Experts demand fire safety policy change over health impact of widely used flame retardants

Leading environmental health experts have called for a comprehensive review of the UK's fire safety regulations, with a focus on the environmental and health risks of current chemical flame retardants.

Peer-Reviewed Publication

LANCASTER UNIVERSITY

Leading environmental health experts have called for a comprehensive review of the UK's fire safety regulations, with a focus on the environmental and health risks of current chemical flame retardants.

The health dangers of substances meant to improve fire safety have prompted experts to demand a range of new measures to reduce risk.

Flame retardants are widely used to slow down or stop the spread of fire. They are used regularly in a range of products – from sofas and textiles, to building materials. However, hundreds of studies have reported on the adverse effects of these chemicals, many of which are bioaccumulative and have been linked to wide-ranging health risks including cancer, developmental disorders, and DNA damage.

The UK has some of the highest use of flame retardants in the world and we are all being exposed in our daily lives. Retardants have been found in a range of places – including homes, schools, offices, and vehicles. They have been found in air and dust, in food and drinking water, and on indoor surfaces and textiles, where they can be absorbed through contact with the skin. The authors add this exposure is particularly noted in young children, who crawl around and pick up objects.

They are also found in natural environments, including rivers, lakes, oceans and sediments, as well as in fish, mammals and birds.

Such widespread use has in part been attributed to the flame ignition tests that are a primary focus of current fire safety regulations. Experts have questioned whether these tests are fit for purpose in reducing fire risk and believe the government’s emphasis on these tests incentivises the addition of large amounts of fire retardants to products.

The experts say there is also “significant uncertainty” about the extent flame retardants contribute to fire safety, and that there is evidence that flame retardants exacerbate smoke and fire toxicity.

Dr Paul Whaley, from Lancaster University and a corresponding author of the statement, said: "There are longstanding concerns about the effectiveness of flame retardants and the health risks associated with them, which the UK Government has never adequately reconciled. This needs to change: there has to be a proper balancing of the harms and benefits of flame retardants, that includes a comprehensive evaluation of the effectiveness of flame retardants as a fire safety measure, with serious attention paid to unintended harms of UK fire safety policy."

The evidence-based call to action, by a group of 13 experts, comes in the form of “A New Consensus on Reconciling Fire Safety with Environmental & Health Impacts of Chemical Flame Retardants”, published today (February 28) in the journal Environment International.

The authors set out six measures for the Government to urgently take in a thorough review of the need for chemical flame retardants, including an end to incentivising their use.

The authors instead call for incentivising industry to develop "benign-by-design" furniture and materials that are inherently less flammable.

They also call for developing a labelling system to track retardants’ use, allowing them to be identified and disposed of safely.

Also among their recommendations is the need to adopt a systemic approach to fire safety rather than a reductionist approach relying on ignition tests.

Professor Ruth Garside, from the University of Exeter said: “The use of flame retardants is problematic at all stages of the lifecycle, potentially even exacerbating smoke and toxicity during the fires when they are supposed to provide a safety measure. With no clear labelling system, these substances are not disposed of correctly, which means they end up in recycled products.

“A significant proportion of fire deaths are caused by inhaling toxic fumes, so there’s no time to delay in reviewing the fire safety regulations. We urge the government to take prompt action for the benefit of all our health.”

UK Furnishing and Fire Regulations have been under review since 2014 but no revised policy has yet been formally proposed.

Professor Frank Kelly of Imperial College London, and co-author of the paper, said: "There is understandable concern surrounding the weakening of existing fire regulations, especially in the wake of tragedies such as the Grenfell Tower fire.

"However, it is vital that the use of these chemicals and their effectiveness in preventing fires is balanced with the serious long-term impacts on our health and environment."

Jamie Page of the Cancer Prevention & Education Society said: “Fire safety is a complex, multidisciplinary issue, but processes are largely dominated by industry. Well-reasoned challenges to current approaches need to be heeded. This will require more inclusive and transparent public consultation processes that will bring together views of different stakeholders.” 

DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.envint.2023.107782

---

JOURNAL

Environment International

DOI

10.1016/j.envint.2023.107782 

METHOD OF RESEARCH

Commentary/editorial

SUBJECT OF RESEARCH

Not applicable

ARTICLE TITLE

A New Consensus on Reconciling Fire Safety with Environmental & Health Impacts of Chemical Flame Retardants

ARTICLE PUBLICATION DATE

28-Feb-2023

THE TRAGEDY OF THE COMMONS

UK

How feudal leasehold contracts ruined homeownership for millions

Melissa Lawford
Mon, 30 January 2023

Leaseholds - Leon Neal/Getty Images

Housing secretary Michael Gove has said he wants to abolish the “feudal” leasehold system in a major overhaul of English housing.

In an interview with The Sunday Times, Mr Gove said: “It is an outdated feudal system that needs to go.”

Nearly five million homes in England are leaseholds. The people who live in them can find themselves at the mercy of their freeholders, subject to extortionate service charges and unable to sell up.

So what is the history of leasehold, and are there ways to escape this system if you are already affected?

‘We are at the mercy of everyone’

When Evie Barker’s adult children left home in 2010, she decided to downsize to a new-build flat in Kent. Now, she is trapped.

Barker, who spoke using a different name, has learned that her housebuilder sold on her building’s freehold. Now, her costs are soaring and the property is unmortgageable.

When she moved in, Barker, 65, was charged ground rent at £100 per year. This has since tripled to £299, and will jump again to £350 next year. Her annual service charge is £1,800 – an 80pc increase since she first moved in.

She is desperate to move but is unable to sell because banks will not lend on properties in the block because of the rising ground rent. To make the property mortgageable, she must extend the lease, which would cost her £20,000.

“I feel we are at the mercy of everyone. What was the point of me purchasing a property if I can’t sell it? I thought that was the whole point of a Tory government – a free market,” she says.

This is a problem for the whole market. Giles Peaker, of Anthony Gold solicitors, says: “This isn’t just entry-level properties. It is not uncommon to see disputes in the first tier tribunal [over properties] that are worth a couple of million. An awful lot of buy-to-let properties are affected, and in the end it affects the entire market if a lot of flat owners can’t move.”
What is leasehold and how does it work?

A fifth of England’s homes are leasehold – 4.86 million properties. Of these, 58pc are owner-occupied while 37pc are buy-to-lets.

The leasehold structure means that leaseholders do not own their homes outright – they own the right to occupy them for a fixed period of time, determined by the lease. It is their freeholder who owns the land and has ultimate ownership of the property. This applies to both houses and, more commonly, flats.

In the three years from 2017-18 to 2020-21 alone, the size of the leasehold sector swelled by 560,000 homes. This is because it is the typical tenure for flats, which means a huge proportion of new-build properties are leasehold – despite the fact that this is a tenure system that evolved in the Middle Ages.

In theory, in blocks of flats, this should provide a system of responsibility for maintaining the building as a whole and communal areas. In reality, the system has been widely abused.
Where did leasehold go wrong?

A sea change in the leasehold system began in the 1990s. Martin Boyd, of the Leasehold Knowledge Partnership, a charity, says: “About 25 years ago, we got a new breed of ground rent investor in the market. They realised that you could leverage the system.”

A group of companies started buying up freeholds, which come with ground rent charges – annual fees that are paid to the freeholder. In addition to making money from building and selling homes, housebuilders could earn twice by later selling on the freeholds too, says Boyd. In turn, developers started changing the terms of the lease contracts to make them more profitable.

“We started seeing developers introducing clauses that meant the ground rent would double every 10 years. This meant that they could sell on the freeholds for much more money,” Boyd says.

This went largely unnoticed – but years down the line, leaseholders suddenly found that their ground rent charges were becoming enormous. Lenders clammed up and refused to grant mortgages on properties with so-called “doubling” charges. Hundreds of thousands of homeowners became trapped.
Extortionate charges

In addition to ground rent, the leasehold system provides two other money-making channels.

Freeholders typically employ a managing agent to handle the maintenance and day-to-day running of leasehold blocks. Leaseholders pay for this via a service charge.

“Developers will often artificially suppress the service charges when they are advertising the building,” Boyd says. Then, when the freeholds are later sold on, the new building owner may raise the service charge dramatically. Leaseholders have little recourse when they do.

Either the freeholder or the managing agent will also arrange the building’s insurance plan, which is paid for by the leaseholders. The insurance provider will pay a commission fee for this; in theory this is to cover administrative costs. But these commissions can often be huge, as high as 50pc – and they are part of the freeholders’ business models, Boyd says.
Expiring leases

Separate to the abuse of the system, an intrinsic problem with the leasehold system is that the value of a property declines as the lease gets closer to its expiry date.

Jonathan Achampong, of Wedlake Bell solicitors, says: “A lease is a wasting asset. Its value erodes with time. If the lease expires, the leaseholder doesn’t own it anymore.”

This means that leaseholds may need to pay to extend the lease – this gets very expensive if a lease has less than 80 years remaining. This is becoming a more widespread problem among former Right to Buy properties, adds Boyd.
The cladding crisis

The cladding scandal and building safety crisis that has unfolded in the wake of the 2017 Grenfell fire mean the insidious problems with the leasehold system have become desperately urgent issues for leaseholders.

Not only did it become apparent that hundreds of thousands of homes are unsafe, but it was almost impossible to hold someone accountable to cover the costs of fixing them.

Grenfell - Hollie Adams/Bloomberg

Leaseholders were sent repair bills, in some cases of £100,000, to fix problems that were not of their making, with no say in how the money was being spent. Millions more were unable to prove that their buildings were safe and were met with a wall of silence from their managing agents and freeholders, who are often uncontactable.

Of the three major freeholders, who each own 100,000 to 200,000 homes, two are based offshore, says Boyd.

What options do existing leaseholders have now?

In theory, leaseholders have a right to buy their freehold and a right to manage it, but the process is difficult and expensive. First, blocks must be less than 25pc commercial, such as retail units. “After they introduced that in 1993, there was a surprising number of blocks with 26pc commercial units,” says Boyd. This was likely done in order to prevent leaseholders from being able to buy out the freehold.

It is also a decision for the whole building – at least 50pc must agree. For Barker, this would be incredibly logistically tricky. “I would have to get the people who own all of the other 41 flats in my building to agree. It is only me and three other residents who actually own our homes. The rest of the properties are let out, so I would have to contact the landlords. And I don’t want to be responsible for managing the property,” she says.

Then there is the question of cost – buying the freehold typically costs tens of thousands per leaseholder.

How much is changing?

In June 2022, the Government banned ground rent on new leases, meaning new leaseholders cannot be subject to more than a “peppercorn” charge. But this has done nothing to help existing leaseholders.

Ministers also committed to making it “easier, faster, fairer and cheaper” for leaseholders to buy their freeholds, but legislation to change this is still far off.

The Government opened a consultation on proposals to extend leaseholders’ rights to buy their freeholds in mixed-use buildings on January 11. This will address the issue that leaseholders do not qualify to buy their freehold if more than 25pc of the building is commercial units. The consultation will close on February 22.

In 2021, it also launched the Commonhold Council – a panel that is exploring commonhold as an alternative tenure to leasehold.

Commonhold tenure would be better than purchasing a share of a freehold because it means homeowners would be free of lease terms, such as restrictions on making changes to the building, says Boyd.

Introducing a commonhold system would be straightforward for new properties but shifting existing leases to this system would be very difficult, says Peaker. “Effectively it would mean depriving freeholders of their property rights. It is doable, but that usually raises the issue of compensation,” he says.

 Bryan T. Grenfell’s lecture available online: the 2022 Kyoto Prize laureate in Basic Sciences

Grant and Award Announcement

INAMORI FOUNDATION

 

IMAGE: BRYAN T. GRENFELL’S LECTURE "EPIDEMIOLOGICAL AND EVOLUTIONARY DYNAMICS OF PATHOGENS IN TIME AND SPACE" IS NOW AVAILABLE ON THE 2022 KYOTO PRIZE SPECIAL WEBSITE. view more 

CREDIT: INAMORI FOUNDATION

Why do many pathogens persist? What mechanism underlies the long-lasting wax and wane of pathogen-host interactions? 

Bryan T. Grenfell, a population biologist, aka father of “phylodynamics,” received the 2022 Kyoto Prize in Basic Sciences for his development of an innovative approach for integrative analysis of pathogen evolution and epidemics.

Grenfell’s Commemorative Lecture, “Epidemiological and Evolutionary Dynamics of Pathogens in Time and Space” is now available on the 2022 Kyoto Prize Special Website.

In his lecture, Grenfell presents a big picture of infectious disease epidemics using mathematical models that addresses how pathogens and hosts interact through viral evolution and host immunity in time and space.  

“Biology is often extremely complex, but sometimes, simple models can explain some of the complexity.”, says Grenfell, summarizing his achievements. He is still eagerly investigating COVID-19 using his methodology, and steadily providing guidance on infectious disease control.

To learn more about his science, passion, and wisdom, click here.

Bryan T. Grenfell
Population biologist, Kathryn Briger and Sarah Fenton Professor of Ecology and Evolutionary Biology and Public Affairs, Princeton University

Grenfell and the other two 2022 Kyoto Prize laureates are featured on the 2022 Kyoto Prize Special Website with information about their work, personal profiles, and five-minute introductory videos.

Carver Mead’s lecture available online: the 2022 Kyoto Prize laureate in Advanced Technology

Grant and Award Announcement

INAMORI FOUNDATION

 

IMAGE: CARVER MEAD’S LECTURE "A PERSONAL JOURNEY THROUGH THE INFORMATION REVOLUTION" IS NOW AVAILABLE ON THE 2022 KYOTO PRIZE SPECIAL WEBSITE. view more 

CREDIT: COURTESY OF INAMORI FOUNDATION

Carver Mead, an electronics engineer and applied physicist, has been awarded the 2022 Kyoto Prize in Advanced Technology for leading contributions to the establishment of guiding principles for very large-scale integration (VLSI) systems design. Mead’s Commemorative Lecture, “A Personal Journey Through the Information Revolution” is now available on the 2022 Kyoto Prize Special Website.

In his lecture, Mead reveals a number of innovations that were foundational to permitting practical design of complex integrated circuits containing millions of transistors and creation of mask patterns for their production.

How did he arrive at the guiding principles for VLSI system design using billions of transistors? How did he create a unified view of the physical integrated circuit and incorporate it in an academic course? Click here to learn more.

Carver Mead
Gordon and Betty Moore Professor of Engineering and Applied Science, Emeritus, California Institute of Technology

Mead and the other two 2022 Kyoto Prize laureates are featured on the 2022 Kyoto Prize Special Website with information about their work, personal profiles, and five-minute introductory videos. 

• Zakir Hussain (Tabla Player)

About the Kyoto Prize

The Kyoto Prize is an international award of Japanese origin presented to individuals who have made significant contributions to the progress of science, the advancement of civilization, and the enrichment and elevation of the human spirit. The Prize is granted in the three categories of advanced technology, basic sciences, and arts and philosophy. Each category comprises four fields, representing a total of 12 fields. Every year, one Prize for each of the three categories is awarded with prize money of 100 million yen per category.

One of the distinctive features of the Kyoto Prize is that it recognizes both “science” and “arts and philosophy” fields. This is because its founder, Kazuo Inamori, held the conviction that the future of humanity can be assured only when there is a balance between scientific development and enrichment of the human spirit.

Research into post-Grenfell building safety remediation calls for a resident-centred approach

Reports and Proceedings

UNIVERSITY OF SHEFFIELD

• Over five years from the Grenfell building safety scandal, leaseholders in apartment buildings are still living through significant disruption whilst fire safety issues are addressed
• Among leaseholders living in buildings undergoing remediation, the most frequently mentioned problems included noise, the erosion of privacy at home, and the loss of a sense of safety and security
• Communication during works was often challenging, with significant demand from leaseholders for more frequent and detailed information about the work that was being carried out on buildings
• Experts call for a greater involvement of leaseholders in the planning of work, and a focus on promoting a liveable environment during works

Leaseholders in England still living through remediation work to their buildings years after the Grenfell tragedy are not having their views or experiences heard, according to a new report published today [Friday 4 November 2022] from the University of Sheffield.

In the wake of the Grenfell tragedy, in which 72 people lost their lives due to the rapid spread of a fire on 14 June 2017, apartment buildings around the country were found to require the replacement of flammable cladding systems and other fire-safety defects. 

This work often requires buildings to be covered in scaffolding and wrapped in mesh or plastic for many months – or even years – whilst external walls are stripped back and replaced with safer materials. This often takes place whilst people are still living in the building. 

The new study, which interviewed leaseholders about their experiences of living through those building safety remediation works, forms the basis of an online exhibition for the ESRC Festival of Social Science opening on Saturday 5 November and featuring images and stories from those affected.

The research found little evidence that the views, preferences and opinions of leaseholders had been considered in the planning remediation works, with the result that many leaseholders felt that they were not viewed as an important stakeholder in the remediation process, resulting in a range of negative impacts affecting their quality of life and mental wellbeing.

Dr Jenny Preece, from the UK Collaborative Centre for Housing Evidence at the University of Sheffield authored the study, she said: “Earlier this year MPs discussed the conditions in buildings undergoing remediation for fire safety problems, with Tom Hunt MP arguing that he would feel guilty about an animal living in such conditions, never mind a human being. Speaking with leaseholders living through remediation, our research shows clear negative impacts on mental wellbeing.

“The fundamental problem in many cases is that there has been little attention to the experiences of those living through the work, and whose homes and day-to-day lives are affected. Many leaseholders feel that they are not viewed as having an important viewpoint when remediation works are being planned, nor is the experience of those living in homes through building work at the forefront of decision-making for those responsible for these projects.”

In the study, many leaseholders reported significant impacts on their ability to feel at home during on-going works. The most frequently mentioned problems included the noise of the works, the way in which work infringed on privacy at home, and the loss of a sense of safety and security.

“I’m not comfortable at home…When there are builders working, they’re walking around. They like to have a good look in, so there’s…no privacy at all…In the bedrooms the blinds are down constantly, and I worry about my safety.”

(Alana*, female, 35-44, South-East)

Leaseholders also experienced the loss of light from scaffolding and coverings such as plastic wrapping and mesh, restricted ventilation, and the loss of access to outside private and communal space. Many leaseholders reported that contractors working on site seemed unfamiliar with working on occupied buildings, highlighting issues such as people staring into their homes, eating lunch outside their windows, and smoking.

Many leaseholders experienced difficulties in communication with the different individuals and organisations involved in remediation projects. They described negative experiences, such as being unable to get answers to questions about the building work, or being ignored or dismissed as a nuisance.

These experiences added to the feeling that there was a lack of care and attention to the fact that these are people’s homes, and that they are often occupied by people working during the day. Because of the way in which remediation was undertaken, in some cases leaseholders were living in these conditions for years.

“They didn’t need to scaffold the whole building…they rushed to scaffold the whole building and cover it in plastic…People on the lower floors…they’re just sitting there… when what you could have done is scaffold one part, finish that work, move on…Or okay, scaffold it, but don’t cover the whole damn thing in plastic. Work in stages.”

(Priya*, female, 45-54, South-East)

The research findings suggest a number of steps that those responsible for remediation projects, and contractors working on-site, can take to improve the experience of those living through building work:

1.     Involvement and liveability in planning remediation – leaseholders should be recognised as key stakeholders in remediation, with their views, opinions and preferences helping to shape the approach

2.     Consultation and choice – leaseholders should be given meaningful choices relating to the conduct of remediation works and the materials used.

3.     Communication – a communications plan should set out responsibilities and expectations around communication between different parties and leaseholders.

4.     Daily working practices for those working on-site – all individuals working on site should be mindful of working on occupied buildings, making adjustments to working behaviour.

5.     Assurance – quality assurance mechanisms should be built into remediation projects, with outcomes communicated to leaseholders.

One of the key reasons that leaseholders gave for taking part in the research was their desire to help improve conditions for others who would be going through remediation work in the future.

As there are many buildings in which work is yet to start, there is a real  opportunity to take some simple steps to reduce the negative impacts for people who are living through these major programmes of work.

Dr Preece said: “Promoting a liveable environment and mitigating negative impacts of works on leaseholders should be a top priority. This includes more frequent and detailed information about what work is taking place, to help people to anticipate disruption and minimise the negative impact; for example by rescheduling some work activities, or leaving the home at particular hours.

“Many contractors may also be more familiar with working on empty buildings during construction or refurbishment. So contractors working on-site should be briefed about the building safety context, and the measures that can be taken to minimise disruption for those living through works. Small changes like eating and chatting away from homes, being mindful of language, minimising noise, respecting privacy and tidying up each day can make a real difference for people, showing that you have thought about the experience for those at home.

“As people are often living in buildings through some or all of the remediation works, we need to start thinking about how to maximise and promote liveability as part of these projects. In many cases, leaseholders are living through months of disruption, which can really wear people down. Those responsible for remediation need to recognise that leaseholders should have a voice in the decisions that affect their homes. This means involving them in the planning of remediation work, and taking account of their views when making key decisions.”

Read the full report and recommendations here: https://housingevidence.ac.uk/publications/learning-from-experiences-of-remediation-in-the-building-safety-crisis 

ENDS

Media contact: Rebecca Ferguson, Media Relations Officer, 0114 222 3670, r.l.ferguson@sheffield.ac.uk

Notes to editor:

• * All names are pseudonyms to protect the anonymity of participants.
• The work was funded by the Crook Public Service Fellowship at the University of Sheffield, and the UK Collaborative Centre for Housing Evidence.

The University of Sheffield

With almost 29,000 of the brightest students from over 140 countries, learning alongside over 1,200 of the best academics from across the globe, the University of Sheffield is one of the world’s leading universities.

A member of the UK’s prestigious Russell Group of leading research-led institutions, Sheffield offers world-class teaching and research excellence across a wide range of disciplines.

Unified by the power of discovery and understanding, staff and students at the university are committed to finding new ways to transform the world we live in and develop solutions to society’s biggest challenges.

Sheffield researchers use their expertise to tackle some of the biggest issues of our time together with partners ranging from SMEs to some of the world’s biggest companies, from across the South Yorkshire region, the UK and beyond.

The University of Sheffield provides an outstanding student experience for its students, with the number one Students’ Union in the UK and both undergraduate and postgraduate degrees that help its students stand out in the jobs market and develop successful careers after graduation, wherever they choose to live and work.

Sheffield has six Nobel Prize winners among former staff and students and its alumni go on to hold positions of great responsibility and influence all over the world, making significant contributions in their chosen fields.

Global research partners and clients include Boeing, Rolls-Royce, Unilever, AstraZeneca, GlaxoSmithKline, Siemens and Airbus, as well as many UK and overseas government agencies and charitable foundations.

The UK Collaborative Centre for Housing Evidence

The UK Collaborative Centre for Housing Evidence (CaCHE) is a multidisciplinary partnership between academia, housing policy and practice, funded by the Economic and Social Research Council, Arts and Humanities Research Council, and Joseph Rowntree Foundation. 

Australia: Massive Optus data breach highlights lax regulations for telco giants

Oscar Grenfell@Oscar_Grenfell

WSWS.ORG

Over the past fortnight, millions of people have faced a great deal of uncertainty after it was revealed that Optus, one of Australia’s largest telecommunications providers, had been hit by a successful hack.

Ever since it announced the breach, the corporation has engaged in a damage control exercise aimed at minimising its liability. Information about the hack has been drip fed to customers and the population, meaning that much remains unknown about the nature of the hack and the extent of the material that has been compromised.

Screenshot of Optus Facebook page [Photo by Optus]

What is known, however, is highly concerning. On Monday, a week-and-a-half after the breach was reported, Optus revealed that the personal identification details of more than two million customers had been breached. The expired details of another 900,000 people were also hacked.

The night before, Optus had sent text messages and emails to some current and former customers, indicating that they had been impacted by the breach.

The belated character of Optus’s announcements means there is every possibility that the details of all ten million of its customers may be caught up in the hack. That would amount to almost 40 percent of the population.

The information that has been hacked includes passport and driver’s licence details, as well as Medicare and other social security information. Email addresses, full names, dates of birth and even residential statuses are in the data that has been pilfered.

Experts have warned that those affected could be victimised by a range of different type of fraud. At the low end, this could include increased phishing attacks, involving emails and texts containing harmful links aimed at stealing further details. At the high end, some people could be targeted for identity theft, as well as the opening of fraudulent bank and mobile phone accounts.

Already, the details of some 10,000 Optus users have been posted to an online forum. The information of other customers could be being traded on the black market.

The company’s response has prompted widespread anger. Optus customers have complained on social media over the delayed and uninformative communications from the corporation.

Many are unclear about whether they need to engage in the onerous, time-consuming process of changing their drivers’ licence numbers and passport details to protect themselves. Optus has given undertakings to pay the related fees for those who are affected. In a number of states, however, the exact processes by which this will occur, and which customers will be eligible, remain vague.

More broadly, the hack has pointed to the dangerous consequences of for-profit corporations controlling vast swathes of data, and a key social utility, i.e., telecommunications. There is a clear conflict between the privacy interests of ordinary people and the commercial impulses of such companies to retain as much data as possible, while seeking to minimise the costs required to protect it. 

At the same time, ever-greater government surveillance imposes requirements on such corporations to retain information for extended periods, even if it is not needed for the service requirements of customers.

When it reported the breach, Optus claimed that it had been the victim of a “sophisticated” hack. That assertion has been rejected by the federal Labor government, the country’s digital security agencies and independent experts.

The Information Security Media Group (ISMG), an intelligence firm, reported early last week that the hacker had taken the data by accessing an unsecured Application Programming Interface (API)—software that is used to share data between computer programs and devices.

This was later confirmed to ISMG by the hackers. Calling themselves “Optusdata,” they wrote in a message: “No authenticate needed. That is bad access control. All open to internet for any one to use.” In other words, the information was connected to the Internet and was not protected in any way.

Other aspects of the hack have led cybersecurity experts to speculate that “Optusdata” is not a sophisticated hacking organisation. It demanded a payment from Optus of $AU1.5 million in return for the data, an unusually low sum. It later posted messages to an online forum in childish English, apologising for the inconvenience caused by the hack and expressing contrition.

If the data breach had occurred in Europe or the United States, Optus would be liable for government-imposed financial penalties that could reach hundreds of millions of dollars.

In Australia, there is no such liability. Under the legislation that governs data protection in the sector, penalties for company violations of general security provisions are capped at $250,000 per infringement. Fines for corporations that breach privacy obligations are capped at $2.2 million.

Prior to the hack, there had been plans for Optus to be floated on the Australian Stock Exchange. Estimates of its valuation had ranged from eight to twelve billion Australian dollars. Optus has an operating revenue of over $7 billion. Singtel, Optus’ parent company, reported a net profit of $1.95 billion in the last financial year.

The extent of the Optus leak has resulted in a substantial degree of publicity, but there is every indication that massive data breaches are occurring frequently, with the corporations involved facing minimal consequences.

The Australian Financial Review reported yesterday that freedom of information requests to the Office of the Australian Information Commissioner (OAIC) revealed at least 11 such breaches in the first six months of the year, each of them affecting 10,000 or more customers.

A report on the Pearls and Irritations website cited a 2019 report by the OAIC, also obtained under freedom of information laws. It stated that “overall, the response system [to data breaches] is either non-existent or performing poorly from a citizen’s perspective.” The report “observed significant deficiencies in response standards, formal reporting channels of Government, and meaningful protection for consumers.”

While successive governments have presided over a lax regulatory framework, they have increased requirements for corporations to retain data, in line with a broader surveillance regime.

Australian legislation, bolstered in 2015, requires companies to retain all data they acquire, through the life of a contract and for two years afterward. Justified on the basis of combating terrorism and serious crime, the draconian data retention framework is part of a broader onslaught on democratic rights, with intelligence and other government agencies granted ever-expanding powers to spy on the private information and communications of citizens. The real target is mounting social and political opposition within the working class.

The Labor government has demagogically condemned Optus and adopted a pose of frustration with its response, but Labor, no less than the Liberal-National Coalition, is responsible for both the lax regulatory framework that imposes virtually no penalties for such breaches, and the intrusive data retention requirements.

Prominent legal firms are floating the possibility of class actions, which, given the number of customers affected, could be among the largest in history. Government officials are also flagging possible, as yet unspecified, regulatory changes.

Whatever these outcomes, however, the Optus saga highlights the incompatibility between the needs and interests of ordinary people in a complex modern society, and the domination of critical infrastructure by vast corporations whose only motive is to maximize profits and shareholder returns. It is another reason to place telecommunications, along with the banks and big business, under public ownership and the democratic control of the working class, as part of a broader socialist transformation of society.

Australian establishment in cover up mode over former PM’s secret ministerial positions

Oscar Grenfell@Oscar_Grenfell

WSWS.ORG

In the days since it was revealed that former Prime Minister Scott Morrison secretly appointed himself to five key ministerial portfolios in 2020 and 2021, the Australian political and media establishment has desperately sought to cover up the political significance of the measures, which amounted to nothing less than the preparations for a prime ministerial dictatorship.

Governor-General Hurley with then Prime Minister Scott Morrison, 10 April 2021 (Image: Facebook / Governor-General of Australia)

The official press is almost universally presenting the ministerial scandal as an expression of the personal proclivities and psychology of Morrison as an individual. His ministerial self-appointments are being depicted as an unnecessary excess.

Morrison himself defiantly posted Facebook memes late last week, trying to make a joke out of the affair. Senior Labor politicians have trotted out glib one-liners about Morrison and his government being “incompetent” and “unable to do their job.”

The aim is to bury any discussion of the relationship between the ministerial appointments and a broader turn to authoritarian measures by the entire political establishment during the pandemic. This included the bipartisan proclamation of an extra-constitutional “National Cabinet,” in March 2020, to manage the pandemic response in secrecy and by decree.

Equally obscured is the connection between this dictatorial turn and the policies pursued by all of the country’s governments, Liberal-National and Labor alike, which are all part of the “National Cabinet.”

The anti-democratic forms went hand in hand with the pandemic response, based on bailing out the major banks and corporations, inflicting sweeping attacks on the jobs, conditions and social rights of the working class, and undermining public health at every turn, to ensure full profit-making activities continued.

The positions to which Morrison appointed himself comprised the key levers of state power. In March 2020, Morrison was made a second health and finance minister. This was when the federal government, and the state administrations were preoccupied with stymieing public health measures that would impact on profit, and ensuring the fortunes of the corporations and the ultra-wealthy, amid a major financial crisis.

Morrison assumed the sweeping powers under conditions of major fears within the ruling elite of a social explosion, triggered by mass queues at unemployment offices and anger over official policies allowing the spread of the virus. As Morrison stated last week: “The prospect of civil disruption, extensive fatalities and economic collapse was real.”

The WSWS warned at the time that the anti-democratic measures used at the outset of the pandemic, provided a precedent for further attacks on civil liberties. In April 2021, Morrison appointed himself minister over the super-portfolio of industry, science, energy and resources. In May that year, he became a secret head of the Home Affairs ministry. Modelled on the US Department of Homeland and Security, it controls all the country’s federal intelligence and policing agencies. The same month, Morrison became a secret Treasurer, jointly controlling all government spending.

A key component of the official cover-up is the assertion that Morrison acted alone, or close to it. Liberal MPs, who have never opposed a single attack on democratic rights, have claimed they were kept in the dark over the ministerial appointments.

But information continues to drip out, indicating that Morrison’s appointments were a political conspiracy inevitably involving a wide array of co-conspirators.

The two senior Liberal MPs who are acknowledged to have known of the appointments from the outset, then Attorney-General Christian Porter and Health Minister Greg Hunt, facilitated them without objection.

Last week, former National Party leader and Deputy Prime Minister Barnaby Joyce admitted being aware in 2021 of Morrison’s assumption of the resources portfolio. National Party MP and the then resources minister Keith Pitt admitted that Morrison had told him that he would take joint charge of the portfolio. Pitt said that either he or Morrison informed Michael McCormack, who was National Party leader in early 2021.

Governor-General David Hurley signed off on all the ministerial appointments. Labor Prime Minister Anthony Albanese, together with every senior political figure in the country, has rushed to defend Hurley, insisting that he was little more than an innocent bystander. Hurley claimed he was unaware Morrison would keep the appointments a secret, despite no announcements ever being made.

The clear aim is to protect the governor-generalship, a linchpin position in the capitalist state, which, under the anti-democratic 1901 Constitution is the representative of the British Queen, as Australia’s head of state. The governor-general wields vast powers, including to dismiss governments, as occurred in the 1975 Canberra Coup.

The cover-up of Hurley’s role was undermined by an Australian Broadcasting Corporation report this morning, noting that the governor-general maintains a public diary online. It includes Hurley’s meetings with government ministers, including phone calls and private discussions.

Ministerial appointments are listed for 2020 and 2021 but Morrison’s accession to the five ministries is not mentioned anywhere. Those appointments are similarly covered up in the past two annual reports of the Office of the Official Secretary to the Governor-General, a supposedly independent government body, despite all other ministerial appointments being listed.

This morning, the Australian and the Saturday Paper both revealed that Morrison’s assumption of the health portfolio was reported, at the time, to the national security committee of cabinet. That committee includes the government’s top cabinet ministers, as well as the military and intelligence chiefs, blowing out of the water their claims of being kept in the dark.

The Murdoch media itself knew of Morrison’s appointments all along, but kept them secret from the public until now. Morrison contemporaneously informed Australian political journalists Simon Benson and Geoff Chambers as they worked on the just-released book, entitled Plagued.

In other words, Morrison’s moves, which amounted to a creeping internal coup, were an open secret throughout the political and media establishment.

Obvious questions arise. What discussions were held about Morrison’s appointments with the British monarchy and the American intelligence agencies, both of which play the most active role in Australian politics? What was the role of Australian state and government agencies?

How is it that National Party leaders were aware of at least one of the appointments, but current Liberal Party leader and then Defence Minister Peter Dutton supposedly was not? If the appointments were being widely discussed in political and journalistic circles, how could Albanese and other Labor Party leaders not be aware?

All these issues are being buried, as are the broader political issues raised by the affair. A column this morning by the Australian’s editor-at-large Paul Kelly absurdly attributed these developments to an “ego trip” by Morrison as an individual, which had “undermined democratic principle, public trust and cabinet government.”

Kelly continued: “Morrison engaged in an unprecedented, secret and unacceptable use of prime ministerial power that must not be repeated but an activity where no harm was done to any member of the public.”

Whom does Kelly think he is kidding? Morrison, with the backing of sections of the government and the state apparatus, secretly assumed vast powers, laying the groundwork for dictatorial and emergency forms of rule. The extent to which these powers were used remains unknown, with the only evidence currently in the public arena consisting of Morrison’s self-serving assertion that he used them once as resources minister.

While Morrison was secretly the finance minister, the government engineered one of the largest transfers of wealth to the corporate and financial elite in history. The health portfolio, which he also controlled, was a key lever, together with the bipartisan National Cabinet, in the rejection of a COVID elimination strategy and, in December 2021, the open adoption of “let it rip” policies that have claimed more than 11,000 lives this year and caused some nine million infections.

The fear of mass social opposition, which underlay Morrison’s ministerial grab and the formation of the National Cabinet, is also the driving force behind the current coverup and the spate of articles, such as Kelly’s, downplaying what has occurred. In today’s column, Kelly accused Albanese of “political overkill” and warned that if he released the documents by which the governor-general installed Morrison into the five ministries, “this saga will likely take another, damaging twist.”

There is real concern in the ruling class that any further exposure of the inner workings of the capitalist state apparatus, behind the fig leaf of parliamentary rule, will deepen the public disaffection and hostility shown in the May federal election, when the combined vote for the two main parties of capitalist rule—Labor and the Liberal-National Coalition—fell to an historic low.

This attempted cover up, encompassing Labor, the trade unions and the entire political establishment, is itself a warning to the working class. The ruling elite and all its political representatives are increasingly jettisoning democratic forms of rule amid an unprecedented global crisis of capitalism, the catastrophe of the pandemic, war and the mounting social and political struggles of the working class.

As species recover, some threaten others in more dire shape

By JOHN FLESHER, CHRISTINA LARSON and PATRICK WHITTLE

August 1, 2022

1 of 9

A captured merlin is held near Lake Michigan on June 27, 2022, near Glen Arbor, Mich., where it will be fitted with a leg band and tracking device. The mission will enhance knowledge of a species still recovering from a significant drop-off caused by pesticides and help wildlife managers determine how to prevent merlins from attacking endangered piping plovers at Sleeping Bear Dunes National Lakeshore. 

(AP Photo/John Flesher)

LONG READ

GLEN ARBOR, Mich. (AP) — In a forest near Lake Michigan, two scientists attached a backpack tracking device to a merlin they’d lured into a net. The mission: help prevent the predatory species from gobbling up piping plovers — highly endangered shorebirds that nest nearby.

Merlins themselves were going downhill decades ago but are recovering, thanks to bans on pesticides such as DDT. That’s good for them — but not for plovers in the Great Lakes region, where only 65 to 70 pairs remain. The small falcons are “are a big threat to their recovery,” said Nathan Cooper, a research ecologist with Smithsonian’s National Zoo and Conservation Biology Institute.

The situation is ironic. A troubled species rebounds thanks to restoration efforts, only to make things worse for others in peril by preying on them or outcompeting them for food and living space. Similar circumstances have turned up elsewhere, challenging wildlife experts who want them all to thrive in balanced, healthy environments.

For instance, the iconic bald eagle’s comeback has pressured rare water birds. Resurgent peregrine falcons menace endangered California least terns and Western snowy plovers that take refuge at naval bases near San Diego. And, off the California coast, attacks from protected white sharks hinder recovery of threatened sea otters.

Gray seals previously on the brink of extirpation in waters of New England now occupy some Massachusetts beaches by the hundreds. The 800-pound mammal’s return has raised worries about vulnerable fish stocks.

Such unintended consequences don’t necessarily reveal flaws in the U.S. Endangered Species Act or conservation programs, experts say. Rather, they illustrate nature’s complexity and the importance of protecting biological communities, not just individual species.

“Clearly there are occasions when we get these conflicts between species that we’re trying to protect,” said Stuart Pimm, a Duke University extinction specialist. “But is it a major worry in conservation? No.”

Species recoveries can produce tradeoffs, since some animals are more adaptable than others to changes in the climate or landscape, said Bruce Stein, chief scientist with the National Wildlife Federation.

(AP video/John Flesher, Mike Householder)

“A lot of ecosystems where these things are occurring are a little out of whack to begin with because we’ve altered them in some way,” Stein said. “With climate change, there are going to be winners and losers. The losers will tend to have specific habitat requirements, narrow ecological niches, and often will be the ones already declining.”

OUTSMARTING A MERLIN

Smithsonian interns Tim Baerwald and Zachary Bordner snared the merlin at Sleeping Bear Dunes National Lakeshore with help from its natural enemy: a great horned owl. This one was dead but fitted with remote-control devices to make it hoot and flap its wings.

The merlin darted overhead, sounding high-pitched, rapid-fire distress calls. It dove into a net stretched between steel poles. The scientists gently disentangled the brownish-speckled female, then attached the tracker and a leg band.

“As long as it’s fitted correctly, she’ll have a long and happy life,” Baerwald said before Bordner released the merlin, which zipped back to its nesting tree.

Merlin numbers in the region have jumped since the DDT ban in 1972. They’re suspected of killing at least 57 adult piping plovers in the past 10 to 15 years, said Cooper of Smithsonian.

The sandy-backed, ring-necked plovers skitter along beaches nibbling tiny marine animals and eggs. They’re among three remaining North American populations, their decline caused primarily by habitat loss and predation.

While officials have shot some merlins, they’re looking for non-lethal controls. Data from the transmitter backpacks might help determine whether capturing and relocating them is worth trying, said Vince Cavalieri, a biologist with the national lakeshore.

EAGLES THREATEN RARE BIRDS

Recovery of America’s national bird, the bald eagle, is a triumph. But in one area of coastal Maine, the big raptor poses a problem for the only U.S. breeding population of great cormorants.

“When they’re disturbed by eagles, the adult cormorants will flush and leave their nests,” said Don Lyons, a conservation scientist at the National Audubon Society’s Seabird Institute.

Then gulls, ravens and crows swoop in to gobble cormorant eggs and chicks. “If this happens repeatedly, an entire colony can fail,” Lyons said.

His team organizes volunteers to camp near cormorant gatherings to scare away eagles.

In Southern California, least terns and snowy plovers are no match for attacking peregrine falcons, which like eagles bounced back after the ban on DDT. Such pesticides are passed up food chains and cause large birds to produce eggs with thin shells, which females crush when trying to incubate them.

The San Diego Zoo and Wildlife Alliance tries to protect the endangered birds by hiring a falconer to capture problem peregrines, keeping them in a holding facility over winter or releasing them in Northern California. Some find a new territory, while others go back, said Nacho Vilchis, a conservation ecologist.

“If there’s a real problem bird that keeps returning, we may ask for permission for lethal removal, but that’s only rarely done,” Vilchis said.

Hunting and bounties devastated New England’s gray seals. Saved by the Marine Mammal Protection Act of 1972, the population has rebounded to tens of thousands.

Fishing groups contend the seals could threaten cod stocks that regulators are struggling to rebuild after decades of overfishing.

The Coastal Ecosystem Alliance, based in Fairhaven, Massachusetts, wants to weaken the protection act to allow hunting and slow the seals’ population growth, said board member Peter Krogh.

“Gray seals are certainly this case where recovery has both been cause for celebration and cause for concern,” said Kristina Cammen, a University of Maine marine mammal scientist who says they’re less of a hazard to fish populations than humans are.

SEALS, CORMORANTS BEDEVIL FISHERS

Like the clash over seals and cod, there are other cases where reviving species may be more a nuisance to people than a threat to other wildlife.

Fish farmers in the South and anglers in the Great Lakes region and Pacific Northwest have long complained about the double-crested cormorant, a dark-feathered diving bird that gorges on catfish, perch, salmon and other prized species.

Cormorants have done so well since the DDT ban that agencies have tried limiting them in some locations with egg oiling, nest destruction and even shooting — drawing lawsuits from environmentalists who say the birds are a scapegoat for human actions that harm fish.

“They’re a part of our avian community and our ecosystems, and there needs to be a place for them,” said Dave Fielder, a fisheries research biologist with the Michigan Department of Natural Resources. “But when their numbers are so high that they potentially decimate the recreational fishery, that’s a problem.”

Wild turkeys were spread across North America before European settlement but had dwindled to tens of thousands by the 1930s, disappearing from many states. Now they’re hunted in 49 states and are so common in New England that they often cause traffic tie-ups.

Some hunters say hungry turkeys are outcompeting ruffed grouse, which are decreasing in parts of their range, such as the Upper Midwest. But scientists point to habitat loss and climate change.

The National Wild Turkey Federation is helping move turkeys from states with plenty — such as North Carolina, Maine and West Virginia — to Texas and others that could use more, said Mark Hatfield, national director of conservation services.

“If you introduce hunting localized wild turkeys, you reduce the problem with overabundant turkeys right away,” Hatfield said.

NATURE AT WORK

Conflicts between recovering species and ones still in trouble don’t always mean something is wrong, scientists say. It could reflect a return to how things were before humans got in the way.

“When a population gets back to where it’s having the same interactions with other organisms as before it went down, that’s nature at work,” said John Fitzpatrick, emeritus director of Cornell University’s Laboratory of Ornithology.

The bald eagle is “challenging our preconceived notions about what’s normal” for prey such as great cormorants in New England and common murres on the West Coast, which might have been less abundant before eagles declined, said Lyons of the Audubon Society.

The eagle’s recovery “complicates the conservation of certain other species,” Lyons said. ”But their recovery is such a wonderful outcome ... that’s a welcome complication.”

Predator-prey relationships are complex and intervening can be tricky, said Stein of the wildlife federation. It’s often wiser, he said, to focus on protecting habitat and reconnecting fragmented landscapes to promote natural migration than “moving things around willy-nilly.”

But environmental scientist Ian Warkentin, a merlin specialist, said there can be ways to help struggling species without being heavy-handed. Larger falcons — such as peregrines sometimes used to chase birds from airports — might be deployed to shoo merlins from plover nesting areas.

“I fall on the side of the fence that says we should do whatever we can ... to aid the recovery of species for which we’ve caused such grief,” said Warkentin, from Memorial University of Newfoundland’s Grenfell Campus.

___

Larson reported from Washington, D.C., and Whittle reported from Portland, Maine.

___

On Twitter follow Flesher: @JohnFlesher; Larson @LarsonChristina and Whittle: @pxwhittle