# data[].attributes.headline
UNESCO: Addressing hate speech on social media: contemporary challenges

# data[].attributes.subject
UNESCO: Addressing hate speech on social media: contemporary challenges

# data[].attributes.headline
Hate speech on social media: Global comparisons

# data[].attributes.subject
Hate speech on social media: Global comparisons

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Hate Speech on Social Media: Global Comparisons

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Violence attributed to online hate speech has increased worldwide. Societies confronting the trend must deal with questions of free speech and censorship on widely used tech platforms.

# data[].attributes.headline
Moderating online content: fighting harm or silencing dissent?

# data[].attributes.subject
Moderating online content: fighting harm or silencing dissent?

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
ERROR: The request could not be satisfied

# data[].attributes.headline
How Paperless Schools are Transforming the Face of Learning

# data[].attributes.subject
How Paperless Schools are Transforming the Face of Learning

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
In his book "Beyond the paperless classroom," David Doherty defines the relevance and practical implications of paperless learning in schools. According to David, the paperless environment has not just replaced the pen and paper with digital text. The learning place also gets transformed with 21st-century tools that enhance students' innovation, creativity, engagement, motivation, and communication.

Paperless classrooms prepare learners to face 21st-century life. The digital instruction mode is deemed to be a mindful attempt to prepare and train learners for the upcoming paperless digital era. The expected result of paperless learning is improved learning outcomes and active participation of students.

In addition to this, paperless classrooms are an eco-friendly option that saves trees from being cut down indiscriminately for making paper. Paperless classrooms can reduce unwanted littering of torn papers around the classrooms. Therefore, it is an excellent initiative toward conserving nature.

Educational experts advocate the concept of paperless classrooms due to its application and direct consequence of rapid technological development. It also directly influences contemporary social realities, making it necessary for the current educational scenario. Currently, notebooks and textbooks are widely used as primary tools for teaching and learning in many schools and universities worldwide.

In a paperless classroom, teachers and learners cannot use textbooks and notebooks for exchanging information. They can only use computers, laptops, iPad, and other technological devices offered by the institution. All the activities related to the educational program will be done electronically.

Therefore, there is a complete dependence on electronic devices for carrying out learning activities. In such a paperless environment, the physical exchange of learning materials between the tutors and the learners is eliminated. The knowledge exchange takes place in a completely virtual environment.

Should Schools Go Paperless?

The information age offers educators unprecedented opportunities to digitize traditional classrooms and encourages them to empower knowledge dissemination channels. The question is should schools go paperless? Are they ready?

Have you ever imagined a classroom in your school without paper? At all? Paperless classrooms can revolutionize teaching. Going paperless completely has gained a lot of traction recently. But it's not a surprise. Paperless schools are much better for the younger generation. It is also better for the environment and enhances technological integration.

There are several reasons why schools should go paperless. Let's begin with the more typical reason - climate change. For one, climate change is real and is happening fast. Modern society is forced to find effective ways to get rid of the trash without destroying natural resources.

According to a recent survey in 2020, a teacher uses 25-75 pieces of paper per day for homework and study materials in America. This is a lot for a single school but imagines worldwide. Each year, schools use around 2000 pages per day. Typically, schools use 34 billion papers every year.

Therefore, when classrooms switch to paperless mode, it reduces paper waste, which has been a significant problem and saves energy spent on paper production, which reduces CO2 emission.

Moreover, when you go to any staffroom and ask a teacher what their biggest complaint is. You will more likely hear this standard answer they spend too much time on paperwork and do not spend enough time on actual teaching. Don't you think it is time for schools to step into the digital world?

The Transition from Paper to Paperless Classrooms in the Digital Context

Students generally think of how to waste time in school. Do you agree with this statement? We all have been there and thought of ways to waste time as the session goes on. Students get easily bored when everything is taught on the blackboard as the learning is not engaging enough.

"The old model is really outdated. Students not only need content knowledge but they [also] need [to learn] 21st-century skills. They need to be self-directed in their learning," says Grace Magley, director of digital learning at Natick Public Schools in Massachusetts. There is no denying that switching to a digital platform is the current trend in education.

Students can digitally access their assignments and study materials, research, and learn about topics online. They can also take standardized tests on a computer. Many educators and administrators agree that paper edutech is the best way to engage students and prepare them for the future.

The paperless administration is not necessarily an innovative step in schools. As Dr. Thomas Roedl, aka Tom Solid behind the #PaperlessMovement and founder of Paperless Movement, agrees, "Students of today live in a saturated world of technology. When they can use time-saving apps and online search in their classrooms, they can act on the information learned, search for supplementary materials, and finish assignments more quickly as compared to traditional methods." Previously, students needed to learn typing to enter keep up with the evolving workforce. Likewise, in the 21st century, students learn to navigate the web to participate in worldly activities in their communities.

Given the necessity of going paperless, the question arises of how to make a smooth transition.

Well, the first step in creating a paperless classroom is to ensure that there is adequate infrastructure and necessary digital resources.

The second step is to ensure that the educators are knowledgeable in handling the web and other digital tools they use in class.

Moreover, educators must first be comfortable with using digital tools for conducting classes.

Since many educators believe that going paperless increases students' engagement and helps them prepare for the modern world, the best way to set up a paperless classroom is by adopting a Learning Management System (LMS).

Cost is always a significant factor in creating paperless administration. Therefore, many schools which opt for the digital platform tend to follow the 1:1 adoption plan.

The plan is to reduce costs and be economical significantly. For instance, tablets include built-in calculators, which eliminates the need to buy separate tools.

Going paperless doesn't necessarily mean being digital in all aspects. Teachers can use whiteboards and laminated material for kids where they can write and erase. This will be exciting for children as they can be reused multiple times. Furthermore, children can still practice their handwriting skills without wasting piles of paper.

To make it much easier, schools can create standard classroom websites. The educator needs to be competent in providing technological instructions to the learners. This increases the efficiency of paperless school administrations.

Microsoft Classroom, Apple Classroom, Apple Schoolwork, Moodle, Blackboard Learn, and Google Classroom are some of the popular and commonly adopted learning management solutions.

Out of these LMS, Blackboard, and Moodle are more popular among educators. It is because Moodle offers simple features for all teaching activities. The classroom website creation can be set up easily using a template.

Many teachers also use Google Classroom as it is user-friendly.

Many educators also opt for Open-Source Course Builder (OSCB), which helps them set up customized platforms per their requirements.

You can tie the paper-reduction advantages with the lesson plans when you implement these tools. Some teachers explain how going paperless has helped the environment. It is said that when people reduce paper usage by 1 ton annually, they can save around 24 mature trees. 13 million hectares of forest land disappear each year, and 2% of Amazon forests are cut down. This has an adverse effect on the ecology and the environment. This makes students understand the importance of preserving ecological resources and teaches them to use less paper at home.

In the beginning, have paperless administration as an option. This makes the transition smoother. Instead of creating a blanket policy to go paperless, consider a triage approach. In this way, the teachers can have more control over reducing paper usage than what the administration thinks they can cut.

When used in moderation, the kids learning from screens have potential advantages where they break the literal barrier between them and the instructor. So, when schools go paperless, it is not just as simple as digital learning. It diversifies the learning opportunities.

The Benefits of a Paperless Environment

There are several benefits of a paperless environment that apply to both students and teachers. When the iPad was launched in 2010, it opened new opportunities for learning through tablets and computers, which encouraged classes to go paperless. The following are some of the reasons to go paperless.

Environmental benefits

On average, K-12 schools spend around $50,000 per year on paper and ink alone for printing and copying. That is a lot! Schools can reduce these expenses drastically by tracking and limiting paper usage. This hurts the environment in the name of paper manufacturing - cutting trees, deforestation, and depleting ecological balance. This is one of the main reasons to go paperless as it benefits the environment.

Effortless changeover

Going paperless can be effective when it comes to managing academic materials. The changeover from books to iPads can be pretty smooth as your institution doesn't need to print study materials. When you go paperless, you can save and access all the learning material from a single point where it can be edited and printed as and when needed.

Since teachers complain that they spend much time on paperwork and not much time on actual teaching, when there is no need for printing study materials and assignments, teachers save a surplus amount of their precious time. A single seamless process replaces the traditional method of paper evaluation.

For instance, the language and numerical learning classes are turned into an interactive experience using a PDF annotation app. These tools help students to draw, add text, and highlight critical sections. These changes and annotations made to the document can be kept track of easily. All these documents can be stored in the cloud, which eliminates the physical storage of documents. The documents can also be changed to different formats to be safely stored and read through various apps.

Students are more likely to engage in a paperless classroom when there is an interactive session. Since all the lessons would be shown digitally, students will understand the concepts much better compared to traditional blackboard teaching. Improved engagement is one of the biggest and most significant impacts of a paperless learning experience.

Enhanced materials

The visual appeal of the learning material is enhanced in a paperless learning environment. The handouts and study topics are meticulously designed on computers such as to eliminate monochrome and be engaging. Traditional paper materials can get lost and misplaced, and sometimes the quality may not be visually appealing.

Multiple people can be using the same resources at the same time. For instance, when you have only one set of encyclopedias in your history classroom, and everyone is looking for specific information. Students need to find information about the United States. Not every student can access the data simultaneously with only one book available. Whereas, if you have internet access, then all students can use the encyclopedia at the same time to research information about the United States.

Assignments & Collaboration

If the teacher forgets to give assignments during the session, they can be assigned even after class. Moreover, students can submit their projects online. Since teachers can find it in a single location, there is no need to worry about students misplacing it. The best part is you can limit excuses for not submitting the assignment. No worries about the family dog eating the assignment, running out of ink, or running out of papers for the printer! Moreover, students cannot forget the project as teachers can send multiple reminders regularly.

When the assignment involves research, students can work together to share their ideas. Collaboration is improved as well as communication is also enhanced. For instance, a discussion forum can help students to discuss and share knowledge related to a problem. This would allow all students - those who posted the question and those who discussed and provided their guidance. Collaborating in groups can make the project more uncomplicated, and the students can be able to complete it from a location of their choice.

Feedback & Self-Assessment

Students can quickly review their work. When assignments such as writing a journal article or a scientific review are done over a period, the students can evaluate themselves and locate possible areas of improvement. They can then also find areas where they reached proficiency in their work.

Both students and teachers can provide feedback on the created works. Since the result is stored in the cloud, it can be reviewed multiple times at the same time. Moreover, the input can be provided instantly, which helps students not to wait until the next class or a week to know the results of their work. This instant feedback help students to come prepared through self-assessment and identify what changes can be made.

Relation between paperless classrooms and employability in the 21st century

Empowering learners through the digital mode of education and educational resources can have a revolutionary impact on their careers. Research shows that younger students are more enthusiastic about adopting technological learning tools than senior students. Since paperless classrooms are learner-centric, their knowledge is enhanced by peer collaboration and interaction.

This is an essential skill to be developed to face the 21st-century job market. Students also acquire numerous digital skills from a paperless classroom. They develop real-life skills such as collaboration with peers, research, and self-learning. Such learning. Moreover, a paperless classroom becomes the real-life training ground for these students and prepares them for future life and career.

This is because many businesses look for gathering information through teamwork, project implementation, and telecommunication as a part of their emerging corporate work culture. In recent years, e-business has transformed the nature of work culture in many businesses. This has made the new corporate culture have faster target achievements with timely business implementation than just the physical presence of the employees.

A paperless classroom is crucial for learners as they have easy access to knowledge on skill developments because of the flexibility in the use of technology. In addition to this, the acquired knowledge can be stored and retrieved efficiently by a proper information management system from a single portable digital device. Therefore, it has the potential to bridge the learner's gap between theoretical and practical knowledge and make them successful in their fields.

Why should schools not go paperless?

Despite the many benefits, there are some disadvantages of going paperless in schools.

Going paperless means becoming entirely digital and it comprises learning curves. Tablets, laptops, and smartphones will replace the traditional means of paper. But these gadgets will need some extra knowledge to operate. Therefore, teachers and students should be trained before handing them digital tools to keep up the learning pace. Some teachers find it hard to set up classes on the students' iPads which takes class hours. This needs some initial training as teachers are not IT techies. Some schools offer three-hour-long sessions to work with the class materials on their devices. Similar training is given to students as well to complete assignments of notability.

Though iPads are convenient for downloading and storing study materials, there are issues such as Wi-Fi and storage. The 16 GB memory may not be sufficient for storing four years of university study materials. There are options such as Dropbox and other cloud services which require students and teachers to sign up for accounts. Sometimes, students fail to upload the content from devices to the cloud, which leads to the mismanagement of information.

Have you faced implementation issues? Wi-Fi and connection ability issues persist with digital devices in the paperless classroom. This is due to the influx of devices being used at once, which an upgrade can fix. Therefore, learning institutions should provide Wi-Fi and internet connectivity based on the volume of users.

Lack of financial resources and infrastructure. The new technologies can be pretty expensive, and the school's administration needs to be aware of them and plan accordingly.

Though it improves social skills and employability skills, the 1-on-1 face-to-face interaction is drastically reduced in order to activate effective learning. Furthermore, learners with special needs need individual supervision and interaction to prepare them for using digital tools. When it is already a struggle for those students, digital literacy tools might be a little challenging.

Finally, as David Doherty said, paperless learning not just replaces pen and paper with digital text, but it is a place with enhanced digital tools to improve learners' skills for the 21st century, and it starts from the classroom.

Modern-day technologies are rapidly altering the traditional forms of education with the way of automation. The use of artificial intelligence (AI) and robotic process automation (RPA) in the U.S. educational sector is expected to reach around $85 million by the end of 2022. Gadgets in paperless classrooms are becoming the new normal in students' day-to-day lives.

Are you looking to automate your classrooms? Cflow can help you with its automation features to enhance productivity and eliminate chaos.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
The Paperless School: Benefits and Challenges | Cflow

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Going to Paperless School means becoming entirely digital and it comprises learning curves. Tablets, laptops, and smartphones will replace the traditional means of paper.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
Exploring all sides of Australia Day

For many people, Australia Day is about celebrating the values, freedoms and pastimes of this country. It's a time for BBQs in the backyard, having a beer with mates, and proudly flying the Australian flag. On the surface, Australia Day seems to be about unifying all people who call Australia home, and yet ironically it's a divisive day for many. So what's all the fuss about?

What is Australia Day and why do we celebrate it?

Australia Day is a national public holiday on January 26.

On that day in 1788, 11 convict ships from Great Britain landed at what is now Port Jackson in New South Wales, where Governor Arthur Phillip raised the British flag to signal the beginning of the British colony.

Since the early days of the British colony, Sydney has marked January 26 using various names, such as Anniversary Day, First Landing Day and Foundation Day. This gradually evolved into 'Australia Day', and other states and territories officially adopted the name in 1935.

Although celebrations originally focused on the anniversary of the British occupation of New South Wales, since 1979, the federal government has promoted an Australia Day that was less British and more Australian in the hope of unifying Australia's increasingly diverse population.

Australia Day eventually became a national public holiday in 1994. According to the National Australia Day Council, it's "the day to reflect on what it means to be Australian, to celebrate contemporary Australia and to acknowledge our history".

Why is there tension surrounding Australia Day?

For many First Nations people, January 26 isn't a day for celebrating.

First Nations people may be just as proud of this country as any other Australians, but many see January 26 as a date signifying the beginning of dispossession, disease epidemics, frontier violence, destruction of culture, exploitation, abuse, separation of families and subjection to policies of extreme social control.

Consequently, some people (including many First Nations people) refer to January 26 by names such as Invasion Day, Survival Day and Day of Mourning.

Should we change the date, save the date or cancel it all together?

This question can be challenging, as there are many different perspectives from both First Nations people and non-Indigenous Australians.

Saving the date means continuing to celebrate a date that's painful for many people.

Changing the date or cancelling the date doesn't address the trauma and disadvantage that started at colonisation and still affects First Nations people today.

If we simply make a choice and move on, we miss the opportunity to understand where we've come from, where we are today and where we go from here.

Learning more about our nation's shared history between First Nations people and non-Indigenous Australians can help you answer this question for yourself.

Can't we all just celebrate being Australian?

You may have heard it said (or even wondered yourself), "Why are First Nations people making this an issue? After all, isn't Australia Day for all Australians to come together and celebrate?" Others see the critique of Australia Day celebrations as excessive political correctness and governments pandering to the whims of minorities.

It's true, that we should be able to come together and celebrate the things about our nation that we're proud of and grateful for. However, celebrating these things on January 26 can divide us, by marginalising and offending many First Nations people who see this date as commencing a chain of events that had disastrous consequences for many First Nations people.

The negative effects of colonisation continue to have very real impact on the lives of many First Nations people in the form of intergenerational trauma, generational poverty, health disparity, disconnection from culture, disappearance of language, family separation, social discrimination and more. Nakkiah Lui, Gamillaroi/Torres Strait Islander woman, actor and writer, explains:
"I'm an Aboriginal woman in her 20s ... but it's only four generations back that my family felt the direct consequences of foreigners invading our land. There's my great-great grandmother, who survived a massacre; my great grandfather, who was forced back to the mission after his father died and wasn't allowed to own land; my grandfather, who was given "dog tags" dictating he was an "honorary white man" after he returned from being a prisoner of war in World War II; my mother, who was encouraged to not finish high school because she was Aboriginal. This is why, for us, Australia Day is a day of mourning." Nakkiah Lui

Invasion Day, Survival Day, Day of Mourning ... what's the difference?

"There's a saying that white Australia has a black history. It can be taken in the sense that it has been a dark or unfortunate history, but it's also true in the sense that we were here first. Sometimes people think that Australia started 200 years ago with the invasion." Bryan Andy, Yorta Yorta

Invasion Day

For those who mark January 26 as 'Invasion Day', this date represents the British occupation of First Nations People's land. Invasion Day events are held across the country and often include protests and marches rejecting the celebration of Australia Day on this date, and calling for sovereignty and social justice for First Nations people. "Australia Day is 26 January, a date whose only significance is to mark the coming to Australia of the white people in 1788. It's not a date that is particularly pleasing for Aborigines." Michael Mansell, Aboriginal activist

Day of Mourning

Other people commemorate January 26 as a day of mourning, recognising the violence of the Frontier Wars, including massacres, rape and murder, as well as trauma caused by government policies of assimilation and separation, which removed many people from their lands, families and culture. The first 'Day of Mourning and Protest' was organised by pioneering Aboriginal rights activist, William Cooper, in 1938, during Sydney's 150th Anniversary celebrations. Day of Mourning protests have been held on January 26 ever since.

"On January 26 Aborigines from across the country will mourn... We will also call for the race-based celebrations of January 26 to come to a close and for a new date to be chosen, so that we can all proudly wave our flags and celebrate the wonderful country that we now share." Nala Mansell, Palawa activist, Lutruwita/Tasmania

"... I refuse to celebrate, and every Australia Day my heart is broken as I am reminded that in the eyes of many, I am not welcome on my own land." Nakkiah Lui, Gamillaroi/Torres Strait Islander woman, actor and writer

Survival Day

Some First Nations people celebrate January 26 as Survival Day, an opportunity to recognise the survival of First Nations people and culture despite colonisation and discrimination. Survival Day events include festivals celebrating First Nations culture, taking pride in First Nations people's achievements and showcasing artists and musicians. These events generally have a more positive atmosphere than Invasion Day and Day of Mourning events.

We're here to help you plan your Australia Day lesson.

Our free resources...

Spark student engagement

Are suitable for different year levels

Include interactive multi-media resources

Related curriculum resources for download

Australia Day touches on a wide range of First Nations topics. Luckily we have diverse resources designed to help you bring First Nations perspectives into the classroom throughout the year.

F-Y10 Australia Day Pride and Pain Timeline Activities

These interactive curriculum resources can help you and your students discover how January 26 can be both a source of pride and pain. They will help unpack the day's complexities and show how for many it can be extremely difficult.

"We felt self-conscious that we didn't have all the answers, but Australians together were fantastic."

Want to read more about Australia Day?

Follow the links below for a deep dive into the of January 26.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
For many people, Australia Day is about celebrating the values, freedoms and pastimes of this country. It's a time for BBQs in the backyard, having a beer with mates, and proudly flying the Australian flag. On the surface, Australia Day seems to be about unifying all people who call Australia home, and yet ironically it's a divisive day for many.

# data[].attributes.headline
Why we celebrate Australia Day on January 26 

# data[].attributes.subject
Why we celebrate Australia Day on January 26 

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
January 26 - it's one of Australia's most divisive days. And while there are differing interpretations of what it means to celebrate it, the origin of the date is indisputable.

January 26 - it's one of Australia's most divisive days.

For some, our national holiday means little more than a day off, a BBQ, copious amounts of alcohol and soaking up the last real moments of summer.

But for Indigenous Australians, Australia Day is not cause for a pool party or First Fleet re-enactment, but for mourning. Invasion Day marks the dispossession of our first people - who continue to suffer the effects of colonisation and racism.

And as an increasing number of Aussies come to acknowledge this - and join the call to change the date, or abolish it entirely - it begs the question why we bother to celebrate January 26 at all.
What's the significance behind Australia Day?
While there are differing interpretations of what it means to celebrate on January 26, the historical origin of the date is indisputable.

At its base level, Australia Day commemorates the arrival of the First Fleet, 224 years ago, at Port Jackson.
January 26 is not a day for celebration - that's why news.com.au is campaigning to change the date of Australia Day, so we can celebrate the best country in the world, without leaving anyone behind.
Some of the Fleet - comprised of 11 ships, aboard which were more than 1480 men, women and children - actually arrived at Botany Bay more than a week before, on January 18, 1788. Having found Botany Bay was not as bountiful in freshwater and fertile soil as explorer Captain James Cook had suggested, the ships decided to move north to Sydney Cove.

"Arthur Phillip arrived at Sydney Cove and raised the national flag of the United Kingdom on January 26, 1788. In doing so, he founded the colony of New South Wales and, at the same time, commenced the dispossession and marginalisation of Indigenous people," Kungarakan Elder and University of Canberra chancellor, Professor Tom Calma, wrote for The Conversation in 2018.

Despite the Proclamation of NSW Governor Richard Bourke in 1835, implementing the legal principle of terra nullius ("land belonging to no one") as the basis for British settlement, Australia was inhabited long before the arrival of the First Fleet - Indigenous people had been living on the continent for tens of thousands of years prior.

For Indigenous Australians, the raising of the Union Jack in 1788 marked the beginning of decades of massacres, land theft, stolen children and oppression.

"Today, Indigenous peoples are still recovering from the chain of events that were set in motion on that day in 1788," Prof Calma explained.

"The ongoing impact can be seen in disturbing rates of Indigenous incarceration and the growing overrepresentation of Indigenous child in out-of-home care, to give just two of many examples."
Has Australia Day always been observed on January 26?
The origins of celebrating Australia Day on January 26 don't actually date back that far.

The occasion was initially referred to as "First Landing Day" or "Foundation Day" and early settlers held anniversary dinners to commemorate it. But the holiday was still quite a NSW-centric occasion and other states had their own holidays - until 1888, when "Anniversary Day", as it was then known, was a holiday in all capital cities except Adelaide.

Even at this stage, there were reservations about celebrating this day as many thought NSW's convict origins were better left in the past. The NSW governor Henry Parkes also recognised the day was a reminder to Indigenous Australians of how they had been "robbed".

So it wasn't always an obvious choice for Australia's national day.

After the Commonwealth of Australia was founded in 1901, there was renewed interest in setting a foundational holiday, with the Australian Natives Association trying to find a suitable date.

Empire Day was first introduced on May 24, 1905 to commemorate the late Queen Victoria's birthday and as recognition of the strength of imperial ties.

The first "Australia Day" was actually held on July 30, 1915 to raise funds for the World War I effort.

Only in 1935 did all states and territories adopted use of the name "Australia Day" and agreed to mark the occasion on January 26.

It then took until the 1940s for Australia to get its national holiday in place and it wasn't until 1984 that the National Australia Day Committee was federally funded.

By the 1960s, the day became "a means of promoting Australian identity and social cohesion in a society in which non-British immigration was increasing quickly", University of Sydney historian, Professor Mark McKenna, explained in The Conversation in 2012.

And since the early 1990s, Australia Day took "on a much greater importance" and there was "less division and criticism, and a more popular, enthusiastic embrace of the day".
Will we ever change the date?
While many Australians argue that we have much to celebrate about this country, it shouldn't come at the expense of our First Nations peoples.

"As the history books indicate, January 26 festivities were initiated to mark the arrival of the first British colonists and the establishment of a British colony on the east coast of Australia," Prof Calma noted.

"This history involves a period of conflict that continued until the 1960s, as well as government policies of assimilation, separation and dispossession. During this time, many Indigenous people were removed from their traditional lands, and stopped from practising their language and culture."

Refusing to change the date, he pointed out, "positions European settlement as the primary source of national identity and pride".

"In doing so, it ignores more than 60,000 years of pre-colonial history and 230 years of multicultural migration to Australia," Prof Calma added.

"By changing the date, Australia can show that it is ready to truly accept and include Indigenous histories, cultures and contributions as a valued part of the Australian story."

As Kamilaroi man and Channel 9 sports journalist, Jake Duke, told Clothing the Gap, "there are many other options that would be far more unifying and inclusive" than January 26.

"Even if the date is a floating one every year - the same way Easter or the Melbourne Cup is decided. I still think it should remain in January so that people can enjoy a public holiday in summer and celebrate all the things that are great about being Australian," he added.

"I would also like to see January 26 marked as a far more sombre occasion. A day to reflect on the dark parts of our history, so we can move forward together as a nation."

Read related topics: Change the Date

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.keywords[]
kungkaran elder and university of canberra

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
January 26 - it's one of Australia's most divisive days. And while there are differing interpretations of what it means to celebrate it, the origin of the date is indisputable. January 26 - it's one of Australia's most divisive days.

# data[].attributes.headline
Watch: Aboriginal people respond to Australia Day

# data[].attributes.subject
Watch: Aboriginal people respond to Australia Day

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Aboriginal People Respond To “Australia Day”

# data[].attributes.headline
Facts You Should Know About Our Indigenous History for Invasion Day

# data[].attributes.subject
Facts You Should Know About Our Indigenous History for Invasion Day

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
January 26th is a day of great morning and loss for Indigenous people. It marks the day that in 1788, Arthur Phillip raised the British Flag at Sydney Cove, proclaiming British sovereignty over the Eastern Seaboard of Australia and beginning the process of colonisation.

While Australia has marked Australia Day as a celebration, Indigenous people since at least the 1930s have held counter-events, and refer to the date as Survival Day, the Day of Mourning, or Invasion Day.

January 26th marks the beginning of a long and painful process of colonisation, genocide, and erasure of Indigenous peoples, languages, and culture. It's a process that many see as ongoing to this date and, for many, certainly not a date that calls for celebration.

Below, we're bringing you a guide to the facts of January 26th.

Language Is So Important

The way we discuss Indigenous issues, history, and culture is important. Language has been used to subjugate and categorise people for centuries and a simple phrase or name can signify or represent issues in a way that perpetuates harmful narratives or stereotypes.

Take Aboriginal or Aborigine, for example. This might be the term that many, particularly older generations, will use refer to Indigenous people. It's problematic however as it has been used historically to subjugate and perpetuate racism.

Aboriginal is a word of Latin origin which simply means original inhabitants. It doesn't refer to the original inhabitants of this land. When referring to Indigenous people in Australia, it's best to give their clan name as a descriptor and use Indigenous, First Nation, or Traditional Owners / Traditional Custodians as general references.

The name Australia too is a hotly debated subject. While there has been movement for a long time to rename New Zealand to its indigenous name, Aotearoa, Indigenous people here never had one name for the land as a whole. First Nations people were made up of roughly 500 separate clans or nations and never thought of themselves as a homogenised whole.

Instead, people have begun using the Indigenous names of the lands they currently reside in and the phrase "so-called Australia" to refer to the nation. Australia Post somewhat legitimised the practice recently by accepting Indigenous place names on letters. It's done so to serve as a reminder of the complex and non-consensual manner in which our nation was created as well as to pay respect to the traditional custodians of the land from whom sovereignty was never ceded.

You can learn more about language here.

Indigenous Culture Was Highly Developed

Australia has been inhabited for over 60,000 years, a time that keeps on growing into the past as more and more is discovered about the ancient people that first came to this land, likely on boats or land bridges from present day Indonesia.

Popular history has held that the Indigenous people were primitive, poor, and with little cultural achievements to speak of. This idea made the process of colonisation easier to stomach and justify.

Bruce Pascoe made headlines, and a fair few enemies, when he released in 2014. The book's main premise holds that Indigenous culture, rather than being a simple hunter-gatherer society, was highly developed and incredibly complex. After all, how could it not be in order to survive in the harsh and unforgiving environments of this island?

Indigenous peoples used processes like fish traps, agriculture, and engineering to create permanent settlements that were rich in food and resources and highly adapted to plentiful survival. The suppression of this information and physical history, Pascoe claims, has been in service of the philosophical understanding of Australia as "Terra Nullius", an empty land that, in the eyes of the law, is fair game for occupation.

That's not even to touch on Indigenous culture, much of which revolves around song, story telling, and a cosmic understanding of the intertwined, harmonious relationship between people and Land.

To give one example, the entire country is crossed with songlines, paths taken by creator dreamtime spirits, that have been followed by Indigneous people for thousands of years, passing the songs down through generations in oral history. Repeating the songs while walking allows for safe navigation through the roughest terrain on Earth.

Colonisation Was Not Peaceful

The myth of peaceful colonisation is one that has been taught in our schools and repeated in our films and TV shows for decade. It suggests that white settlers simply tamed the wilds of the Australian outback, creating order from chaos in a natural "progressive" historical trend. Largely these stories focus on the grit and determination of early explorers as they charted the land.

Unfortunately, much of the real nature of what took place has been edited and revised for family viewing. The real nature of colonisation was anything but peaceful.

Australian historian Henry Reynolds writes:

"During the first half of the 20th century the Aborigines (sic) were written out of Australian history. This had the convenient effect of hiding much of the domestic bloodshed, allowing the celebration of what came to be viewed as a uniquely peaceful history of settlement... For generations weaned on this soothing syrup the new history of the frontier came as an unwelcome revelation and one often stoutly resisted."

Visit any number of regional towns and places in Australia and grim stories of massacres, poisonings, and enslavements are recorded everywhere on plaques and in visitor guides. Taken as an individual incident, they might not inspire epiphany, but when considered as a whole, the myth of peaceful settlement is apparent.

It's Still Going on

One thing to consider when discussing Indigenous history in Australia is that the process of colonisation and subjugation is still ongoing. While policy names and practices may have shifted over the years, Indigenous people believe that the larger overall project of white supremacist dominance - where white settlers are held as the right and proper authorities of the land - continues to this day.

Examples are everywhere but we can look at Indigenous incarceration rates for a clear sign of these ongoing practices. According to the Australian Bureau of Statistics, Indigenous and Torres Strait Islander people make up almost 30% of the incarcerated population while representing only 3.3% of the population as a whole.

While this data gives us only a rough picture, the reasons behind it are clear. Socio-economic factors like poor education levels and high unemployment along with intergenerational trauma and intergenerational economic disadvantage are key factors in criminality, regardless of race. It is evident that government policy continues to fail our Indigenous people.

In addition, the disregard for Indigenous sovereignty and rights are still very much a part of every day life. We saw last year the destruction of the Juukan Gorge, one of the oldest sites of continuous inland inhabitancy on the planet, with evidence that it has been lived in through the last Ice Age. Mining giant Rio Tinto destroyed the 46,000-year-old site with ministerial consent despite protests from Traditional Owners, the Puutu Kunti Kurrama and Pinikura people, and information that this was one of the most significant archaeological sites in the country. Rio Tinto currently holds 1,780 approvals to destroy significant Indigenous sites.

Similarly, the Andrews Government of Victoria took the decision on the day the Victorian lockdown ended to start cutting down sacred directional and birthing trees of the Djab Wurrung people to make way for a new highway. Officials defended the felling, saying the trees were not on a protection list which further speaks to the issues with Australian cultural heritage laws.

Finally, we can turn to another grim reminder of the continuing problems white Australia has with its Indigenous history when looking at the sorry facts of Indigenous deaths in custody.

Since 1991, when a Royal Commission into Indigenous deaths in custody found that Indigenous people were 16.5 times more likely to die in police custody than other ethnicities, more than 434 Indigenous people have died in police custody. Not a single person has ever been convicted for any of these deaths. It's a shocking record that The Guardian has reported on extensively and calls " shameful ".

While people will be out there celebrating with a BBQ and a VB on January 26th, remember that this is a day of mourning for so many people across the country and using the information here should give you some ideas of how to engage meaningfully in conversations with those people.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Facts You Should Know About Our Indigenous History for Invasion Day

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
January 26th marks the beginning of a long and painful process of colonisation, genocide, and erasure of indigenous peoples, languages, and culture. It's a process that many see as ongoing to this date and, for many, certainly not a date that calls for celebration.

# data[].attributes.headline
Why a separate holiday for Indigenous Australians misses the point

# data[].attributes.subject
Why a separate holiday for Indigenous Australians misses the point

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
Prime Minister Scott Morrison has floated the idea of a new national holiday to recognise the achievements of Indigenous Australians. The proposal is a pre-emptive strike against what he called the " indulgent self-loathing " of those who want to shift Australia Day from 26 January to a date that is inclusive and respectful of Indigenous people.

There is much in Australia's history to celebrate. There is much that is shameful. The choice of a national day is a statement about what it means to be Australian and, by extension, who is left as an outsider. This is more than just symbolism.

In recent years, the movement to " change the date" of Australia Day has gained significant momentum. Attendance at Invasion Day rallies now numbers in the thousands across the country.

Read more: Indigenous recognition in our Constitution matters - and will need greater political will to achieve

The Byron Shire Council in NSW recently announced it will stop holding Australia Day celebrations on 26 January. The federal government swiftly moved to remove the council's rights to hold citizenship ceremonies - a common Australia Day practice that many councils across the country have discontinued in recognition of what the day may mean for Indigenous people.

In the past, public discussion about the appropriateness of the date of the national day usually only happened in the days leading up to 26 January. It is significant that only weeks into his prime ministership and four months before the day, Morrison has chosen to intervene in a debate that he could easily have left alone.

His move suggests that the balance of opinion is shifting, and some concession to Indigenous objections to Australia Day is required to preserve the acceptability of the national holiday to a growing number of Australians.

Beyond the debate over Australia Day

But an alternative holiday for Indigenous people doesn't address the fundamental arguments against celebrating nationhood on a day that cannot avoid causing offence to some citizens.

The only moral defence in favour of celebrating Australia Day on 26 January is to somehow find a way to make it genuinely inclusive. Proponents of the day, particularly Morrison, need to show the political vision that takes the country beyond the dispossession and exclusion that Australia Day represents for some people.

In response to the idea of a separate day to celebrate Indigenous achievements, Indigenous Invasion Day rally co-organiser Tarneen Onus-Williams said :

It's about genocide, it's not about our achievements.

Celebration is hard when government agencies themselves admit that the systematic exclusion of Indigenous peoples from public decision-making persists and partly explains the depth of policy failure in Indigenous affairs.

The Uluru Statement from the Heart shows that this exclusion is neither necessary nor inevitable. Yet celebration is hard to align with the government's continued rejection of a guaranteed Indigenous voice to parliament and Morrison's false claim that this would constitute a " third chamber ".

Read more: First reconciliation, then a republic - starting with changing the date of Australia Day

Labor MP Linda Burney, the first Indigenous woman elected to the federal House of Representatives, has argued that Uluru's substantive constitutional and political proposal is vastly more important than changing the date of Australia Day, which she says is "a very narrow way to look at the issue of Indigenous affairs".

Indeed, raising public awareness of the lasting impacts of colonisation has been an ongoing process for many years. Reconciliation gained momentum with the Mabo and Wik decisions of the High Court, and the inquiries into Indigenous deaths in custody and the removal of Indigenous children from their families.

However, much work remains to be done. True reconciliation requires serious political transformation to allow Indigenous peoples real authority over their own affairs and capacities to participate in public decision-making.

The importance of symbolism

Celebrating Australia Day on 26 January, in its current form, is an obstacle to reconciliation.

But substance, symbol and celebration are closely related. It is still reasonable for an inclusive and respectful nation to aspire to celebrate its national day. Australia's national day needs to be forward-looking and aspire to inclusive nationhood.

Read more: Why Australia Day survives, despite revealing a nation's rifts and wounds

January 26 is an important day of reflection and commemoration. A day of public memory where one thinks about the good and the bad in the development of Australian nationhood. It ought not be a day where the good is celebrated and the not so good hidden away. Rather, it needs to be a day of truth-telling - a path to what the Uluru Statement calls Makarrata:

Makarrata is the culmination of our agenda: the coming together after a struggle. It captures our aspirations for a fair and truthful relationship with the people of Australia and a better future for our children based on justice and self-determination.

"Coming together" is a difficult, though worthy aspiration. Its achievement partly depends on what the country chooses to celebrate on its national day and why. This is more than just symbolically important - it has deep, practical implications for what it means to be part of a national community.

If, as Morrison has acknowledged, white settlement of Australia involved " a few scars from some mistakes and some things that you could've done better ", he might develop a meaningful plan for doing better.

If we need an alternative to 26 January as the day to celebrate Indigenous Australians, we are saying that a common and shared nationhood is not possible - a very clear statement of who is in and who is out.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Why a separate holiday for Indigenous Australians misses the point

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Prime Minister Scott Morrison has floated the idea of a new national holiday to recognise the achievements of Indigenous Australians. The proposal is a pre-emptive strike against what he called the " indulgent self-loathing " of those who want to shift Australia Day from 26 January to a date that is inclusive and respectful of Indigenous people.

# data[].attributes.headline
How we came to love Australia Day: More than an excuse for a long weekend

# data[].attributes.subject
How we came to love Australia Day: More than an excuse for a long weekend

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
Australia Day has become a day of national pride - but only in the past two decades. Jon Ovington

Some 224 years ago on January 26, the First Fleet arrived at Sydney Cove. Just 1500 people disembarked with nearly 800 of them convicts. The date saw the beginning of the British penal colony, then known as New South Wales.

But while there's been something to commemorate for 224 years, the celebration of "Australia Day" itself is far, far more recent; more recent than most Australians would suspect.

The new world

For the first 20 years of the colony's existence, Australia Day was not even commemorated. The colonists celebrated the King's birthday, Easter and Christmas, but January 26 passed without notice.

By the 1820s in Sydney, it became the occasion for dinners at Government House, where officials proclaimed the arrival of "a new Britannia in another world". Outside, the people indulged in leisure activities such as sprinting races, horse races and sailing regattas.

For most of the 19th century, no other colony paid any notice to January 26; after all, it was a Sydney event. Victoria, Queensland, Western Australia, and South Australia all commemorated the date of their own colony's founding.

When Australia celebrated its centenary of settlement in 1888, the day was a reminder of an uncomfortable truth. Australia was founded by convicts, and there was then much embarrassment over the convict stain.

Only in the lead-up to federation in 1901, and in its immediate aftermath, did "Foundation Day" (as it was then known) become more significant. But even then, it was only commemorated by a few fervent nationalists in Victoria.

A new day

The first Anzac Day in 1916 immediately became a more significant day than January 26, largely because the Anzac legend offered a story of Australians fighting courageously for the British Empire.

In 1938, with the sesquicentenary of British settlement, January 26 became known as Australia Day. For the first time, the government hired actors to re-enact Governor Arthur Phillip 's landing at Sydney Cove.

A group of Aborigines were bused in from western NSW. Dressed in gum leaves and football shorts and holding spears, they retreated into the bush as Phillip came ashore. It was a piece of historical fiction if ever there was one.

In that year, the Aborigines Progressive Association declared Australia Day a day of mourning because it represented the beginning of cultural loss and dispossession. They demanded their rights as citizens. This was the first step in marking out a division that even today, still haunts Australia day.

Apathy and marching bands

It was not until after World War II that the first Australia Day Council was set up by the Victorian government. And by the 1960s, when it was clear Britain would soon join the European Economic Community, governments of all persuasions began to promote Australia Day. It was a means of promoting Australian identity and social cohesion in a society in which non-British immigration was increasing quickly.

The first Australian of the Year was awarded in 1960, but the day was still plagued by apathy. In 1964, on Australia Day in Sydney, the government organised a parade, conscripting marching bands and the armed services to march to Hyde Park where the band played God Save the Queen, Land of Hope and Glory, and Advance Australia Fair. But marchers and musicians outnumbered the spectators.

There was still little popular enthusiasm or passion for commemorating the day. In 1960, The Australia Day Council even sent a message to churches asking ministers and priests to devote special prayers for the day, in order to imbue it with "religious significance".

Some celebrated but overall, even into the 1970s and 1980s, Australia Day could not claim the mantle of Australia's national day.

Invasion day

In 1988, the bicentenary of British settlement, many indigenous Australians boycotted the event because they argued that Australia Day was not for them.

It was instead "Invasion Day", the day that ushered in the destruction of their societies, hardly a cause for celebration. The debate raged throughout the bicentenary year.

While this dilemma has not been solved, Australia Day has taken on a much greater importance since the early 1990s. There has been less division and criticism, and a more popular, enthusiastic embrace of the day.

Immigration, patriotism and convict pride

Flickr/Rule17_

So how has Australia Day suddenly become such a prominent day in the Australian calendar?

First, in 1994, the Australian government ended the practice of holding a public holiday on the closest Monday and made the holiday on January 26. This ended criticism that Australia Day was just an excuse for a barbecue and a long weekend.

But also, our convict past is no longer an embarrassment. There has been a slow, swelling surge of patriotism since the onset of the republic debate in the early 1990s, the election of the Howard conservative government in 1996, and the threat of terrorism after the September 11 attacks.

We've seen the introduction of an Australia Day honours system. We've seen citizenship and citizenship ceremonies take on greater meaning. Australia day is now successfully put forward as a day of unity for the country's migrants.

By 1999, it was possible for an editorial in the Sydney Morning Herald newspaper to proclaim that Australia Day had become our national day.

Blind to history?

When I watched Australia's Prime Minister Julia Gillard deliver her Australia day speech last year, I began to see some of the things that have changed.

Australia Day, she said, is a day when we remember that we belong to "the Australian family", that we are "bound together in a love of country".

Julia Gillard's sentiments are noble ones but they also point to the way in which Australia Day has been cut free from its history. There is no mention of historical founders or historical moments, no mention of our convict beginnings, no Phillip, no Sydney Cove.

No mention of what was done and said on that day. Nor is there any mention that there are still many Australians who are divided over Australia Day.

More reflection needed

Historian Manning Clark spoke publicly on every Australia Day from the early 1970s until his death in 1991, and almost always ended his talk by reminding his audience that Australia was still to come to terms with its past.

So this Australia Day, I would ask that we use the occasion for reflection on Australia's history. Not to celebrate Australia Day as if it were floating free from the historical moment that gave it birth or just as a vehicle for celebrating the country itself. But rather to think more deeply about our history and what this day represents - for all our citizens, indigenous and non-indigenous.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
More than an excuse for a long weekend - how we came to love Australia Day

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Some 224 years ago on January 26, the First Fleet arrived at Sydney Cove. Just 1500 people disembarked with nearly 800 of them convicts. The date saw the beginning of the British penal colony, then known as New South Wales.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
ERROR: The request could not be satisfied

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
As the country counts down to Australia Day, a council in Western Australia is defending its decision to go it alone.

Fremantle cancels Australia Day festivities, will hold "culturally inclusive" celebration two days later

Move criticised by Government, businesses and Noongar elder Robert Isaacs

Far right groups Reclaim Australia and United Patriots Front plan to protest the decision

The port city of Fremantle will effectively become a litmus test for the #changethedate movement when the local council holds its "culturally inclusive" alternative celebration two days after Australia Day.

"What we're doing is coming up with something that is actually more Australian," Fremantle mayor Brad Pettitt told 7.30.

"That actually acknowledges that Australia did not start in 1788."

It has been a highly controversial move, criticised by the Federal Government and Fremantle's business community.

Faced with losing out on one of the biggest trading days of the year, businesses have clubbed together to raise the $50,000 needed to salvage the traditional fireworks display on the 26th.

Visitors and residents now have a choice: the fireworks, which are part of a four-day fiesta called "Australia Week", or the council's alternative event "One Day in Freo" on the 28th.

On top of all that, far right groups Reclaim Australia and the United Patriots Front are planning to converge on Fremantle on Australia Day to protest against what they called "an act of betrayal against Australia".

'Aboriginal support for this decision has been overwhelming'

Despite the backlash, Dr Pettitt maintained the council was showing leadership on an important national issue.

"Aboriginal support for this decision has been, it would be fair to say, to be honest with you, overwhelming," he said.

"Ninety per cent of Aboriginal people I've spoken to have said, 'We're glad you have started this conversation'.

"One Day in Freo is going to be a big family community concert. We really hope it's a celebration of what brings us together."

Noongar man Robert Eggington, executive officer of the Dumbartung Aboriginal Corporation, said he was one of a group of about 20 Aboriginal elders and heads of families who had endorsed the council's decision at a meeting last year.

He said Aboriginal people find nothing to celebrate about the day, which marks the arrival of the First Fleet.

"Australia Day being celebrated on the 26th of January means the celebration of history, and in that history Aboriginal people have suffered so greatly," he said.

"I have never celebrated Australia Day in my 60 years."

Mr Eggington will take part in a smoking ceremony at Western Australia's oldest public building, The Round House, ahead of the council's event on the 28th.

"I think white Australia will benefit from the decision that Fremantle Council has made, once it's able to rise above the fear," he said.

"I think we're creating a potential unity for the future by speaking out."

'We need to go forward and don't look back'

Noongar elder and ambassador for the Australia Day WA Council, Robert Isaacs, disagreed.

The former West Australian of the Year said his fellow Indigenous Australians were causing divisions by opposing Australia Day.

"We're one nation of people and we've just got to try and not forget that we need to go forward and don't look back," he said.

Dr Isaacs said hundreds of Aboriginal families attended Perth's Skyworks each year after a "survival concert" in the city centre, and he was scathing about the City of Fremantle's alternative celebration.

"I'm hoping people stand up very strongly and serve a strong message to the council that when it comes to their next election, they vote them out and get Australia Day back to where it belongs, January 26th."

'Council has got a little too far ahead of itself'

Federal Liberal MP Ben Morton felt so strongly about the issue that he took out a full-page advertisement in a local Fremantle newspaper urging residents to support the national celebration.

The member for Tangney was instrumental in forcing the council to reinstate its citizenship ceremonies on January 26, which it had also planned to move to the 28th until the Commonwealth pulled rank.

"Fremantle council, in my view, should be sticking to its core business of making our parks nice and clean and picking up the rubbish," Mr Morton said.

"But they're wanting to create a national debate. And I just think the council here has got a little bit too far ahead of itself in that regard.

"Perhaps rather than getting involved in national political debates, Fremantle council should stick to its knitting."

But Dr Pettitt pointed out that on top of January 26 causing discomfort for Aboriginal people, it had little relevance to WA.

"As a West Australian, I've always found Australia Day to be odd. It is New South Wales day. In terms of the relevance to Western Australia, it's a pretty long bow to draw," he said.

'We feel we need to support it'

On the streets of Fremantle, views were polarised.

Karl Bullers of the city's National Hotel, who has contributed to the festivities on the 26th, was keen to stay out of the politics.

"I can see both sides of the argument," he said.

"To us, it's not about the politics, it's about the community and the business side of it.

"This is a national public holiday and we feel we need to support it.

"The whole of Australia is facing tough economic times so it's very important for us to have these events to bring people into Fremantle."

Just down the road, Tom Forbes of Mills Records said he supported the council's stance.

"I'm definitely going to go down to the One Day event," he said.

"It [Australia Day] definitely should be moved.

"It's basically celebrating the beginning of a genocide in Australia."

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
'An act of betrayal': City divided over Australia Day cancellation

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
As the country counts down to Australia Day, a council in Western Australia is defending its decision to go it alone.

# data[].attributes.headline
Climate change means Australia must adapt its farming practices

# data[].attributes.subject
Climate change means Australia must adapt its farming practices

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
The findings of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change suggest Australia may have to jettison tracts of the bush unless there is a massive investment in climate-change adaptation and planning.

The potential impacts of climate change on employment and the livability of the regions have not been adequately considered. Even if emissions are curtailed, Australia likely faces billions of dollars of adaptation costs for rural communities.

As the IPCC's Sixth Assessment Report (published last month) makes clear, the climate will change regardless of any mitigation actions taken now.

Even under its modest conservative projections, worldwide temperatures will rise by 1.5℃. That may not sound like much, but it will double the frequency of droughts - from once every 10 years to once every five.

Worse still, a 2℃ temperature rise - also a likely outcome without substantial emission reductions - will make droughts 2.5 times more frequent.

Read more: IPCC says Earth will reach temperature rise of about 1.5℃ in around a decade. But limiting any global warming is what matters most

Farm profits are falling

Climate change is already hurting Australian farmers. Compared with historical averages, agricultural profits have f allen 23% over the 20 years to 2020. This trend will continue.

The Australian Bureau of Agricultural and Resource Economics and Sciences (ABARES) predicts a likely scenario is that overall farm profit will fall by 13% by 2050. There will be significant differences between regions. Cropping profits in Western Australia, for example, are predicted to drop 32%.
Effect of 2001-2020 seasonal conditions on farm profit
With higher emissions, the reductions will be worse. Estimates of the fall in farm profits range from 11% to 50%.

These changes go beyond the cycles of weather with which Australian farmers have always had to cope. Inconsistent water supplies, increased natural disasters and greater production risks will render agricultural production in many areas uneconomic.

Due to these climatic changes agricultural assets, both land and infrastructure, could become virtually worthless - so-called stranded assets.

No future without water

Vibrant regional communities aren't just about farms. They are interdependent networks of businesses, towns, public infrastructure and people.

The effect of falls in farm income will ripple throughout these communities. Lower output will mean fewer jobs. If farms close, so will other regional businesses, leading to more stranded assets. Those affected could face displacement along with an inability to sell their homes and businesses.

And of course these communities can't survive without water.

So far development planning in Australia has not adequately considered the potential impacts of the climate on livability, especially in rural communities. This failure to account for climate change exacerbates the potential for stranded assets.

For example, the NSW Auditor General reported in September 2020 that the state government had "not effectively supported or overseen town water infrastructure planning in regional NSW since at least 2014". This contributed during the intense drought of 2019 to at least ten regional NSW cities or towns coming close to "zero" water.

Read more: Helping farmers in drought distress doesn't help them be the best

Population pressures

In some areas these water problems are being compounded by population growth.

Consider, for instance, the NSW townships surrounding Canberra. In January 2020 the town of Braidwood (about halfway between Canberra and Batemans Bay) had to start trucking in water when its own water source, the Shoalhaven river, stopped flowing. Yet nearby Bungedore (about 50 km away) is building a new high school due to population growth.

This "tree-change" trend, with people leaving cities in search of a better lifestyle and more affordable housing, is widespread. It appears to have been amplified by the COVID-19 pandemic, with figures showing net internal migration of people out of Sydney and Melbourne.

More investment in adaptation needed

There is an urgent need for a comprehensive assessment by all levels of government of risks to livelihoods in agriculture and regional communities, and of the default risk on stranded assets.

Budget projections need to account for climate-change adaptation and economic structural change.

In last year's budget the federal government committed to investing A$20 billion "to ensure Australia is leading the way in the adoption of new low-emissions technologies while supporting jobs and strengthening our economy".

As important as this is, we must start planning and spending on adaptation.

Read more: Australian farmers are adapting well to climate change, but there's work ahead

The A$1.2 billion over five years the federal budget allocated for natural disasters is just the beginning. In some regions changed farming practices, subsidised insurance and investment in water infrastructure may be enough. But proper infrastructure takes many years to plan, and to build.

Some areas are going to become unviable. We will need deal with the loss of entire communities, and internal climate refugees.

It is time to start budgeting for the costs of living with climate change, not just the costs of cutting emissions.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Climate change means Australia may have to abandon much of its farming

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
The findings of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change suggest Australia may have to jettison tracts of the bush unless there is a massive investment in climate-change adaptation and planning. The potential impacts of climate change on employment and the livability of the regions have not been adequately considered.

# data[].attributes.headline
WATCH: The struggling industry of Australian dairy farms

# data[].attributes.subject
WATCH: The struggling industry of Australian dairy farms

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Dairy farmers open up about struggling industry | Nine News Australia

# data[].attributes.headline
WATCH: The health and wellbeing of Australian farmers 'Are you bogged mate?'

# data[].attributes.subject
WATCH: The health and wellbeing of Australian farmers 'Are you bogged mate?'

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
"Are you Bogged Mate?" - the farmer's version of "R U OK?" | Landline

# data[].attributes.headline
Regional survey 2015: Farming challenges & farmer wellbeing 

# data[].attributes.subject
Regional survey 2015: Farming challenges & farmer wellbeing 

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
​​​​Rural Australia

Drought assistance

In the face of an increasingly variable climate, the Australian Government provides a range of assistance to farmers and primary producers. These measures are aimed at helping farmers prepare for and manage the effects of drought and other challenges.

Farm Finance

Farm Finance is an initiative of the Australian Government comprising four measures designed to build the ongoing financial resilience of farmers who are struggling with high levels of debt.

Agricultural Cooperation

Australia - China Agriculture Cooperation Agreement

The ACACA programme has been established to enhance agricultural cooperation between Australia and China and provide funding for a broad range activities including, but not limited to technical exchanges, training programs, conferences, missions, workshops, information exchanges and/or programs, officer secondments, industry scoping missions, feasibility studies.

On-going and recently closed grants and funding rounds

Carbon Farming Future Program

Filling the Research Gap

Action on the Ground

Extension and Outreach

Conservation tillage refundable tax offset

Carbon Farming Initiative

Science and Innovation Awards for Young People in Agriculture

Natural Resource Management Grants

Other grants and funding opportunities

You can find more grant and funding opportunities from the following websites:

Information about grants awarded can be found at Innovation grants.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
In the face of an increasingly variable climate, the Australian Government provides a range of assistance to farmers and primary producers. These measures are aimed at helping farmers prepare for and manage the effects of drought and other challenges.

# data[].attributes.headline
Australian farmers among the world's least subsidised

# data[].attributes.subject
Australian farmers among the world's least subsidised

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
Updated March 03, 2014 10:05:22

There's been intense debate about the Federal Government's refusal to subsidise General Motors and SPC Ardmona. And there are still questions about the Government stepping in to assist Qantas.

Federal Treasurer Joe Hockey has said the age of entitlement is over.

On ABC TV's Q&A program, Communications Minister Malcolm Turnbull was asked whether the Government's hard line on subsidising the manufacturing industry also applied to agriculture.

He said: "Our farmers are among the least subsidised in the world, the least supported in the world."

ABC Fact Check examines the evidence on agricultural subsidies.

International comparisons

A report published by the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development last year, ' Agricultural Policy Monitoring and Evaluation 2013', looks at agricultural policies in its 34 member countries and a range of emerging economies, including the important agro-food markets of Brazil, China, Indonesia, Kazakhstan, Russia, South Africa and Ukraine. These 47 countries account for almost 80 per cent of global agricultural output, according to the report, which covers the period 2010 to 2012.

In the report, the OECD measures subsidies by using a "producer support estimate". This measures the total subsidies farmers receive from government as a percentage of farm revenue.

Sorry, this video has expired

The report shows Australia has a producer support estimate of 3 per cent, making it the second lowest in the OECD, and the third lowest in the report. The OECD average is 19 per cent and of the 47 countries in the report the average is 17 per cent.

The only OECD country with lower subsidies than Australia is New Zealand, and the only non-OECD country is the Ukraine.

Chile and South Africa have the same levels of subsidies as Australia. Countries in the southern hemisphere "are characterised by consistently low and stable levels of support," the report said.

The report says Australia's agricultural policy has undergone "continuous and significant" reform since the 1980s.

There has been a reduction of market price support to zero, which means government no longer provides commodity-wide assistance to producers of sugar or cotton. It says the subsidies have instead moved to "targeted direct payments".

The targeted payments listed in the OECD report include payments to farms for relief from natural disasters, income tax averaging and irrigation programs.

From 2010 to 2012 there were no significant drought relief payments to farmers, which in previous years had increased the amount of subsidies paid by government.

'One of the world's most efficient'

The Department of Foreign Affairs and Trade backs up the claims made in the OECD report. "Australia provides agricultural produce to world markets without the high levels of financial support, protection and other trade-distorting practices used by some countries," it said. "This has resulted in Australia being one of the world's most efficient agricultural producers."

Mick Keogh, executive director of the the Australian Farm Institute, which acts on behalf of farmers and researches agriculture policy, says the OECD report uses national reports provided by each country, and is the most valued and comprehensive report for comparing agricultural subsidies.

Alan Oxley, former Australian ambassador to the General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade, which evolved into the World Trade Organisation, says the OECD report is the most authoritative on global figures, and is used by the WTO. "It's really the only set of global figures because some countries, particularly those within the EU, can be guarded about sharing information on agricultural subsidies," he said.

The Productivity Commission's ' Trade and Assistance Review 2011-12' also says it estimates "assistance to the sector overall has declined to around 3 per cent".

Mr Keogh says agricultural subsidies may also be measured by "tax support estimates", which calculate government subsidies as a percentage of tax paid, or "consumer support estimates", which are used mainly by the United States when the government subsidises the price of food.

The verdict

Australian farmers are among the least subsidised in the 47 countries examined in the OECD report. Mr Turnbull is correct.

Sources

Malcolm Turnbull, ABC Q & A, "Sochi Inquiries & Subsidies, February 22, 2014

OECD, Agricultural Policy Monitoring and Evaluation 2013, OECD Countries and Emerging Economies, September 2014

Australian Government, Department of Foreign Affairs and Trade, Agriculture and the WTO

Australian Government, Productivity Commission, "Trade and Assistance Review 2011-12"

Topics: federal-government, liberal-party-of-australia, turnbull-malcolm, agribusiness, rural, farm-labour, australia

First posted February 14, 2014 07:00:00

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Turnbull correct: Australian farmers among least subsidised

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
As debate continues over the Government's refusal to subsidise General Motors and SPC Ardmona, Malcolm Turnbull was asked whether the hard line on subsidising manufacturing also applied to agriculture. Our farmers are among the least subsidised in the world, the least supported in the world, Mr Turnbull said.

# data[].attributes.headline
Triple j's Hottest 100 is moving to a new date and here's why

# data[].attributes.subject
Triple j's Hottest 100 is moving to a new date and here's why

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
You heard right, our biggest music celebration of the year has a new date! On Saturday 27 January 2018 we'll be counting down the Hottest 100 songs of the year, as voted by you. Then, we'll back it up on Sunday with the songs that just missed out, the Hottest 200.

Welcome to the Hottest 100 Weekend. It's the countdown you love, made bigger!

triple j is making this move after hearing directly from you. Heaps of you took part in our online survey as part of our review of the date of the Hottest 100. (You can read more about that process below.) You told us how much you love the countdown and most of you are up for a new day. We all agreed that the Hottest 100 shouldn't be part of a debate about the day it's on. The only debate should be about the songs (" Ya joking shoulda been higher ").

triple j will be freed up to celebrate Australia Day as its own event too. We have some new programming planned for 26 January (more on that later).

So, get your crew together and make sure you keep the 4th weekend in January free, 'cause the Hottest 100 Weekend is gonna be huge.

We're sure you've got tonnes of questions, so let's answer them.

What are the key dates for my diary?

Tues 12 Dec 2017: Voting opens
Mon 22 Jan 2018: Voting closes
Fri 26 Jan 2018: Australia Day
Sat 27 Jan 2018: Hottest 100
Sun 28 Jan 2018: Hottest 200

Why did you choose the fourth weekend of January?

We went with the fourth weekend of January because we wanted to keep all the best bits you love about the Hottest 100 - the music and being with your mates on a day that most people have off - and still host it at the same time in summer you're used to. It also means we can follow up that weekend with the 200-101 countdown.

Hasn't the Hottest 100 always been on 26 January?

No, the Hottest 100 has been held on a few different dates in the past so it's not the first time it's moved around. The first ever countdown was held on 5 March, 1989 and the countdown didn't regularly match up with 26 January until 1998. In fact, the 2004 countdown was on 25 January. So, the date of the countdown has moved around and though the Hottest 100 has mostly been held on Australia Day, it's not about Australia Day.

Why is the Hottest 100 moving?

It's fair to say there's been increasing debate around 26 January and there are a lot of perspectives on what it means to different Australians. As the public broadcaster representing all Australians, triple j and the ABC doesn't take a view in the discussions.

However, in recent years the Hottest 100 has become a symbol in the debate about Australia Day. The Hottest 100 wasn't created as an Australia Day celebration. It was created to celebrate your favourite songs of the past year. It should be an event that everyone can enjoy together - for both the musicians whose songs make it in and for everyone listening in Australia and around the world. This is really important to us.

Whether you're listening in Busselton, Bundy, Alice or Aspen. From Coober Pedy to Caz's pool, tuning in from a backyard BBQ or streaming from overseas, in the city or on the farm; everyone is invited to join the party.

What did people have to say about the date of the Hottest 100?

Your voice in this decision is as important as ours - you are the ones who listen, vote, and tune in so we wanted to hear from you. We've learnt all the way through that this is a complex issue and there have been a lot of different perspectives on what triple j should do. When we asked how you felt about triple j's Hottest 100 being held on January 26, we received tens of thousands of responses to our questionnaire - 64,990 responses to be precise.

An independent research company analysed a representative sample of these answers, from people of all walks of life, so we could better understand what you thought about the date of the Hottest 100.

We learnt that the majority of you (60%) were in favour of moving the Hottest 100 to a different date.

To validate this result, we did a second online survey with 759 18-30 year olds who had listened to triple j at some point, using the same independent research company. Again, the majority (55%) were in favour of moving the date, 24% were against moving the date, and 22% didn't care.

We expected a lot of different opinions, this is a complicated issue with no one correct answer. However, it came across loud and clear that we all agreed it is the music that makes the Hottest 100 special. Celebrating our favourite songs of the year with our mates and the rest of the country is what's most important for the Hottest 100.

Ultimately, our research and your feedback shows that most of you are behind a move for the Hottest 100. For those that don't want the date to move, we have heard you. We've listened closely to how all of you felt about the Hottest 100 and responded with what's the right choice, right now, that reflects the variety of complicated views. And it's a move backed up by more than those survey results.

Who else did you speak to?

Over the past 12 months, we've been speaking to heaps of different people who would be affected by this decision, including musicians, community leaders, representative groups, triple j staff, ABC groups, and a wide range of Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander media, language groups, and many of the Indigenous artists featured on triple j.

There were a lot of different perspectives about 26 January, and different ways to approach Australia Day. But when it came to the Hottest 100, it was clear most people want the Hottest 100 to be on its own day when everyone can celebrate together.

So, what will triple j be doing on Australia Day, 26 January?

Highlighting the diversity of Australia. We'll be broadcasting a bunch of special programming that covers some of the day's biggest events, like the Young Australian of the Year, citizenship ceremonies, the Australia vs England One Day Series, Yabun Festival, and much more. Plus, we'll be spinning nothing but homegrown music all day long, including the best live Australian music.

This way, both the Hottest 100 and Australia Day get the coverage they deserve as separate events.

What about future years?

For now, we're focussing on the 2018 Hottest 100 Weekend and our new Australia Day coverage across the fourth weekend of January. It is just one day's move, but it's a big change for everyone to get used to. In 2019 the Hottest 100 Weekend will again be the fourth weekend of January.

Will you continue to work with AIME?

Yep. As we've done since 2015, we're partnering with AIME (Australian Indigenous Mentoring Experience) to raise funds to help support Indigenous kids through high school and into university, training and employment. Last Hottest 100, you helped raise a quarter of a million dollars, which meant AIME could increase its program to 7,000 students. Stay tuned, we'll be announcing more details about our 2018 partnership soon.

So, what is this year's #1 song going to be?

Well, that's over to you! Start getting your playlists sorted; voting for the 2018 Hottest 100 countdown opens Tuesday 12 December.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
You heard right, our biggest music celebration of the year has a new date! On Saturday 27 January 2018 we'll be counting down the Hottest 100 songs of the year, as voted by you. Then, we'll back it up on Sunday with the songs that just missed out, the Hottest 200.

# data[].attributes.headline
A prominent supporter of the Indigenous Voice to Parliament has slammed Facebook's censorship of anti-Voice ads

# data[].attributes.subject
A prominent supporter of the Indigenous Voice to Parliament has slammed Facebook's censorship of anti-Voice ads

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
A prominent supporter of the Indigenous Voice to Parliament has slammed Facebook's decision to remove a series of ads attacking the proposed constitutional change.

Emeritus Professor Greg Craven, a constitutional lawyer and director of the pro-Voice organisation Uphold and Recognise, said Facebook's decision was "wrong in principle" and "extremely destructive for the Yes case."

Speaking exclusively to SkyNews.com.au, Professor Craven said it is imperative that both sides in the referendum debate are able to put forward their arguments.
Stream your news live & on demand with Flash for $8/month and no lock in contracts. New to Flash? Try 1 month free. Offer ends 31 October, 2023
"I think it's incredibly important that there is not seen to be censorship in relation to any view in this referendum," Professor Craven said.

"It's not only wrong in principle, but any suggestion that people are being told what they can hear and what they can't hear will be extremely destructive to the Yes case.

"If this is seen as a sort of rigged or constrained referendum, it will actually gravely affect the Yes case.

"So I think both as a matter of principle and practicality, I am very, very opposed to any form of restriction."

Facebook removed a series of ads calling on Australians to reject the proposed constitutional reform after RMIT FactLab labelled a claim in the ads - that the Voice would provide Indigenous Australians with "special rights" - as incorrect.

The ads, paid for by conservative activist organisation Advance Australia, claimed the Voice would divide Australians by race. "We'll have one race of people with special rights handed to them," the ad said.

But Professor Craven, who sits on the Constitutional Expert Group set up to advise the government on the Voice proposal, said people must be able to make these sort of arguments.

"People should be able to say that thing confers special rights. They're completely wrong and they deserve to be rebutted and thrashed in the argument. But you can't stop them from saying it"

Asked if there was any information that should be taken down by social media platforms like Facebook, Professor Craven said they should draw the line at "overt racism" and illegal content.

"I would be nervous, very nervous, about the attempt of any social platform to prevent the dissemination of any argument, provided it wasn't so out there as to amount to sort of overt racism or it was breaching a law of the Commonwealth," Professor Craven said.

"If it's absolute disinformation - in the most offensive sort of way - you know, that indigenous people aren't clever enough to have their own Voice; OK, that's revolting and you can deal with it.

"But all of those arguments - that I really, really dislike - about special rights and so on and so forth; people should be able to argue them and they should be able to be torn apart on the same basis."

In contrast to Professor Craven's position, the Albanese government appears to be more comfortable with a lopsided debate.

The government's decision to remove the requirement for Yes and No case booklets to be sent to Australian households is just one way that opponents of the Voice claim the government is attempting to rig the debate.

Former prime minster Tony Abbott told Sky News Australia that he feared the government was "trying to create a very unfair environment in which this debate can take place".

"They're not funding the yes and no campaign. They are funding what they say will be a campaign against misinformation. And I fear that will end up being Yes case propaganda," Mr Abbott said.

"They have given tax deductibility for donations to the Yes case, but not to the No case.

"I think they're relying on local public companies to fund the Yes case, and they're now relying on big tech to censor the No case.

"I think that's deeply, deeply disturbing."

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Prominent Voice advocate slams censorship of No campaign

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
A prominent supporter of the Indigenous Voice to Parliament has slammed Facebook's decision to remove a series of ads attacking the proposed constitutional change.

# data[].attributes.headline
Caring for the environment has a long Catholic lineage 

# data[].attributes.subject
Caring for the environment has a long Catholic lineage 

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
Pope Francis has laid emphasis on protecting the environment, but he's not the only pope to speak about caring for nature. AP Photo/Alessandra Tarantino

Pope Francis led dozens of religious leaders Oct. 4, 2021 in issuing a plea to protect the environment, warning that "Future generations will never forgive us if we miss the opportunity to protect our common home."

The appeal, which calls for net-zero emissions, was released after months of meetings leading up to the United Nations' November climate conference in Glasgow, Scotland.

The pope has voiced support for green policies before, including his 2015 encyclical letter to the entire Catholic Church "On Care for Our Common Home."

But Francis is not the first Catholic leader to emphasize care for the planet. In fact, every pope for the past half-century - except John Paul I, who died after just one month in office - has addressed environmental issues in their official publications.

As a scholar whose research focuses on the medieval Church, I see many of these concerns deeply rooted in the history of the Catholic tradition.

The early tradition

One of the basic beliefs of Christianity is that the material world was created directly by God, and thus fundamentally connected with God's goodness.

This is clearly expressed in the creation narrative in the book of Genesis, part of the sacred scripture shared by Christians and Jews. As God completes each element of the world - day, night, land, sea, etc. - he sees that "it was good." On the sixth day, when God creates human beings in God's own image, they are given "dominion" or "rule" over everything that lives on the Earth.

Early Christians insisted that the beauty of creation reflected God's glory. But as Christianity spread throughout the Roman Empire, they had to defend this view of the basic goodness of creation when challenged by another religious viewpoint.

This movement - called Gnosticism, from the Greek word meaning "knowledge" - taught that the physical world was created not directly by God, but by a lesser spiritual being, out of malice or ignorance. At best, the material world was a worthless distraction; at worst, an evil snare for human souls. Gnostic teachers offered to teach their followers how to free their spirits from attachment to their physical bodies and the material world. In this way, after death they could return to the realm of spiritual reality and reunite with the divine.

Many theologians and bishops criticized this interpretation of their faith. Several wrote lengthy, detailed critiques of Gnostic teaching; at stake, they believed, was the salvation of souls.

The most prominent of these was St. Irenaeus of Lyons, who lived in the second century A.D. On Oct. 7, 2021, Francis announced that he would declare Irenaeus a "Doctor of the Church," a title reserved for saints whose writings have had a profound impact on the life of the Church.

In Irenaeus' treatise Against the Heresies, a passionate defense of the teaching of the scriptures and apostles, he states that creation itself reveals God and God's glory; the only higher revelation is Jesus Christ himself.

At the beginning of the Middle Ages, however, Western Christianity was left with a lingering suspicion of "worldly things," despite this early stress on the basic goodness of material creation.

Miniatur aus dem Rupertsberger Codex des Liber Scivias/Wikimedia Commons

The Benedictine tradition

By the third century, some Christians began to seek a life more fully focused on God by removing themselves from society to pray and work together in communal groups. This kind of monasticism swept across Western Europe during the medieval period.

The most influential of these monastic orders were the Benedictines, who balanced their lives between daily prayer services and work - which often involved agriculture and care of the surrounding environment. Each monk or nun pledged to remain at the same monastery for life, unless its abbot or abbess - the monk or nun in charge - ordered them to move to another. Because of this, Benedictines became known as " lovers of place."

Today, one Benedictine saint has become especially connected with environmental concerns: St. Hildegard of Bingen, who died in A.D. 1179. This German abbess was one of the most accomplished women of the Middle Ages. An expert on herbal medicines and botany, she also wrote religious plays, composed liturgical chants and hymns, and authored theological works and poems based on her mystical experiences. She insisted that God loved the Earth as a husband loves a wife, and espoused a kind of " green" theology, called viriditas, condemning the harm that human activity could do to nature.

Hildegard has been acclaimed as an unofficial patron saint of environmentalists. In 2012, Pope Benedict XVI declared her a "Doctor of the Church," like Irenaeus.

Giotto di Bondone/Basilica of San Francesco d'Assisi/Wikimedia Commons

The Franciscan tradition

St. Francis of Assisi, son of an Italian cloth merchant, has over the centuries become renowned for his love of the natural world. After time as a soldier and prisoner of war, Francis underwent a spiritual conversion. Rejecting his father's wealth, he chose to live a life of radical poverty and public preaching until his death in A.D. 1226. Early on, male members of his new mendicant movement, the Franciscians, took religious vows but traveled from town to town with no fixed residence, begging for food and lodging.

One of Francis' few documents is a poem, the Canticle of the Sun, which lyrically expressed his belief in the kinship between human beings and the rest of the natural world. Even the Sun and the Moon are addressed as "brother" and "sister." And as he lay dying, it is said that he asked to be laid on the bare Earth.

Legends about his preaching and miracles circulated widely, and some involved his concern for animals, treating them with the same dignity as human beings. One story holds that he preached to birds and convinced a vicious wolf to live in peace with nearby townspeople.

[ Over 110,000 readers rely on The Conversation's newsletter to understand the world. Sign up today.]

In 1979, Pope John Paul II named St. Francis the patron saint of ecology because he "revered nature as a wonderful gift of God." And in 2015, Pope Francis used the first words of the Canticle of the Sun, Laudatio si', to open his encyclical on the environment and serve as its official title.

Although often overshadowed by the notion that the material world is only a passing distraction, reverence for a creation deeply loved by God has also been an important part of Catholic tradition. Contemporary teaching on the environment is only its most recent expression.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Caring for the environment has a long Catholic lineage - hundreds of years before Pope Francis

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Environmentalism may seem like a new mindset, especially in the Church. But care for creation has been woven into Catholicism for centuries.

# data[].attributes.headline
How Much Paper Schools Use & How Much It Costs Them

# data[].attributes.subject
How Much Paper Schools Use & How Much It Costs Them

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
While it might not seem like passing out worksheets in a single classroom is an unusually large amount of paper to use, once you start taking factors like the number of classrooms in the school, the days in the school year, and the overall number of schools in the US into consideration, the numbers on paper use in education quickly start to stack up.

Learn more in this video or the transcription below about statistics on paper use in schools, the calculated costs of that paper consumption, and how to reduce paper use in schools with the help of scanning and digital education records.
Video Transcription
How Much Paper Are Schools Using?

While some might picture school paper consumption as just handing out a few worksheets during class, it's also important to consider paper use from the larger picture.

When you start multiplying paper use by the number of classes, the days in a school year, and overall number of schools in the US, the numbers on paper use and its cost for schools quickly begins to add up.

Paper Use In Education

A typical school will use an average of 2,000 sheets per day, meaning that during a full school year of 160 days, a school will chew through over 320,000 sheets of paper per year.

With roughly 100,000 schools in the US, this means that all together schools are consuming as much as 32 billion sheets of paper per year.

How Much Using Paper Costs

With the average cost of a sheet of paper being roughly 5 cents, you can now calculate paper costs based on the total amount being used in US schools per year.

For a school that uses 2,000 sheets per day and 320,000 in a year, they can expect to pay roughly $100 per day and $16,000 per year.

For the US as a whole, with schools using 32 billion sheets per year as much as $1.6 billion is spent on paper annually.

How to Reduce Your Paper Use

Rather than traditional paper-based school records, making the transition to a digital system for managing files can greatly cut back on your paper consumption.

Besides reducing paper use though, digital education files also boost productivity and save time, money, and the space otherwise needed to manage paper records.

For example, rather than the recurring costs of using paper, school records scanning is a one-time cost and removes the need to use more paper for future copies. Common education files to scan include:

General and special education files

Student transcripts

Faculty/personnel files and HR records

Financial aid applications and files

Student registrations, schedules, and admissions

Medical records

Student publications (yearbook/newspaper)

Accounting and purchasing records

Benefits of Scanning School Records

Going from paper to paperless education records provides four main benefits: saving money, saving time, improving securities and data backups, and ensuring FERPA compliance.

Saving Money: Comparing the Cost of Digital and Paper School Records

Digital School Records

With electronic education records the cost is fairly straightforward-on average the scanning costs 7-12 cents per page, and the larger the project is the lower the cost per page.

Other cost factors to consider though include whether the files are single or double-sided, if prep work is needed, or if you want the scanning to be done on or off site.

Paper School Records

Besides the recurring cost of buying paper where on average 2,000 sheets are used per day at 5 cents each, using paper also comes with indirect costs.

Other costs include the real estate used for filing cabinets, the time you spend looking for and refiling documents (time is money after all), and the money you spend on bulk office supplies.

Saving Time: Streamline Work and Boost Productivity

Quickly Find and Share Files

Scanned files are indexed as they're implemented in DMS or cloud storage systems, meaning they can be quickly tracked down by keyword search and organized by things like file name and date

Free Up Extra Space

While a 1 TB hard drive can hold 6.5 million document pages and costs $50, a 4-drawer file cabinet only holds 10,000-12,000 files, takes up 9 sq. ft. of floor space, and can cost $1,500.

Version Control and Avoid Duplicates

Rather than paper where a file can be edited multiple times and redistributed with conflicting information, when digital files are edited a single file version is updated and doesn't require making new copies.

Data Security and Backups: Protect Files and Stay Prepared for Disaster

Electronic education files provide additional securities to not just prevent physical theft like a locking file cabinet, but also to protect from external risks like hacking or disasters like fire and flood. Added protections include:

File encryption

Tiered access controls

Regular data backups

FERPA Compliance: Reduce the Chances of Legal Trouble

FERPA (the Family Educational Rights and Privacy Act) states that schools who receive funds from the US Department of Education can't disclose student information without the consent of the parents or student after they've turned 18.

One of the most common ways schools get into FERPA compliance trouble is either losing school records, or storing and sharing them insecurely.

With digital school records though, they can be encrypted, password-protected, and indexed in a system where files are organized and can be sorted by names, dates, and types-much like the files you keep on a personal computer.

Get Free Quotes on School Record Scanning

At Record Nations we partner with a nationwide network of records scanning and storage providers in order to help schools save on paper costs and make the transition from paper to paperless school records.

Join Boston and Denver public schools, the Harvard University Library, and countless other educational organizations we've helped to find the best school records scanning options to meet their needs by simply filling out the form, giving us a call at (866) 385-3706, or contacting us directly using our live chat.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
How Much Paper Schools Use and the Costs | Record Nations

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Considering the amount of paper used daily in schools, the costs can begin to quickly add up. Learn more about transferring the classroom to digital.

# data[].attributes.headline
Hate Speech’s Rise on Twitter Is Unprecedented, Researchers Find

# data[].attributes.subject
Hate Speech’s Rise on Twitter Is Unprecedented, Researchers Find

# data[].attributes.headline
UNHCR: Global displacement hits another record, capping decade-long rising trend

# data[].attributes.subject
UNHCR: Global displacement hits another record, capping decade-long rising trend

# data[].attributes.headline
More than 1 million people displaced by Sudan crisis, UN says

# data[].attributes.subject
More than 1 million people displaced by Sudan crisis, UN says

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
People prepare to board a bus to leave Khartoum on May 19, 2023, as battles continue between the army and paramilitary forces led by rival generals [AFP]

More than 1 million people have been displaced by five weeks of fighting in Sudan, including a quarter of a million refugees, according to the United Nations refugee agency.

Sudan has been gripped by violence since April 15 when disagreements between army chief Abdel Fattah al-Burhan and the head of the paramilitary Rapid Support Forces (RSF), Mohamed Hamdan "Hemedti" Dagalo, escalated into an armed conflict. Hundreds of people have been killed in the battles that have turned the streets of the capital, Khartoum, and other places across the country into warzones.

Speaking to reporters in Geneva on Friday, a spokesperson for the UN High Commissioner for Refugees (UNHCR), Matthew Saltmarsh, said 843,000 people had been internally displaced so far due to the fighting.

About 250,000 others have fled across Sudan's borders, streaming mostly into Egypt, Chad, Ethiopia and South Sudan, Saltmarsh said, adding that Egypt has so far received the highest number of Sudanese refugees at about 110,000.

"Many of those who have approached us are in a distressed state, having been exposed to violence or traumatic conditions in Sudan and having suffered arduous journeys," Saltmarsh said. The pace has increased in recent weeks, he said, with about 5,000 people arriving each day in Egypt.

The UN said on Wednesday that half of Sudan's population needs humanitarian aid and more than $3bn will be needed this year alone to provide urgent assistance inside the country and to those fleeing across its borders.

Al-Burhan and Hemedti held the top positions on Sudan's ruling council following the 2019 overthrow of longtime ruler Omar al-Bashir. The two generals staged a military coup two years later, derailing Sudan's fragile transition towards democratic rule.

The fighting began after disputes over plans for the RSF to be absorbed into the army and the chain of command in a new political transition.

It has also spread to the western region of Darfur, with hundreds of people killed. The rivalry between the army and RSF has taken on an intercommunal dimension in the region, pitting Arab communities against non-Arab groups and reviving memories of a devastating war that erupted there in 2003.

Hemedti sacked

Separately on Friday, al-Burhan, head of the ruling Sovereignty Council, issued a decree firing his deputy, Hemedti, with "immediate effect".

Reporting from Khartoum's twin city of Omdurman, Al Jazeera's Hiba Morgan said al-Burhan's move appeared to be aimed at minimising the strength and significance of his rival.

"People have been asking why it took so long to dismiss the vice president of the Sovereignty Council from this position, especially because the army chief has already branded the RSF as a rebel group since the start of the conflict," she said.

"It looks like he's trying to diminish the position and power of the RSF as negotiations continue [in the Saudi city of Jeddah] and as fighting continues here in Sudan."

Morgan went on to say that while Hemedti has been dismissed from his position, he still remains a member of the Sovereignty Council.

"It looks more like a move to try to reduce the power of Hemedti and not to completely negate it," she said.

The new decree came days after al-Burhan froze the bank accounts of the RSF and its affiliated firms.

He also replaced the central bank governor and sacked four generals who had been moved temporarily to the paramilitary forces.

Source: Al Jazeera and news agencies

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Al-Burhan fires Hemedti as VP as displaced Sudanese top 1 million

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
About 843,000 displaced internally and 250,000 have fled across Sudan's borders since fighting broke out a month ago.

# data[].attributes.headline
Ukraine refugees face uncertainty and precarity as displacement persists

# data[].attributes.subject
Ukraine refugees face uncertainty and precarity as displacement persists

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
At the onset of Russia's full-scale invasion of Ukraine, the world witnessed a massive exodus of refugees from the country. Photos of exhausted, fearful women queuing at the country's western borders, clutching children, waiting to cross to safety, have become iconic in international coverage of the war.

Since then, more than 8 million Ukrainians have registered as refugees in Europe and another 5.3 million have become internally displaced, according to the U.N. refugee agency. But these statistics reflect only a small part of the struggle civilians are going through. With the insufficient financial resources and policies in place that, according to scholars of international law, harm civilians and prevent families from reuniting, for most refugees, displacement has become not a single, lifesaving event but rather a chronic condition of uncertainty and precarity.

Elena Diachkova was one of those early refugees. Her town of Avdiivka, in the eastern region of Donbas, instantly turned into a battlefield. She was forced to flee with her daughter, Yulia, and her then 2-year-old grandson, Nikita. The men of the family - Elena's and Yulia's husbands - stayed behind because Ukraine restricts men between the ages of 18 and 60 from leaving the country.

Elena, Yulia and Nikita found a new home in Poland. But this proved to be only the beginning of a new struggle.

The family soon ran into financial hardship. Yulia, who, prior to the invasion, worked as an auditor, could only find a job planting trees in a local forestry. Elena tried her luck at a fish processing factory. The physically demanding jobs were not enough to make ends meet. Back in Ukraine, Elena's husband, Alexander, ended up unemployed as his workplace was destroyed in war. The only remaining salary of Yulia's husband was not enough to support the whole family abroad.

Soon Yulia returned to the Ukrainian capital of Kyiv, to her old job. This allowed her to send money to Poland for Elena and Nikita. She was separated from baby Nikita, while Elena's relationship with Alexander, grew increasingly strained with no prospect of reunification in sight. A year after moving to Poland, Elena and Nikita recently returned to Ukraine.

Theirs is a common trajectory over the past year. Even though European countries have offered an unusual degree of support and hospitality, for most Ukrainians, it was not enough to build a new life. Many Ukrainians abroad struggle financially, find it hard to integrate into host societies and, most importantly, suffer from being separated from their loved ones. Displaced women and children are mostly on their own, and families face the prospect of being split indefinitely.

Those Ukrainians who do not cross international borders but are displaced internally often find themselves in similarly dire straits. Olga Grinik, together with her two young children, evacuated from Avdiivka in the eastern Donetsk region to a safer place in central Ukraine, while her husband joined the armed forces. The family pooled all its savings to buy a rundown, abandoned house in a village, and now Olga struggles to make it habitable while operating, essentially, as a single mother.

In Ukraine, housing for people displaced by the war is scarce and inadequate. Most often, they are temporarily hosted in public facilities such as schools or kindergartens. Families like Olga's are often on their own to deal with their problems. As Ukraine struggles to fight a war of attrition against a stronger adversary, civilians displaced by the fighting feel they are low on the country's list of priorities. Internal refugees report to aid workers and journalists that when approaching authorities with their problems, they are often turned away and advised not to be selfish and to remember that soldiers on the front lines have it even worse.

Olga can't look to the past - she recently learned that her family house in Avdiivka was destroyed in fighting. Others who still have a place to return to face an uneasy choice between safety and home. Many choose the latter or vacillate, setting themselves up for repeated displacement.

Such is the story of Svitlana, who asked to not be identified by her last name for security reasons. She's a single mother whose husband was killed by shelling in 2014, when Russian-backed separatists took control of parts of the Donbas region.

When in the summer of 2022 the shelling once again got dangerously close to her apartment building, she and her 11-year-old son, Danil, fled from the eastern Ukrainian town of Sloviansk. Upon arriving in Dnipro, the nearest big city, they faced the prospect of homelessness, as the shelter for displaced people could take them in only for a few nights. Eventually, they had to go back home. Soon, however, the fighting in Sloviansk intensified again, and they had to flee for their lives once more. They were caught up in a cycle of repeated displacement and return - a typical situation for many in Ukraine, aid agencies say.

In a recent report, the U.N. refugee agency describes the dynamics of border crossings in and out of Ukraine as "pendular," noting that people tend to travel back and forth, rather than exclusively out of the country. Mirroring this definition are the hesitations of those Ukrainians who try to navigate the precarious dynamics of displacement and family separation.

Some women describe the choice between leaving, staying or returning as a "damned if you do and damned if you don't" kind of situation. As Natalia, who asked to not to be identified by her last name for security reasons, is currently staying in Germany with her 7-year-old daughter, put it: "If you leave, you feel like a coward, abandoning the nation in times of hardship. If you stay, they say you are a bad mother who exposes her child to danger."

Indeed, in a society living through the trauma of war, the public debate often gets overheated, and it is easy to be labeled a "bad" citizen. Those who leave face moral scrutiny over their choice, and those who stay in towns on the front lines - and especially those who have lived under the Russian occupation - are stigmatized as possible collaborators and enemy sympathizers.

This is what happened to Nadezhda Dunayeva and her husband Vladimir. Their town of Lyman, in Ukraine's eastern Donetsk region, was under Russian control between May and September last year. Throughout this time, Vladimir, who's an electrical engineer, repaired electrical infrastructure repeatedly damaged by the fighting. After Lyman was liberated by Ukrainian troops, he was labeled a collaborator and fired from his job at the railroad. "But I wasn't doing it for the Russians," he said, "I was doing it for the people of my town."
Producer: Dmytro Pashchenko Photos edited by: Grace Widyatmadja Text edited by: Zach Thompson

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Ukraine refugees face uncertainty and precarity as displacement persists

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Despite being welcomed by European neighbors, for most Ukrainians, it's not enough to build a new life. Many are caught in a cycle of repeated uprooting, displacement and return.

# data[].attributes.headline
Displacement in times of armed conflict: How international humanitarian law protects in war and why it matters

# data[].attributes.subject
Displacement in times of armed conflict: How international humanitarian law protects in war and why it matters

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.provider_name
International Committee of the Red Cross

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
The main purpose of the study is to draw attention to the key role that IHL plays in addressing displacement and to influence law and policymaking among States and international and multilateral organizations. This is the first instalment of IHL Impact, a series of research studies that draw on the organization's unparalleled knowledge and resources to examine how IHL actually makes a difference on the ground.

The harrowing reality of displacement caused by armed conflict

Displacement is part and parcel of war and also one of the greatest humanitarian challenges of our time. When people become displaced, their physical and mental health often suffers. They can lose their independence, be or feel unsafe, lack access to essential services and be at heightened risk of services and violence. Displacement affects host communities, too - especially if they are unprepared and lack the support they need.

To which extent could international humanitarian law have an impact on displacement? The ICRC has carried out a research study to better understand the interaction between IHL and displacement.

How violence and IHL violations trigger displacement

While acts of violence affecting civilians may - though not always - constitute IHL violations, the report sets out many violations that directly or indirectly trigger displacement.

These violations can also generate pre-emptive displacement. Civilians have a long memory of IHL violations and are aware of the impact of these violations on others. They might likely anticipate them happening or happening again and choose preventive displacement.

Patterns of displacement

In some circumstances, if communities get the humanitarian assistance and protection they need locally, leaving may become less of a pressing necessity. Conversely, where IHL violations stifle humanitarian efforts, or sever the lifeline altogether, civilians may be forced to seek help elsewhere.

Sometimes, a single incident causes people to flee. In other cases, the build-up of violations over time brings about displacement. The intensity and types of violations also have a profound influence on how long people remain displaced, and on the circumstances of their displacement.

The question of return

Better respect for IHL mitigates the widespread damage to and destruction of civilian objects caused by war. IHL also prohibits the use of certain weapons and requires the parties to the conflict to clear, remove or destroy explosive remnants of war in territories under their control, after the cessation of hostilities and as soon as feasible, making the environment safer for returnees. As such, respect for IHL contributes to making return a genuine option for displaced people. In addition, the protection that IHL confers on civilians may contribute to the safety of returnees.

Key findings

Respect for IHL is one of several ways to address the causes of displacement.

Respect for IHL plays a decisive role in supporting humanitarian action and preventing people from becoming displaced in the first place.

Respect for IHL contributes to ensuring that people are protected during displacement.

Respect for IHL contributes to creating an environment conducive to safe and dignified returns.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Displacement in times of armed conflict: How international humanitarian law protects in war and why it matters

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
The main purpose of the study is to draw attention to the key role that IHL plays in addressing displacement and to influence law and policymaking among States and international and multilateral organizations. This is the first instalment of IHL Impact, a series of research studies that draw on the organization's unparalleled knowledge and resources to examine how IHL actually makes a difference on the ground.

# data[].attributes.headline
Schools are asking students to bring digital devices to class, but are they actually being used?

# data[].attributes.subject
Schools are asking students to bring digital devices to class, but are they actually being used?

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
It's been over ten years since Kevin Rudd's Digital Education Revolution placed small laptops (also called Rudd-tops) into the hands of every Year 9 and up Australian student. Once the scheme was deemed unsustainable, for obvious reasons, many schools brought in a " bring your own device " (BYOD) scheme.

While the Rudd-tops had the same capacity and specifications, so teachers knew what they were working with, this wasn't the case with devices students brought in themselves. My colleagues and I observed how and when devices brought to class by students were used in a public secondary school. After speaking with teachers and students, we identified the limitations and enabling roles devices played in their learning when at school.

While devices can be used successfully and effectively, we found that more often than not they were sitting around unused. This was for several reasons, including inconsistent software, different expectations and teaching approaches, and technical obstacles. Many students who were using the devices were also doing so to disengage, rather than engage, with learning.

Bring your own device

Many public secondary schools employ a BYOD program, where parents are expected to buy their child an iPad or laptop. Some private schools provide an individual device as part of school fees. In the early days of many BYOD schemes, public schools typically stated "any device will do". But that meant not all students' devices had the same capacity.

Read more: Why access to computers won't automatically boost children's grades

Given the rise in technology use in society, it makes sense schools should also be using technology. Today, school book lists state the minimum requirements for a device. Some schools in lower socioeconomic areas will provide devices for those who cannot afford them.

But, in the 21st century, effective digital practices are not always straightforward and using devices is not always predictable. It is usually decided at a school-wide level that devices will be placed on a book list. But when the student comes to a class with their device, it is up to the teacher to figure out if, when and how they will use the student's device.

Integrating technology into the classroom doesn't come naturally. Teachers need professional development, support and an understanding of how to use digital devices in their teaching. And they need to see the benefits of doing so. Some students like using their devices and are motivated to do so, but some students would rather use an exercise book and pen.

In our research, many teachers commented on the frustrations they had during the first few years of their BYOD scheme. Not all devices had the same software, some weren't charged and some were unusable because they were broken. Some parents could not afford to get broken devices fixed.

Certain students spent a lot of time going back and forth to the library to issue and return a school-owned digital device for their use during a period. Some students had expensive laptops while others had poor-quality digital notepads.

When students logged in to the network, they sometimes had to wait ten minutes at heavy use times. Some teachers did not think it was worth the hassle of trying to use these devices during their teaching times because of the potential time waste, so they resorted to textbooks or worksheets.

Making better use of digital devices

Many policymakers are influenced by the mantra that digital technologies will bring about revolutionary change and more technologies mean better teaching and learning. But as proclaimed by Stanford education professor Larry Cuban in his 2003 book, Oversold and Underused: Computers in the Classroom, technologies have failed to bring about evidence of increased performance.

It might be easier for an English teacher or a humanities and social sciences teacher to use a device in their subject area. Devices can be used to take notes (and can help achieve a paperless environment), complete and submit assignments, inquire and search online, and present work professionally. Teachers can also mark assignments online and provide digital feedback.

Other subject areas find it more challenging - for instance, many of the mathematical symbols used in senior maths require a mathematics calculator. Students can't complete the exercises on their devices. For other subjects such as visual arts, physical education and musical performance, using a device all the time isn't appropriate.

Read more: Ten reasons teachers can struggle to use technology in the classroom

If devices are to be used efficiently and successfully, schools need better technical support. Schools must also ensure software is compatible and that apps are loaded onto students' devices and available. Additionally, the internal policies that govern the use of information and communications technology and devices need to support the teachers' ability, goodwill and desire to implement an initiative.

Devices can be used successfully and effectively but, given recent arguments about too much screen time, parents should also acknowledge the benefits of students interacting with each other and with their teachers - not via screens.

Just because devices are being used, it does not mean good teaching and learning are occurring. In our research, we observed many occasions when students were being quiet and focused on their device's screen, but were obviously not doing anything along the lines of learning. But their devices were being used.

So, just because devices are not being used, that doesn't mean poor learning and teaching are occurring.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Schools are asking students to bring digital devices to class, but are they actually being used?

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
We observed how and when students were using their digital devices in schools. They often weren't used, and when they were, students were sometimes just distracting themselves from learning.

# data[].attributes.headline
Laptops and iPads could be wasting everybody’s time

# data[].attributes.subject
Laptops and iPads could be wasting everybody’s time

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
Preview above: Insight explores how schools are grappling with screens. Full episode at SBS On Demand.

It's been over 10 years since Kevin Rudd's

placed small laptops (also called Rudd-tops) into the hands of every Year 9 and up Australian student. Once the scheme was deemed unsustainable, for obvious reasons, many schools brought in a "

" (BYOD) scheme.

While the Rudd-tops had the same capacity and specifications, so teachers knew what they were working with, this wasn't the case with devices students brought in themselves. My colleagues and I

devices brought to class by students were used in a public secondary school. After speaking with teachers and students,

the limitations and enabling

played in their learning when at school.

Bring your own device

But, in the 21st century,

and using devices is

. It is usually decided at a school-wide level that devices will be placed on a book list. But when the student comes to a class with their device, it is up to the teacher to figure out if, when and how they will use the student's device.

Making better use of digital devices

Many policymakers are influenced by the mantra that digital technologies will bring about revolutionary change and more technologies mean better teaching and learning. But as proclaimed by Stanford education professor Larry Cuban in his 2003 book,

, technologies have failed to bring about evidence of increased performance.

Devices can be used successfully and effectively but, given recent arguments about

, parents should also acknowledge the benefits of students interacting with each other and with their teachers - not via screens.

Just because devices are being used, it does not mean good teaching and learning are occurring. In

, we observed many occasions when students were being quiet and focused on their device's screen, but were obviously not doing anything along the lines of learning. But their devices were being used.
Nicola F. Johnson is an Associate Professor of Digital Technologies in Education, Edith Cowan University

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Laptops and iPads could be wasting everybody's time

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Is the "bring your own device" scheme at schools actually working? New research suggest technology in the classroom may be a hindrance rather than helpful.

# data[].attributes.headline
Refugee resettlement to Australia: what are the facts?

# data[].attributes.subject
Refugee resettlement to Australia: what are the facts?

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
Updated 7 September 2016

PDF version [ 376KB]

Elibritt Karlsen
Law and Bills Digest Section

Contents
What is a refugee What is resettlement? How does the UN refugee agency decide who should be resettled? Does Australia accept all refugees referred to it by the UN refugee agency? Is there a queue? Does Australia only take people from refugee camps? Is resettlement the 'right way' to seek asylum? How many refugees does Australia accept for resettlement? How does Australia's intake compare to other resettlement countries? How does Australia's refugee resettlement compare to its overall migrant intake? How are visas under the Humanitarian Program distributed? Are all Humanitarian Program visas for refugees? Does Australia increase its intake for specific groups of refugees? Should Australia increase its Humanitarian Program? Does Australia contribute to the number of refugees requiring resettlement? Do boat arrivals take the places from other refugees? Can resettled refugees be reunited with family members? Where are refugees resettled from? How many refugees does Australia resettle from Indonesia? How many refugees does Australia resettle from Malaysia?
What is a refugee

The 1951 Convention relating to the Status of Refugees (the 1951 Refugee Convention) is the key international legal document defining who is a refugee, their rights and the legal obligations of countries that are signatories to the 1951 Refugee Convention.[1] Article 1A(2) of the 1951 Refugee Convention defines a '' as:

a person who is outside his country of nationality or habitual residence

has a well-founded fear of persecution because of his race, religion, nationality, membership in a particular social group or political opinion, and

is unable or unwilling to avail himself of the protection of that country, or to return there, for fear of persecution.[2]

A Convention 'refugee' is different from an 'asylum seeker' because the former has had their asylum claims assessed and been found to satisfy the above definition. This assessment can be done by a country that has acceded to the 1951 Refugee Convention or by the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees (UNHCR). There is no such thing as a 'genuine refugee'. A refugee by technical definition is simply someone who has been recognised as satisfying the above Convention definition. Further, a person is a refugee within the meaning of the 1951 Convention as soon as they satisfy the above definition. This might actually occur before their refugee status is formally determined by a country or the UNHCR. Refugee status is therefore declaratory in nature-in that, a refugee does not become a refugee because they have been recognised to be one but rather, they are recognised because they are a refugee.[3]

'Resettlement' is the term used to describe 'the transfer of refugees from the country in which they have sought refuge to another State that has agreed to admit them'.[4] Broadly speaking, resettlement is a mechanism which provides protection to refugees whose life, liberty, safety, health or other human rights are at risk in the country where they sought refuge.[5] For example, a refugee and his family in China facing imminent return to the country from which they fled (North Korea) may urgently require resettlement to a resettlement country (such as USA, Canada or New Zealand) to avoid being forcibly returned to persecution. Similarly, a vulnerable young boy who fled persecution in Ethiopia to a Tunisian refugee camp after his family were killed may require resettlement to another country (such as Denmark or Norway) which has special programs set up to assist unaccompanied minors.

Resettlement is one of three durable solutions UNHCR is mandated to implement in cooperation with countries that have signed the 1951 Refugee Convention. The other two durable solutions to the plight of refugees are local integration (in the country of refuge) and voluntary repatriation (return to one's home country). UNHCR will only consider resettlement if the other two options are not available.

How does the UN refugee agency decide who should be resettled?

Not every refugee will be eligible for resettlement. The seven categories (or criteria) used by UNHCR to select refugees for resettlement include:

Legal and/or Physical Protection Needs of the refugee in the country of refuge (this includes a threat ofrefoulement)

Survivors of Torture and/or Violence, where repatriation or the conditions of asylum could result in further traumatization and/or heightened risk, or where appropriate treatment is not available

Medical Needs, in particular life-saving treatment that is unavailable in the country of refuge

Women and Girls at Risk, who have protection problems particular to their gender

Family Reunification, when resettlement is the only means to reunite refugee family members who, owing to refugee flight or displacement, are separated by borders or entire continents

Children and Adolescents at Risk, where a best interests determination supports resettlement, and

Lack of Foreseeable Alternative Durable Solutions, which generally is relevant only when other solutions are not feasible in the foreseeable future, when resettlement can be used strategically, and/or when it can open possibilities for comprehensive solutions.[6]

Does Australia accept all refugees referred to it by the UN refugee agency?

No. Though the UNHCR recommends or refers people for resettlement, the ultimate decision to grant a visa rests with Australia's Immigration Department. Australia has four offshore refugee category visas: Refugee (visa subclass 200); In‐Country Special Humanitarian (visa subclass 201); Emergency Rescue (visa subclass 203); and Woman at Risk (visa subclass 204).

Applications for an Australian refugee category visa (whether self-referred or referred by UNHCR) must be made on the prescribed form which is available from Australian overseas missions and from the Department's website. Applicants are expected to provide as much documentation as possible (including certified copies) at the time of application to assist in identity verification. The application must be lodged outside Australia at an Australian diplomatic or trade mission and will be processed at designated Australian missions around the world. Unsuccessful applicants receive a letter indicating that one or more of the legal criteria have not been met. Though there is no mechanism to appeal an adverse decision, unsuccessful applicants may re-apply.[7]

It is not known how many people lodged offshore refugee visa applications in 2015 (it was approximately 35,000 in 2013-14) but the average processing time for refugee visas from time of application to the grant of visa in 2014-15 was approximately 14 and a half months (62.7 weeks).[8]

Refugees seeking to enter Australia on a Refugee visa (subclass 200) must satisfy numerous criteria that are more onerous than onshore Protection visas. For instance, in addition to being subject to persecution and meeting health, character and national security requirements, the Minister must be satisfied that there are 'compelling reasons for giving special consideration to granting the visa' having regard to:

the degree or severity of persecution to which they are subject

the extent of their connection with Australia[9]

whether another country can provide for the applicant's settlement and protection from persecution and

the capacity of the Australian community to provide for their permanent settlement.[10]

Also, the Minister must be satisfied that their permanent settlement would be the appropriate course for the applicant and would not be contrary to the interests of Australia. Moreover, the visa grant must be consistent with 'the regional and global priorities of the Commonwealth in relation to the settlement of persons in Australia on humanitarian grounds'.[11] In other words, there must be a visa available under the Humanitarian Program for the given program year.[12]

Is there a queue?

Asylum seekers can lodge an application to be granted an Australian offshore refugee category visa of their own volition without UNHCR involvement. However, it is not known how many such applications are made and successfully lead to visa grant. The reality is that the majority of asylum seekers who have fled persecution will, by practical necessity, register with UNHCR for protection, assistance, and if necessary (and if deemed eligible) resettlement to another country.

If UNHCR assesses a refugee to be eligible for resettlement it does not mean that they have joined an orderly 'queue', and that they will be guaranteed resettlement to another country when their 'number comes up'. Though refugees may be assessed by UNHCR as eligible for resettlement, in reality they face a potentially indefinite waiting period for a resettlement country to offer them a resettlement place (depending on the urgency of their individual needs). This process has been likened to a hospital triage system in which needs are constantly reassessed in order to prioritise the most acute cases.[13] Moreover, the ultimate decision as to whether they will be granted a refugee visa is dependent on the country which has agreed in principle to resettle them.

Of the 145 States Parties to the 1951 Refugee Convention, only about 30 participate in the UNHCR resettlement program and accept quotas of refugees on an annual basis.[14] UNHCR estimates there are currently approximately 80,000 resettlement places offered by resettlement countries around the world but that there are currently in excess of one million refugees in need of resettlement.[15]

No. There is no requirement under Australian law that a person be registered with UNHCR prior to applying for an Australian refugee category visa but in practice most have been recognised as refugees by the UNHCR and have been referred to Australia's Immigration Department for resettlement (UNHCR referred cases).[16] However, that does not mean that Australia only accepts refugees from UNHCR camps. Despite the iconic image of refugees living in white tents in a sprawling emergency camp, the reality is that over 60 per cent of the world's 19.5 million refugees live in urban environments.[17]

Is resettlement the 'right way' to seek asylum?

The perception that resettlement is the 'right way' to seek protection has been described as 'misguided'.[18] This is because refugees do not have a right to be resettled and countries (including Australia) are not legally obligated under the 1951 Refugee Convention or any other international instrument to accept refugees for resettlement.[19]

Refugee resettlement is a voluntary scheme coordinated by the UNHCR which facilitates burden and responsibility sharing amongst countries that are party to the 1951 Refugee Convention. Significantly, UNHCR emphasises that resettlement should complement and not be a substitute for the provision of protection to persons who apply for asylum under the Convention (for example, spontaneous arrivals such as asylum seekers arriving by boat).[20]

As the following table indicates, the number of offshore refugee category visas granted since 1975 has varied greatly, the highest number being in the early 1980s under the Fraser Government when Australia granted 20,795 visas (mostly to Indochinese), and the lowest being 1,238 ten years later under the Hawke Government. From 2000 onwards, the Government has slightly increased the annual quota of refugee visas to its current level of around 6,000 visas-where it has remained for the last ten years (with one notable exception). The most dramatic increase was under the former Labor Government in 2012 when the number of offshore refugee visas granted doubled to over 12,000 in one year in response to the recommendation of the Expert Panel on Asylum Seekers.[21]

Source: Immigration Department, Population flows: immigration aspects 2008-09, source data, chapter 4; 1975-1977 data provided by the Department to the Parliamentary Library in 2001; 2009-2014 data extracted from Immigration Department Annual Reports (various years); DIBP, ' The Special Humanitarian Programme(SHP)', DIBP website.

It is relevant to note that family members included in the application of a refugee who has successfully applied for an offshore refugee visa (subclass 200) will generally also be granted the same visa. Thus, it would perhaps be inaccurate to say that Australia currently grants approximately 6,000 offshore refugee category visas to 'refugees' each year. Family members (that is, normally a refugee's partner and dependent children) inevitably take up a considerable number of visas available for grant but they are not necessarily persecuted and 'refugees' in their own right.

How does Australia's intake compare to other resettlement countries?

Australia has been involved in the UNHCR resettlement program since 1977 and has consistently ranked as one of the top three resettlement countries in the world. This ranking reflects the number of places made available by various countries for refugee resettlement through UNHCR's resettlement program. This number is influenced by a number of factors including a country's ability to share the international responsibility for refugees taking into account the number of asylum seekers arriving spontaneously at a country's borders, of which Australia has comparatively few.[22]

The following table shows the number of refugees who were resettled in 2015 (assisted by UNHCR):

Source: UNHCR, ' UNHCR Projected Global Resettlement Needs 2017 ', UNHCR, p. 57.

How does Australia's refugee resettlement compare to its overall migrant intake?

Permanent migrants enter Australia via one of two distinct programs-the Migration Program for skilled and family migrants or the Humanitarian Program for refugees and humanitarian entrants. The number of refugees who are resettled each year from overseas is normally less than five per cent of Australia's permanent Migration Program. In fact, the number of visas currently allocated to UNHCR assisted refugees is the lowest percentage of the Migration Program for more than twenty years (only 3.2 per cent). The following table compares the number of permanent visas granted to refugees (resettled from overseas with UNHCR assistance) with the number of permanent visas granted to migrants under the Migration Program over the last twenty years:

Sources: E Karlsen and J Phillips, Seeking asylum: Australia's humanitarian program, Background note, Parliamentary Library, 2011; J Phillips and J Simon-Davies, Migration to Australia: a quick guide to the statistics, Quick guide, Parliamentary Library, updated 27 June 2016; Ministerial press releases (various years); Immigration Department, Australia's refugee and humanitarian program, fact sheet 60 (various years); DIBP, ' The Special Humanitarian Programme(SHP)', DIBP website; P Dutton, Restoring integrity to refugee intake, media release, 12 May 2015.

How are visas under the Humanitarian Program distributed?

In early May each year, when announcing its annual Federal Budget, the Government traditionally reveals how many permanent visas will be granted in the forthcoming financial year under its Humanitarian Program. However, at the end of 2014, section 39A was inserted into the Migration Act 1958.[23] This new provision enables the Minister to specify by way of disallowable legislative instrument the minimum number of visas under the Humanitarian Program for a financial year. Thus, the number of visas to be made available under the Humanitarian Program for the next three years (to mid-2019) has already been revealed.[24]

The numbers of visas available for grant under the 'Humanitarian Program' are shared or distributed amongst the following groups of people:

Refugees and their families who have already arrived in Australia by boat or plane (eligible to apply for a permanent visa)

Refugees and their families who will be 'resettled' from overseas, and

Humanitarian entrants and their families seeking to enter Australia from overseas.

In the 2015-16 financial year, the Government has maintained the annual intake quota under the Humanitarian Program at 13,750 places.[25] Though official statistics on visa grants are yet to be released by the Department, it is expected that of these, 6,000 visas will be given to refugees that are resettled to Australia with assistance from the UNHCR. Another 5,000 will be given to humanitarian entrants under the Special Humanitarian Program (SHP).[26] Though onshore visa grants are not specifically allocated planning places, based on these figures it appears the Government is estimating that some 2,750 onshore permanent protection visas will be granted in 2015-16.

Are all Humanitarian Program visas for refugees?

No. Places available to SHP visa entrants (currently 5,000) should be distinguished from places allocated to refugees. The SHP visa is for people who are subject to substantial discrimination amounting to gross violation of human rights in their home country- not for refugees fleeing persecution for a Convention reason. When introduced in 1981, the SHP was designed specifically for people who were 'quasi-refugees' who were unable to return to their home country for fear of substantial discrimination.[27] Substantial discrimination involves a lower threshold than persecution. It might involve:

arbitrary interference with the applicant's privacy, family, home or correspondence

deprivation of means of earning a livelihood, denial of work commensurate with training and qualifications and/or payment of unreasonably low wages

relegation to substandard dwellings

exclusion from the right to education

enforced social and civil inactivity

removal of citizenship rights

denial of a passport, or

constant surveillance or pressure to become an informer.[28]

Visa applicants under the SHP must also be supported by a proposer (an Australian citizen, permanent resident or eligible New Zealand citizen, or an organisation that is based in Australia) who is responsible for their settlement. This could include airfares for them to travel to Australia, providing accommodation upon arrival, assisting them to find permanent accommodation, and providing information and orientation assistance. The Government does not pay the travel costs for people who are granted an SHP visa.

Traditionally, most of the places available under the SHP are taken up by family members of refugees and humanitarian entrants already in Australia.[29] Overseas refugees normally receive less than 50 per cent of the annual allocation of visas under the Humanitarian Program. The following table compares the number of visas granted to refugees (resettled from overseas with UNHCR assistance) with the number of visas that have been granted under the Humanitarian Program over the last 20 years:

Source: Department of Immigration figures published in Report of the Expert Panel on Asylum Seekers; Immigration Department Annual Reports (various years); E Karlsen and J Phillips, Seeking asylum: Australia's humanitarian program, Background note, Parliamentary Library, 2011; DIBP, ' 2014-15 Humanitarian Programme Outcomes (at a glance)'; DIBP, ' The Special Humanitarian Programme(SHP)', DIBP website; P Dutton, Restoring integrity to refugee intake, media release, 12 May 2015.

Successive governments have made ad-hoc announcements that specific groups of refugees are to be resettled to Australia. Often these announcements are in response to mounting public pressure for humanitarian intervention. Occasionally these statements may inadvertently give the impression that such intakes will be in addition to Australia's annual humanitarian intake quota, but that is not always the case. For example, the Coalition Government's announcement on 3 October 2013 that a 'further' 500 Syrian refugees would be resettled in Australia in response to the UNHCR's call for a coordinated international effort to resettle Syrian refugees was not in addition to but rather, came out of, Australia's existing annual intake quota under the Humanitarian Programme (that is, the 13,750 places).[30]

Similarly, on 13 December 2012, the former Labor Government announced that Australia would offer locally engaged Afghan employees at risk of harm due to their employment in support of Australia's mission in Afghanistan resettlement to Australia.[31] In the 2013-14 financial year, some 800 visa places were subsequently allocated to at-risk locally engaged Afghan employees (LEE) and their families. However, these too were not in addition to but rather, came out of Australia's existing annual intake quota under the Humanitarian Programme.

In contrast, on 9 September 2015, the Australian Government announced that it would make 12,000 visas available in response to the conflicts in Syria and Iraq. While these places are in addition to the annual Humanitarian Programme intake (currently 13,750 places), they are not technically an increase to the annual Humanitarian Programme. Rather, these additional 12,000 places are being offered under a parallel initiative to supplement the annual Humanitarian Programme quota. The 12,000 additional places are available to refugees in need of resettlement (located in Lebanon, Jordan and Turkey), many of whom are referred by UNHCR, and to persons proposed under the SHP.[32] Though it is not entirely clear, it appears that these 12,000 places will be filled over a number of years.[33]

Should Australia increase its Humanitarian Program?

The number of permanent visas available under the Migration Program (for skilled and family migrants) has been steadily increasing in recent years to 190,000 visas per annum. In contrast, the number of visas available under the Humanitarian Program has been maintained at a relatively steady number between 12,000 and 13,000 since 2000. The most significant departure from this trend was in 2012-2013 when the former Labor Government, acting on a recommendation of the Expert Panel on Asylum Seekers, increased the Humanitarian Program to 20,000 visas with 12,000 being specifically allocated to the resettlement of overseas refugees. In making this recommendation, the Expert Panel on Asylum Seekers considered that there were a number benefits in increasing the Humanitarian Program:

it would serve Australian national interests and international engagement

it would enhance the scope of cooperation with regional partners

it would give greater hope and confidence to asylum seekers in the region that regular migration pathways and international protection arrangements provide a practical, realistic and better alternative to dangerous boat voyages to Australia

it would enable Australia to assist in meeting growing humanitarian needs in the region in a fair and timely way

it would support Australian strategies to encourage other international resettlement countries to assist in more expansive ways, and

it would contribute to the strengthening of regional cooperation on asylum issues.[34]

The Expert Panel was also of the view that if the policy directions recommended in its report (such as regional processing in Nauru and PNG) were effective in reducing the number of maritime asylum seekers arriving, the Humanitarian Program should be progressively further increased to 27,000 places within five years taking into account Australia's prevailing economic circumstances, the impact of the earlier increase and progress in achieving more effective regional cooperation arrangements.[35]

However, within six months of coming into power in 2013, the current Coalition Government announced that, acting upon an election commitment, it had reduced the number of refugees that would be resettled in 2013-14 from 12,000 to 7,000.[36] This meant the total Humanitarian Program would be reduced to 13,750 visas, bringing it more in line with historical trends. One of the reasons cited for the reduction was the cost associated with the increase, although the Immigration Department has stated that it is not possible to provide an individual costing for resettlement, noting that 'there is no per head resettlement figure as the cost for resettling each case varies'.[37]

In making the recommendation for the expansion of the Humanitarian Program, the Expert Panel relied upon advice received from the Department of Finance and Deregulation which estimated the cost of the initial increase of 6,250 places to bring the program to 20,000 places to be in the order of $1.4 billion over four years (or $350 million per annum).[38]

Does Australia contribute to the number of refugees requiring resettlement?

It is not yet known whether Australia's policy of regional processing (currently in Papua New Guinea (PNG) and Nauru) may ultimately contribute to the number of refugees requiring resettlement, as some commentators have suggested.

According to UNHCR, successful local integration from the refugee perspective requires a preparedness to adapt to the lifestyle of the host country without having to abandon one's own cultural identity. From the viewpoint of the host country, it requires willingness for communities to be welcoming and responsive to refugees and for public institutions to meet the needs of a diverse population. It also requires opportunities for refugees to become citizens and to enjoy full and equal participation in society.[42]

If these concerns prove to be well-founded (and there is little prospect of the refugees voluntarily repatriating to their home countries) some of these refugees may end up having to be resettled, presumably with the assistance of the UNHCR. In this context it is relevant to note that in 2015, UNHCR put forward over 134,000 refugees for resettlement to participating resettlement countries (representing a 28 per cent increase from 2014) resulting in close to 82,000 departures. Of the refugees put forward by the UNHCR for resettlement in 2015, 16 per cent were located in the Asia and Pacific region. Malaysia had the fifth highest number of refugees submitted for resettlement, with over 7,000 people put forward by the UNHCR.[49] The substantial demand for resettlement in the region was largely due to the high proportion of countries that have not signed the 1951 Refugee Convention, the absence of national legal frameworks and procedures for refugee protection, limited local integration opportunities, and the lack of prospects for voluntary return.[50]

Australia may arguably end up being the destination country for some of these regionally settled refugees due to the nexus that already exists between them and Australia-as was the case with the majority of refugees processed in Nauru under the Howard Government. When the Government engaged in regional processing in PNG and Nauru from 2001-2007, some 1,153 people subsequently required resettlement. A number of resettlement countries ultimately agreed to accept these refugees with the assistance of the UNHCR including New Zealand (401), Sweden (21), Canada (16), Denmark (6) and Norway (4). However, the majority-705 refugees (or 61 per cent) ended up being resettled in Australia.[51]

Similarly, the decision by the former Labor Government to intercept a vessel carrying asylum seekers headed for Australia (later transferred to an Australian Customs vessel, the Oceanic Viking and taken to Indonesia), resulted in over 70 refugees requiring resettlement following their refusal to disembark in Indonesia. A number of resettlement countries ultimately agreed to accept these refugees with the assistance of the UNHCR including USA (22), New Zealand (13), Norway (3), and Canada (2). Again, a proportion of these refugees ended up being resettled in Australia (22 or 16 per cent).[52]

No. It is true that since 1996 the onshore and offshore components of Australia's Humanitarian Program have been numerically 'linked'. Broadly speaking, this means that when the Government allocates the number of visas that will be available under the 'Humanitarian Program' (13,750 in 2015-16) the visas are distributed in a way that accommodates 'spontaneous arrivals', such as those arriving undocumented by boat or plane. In other words, onshore protection visa grants to refugees who have arrived by boat or plane are deducted from the SHP annual quota (5,000 in 2015-16).[53] However, this does not mean that the number of visas available for refugees to be resettled declines. Rather, the linkage causes a strain on the number of places available to humanitarian entrants under the SHP.

The following table illustrates the reduction in SHP visa grants (for humanitarian entrants and immediate family members of resettled refugees) over the last ten years which in some years is commensurate with fluctuating onshore permanent protection visa grants. Refugee category visas granted to resettled refugees have remained relatively steady (noting a dramatic increase in 2012 by the former Labor Government):

Source: Immigration Department Annual Reports (various years); DIBP, ' The Special Humanitarian Programme(SHP)', DIBP website; P Dutton, Restoring integrity to refugee intake, media release, 12 May 2015; DIBP, ' Onshore Humanitarian Programme 2015-16 ', DIBP website.

It is widely recognised that family reunification is a critical factor in the successful settlement of a refugee in their country of asylum. Resettled refugees can apply to be reunited with family members in two ways-either through the SHP or through the family stream of the regular Migration Program.

In 2015-16 the Government appears to have allocated 5,000 visas under the SHP to be shared amongst the following groups of people:

immediate family members of refugees who have been granted permanent protection visas in Australia[55]

family members (such as siblings and parents) of refugees who have been resettled from overseas, and

humanitarian entrants (and their immediate family members)-that is, people who are subject to substantial discrimination amounting to gross violation of human rights in their home country.[56]

Though it is not publicly known how many applications currently remain outstanding for family reunification (also known as 'split family'), in August 2012 there were some 16,300 outstanding split family SHP applications and a significant backlog, with delays in family reunion expected to exceed 20 years.[57] In 2012-13, the former Labor Government, acting on a recommendation of the Expert Panel on Asylum Seekers, removed the right of refugees who had arrived by boat to propose family members under the SHP. This policy shift was considered necessary to (amongst other things) ease the pressure on the SHP backlog and create an incentive for asylum seekers to seek protection earlier and closer to their country of origin.

However, it is not entirely clear whether refugees already in Australia waiting to be reunited with family members abroad will greatly benefit from the additional places made available under the SHP.[58] In May 2014, the Minister announced that of the 13,750 places available in the 2014-15 financial year, a minimum of 4,000 places would be provided under the SHP component for families of offshore humanitarian entrants.[59] By August 2014, this number had increased to 5,000 visas.[60] However, though there were 5,000 places available under the SHP, the Minister subsequently allocated a minimum of 4,400 places for Iraqi nationals (including ethnic and religious minorities) and Syrian nationals (including those living in countries such as Lebanon) 'predominantly out of the SHP'.[61] In 2014-15, the majority (58 per cent) of visas available under the SHP were again granted to Iraqi and Syrian nationals, but it remains unclear how many were granted to those waiting to be reunited with family members.[62]

As mentioned, refugees can also sponsor family members through the family stream of the regular Migration Program, though visa application charges apply and applicants can also experience significant delays in processing times. When the former Government removed the right of refugees who had arrived by boat to propose family members under the SHP, it simultaneously made available 4,000 additional visas to family members sponsored by refugees under the family stream of the Migration Program. In 2012-13, approximately 1,000 visas were subsequently granted to family members of protection visa holders.[63] Before the current Government announced the removal of the 4,000 places in December 2013, another 1,000 visas were granted to family members of protection visa holders in 2013-14.[64] It is not yet known whether the Government's decision to remove the 4,000 additional places had the effect of simply shifting the existing backlog to the family stream of the Migration Program.

Where are refugees resettled from?

On a global level, over the last ten years refugees from Myanmar, Iraq, Bhutan and Somalia have been the target of a large number of UNHCR resettlement submissions to resettlement countries like Australia. However, the magnitude of the Syrian crisis has meant that Syria became the largest country of origin in 2014 and 2015, with some 80,000 refugees having been referred to countries for resettlement since the outbreak of the conflict in early 2011. Other top countries of origin referred to countries in 2015 include the Democratic Republic of the Congo (20,527), Iraq (11,161), Somalia (10,193) and Myanmar (9,738). These four countries and Syria accounted for almost 80 per cent, or four out of five, UNHCR submissions in 2015.[65]

Australia decides the size and regional composition of its resettlement program taking into account information on global resettlement needs and priorities from the UNHCR, the views of stakeholders including states and territories, and by considering the views of the Australian community. With respect to the latter, each year the Refugee Council of Australia engages in a national consultation process and prepares a submission on issues the Government should consider in planning the coming year's refugee program.[66]

The Minister determines the number of places to be allocated including the regions, nationalities and ethnic or religious groups that will be the focus of the program each year. Consistent with previous years, in 2014-15 more than half of Australia's offshore refugee quota was filled by the resettlement of refugees and their families from Afghanistan, Myanmar and Iraq. The following table shows the number of offshore Convention refugees (by country of birth) resettled to Australia in 2014-15:

Source: Immigration Department, DIBP, ' 2014-15 Humanitarian Programme Outcomes (at a glance) '.

Since July 2009, the Government has allocated a nominal 12 per cent of the refugee category allocation of the offshore program to Woman at Risk (subclass 204) visas. This visa subclass is for females who are subject to persecution or are registered as being of concern to the UNHCR. They must also be living outside their home country, not have the protection of a male relative, and be in danger of victimisation, harassment or serious abuse because of their gender.[67] In 2014-15, the Government granted 1,000 Woman at Risk visas. The top five countries of birth for women granted these visas were Afghanistan, Myanmar, Congo (DRC), Eritrea, and Ethiopia.[68]

Source: Immigration Department Annual Reports (various years).

As at February 2016, more than 4,000 people were detained, including women and children. They are kept in 13 immigration detention centres and some 20 makeshift detention facilities across Indonesia. In addition to those who are detained for illegal entry or exit, 'over the past two years UNHCR has been challenged by the increasing number of asylum seekers and refugees who have "self‐reported" to immigration authorities to be detained because they cannot financially support themselves. This creates a range of problems, most notably severe overcrowding in detention facilities'.[72] UNHCR estimates that 'the average waiting period from registration to first instance interview [for refugee status determination] ranges from 8 to 20 months depending on the priority and complexity of the case'.[73]

Australia resettled only 560 UNHCR referred refugees from Indonesia during the period 2001 to February 2010.[74] The following table provides a yearly break-down of the number of refugee visa grants since 2001:

Source for calendar years 2001-2009: Departmental advice provided to the Parliamentary Library in 2010; source for financial years 2010-2016: Answers to questions at Budget Estimates hearings;[75] transcript of interview with the Immigration Minister.[76]

Though resettlement of UNHCR referred refugees from Indonesia has substantially increased over the last decade, in November 2014, the Government announced that it would only resettle 450 refugees annually from Indonesia in future and no one who registered with UNHCR on or after 1 July 2014.[77] This measure was designed to reduce the movement of asylum seekers to Indonesia and encourage them to seek resettlement in countries of first asylum.[78] However, as noted above, the number of asylum seekers and refugees in Indonesia has increased since this announcement was made, largely due to regional influences.[79]

According to UNHCR, in 2015 a total of 610 refugees were resettled from Indonesia to resettlement countries such as Australia, New Zealand, Canada, and the US (a decrease from 836 in 2014).[80]While precise figures are yet to be released by the Department, UNHCR figures reportedly indicate that of these 610 resettlements, Australia accepted 425 refugees from Indonesia in 2015.[81]

Malaysia is not a party to the 1951 Refugee Convention but according to the UNHCR, as at August 2015, there were close to 154,000 asylum seekers, refugees and other persons of concern to UNHCR residing in Malaysia, the vast majority of whom were from Myanmar (143,000).[82] As at the end of August 2015, some 5,900 refugees had been accepted for resettlement to a variety of resettlement countries, including Australia.[83]

In 2009-10, Australia granted 340 visas to refugees awaiting resettlement in Malaysia. All were to refugees from Myanmar.[84] Australia granted 490 refugee visas to refugees awaiting resettlement with UNHCR assistance in 2010-11. Of these, the vast majority (438) were from Myanmar.[85]

Thus, in 2011-12 Australia granted 1,350 visas to refugees awaiting resettlement in Malaysia, and another 1,350 in 2012-13.[89] The Department expected that it would resettle around 1,000 people in Malaysia in 2013-14 but final figures confirming actual grants have not yet been made publicly available. During the period 1 February 2015 to 31 January 2016, Australia resettled 600 refugees from Malaysia (and granted an additional 500 SHP visas to persons in Malaysia).[90]

[1]. Convention relating to the Status of Refugees (adopted 28 July 1951, entered into force 22 April 1954) 189 UNTS 137 as amended by theProtocol relating to the Status of Refugees (adopted 31 January 1967, entered into force 4 October 1967) 606 UNTS 267, Refworld website.

[2]. Article 1A(2) of the 1951 Refugee Convention.

[5]. UNHCR, ' Frequently asked questions about resettlement ', 2012, UNHCR website.

[6]. UNHCR, UNHCR Resettlement Handbook, 4 November 2014, UNHCR website, chapter 6.

[7]. Department of Immigration and Border Protection (DIBP), ' Country Chapters (Australia) ', revised April 2016, in UNHCR Resettlement Handbook, op. cit.

[8]. DIBP, ' Australia's Offshore Humanitarian Program: 2013-14', DIBP website; DIBP, 'Country Chapters (Australia)', in UNHCR Resettlement Handbook, op. cit. Priority processing arrangements exist for Emergency Rescue visa applications, of which there were 11 in 2014-15: DIBP,Annual report 2014-15, DIBP website, Canberra, 2015, p. 133.

[9]. This requires an assessment of the nature of any family or social ties the applicant has in Australia.

[10]. In assessing this factor the Department takes into account whether the applicant has a proposer, and if so, the level of assistance the proposer is likely to be able to provide, other support that may be available to the applicant from relatives, friends and community organisations in Australia, the applicant's likely employment prospects, taking into account their work history, qualifications and English language ability.

[11]. Migration Regulations 1994, Schedule 2, Subclass 200, criterion 200.223, Federal Register of Legislation website.

[12]. DIBP, PAM3-Migration Regulations: Assessing offshore humanitarian (Class XB) visa applications, LegendCom database.

[13]. J McAdam and F Chong, Refugees: Why seeking asylum is legal and Australia's policies are not, University of New South Wales Press, Sydney, 2014, p. 155.

[14]. These include: Argentina, Australia, Brazil, Belgium, Bulgaria, Canada, Chile, the Czech Republic, Denmark, Finland, France, Germany, Hungary, Iceland, Ireland, Japan, the Netherlands, New Zealand, Norway, Portugal, Romania, Spain, Sweden, Switzerland, United Kingdom, Uruguay, and United States of America: UNHCR, 'Frequently asked questions about resettlement', op. cit; UNHCR, ' UNHCR Projected Global Resettlement Needs 2017 ', UNHCR website, Annex.

[15]. UNHCR, ' UNHCR Refugee Resettlement Trends 2015 ', UNHCR website.

[16]. The application form for a Refugee subclass 200 visa states that the requirements for the visa are that the applicant is living outside their home country; and subject to persecution in their home country; and in need of resettlement: DIBP, Application for an Offshore Humanitarian visa (Form 842), DIBP website.

[17]. UNHCR, ' Urban refugees ', UNHCR website.

[18]. J McAdam and F Chong, Refugees: Why seeking asylum is legal and Australia's policies are not, op. cit., p. 68.

[20]. UNHCR, 'Frequently asked questions about resettlement', op. cit.

[22]. UNHCR, ' Global trends: Forced displacement in 2015 ', UNHCR website.

[23]. Migration Act 1958, Federal Register of Legislation website.

[24]. See Legislative Instrument IMMI 14/117, registered on 23 December 2014, Federal Register of Legislation website.

[26]. DIBP, ' The Special Humanitarian Programme (SHP) ', DIBP website.

[28]. DIBP, PAM3: GenGuide D-Humanitarian visas-visa application and related procedures, LegendCom database.

[29]. For example, family members of refugees who arrived in Australia by plane, or arrived by boat prior to 13 August 2012, or were granted one of the five offshore refugee visas.

[30]. S Morrison,500 more Syrian refugees to be settled in Australia, media release, 3 October 2013; S Morrison and M Binskin (Vice-Chief of the Defence Force),Press Conference, Sydney, transcript, 4 October 2013.

[32]. DIBP, ' Australia's response to the Syrian and Iraqi humanitarian crisis ', DIBP website.

[33]. 'The Government will provide $827.4 million over four years to permanently resettle an additional 12,000 refugees who are fleeing the conflict in Syria and Iraq': Australian Government, Mid-Year Economic and Fiscal Outlook (MYEFO) 2015-16, Appendix A.

[36]. S Morrison,Honouring our promise to provide more resettlement places to offshore humanitarian applicants, media release, 6 March 2014. Note that the Government reduced the number of refugees it would resettle in 2014-15 from 7,000 to 6,000 but increased the number of SHP places from 4,000 places to 5,000 places: S Morrison,Stopping the boats to help Iraqis and Syrians, media release, op. cit.

[37]. Senate Legal and Constitutional Affairs Committee, Answers to Questions on Notice, Immigration and Border Protection portfolio, Supplementary Estimates 2012-15 October 2012, Question SE12/0446.

[39]. Such as members within the Australian Labor Party; members of the Nationals' Federal Council; the Australian Greens; Independent MP Nick Xenophon; Anglican Archbishop of Sydney Glenn Davies; and a diverse group of 35 high-level policymakers and experts. See further: Australia21 et al, ' Beyond the boats: Building an asylum and refugee policy for the long term ', November 2014.

[40]. S Morrison,Migration and Maritime Powers Legislation Amendment (Resolving the Asylum Legacy Caseload) Bill 2014, transcript, 3 December 2014; section 39A Migration Act 1958; Legislative Instrument IMMI 14/117, registered on 23 December 2014, Federal Register of Legislation website.

[43]. A Guterres (United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees), Letter to C Bowen (former Minister for Immigration and Citizenship), 9 October 2012. See also: D Glazebrook, 'Papua New Guinea's refugee track record and its obligations under the 2013 Regional resettlement arrangement with Australia', Australian National University (ANU), Discussion Paper 3 of 2014.

[44]. B Saul, Rudd's PNG plan unlikely to comply with international law, The Conversation, 20 July 2013.

[46]. S Morrison,Operation Sovereign Borders, Nauru, Federal Budget, Cambodia, Press conference, Sydney, 22 May 2014;Memorandum of Understanding between the Government of the Kingdom of Cambodia and the Government of Australia, relating to the Settlement of Refugees in Cambodia, 26 September 2014, UNHCR Refworld website.

[48]. Andrew & Renata Kaldor Centre for International Refugee Law,Fact sheet: Cambodia and refugee protection, updated 6 July 2015; C Uhlmann, ' Refugee resettlement concerns outlined by Cambodia's opposition leader', The 7.30 Report, Australian Broadcasting Corporation (ABC), 26 August 2014; Lindsay Murdoch,'Refugee leaves Cambodia after being deeply unhappy with move from Nauru', Sydney Morning Herald, 27 May 2016.

[52]. Senate Legal and Constitutional Affairs Legislation Committee, Answers to Questions on Notice, Immigration and Citizenship Portfolio, Supplementary Budget Estimates 2010-11, 19 October 2012, Question SE12/40; Senate Legal and Constitutional Affairs Legislation Committee, Official committee Hansard, 21 February 2011, p. 76; Senate Legal and Constitutional Affairs Legislation Committee,Official committee Hansard, 23 May 2011, p. 160.

[53]. DIBP, ' The Special Humanitarian Programme(SHP)', DIBP website.

[54]. DIBP, ' The Special Humanitarian Programme(SHP)', DIBP website.

[55]. Under the SHP, declared immediate family members might include the refugee's spouse or de facto partner (including same sex partner), dependent children, parents or siblings. Family members of boat arrivals who arrived on or after 13 August 2012 are currently ineligible to apply.

[58]. In 2012-13 only 503 SHP visas were granted (due largely to the large numbers of protection visas granted onshore). While 5,007 SHP visas were granted in 2014-15, it is not known how many of these were granted to 'split family' applicants.

[62]. DIBP, ' 2014-15 Humanitarian Programme Outcomes (at a glance) ', DIBP website.

[65]. UNHCR, ' UNHCR Projected Global Resettlement Needs 2017 ', UNHCR website, pp. 11-12.

[66]. For further information and previous years' submissions see: Refugee Council of Australia (RCOA), ' Annual consultations ', RCOA website.

[67]. Regulations 204.211 and 204.222 Migration Regulations 1994, Federal Register of Legislation website.

[68]. DIBP, ' 2014-15 Humanitarian Programme Outcomes (at a glance) ', DIBP website.

[69]. UNHCR, ' Indonesia Factsheet ', February 2016, UNHCR website; UNHCR, 'Indonesia Factsheet', September 2014, UNHCR website.

[74]. Senate Legal and Constitutional Affairs Committee, Answers to Questions on Notice, Immigration and Border Protection portfolio, Additional Estimates, 2009-10, Question 118, 9 February 2010.Note that out of this caseload, five people were granted Partner (subclass 100) visas.

[75]. Senate Legal and Constitutional Affairs Committee, Answers to Questions on Notice, Immigration and Citizenship portfolio, Supplementary Estimates, 2011-12, 17 October 2011, Question 214; Senate Legal and Constitutional Affairs Committee, Answers to Questions on Notice, Immigration and Citizenship Portfolio, Supplementary Estimates, 2012-13, 15 October 2011, Question 290; Senate Legal and Constitutional Affairs Committee, Answers to Questions on Notice, Immigration and Citizenship Portfolio, Supplementary Estimates, 2013-14, 19 November 2013, Question 369; Senate Legal and Constitutional Affairs Committee, Answers to Questions on Notice, Immigration and Border Protection Portfolio, Additional Estimates, 2015-16, 8 February 2016, Question 49.

[78]. DIBP, ' Talking points: Resettlement cut-off date for refugees in Indonesia ', Freedom of Information (FOI) document release, 19 November 2014.

[79]. The UNHCR 2016 Factsheet explains that 'a marked increase in the number of registrations by UNHCR occurred in May 2015 following the rescue at sea of nearly 1,000 Rohingyas from Myanmar'. The media reported that Australia's decision not to accept refugees who had registered with UNHCR after 1 July 2014 meant that 'Australia would not take the Rohingyas who reached Indonesia after fleeing persecution in Myanmar during the refugee and trafficking crisis in South-east Asia last year'. See: J Topsfield, ' Indonesia appeals to Australia to accept more refugees', The Sydney Morning Herald, 15 March 2016; L Murdoch, ' Desperate killings at sea: Rohingya fleeing Myanmar', The Sydney Morning Herald, 17 May 2015.

[80]. UNHCR, ' Indonesia Factsheet ', op. cit.

[81]. J Topsfield, ' Indonesia appeals to Australia to accept more refugees ', op. cit.

[82]. UNHCR, ' Malaysia Factsheet ', August 2015, UNHCR website.

[84]. Senate Legal and Constitutional Affairs Committee, Answers to Questions on Notice, Immigration and Citizenship Portfolio, Budget Estimates, 2011-12, 24 May 2012, Question 209.

[87]. Plaintiff M70/2011 v Minister for Immigration and Citizenship; Plaintiff M106 of 2011 v Minister for Immigration and Citizenship [2011] HCA 32, Austlii website.

[88]. J Gillard, Transcript of joint press conference, Canberra, 13 October 2011.

[90]. Senate Legal and Constitutional Affairs Committee, Answers to Questions on Notice, Immigration and Border Protection Portfolio, Additional Estimates, 2015-16, 8 February 2016, Question 49.

For copyright reasons some linked items are only available to members of Parliament.

© Commonwealth of Australia

Creative Commons

In essence, you are free to copy and communicate this work in its current form for all non-commercial purposes, as long as you attribute the work to the author and abide by the other licence terms. The work cannot be adapted or modified in any way. Content from this publication should be attributed in the following way: Author(s), Title of publication, Series Name and No, Publisher, Date.

To the extent that copyright subsists in third party quotes it remains with the original owner and permission may be required to reuse the material.

Inquiries regarding the licence and any use of the publication are welcome to webmanager@aph.gov.au.

This work has been prepared to support the work of the Australian Parliament using information available at the time of production. The views expressed do not reflect an official position of the Parliamentary Library, nor do they constitute professional legal opinion.

Any concerns or complaints should be directed to the Parliamentary Librarian. Parliamentary Library staff are available to discuss the contents of publications with Senators and Members and their staff. To access this service, clients may contact the author or the Library's Central Enquiry Point for referral.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Refugee resettlement to Australia: what are the facts?

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Updated 7 September 2016 PDF version [ 376KB] Elibritt Karlsen Law and Bills Digest Section Contents What is a refugee What is resettlement? How does the UN refugee agency decide who should be resettled? Does Australia accept all refugees referred to it by the UN refugee agency? Is there a queue?

# data[].attributes.headline
Should social media platforms censor hate speech?

# data[].attributes.subject
Should social media platforms censor hate speech?

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
NADINE STROSSEN: Social media platforms present the same issues that we have been grappling with with respect to older media. But throughout human history every time a new medium of communication comes along many people, including many government officials, become very exercised about the new power and the allegedly new harms that are posed. So, we went through this when radio was invented, when the telephone was invented, when television was invented, when the World Wide Web came to people's attention. And, in fact, I have read that when the printing press was invented and when papyrus was invented there were similar eruptions of fear about this great new power to distribute information and the harm that could be done through information and disinformation. So, I think it's really important for us to have historic humility and not see what we're going through now as inherently different and more dangerous than the past. And I think that the same fundamental principles that have applied to other media should apply to social media as well.

First of all, as private sector entities, social media companies have absolutely no legal obligation to respect First Amendment rights, free speech rights, for anybody else. So, just as I have no right to participate in your wonderful film and I have no right to have an op-ed in The New York Times, I have no right to have my post displayed on Facebook or Twitter and so forth. Moreover, those companies have their own First Amendment rights to make their own editorial decisions about what expression they are going to allow on their platform and what they're not going to allow. I, as somebody who defends free speech rights for media companies, along with other companies, would oppose government restriction on the ability of these companies to decide what they will air and what they will not air. However, I will raise my voice to urge these companies to adhere, as closely as feasible, to the same basic standards that are reflected in the First Amendment. Because I think that for all of the potential damage that can be done by various kinds of online communications, including disinformation and so-called fake news and political ads and so forth, that far more harm is done when we empower these largely unaccountable private sector really powerful entities to pick and choose what expression is going to be aired and what will not be aired. And that danger is especially great when we are talking about political speech. The supreme court has consistently said, throughout history, of all expression that is important in our system of government by far the most important is speech about public affairs, speech about politics. "We, the people," to quote the opening words of our constitution, we wield sovereign power but how can we do that responsibly or effectively if we do not have access, full access, to information about those who are running for office? Those who are seeking our votes? Those who are making public policy decisions?

Most of the time when people advocate censorship, beyond the emergency situation in which First Amendment law allows speech to be censored, most of the time people talk about the harm that speech can cause, whether it be disinformation/fake news or whether it be hate speech or whether it be terrorist content. And I agree, speech does have an enormous capacity to do harm as well as an enormous capacity to do good. We protect it precisely because it is so powerful. But the argument, 99.9 percent of the time, starts and ends with the potential harm of free speech. Those who advocate censorship never examine whether censorship is going to be effective in addressing, redressing, reducing the harm. They never address whether censorship, to the contrary, is going to do more harm than good. And in every situation that I'm aware of, censorship actually ends up being ineffective in addressing the harms at stake, at best, or counterproductive at worst. So, disinformation: Well, are we going to say that empowering Mark Zuckerberg and the other titans of Silicon Valley to decide that certain speech is untrue-is that actually going to solve our political problems? I think to the contrary, that is as threatening to democracy as it is to individual freedom.

Likewise, with respect to so-called hate speech that conveys discriminatory ideas against traditionally marginalized or excluded groups, every hate speech law around the world to this day is disproportionately enforced consistently against the very minority groups who are hoped to be protected. And we shouldn't be surprised at that. Once you have these discretionary standards what is hate speech? What is disinformation? No two individuals can agree on such inherently subjective concepts and so by definition those who wield power are going to wield their discretion in ways that predictably are going to perpetuate their power and not empower those who have traditionally been silenced or marginalized.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Should social media platforms censor hate speech?

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Social media giants aren't legally obligated to protect free speech. But they should. Former ACLU president Nadine Strossen explains why.

# data[].attributes.headline
The environment in 2050: flooded cities, forced migration – and the Amazon turning to savannah

# data[].attributes.subject
The environment in 2050: flooded cities, forced migration – and the Amazon turning to savannah

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
ood morning. Here is the shipping forecast for midday, 21 June, 2050. Seas will be rough, with violent storms and visibility ranging from poor to very poor for the next 24 hours. The outlook for tomorrow is less fair."

All being well, this could be a weather bulletin released by the Met Office and broadcast by the BBC in the middle of this century. Destructive gales may not sound like good news, but they will be among the least of the world's problems in the coming era of peak climate turbulence. With social collapse a very real threat in the next 30 years, it will be an achievement in 2050 if there are still institutions to make weather predictions, radio transmitters to share them and seafarers willing to listen to the archaic content.

I write this imaginary forecast with an apology to Tim Radford, the former Guardian science editor, who used the same device in 2004 to open a remarkably prescient prediction on the likely impacts of global warming on the world in 2020.

Journalists generally hate to go on record about the future. We are trained to report on the very recent past, not gaze into crystal balls. On those occasions when we have to venture ahead of the present, most of us play it safe by avoiding dates that could prove us wrong, or quoting others.

Radford allowed himself no such safe distance or equivocation in 2004, which we should remember as a horribly happy year for climate deniers. George W Bush was in the White House, the Kyoto protocol had been recently zombified by the US Congress, the world was distracted by the Iraq war and fossil fuel companies and oil tycoons were pumping millions of dollars into misleading ads and dubious research that aimed to sow doubt about science.

Radford looked forward to a point when global warming was no longer so easy to ignore. Applying his expert knowledge of the best science available at the time, he predicted 2020 would be the year when the planet started to feel the heat as something real and urgent.

"We're still waiting for the Earth to start simmering," he wrote back in that climate-comfortable summer of 2004. "But by 2020 the bubbles will be appearing."

The heat of the climate movement is certainly less latent. In the past year, the world has seen Greta Thunberg's solo school strikes morph into a global movement of more than six million demonstrators; Extinction Rebellion activists have seized bridges and blocked roads in capital cities; the world has heard ever more alarming warnings from UN scientists, David Attenborough and the UN envoy for climate action, Mark Carney; dozens of national parliaments and city councils have declared climate emergencies; and the issue has risen further to the fore in the current UK general election than any before it. With only weeks to go until 2020, the bubbles of climate anxiety are massing near the surface.

Radford's most precise predictions relate to the science. Writing after the record-breaking UK heat of 2003, he warned such scorching temperatures would become the norm. "Expect summer 2020 to be every bit as oppressive." How right he was. Since then, the world has sweltered through the 10 hottest years in history. The UK registered a new high of 38.7C this July, which was the planet's warmest month since measurements began.

Hostile world: tackling forest fires in China. Photograph: Costfoto/Barcroft Media

He also correctly anticipated how much more hostile this would make the climate - with increasingly ferocious storms (for the first time on record, there have been category 5 hurricanes, such as Dorian and Harvey, for four years in a row), intensifying forest fires (consider the devastating blazes in Siberia and the Amazon this year, or California and Lapland in 2018) and massive bleaching of coral reefs (which is happening with growing frequency across most of the world). All of this has come to pass, as have Radford's specific predictions of worsening floods in Bangladesh, desperate droughts in southern Africa, food shortages in the Sahel and the opening up of the northwest passage due to shrinking sea ice (the huge cruise liner, Crystal Serenity, is among the many ships that have sailed through the Bering Strait in recent years - a route that was once deemed impossible by even the most intrepid explorers).

A couple of his predictions were slightly premature (the snows on Kilimanjaro and Mt Kenya have not yet disappeared, though a recent study said they will be gone before future generations get a chance to see them), but overall, Radford's vision of the world in 2020 was remarkably accurate, which is important because it confirms climate science was reliable even in 2004. It is even more precise today, which is good news in terms of anticipating the risks, but deeply alarming when we consider just how nasty scientists expect the climate to become in our lifetime. Unless emissions are slashed over the next decade, a swarm of wicked problems are heading our way.

How wicked? Well, following Radford's example, let us consider what the world will look like in 2050 if humanity continues to burn oil, gas, coal and forests at the current rate.

The difference will be visible from space. By the middle of the 21st century, the globe has changed markedly from the blue marble that humanity first saw in wondrous colour in 1972. The white northern ice-cap vanishes completely each summer, while the southern pole will shrink beyond recognition. The lush green rainforests of the Amazon, Congo and Papua New Guinea are smaller and quite possibly enveloped in smoke. From the subtropics to the mid-latitudes, a grimy-white band of deserts has formed a thickening ring around the northern hemisphere.

Coastlines are being reshaped by rising sea levels. Just over 30cm at this stage - well short of the 2 metres that could hit in 2100 - but still enough to swamp unprotected stretches of land from Miami and Guangdong to Lincolnshire and Alexandria. High tides and storm surges periodically blur the boundaries between land and sea, making the roads of megacities resemble the canals of Venice with increasing frequency.

On the ground, rising temperatures are changing the world in ways that can no longer be explained only by physics and chemistry. The increasingly hostile weather is straining social relations and disrupting economics, politics and mental health.

Generation Greta is middle aged. Their teenage fears of the complete extinction of the human race have not yet come to pass, but the risk of a breakdown of civilisation is higher than at any previous time in history - and rising steadily. They live with a level of anxiety their grandparents could have barely imagined.

The climate activist Greta Thunberg leads a school strike outside of the Swedish Parliament in 2018. Photograph: Michael Campanella/The Guardian

The world in 2050 is more hostile and less fertile, more crowded and less diverse. Compared with 2019, there are more trees, but fewer forests, more concrete, but less stability. The rich have retreated into air-conditioned sanctums behind ever higher walls. The poor - and what is left of other species - is left exposed to the ever harsher elements. Everyone is affected by rising prices, conflict, stress and depression.

This is a doorway into peak climate turbulence. Global heating passed the 1.5C mark a couple of years earlier and is now accelerating towards 3C, or possibly even 4C, by the end of the century. It feels as if the dial on a cooker has been turned from nine o'clock to midnight. Los Angeles, Sydney, Madrid, Lisbon and possibly even Paris endure new highs in excess of 50C. London's climate resembles Barcelona's 30 years earlier. Across the world, droughts intensify and extreme heat becomes a fact of life for 1.6bn city dwellers, eight times more than in 2019. For a while, marathons, World Cups and Olympics were moved to the winter to avoid the furnace-like heat in many cities. Now they are not held at all. It is impossible to justify the emissions and the world is no longer in the mood for games.

Extreme weather is the overriding concern of all but a tiny elite. It wreaks havoc everywhere, but the greatest misery is felt in poorer countries. Dhaka, Dar es Salaam and other coastal cities are hit almost every year by storm surges and other extreme sea-level incidents that used to occur only once a century. Following the lead set by Jakarta, several capitals have relocated to less-exposed regions. But floods, heatwaves, droughts and fires are increasingly catastrophic. Healthcare systems are struggling to cope. The economic costs cripple poorly prepared financial institutions. Insurance companies refuse to provide cover for natural disasters. Insecurity and desperation sweep through populations. Governments struggle to cope.

"By 2050, if we fail to act, many of the most damaging, extreme weather events we have seen in recent years will become commonplace," warns Michael Mann, the director of the Earth System Science Center at Pennsylvania State University. "In a world where we see continual weather disasters day after day (which is what we'll have in the absence of concerted action), our societal infrastructure may well fail ... We won't see the extinction of our species, but we could well see societal collapse."

Huge waves at Porthcawl, Wales: there will be more extreme storms and longer droughts. Photograph: Ben Birchall/PA

Adding to the anxiety is the erratic temperature of the planet. Instead of rising smoothly it jolts upwards, because tipping points - once the stuff of scientific nightmares - are reached one after another: methane release from permafrost; a die-off of the tiny marine organisms that sequestered billions of tonnes of carbon; the dessication of tropical forests. People have come to realise how interconnected the world's natural life-support systems are. As one falls, another is triggered - like dominos or the old board game, Mouse Trap. In some cases, they amplify one another. More heat means more forest fires, which dries out more trees, which burn more easily, which releases more carbon, which pushes global temperatures higher, which melts more ice, which exposes more of the Earth to sunlight, which warms the poles, which lowers the temperature gradient with the equator, which slows ocean currents and weather systems, which results in more extreme storms and longer droughts. It is also now clear that positive climate feedbacks are not limited to physics, but stretch to economics, politics and psychology. The Amazon is turning into a savannah because the loss of forest is weakening rainfall, which makes harvests lower, which gives farmers an economic motivation to clear more land to make up for lost production, which means more fires and less rain.

On our current course, carbon concentrations in the atmosphere will pass 550 parts per million by midcentury, up from around 400ppm today. Katharine Hayhoe, an atmospheric scientist and director of the Climate Science Center at Texas Tech University, explains how this stacks the odds in favour of disaster.

"By 2050, we'd be seeing events that are far more frequent and/or far stronger than we humans have ever experienced before, are occurring both simultaneously and in sequence."

Her greatest concern is that food production and water supply systems could buckle under the strain, with dire humanitarian consequences in areas that are already vulnerable.

Generation Greta live with a level of anxiety their grandparents could barely have imagined

Hunger will rise, perhaps calamitously. The United Nations' International Panel on Climate Change expects food production to decline by 2% to 6% in each of the coming decades because of land-degradation, droughts, floods and sea-level rise. The timing could not be worse. By 2050, the global population is projected to rise to 9.7 billion, which is more than two billion more people to feed than today.

When crops fail and starvation threatens, people are forced to fight or flee. Between 50 and 700 million people will be driven from their homes by midcentury as a result of soil degradation alone, the Intergovernmental Science-Policy Platform on Biodiversity and Ecosystem Services (IPBES) estimated last year. Fires, floods and droughts will prompt many others to migrate within and across borders. So will the decline of mountain ice, which is a source of meltwater for a quarter of the world's population. The poorest will be worst affected, though they have the least responsibility for the climate crisis. For the US author and environmentalist, Bill McKibben, this injustice will make the greatest impact in 2050.

"Forcing people to move from their homes by the hundreds of millions may do the most to disrupt the world. And, of course, it's a deep tragedy, because these are precisely the people who have done the least to cause the problem," he says.

In 2050, climate apartheid goes hand-in-hand with increasingly authoritarian politics. Three decades earlier, worried electorates voted in a generation of populist "strongmen" in the hope they could turn back the clock to a more stable world. Instead, their nationalism made a global solution even harder to achieve. They preferred to focus on the immigration consequences of global heating rather than the carbon-capital causes. When voters realised their mistake, it was too late. The thugocracy refused to give up power. They no longer deny the climate crisis; they use it to justify ever-more repressive measures and ever-wilder efforts to find a technological fix. In the past 20 years, nations have tried volcano mimicking, cloud brightening, albedo modification and carbon dioxide removal. Most were expensive and ineffective. Some made weather circulation even less reliable. Powerful countries now threaten rivals not just with nuclear weapons, but with geo-engineering threats to block sunlight or disrupt rainfall patterns.

This is not an inevitable future. Unlike Radford's prediction for 2020, this vision of 2050 factors in human behaviour, which is more volatile and less predictable than the laws of thermodynamics. Many of the horrors above are already baked into the climate, but our response to them - and each other - is not predetermined. When it comes to the science, the dangers can be substantially reduced if humanity shifts decisively away from business-as-usual behaviour over the next decade. When it comes to the psychology and politics, we can make our situation better immediately if we focus on hope in shared solutions, rather than fears of what we will lose as individuals.

That means putting faith in institutions, warning one another about risks, and treasuring shared eccentricities and traditions - a bit like the shipping forecast.

A storm is certainly brewing. The science is clear on that. The question now is how we face it.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
The environment in 2050: flooded cities, forced migration - and the Amazon turning to savannah

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
ood morning. Here is the shipping forecast for midday, 21 June, 2050. Seas will be rough, with violent storms and visibility ranging from poor to very poor for the next 24 hours. The outlook for tomorrow is less fair."