Daniel Madden on LinkedIn: What-do-we-know-about-improving-groups-of-schools-2024-04-24.pdf (2024)

This vital paper promotes the necessity of a One Health (OH) approach, integrating human, animal, and environmental health to manage zoonotic diseases and antimicrobial resistance (AMR). It emphasises the importance of OH, Wastewater-Based Epidemiology (WBE) for non-invasive, cost-effective disease surveillance, and developing robust, coordinated surveillance systems. It also proposes the “one sample many analyses” (OSMA) principle to maximise efficiency and resource use, highlighting international agreements as models for national frameworks.The proposal’s strengths include a detailed roadmap for developing a comprehensive OH surveillance system, advocating for enhanced surveillance, promoting efficient resource use through OSMA, and stressing international cooperation and data sharing. These elements are crucial for managing transboundary health threats.To prioritise OH on Australia’s national agenda, should a national Memorandum of Understanding (MoU) of our own be established to match the international agreement discussed in the paper? A national MoU would need to involve key organisations such as the Australian Department of Health and Aged Care (DoHAC), Department of Agriculture, Fisheries and Forestry (DAFF), Department of Climate Change, Energy, the Environment and Water (DCCEEW), National Health and Medical Research Council (NHMRC), Food Standards Australia New Zealand (FSANZ), Australian Animal Health Laboratory (AAHL), state and territory health departments, Australian Veterinary Association (AVA), Environmental Health Australia (EHA), and Indigenous health organisations like NACCHO.An important consideration is whether the OH initiative should be viewed primarily as safeguarding public health or as a matter of national security. If viewed as a public health issue, DoHAC, which appears to be in the process of evaluating OH should lead. If considered a national security issue, the Department of Home Affairs, with its focus on bioterrorism, biosecurity, and economic impacts of pandemics, might be more appropriate. Regardless, effective implementation will require collaboration among multiple stakeholders.Given the importance of enhanced surveillance, efficient resource use, and international cooperation, discussion of the OH framework outlined in this paper should receive greater priority on the national agenda. Establishing a national MoU could be the essential next step on the path to ensuring the health and safety of all Australians. This aligns with ongoing efforts by the DoHAC to strengthen global health systems and pandemic responses, as evidenced by their work with the World Health Organization and other international bodies.

The INSLM’s proposed reforms to Australia’s secrecy laws are widely supported as necessary and overdue improvements. However, potential weaknesses must be considered to ensure a balanced perspective.Operational Flexibility: Reduced Response AgilityRemoving reliance on internal policy frameworks may hinder rapid adaptation to emerging threats. For example, the Snowden disclosures required quick policy changes in the US. Without such flexibility, Australia’s response to situations like the 2009 Holsworthy Army Barracks plot, which required swift operational changes, could be hampered under a more rigid framework.Comprehensive Coverage: Potential LoopholesNarrowing deemed harm offences could create gaps in protection. The NSA surveillance scandal in Germany showed how specific legal protections can fail, leading to significant security breaches. Locally, Operation Ironside in 2021 successfully used broad secrecy laws to conduct widespread surveillance on organised crime. A more specific approach might miss critical elements of such operations, weakening overall effectiveness.Deterrent Effect: Reduced Threat of ProsecutionIncreasing thresholds for liability, especially for non-officials like journalists, might lessen the deterrent effect of secrecy laws. The Jeffrey Delisle case in Canada, where a naval officer sold classified information to Russia despite stringent laws, illustrates how perceived leniency can encourage unauthorised disclosures. In Australia, cases like Witness K and Bernard Collaery show that broad laws serve as a strong deterrent against leaks. Narrowing these laws could lead to an increase in unauthorised disclosures, undermining national security efforts.The momentum behind these reforms is strong, reflecting a consensus on their necessity. However, it is crucial to monitor potential weak areas to ensure the new framework protects Australia’s national security as effectively, or hopefully better, than the current one. Recognising and addressing these potential weaknesses will help achieve the intended goals without unintended consequences. By being alert to these issues, we can ensure the reforms bolster, rather than compromise, national security.For an excellent discussion between the INSLM report author, Jake Blight, and National Security Podcast host Danielle Piper, here: https://lnkd.in/gZzd6Sn3.

McClean’s blog post argues that educational debates are often polarised, illustrated through two types of education consultants. While she effectively discusses the need for balance between rigidity and flexibility in educational practices, she uses a polarising dichotomy that oversimplifies the roles of stakeholders in education. This should not overshadow the post’s strengths, particularly its insights on balancing “too tight” and “too loose” approaches, the broader applicability of educational research, and the complex roles of internal actors within schools.The post highlights the challenges school leaders face in balancing prescriptive and flexible approaches to teaching and learning. It empathetically describes the difficulties of leading change and academic improvement, recognising the need to empower teachers while maintaining consistent standards.The irony lies in the potential for the post’s argument to reinforce polarised thinking. Effective education requires balancing firm evidence-based practices with adaptability to specific contexts. The challenge is applying educational research to diverse and complex settings. Educators and policymakers must navigate between being firm on evidence-based practices and being adaptable to specific needs, translating research into practical strategies that work within each school’s unique context.Neither rigid adherence to a single method nor complete flexibility should be universally preferred. The best approach depends on the situation. Recognising the value of both approaches avoids oversimplification and polarisation.Acknowledging the complexities of applying educational research and the situational value of both firmness and flexibility can foster a more inclusive and reflective educational environment, addressing the challenges McClean seeks to critique.

2

Pezzullo’s article highlights the urgency for Australia to boost its defence against potential Indo-Pacific threats by 2030. This view aligns with voices like Blackburn and Borzycki, though they differ in approach, especially in decision-making and long-term planning.Pezzullo advocates for large-scale defence preparations, increasing spending to 5-6% of GDP, and significant government intervention, including a new ‘war book’. In contrast, Blackburn and Borzycki focus on strategic autonomy, transparency, and public engagement, promoting diversified partnerships and local industry boosts for independent capabilities.Pezzullo’s vision suggests a managed economy with government prioritising defence needs via subsidies, direct investment, and potentially nationalising key sectors. While such an approach may be necessary in wartime, market mechanisms driving innovation and competition are crucial in peacetime for efficient resource use and technological advancements.Expanding defence production requires shifting the workforce to defence sectors, potentially depleting skilled labour in civilian industries. Comprehensive retraining is essential to balance skilled workers between military and civilian needs, ensuring civilian sectors are not undermined.While Pezzullo’s ‘war book’ aligns with the need for clear strategic planning, Blackburn and Borzycki emphasise maintaining strategic autonomy. Partnerships like AUKUS should support but not dictate Australia’s defence strategy. Clear goals prioritising national interests foster an independent, resilient defence posture.Pezzullo’s proposed defence spending increase must balance with long-term economic health by diversifying investments to prevent strain. This means allocating resources not only to defence but also to emerging technologies, infrastructure, education, healthcare, ensuring a resilient economy supporting a strong defence posture without compromising stability.Developing domestic defence technologies and investing in local industries ensures self-reliance and reduces foreign dependence. This approach emphasises innovation and local industry within a balanced economic framework, distinct from Pezzullo’s managed economy.Clear strategic goals that prioritise national interests ensure AUKUS is supportive, not controlling. Expanding defence collaborations to include regional Indo-Pacific partners enhances cooperation. Investing in technologies like unmanned systems, AI, and cyber capabilities addresses emerging threats and fosters innovation. Open debates on major defence initiatives build public trust and support. Developing adaptable, long-term strategies that avoid over-reliance on single programs ensures readiness for diverse future scenarios.Pezzullo’s article underscores the need for heightened defence preparedness, still it is essential to consider broader societal and economic implications if Australia’s defence is to be effective and resilient.

Horton’s article, “Safeguarding Australia’s Sensitive Academic Research,” argues that the AUKUS partnership enhances Australia’s strategic and technological capabilities but also exposes its academic institutions to greater risks of foreign espionage and intellectual property theft, particularly from China. Horton highlights the vulnerability of Australian universities, known for their open and collaborative research environments, making them targets for foreign actors, most notably the Chinese Communist Party (CCP).Horton cites several incidents within Australia in recent years, illustrating these risks. The Australian Security Intelligence Organisation (ASIO) has repeatedly warned about the threat of foreign interference in research sectors. He compares this with measures taken by the US and the UK, such as CFIUS and the National Security and Investment Act, to counter similar threats.Horton proposes several defensive measures, which you can read in his article.On the positive side, Horton’s proposals would likely strengthen the security posture of Australian academic institutions, mitigating risks of espionage and intellectual property theft through improved cybersecurity and vetting processes. These measures could also align Australia more closely with its allies, particularly the US and the UK, leading to enhanced cooperation and collective security efforts.However, if implemented, Horton’s proposals are likely to be perceived by Beijing as directly targeting China, leading to significant diplomatic tensions. China might respond with economic measures such as tariffs on exports, import restrictions, or other trade barriers, which could substantially impact sectors like agriculture, mining, and education in Australia. The proposed measures could also reduce research collaborations between Australian and Chinese institutions, diminishing joint projects and scientific advancements. Additionally, there might be a decline in Chinese student enrolment, impacting both the financial health and cultural diversity of Australian universities. Stringent vetting and extensive disclosure requirements could create an environment of suspicion, hindering academic freedom and potentially leading to discrimination against Chinese researchers and students.If Horton’s proposals are to be taken up, there needs to be a clear roadmap to deal with the likelihood of negative blowback from China. Balancing these considerations with the need to safeguard Australia’s research integrity will require a thoughtful and strategic approach.

Bruns’ article critiques the Australian News Media Bargaining Code, suggesting it is flawed and likely to have negative outcomes, as seen in Canada when Meta banned news links. He proposes taxing digital platforms as a more stable and fair way to support journalism.Bruns argues that the News Media Bargaining Code is ineffective, pointing to Canada’s experience where Meta’s news ban significantly reduced traffic and revenue for news sites. He believes taxing digital platforms and using the revenue to support journalism would be better.A tax on digital platforms could provide stable funding for journalism and address revenue imbalances. However, implementing such a tax is complex. Determining the right tax rate and ensuring effective collection and enforcement require robust infrastructure, increasing administrative costs. Tech companies are likely to resist this just as much via legal challenges, lobbying, and ultimately passing the costs onto consumers. It may also reduce incentives for innovation and impact global competitiveness.Managing the tax revenue effectively is another challenge. Establishing clear criteria for public-interest journalism can lead to disagreements and perceptions of bias. Efficient fund management to avoid bureaucracy is crucial.International coordination will be a challenge. Digital platforms operate globally, and without consistent standards and enforcement across borders, companies might shift revenues to lower-tax jurisdictions. Achieving international consensus on taxation and regulation is difficult due to varying national interests. Countries with favourable tax environments may resist changes that could reduce their competitive edge. Effective coordination would require extensive diplomacy and cooperation, along with robust enforcement mechanisms.One startling statistic from this year’s Digital News Report Australia, quoted by Bruns, reveals that 68% of Australians actively avoid the news. Addressing this issue seems crucial for improving revenue streams for news organisations. It’s not just about making news more attractive but also about growing an audience interested in news. Engaging this disengaged majority will help create a more informed public and a sustainable business model for news organisations. However, if many people avoid news, getting public support for a tax on digital platforms will again be difficult.Bruns’ tax proposal offers a potential alternative to the News Media Bargaining Code but faces significant challenges. The complexity of enforcement, resistance from digital platforms, and potential impacts on innovation make it hard to implement effectively. Additionally, addressing news avoidance is crucial for creating a sustainable model for journalism. Encouraging innovation, supporting new business models, and balancing immediate financial support with long-term sustainability are essential for navigating this complex issue.

Luke Gosling’s “Deterring at a Distance” (June 2024) justifies AUKUS by emphasising alliances with the U.S. and U.K., focusing on acquiring nuclear-powered submarines (SSNs) to enhance defense against regional threats like China, and highlighting economic benefits such as job creation and technological advancements.Air Vice-Marshal John Blackburn AO (Retd) and Group Captain Anne Borzycki (Retd) have criticised the lack of transparency leading up to the AUKUS agreement and the delay in providing a clear rationale. They argue that the absence of early, open discussion has undermined public trust and hindered informed debate on this significant strategic shift.In “Australia, a Complacent Nation Adrift in the South Pacific?” (June 2024), Blackburn and Borzycki argue for a more balanced approach that values alliances while boosting self-reliance and innovation. Based on their critique, the policy could be improved as follows:Suggested Improvements1. Enhanced Sovereign Capabilities: Prioritise developing Australian defense technologies. Increase investment in local industries to reduce reliance on foreign tech.2. Strategic Autonomy: Set clear strategic goals prioritising national interests. Ensure partnerships like AUKUS support, but don’t dictate, Australia’s defense strategy.3. Diversified Partnerships: Expand defense partnerships beyond the U.S. and U.K. Engage more with regional Indo-Pacific partners for broader cooperation.4. Innovative Defense Solutions: Invest in advanced technologies like unmanned systems, wAI, and cyber capabilities. Promote innovation to address emerging threats.5. Transparent Decision-Making: Ensure open, inclusive debate on major defense initiatives. Engage public and stakeholders to build broad support.6. Sustainable Long-Term Planning: Develop adaptable, long-term defense strategies. Avoid over-reliance on single programs or partnerships.These improvements, reflecting Blackburn and Borzycki’s critique, balance strong alliances with greater self-reliance and innovation in Australia’s defense strategy.Link to the Blackburn & Borzycki paper: https://lnkd.in/gCGb3pPJ.

1

“AI is the part of the meganet that looks most like a brain. But by themselves, deep-learning networks are brains without vision processing, speech centers, or an ability to grow or act.” – David AuerbachIt’s been a month since I ordered my hard copy of Auerbach’s book, so I went looking for an entrée. Auerbach stands out for his unique perspective on the intersection of technology, language, and societal impact, here offering a critical lens on how AI shapes our digital realities. In this excerpt from his book Meganets: How Digital Forces Beyond Our Control Commandeer Our Daily Lives and Inner Realities, Auerbach highlights AI’s struggles with the complexity and variability of human language, raising important questions for policymakers:1. If AI systems inherently bias towards simplicity, then how can we implement regulations to ensure transparency and accountability?2. If public understanding of AI’s limitations with language is crucial, then what initiatives can promote effective AI literacy?3. If AI systems’ biases are pervasive and unfixable, then what ethical guidelines and oversight mechanisms can mitigate these biases?4. If improving AI’s language understanding is essential, then what investments and research priorities should we focus on?5. If AI’s bias threatens linguistic heritage and diversity, then what measures can protect these cultural aspects?The suggested AI bias towards simplicity should alert us to its role in contributing to misinformation and miscommunication, as AI struggles with complex language contexts. It should alert us to how ethical and social biases are reinforced, perpetuating stereotypes and excluding nuanced perspectives. Additionally, AI-generated content may standardise communication, stifling creativity and expression. Arguably, this is where the leading-edge of communications policy-making lies when it come mitigating the risks of AI in the context of taking advantage of its benefits and developing its potential.

A long paper but an essential read. It raises concerns about Australia’s current strategic complacency and reliance on powerful allies, particularly the United States. Air Vice-Marshal John Blackburn AO (Retd) and Group Captain Anne Borzycki (Retd) argue for the necessity of developing independent strategic capabilities and enhancing defense preparedness. They also discuss the importance of understanding the rationale behind AUKUS, building resilience, investing in local defense industries, and strengthening regional engagement. These points are crucial for policymakers and stakeholders aiming to secure Australia’s national interests in an evolving geopolitical landscape.To adapt a quote from Machiavelli, ‘The wise nation does at once what the foolish one does finally’.