaping is on the rise

A survey of Australian high school students in 2022–23 showed almost one in three reported having tried vaping, while one in six had vaped in the previous month.

This represents a significant increase over time, with rates of both lifetime (ever) vaping and vaping in the past month more than doubling since 2017.

However, since this data were collected, new laws to control the supply of and access to vapes have been introduced, which aim to reduce the prevalence of vaping.

Evidence showing the harmful effects of vaping is mounting. A 2022 review found vaping was linked to a range of negative health outcomes including poisoning, addiction, burns to the face, hands and thighs, lung injury, and an increased likelihood of taking up tobacco smoking.

Vapes, or e-cigarettes, have been found to contain a number of chemicals known to cause cancer, including formaldehyde, acetone, and heavy metals such as nickel and lead. This means young vapers are breathing in chemicals found in nail polish remover, plastics, weed killer and industrial glues.

Although we don’t yet understand the longer-term health effects of vaping, the evidence we have so far indicates it’s vital to stop as many people taking up this habit as possible.

What will the program entail?

OurFutures is designed for children in years 7 and 8 based on research evidence. Students are guided through four online lessons, each of which uses a variety of activities and resources to educate them about the harms of vaping. Lessons also cover information on the impact of social media, assertive communication, and how and where to seek help.

The government says the program will be able to reach more than 3,000 schools across Australia.

Our research and that of others indicates this is an optimal age to reach young people, as it’s a time when they are starting to experiment and take up vapes.

This program is also extremely timely, as young people have told us they want vaping prevention messages in their schools to help them make informed decisions. These young people recognise there’s a lack of credible information available.

Equally, school professionals (such as principals and teachers) recognise they are unable to deal with the issue of vaping among students on their own, and have been calling for support.

Many young people have tried vaping.
Ruslan Alekso/Pexels

The OurFutures program is currently being trialled in 40 schools across New South Wales, Queensland and Western Australia.

Initial results have been positive. Just after students had completed the program, they knew more about the harms of vaping, and they reported reduced intentions to vape.

However, to our knowledge, full results from the trial have yet to be released. It’s also unclear whether these results will be maintained in the longer term.

A review of school-based vaping prevention programs found that although many interventions improved knowledge, attitudes and intentions around vaping in the short term, these effects were not always maintained.

However, this review also suggested programs delivered over multiple sessions, as is the case with OurFutures, were effective in preventing young people taking up vaping over longer periods.

An important element of any public health program is its capacity to be tailored to different populations. Australia is a culturally and linguistically diverse country, with urban, regional, and remote populations. It’s currently not clear if and how the program will take these differences into account.

The program should be part of a broader approach

Providing evidence-based, rational information in this way should help many young people doing this program better understand the potential health risks of vaping, and in turn think twice about doing it.

However, school-based education programs are only one strategy in a suite of strategies needed to address youth vaping. Relying solely on young people to change their behaviour is unrealistic and not best practice.

Young people operate in communities, influenced by family, social norms, and societal structures. Education is great, but we need to stop the exposure and access to these harmful products.

Fortunately, Australia’s crackdown on vaping is world-leading. We welcome recently announced vaping reforms, including stopping the importation of vapes, selling them solely behind the pharmacy counter, and restricting flavours, which limit their accessibility and appeal for school students.

Since these vape regulations were introduced the Australian Border Force has stopped hundreds of thousands of vapes entering Australia.

The recent Public Health (Tobacco and Other Products) Act 2023 also restricts the advertising and promotion of vapes, including on social media. This means the same bans that apply to tobacco advertising now also apply to vapes.

Our research shows vaping has been widely promoted to young people on social media. Social media companies must ensure the health of their users is prioritised over commercial interests.

Just last week the government called for a “digital duty of care”, which would require social media companies to take steps to create a safer online environment for all Australians.

Ultimately, the national vaping prevention program for Australian school students is a positive step. But it needs to be complemented by a range of strategies and continued government investment to support our young people to avoid or stop vaping. Läs mer…

Recent international research shows Australians are buying and reading fewer books than people in many other countries. But why?

A report by the European and International Book Federation found that only 64% of Australians bought a book in the past year, compared to an average 72% of people across 19 countries.

Similarly, 80% of Australians read a book in the past year, slightly below the international average of 85%. These differences are slim, but as book buyers and readers, we are among the lowest in the sample, alongside Aotearoa New Zealand, Finland, Latvia and the United States.

The number of people who had read a book in the past year in Italy, Spain, the United Kingdom and Ireland all came in at over 90%.

80% of Australians read a book in the past year, compared to 85% internationally.
Napendra Singh/Unsplash

Local research also suggests reading rates in Australia are falling. Back in 2017, a Macquarie University study found 92% of us read books at least once in the previous year. By 2021, in the Australia Reads national survey that figure had dropped to 75%.

What’s behind these numbers?

Price might be less of a factor than we often assume – and surprisingly, Australia’s dependence on cars could play a role. International examples showing how other countries protect and value their book cultures –  from government policies to counter the strength of Amazon to public holidays for poets – suggest measures to actively boost our own could help.

The price myth

There’s a general perception that books cost too much in Australia. But they’re not necessarily more expensive here than elsewhere. Competition from online retailers like Amazon and increases in production costs globally have levelled prices internationally.

In fact, Australians often pay similar or less for books than readers in Canada, New Zealand and the US.

Tim Winton’s new novel, Juice, for example, has an Australian recommended retail price of A$49.99. It’s almost exactly the same price in Aotearoa New Zealand (A$49.81) and costs more in Canada (A$54.59). In the US, Juice is A$44.02, and in the UK, it’s A$43.07.

While UK book prices are lower, this is mainly because books there don’t attract sales tax. The UK made books exempt from its value-added tax (VAT) applied to most goods and services – a deliberate decision to make reading more affordable.

Pauline MacLeod, the children’s and young adult literature specialist at Brisbane’s Riverbend Books, told me children’s publishers are “trying hard to keep local books priced between $22.99 and $25.99”. Still, in the current cost of living squeeze books are a discretionary spend some cannot afford.

Public transport is good for reading

More public transport seems to coincide with higher reading rates.
Vovkapanda/Pexels

Interestingly, countries where more people use public transport – like the UK, France, Germany and Spain – tend to have higher reading rates. It’s easier to read a book on a train than in a car, and these countries often have bookshops in train stations, creating a culture of reading while commuting.

In contrast, car-dependent countries like Australia, the US and Aotearoa New Zealand show lower reading rates. Our reliance on cars might explain why audiobooks are more popular in Australia than in many other countries.

A holiday for a poet

In Ireland, where 91% of people have read a book in the past 12 months, there is a strong cultural history of storytelling. Reading is supported by an arts council providing grants and bursaries, and a healthy ecosystem of literary festivals and magazines, public libraries and bookshops.

Australia has many of these things, but Ireland also significantly supports writers, with a tax exemption on artists’ income up to €50,000 (approximately A$81,500) and a basic-income pilot scheme granting 2,000 artists €325 (approximately A$530) a week.

In Ireland, reading is supported by, among other things, a healthy literary ecosystem, like this Dublin bookshop.
Shutterstock

In France, where the government actively protects its reading culture, 88% of people have read a book in the past 12 months. In 2022, France introduced a law to make French bookshops more competitive with online retailers like Amazon which often offer free delivery of books. By setting a minimum delivery fee for all online book orders of less than €35 (around A$57), the government aims to level the playing field for local booksellers.

Perhaps unsurprisingly, only 5% of French people buy all their books online (as opposed to 12% in Australia).

France has introduced laws to make French bookshops, like the famous Shakespeare and Company (pictured), competitive with online retailers.
Shutterstock

Australia has public holidays dedicated to sports, like the Melbourne Cup and the AFL Grand Final (both in Victoria). In Portugal, a national holiday, Portugal Day, commemorates the death of poet Luís de Camões, considered Portugal’s greatest.

While 85% of Portuguese people have read a book in the past 12 months (exactly the international average), they consider reading as one of their hobbies (37%) and have bought a book in the past year (76%) at rates above the international average.

Interestingly, just 32% of Australians said they consider reading a hobby, compared to 44% in Spain and 42% in the UK.

Families, the education system and the media are also all key to inculcating this culture of reading, as is a strong local publishing industry.

The way forward

Local booksellers report declining reading rates in Australia, too. Robbie Egan, CEO of Australia’s peak bookselling industry body, BookPeople, told me: “The competition for eyeballs is real and it is fierce, and consumer discretionary dollars are scarce”. Industry leaders like Egan suggest we need a national campaign to promote the benefit of reading.

We know from local research that Australians value books and storytelling. With increasing competition from other forms of entertainment and tighter household budgets, encouraging a stronger reading culture may be more important than ever. Läs mer…

If you’re buying a house near a river or on a floodplain, you will likely come up against the question of flood risk. We usually talk about this in terms of chance.

Houses close to the river might be at risk of a 1-in-100 year flood, meaning there’s a 1% chance a flood could hit in any given year. Houses further back might be at risk of a 1-in-500 year flood (0.2% chance). Truly extreme floods might be 1-in-1,000 or even 10,000 years. This way of thinking about flood risk is technically known as an Annual Exceedance Probability (AEP).

What does flood risk translate to? Our recent research found houses in the New South Wales town of Richmond with an AEP of 100 – meaning a 1-in-100 year flood – come at a discount of almost 11% compared to similar homes without the risk. We are prepared to pay less for houses we think might flood.

But what’s really interesting is how quickly this discount drops off. A house in an AEP 500 zone (1-in-500 years) has a 4.4% discount. There’s no discount for houses in an AEP 1,000 zone, at risk from a 1-in-1,000 year flood. People simply ignore this risk as if it doesn’t exist. But it does. The floods which devastated Lismore in 2022 were roughly 1-in-1,000 year floods – so extreme we think it won’t happen. But it can and does.

When we assess the risk of natural disasters, we often ignore or underestimate events with a low probability but high severity. But as climate change makes floods worse and worse, this is a problem. The lethal floods in Spain came after a year’s worth of rain fell in a few hours in some areas. We underestimate floods at our peril.

What a flood-prone town tells us about risk

When we think of the risk of natural disasters such as bushfires, floods and earthquakes, our perceptions tend to be bounded by thresholds. We focus on the most likely threats and tend to ignore or play down the risk of severe events with low probability.

This may have made sense historically. But this approach won’t cut it in the future. Climate change is already making severe floods more likely, including flash floods and rivers breaking their banks.

For authorities tasked with managing flood risk, this poses a major challenge. The gap between how we see these risks and the actual threat they pose could lead to major losses of lives and property. Our research suggests people stop assessing risk beyond 1-in-500 year floods (AEP 500).

In our research, we looked at Richmond, a flood-prone town of about 14,500 people in the Hawkesbury-Nepean Valley in New South Wales, and surrounding areas. This area has a long history of significant and dangerous flooding.

Floods regularly hit the Hawkesbury-Nepean Valley. But they can differ greatly in size and damage. Pictured: the North Richmond bridge over the Hawkesbury submerged during the April 2022 floods.
Dan Himbrechts/AAP

In the last few years, it has had five major floods, in February 2020, March 2021 and March, April and July 2022. Major floods here indicate the river has risen over 12 metres.

We used home sales data and the region’s digital flood maps to gauge how people were assessing risk in flood-prone areas.

Digital flood maps are widely used to assess the risk of flood at a specific location. In 2019, the NSW government conducted a regional flood study for the 500 square kilometre Hawkesbury-Nepean Valley, capitalising on advances in flood modelling and changes to the floodplain. These maps were updated in 2023. We used both of these maps so we could verify our findings and see how changes in the updated version changed people’s perception of risks.

These maps are very influential, as they directly shape how people see the risk of floods near them. We found these maps have strengthened residents’ perceptions of flood risk.

Digital flood maps of the Hawkesbury-Nepean Valley have been influential in showing residents the areas at risk – but low probability high severity floods are a blind spot.
NSW State Emergency Service, CC BY-NC-ND

For instance, houses with the same flood risk levels across both 2019 and 2023 flood maps saw greater drops in price compared to houses where the risk level had changed or was unclear.

In recent years, insurers have jacked up flood insurance premiums, which could mean affected residents underinsure themselves in the future. In 2023, Richmond’s median house price was A$825,000. But if it was in the 1-in-100 AEP 100 flooding zone, our research suggests it would be discounted by about 11% ($89,100).

But while the upfront cost may be less, owners of these homes will have to pay substantially higher insurance premiums as long as they own it. Getting insurance in a AEP 100 flood zone can be much more expensive than people think.

For authorities, these maps help identify areas most vulnerable to extreme flood events, such as over a 1-in-500 year flood.

As we prepare for more severe floods hitting more often, authorities need to give people as much notice as possible.

Ahead of a major rain event, we suggest authorities should release digital flood maps of areas likely to be affected – including different AEP levels. If a extreme flood (1-in-500 years or more) is likely, people living in areas with little or no flooding in their lifetimes will be affected. They need to know.

Read more:
One in 1,000 years? Old flood probabilities no longer hold water Läs mer…

On November 12, United States president-elect Donald Trump announced he would appoint Elon Musk, the world’s richest man, to lead a newly constituted Department of Government Efficiency alongside fellow tech billionaire and former presidential candidate Vivek Ramaswamy. The new department will be tasked with reining in government bureaucracy, curbing government spending, and reducing regulation.

Musk has been outspoken in his support of Trump’s campaign, which included potentially illegal financial “giveaways” to voters. Although Musk’s direct involvement in electoral politics is new, attempts by technology companies and their leaders to reshape public policy and governance have a long history, from transport and housing to town planning.

By looking more closely at some of these initiatives, we may be able to get a preview of what Musk’s Department of Government Efficiency will attempt to do, what government-by-tech may look like, and what might go wrong.

Replacing public services

In 2013, Musk himself proposed a new form of public transport called the “hyperloop” to connect Los Angeles and San Francisco. And Musk’s SpaceX is his attempt to out-compete the publicly funded NASA in building rockets.

But other tech companies have had similar ambitions.

Uber has made a series of attempts to replace public transportation. Companies such as Sidewalk Labs (a subsidiary of Google’s parent company, Alphabet) have made efforts to substitute for urban infrastructure by building so-called “smart cities” that collect and analyse data about people’s behaviour in order to make decisions about providing services.

An economist has even suggested that Amazon bookstores might replace public libraries. Tech companies have challenged public offerings in fields as diverse as education, identity verification and housing.

The limits of disruption

One thing many government-by-tech projects have in common is a belief that government is fundamentally inefficient, and that (unregulated) technology can provide better solutions.

Silicon Valley tech companies have long espoused “disruption”, the idea of overthrowing a moribund status quo with innovation. Unlike public bureaucracies, the argument goes, companies can “move fast and break things” to find new and more efficient ways to deliver services and value.

Tech companies following this philosophy have certainly offered services that benefit many of us in our day-to-day lives, and made huge amounts of money. But this doesn’t mean the Silicon Valley model makes sense for public administration. In fact, the evidence suggests something more like the opposite.

A history of failure

Tech’s forays into the provision of public services have had mixed results.

In 2017, the Canadian town of Innisfil replaced all its public transit with Uber. The result was spiralling costs for the city (in fees paid to Uber), more cars on the road, and higher transportation costs for low-income residents.

Sidewalk Labs’ smart-city experiment in Toronto was abandoned in 2021 after running into objections related to privacy and planning.

In the case of housing, the tech industry disruption has made existing problems worse, with Airbnb and other short-term rental companies contributing to the housing crisis.

Narrow solutions for narrow problems

Technology companies also tend to focus on a relatively narrow range of problems. Silicon Valley has helped us to find a taxi, pick a restaurant for dinner, navigate efficiently around a city, transfer cash to our friends, and search for the best rental for our vacation.

It has provided fewer solutions for finding low-income housing, providing care for the aged, or reducing our energy consumption. There are important reasons for this: tech companies want to generate revenue by tapping upper-middle class consumers with disposable income.

But these gaps also reflect the lack of diversity in Silicon Valley itself. Tech remains mostly white, mostly male, mostly upper-middle class, mostly highly educated. This impacts the kinds of problems Silicon Valley sees and the kinds of solutions it produces.

All this is bad enough for the private sector. But the job of the government is not merely to look after shareholders or customers (or even just those who voted for it), but rather to look after all its citizens.

Services for the few

The concern here is that the kinds of solutions and “efficiencies” that Silicon Valley produces may end up serving the few at the expense of the many. Some “inefficiencies” of public services arise from the fact they are designed to take as many people into account as possible. Provisions and protections for older people, for those with disabilities, for those who may not speak English as a first language, for example, all create the need for more bureaucracy and more regulation.

Musk has said public transit is a “pain in the ass” where you have to stand next to potential serial killers. Of course, in many places public transport carries no such stigma. What’s more, many of those who might like to commute in private jets (or even Teslas) may have little choice but to subject themselves to the vagaries of a public bus.

One of SpaceX’s goals is to reduce the cost of a trip to Mars to under $US1 million. This would be a remarkable achievement, but it means that Musk’s imagined Mars colony would remain incredibly elite. Spaceships and hyperloops are woefully inadequate as public policy.

Unsexy necessities

While the philosophy of disruption tries to downplay the importance of existing infrastructure and institutions, the tech industry itself relies on them. Uber depends on cars and roads (including the governments that maintains them), Airbnb depends on brick-and-mortar buildings (and the labour that builds them), and Amazon and eBay depend on transportation infrastructure and postal services.

All tech companies rely on established and enforced systems of finance, property, and taxation. These old infrastructures and institutions may be unsexy and even inefficient.

However, these so-called inefficiencies have often evolved in ways aligned with fairness, justice, and inclusivity. The record of Silicon Valley tech companies does not suggest that they share such values. Läs mer…

From climate change to geopolitical instability to health emergencies, we are entering a period of momentous change. The technology industry likes to tell us that the antidote is artificial intelligence (AI).

But as things currently stand, AI is actually accelerating climate change, harming Country and perpetuating systemic racism.

It doesn’t have to be this way. In fact, AI can address many of the problems facing the world today.

One way to ensure this is by centring Wiradyuri (an Indigenous nation in central New South Wales) and other sovereign First Nations ways of knowing and being with the world and technology.

A long history

First Nations cultures from around the world have a long history of creating and using technology.

For example, Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander fish traps and fishing practices support sustainable fishing. They allow fish populations to thrive and eliminate waste by using the entire fish.

Inuit people from modern day North America also carved bones into snow goggles and waterproofed their canoes with raw bitumen.

These examples reflect how First Nations cultures have long developed technology to help care for and enhance all life – including Country. This is a very different approach to technology to the one we find in settler colonial cultures.

Aboriginal fish traps in Brewarrina in New South Wales are an example of First Nations technology.
John Carnemolla/Shutterstock

A logic of destruction

Settler colonialism is where people from one country settle permanently on land where others already reside. The intention of the colonisers is to destroy what isn’t wanted (including Country and First Nations cultures), take what is desired and replace the existing social structure.

Modern nations such as the United States and Australia are examples of settler colonies.

There are numerous examples in history of people using technology to facilitate settler colonial violence. These include the infamous Tuskegee syphilis experiment which began in 1932 and continued to 1972, and the forced sterilisation of Indigenous peoples in Canada throughout the 20th century.

With the US leading AI research and development, the dominant forms of contemporary technology are perpetuating the settler-colonial logic of destroying and replacing culture, Country and communities. This AI-driven settler-colonialism is occurring at a speed and reach far greater than in the past.

Some forms of AI are programmed to steal data and erase certain perspectives, voices and experiences. People are also using the technology to specifically harm Indigenous peoples.

For example, during last year’s referendum on whether or not to create an Indigenous “Voice to Parliament” in Australia, AI was used to spread misinformation and appropriate Indigenous art in support of the “No” vote.

Time to transform

For lead author Jess, a sovereign Wiradyuri Wambuul woman, her understanding of AI draws from the Wiradyuri cosmology which teaches us that everything is related. This simple yet profound concept is encapsulated by the Wiradyuri concept “Wayanha”.

Loosely translated to English, Wayanha means transformation. It teaches that everything always exists, and has always existed. In this way a person, thing or place never simply begins or ends. Instead, it transforms.

This is as true of AI as it is of humans. Just as humans have the DNA which are the biological elements of those that came before us, so too does AI have the technological and cultural elements of what came before it.

Looking at AI this way highlights that this technology – and its impact on our world – isn’t a recent phenomenon, as some suggest. While dominant forms of AI may be different from technologies of the past, its harm on the world around us echoes that of all prior technology-aided settler-colonial violence.

Growing resistance

But this technological transformation is not a foregone conclusion. There is a growing movement of people resisting the pervasive settler-colonial AI transformations.

For example, there is the Lakota Language Learning Model project that is using a locally developed AI to preserve the native Lakota language in North America. There is also the Indigenous AI Abundant Intelligences research program that is exploring how to develop technology grounded in First Nations ways of knowing that “recognise the abundant multiplicity of ways of being intelligent in the world”.

You can trace the lineage of these examples back thousands of years to those ancient fish traps and other forms of sovereign First Nations technologies.

They show that technology doesn’t have to be harmful to people and Country in the way the dominant AI transformation currently is. Instead, by being First Nations-led, local, contextualised, purpose-built and sustainable, AI can help care for and preserve people and Country. Läs mer…

The Egyptian queen Cleopatra is often associated with glamorous beauty routines, deadly snake bites, lavish banquets and torrid affairs with some of the most notorious men in Roman history.

One such (very public) affair was with Roman leader Julius Caesar.

But their “situationship” was complex. This doomed romance ended abruptly in 44 BCE when Caesar was quite literally stabbed in the back (and from all sides) by his enemies in Rome. And she pretty soon hooked up with one of his closest allies.

Queen meets consul

When Caesar met Cleopatra, he was was 52 and had a wife back in Rome. But something about the 21-year-old Cleopatra caught his eye.

Perhaps it was her charming banter and impressive mind. The ancient author Plutarch reports Cleopatra was an irresistible conversation partner, and fluent in nine languages.

A statue of a Ptolemaic queen, perhaps Cleopatra VII, shows the young royal in her finery and holding a cornucopia.
The Metropolitan Museum of Art

Things really got started when Caesar got involved in a family feud involving Cleopatra and her royal relatives.

Cleopatra came from a long line of dramatic and ruthless kings and queens, which we now call the Ptolemies.

The Ptolemies had ruled Egypt since about 305 or 304 BCE. They didn’t always get along but they were very close. As in, genetically close.

The Ptolemies had practised brother-sister marriages (and other in-the-family marriages as well) for several generations.

According to this tradition, Cleopatra was probably married to her ten-year-old brother Ptolemy XIII when their father died and they became co-rulers of Egypt.

So in pursuing Caesar, you might say Cleopatra was going against the family trend by dating outside her siblings.

Cleopatra’s union with her little brother was not a happy one: the young Ptolemy, alongside his advisors, had managed to run Cleopatra out of Egypt, wanting to rule the kingdom without her interfering.

While Cleopatra was busy raising an army to reclaim her place on the throne, Caesar arrived at the royal palace at Alexandria in 48 BCE.

Caesar had his own political woes. He was in the middle of a civil war, and was pursuing his rival Gnaeus Pompey (also known as Pompey the Great) after defeating his army in Greece.

Ptolemy, completely misreading the situation, greeted Caesar with a gruesome and unexpected gift: Pompey’s severed head.

Outraged and disgusted, Caesar demanded Cleopatra and her brother reconcile, but Cleopatra had other plans.

Plutarch says she hid herself in a bed sack and got smuggled into the palace to meet and charm Caesar.

Was it true love?

The young Cleopatra was ambitious, and there’s no denying a connection with Caesar was politically advantageous.

Caesar also had plenty of other affairs, including one with another queen, Eunoë of Mauretania.

But there may well have been a true connection with Cleopatra. Caesar, after all, was also very well educated and ruthlessly ambitious, and the ancient author Suetonius states Cleopatra was Caesar’s most passionate love affair.

But whatever sparks flew, Cleopatra couldn’t fully escape her family responsibilities.

Caesar put her back on the throne but arranged for her to marry her youngest brother, Ptolemy XIV after her previous brother-husband (Ptolemy XIII) drowned.

Nothing spells romance like your lover ordering you to marry your 12-year-old brother, but Cleopatra needed Caesar’s help to secure her position on the throne.

Being older and ambitious, she seemingly had no trouble taking the lead in running their kingdom, pushing Ptolemy XIV to one side.

This painting, by Pietro de Cortone, depicts Caesar giving Cleopatra the throne of Egypt.
Museum of Fine Arts of Lyon

A luxurious cruise down the Nile

Some sources say Cleopatra and Caesar celebrated their success at smoothing things over in Alexandria by taking a luxurious cruise down the Nile, accompanied by 400 ships.

This promoted their partnership and alliance, and by this time there was something else to celebrate: Cleopatra was pregnant with Caesar’s son, something she wanted to advertise as the future of her dynasty.

Cleopatra and Caesar’s son was nicknamed Caesarion, meaning “little Caesar”, although he is also known as Ptolemy Caesar or Ptolemy XV.

Caesarion’s existence was a bit of a problem. Caesar probably acknowledged the boy as his son, but Roman law did not, because Roman men were not allowed to marry foreign women.

There was also of course the matter that Caesar was still married at the time, to a Roman woman named Calpurnia.

The fiercely republican Romans of this era did not have much love for monarchy, and Caesar’s dalliance with Cleopatra probably made his fellow Romans even more suspicious about his own grand plans.

When in Rome

Despite many Romans disapproving of the relationship, the Egyptian queen spent about 18 months living on Caesar’s estate in Rome.

Cleopatra’s ‘situationship’ with Caesar was complex.
Sculpture by William Wetmore Story, The Metropolitan Museum of Art.

While there, Caesar seems to have done nothing to dispel the rumours about his situationship with Cleopatra, and he may have even dedicated a golden statue of Cleopatra as Venus in the temple of Venus Genetrix.

The famous orator Cicero was not impressed, writing in a letter to a friend “reginam odi” or “I hate the queen.”

After Caesar’s assassination, Cleopatra returned to Egypt.

But she soon began a love affair with Marc Antony, Caesar’s right hand man and would-be successor to his power, if 19-year-old Octavian (who would eventually become the first emperor Augustus) had not been named heir in Caesar’s will.

Antony and Cleopatra’s relationship flourished, but ended in tragedy when Octavian’s political rivalry with Antony intensified, and Octavian used their relationship as fuel for anti-Antony propaganda.

The lovers were eventually pursued and defeated by Octavian’s forces. Both took their own lives – he by stabbing himself with a sword and she, according to one version of the tale, by compelling a snake to bite her. Läs mer…