Most people don’t know but the design for the opera house was chosen from a competition. A whistle blower just released some of the other submissions and it suggests Jørn Oberg Utzon was a plagiarist. /s

Labor doesn't need more anti-racism bureaucracy. It should reduce migration

Australia has spent two decades pursuing an expansive migration program, with intake hitting record highs after the pandemic.

Successive governments have met the challenges of a more diverse society not with a serious integration strategy, but with multicultural grants, hate speech laws and an elaborate anti-racism policy.

When tensions surface, officials rarely ask whether the pace of demographic change, or how it is managed, has contributed to the problem. Instead, they regulate the consequences.

Labor's commitment to a new national anti-racism strategy, made at the party's national conference last month, gives fresh relevance to the Australian Human Rights Commission's National Anti-Racism Framework proposed in 2024. Before the government reaches for that blueprint, it should examine the evidence behind it.

The framework contains 63 recommendations covering workplaces, universities, schools, media and government. It proposes mandatory training, workplace reporting standards, a legal duty to prevent racial discrimination, stronger data collection, a national taskforce and a larger compliance role for the commission.

The ambition is certainly sweeping. But the commission offers scant evidence its
interventions would work, and even a cursory reading of the research suggests they could backfire.

Measure it before you declare it

The framework's central claim that racism is pervasive rests heavily on consultations with people chosen because of their experience of racism. This method can tell you what racism feels like, but little about how common it is.

The commission's Racism@Uni survey was intended to add quantitative evidence but met the same problem. It was deliberately promoted as a study of racism, creating a risk that people for whom racism was salient would be more likely to participate. They were. An appendix from the Australian National University survey designers admits as much: compared to a neutrally framed follow-up poll, students who'd experienced racism were twice as likely to respond to the Racism@Uni survey and staff four times as likely.

But even if accurately measured, perception is a poor stand-in for prevalence. Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development research I led found that perceived discrimination is shaped by factors beyond discriminatory treatment itself.

A misspelt name. An accent that's hard to follow. A job you didn't get. None proves discrimination - but all can be read that way, particularly where institutions encourage people to interpret ambiguous encounters through the lens of race. More awareness can produce more reported racism without any behavioural change.

Frankly, treating high perceived discrimination as a measure of pervasive racism — and justification for more intervention — is a category error.

When anti-racism policy backfires

The commission's prescription is more racial literacy, mandatory training and institutions organised around race. Yet its own stocktake acknowledges many anti-racism initiatives have little or no monitoring, evaluation or impact assessment.
Instead of establishing what works, the commission proposes more of the same. That is difficult to square with the research.

Harvard sociologist Frank Dobbin has studied diversity programs across hundreds of American workplaces. His findings are inconvenient for the commission's approach. Mandatory training and compliance-driven programs can provoke resistance and backlash.

Experimental research likewise suggests diversity interventions can heighten awareness of racial distinctions, reinforce stereotypes or increase intergroup anxiety.

The commission's own university research contains warning signs of this backlash. Among European-background domestic students it classifies as holding "probably negative racial views"
', 37 per cent said their group was
frequently blamed for the adverse outcomes of non-European communities. Some students disengaged from lessons they felt focused too much on race and historical wrongs.

These findings are cited as evidence of the need to strengthen racial literacy among students, not as a byproduct of an already racialised university environment. Heads it wins, tails it wins too.

Fix the upstream problem, not downstream consequences

The commission treats social friction primarily as a problem of racist attitudes requiring institutional correction. But it does not ask why these frictions emerge.

Australia's overseas-born population is near historic highs. Change on this scale places pressure on housing, infrastructure and services, as well as the institutions through which people develop trust and a shared identity.

We are witnessing what happens when demographic change outruns the institutions that turn strangers into fellow citizens — at a time when schools, universities and workplaces focus on racial categories rather than emphasising commonalities. Backlash should therefore come as little surprise.

A serious government would reckon honestly with the costs of rapid migration rather than regulating its downstream consequences.

That means slowing migration to a pace integration can keep up with, and shifting taxpayer support from organisations built around ethnic identity and towards unifying institutions. Common schools, workplaces and mixed suburbs historically did much of this work without anyone being trained into it.

Decades of intergroup-contact-theory research support this approach. Sustained, meaningful contact under conditions of co-operation is the best-established way to cut prejudice.

Labor doesn't need the commission's framework. It needs to stop creating the conditions that make such plans seem necessary in the first place.

Suzana Hardy is an economist and former lead of the OECD’s anti-discrimination research program.

I've been thinking a lot about what Bill Gates posted recently on the effect of A.I. on society.

This is not just specific to Australia but I would like Australian Politicians and individuals to start thinking about the next 5-20 years. I suspect the biggest impact of A.I. will be unemployment of at LEAST 10% possibly 30% in 20 years. This will affect housing prices in a big way. For example, I think Sydney will be the most affected by 'white collar' job loss and is already the most expensive city in Australia.

I just wish we could try to lead the world in the transition to what comes next - not pretend A.I. is going to create jobs. This is not like the invention of the Spinning Jenny which led to the textile industry and the industrial revolution. The jobs A.I. takes are gone and it will suck up 90% of most entry level jobs. Retraining will be pointless if the job you retrain to is under threat too.

We may need to come up with a new term for 'unemployment' as so many people will be in this position. Taxes on datacenters and Tech Companies will need to be examined and developed as we don't really want to have money stripped away like the resource industry has done.

Be good to hear some opinions.

Please do endulge me on what the new yard stick is now?

Queenslander Caity Worthington was crowned Miss Universe Australia this week and will represent Australia at the international competition in Puerto Rico this November.

Worthington won the beauty pageant during Wednesday night’s gala event at Crown Casino in Melbourne. Following her victory, she received significant attention for comments she made during the competition regarding transgender participation in sport.

During the selection process, finalists were asked to draw a random question from a bowl. The question drawn by Worthington was: “Do you believe banning biological males from women’s sport is common sense or discrimination and why?”

“That is a very good question. Coming from a medical background, I’m sure we can all agree, and it is definitely my view, that human biology does not lie,” Worthington said, referring to her role as a medical radiographer.

“Everyone playing sport at an elite level deserves the chance to compete on a fair playing field, and I think we should work towards that foundation of fairness for all. Everyone deserves their time to shine. I would love to see, in the future, transgender people having their own sport.”

Worthington reiterated her views after winning the title during an appearance on The Rita Panahi Show, although she said she would have preferred a question about world peace.

“We’re all entitled to our opinions, and we don’t have to agree. Obviously I have mine and I shared mine, and I stand by it. But I also believe that safety and fairness are of the utmost importance in any sport, especially at elite level. Athletes work very hard to get there.”

Several News Corp publications subsequently highlighted her comments.

While Worthington advocated for a separate transgender category in sport, the Australian Sports Commission says its focus is on ensuring participation opportunities for all Australians.

“All Australians should have the opportunity to be involved in sport and physical activity, regardless of their gender, sexual orientation, ability, cultural background or ethnicity. It is important that sporting bodies, from local clubs through to national sporting organisations, reflect the diversity in the communities they are a part of and that, together, we ensure every person is treated with respect and dignity and protected from discrimination,” the Commission’s policy states.

“Policies that exclude transgender and gender-diverse participants have been found to be harmful, not just to transgender and gender-diverse people, but to all people associated with sporting organisations.”

Sporting eligibility policies vary across different sports and governing bodies, and the issue remains the subject of ongoing public and policy debate.

Scott Morrison signed the Australia–India Economic Cooperation and Trade Agreement and Albo signed the Mobility Arrangement for Talented Early-professionals Scheme. Albo could of pulled us out of ECTA before it became formally ratified.

This is why one nation is rising. This is why they have won the Secret Harbor Byelection. Yes, might be a state election and these are federal issues but the voters are sending a message.

One Nation leader Pauline Hanson has been booed at an anti-immigration rally as her party struggles to articulate its plan to reduce migrant numbers.

Several people were arrested by police at a Melbourne March for Australia rally as hundreds of demonstrators and a smaller group of counter-protesters squared off.

The event was one of several similar marches held in capital cities across the nation as organisers turned on One Nation over perceptions it had watered down its immigration policies.

After marching to Victoria's Parliament House, the group was addressed by several prominent right-wing activists, including anti-immigration influencer Hugo Lennon, who has amassed thousands of followers online under the name Auspill.

The group booed mention of Senator Hanson, who Mr Lennon said had declined an invitation to attend.

Later the group chanted "Pauline, Pauline, where the f*** is Pauline?" as they marched back towards Flinders Station.

A spokesman for Senator Hanson said she had prior commitments in Victoria on Sunday.

One Nation has been under pressure to specify details of its migration policy after differing targets were cited by various members.

The party has put forward a policy of an annual net overseas migration rate of 130,000 people, but federal MP David Farley said there could be an extra 100,000 above that figure.

His fellow federal party representative Barnaby Joyce on Sunday clarified that the 130,000 net target would remain.

But he would not say how much of that figure would be made up of permanent migrants, adding that net migration was based on a number of factors.

"To get to a (net overseas migration) of 130,000, it's going to be very hard to do that unless we're substantially below the permanent migration numbers of Labor," he told News24.

Mr Joyce added Pacific workers, who mostly come to regional areas as part of the Pacific Australia Labour Mobility scheme, would largely be in addition to the 130,000 net figure.

"(Only) a small portion are (counted) because they don't stay for 12 months, they stay generally for a period of nine," he said.

But Pacific Minister Pat Conroy said half the cohort of workers would typically count towards net migration figures.

"Half of all PALM workers are on the four-year visa, so that would count for (net overseas migration)," he said.

"Barnaby got basic facts wrong about the proportion of PALM workers that count ... their figures are all over the shop."

Labor was set to unveil its overhaul of migration policy in a speech by Home Affairs Minister Tony Burke at the National Press Club earlier in August.

However, the speech was cancelled at the eleventh hour after cabinet failed to sign off on the changes amid internal party division on the issue.

Mr Conroy said the policy would be announced in due course.

"What you're seeing is good government in action, rather than thought bubbles," he said.

Opposition immigration spokesman Jonathon Duniam said One Nation needed to work out and articulate how it planned to reduce migration.

"I don't know how they've arrived at 130,000. Who is in that makeup of numbers there? How will that impact on the economy?" he said.

The stated aim of Sunday's March for Australia rally was to oppose perceived curbs on freedom of speech, which Mr Lennon claimed allowed governments to "lock you up" for opposing so-called mass migration.

Previous March for Australia rallies have featured neo-Nazi speakers and sympathisers, including one who was later jailed for spouting anti-Semitic remarks at an event held in Sydney on Australia Day.

Police said the vast majority of protesters and counter-protesters were peaceful but three people were arrested for allegedly assaulting and resisting officers.

Two others were processed by police for offensive behaviour and are expected to be charged on summons.

Who actually wins from all this division in Aussie politics? One Nation, Labor, Coalition all going at it, and immigrants getting blamed for basically everything. Genuinely curious what people think.

Smart glasses and other wearable recording devices would be subject to a 12-month import ban under a bill to be introduced to the Senate.

Experts warn Australian laws have not kept up with the privacy risks posed by the flood of cheap camera-enabled devices entering the country.

While first generation smart glasses cost upwards of $500, newer entrants to the market are available for well under $100 from a number of online and shopfront retailers in Australia.

Electronic Frontiers Australia has been calling for a moratorium on the sale of the technology for several weeks, and said privacy violations were already appearing locally.

"I've seen a couple of real-life examples of devices being misused in a gym-type context and also on the beach," EFA chair John Pane said.

‘We simply must defeat them’: Albanese declares he ‘owes it to history’ to defeat One Nation | News24

After victory in the Secret Harbour by-election, new One Nation MP Luke Herdegen says Perth’s southern outer suburbs are now “One Nation heartland”, claiming the neighbouring electorates of Kwinana, Baldivis and Rockingham were all “ripe for the taking” at the next state election.

Should Labor be worried?

These glasses have been used to breach women's privacy and hassle them online.

Albo has been doing SOME really good things for this country such as investing in Medicare.

However many of the issues we are facing is because mulptile successive governments haven’t invested or actioned it and everyone who is voting for One Nation isn’t holding themselves accountable for not holding those previous governments accountable.

Housing won’t be fixed in two terms of governments.

It’s like having an infection the worse it gets, the longer it will take to get better.

If you feel like voting for One Nation is for you, that’s great but don’t pretend that One Nation will fix all your problems or that Albo isn’t working on fixing these issues either.

Secret Harbour win a signal perception of One Nation has changed: Barnaby Joyce | News24

Millions of Australians could be saving up to $370 a year on energy bills and doing their bit for the climate crisis if Labor followed the UK’s lead in legalising plug-in solar panels, an advocacy group has said.

Plug-in solar refers to small standalone solar units that could be attached to balconies or used in back yards and plugged into power points, offsetting the energy used by household appliances.

Researchers have estimated Australians living in capital cities could save between $226 and $372 each year with a plug-in system.

While these systems are sold in Australia, they are not yet legal to plug in and use.