Johansen.se

Disturbing details emerged this week about AFL men’s football team GWS’ end-of-year event, themed “controversial couples”.

The AFL handed down a range of sanctions to the players involved, including fines and suspensions.

While those defending the players have suggested their actions were lighthearted and in the spirit of the season-end celebration, research has established a connection between rape jokes and sexual assault.

The AFL has a tarnished history when it comes to players perpetrating violence against women.

Despite pledging support for ending gender-based violence in Australia, this incident proves problematic cultural problems persist within AFL clubs.

What happened?

Following an anonymous tip-off to GWS management, it was revealed a number of players engaged in sexist, racist and degrading acts during an end-of-season event.

Player Josh Fahey dressed up as former NRL player Jarryd Hayne and “simulated inappropriate acts on a sex doll.”

Hayne was sentenced to four years and nine months prison for raping a woman on the night of the 2018 NRL grand final but was released earlier this year after his convictions were overturned.

Players Connor Idun and Lachie Whitfield performed a skit involving slavery, while another pair simulated the September 11 terrorist attack on the Twin Towers.

It has also been reported a sketch involving Sean “Diddy” Combs — an American rapper currently jailed on charges of racketeering, sex trafficking and transportation — was performed.

Scholars and activists are working tirelessly to change public perceptions around violence against women. Jokes and skits themed around violence and sexual assault are harmful because they trivialise the immense harm gendered violence causes women and children.

The AFL’s woman problem

There are many historic examples of AFL players and athletes of other codes acting violently and disrespectfully towards women.

Numerous current and former players, who have faced criminal charges for assaults and sexual violence towards women, have been allowed to continue playing or retain their status as celebrated players.

Current AFL player Jordan De Goey has faced sexual assault allegations, and was briefly stood down by his club in 2021 after being charged with assault in the United States.

He pleaded guilty to harassment and in 2022, Collingwood extended De Goey’s contract for five years.

Recently, one of the AFL’s greatest former players, Wayne Carey, was set to be inducted as a legend in the New South Wales Football Hall of Fame, despite having a number of charges for assaulting women. However, the AFL did eventually block the move after public outcry.

The AFL, and parts of the media, often distinguish players’ violence against women from their achievements on the field. This allows men to continue playing or repair their public image.

It also sends a message that misogyny and violence against women are tolerated as long as the perpetrator’s talent provides value to the sport.

The impact of athletes

In the case of the GWS players, the AFL’s sanctions indicate the code’s willingness to take a stance on breaches of conduct.

However, that the players believed their costumes and skits were acceptable in the first place indicates deep-seated issues in attitudes towards women.

In each of the costume examples, sexual and racial violence formed key elements of the “joke”, indicating the AFL’s education and training on equity and diversity is not working.

The general public tends to have high expectations of athletes’ behaviour due to their position as role models.

It is often suggested that boys and young men require positive role models and that AFL players fit the bill, although research is not clear on whether the gender of supportive adults is relevant.

At the moment, there is significant concern within the community about the influence of dangerous misogynist influencers on boys’ attitudes and behaviour towards women.

Research suggests that while some young men have the skills to be critical about the messages they receive about violence and sexism, they still experience pressure to live up to restrictive rules on what it means to be a “real man.”

Many Australians highly value AFL players’ skills and abilities on the field. This admiration and respect can also extend to their off-field lives.

But it doesn’t mean AFL players are beyond reproach.

More needs to be done

The impacts of men’s violence on their victims are horrific and myriad.

This year, the AFL partnered with Our Watch – a national leader in the primary prevention of violence against women and their children – to provide training to players and clubs and help them understand:

the link between gender inequality and violence against women
the role of sport in promoting gender equality
and what players can do to be active allies including taking action when they see or hear disrespect.

While this is promising, this education must result in changed behaviour, attitudes and accountability.

The Australian government has recently labelled violence against women a “national emergency”. Major sporting codes need to take a leading role in addressing it.

It’s time for the AFL to honestly confront their problems with misogyny and violence against women. Läs mer…

The death of Hamas leader Yahya Sinwar, one of the masterminds behind the group’s horrific October 7 2023 attack on southern Israel, is no doubt a consequential moment in Israel’s year-long war against Hamas.

But is it a turning point?

Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu said Sinwar’s killing – long a major objective of the Israel Defense Forces (IDF) – would signal the “beginning of the end” of the war. But he made clear the war is not over.

In fact, Benny Gantz, a former defence minister and member of the war cabinet, said the IDF would continue to operate in Gaza “for years to come”.

So, what exactly will be the impact of Sinwar’s death?

Does this change anything?

Sinwar’s death does change at least one aspect of the war. He was an iconic figure, for better or worse, for Palestinians. He was seen as someone who was taking the fight to Israel.

With Sinwar still alive and Hamas hitting back at Israel’s war in Gaza, the group was actually increasing in popularity.

Top Hamas leaders Ismail Haniyeh (left) and leader of Hamas movement in Gaza Strip Yahya Al Sinwar (R) attend a Hamas rally to mark the group’s 30th anniversary, in Gaza City, Gaza Strip, 14 December 2017.

Opinion polling in late May showed support for Hamas among Palestinians in the Occupied Territories had reached 40%, a six-point increase from three months earlier. Support for the Palestinian Authority, which controls the West Bank, was about half that.

Sinwar’s demise changes the face of Hamas. It could be a major turning point if Hamas is unable to replace him with a leader as strong as he was.

One of the names being discussed is Khaled Mashal, the former head of Hamas’ political office who still remains influential in the organisation.

This moment offers an opportunity for a new Hamas leader to seek a ceasefire with Israel and an end to the horrific conditions in which Gazans are living. But there’s still the question of whether Sinwar’s death achieves Israel’s war objectives.

What would constitute a victory for Netanyahu?

The main issue is that Netanyahu’s war aims have not yet been achieved:

the elimination of Hamas as a fighting force and a danger to Israel
the freeing of the roughly 100 Israeli hostages still believed to be held in Gaza, as many as half of whom may now be dead
the re-establishment of deterrence with Hezbollah in Lebanon to allow the 60,000 Israelis who have been evacuated from northern Israel to return home.

Although the killing of Sinwar is a major step towards restricting Hamas’ ability to maintain its war against the IDF in Gaza, Israeli soldiers still face some very significant problems there.

Over the past year, Hamas has morphed from an organised fighting force into guerrilla mode, which makes its fighters much more difficult to eliminate completely.

The classic methodology for dealing with a guerrilla force is “clear, hold and build”. This means you clear an area of the enemy, put troops in to hold the area, and then build an environment in which the enemy can’t re-establish itself.

Israel can certainly do the “clearing” and “holding”, but has not been able to build an environment in which Hamas can no longer operate.

Israeli journalists who have been embedded with Israeli forces have made the point that Hamas operatives are returning to areas that were previously cleared by the IDF, in part due to the group’s extensive tunnel network.

Other complications for Netanyahu

Another issue for Netanyahu is that right-wing members of his cabinet have threatened to resign from his governing coalition if he agrees to a ceasefire before Hamas is destroyed as a fighting force. They believe Hamas could use a ceasefire to regroup and re-establish itself as a serious threat to Israel.

At the same time, Netanyahu is also facing increasing pressure over the fate of the hostages. If there isn’t a ceasefire and negotiations to release them, their families and supporters will continue the large demonstrations they have been staging in Israel in recent months. They are desperate to get back any hostages who may still be alive and the remains of those who have died.

An Israeli demonstrator in Tel Aviv holds a sign calling for a ceasefire deal and the immediate release of hostages held by Hamas.
Ariel Schalit/AP

Netanyahu is also still weighing Israel’s promised retaliation against Iran for its missile attack against the Jewish state in early October.

If Israel does launch a major strike, what does Iran do in response? Iran’s problem is that it had always relied on a strong Hezbollah in Lebanon to be able to respond to Israel militarily on its behalf. And now it seems to have lost that as Hezbollah has been significantly weakened in recent weeks.

The US sees a potential off-ramp

Another aspect, of course, is where the United States stands on this. The US has made clear it sees Sinwar’s death as being an off-ramp for Israel in Gaza – it can claim a major strategic victory and essentially agree to a ceasefire.

In recent weeks, the US has also given Israel an ultimatum, saying if there isn’t an improvement in the amount of humanitarian aid going into Gaza by the end of November, it will cut off some military aid to Israel.

The Democrats want the war to end as soon as possible, because while it’s on the front pages of US newspapers, it divides the party and could encourage some voters not to come out and vote in the presidential election.

So it’s very important for the Democratic candidate, Vice President Kamala Harris, that there be a ceasefire as soon as possible. She said as much in her remarks today:

Hamas is decimated and its leadership is eliminated. This moment gives us an opportunity to finally end the war in Gaza.

The problem, however, is that Netanyahu has shown in the past he is prepared to go against US wishes whenever it suits him. And a ceasefire does not suit his purposes at this point.

Given Republican nominee Donald Trump’s steadfast support for Netanyahu, the Israeli leader would also be more than happy to see him return to the White House.

What’s most likely to happen

Taking all of these factors into account, Netanyahu is likely to prioritise keeping his government together.

As such, he will be more guided by its very right-wing members – Finance Minister Bezalel Smotrich and National Security Minister Itamar Ben Gvir – than by the US or the families of the hostages.

AFter Sinwar’s death, Smotrich said the IDF “must increase intense military pressure in the Strip”, while Ben Gvir called on Israel to “continue with all our strength until absolute victory”.

So at this stage, it seems likely the war will continue until Netanyahu can say Hamas has been destroyed as a fighting force. That is what his cabinet is demanding to achieve the government’s war aims. Läs mer…

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

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

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

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

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

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

Read more:
Australia’s new scam prevention draft is welcome – but it needs to be broader in scope

A highly sophisticated ‘spoofing’ scam

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

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

The victim was duped into providing passcodes to access his online banking account.
tsingha25/Shutterstock

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

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

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

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

AFCA’s ruling

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

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

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

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

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

HSBC argued the complainant had given over his passcodes voluntarily, but AFCA disagreed.
Mick Tsikas/AAP

Other cases may be more complex

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

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

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

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

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

Broader reforms are on the way

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

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

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

Tech platforms – including social media giants – would have to take more proactive steps against scams under proposed new legislation.
Primakov/Shutterstock

Changes on the horizon could be more ambitious and significant.

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

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

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

Since it was founded nearly two decades ago, 23andMe has grown into one of the largest biotechnology companies in the world. Millions of people have used its simple genetic testing service, which involves ordering a saliva test, spitting into a tube, and sending it back to the company for a detailed DNA analysis.

But now the company is on the brink of bankruptcy. This has raised concerns about what will happen to the troves of genetic data it has in its possession.

The company’s chief executive, Anne Wojcicki, has said she is committed to customer privacy and will “maintain our current privacy policy”.

But what can customers of 23andMe themselves do to make sure their highly personal genetic data is protected? And should we be concerned about other companies that also collect our DNA?

What is 23andMe?

23andMe is one of the largest companies in the crowded marketplace for direct-to-consumer genetic testing. It was founded in 2006 in California, launching its spit test and Personal Genome Service the following year, at an initial cost of US$999. This test won Time magazine’s Invention of the Year in 2008.

Customers eagerly took up the opportunity to order a saliva collection kit online, spit in the tube and mail it back. In a few weeks when the results were ready they could find out about their health, ancestry, and other things like food preferences, fear of public speaking and cheek dimples.

The price of testing kits dropped rapidly (it’s now US$79). The company expanded globally and by 2015 had 1 million customers. The firm went public in 2021 and initially the stock price soared. As of 2024, the company claims 14 million people have taken a 23andMe DNA test.

23andMe is one of the world’s largest biotechnology companies.
T. Schneider/Shutterstock

23andMe rode the wave of popular excitement and investor interest in genetics. It wasn’t alone. By 2022 the direct-to-consumer genetic testing market was valued at US$3 billion. The three largest players – 23andMe, AncestryDNA and MyHeritage – together hold the genetic data of almost 50 million people globally.

There are dozens of smaller players too, with some focusing on emerging markets such as MapMyGenome in India and 23mofang and WeGene in China.

What happened to 23andMe?

23andMe has had a rapid downfall after the 2021 high of its public listing.

Its value has dropped more than 97%. In 2023 it suffered a major data breach affecting almost seven million users, and settled a class action lawsuit for US$30 million.

Last month its seven independent directors resigned amid news the original founder is planning to take the company private once more. The company has never made a profit and is reportedly on the verge of bankruptcy.

What this might mean for its vast stores of genetic data is unclear.

When people sign up for a 23andMe test the company assures them: “your privacy comes first”. It promises it will never share people’s DNA data with employers, insurance companies or public databases without consent. It puts choice in the hands of consumers about whether their spit sample is kept by the company, and whether their de-identified genetic and other data is used in research. Four in five people who bought a 23andMe test have agreed to their data being used in research.

However, if you dig a bit deeper, it’s clear that 23andMe uses people’s data in many different ways, such as sharing it with service providers. Perhaps most importantly, if the company goes bankrupt or is sold, people’s information might be “accessed, sold or transferred” as well.

In a statement to The Conversation, a 23andMe spokesperson said Wojcicki is “not open to considering third-party takeover proposals”, and that in the event of any future ownership change, the company’s existing data privacy agreements with customers “would remain in place unless and until customers are presented with, and agree to, new terms and statements – and only after receiving appropriate notice of any new terms, under applicable data protection laws”.

Tips for people to protect their genetic data

With 23andMe in the spotlight, people might want to take steps to protect their genetic data (although experts say there’s not really any more risk now than there has always been).

The simplest thing is to delete your account, which opts you out of any future research and discards your saliva sample. But if your data has already been de-identified and used in research, it can’t be retrieved. And even if you delete your account, 23andMe says it will keep hold of information including your genetic data, date of birth and sex, to comply with its own legal obligations.

Buying a DNA test online might feel fun and rewarding and it’s certainly been marketed that way. There are plenty of good news stories about how getting those test results has helped people to connect with lost family or understand more about their health risks. People just need to buy tests with their eyes open about what this might mean.

First, the results might not be all positive. Finding out about health risks without guidance from a health professional can be scary. Learning that the person you thought was your mum or dad actually isn’t, is an outcome for as many as 1 in 20 people who’ve bought a DNA test online.

Second, every company selling DNA tests does so with lots of legal conditions attached. People click through these without a second thought but researchers have shown it is worth taking a closer look. Consider what the company says about what it will do with your data and your sample, how long they will keep it, who else can access it, and how easy it will be to delete later.

There are guidelines from organisations like Australian Genomics that can help. And bear in mind that if a company holding your DNA profile is sold, it might be hard to make sure that data is protected.

So maybe reconsider giving a DNA test as a Christmas gift. Läs mer…

Brendan Cowell’s 2021 novel Plum has expertly wed two seemingly unnatural partners: rugby league and poetry. Cowell’s story is both an ode of love to rugby league, and a powerful exploration of the catastrophic effects of sport-induced brain injury.

This story has now been brought to life in an ABC drama of the same name. It brilliantly reflects the experience of many players who are left to suffer – often in silence – with the long-term costs of the game.

A theatre of damage revealed

Our introduction to the main character, Peter “The Plum” Lum (played by Cowell), is jarring. Plum’s body lies motionless in a darkened changing room, enveloped by the distant sounds of a roaring stadium full of fans, a sharp referee’s whistle and the commentator’s pitched voice: “this poor bloke, he has had his head absolutely battered”.

We watch the doctor’s light worryingly cast to and fro across Plum’s dazed gaze, while his heavily pregnant wife’s concerned face looms large. Much larger, however, is the coach’s demand: “get the salts doc” – and his insistence that “the only way he (Plum) isn’t going back out there (on the field) is if he is fucking dead”.

And so the act proceeds, with Plum, like many athletes before and after him, returning heroically to the field. Though his team is victorious – another trophy retained – we’re forced to consider the unspoken costs of his love for the game.

These costs are amplified once the adoration from Plum’s fans and teammates, and his mantle as Cronulla’s king, are no more. We come to know a shell of a man who is desperate to deny, despite the advice of his doctor, the cognitive and other effects of the “little jolts” and “hard head knocks” experienced throughout his career.

The intensity with which Plum keeps his health condition a secret, and the ongoing abuse he levels on his body, provide a window into the lived experiences of many rugby league players. While this game gives, it also takes more than its fair share.

Asher Keddie stars as Plum’s former wife, Renee.
ABC

Masculinity and collision sports

The series highlights the emerging scientific link between collision sports such as rugby league and degenerative brain conditions including CTE-induced dementia – as well as attempts to discredit this science and silence the voices of athletes and families seeking redress from league administrators.

Contact and collision sports have often required athletes to sacrifice their brains and bodies in the pursuit of glory and success.

While a diagnosis of the degenerative brain disease Chronic Traumatic Encephalopathy (CTE) can only be made posthumously, Plum displays many of the hallmark symptoms: impaired judgement, impulse control issues, aggression, depression and anxiety.

Viewers are taken into the deep fog of this existence. As a 1990s playmaker, Plum had fame but not fortune. Nearing 50, working at an airport, we see a traumatic near-miss as he experiences an epileptic seizure.

His forgetfulness leaves him unable to remember his favourite player’s name at a Cronulla Sharks corporate event. He suffers confusion and anxiety. Aggressive acts, including punching holes in bedroom walls, become his daily pain and shame.

Plum’s absent father’s advice to “never take a backwards step” also echoes throughout the series, reflecting the deeply embedded view of rugby league as a hard sport played by equally hard men.

This hard man veneer is grounded in stoicism – and for Plum and his former teammates, in unhealthy addictions to gambling, drugs and grog. Plum repels his family and friends, making his world intentionally small for fear he might forget something or someone. The series brings to the fore the raw and visceral effects of hypermasculinity and not speaking out.

Cowell himself hails from the Sydney suburb of Cronulla, where the show is set.
ABC

Rugby league and poetry

The series also features poetry and the presence of past literary figures (conjured in Plum’s mind) such as Charles Bukowski and Sylvia Plath. As viewers, we see Plum’s internal dialogues with these apparitions, but his family and friends can’t.

Plum also joins a local poetry group, where his decaying brain finds purpose and connection. This unlikely outlet becomes his therapy. It comforts him and provides him a space to communicate his experiences with the outside world. Through his ode to rugby league, we witness him come closer to clarity.

Read more:
Why a portrait of a former NRL great could spark greater concussion awareness in Australia

All the while, Plum’s son is a talented player on the verge of a professional rugby league contract. And although Plum doesn’t regret a minute of his playing career, his prognosis leaves him urging his son away from the sport’s theatre of damage. This is a decision echoed by many parents in real life.

The future of collision sports

Reflecting on the potential impact of his book and the ABC series, Cowell imagines a space where the competitive commercial rivalries between football codes such as AFL, rugby union and soccer are suspended.

Instead of competing for a greater share of the market via trivial one-upmanship, sport leagues could pool their resources to invest in science that helps us understand and prevent sport-induced brain trauma.

Considering how many rugby players conceal and/or fail to report concussive episodes, we’ll need a major cultural shakeup at all levels of the game – because a love for the game should never come at the expense of oneself. Läs mer…

A new study has found a link between hormonal intrauterine devices (IUDs) and breast cancer.

The research is important, but media reports of a large increase in risk may be causing unnecessary worry.

Let’s put the findings in perspective for people who use IUDs.

What are IUDs?

IUDs are commonly used contraceptive devices. They sit inside the uterus (womb) to prevent pregnancy.

Older versions contain copper as their active ingredient. Newer “hormonal” IUDs slowly release a synthetic progesterone called levonorgestrel. This mimics the body’s natural progesterone hormone.

Both the copper and hormonal types of IUD are highly effective at preventing pregnancy over many years. Fertility is readily restored when they’re removed.

But the hormonal IUDs have the extra advantage of making periods lighter and less painful. Some people have one inserted for these reasons, even if they don’t need contraception.

Many women experience pain on insertion or spotting in the first few months of use. But compared to other contraceptives, women generally find IUDs very acceptable and continue to use them.

What did the new study find?

The new study, by researchers from Denmark, used data from national health registries to look for links between hormonal IUD use and breast cancer.

They tracked nearly 80,000 people who started hormonal IUDs across two decades. They compared these people to an equal number of people born at the same time who did not use hormonal IUDs.

On their raw numbers, you might think hormonal IUDs prevented breast cancer, because there were 720 cases of breast cancer in the hormonal IUD group, and nearly 900 in the other group. But that’s not the full story.

Ideally, when researchers study the effects of medicines, they do a “randomised controlled trial”, where researchers use chance to decide whether people get one treatment or another. This ensures the two groups are very similar apart from the treatment being studied. That’s not what happened here.

Read more:
Randomised control trials: what makes them the gold standard in medical research?

Instead, they simply studied people who had decided to have a hormonal IUD, and compared them to people who didn’t. This means the groups were different in many other ways.

So, the hormonal IUD group and the other group might appear to have a different risk of breast cancer – not because of the IUDs, but because of their other differences. For example, more highly educated women might be more likely to choose IUDs, and also more likely to attend breast cancer screening, where their breast cancer would be discovered.

The researchers “adjusted” their results to account for many differences between the two groups (including education, age, number of children, and some other medicines and medical conditions). After this “adjustment”, the numbers pointed in a different direction: towards a higher risk of breast cancer among people who used a hormonal IUD.

However, there are many other important risk factors for breast cancer the authors seem not to have adjusted for, such as body weight, alcohol use, smoking and physical activity. If there were differences between the two groups in these things, then the study’s results may still be biased. This makes me quite uncertain about the results.

Ultimately, we can’t say the IUDs caused the breast cancer – just that there’s an “association” or “link”.

Read more:
Clearing up confusion between correlation and causation

How big are the risks?

There are two different ways researchers express risk: “relative” and “absolute” risks. Here, the “relative” risk increase was about 30% for women using the IUDs for up to five years, 40% after 5–10 years, and 80% after 10–15 years of use.

These sound like massive risks. But though these statistics compare the risk of breast cancer in IUD users to the risk in non-users, they do not tell us the proportion of women who will get breast cancer. For that, we need to look at “absolute” risk increases.

These are much smaller. For every 10,000 women, this study suggests we might see an extra 14 cases of breast cancer after up to five years of use, 29 cases after 5–10 years use, and 71 cases after 10–15 years use. In “absolute” terms – as a proportion of all the IUD users – all of these risk increases are comfortably under 1%.

Absolute risk increases are much smaller.
Frame Stock Footage/Shtterstock

Reporting the dramatic relative risks, and not the much smaller absolute risks, is a common flaw in stories about health risk, and goes against science reporting recommendations.

What does other research say?

There are other studies on this topic, including a much larger recent study from Sweden based on data from more than half a million users of hormonal IUDs.

This suggested only a 13% relative risk increase in breast cancer – much smaller than the risk increases in the Danish study. This would mean an additional 1.46 cases of breast cancer for every 10,000 women per year.

This is in keeping with a recent large review of studies on this topic, which also found a much smaller risk than the new Danish paper.

The Swedish study also looked at other cancers. The results suggested a decreased risk of cancers of the cervix, ovaries and endometrium (womb lining). This mixed picture of some cancer risk and some cancer protection is also seen for traditional contraceptive pills.

And of course, all contraception protects women from the risks of pregnancy.

What does it mean for me?

The link between hormonal IUDs and breast cancer is probably very small, and might be a statistical illusion rather than a real thing.

Even if it’s a real risk, it may be offset by protection against other cancers.

And it may be dwarfed by other risks for breast cancer, such as high body weight, physical inactivity, alcohol use, and smoking. Online resources can help you visualise these risks.

Hormonal IUDs aren’t the right contraceptive choice for every woman. However, they deserve to stay high up on the menu of options. Läs mer…

New Zealand is highly reliant on trade – particularly on maritime routes, which are lifelines for exports and imports. Key sectors such as agriculture, construction, and wholesale and retail trade depend heavily on this global network.

External events can severely disrupt the flow of goods, delay deliveries or damage critical infrastructure.

But a crisis like the COVID pandemic can also disrupt business commitments to sustainability goals such as reducing carbon emissions, minimising waste and improving resource efficiency.

This is important, because several major New Zealand companies have introduced sustainability measures into their operations over the past decade.

Fonterra, for example, adopted low-carbon logistics and distribution practices. Zespri uses blockchain technology to improve the transparency of its sustainable practices and enhance tracking across its supply chain. Air New Zealand partners with local suppliers and adopts initiatives to lower its carbon emissions.

In our recent research, we reviewed 287 studies on supply chains. We identified key tensions between efficiency and sustainability, and how major disruptions to supply chains and operations can swing the balance between the two.

On one hand, businesses are pressured to maintain lean, cost-effective operations. On the other, there is a growing recognition of the need to build resilience and sustainability, particularly in the face of climate change.

The COVID-19 pandemic highlighted New Zealand’s dependency on global supply chains.
Zhao Gang/Getty Images

Traditional strategies

New Zealand’s supply chains are susceptible to disruptions from natural disasters (such as earthquakes and floods), geopolitical tensions and global health crises.

Businesses have historically responded in a variety of ways: diversifying suppliers, increasing inventory buffers and securing alternative transport routes.

The use of technology, such as radio frequency identification, has played a crucial role in tracking goods across the supply chain. It provides real-time visibility and accurate inventory management.

Blockchain is becoming a key tool for making supply chains more sustainable. This technology uses a digital ledger to keep information safe and easy to trace.

But the ongoing technological innovation risks disadvantaging people and businesses with limited resources and capabilities along the supply chain.

Embracing a circular economy

During the pandemic, businesses experienced shortages of critical supplies, delays in shipments and fluctuating demand. This forced them to temporarily abandon long-term sustainability strategies in favour of short-term survival tactics.

This made sense from a business perspective. But to build more resilient and sustainable supply chains, businesses will need to move beyond traditional strategies.

Our research found integrating circular economy principles into supply chain management can help create a buffer for businesses.

The circular economy model focuses on minimising waste – keeping products and materials in use for as long as possible. There is also a focus on regenerating natural systems to foster economic, social and environmental resilience.

Companies can reduce their reliance on external supply chains by focusing on reusing materials, creating closed-loop systems with regional partners and by boosting the technologies already in place.

By fostering stronger links with local suppliers and focusing on regional sourcing, businesses can reduce their exposure to global risks. This will also help build more self-sufficient supply chain ecosystems.

Building sustainable supply chains requires investing in advanced technologies, such as blockchain and artificial intelligence. But implementing these technologies should be done carefully and in stages to minimise disruption. Going slowly can also allow for the inclusion of all supply chain partners in these technological transitions.

The way forward

New Zealand’s supply chain future hinges on greater collaboration between everyone involved, including businesses, policymakers and communities.

In practice, this means working together to build systems that are not only efficient and cost-effective but also resilient and sustainable.

Equally, resilient supply chains require regional manufacturing ecosystems. To mitigate the risks from global supply chain disruptions, it’s essential to support local manufacturing, even when offshore manufacturing costs are lower.

This will require government support and strategic investment in regional manufacturing innovation.

While New Zealand’s supply chains face significant challenges, there are great opportunities to reshape them for a more resilient and sustainable future.

By integrating circular economy principles, using advanced technologies and fostering regional collaboration, New Zealand can build supply chains that are prepared for future crises and which also contribute to the country’s sustainability goals. Läs mer…

In July 2023, after the release of the damning Robodebt Royal Commission report, Prime Minister Anthony Albanese declared:

it was wrong, it was illegal, it should never have happened and it should never happen again.

A major finding was some senior public servants were overly responsive to the wishes of ministers, to the detriment of the general public. The report describes an environment that was:

fraught […] characterised by a powerful drive for savings, strongly expressed ministerial policy positions […] and intense pressure experienced by public servants.

Investigating the scheme, which ran under the Morrison government, Commissioner Catherine Holmes was disturbed by “the lengths to which public servants were prepared to go to oblige ministers”, undermining the concept of impartiality and frank and fearless advice.

The release of Rick Morton’s new book Mean Streak brings a renewed focus on the lessons from Robodebt. To learn from such a serious crisis, organisations need to openly confront what happened, discuss and understand what the failure means. What were the systemic causes? What cultural failings did it expose? How can we ensure a similar disaster does not happen again?

Our research found little evidence these questions were being asked by many public service leaders immediately after the royal commission.

In the six months after the royal commission report’s release, almost half of the heads of Australian Public Service (APS) agencies apparently decided they didn’t need to communicate with their staff about Robodebt and explain what it meant for them.

What did department leaders do?

Learning from the failure of Robodebt will take time. In 2024, the public service is investigating and punishing some of those involved and implementing a new integrity plan.

Our research focuses on the six months after the release of the royal commission report: July to December 2023. Research shows the immediate post-crisis period is crucial to effective learning.

But before organisations can respond, they have to interpret and understand the meaning of the failure.

Secretary of the Department of Prime Minister and Cabinet Glyn Davis, sent out an all-staff email after the report was released.
Lukas Coch/AAP

Just as the public turns to political leaders in a crisis, employees look to management. Leaders’ communication, whether by email, an all staff video, or a town hall meeting, is crucial.

These messages set the organisational narrative that explains what happened and why, what the repercussions are, how it can be resolved, and what lessons (if any) should be drawn from the crisis.

Three days after the royal commission report was released, the secretary of the Department of the Prime Minister and Cabinet, Glyn Davis, and Australian Public Service Commissioner Gordon de Brouwer, emailed all public service employees saying:

we are committed to working through the findings in an open and constructive way with you — the APS — and with the Australian public.

Our focus, however, is on how leaders of individual departments and agencies responded. Using Freedom of Information (FOI) requests, we asked how leaders communicated with staff in the crucial period straight after the commission reported.

Departments are where policy development occurs and they often work closely with ministers.

But only half of all public servants work for departments. The rest work across the 100 or so agencies.

While most department heads communicated with their staff about Robodebt, only 54% of agencies’ leaders did.

The 50 agencies that did not communicate with their staff about the meaning of Robodebt in the months following the report employ more than 45,000 people, more than 25% of the public service.

Not my problem mentality

Three large departments told us that “no documents were identified” or “the Department does not hold documents […] that meet the terms of the request”. This indicates they did not communicate with staff in the first six months after the Robodebt report was handed down. The departments were:

It is not clear why those secretaries decided not to write to their staff directly about Robodebt, but the absence of communication sends a message.

This was explicit in some responses. For example, in declining our request, we were told that the Independent Health and Aged Care Pricing Authority:

[…] is not an outwardly facing organisation and as such does not provide payments to individual recipients. Consequently, it is not required to respond to the Royal Commission and there are no documents that are relevant to your request.

Even when there was some communication, agencies were not necessarily addressing the cultural issues. For example, the Clean Energy Regulator was focused on public perception:

there is a heightened sense of scrutiny on regulators […] please be vigilant if you are approached by anybody working for a media outlet.

In such circumstances, it is unlikely cultural change will occur.

Some positive signs

On the positive side, there were examples of agencies that addressed the serious implications of Robodebt for their work, which is likely to improve their organisational culture.

The Australian Securities and Investments Commission (ASIC) identified a number of recommendations “albeit directed at other agencies […] that ASIC should act on”. They noted that “given most of our people come from the private sector”, there was a need to improve training on “our obligations as public servants”.

Read more:
Two former federal departmental heads breached public service code 25 times in Robodebt scandal

Similarly, Australian statistician David Gruen emphasised creating a culture where “people feel supported if and when they seek to raise difficult issues with their colleagues or superiors”. Similar discussions were had at AUSTRAC.

The report detailed a culture where public servants were overly responsive to the wishes of ministers.
Lukas Coch/AAP

Departments are closest to ministers, so we hoped their communications would address problems in the relationships between senior public servants and ministers, a key issue exposed in the Robodebt case.

Unfortunately, only four departments discussed over-responsiveness with their staff or in executive meetings, in the period studied.

The department of industry and science was the most comprehensive. Secretary Meghan Quinn wrote to staff several times, reflecting that the “findings go to the heart of leadership and culture and this should be our focus going forward”. The department’s integrity branch wrote to staff:

public servants [must] […] provide the government with advice that is frank and honest. If you ever feel pressured to do or sign something you are not comfortable with, it’s important you speak with your supervisors […] you have the Executive’s backing not to put your name to anything that is not true or not in the public interest.

However, this was one of the few departments where senior staff confronted these core issues directly in the early months after the royal commission reported. Most departments did not name or discuss the underlying cause of the failures: over-responsiveness to ministers at the expense of protecting the public.

While many of the errors of Robodebt can be solved through new procedures and rules, changing public service culture is a bigger learning project.

It requires a shift in norms and reweighting the competing duties of public servants. They must serve elected ministers, but equally, they must serve the public by ensuring probity, fairness and legality.

Robodebt illustrated the harm that occurs when the balance tips too far towards ministers and away from the public interest.

That this was rarely part of the communication from public service leaders to their staff in the immediate aftermath of the royal commission does not bode well for lessons being learnt from the crisis. Läs mer…

So, on we go His welfare is of my concern No burden is he to bear We’ll get there For I know He would not encumber me He ain’t heavy, he’s my brother – He Ain’t Heavy, He’s My Brother by The Hollies

Writer–Director David Vincent Smith’s reference to The Hollies’ 1969 hit as the title for his new film is not without irony.

Max (Sam Corlett) – drug-dependent and out of control – is clearly a crushing weight on his sister Jade (Leila George) and mother Bev (Greta Scacchi).

The opening scene of this compelling new Australian production throws us right into the chaos he visits upon them. The desperate, violent, off-camera shouts of abuse from Max as his sister sneaks past concerned neighbours and into their mother’s house are obviously nothing new.

Bev, seated at the kitchen table, shows none of the anxiety we see in Jade. Perhaps she’s beyond reacting to Max’s outbursts. Perhaps she looks past the ugly side of her son through eyes that see only with a mother’s love.

Jade, however, is at the end of her tether. Everything she’s tried has failed. She’s left with just one last desperate measure.

This desperate measure didn’t come to David Vincent Smith as a narrative conceit. It was much closer to home.

One night, Smith got a call from his mother who told him his own drug-addicted brother was outside their home. As he explains in the film’s press kit:

I could hear smashing windows in the background as he tried to claw his way inside. I was done. There had been many years of violence, emergency rooms and mental trauma […] my own life was suffering as a result […] what could I do? I had an idea – I could kidnap him. Take him out to the desert, throw away the car keys and resolve this once and for all.

Smith didn’t pursue that extreme thought in real life. Instead, it found its way onto the screen, first as a short “proof of concept” film – I’m Not Hurting You, which played at the 2019 Sydney Film Festival – and then as He Ain’t Heavy, his first feature film.

The kidnapping and withdrawal

Jade does indeed kidnap her brother. She sedates him and brings him to their dead grandparents’ home in the country, which Jade and Bev have been packing up in preparation to for its sale.

Here, we see Jade’s methodical preparation of the room where she will incarcerate Max, the food she will feed him, the posters and pamphlets that inform her how to manage a drug addict’s withdrawal.

The film follows Jade (Leila George), who has spent much of her life trying to bring her brother Max out of his drug addiction.
Bonsai Fims

The choice of the grandparents’ home is significant for our understanding of this fractured family. Here we find evidence that things weren’t always like this.

We see old photo albums of happier times, toys and games that are now just reminders of fun family visits, a guitar that was once part of Max’s promising singing career, the nearby waterhole where lazy days were spent, and pencil marks on the door jamb recording the siblings’ growth.

Perhaps the resonance of their better days will be as powerful as the enforced withdrawal in bringing Max back. But, of course, Jade’s best-laid plans don’t go as she might have hoped.

Sam Corlett, who plays Max, also plays the role of Leif Eriksson in the popular Netflix series Vikings: Valhalla.
Bonsai Fims

In many ways, Max’s drug addiction is what Alfred Hitchcock would have called a McGuffin – the story element you think the film is about, when in fact the film is about something else entirely.

In this case, that something else is love: the love Jade feels for her brother that leads to this extreme action, the love Bev feels for her son that makes her vulnerable to his unpredictable and violent behaviour, and the absence of love Max feels for himself – a void that sucks him into a self-destructive spiral.

He Ain’t Heavy is essentially a three-handed chamber piece that delivers a triumvirate of distinctive, grounded and well-delineated performances, each one serving a sharply written screenplay imbued with an authenticity that reflects Smith’s lived experience.

Bev (Greta Scacchi) feels a lot of lover for her son, which makes her vulnerable to his unpredictable and violent behaviour.
Bonsai Fims

A powerful portrait of familial love

Without giving any spoilers, there are some narrative conveniences along the way that might detract from a lesser film. In this case, however, they are easy to forgive, in favour of the powerful viewing experience they help deliver.

If only for the curiosity factor, it’s worth noting Leila George is also Greta Scacchi’s real-life daughter (her father is Vincent D’Onofrio). This obviously doesn’t hurt when it comes to casting for family resemblance. But this tidbit of trivia is quickly forgotten in the moments of each of their finely crafted, absorbing performances.

In Smith’s earlier short film version, we see a plaque on the grandparents’ kitchen wall with the following aphorism:

RECIPE FOR LIFE – pinch of persistence, dash of kindness, spoonful of laughter, heap of love.

This is a story about a family that has exhausted its persistence, and for whom laughter is something of the past. But Jade’s extreme action is really an act of kindness. Both she and Bev, in their own ways, are driven by that heap of love.

He Ain’t Heavy is a film that deserves the same heap of love from its audience.

The film serves a sharply written screenplay imbued with authenticity.
Bonsai Fims

He Ain’t Heavy is in select cinemas from October 17. Läs mer…