What does the Mineral Resources crisis tell us about the state of corporate governance in Australia?

The $7 billion Australian mining giant Mineral Resources (MinRes) is facing a governance crisis.

Chris Ellison, the company’s founder and managing director, faces allegations of tax evasion and using company resources for his personal benefit.

Ellison is now set to stand down as managing director in the next 12 to 18 months. He’ll also pay the company almost $9 million in penalties.

But serious questions remain about how the company got into this situation in the first place. Concerns about the way the MinRes board handled the situation have hurt the company’s standing.

So, can MinRes regain its credibility and avoid future crises? And what are the broader corporate governance issues for Australia’s business community?

A number of allegations

Recent media reporting has raised a number of allegations of unethical conduct and lack of transparency against Chris Ellison.

Ellison and some other (yet to be named) senior executives have been accused of using offshore entities to bypass Australian tax reporting. This allegedly enabled personal spending and inflated equipment sales at the expense of shareholders.

There are also allegations he and unnamed others charged the company above-market rent on properties owned by executives.

On Monday, the board updated shareholders on findings from its own investigation.

It concluded Ellison had “on occassion” used company resources for his own personal projects. A new independent committee will continue to review related party transactions involving Ellison.

The board concluded Ellison’s use of company resources hadn’t caused MinRes any material financial harm. But its findings still raise serious questions about governance oversight at the firm – and in Australia more generally.

A slew of problems

Key concerns include perceptions that:

the board failed to act promptly
conflicts of interest were inadequately managed
the decision to keep Ellison on for another 12 to 18 months – despite the board describing his actions as “profoundly disappointing” – could harm the firm’s public image.

MinRes has also relied heavily on Ellison’s leadership since its founding, raising questions about succession planning.

Both the Australian Institute of Company Directors and G20/OECD Principles of Corporate Governance emphasise the importance of regularly refreshing leadership.

Long-term reliance on any single leader should be avoided.

Some may also argue the board wasn’t transparent enough when it first learned about many of the allegations back in 2022.

To regain the trust of shareholders and the public, the MinRes board will have to address all these issues and strengthen its commitment to ethical oversight.

A governance wake-up call

The crisis at MinRes offers some essential lessons for boards across Australia.

The long-term financial consequences will depend heavily on how well the board can take decisive action and stabilise investor confidence. A mishandled scandal could permanently impair the company’s valuation, especially if any further issues come to light.

However, governance failures can have ripple effects that extend beyond the companies directly involved. They can erode public trust in corporate Australia as a whole.

We’ve recently seen a range of high-profile examples, including PwC Australia’s misuse of confidential government information and the unlawful termination of 1,700 Qantas workers.

This only underscores the urgent need to repair trust in the business sector, with strong, ethical governance standards.

The role of a company board

Despite the board’s ultimate findings, questions remain about whether the governance practices were robust enough to detect and address these issues sooner.

The role of the board of any organisation is always going to be complex. Under Australian law, their overarching requirement is to:

exercise their powers and discharge their duties in good faith in the best interest of the corporation and for a proper purpose.

From the outside, the current board of MinRes appears to tick all the boxes of good governance.

It is made up of nine members, eight of whom are independent, with the remaining position held by the managing director.

There appears to be no indication the board was compromised – which may occur if board members are large shareholders or have financial interests in other companies that MinRes might deal with.

It could therefore be expected that they have been acting in the best interests of MinRes, to the best of their ability.

But did the board have the skills and ability, for example, to be aware of the use of company resources by the managing director?

Adviser to institutional investors, CGI Glass Lewis, has called for more accountability for former directors who were on the board at the time the allegations took place.

Where were the regulators?

The nation’s corporate watchdog, the Australian Securities and Investments Commission (ASIC), has now commenced a formal investigation. But some stakeholders might feel earlier regulatory intervention could have helped.

Ellison reportedly sought an agreement with the Australian Tax Office to keep his offshore tax arrangements confidential, potentially limiting broader regulatory awareness.

It’s too early to say what the corporate regulator will find. But there appears to be an opportunity for regulators to evaluate how they approach oversight in complex, high-stakes corporate environments. Läs mer…

10 reasons why US president-elect Donald Trump can’t derail global climate action

If you care about saving Earth from catastrophe, you might be feeling a little down about the re-election of Donald Trump as United States president. Undeniably, his return to the White House is a real setback for climate action.

Trump is a climate change denier who has promised to increase fossil fuel production and withdraw the US from the Paris climate deal, among other worrying pledges.

But beyond Trump and his circle, there remains deep concern about climate change, especially among younger people. Support for climate policy remains high in the US and around the world. And studies based on data from 60,000 people in more than 60 countries suggest individuals’ concern about climate change is widely underestimated.

So now is a good time to remember that efforts to tackle the climate crisis – both in Australia and globally – are much bigger than one man. Here are ten reasons to remain hopeful.

Beyond Trump and his circle, there remains deep concern about climate change around the world.
HAYOUNG JEON/EPA

1. The global clean energy transition can’t be halted

The global shift to clean energy is accelerating, and Trump can’t stop it. Investment in clean energy has overtaken fossil fuels, and will be nearly double investment in coal, oil and gas in 2024. This is a historic mega-trend and will continue with or without American leadership.

2. Clean energy momentum is likely to continue in the US

Much of the Biden-era spending on clean energy industries went to Republican states and Congressional districts. New factories for batteries and electric vehicles will still go ahead under the Trump administration. After all, entrepreneur Elon Musk – who is expected to join the Trump administration – makes electric vehicles.

Some of Trump’s financial backers are receiving subsidies for clean energy manufacturing and 18 Republican Congress members have gone on record to oppose cuts to clean energy tax credits.

The clean energy shift will continue in the US. Piictured: a solar panel array floats on a water storage pond in New Jersey.
Seth Wenig/AP

3. The US still wants to beat China

There is bipartisan concern in Washington about the US losing a technological edge to Beijing. China currently dominates global production of electric vehicles, batteries, wind turbines and solar panels. So internal pressure in the US to counter China’s manufacturing might will continue.

4. The federal government is not everything in the US

When Trump was last in power, he withdrew the US from some climate commitments, such as the Paris Agreement. But many state and local governments powered ahead with climate policy, and that will happen this time around, too. For example, California – the world’s fifth largest economy – plans to eliminate its greenhouse gas footprint by 2045. Even Texas, a Republican heartland, is leading a shift toward wind and solar power.

5. The US climate movement will be more energised than ever

During Trump’s first presidency, the US climate movement developed policy proposals for a “Green New Deal”. Many of these proposals were later implemented by the Biden administration. Initial reactions to Trump’s re-election suggest we can expect similar policy advocacy this time around.

Efforts to tackle the climate crisis are much bigger than one man in the White House.
Kevin Wolf/AP

6. Global climate cooperation is bigger than Trump

If Trump makes good on his promise to leave the Paris Agreement (again), he will only be leaving the room where the world’s future is being shaped. The US has walked away from global climate agreements before – for example, refusing to join the Kyoto Protocol in 2001. But other nations rallied for global action, and will do so again.

7. The rules-based global order will remain

When a nation walks away from rules that have been agreed after decades of negotiation, responsible countries must work together to bolster global cooperation. This applies to trade and security – and climate is no different.

As our Foreign Minister Penny Wong recently explained, Australia, as a middle power on the world stage, wants:

a world where disputes are resolved by engagement, negotiation and by reference to rules [and] norms […] We don’t want a world in which disputes are resolved by power alone.

8. Australian diplomacy matters

Australia is seeking to co-host the United Nations climate talks with Pacific island countries in 2026, and is emerging as the favourite. Hosting the conference, known as COP31, would be a chance for Australia to help broker a new era of international climate action, even if the US opts out under Trump.

Hosting the talks would also help cement Australia’s place in the Pacific and assist our Pacific neighbours to deal with the climate threat.

Co-hosting COP31 would help assist our Pacific neighbours to deal with the climate threat.
Mick Tsikas/AAP

9. Australia’s clean energy shift is accelerating

About 40% of Australia’s main national electricity grid is powered by renewables and this is set to rise to 80% by 2030. Some states are surging ahead – for example, South Australia is aiming for 100% renewables by 2027.

Australians love clean energy at home, too. One in three households have rooftop solar installed, making us a world-leader in the technology’s uptake. Trump’s occupation of the Oval Office cannot stop this momentum.

10. Trump cannot change the science of climate change

The science is clear – burning coal, oil and gas fuels climate change and increases the risk of disasters that are harming communities right now. In Australia, we need look no further than the Black Summer bushfires in 2019-20 and unprecedented Lismore floods in 2022.

And the damage is happening across the globe. In October, twin hurricanes in the US – made stronger by the warming ocean – left a damage bill of more than US$100 billion. And hundreds of people died when a year’s worth of rain fell in one day in Spain last month.

The devastating floods in Spain remind us that climate change has arrived.
ANA ESCOBAR/EPA

On gloomy days – like, say, the election of a climate denier to the White House – it might feel humanity won’t rise to Earth’s biggest existential challenge. But there are many reasons for hope. The vast majority of us support policies to tackle climate change, and in many cases, the momentum is virtually unstoppable. Läs mer…

With Trump returning to the White House, what will happen to his court cases?

US President-elect Donald Trump achieved a resounding victory on several fronts. He will comfortably govern with a likely majority in the Senate and the House of Representatives, with little to no opposition from Republican members of Congress.

Having reshaped the US federal judiciary, and especially the Supreme Court, to his liking in his first term, he now has the chance to cement this judicial legacy for decades.

But he is also the first sitting or former president to be criminally convicted. As with many things Trump, this is uncharted territory.

Until election day, the then-former president faced the possibility of spending decades behind bars. The two federal indictments against Trump will disappear either before or shortly after his inauguration. While Trump cannot wave a magic wand over the two cases before state courts, his chances of having to govern from prison are slim.

The federal cases

The two federal cases are the easiest for Trump to get out of. Attorney-General Merrick Garland appointed Jack Smith as special counsel for the two cases against Trump over his efforts to undermine the 2020 elections and his handling of classified documents after stepping down from the presidency in 2021.

In June and July 2023, Trump was charged with dozens of felonies over retaining classified records after he had left the White House. In an often protracted and baffling pretrial process, the judge first postponed and then dismissed the case entirely on July 15 2024. Trump appointee Judge Aileen Cannon found Smith’s appointment was unconstitutional. The decision is under appeal.

On August 1 2023, Smith charged Trump with four crimes pertaining to federal election interference in connection with events prior to and on January 6 2021. Trump’s lawyers argued he was immune from prosecution because he acted in his official capacity as president. The Supreme Court stepped in and raised the bar for prosecuting presidents.

Along ideological lines, the court decided that presidents have “absolute immunity” for their “core constitutional powers” and “presumptive immunity” for all other official acts. The case was handed back to the trial court to determine if the charges should be partly or wholly dismissed.

Shortly before the 2024 election, Trump reiterated that he “would fire [Smith] within two seconds. He’ll be one of the first things addressed”. There are no constitutional or legal barriers to a president directing the attorney-general to dismiss federal cases against a president.

It may not have to come to that. A 1973 memorandum from the Office of Legal Counsel (OLC), situated within the US Justice Department, argued against the prosecution of a sitting president. Confirming its Watergate-era findings, another OLC memorandum from 2000 stated plainly:

[T]he indictment or criminal prosecution of a sitting President would unconstitutionally undermine the capacity of the executive branch to perform its constitutionally assigned functions.

Smith has already indicated he will likely wind the cases down.

The same rationale was used by former special counsel Robert S. Mueller in the 2019 investigation into Trump and his associates over the interference of Russia in the 2016 elections. In deciding not to pursue criminal charges against Trump, who was then president, the Mueller report relied on that memo.

The Georgia and New York cases

Trump has no formal power over state prosecutions once he assumes the presidency.

The Georgia case involves numerous charges, including an indictment over racketeering in connection with the 2020 elections. The case hit a snag when state prosecutor Fani Willis was accused of having a financial conflict of interest due to hiring Nathan Wade, with whom she had a relationship, as a special prosecutor in the case.

Trump and some of the other defendants tried to get Willis disqualified, a motion that was denied by Georgia courts. The decision is under appeal, with oral arguments scheduled for December 5 2024. The trial court proceedings are on hold, pending the outcome of the appeal.

Should Trump be convicted, he could appeal to a likely amenable Georgia State Board of Pardons and Paroles, which is appointed by the Republican state governor.

Trump was found guilty in a case concerning the falsification of business records in the so-called “hush money case” involving a former adult film star. After a six-week trial in which Trump was held in contempt of court twice, it took a unanimous Manhattan jury less than two days to hand down a guilty verdict on all 34 felony charges brought against him by the Manhattan district attorney. Trump’s lawyers were successful in delaying his sentencing hearing, which is now set for November 26 2024. His punishment could range from a fine to prison time.

Had Trump lost the 2024 election, he would have been sentenced in New York on November 26, and possibly in Georgia at a later stage, if convicted.

Now that he has prevailed, his lawyers are arguing the cases should be thrown out (a hearing has been set for November 12). If that doesn’t work, they may lean on the untested argument that the supremacy clause of the US Constitution prevents state courts from sentencing a president-elect. If judge Juan Merchan decides against Trump, he would have the chance to appeal, including all the way to the US Supreme Court.

The most likely scenario is that Merchan will apply the spirit of the OLC legal memorandum. While it technically applies only to sitting presidents and only binds federal agencies, the requirements of a president-elect make it plausible that Trump’s hearing or his punishment would be postponed at least until he steps down or his term ends in 2029.

The January 6 defendants

Trump’s victory hasn’t only given him temporary respite from criminal punishment. Given his past statements about what happened on January 6 2021, he may also agree to pardon those who have either been convicted or who still face prosecution for the storming of the Capitol. The first applications to delay sentencing until after the Trump inauguration have already been made.

This would be yet another first in US history. Läs mer…

Grand bargain with Putin? Confrontation with China? 3 ways Trump may change America’s place in the world

With a resounding victory in the US presidential election, Donald Trump can now claim a sweeping mandate to implement his agenda, both foreign and domestic.

Crucially, the result shows you should never bet against self-interest: either for politicians, or for American voters prepared to disregard the most flawed of all characters in the hope he will “fix” their problems.

The guardrails that constrained Trump’s first term – a hostile Senate, opponents in the Republican Party and a public service devoted to serve the nation rather than an individual – have either been swept away, or will likely soon be bent to his will.

The global implications of a confident and unfettered Trump 2.0 will depend very much on what foreign policy path he charts and whom he decides to appoint to key positions.

Among those, we then need to watch who is selected to do his bidding and who will replace them when they inevitably fall out of favour. Early lists of potential appointees include:

Former US ambassador to Germany Richard Grenell.
Darko Vojinovic/AP

Former Secretary of State Mike Pompeo.
Alex Brandon/AP

Mike Pompeo, the former secretary of state and CIA director during Trump’s first term in office, who may end up at the Pentagon as defence secretary.

Even Mike Flynn, Trump’s first national security adviser, who resigned just 22 days into his tenure after lying about contacts with Russia’s ambassador to the US, has been mentioned in discussions about senior roles.

So, too, has the self-styled strategic policy expert Elbridge Colby, a former US Defense Department official.

Trump will demand unswerving loyalty from his appointees, while claiming all the credit for their work. But, as he ages, he is also likely to rely heavily on them to take the lead on strategic policy direction.

With that in mind, here are three possible paths a Trump administration might take on the world stage.

1) America First, with compromises

Having trumpeted his credentials as a peacemaker, it is possible Trump returns the US to a position of isolationism and exceptionalism, essentially being a friend and enemy to no one.

That could mean either withdrawing completely from NATO, or making US security assistance so conditional on transatlantic fealty that Europe is essentially captive to his whims.

It could also mean:

drawing down support for US alliances in Asia and the Pacific
demanding ever-higher levels of defence spending from security partners
running a critical eye over any deal that might require the US to commit the lion’s share of resources, or reduce its own military capabilities.

Australia, for instance, will be keen to extract assurances of continued White House support for the AUKUS partnership. This involves Australia buying several nuclear-powered submarines in the early 2030s, in addition to technology sharing between the US and United Kingdom.

This deal is almost certain to be scrutinised by the Trump administration, despite strong support from Republicans in the Congress and Senate.

However, Trump would likely need to make trade-offs to achieve a more isolationist stance.

First, a grand bargain with Russia will be necessary. This is not simply because of Trump’s admiration for Vladimir Putin, but because he has promised to end the war in Ukraine swiftly.

Although Russian ultranationalists are gleefully crowing about Trump’s victory, the Biden administration is scrambling to get US$6 billion (A$9 billion) in military assistance to Kyiv before the handover over power in January. Hence, Trump can’t immediately count on Ukrainian weakness as a precursor to a peace settlement.

Second, in the medium term, it may require a bargain with China. An endless trade war based on tit-for-tat tariffs will drive inflation higher in the US and bite into Trump’s blue-collar, rural voting base.

2) A muscular pivot to Asia

Repeated calls by Trump’s national security loyalists for a confrontational approach to China, coupled to his frustration with America’s European allies, who he believes are free riding on US defence spending, may lead him to pivot to Asia instead.

However, this would entail an even deeper bargain with Moscow. It would have to not only include a deal to end the Ukraine war, but also a more holistic agreement to downscale US-Russian confrontation.

While it is by no means guaranteed Putin would be amenable to this, it would free up US resources to confront China militarily, as well as economically. Trump’s new administration will include many China hawks like Trump loyalist Colby, who have been arguing for years that Beijing poses the gravest threat to US power.

But this pathway will require a firm commitment by Trump (not his strength). It will also require more concrete US security guarantees to its allies in the Asia-Pacific region – in exchange for their commitment to not only help constrain China, but be prepared to participate in a potential conflict.

If Trump does abandon America’s NATO allies, it remains to be seen how even its closest Asian partners would regard his commitment to their security or his ability to manage crises in the region.

3) Peace through strength

A third option would be for Trump to channel former US President Ronald Reagan, seeking to restore and maintain global US primacy. America would lead, but do so pragmatically – and with allies whose interests aligned with its own.

This would be a considerable undertaking, not to mention a costly one. It would require hefty military spending, investment in research and development, re‑establishing American dominance in critical technologies, and finding alternative solutions to supply chains currently dominated by China.

It would also mean doubling down on strategic competition with Beijing, and being prepared to substantially arm proxies (and not just allies) to put pressure on China.

But even this would have limits. As Trump has repeatedly demonstrated, he regards national interests and personal ones as essentially the same thing.

A desire to give Israel a completely free hand, for instance, will have to be moderated by his extensive ties to Saudi Arabia, although Riyadh would certainly approve of Trump’s desire to crack down hard on Iran.

And how Trump deals with dictators will also come under scrutiny.

In the past, his open admiration for Putin, Chinese leader Xi Jinping and North Korean dictator Kim Jong Un has given America’s partners pause. It has also constrained Trump from achieving his objectives.

Donald Trump and Kim Jong Un during their meeting in Vietnam in 2019.
Evan Vucci/AP

Chaos and change

Either one of these pathways will lead to instability and tough choices for America’s partners.

Putin will likely make Trump earn any peace over Ukraine by simply refusing to negotiate until the White House puts sufficient pressure on Kyiv to capitulate. And peace on Russian terms will be fragile, entail painful Ukrainian concessions, spawn bitter insurgent campaigns and critically weaken European security.

Europe now finds itself at a crossroads. It finally has to confront the prospect of being responsible for its own security and defence against a reinvigorated Russia. It will now have to work quickly, spend far more on defence and overcome its crippling institutional inertia.

This will also accelerate the new European security order that is already taking shape, with Poland, the Baltic and Nordic states, and the UK as the main bulwarks against Russia.

In Asia and the Pacific, questions about America’s commitment to security guarantees will drive local arms races and make nuclear proliferation more likely. Countries like Japan, South Korea, Australia and the Philippines will also need to ramp up efforts to work together without the US. That will be easier for some than others.

The upshot? Trust, common values and a commitment to a stable rules-based order are what have sustained and deepened America’s security partnerships.

At the very least, Trump 2.0 will make most US allies wary for the foreseeable future. But the greatest tragedy of all would be if he proceeds with his promised campaign of revenge against internal enemies, deporting millions and using his mandate to create a Potemkin democracy.

I fervently hope that doesn’t happen. But then again, you should never bet against self-interest. Läs mer…

A grand bargain with Putin to confrontation with China: 3 ways Trump may change America’s place in the world

With a resounding victory in the US presidential election, Donald Trump can now claim a sweeping mandate to implement his agenda, both foreign and domestic.

Crucially, the result shows you should never bet against self-interest: either for politicians, or for American voters prepared to disregard the most flawed of all characters in the hope he will “fix” their problems.

The guardrails that constrained Trump’s first term – a hostile Senate, opponents in the Republican Party and a public service devoted to serve the nation rather than an individual – have either been swept away, or will likely soon be bent to his will.

The global implications of a confident and unfettered Trump 2.0 will depend very much on what foreign policy path he charts and whom he decides to appoint to key positions.

Among those, we then need to watch who is selected to do his bidding and who will replace them when they inevitably fall out of favour. Early lists of potential appointees include:

Former US ambassador to Germany Richard Grenell.
Darko Vojinovic/AP

Former Secretary of State Mike Pompeo.
Alex Brandon/AP

Mike Pompeo, the former secretary of state and CIA director during Trump’s first term in office, who may end up at the Pentagon as defence secretary.

Even Mike Flynn, Trump’s first national security adviser, who resigned just 22 days into his tenure after lying about contacts with Russia’s ambassador to the US, has been mentioned in discussions about senior roles.

So, too, has the self-styled strategic policy expert Elbridge Colby, a former US Defense Department official.

Trump will demand unswerving loyalty from his appointees, while claiming all the credit for their work. But, as he ages, he is also likely to rely heavily on them to take the lead on strategic policy direction.

With that in mind, here are three possible paths a Trump administration might take on the world stage.

1) America First, with compromises

Having trumpeted his credentials as a peacemaker, it is possible Trump returns the US to a position of isolationism and exceptionalism, essentially being a friend and enemy to no one.

That could mean either withdrawing completely from NATO, or making US security assistance so conditional on transatlantic fealty that Europe is essentially captive to his whims.

It could also mean:

drawing down support for US alliances in Asia and the Pacific
demanding ever-higher levels of defence spending from security partners
running a critical eye over any deal that might require the US to commit the lion’s share of resources, or reduce its own military capabilities.

Australia, for instance, will be keen to extract assurances of continued White House support for the AUKUS partnership. This involves Australia buying several nuclear-powered submarines in the early 2030s, in addition to technology sharing between the US and United Kingdom.

This deal is almost certain to be scrutinised by the Trump administration, despite strong support from Republicans in the Congress and Senate.

However, Trump would likely need to make trade-offs to achieve a more isolationist stance.

First, a grand bargain with Russia will be necessary. This is not simply because of Trump’s admiration for Vladimir Putin, but because he has promised to end the war in Ukraine swiftly.

Although Russian ultranationalists are gleefully crowing about Trump’s victory, the Biden administration is scrambling to get US$6 billion (A$9 billion) in military assistance to Kyiv before the handover over power in January. Hence, Trump can’t immediately count on Ukrainian weakness as a precursor to a peace settlement.

Second, in the medium term, it may require a bargain with China. An endless trade war based on tit-for-tat tariffs will drive inflation higher in the US and bite into Trump’s blue-collar, rural voting base.

2) A muscular pivot to Asia

Repeated calls by Trump’s national security loyalists for a confrontational approach to China, coupled to his frustration with America’s European allies, who he believes are free riding on US defence spending, may lead him to pivot to Asia instead.

However, this would entail an even deeper bargain with Moscow. It would have to not only include a deal to end the Ukraine war, but also a more holistic agreement to downscale US-Russian confrontation.

While it is by no means guaranteed Putin would be amenable to this, it would free up US resources to confront China militarily, as well as economically. Trump’s new administration will include many China hawks like Trump loyalist Colby, who have been arguing for years that Beijing poses the gravest threat to US power.

But this pathway will require a firm commitment by Trump (not his strength). It will also require more concrete US security guarantees to its allies in the Asia-Pacific region – in exchange for their commitment to not only help constrain China, but be prepared to participate in a potential conflict.

If Trump does abandon America’s NATO allies, it remains to be seen how even its closest Asian partners would regard his commitment to their security or his ability to manage crises in the region.

3) Peace through strength

A third option would be for Trump to channel former US President Ronald Reagan, seeking to restore and maintain global US primacy. America would lead, but do so pragmatically – and with allies whose interests aligned with its own.

This would be a considerable undertaking, not to mention a costly one. It would require hefty military spending, investment in research and development, re‑establishing American dominance in critical technologies, and finding alternative solutions to supply chains currently dominated by China.

It would also mean doubling down on strategic competition with Beijing, and being prepared to substantially arm proxies (and not just allies) to put pressure on China.

But even this would have limits. As Trump has repeatedly demonstrated, he regards national interests and personal ones as essentially the same thing.

A desire to give Israel a completely free hand, for instance, will have to be moderated by his extensive ties to Saudi Arabia, although Riyadh would certainly approve of Trump’s desire to crack down hard on Iran.

And how Trump deals with dictators will also come under scrutiny.

In the past, his open admiration for Putin, Chinese leader Xi Jinping and North Korean dictator Kim Jong Un has given America’s partners pause. It has also constrained Trump from achieving his objectives.

Donald Trump and Kim Jong Un during their meeting in Vietnam in 2019.
Evan Vucci/AP

Chaos and change

Either one of these pathways will lead to instability and tough choices for America’s partners.

Putin will likely make Trump earn any peace over Ukraine by simply refusing to negotiate until the White House puts sufficient pressure on Kyiv to capitulate. And peace on Russian terms will be fragile, entail painful Ukrainian concessions, spawn bitter insurgent campaigns and critically weaken European security.

Europe now finds itself at a crossroads. It finally has to confront the prospect of being responsible for its own security and defence against a reinvigorated Russia. It will now have to work quickly, spend far more on defence and overcome its crippling institutional inertia.

This will also accelerate the new European security order that is already taking shape, with Poland, the Baltic and Nordic states, and the UK as the main bulwarks against Russia.

In Asia and the Pacific, questions about America’s commitment to security guarantees will drive local arms races and make nuclear proliferation more likely. Countries like Japan, South Korea, Australia and the Philippines will also need to ramp up efforts to work together without the US. That will be easier for some than others.

The upshot? Trust, common values and a commitment to a stable rules-based order are what have sustained and deepened America’s security partnerships.

At the very least, Trump 2.0 will make most US allies wary for the foreseeable future. But the greatest tragedy of all would be if he proceeds with his promised campaign of revenge against internal enemies, deporting millions and using his mandate to create a Potemkin democracy.

I fervently hope that doesn’t happen. But then again, you should never bet against self-interest. Läs mer…

In your face: our acceptance of facial recognition technology depends on who is doing it – and where

Facial recognition technology is becoming more widely used, but this has not been matched by wider acceptance from the public.

Controversies continue to hit the media, with both public and private sector organisations frequently outed for flawed deployments of the technology.

The New Zealand Privacy Commissioner is currently evaluating the results of retailer Foodstuff North Island’s trial of live facial recognition in its stores.

The commissioner is also considering a potential code on the use of biometrics that would govern the use of people’s unique physical characteristics to identify them.

But as facial recognition becomes more common, public acceptance of the technology is inconsistent.

Retail stores, for example, tend to attract controversy when using facial recognition technology. But there has been little resistance to the use of it in airports. And the vast majority of people have no problem unlocking their phones using their faces.

My research draws together 15 studies on the public acceptance of facial recognition technology from the United States, United Kingdom and Australia.

There has been little analysis of New Zealand attitudes to the technology. So, these studies offer a view into how it is accepted in similar countries.

What I found is that public acceptance of facial recognition technology depended on the location of the recording – and why it was being captured.

Public acceptance of facial recognition technology depends on where it is being used, and why.
Smith Collection/Getty Images

Trusting personal use

According to the global research, individuals tended to place trust in the facial recognition technology on their own smart phones.

According to a 2019 study from the US, 58.9% of people were comfortable with using facial recognition to unlock their smartphone. And a 2024 survey found 68.8% of Australians felt the same.

This is interesting because while individuals physically “operate” the technology via an app on their phone, they don’t control the app itself or the data it collects.

Acceptance is, therefore, a product of perception. When someone uses facial recognition technology on their own phone they feel in control.

Less trust in the government

Public acceptance of government use of facial recognition varied greatly depending on what it was being used for.

The more familiar people were with a particular technology, the higher their level of acceptance of it was.

People were comfortable with governments using facial recognition for identifying passengers at airport customs, for example. But they were less happy with its use in identifying voters at polling places.

When it came to its deployment by police, people generally accepted the use of facial recognition technology to identify terrorists and investigate serious crimes. But research found resistance to it being used to identify minor offences and antisocial behaviours, such as parking violations and littering.

People were also uncomfortable with the idea of it being used in court to gain a conviction in the absence of other forms of evidence.

The more ambiguous the use of the technology was, the greater the degree of discomfort around it.

Deployments such as “monitoring crowds as they walk down the street” and “day-to-day policing” lead to concerns over ubiquitous surveillance and the loss of “practical obscurity” (the idea that even in public spaces, you have the right to some level of privacy).

Wary of the private sector

As mixed as public acceptance of government facial recognition technology may be, it was generally greater than that for the private sector.

People place little trust in businesses’ ability to operate the technology responsibly.

According to a 2024 survey from New Zealand’s privacy commissioner, 49% of respondents said they were concerned or very concerned about the use of facial recognition technology in stores.

But as the acceptability data on government use demonstrated, context is key.

Retail-focused research found the public was more accepting of facial recognition technology to identify shoplifters, antisocial patrons and fraudsters than for other purposes – such as loyalty programs, advertising, payments and the tracking of customer behaviour.

In the workplace, security-related deployments attracted limited although greater acceptance than uses relating to employee location and behaviour tracking.

The need for social licence

The question of why facial recognition technology is controversial in some cases but widely accepted in others is an important one.

The absence of research into the public acceptance of facial recognition in New Zealand means there is no evidence basis upon which to establish the social licence for the technology.

There is also a limited understanding of the range of scenarios social licence might cover.

As private businesses and public organisations increasingly use facial recognition technology, it’s important to understand more about how the public feels about having their faces recorded and matched to their identity in real time. Läs mer…

Further US election analysis: Hispanics and young men swung big to Trump

Republican Donald Trump won the United States presidential election by 312 electoral votes to 226 for Democrat Kamala Harris. Trump carried the seven key states of Georgia (16 electoral votes), North Carolina (16), Arizona (11), Nevada (six), Wisconsin (ten), Michigan (15) and Pennsylvania (19).

Arizona and Nevada have not yet been called for Trump, but he will win them both. Joe Biden had defeated Trump by 306 electoral votes to 232 in 2020. At this election, Trump gained Georgia, Pennsylvania, Michigan, Arizona, Wisconsin and Nevada. He won all the states he won in 2016 against Hillary Clinton, plus Nevada.

Analyst Nate Silver’s final forecast had given Trump a 20% chance to win all seven key states. The pre-election polls did not have to be very wrong for Trump to do this.

Trump leads in the national popular vote by 50.7–47.7. When The New York Times Needle was turned off early Wednesday morning US time, Trump was forecast to win the popular vote by 1.5%. There are many more votes left in Democratic strongholds like California.

This will be the first time a Republican has won the popular vote since 2004. In 2020, Biden won the popular vote against Trump by 51.3–46.8.

The New York Times said 90% of counties with nearly complete results as of Wednesday morning had swung to Trump since 2020. The swing was greatest in counties with over 25% Hispanics, with a shift since 2020 of 9.5 points towards Trump. There were similar swings to Trump in urban and suburban counties.

New York City has five boroughs. Silver said whites have just 9% of the population in the Bronx and 24% in Queens, with Hispanics having a plurality of the population in both boroughs.

In the 2012 presidential election, Republican Mitt Romney won just 8% of the vote against Democrat Barack Obama in the Bronx and 20% in Queens. There was virtually no swing to Trump in 2016 from Romney, but he has had big swings in his favour in the following two elections. Trump won 27% in the Bronx and 38% in Queens on Tuesday.

I wrote on Wednesday about a huge shift since 2016 in Trump’s favour in Florida’s Miami-Dade county, which is heavily Hispanic. Democrats can’t rely on the Hispanic vote anymore.

The Wall Street Journal said that according to exit polls, Trump won men aged 18–29 by 55–42. In 2020, Biden won this demographic by 56–41.

As no county’s population is of young men only, county-level data cannot be used to extrapolate how young men voted, and exit polls are flawed. But if this huge swing to Trump among young men is true, it probably reflects a backlash against feminism.

Congressional elections

Republicans have won the Senate by 52–45 over Democrats (including allied independents), gaining three states that Trump won easily: West Virginia, Montana and Ohio. However, Democrats have won or are leading in four of the five presidential key states that Trump won that also held Senate contests (Pennsylvania is the exception).

If the contests in Arizona, Nevada and Pennsylvania go to the current leader, Republicans will win a 53–47 Senate majority. If Democrats have a very good 2026 midterm election, they may regain Senate control. Republicans will be defending 21 of the 34 seats up for election in 2026.

In the House of Representatives, Republicans lead Democrats by 210 seats to 198 with 218 needed for a majority. If uncalled races are assigned to current leaders, Republicans currently lead by 224–211. However, some seats still have many votes left to count, and Democrats will hope to reverse some Republican leads.

Australian Essential poll gave Harris a 41–33 lead over Trump

In an Australian federal Essential poll that was conducted before the US election (October 30 to November 3) from a sample of 1,131, Harris led Trump by 41–33. This contrasts with a Resolve poll in early October that gave Harris a 52–21 lead. By 43–29, respondents thought a Trump presidency would be bad for Australia.

On Australian voting intentions, the Coalition remained ahead by 49–47 including undecided (48–46 in late October). This was despite a primary vote movement to Labor, who were up three to 31%, with the Coalition down one to 34%, the Greens steady on 12%, One Nation up two to 9%, the UAP steady at 2%, all Others down one to 8% and undecided down one to 5%.

On abortion, 41% thought it should be legal in all cases, 38% legal in most cases, 14% illegal in most cases and 7% illegal in all cases. At least 58% thought politicians should not accept access to various special events and benefits.

Interest in the Melbourne Cup horse race has recovered since last year. Now 16% (up five since November 2023) say they have high interest, 30% moderate interest (up six), 26% little interest (down one) and 26% no interest (down nine). By 52–48, respondents said they would not bet on the Cup (61–39 last year).

Morgan poll: Labor just ahead

A national Morgan poll, conducted October 21–27 from a sample of 1,687, gave Labor a 50.5–49.5 lead, a 1.5-point gain for the Coalition since the October 14–20 Morgan poll that appeared to be a pro-Labor outlier.

Primary votes were 37.5% Coalition (up one), 30% Labor (down two), 14% Greens (up 0.5), 5.5% One Nation (steady), 9% independents (steady) and 4% others (up 0.5).

The headline figure uses respondent preferences. By 2022 election preference flows, Labor led by 51.5–48.5, a 1.5-point gain for the Coalition. Läs mer…

Your friend has been diagnosed with cancer. Here are 6 things you can do to support them

Across the world, one in five people are diagnosed with cancer during their lifetime. By age 85, almost one in two Australians will be diagnosed with cancer.

When it happens to someone you care about, it can be hard to know what to say or how to help them. But providing the right support to a friend can make all the difference as they face the emotional and physical challenges of a new diagnosis and treatment.

Here are six ways to offer meaningful support to a friend who has been diagnosed with cancer.

1. Recognise and respond to emotions

When facing a cancer diagnosis and treatment, it’s normal to experience a range of emotions including fear, anger, grief and sadness. Your friend’s moods may fluctuate. It is also common for feelings to change over time, for example your friend’s anxiety may decrease, but they may feel more depressed.

Spending time together can mean a lot to someone who is feeling isolated during cancer treatment.
Chokniti-Studio/Shutterstock

Some friends may want to share details while others will prefer privacy. Always ask permission to raise sensitive topics (such as changes in physical appearance or their thoughts regarding fears and anxiety) and don’t make assumptions. It’s OK to tell them you feel awkward, as this acknowledges the challenging situation they are facing.

When they feel comfortable to talk, follow their lead. Your support and willingness to listen without judgement can provide great comfort. You don’t have to have the answers. Simply acknowledging what has been said, providing your full attention and being present for them will be a great help.

2. Understand their diagnosis and treatment

Understanding your friend’s diagnosis and what they’ll go through when being treated may be helpful.

Being informed can reduce your own worry. It may also help you to listen better and reduce the amount of explaining your friend has to do, especially when they’re tired or overwhelmed.

Explore reputable sources such as the Cancer Council website for accurate information, so you can have meaningful conversations. But keep in mind your friend has a trusted medical team to offer personalised and accurate advice.

3. Check in regularly

Cancer treatment can be isolating, so regular check-ins, texts, calls or visits can help your friend feel less alone.

Having a normal conversation and sharing a joke can be very welcome. But everyone copes with cancer differently. Be patient and flexible in your support – some days will be harder for them than others.

Remembering key dates – such as the next round of chemotherapy – can help your friend feel supported. Celebrating milestones, including the end of treatment or anniversary dates, may boost morale and remind your friend of positive moments in their cancer journey.

Always ask if it’s a good time to visit, as your friend’s immune system may be compromised by their cancer or treatments such as chemotherapy or radiotherapy. If you’re feeling unwell, it’s best to postpone visits – but they may still appreciate a call or text.

4. Offer practical support

Sometimes the best way to show your care is through practical support. There may be different ways to offer help, and what your friend needs might change at the beginning, during and after treatment.

For example, you could offer to pick up prescriptions, drive them to appointments so they have transport and company to debrief, or wait with them at appointments.

Meals will always be welcome. However it’s important to remember cancer and its treatments may affect taste, smell and appetite, as well as your friend’s ability to eat enough or absorb nutrients. You may want to check first if there are particular foods they like. Good nutrition can help boost their strength while dealing with the side effects of treatment.

There may also be family responsibilities you can help with, for example, babysitting kids, grocery shopping or taking care of pets.

There may be practical ways you can help, such as dropping off meals.
David Trinks/Unsplash

5. Explore supports together

Studies have shown mindfulness practices can be an effective way for people to manage anxiety associated with a cancer diagnosis and its treatment.

If this is something your friend is interested in, it may be enjoyable to explore classes (either online or in-person) together.

You may also be able to help your friend connect with organisations that provide emotional and practical help, such as the Cancer Council’s support line, which offers free, confidential information and support for anyone affected by cancer, including family, friends and carers.

Peer support groups can also reduce your friend’s feelings of isolation and foster shared understanding and empathy with people who’ve gone through a similar experience. GPs can help with referrals to support programs.

6. Stick with them

Be committed. Many people feel isolated after their treatment. This may be because regular appointments have reduced or stopped – which can feel like losing a safety net – or because their relationships with others have changed.

Your friend may also experience emotions such as worry, lack of confidence and uncertainty as they adjust to a new way of living after their treatment has ended. This will be an important time to support your friend.

But don’t forget: looking after yourself is important too. Making sure you eat well, sleep, exercise and have emotional support will help steady you through what may be a challenging time for you, as well as the friend you love.

Our research team is developing new programs and resources to support carers of people who live with cancer. While it can be a challenging experience, it can also be immensely rewarding, and your small acts of kindness can make a big difference. Läs mer…

‘A final warning from God’: Lech Blaine’s memoir pits an average Australian family against an avenging archangel

They say everyone has a book inside them. Some people are unfortunate enough to have more than one.

Lech Blaine’s first memoir, the acclaimed Car Crash (2021), dealt with the fallout of a motor vehicle accident that killed three of his mates and traumatised everyone else involved – including Blaine, who’d been riding shotgun when his friend’s Ford Fairlane veered onto the wrong side of the New England Highway on a Saturday night in 2009.

In his latest offering, the gloriously titled Australian Gospel, the car crash you can’t look away from comes in the form of Michael and Mary Shelley – the estranged, deranged parents of three of Blaine’s foster siblings.

Review: Australian Gospel: A Family Saga – Lech Blaine (Black Inc.)

Michael and Mary Shelley are a pair of nomadic Christian fanatics, who, under God’s good guidance, spend their time kidnapping children, stalking politicians, threatening pontiffs, harassing social workers and letter-bombing hardworking, good-natured people like Lech’s parents, Tom and Lenore Blaine:

AS GOD’S CHOSEN PROPHETESS, I GIVE YOU A FINAL WARNING FROM GOD. I NEED MY DAUGHTER HANNAH RETURNED TO MICHAEL + I TODAY WITH APPROPRIATE COMPENSATION ($100,000 WOULD BE A NICE START) OR GOD WILL SEND HIS NEVERENDING WRATH UPON YOUR HEAD.

Michael Shelley is the ‘estranged, deranged’ parent of three of author Lech Blaine’s foster siblings.
Black Inc.

Failure to thrive

To say the Shelleys are incensed their children have been taken away from them and given to the Blaines to raise as their own is putting it mildly.

The familial exodus starts with toddlers Saul and Joshua, who in 1986 are removed from the birth parents for “failure to thrive” and renamed Steven and John to keep them hidden and protected from the Shelleys. (Just three years earlier, the pair had been arrested for kidnapping their eldest son Elijah from his foster parents.)

But it goes on to include the boys’ baby sister Hannah as well, who takes up residence in the Blaine household under similar circumstances some five years later, in 1991.

Michael and Mary Shelley in The Australian.
Black Inc.

The Shelleys’ outrage is exacerbated by the cultural incongruence between the families’ two patriarchs. The archangelic Michael abhors the average Australian male, who can think of nothing better to do with his time than sink piss, watch football and eat meat pies.

Meanwhile, the archetypal Tom, a publican obsessed with rugby league, is the sort of guy who makes The Castle’s Darryl Kerrigan look like some sort of interloping dandy hot off the plane from gay Paris – which Tom visits at one point, on a Kangaroos tour. (He can’t vacate the “shithole” of a place fast enough.)

The memoir is littered with threatening correspondences like the one excerpted above. All of them are variations on the same vindictive, desperate theme. It is a credit to Blaine’s curatorial skills, however, that my readerly reaction continued to evolve over the course of the story.

I was shocked, amused and finally sympathetic to the Shelleys’ apocalyptic ALL CAPS antics. These people are clearly not well. In fact, they met in a psychiatric hospital, where Mary Shelley was diagnosed with bipolar. A social worker describes Michael Shelley as “human proof of narcissistic personality disorder”.

All sentences are created equal

Given the volatility and inherently dramatic potential of the source material – a family hiding out in rural Queensland from a pair of would-be abductors who resemble Jesus and Mary Magdalene – Blaine could easily have adopted a sensationalist tone and played for maximum gasps, laughs and/or suspense.

Lech Blaine avoids playing for maximum gasps or laughs.

He does not. His narrator – a younger version of himself, whose awareness predates his own birth (“That was enough cum to knock up an elephant!” his father announces at his conception) – is what narratologist James Phelan would call a non-judgemental reporter.

According to Phelan, narrators serve three basic functions. They can report on actions, events and phenomena, they can interpret actions, events and phenomena, and finally they can evaluate actions, events and phenomena.

Example: Mary Shelley sent Lenore Blaine a warning letter (report). Mary Shelley sent Lenore Blaine a warning letter because she was missing her daughter Hannah and didn’t know how else to deal with these feelings (report + interpretation). Mary Shelley sent Lenore Blaine a warning letter because she was sad and frustrated, which only further proves what an unfit mother she is (report + interpretation + evaluation).

The downside of Blaine’s reportorial schema, rarely rising to the level of interpreter and basically never casting judgement on anyone, is that it causes the prose to become rhythmically and tonally repetitive at times. The following is a pretty standard paragraph, which demonstrates that in the eyes of God, all sentences are created equal:

The celebrant pronounced them husband and wife. Tom kissed Lenore with an enthusiastic amount of tongue. The crowd cheered. A jukebox blasted the opening riff of “You Shook Me All Night Long” by AC/DC. Beer flowed from a keg. Grease wafted from a barbecue. Lenore threw a bouquet over her shoulder.

Subject verb object. It may be the syntactical cornerstone of the language, but even stonemasons permit themselves to show off with the odd ornamental relief from time to time.

While somewhat lacking in subtext, the upside to Blaine’s no-frills prose is that the 360-odd pages offer up a lightning-quick read. Chapters are broken into small vignettes that allow the author to keep all of the characters and subplots on the go at once. And, when all is said and done, I felt warmed by a human connection, for which style is more often than not only a cheap substitution, anyway.

Michael Shelley is one of ‘a pair of would-be abductors who resemble Jesus and Mary Magdalene’.
Black Inc.

A bloody good yarn

At the heart of this book lies, well, a whole lotta heart. Lech Blaine’s family love one another ferociously. And although the Shelleys’ omnipresence warps the narrative’s chronology with all the weight of a black hole, it’s the glowing light of the Blaines’ expansive love that keeps the story from folding in on itself.

On more than one occasion, the family recollections reminded me of some mildly adultified episode of Bluey (high praise indeed!). Take Christmas Day of 1999, when brothers Steven and John buy their mum a Mexican walking fish that eats all the other fish in the fishbowl before morning, and Dad follows up with a bottle of Joop:

“Joop is a man’s cologne, Thomas,” said Mum.Dad had been hoodwinked by the pink packaging.“Shit,” he said. “Ya kiddin’ me?”“I kid you not,” she said.Dad tested the Joop on his neck and wrists and enjoyed the scent. From that
moment onwards, he exclusively wore Joop.

Just goes to show, you can take the man out of Paris, but you can’t take Parisian haute couture out of the man!

And then there’s the day Tom and Lenore are first introduced to Michael Shelley by way of photograph:

“What is the go with this bloke?” [Tom] asked.“He’s a narcissist,” said Lenore.“An arsonist?” asked Tom, alarmed.“No, Thomas. A narcissist. He loves himself.”Tom was relieved. He nodded, knowingly.“So, he sniffs his own farts?” he asked.“Something like that,” she said.

These are salt-of-the-earth people, and it’s hard not to be won over by their affection for one another and willingness to do right by their fellow creatures.

I don’t think it’s ruining anything (and, if a recent Good Weekend promotional piece is anything to go by, neither does the author) to report that the Shelleys have both since passed away – Michael dying in his sleep in 2017 and Mary shortly after. As have Blaine’s parents: Tom in 2011 and Lenore in 2018. “That is handsome news,” whispered Lenore when she heard of Michael’s passing.

Speaking of promotional pieces, the prologue makes mention of an interview the author did with Richard Fidler on his ABC radio program, Conversations, back in 2017. Over the course of an hour, the two of them “chatted about life, death, love, grief, rugby league, the foster care system in Queensland and how all of these subjects relate to [Blaine’s] unique family”.

If you’re unsure whether you should read this book, click on the link above and take a listen for yourself. The author speaks like he writes, without pretence or judgement. Like a man with a “yarn to spin”. And a bloody good one at that. Läs mer…

What do people think about smartglasses? New research reveals a complicated picture

Smartglasses, a type of wearable device, have evolved rapidly since the pioneering yet ill-fated Google Glass received social backlash in 2013. Early adopters were nicknamed “Glassholes”, and the product never reached commercialisation. No one could understand why people would want a weird-looking computer on their face taking photos and recording videos, and getting in the way of social interaction.

This is in stark contrast to the design and functionality of new and emerging smartglass technologies, such as Meta’s Ray-Ban Wayfarer Smart Glasses. These are almost indistinguishable from non-computerised eyewear. And while they are not the first to enter the commercial market, their second-generation tech has contributed to a surge in sales in the past year.

However, existing research into smartglasses tends to overlook the broader social risks and perceptions of them. Our new research begins to address these gaps. It examines how these devices are used in everyday contexts – and reveals the diverse and polarised perceptions Australians have towards them.

We found smartglass owners roam in packs and think they’re pretty cool – but non-owners are more likely to see the devices as endangering their privacy and facilitating anti-social behaviour. While the two groups did have some common ground, our results make the need for regulation clear.

Owners and non-owners

Meta’s Ray-Ban smartglasses are a type of miniature, head-worn computer. They look like regular glasses but allow users to record videos, listen to music, make calls and livestream directly to Facebook. The latest version also has inbuilt artificial intelligence technology.

The glasses are considered a precursor to the commercialisation of fully augmented reality (AR) eyewear. The augmentations are overlays that allow wearers to see and hear computer-generated information that appears responsive to the world around them.

By 2034, the virtual and augmented reality headset industry is expected to be worth US$370 billion.

We surveyed 1,037 adult Australians to understand their views about smartglasses.

Younger Australians are more likely than older groups to take up the technology. Interestingly, a significant majority (95.6%) of smartglass owners know someone else who owns smartglasses. This suggests the technology already has “in-groups”.

Younger device owners use their glasses more often than older owners. They also report higher instances of risky behaviours such as using the device while driving or in anti-social ways such as filming people without their consent.

This underscores the importance of enhanced regulation that prioritises safety and mitigates risky behaviours.

While owners indicate their smart glasses align with their self-image and social status, non-owners express greater anxieties about privacy and anti-social risks.

Non-owners are particularly concerned about appropriate and safe use in shared spaces. They are much more likely to believe wearing and using the device in public is “rude, inappropriate, or offensive”.

Importantly, there are some shared views. For example, both groups recognise the potential benefits of smartglasses and feel similarly that the devices can help people. This bodes well for a future where technology might step in when our human senses are less able.

Potential bias

On face value, the findings reflect growing smartglass adoption, with more than half (58.6%) of participants reporting they own one of these devices. But this almost certainly doesn’t reflect smartglass ownership by the general public.

We used Facebook to advertise our survey, as millions of Australians use this social media platform. But the platform may have introduced bias by pushing the survey to smartglass enthusiasts. It’s also likely owners of smartglasses would be more inclined to answer a survey about the technology.

The market-leading position of Ray-Ban Meta devices may also mean some survey respondents are deeply embedded in the Meta technology ecosystem and are more likely to find the technology (and its many uses) acceptable.

Growing concerns, better regulation

Overall, our study underscores the need for robust regulation of smartglasses to ensure safe and beneficial use. Non-owners’ strong concerns about anti-social outcomes and the potential for misuse highlight the need for further research into how these devices are being used in public spaces.

The ability to surreptitiously record video and take photos has previously caught the attention of Australia’s privacy commissioner. But more recent concerns have emerged with students in the United States successfully installing advanced facial recognition software into a pair of Meta’s Ray-Ban smart glasses.

These concerns are set to grow as smartglasses become more sophisticated.

For example, in September, Meta CEO Mark Zuckerberg took to the stage of the company’s annual “Meta Connect” conference, sporting the company’s cutting-edge AR glasses.

The ethical and privacy implications of the widespread use of smartglasses give rise to serious concerns about data privacy, heightened surveillance and monitoring. This ultimately impacts public safety and wellbeing. Policymakers must closely monitor smartglass technology and establish frameworks that ensure privacy, security, and fundamental rights while promoting innovation. Läs mer…