Contemporary politics,local and international current affairs, science, music and extracts from the Queensland Newspaper "THE WORKER" documenting the proud history of the Labour Movement.
MAHATMA GANDHI ~ Truth never damages a cause that is just.
Migration policies should align with broader economic needs, not serve as patchwork solutions echoing voter frustrations
As
Australia’s 2024 budget debate rages, the issue of migration has become
a hot topic. The government plans to reduce net overseas migration to
260,000 next year, a target which is achievable and likely inevitable
due to the natural ebb and flow of migration patterns, amplified during
the pandemic.
Net overseas migration is the
figure calculated by subtracting departures from arrivals annually.
During the pandemic, the number plummeted due to stringent lockdowns but
has surged back as those restrictions eased. This bounce back is not
caused by more arrivals per se – rather, it’s fewer departures that have
caused the spike.
At the heart of voter concern lies Australia’s housing crisis, often incorrectly attributed to migration
The opposition’s plan to shrink the permanent migration program to 160,000
aligns closely with the government’s long-term plans for that program.
Both sides aim to tweak the permanent migration numbers slightly, and
these changes are feasible. For instance, reducing the permanent
migration target from 185,000 to 160,000, as suggested, would revert to
pre-pandemic levels. It’s sometimes said politics is the narcissism of
small differences, and that is certainly the case here.
But
permanent migration is only a small part of the story. Most immigrants
arrive in Australia on temporary visas and a small portion of these then
later apply for one of the 160,000 annual permanent places. About 60%
of permanent visas go to people already in the country on temporary
visas. So reducing net overseas migration is really about reducing
temporary migration – the largest component of which is the
international student intake.
The opposition’s
promise to cap international students again mirrors what the government
has promised. Neither party has given much detail on what they plan to do;
the government has said it will cut “according to a formula” that
includes the amount of new student housing universities build, and the
opposition says it will “work with universities” to cap numbers. These
promises should be viewed with some scepticism. Political scientists
routinely highlight that politicians talk tough during election season
to appease groups opposed to immigration, but follow up in government
with impracticable controls to please its advocates. Don’t be surprised
if these ambitious cuts quietly get shelved after the election.
However,
if either party does try to rein in temporary migration by reducing
international student numbers, there are major implications for
Australia’s economy and society. Export education, as it is called, is
one of Australia’s largest industries. Throttling it will undoubtedly be
a blow to the economy, at least in the short term.
The ‘good old days’ for housing affordability were just four years ago – here’s why
Moreover, if student migration is cut, Australian universities
must change their business models. Research, which is vital to
succeeding in a global knowledge economy and is now subsidised by
international student fees, will suffer. If the cuts go ahead, whoever
is in government will face a difficult choice between funding research
directly, or causing significant economic disruption.
The
opposition also aims to reduce the humanitarian intake from 20,000 to
13,750 annually. While this cut might seem stark, it aligns with
historical averages, indicating a reversion to pre-crisis norms. The
problem with that is, crises are currently proliferating rather than
subsiding. With global conflicts on the rise, too many countries
reducing their humanitarian intake could undermine the ability of the
global refugee system to mitigate global instability. Cuts in Australia
would not set a good example globally.
At the
heart of voter concern lies Australia’s housing crisis, often
incorrectly attributed to migration. It’s important to differentiate the
housing crisis from a rental crisis. Currently, two-thirds of
Australian households own their homes and benefit from rising property
values. However, for renters, the inability to transition to home ownership due to inflated house prices is the crux of the crisis.
As Reserve Bank assistant governor Sarah Hunter recently pointed out,
the root cause of high house prices is not the current short-term surge
in migration but a shortfall in housing supply, made worse by the
pandemic. During this time, migration halted, and yet housing issues
persist. Thus, the blame should fall not on increased population but on
insufficient housing development. Compounding this issue are the
pandemic-related supply chain disruptions and inflation, which have
escalated construction costs.
Reduced
migration, particularly within crucial sectors like construction, could
further inflate construction costs and therefore exacerbate housing
shortages. High borrowing costs and building material price hikes are
also deterring property developers, worsening supply issues. These
factors are trapping potential homeowners in the rental market, creating
an inherent crisis as rents rise alongside mortgage costs. Ultimately,
solutions to the housing crisis lie in boosting supply – building more
homes, not cutting migration.
In reframing the migration debate, it’s crucial to base our discussions on accurate data and realistic assessments. Migration
policy adjustments, whether by the government or opposition, should
align with broader economic needs and realities, not just serve as
patchwork solutions echoing voter frustrations.
Alan Gamlen is a
professor at the School of Regulation and Global Governance at the
Australian National University and director of the ANU Migration Hub
Senate
committee told of potential for deepfakes or cloned robocalls of
Anthony Albanese and Peter Dutton, which may not be illegal under
current laws.
Mon 20 May 2024 18.50 AESTLast modified on Mon 20 May 2024 19.28 AEST
The
Australian Electoral Commission has said it expects AI-generated
misinformation at the next federal election, potentially from overseas
actors, but warned that it doesn’t have the tools to detect or deter it.
A
parliamentary committee into artificial intelligence heard on Monday
that the new technology could pose risks to “democracy itself”, with
concerns voters might encounter deepfakes and voice clones of Anthony
Albanese or Peter Dutton before the next poll.
The
AEC commissioner, Tom Rogers, told the hearing the new technology had
“amazing productivity benefits” but noted “widespread examples” in
recent elections – in Pakistan, the United States, Indonesia and India – of deceptive content generated by artificial intelligence (AI).
“The
AEC does not possess the legislative tools or internal technical
capability to deter, detect or then adequately deal with false
AI-generated content concerning the election process – such as content
that covers where to vote, how to cast a formal vote and why the
electoral process may not be secure or trustworthy,” Rogers told the
hearing.
Numerous
free, popular “generative AI” platforms such as ChatGPT and Dall-E
allow users to create or manipulate text, images, video or audio with
simple commands. Many applications of the technology are harmless or
used for entertainment, but police, security agencies and online
regulators have voiced concern the tools can be used for misinformation,
abuse or crime.
“We’re seeing increased use of those sorts of tactics in elections around the world,” Rogers said.
“I don’t think we’re going to be immune to that. So we could expect things like that to occur at the next election.”
The AEC boss said voice-cloned robocalls
would not necessarily be illegal under current electoral legislation. He
said the AEC’s “electoral toolkit is very constrained with what we can
deal with”, but he did not agree with a suggestion from Pocock that AI
content should be outlawed entirely in elections, saying some would be
used in an “entirely lawful” way.
Rogers also noted warnings overseas that certain nation states may be using AI-generated content to confuse voters.
The
federal government is consulting on a new code around the use of AI,
including investigating mandatory “watermarks” on AI-generated content.
Rogers
said he would support mandatory watermarking of AI-generated electoral
content, as well as raising a national digital literacy campaign,
stronger codes for tech platforms and even a code of conduct for
political parties.
The commissioner said AI was
“improving the quality of disinformation to make it more undetectable”
and the AEC was working with tech companies on reducing the potential
for harm from AI-generated content.
Pocock
and Greens senator David Shoebridge voiced alarm at what they claimed
was a lack of action from the Albanese government on threats to election
integrity.
Shoebridge
said the AEC’s evidence had raised concerns about deepfakes in coming
elections – which he called “a clear and present danger” that could be
outlawed – and said he was worried that parliament hadn’t done more.
“This
could look like a video of the prime minister saying something he never
said, or a robocall purporting to be your local MP – as long as the
content has an authorisation, the AEC can’t touch it,” Shoebridge said.
Beware the ‘botshit’: why generative AI is such a real and imminent threat to the way we live
“The
lack of action to address this risk, especially compared to the actions
taken by South Korea, the US and Europe, leaves us at risk from local
and international bad actors who could very well steal an election if
nothing changes.”
The inquiry chair, Labor
senator Tony Sheldon, said the spread of AI-generated misinformation was
a problem globally and could pose a risk to “democracy itself”.
“We
heard today from the AEC that no jurisdiction in the world has yet
figured out how to effectively restrict the spread of AI-generated
disinformation and deepfakes in elections.”
Sheldon
said AI technology could improve lives but also “poses significant
risks to the dignity of work, our privacy and intellectual property
rights, and our democracy itself”. The former union official also raised
concerns about major companies using AI in hiring and workplace
decisions.
The Australian human rights
commissioner, Lorraine Finlay, said she was concerned about the privacy
and security risks, noting biometric and facial recognition technology
being deployed in retail stores.
She said AI
could “enhance human rights but also undermine them”, raising concerns
about automated decision-making in hiring processes or government
institutions.
It's no surprise the increase in "unfriendly behaviour" has led to more countries preparing for future space wars.
So, exactly what's going on up there? And should we be worried?
What lies above?
Attacks
on satellites could take out global positioning satellite system (GPS)
signals, power grids, transport and banking systems.
And
there could be major impacts on aviation, shipping and conflicts
because militaries rely on navigational satellites for command and
control, and precision weapons.
The
UK estimated that a global navigation satellite system (GNSS) outage —
which includes GPS — would cost the British economy £1.42 billion ($2.7
billion) a day.
A visualisation of satellites, instruments, objects and beams in low Earth orbit. (LeoLabs)
About 90 countries operate in space, and investments in space capabilities have been growing.
The US recently doubled its Space Force budget from $US15.4 billion ($23.4 billion) to $US30.3 billion between 2021 and 2024.
And more than 24,500 satellites are expected to be launched by 2031, of which more than 70 per cent will be commercial.
A Ukrainian soldier prepares a Starlink satellite internet system at his position on the front line.(Reuters: Inna Varenytsia)
The Center for Strategic and International Studies (CSIS) 2024 Space Threat Assessment Report released last month emphasised the vulnerability of both civilian and commercial space systems.
Although many satellites are built and run by companies instead of governments, they will often support national security.
They
can provide Earth observation or navigational data for military
intelligence gathering, while also being used by airlines, or
agricultural sectors.
"Space
is a contested environment and space systems are under threat like
never before," Clayton Swope, deputy director of the CSIS Aerospace
Security Project, said when the report was launched.
"That China and Russia are honing techniques and technologies for attacking space systems should be no surprise."
Layers of congestion and competition
Satellites sit in different orbits depending on their purpose.
But where they are placed can also be important for their security and survivability.
Active satellite numbers in different orbits based on Union of Concerned Scientists (UCS) data until May 2023. (ABC News: Digital Graphics team)
Most satellites operate in a low Earth orbit (LEO), which has an altitude ranging from 200km to 1,600km.
But the closer a satellite is to Earth, the more vulnerable it is to attacks.
Their signals are more easily interfered with, and they can be reached by ground-based missiles in a few minutes.
There
is also little regulation over congestion and competition, Juliana
Suess, research analyst and policy lead for space security at the Royal
United Services Institute (RUSI), said.
Apart from slots being allocated in geostationary orbit (GEO), the rest is "up for grabs".
So there is a lot more debris, risk of collisions and accidental jamming for satellites in LEO to contend with.
Low Earth orbit
is home to the International Space Station (ISS), the Hubble Space
Telescope, many military observation satellites, and more than 5,000 of
Elon Musk's Starlink internet satellites. The SpaceX-run internet service has been labelled a "lifeline" for Ukraine throughout Russia's full-scale invasion.SpaceX eventually hopes to have as many as 42,000 satellites in LEO to create a so-called mega-constellation.
China is preparing to launch about 13,000 internet satellites for its own version of Starlink.
Medium Earth orbit
is home to major navigational satellites such as GPS, and Galileo,
GLONASS and BeiDou, the European, Russian and Chinese versions of GPS.
The
latest US Department of Defense assessment said China and Russia in
particular posed significant risks to space assets, through means such
as cyber warfare, electronic attacks, and ground-to-orbit missiles
capable of destroying satellites.
Many different weapons have been developed for space-based attacks.(ABC News: Digital Graphics Team)
Space
weapons generally fall into three categories, depending on whether they
attack space systems in orbit, attack targets on Earth from space, or
disable missiles travelling through space.
But
they are often referred to as counterspace capabilities, which are
anything that can disrupt, damage, or destroy space systems.
Mr Swope said counterspace activities were getting harder to detect and were often happening right under our noses.
"Unfriendly
behaviours in space, such as unusual manoeuvres by Chinese or Russian
military satellites near US or European satellites, happen regularly,"
he said.
"And often, without acknowledgement."
Orbital 'grappling' and 'kidnapping'
China
raised questions in 2022 when its Shijian-21 satellite was observed
using a robotic arm to essentially pluck a double-decker-bus-sized
satellite from its position and move it into "super-graveyard drift
orbit".
When it was launched in GEO, China said Shijian-21's purpose was to "test and verify space debris mitigation technologies".
But there were concerns this type of spacecraft could also be used for "orbital grappling".
A grappler physically handles another spacecraft to do it harm, or attaches itself and manoeuvres it to another location.
The
CSIS said this kind of "kidnapping" would not destroy the target
satellite, but could effectively disable it without generating any
debris.
Even the ability to get
that close to another satellite with precision can enable countries to
carry out attacks, such as blinding a satellite's sensors or tampering
with its optics.
The Optimus satellite by Sydney-based Space Machines Company launches aboard a SpaceX Falcon 9 rocket in California.(Space Machines Company via AAP)
Analysts
have noted that Chinese satellites' manoeuvres are consistent with the
capabilities needed to conduct on-orbit servicing, assembly, and
manufacturing (OSAM) — capabilities that other countries are also
pursuing.
The
privately owned satellite is designed to repair and refuel other space
infrastructure, but also has the ability to physically move other
satellites.
The CSIS report states that Australia has become more "forward-leaning in its space policy and partnerships".
Australia
recently teamed up with the US and UK for the Deep Space Advanced Radar
Capability (DARC), a joint space domain awareness program to provide
advanced monitoring of satellites in GEO.
Space Machine Company says its Optimus satellite is designed to repair and refuel other space infrastructure.(Supplied: Space Machines Company)
Spoofing and jamming
Given
the technology is often low-cost and commercially
available, non-kinetic attacks — particularly jamming and spoofing —
have been on the rise.
Non-kinetic activities use radiated energy to destroy, damage or interfere with space systems.
In 2021, US Space Force General David Thompson claimed the country's satellites were coming under attack "every single day".
"Both
China and Russia are regularly attacking US satellites with non-kinetic
means, including lasers, radio frequency jammers, and cyber attacks,"
he said.
Jamming is a common form of non-kinetic attack used to interrupt satellite signals. (ABC News: Digital Graphics team)
Global
Navigation Satellite System (GNSS) interference has been observed
around the world, often by commercial airline pilots, according to the
CSIS report.
And in September
2023, a private aircraft crew reported that it almost strayed into
Iranian airspace — where Iranian units had reportedly issued threats to
shoot down aircraft — due to GPS spoofing.
"Threats
that can disrupt our use of space — GPS jamming and spoofing, cyber
attacks, and unfriendly behaviours of Russian and Chinese satellites —
are becoming more and more common," Mr Swope said.
"The bottom line is that you do not need to destroy a satellite to deny the use of space."
YouTube A time-lapse video showing the growth of objects in low Earth orbit from 1957-2025. (LeoLabs)
Anti-satellite missiles
Over
the years, multiple countries including the US, India, China and Russia
have developed and tested anti-satellite (ASAT) missile technology.
The
ground-launched missiles collide with targets, or explode next to them,
and are designed to destroy critical satellites during wartime.
In 2020, the Pentagon warned that China was amassing an "arsenal" of ASAT weapons.
The
US intelligence annual threat assessment report released earlier this
year said Russia continued to develop ASAT missiles capable of
destroying US and allied satellites in LEO.
And the Secure World Foundation stated in its 2024 Global Counterspace Capabilities report that China was "likely still in the experimental or development phase" on missiles that could reach deep space.
Debris from a Russian anti-satellite missile test in 2021 endangered the
International Space Station, causing its crew to take shelter.(Supplied: NASA)
Just testing these missiles poses major threats, as they create huge clouds of space debris and risk missing intended targets.
A
Russian test in November 2021 directly threatened the International
Space Station, China's Tiangong space station, and numerous satellites.
It created a cloud of nearly 1,800 pieces of tracked debris which still threaten satellites.
The launch sparked widespread condemnation and led to the US committing to no longer conduct ASAT tests.
Several other countries have followed suit and there have been growing calls for a ban on tests, which Australia has backed.
But, analysts say the proposed ban is only a unilateral moratorium and not an international treaty.
The damage caused by a piece of space junk hitting the International Space Station's robotic arm.(Supplied: Canadian Space Agency)
'So many concerns, so few solutions'
With the threat of space war already here, analysts say new laws and updated treaties are long overdue.
But attempts to regulate the militarisation of space have continued to fall short.
"So many concerns, so few solutions," Ms Suess said.
The
UN text would have affirmed an obligation to comply with the 1967 Outer
Space Treaty, which bars the use of nuclear arms or other weapons of
mass destruction in space.
The
Space Treaty emphasises you cannot use space to start a war, but the
Center for Arms Control and Non-proliferation has warned the current
lack of general space norms and governing regimes incentivises actors to
"probe the limits of acceptable behaviour".
There are also no global treaties banning cyber attacks on satellites and other space systems.
Meanwhile, the rhetoric around space conflict has been intensifying.
Last
year, a top US official made it clear the country was "ready to fight
tonight in space if we had to", saying China and Russia gave the US "no
choice" but to prepare for orbital skirmishes.
Ms Suess said the decades-long deadlock painted a "dire" picture, and she did not believe progress would be made anytime soon.
But there is hope the risk of debris hitting anyone's space systems will be enough to keep the domain under control.
"Our saving grace is that there's a mutual dependence on space," she said.
"There's an interest from everyone to sustain the environment."
