Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Deo Prasad, Scientia Professor and CEO, Co-operative Research Centre for Low Carbon Living, UNSW

Too often it takes a crisis to trigger changes in legislation and behaviour, when forward thinking, cooperation and future planning could have negated the risk in the first place. Australia’s building and construction industry is under the microscope and changes in the law are in the wind, due to situations that could have been avoided. These include the evacuation of Sydney’s Opal building and the fires in Melbourne’s Lacrosse tower in 2014 and the Neo200 apartment building in February, both of which were fuelled by combustable cladding, as was the 2017 fire in London’s Grenfell Tower that killed 72 people.

The Shergold Weir report made 24 recommendations to improve the National Construction Code to ensure compliance, integrity and more. Commissioned by federal and state building ministers, the report was made public at the Australian Building Ministers Forum in April 2018. But implementation has been too slow to prevent the problems in the Opal and Neo200 apartment buildings. And it included no changes to climate-proof buildings.

Read more: Australia has a new National Construction Code, but it’s still not good enough

A new National Construction Code comes into effect on May 1. Recent events have, however, exposed inadequate construction standards and increased public pressure for further change. This presents an opportunity to future-proof our cities as well as restore public confidence in our construction industry.

Construction codes were created to eliminate “worse practice”, but we are now in a position to make them “best practice”. Importantly, we must prepare for climate change. Australia is increasingly experiencing more extreme weather patterns, but are we ready?

The legislative overhaul must also include building sustainability and higher performance requirements. A low-to-zero-carbon future must be part of the picture.

Construction code changes are needed urgently, not just for increased safety, but to ensure future urban developments:

• are ready for higher energy demands to cool and heat buildings
• are designed to maximise sun and shade at the appropriate times to cool and warm both building and street
• use materials that reflect heat for hot climates and absorb it for cooler ones
• maximise insulation to reduce energy use
• provide enough green space to give shade, produce oxygen and sustain a healthy environment
• use water features to cool common and public areas
• install smart technology to monitor and manage buildings and precincts.

Read more: As climate changes, the way we build homes must change too

Many leading developers are taking the initiative to ensure projects include high-performance, zero-carbon, highly energy-efficient buildings, with top star ratings, but action needs to be across the board. This can only be done via tough legislation and enforced compliance.

The University of NSW’s Tyree Building is an excellent example of a high-performance building, as is One Central Park, Sydney, which features hanging gardens and an internal water recycling plant. But its most striking feature is its “heliostat”, a large array of mirrors that reflect sunlight to areas that would otherwise be in shadow.

Around the world, high-performance buildings are on the increase, such as 313@Somerset in the heart of Singapore, and the Sohrabji Godrej Green Business Centre in Hyderabad – India’s first Leadership in Energy and Environmental Design (LEED) platinum-rated building. There are many more.

Changing the law

New building standards and compliance are required to ensure high-performance buildings are the norm, not the exception. The construction industry should fulfil a “cradle to cradle” objective for materials. This means accounting for:

• where materials come from
• how materials are made
• safety levels
• carbon component
• recyclability at demolition.

Laws covering low-carbon building design are imperative, setting standards for geography, maximising natural light, air flow, insulation and smart technology. Technology can monitor and run a building’s utilities to ensure it’s not only energy-efficient but also delivers a health standard that’s adaptable to the future pressures of climate change.

Read more: Green buildings must do more to fix our climate emergency

Sustainable buildings are achievable now

Current know-how makes all this achievable. Over the past seven years the Cooperative Research Centre for Low Carbon Living and its industry partners have funded research into most low-to-zero-carbon aspects of the built environment. This has led to many recommendations in reports like Built to Perform, produced by the Australian Sustainable Built Environment Council.

The many research projects include:

• 17 living laboratories providing cutting-edge data
• creating low-carbon communities
• developing tools to measure carbon outputs, from materials to services
• studying the effects of heatwaves in Western Sydney and ways to cool cities
• research into low-carbon concrete made of fly ash.

This plethora of data reveals that sustainable cities and precincts are achievable, while providing for a growing communities. Blockchain and solar technology, for example, is now proven for managing a precinct’s energy needs and can help turn energy users into providers.

Read more: Beyond Bitcoin: how blockchains can empower communities to control their own energy supply

Although we are more global than ever, online and social media have in turn made us locally focused. We can know what’s going on in our street at a click and this technology is applicable to the operation of our future, sustainable cities.

We have the data, expertise, tools and knowledge to make safe, low-to-zero-carbon cities part of our future. But there’s much work to do. We still need to implement this knowledge, use the tools, change behaviour and instil 100% trust in the design and construction process. There’s no time to waste.

– ref. Don’t forget our future climate when tightening up building codes – http://theconversation.com/dont-forget-our-future-climate-when-tightening-up-building-codes-113365

Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Matthew Hill, Senior Lecturer in Contemporary Music, Southern Cross University

The history of popular music is littered with stories of internal feuds and external relationships that drive cracks in bands or tear them apart. The Beatles, Metallica, the Stones, Oasis – the list is long.

These fights make great reading and help sell ageing musicians’ biographies by the bucketload. But what is often not talked about is the way conflict can have a positive effect on the quality of the songs written.

The Beatles’ 1968 hit Ob-La-Di, Ob-La-Da certainly succeeded by pop music’s measure of chart success. As Geoff Emerick, their long time sound engineer, recalls, it might never have seen the light of day if John hadn’t got fed up with Paul’s “granny music shit” and started madly pounding at the piano keys in frustration. This suddenly brought the track to life, becoming the song’s famous opening.

Fast forward 25 years to 2003, when Metallica hired a performance enhancing coach, Phil Towle, to be on hand in the studio while they were recording their 8th album, St. Anger. The internal feuding was well documented in the fascinating film Some Kind of Monster.

Vocalist James Hetfield was so controlling that he insisted they only work on the album for four hours a day; the rest of the band couldn’t do anything else musically outside of this time frame. This riled other band members such as drummer Lars Ulrich. Yet the album went on to top charts around the world.

When romantic attachments within a band lead to a break up, things are more complex. Still, even these conflicts can be a source of great art. Think of Fleetwood Mac’s Rumours – with tracks such as The Chain and Go Your Own Way – which sold 20 million copies in the United States alone. Or Richard and Linda Thompson’s last album as a husband and wife duo, Shoot out the Lights, which became their most critically acclaimed work.

Of course not all band conflicts end with great art. Some just get messy. The Smiths broke up in 1987. When the band’s former drummer Mike Joyce took Morrissey and Johnny Marr to court in 1996 over royalty claims, the judge found in favour of Joyce, saying that Morrissey was “devious, truculent and unreliable”. The Police, The Clash and The Pixies are other great bands that didn’t survive internal conflict.

But we rarely hear about the precise moment when songs are being created, and how conflict between band members can be crucial to making better music.

As a contemporary music lecturer, I am often in a room with students deep into the songwriting process. I stress the importance of respectful and constructive communication when collaborating. But I’m aware that in studios and garages around the world there are bands at each other’s throats arguing about whether the chords in the bridge are any good or if the guitar sound in the chorus is right or whether that beat sounds too much like their last five songs.

In my own band, we argue all the time. We have been together for nearly 20 years and made five albums. The tracks for the last two albums were made mostly by the three of us in a room thrashing away at our instruments to generate and refine ideas.

Creative sledging

We set up a video camera in the corner of the room to capture the process. Later, we looked at the footage and found two 30-minute sections of intense argument as we tried to come up with a bridge section in one song. The most interesting discovery was how important such moments of conflict were in propelling the musical ideas forward.

If we were stuck for an idea, or playing something that one of us thought was just lame, our drummer would often stop and offer a provocative sledge. “Play something other than clown music!” he’d say. Or, “this is not university, this has to be something that sounds good and has a bit of attitude”. Then we’d try again. This process worked in the opposite way that sledging does on the cricket field – it improved our musical performance.

Of course as a band we have a long shared history with a fair share of ups and downs. I would not recommend the “conflict as strategy” approach to a new band, and definitely not to a group of students.

It takes time for a band to reach what American psychologist and creativity expert Keith Sawyer calls a state of group flow. Or as UK music psychologist Fred Seddon would put it, a state of empathetic attunement. But the results can move you way beyond the contemporary equivalent of “granny music shit”.

– ref. Why artistic differences in a band can be a good thing – http://theconversation.com/why-artistic-differences-in-a-band-can-be-a-good-thing-110711

Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Sunanda Creagh, Head of Digital Storytelling

We are but a few weeks from a federal election, and the way the wind is blowing may depend on what state you’re in.

Trust Me, I’m An Expert – along with Politics with Michelle Grattan – is bringing you state-focused podcast episodes as polling day approaches. To catch up on all the political drama unfolding in NSW, I spoke to political scientist (and self-described political tragic) Andy Marks, who predicted a Labor victory on May 18.

“Labor will win this election. I think that’s virtually unquestionable. We’re just not seeing enough movement, even in the polls at this point, in the primary vote level, to say the Libs or the Coalition will hang on. I think this is going to be a Labor victory,” he said.

Read more: The myth of ‘the Queensland voter’, Australia’s trust deficit, and the path to Indigenous recognition

Take this week’s Newspoll – which appeared to show the gap between the two major parties – with a grain of salt, he said.

“Early in April, we saw exactly the same primary vote polling as we saw on the weekend. So, there hasn’t really been a discernible shift. You need to see a gap open up to the degree of around about five or six points, for the Coalition to even look like hanging on. It will stay tight, I think until polling day, but I’d suggest the momentum is with Labor and it hasn’t substantially shifted.”

You can read the full transcript below, and hear The Conversation’s chief political correspondent Michelle Grattan talk with experts on the seats and issues to watch in WA and Victoria on the Politics with Michelle Grattan podcast.

Production assistance by Tilly Gwinner.

Read more: Politics with Michelle Grattan: Caroline Fisher on the spin machines of #AusVotes19

New to podcasts?

Podcasts are often best enjoyed using a podcast app. All iPhones come with the Apple Podcasts app already installed, or you may want to listen and subscribe on another app such as Pocket Casts (click here to listen to Trust Me, I’m An Expert on Pocket Casts).

You can also hear us on Stitcher, Spotify or any of the apps below. Just pick a service from one of those listed below and click on the icon to find Trust Me, I’m An Expert.

Additional audio

Kindergarten by Unkle Ho, from Elefant Traks

SBS news report

ABC news report

Image

AAP Image/NIC ELLIS

Transcript:

Andy Marks: I’m Andy Marks, I’m a political scientist and Assistant Vice-Chancellor at Western Sydney University.

Sunanda Creagh: So Andy, let’s just catch up on where things are up to in New South Wales. What do you see as the key issues in voters’ minds in New South Wales as polling day approaches?

Andy Marks: New South Wales is a strange case. It’s the usual suspects in terms of issues but not in the usual way. So we’re seeing the economy feature but we’re not hearing too much in the way of big ticket reform. We are hearing some of that from Labor of course and it’s not about fiscal performance. That’s not winning votes anymore. It’s about issues like cost of living, it’s about issues like wage stagnation. At the other end, you have issues around negative gearing reform and franking credits which are more at the investment end. So a very unusual take on the economy in terms of elections.

The other issues that feature, of course, Labor have made it about health in terms of cancer care and the package they have there. Alternatively, the Libs have sought to bring it back towards security and issues around border protection, of course, that we saw with John Howard coming into the campaign on the weekend.

The big sleeper is climate and it’s a sleeper in the sense that it’s coming to the fore from a number of angles. We’re seeing the issue of energy reform come up from industry who are madly seeking coherent energy policy from both sides of the parliament. We’re seeing the issue of the environment played out with issues like Adani, and water, of course, is the big one in terms of agriculture and rural electorates across the country. So there’s three different lenses being applied but they all come up in terms of how both sides address the issue of climate.

Sunanda Creagh: You mentioned negative gearing there. Sydney, being the centre of the property boom in Australia, people here seem to be mortgaged up to their eyeballs. Lots of people negatively gearing properties. Do you think that issue might be a decider for some Sydney voters who do take advantage of that policy?

Andy Marks: Negative gearing will factor on the minds of many voters, but not in the seats that are pressure cookers, so they’re not going to swing seats. I think, for example, certainly among the retirement community those issues, particularly around the franking credits matter, are of importance. The housing market in Sydney and across the eastern states more broadly is softening anyway ahead of this measure. It’s hard to tie a definitive link to that and the coming reforms, should Labor win government. It’s not an issue that’s going to turn swinging seats, but it will factor into some more rusted-on voters.

Sunanda Creagh: And speaking of seats, what do you see as the key seats to watch?

Andy Marks: Across New South Wales, I reckon there’s about five that are up for a change. At the outset, I have to say this election won’t be won or lost in New South Wales. It’s most likely Queensland where you have up to eight seats and margins of 4% or less that will decide it. In Victoria, there’ll be some significant movement as well. There’s about five that I’m looking at in New South Wales in terms of potential change. Wentworth, of course, is the big one with the contest between Kerryn Phelps and Dave Sharma. Lindsay, where Emma Husar has been moved aside through misconduct allegations, and you have a contest there and out at Western Sydney. Banks, the immigration minister faces a challenge there on a 1.4% margin.

Then we, move into some coastal regional seats. Gilmore, where former ALP president Warren Mundine is running against Labor’s Fiona Phillips. Robertson on the Central Coast which is held by just 1.1% by the Libs, so they’re the ones where I think you can see some movement. Now the exciting stuff, in terms of drama, Warringah, of course, where former PM Tony Abbott is facing a challenge. In Reid, Turnbull-backer Craig Laundy turned that razor thin margin into almost a moderately safe seat for the Libs, and that’s up in play again as well.

Sunanda Creagh: You mentioned Gilmore, that’s an area that takes in places like Shoalhaven, Jervis Bay, and some of those Batemans Bay type areas. Tell us, what are some of the issues that will be in voters minds in that area?

Andy Marks: Look that’s a difficult one to pick. It’s really a four-way contest. You have a candidate in Warren Mundine who was essentially parachuted in by Morrison. The controversy there, of course, being his former role with Labor.

You also have Katrina Hodgkinson, who was a former Nationals New South Wales minister and really reputable individual running against the Labor candidate Fiona Phillips. And Grant Schulz, the Lib turned independent who was passed over by Mundine. So, it’s interesting in the sense that the way the vote splits over the course of the election will be something to watch. It’s really one that’s very uncertain for all of the players.

Sunanda Creagh: You mentioned Reid, which takes in Canada Bay, Burwood, Strathfield and is currently held by Craig Laundy for the Liberals. He’s been somewhat of a comparatively moderate voice. What do you think will be the issues there?

Andy Marks: Reid is an interesting one. Laundy was an incredibly strong local member and he stood up against his own party’s attempted reforms of the anti-discrimination act. That area was lost to Labor in the recent New South Wales election, due to comments made by the Labor opposition leader around Asians taking jobs. Really retrograde comments on his part. So the momentum probably was with Labor, whether the voters have forgiven the foibles of the state party though will remain to be seen. But, that’s a big loss to the Libs in Craig Laundy moving on.

Sunanda Creagh: I wanted to ask you about the seat of Farrer. That’s a regional seat, it takes in places like Hay, Murrumbidgee. Some of those areas around the Murray Darling, the Central Darling. With the seat of Farrer, what do you think of some of the issues there?

Andy Marks: Look Farrer is an interesting one – you wouldn’t be talking about an electorate with a 20% plus margin as being one that’s up for grabs, but it is. We saw swings in the state election against the coalition of up to 26% in Murray, 19% in Barwon, and around 37% in Orange. So these rural electorates are very volatile and the issue of water management, of course, is the dominant thread across a seat like Farrer. But it’s a diverse seat. So you have areas like Albury, where unemployment is very high, educational attainment is quite low, economic activity has been suppressed through the drought. So the issues across that electorate are incredibly diverse and equally you don’t have in the New South Wales case we had the Shooters, Fishers and Farmers Party running against the Nationals quite successfully in three seats. They’re not a consolidated force at the federal level.

Really, Farrer’s in play because of the Albury Mayor Kevin Mack, who is running the strongest challenge against Sussan Ley. She’s held onto that seat since 2001 and that’s Tim Fischer’s old seat. So, it should be a sure bet for them. This is suddenly a seat that’s in play.

Sunanda Creagh: So you mentioned water being an issue in the seat of Farrer, and certainly that’s shaping up to be an issue across the board. If you believe what you read on social media, suddenly everybody’s talking about water buybacks and we’ve had the big story breaking around the water buybacks issue that involved Barnaby Joyce. I’m interested to know what you think on how that issue may influence voters in the lead up to polling day.

Andy Marks: Look, there’s already a bit of disaffection towards the Nationals. I think their own internal troubles around leadership, and the other controversies they’ve had around Andrew Broad and other figures have given weight to the perception that their mind is not on the game. They’ve taken their eye off the ball in terms of the concerns of rural voters. So, that’s why we are seeing such a pronounced reaction against them in some seats. Whether that anger was spent, at the New South Wales election and the earlier Victorian poll remains to be seen. I can’t see a repeat of the swings we saw in the state election here in NSW. But certainly, some very generous margins will be really damaged, I think.

Sunanda Creagh: So let’s talk about Warringah where Tony Abbott is facing that strong challenge from independent Zali Steggall, who’s been supported by GetUp! in her campaign. That’s also become a point of contention and a point of attack for her political foes. How do you see things playing out?

Andy Marks: Look, there’s no doubt it’s going to be a contest. Zali Steggall will take it down to the wire. People need to be aware though that Tony Abbott loves a fight, shifting him on that margin of over 11% is going to be incredibly difficult. It’s not like Bennelong, for example, where we saw John Howard go as a result of demographic shifts and other factors. And it’s not like Wentworth where, of course, Turnbull stepped aside. A former PM, even one that’s controversial, still attracts some traction among voters. Zali Steggall has done well in opening the debate up into issues that challenge the principles that Tony Abbott’s put forward. So, forcing him to for example to talk more about climate, to talk more about issues where he’s clearly a little uncomfortable, has been a good tactic on her part. Obviously, the work of groups like GetUp! will influence things as well.

I just can’t see it shifting. I think Tony Abbott is far too an experienced player to go down without a fight, and this is the guy that loves to be backed into a corner. I might be proven wrong, but I think he’ll just hang on in Warringah.

Sunanda Creagh: And you mentioned former PMs, speaking of which, let’s talk about Wentworth. Do you think voters will punish the Coalition for turfing out Malcolm Turnbull? We saw Turnbull’s son, Alex Turnbull actively encouraging people not to vote for the Liberal candidate Dave Sharma. And as it turned out Kerryn Phelps did win that seat. So how will things play out there?

Andy Marks: Wentworth is an interesting one. I like to call it the contest for the soul of the Liberal Party. Because really, it’s about whether the party will choose to push forward in a progressive way, or revert more to those hard right tendencies that we’ve seen in recent times. The thing to watch at Wentworth will be whether Phelps has managed to translate in a really short timeframe that protest vote into a base. And that would mean Phelps has to have really strong points of differentiation on issues like climate, immigration and border protection. Which she’s, to a very large extent, done on the latter issue. Whether that’s enough to shift people across for good remains to be seen. That’s one that’s too hard to call.

Sunanda Creagh: So, Andy Marks what’s your prediction? Who do you think is going to win this federal election?

Andy Marks: Look, Labor will win this election. I think that’s virtually unquestionable. We’re just not seeing enough movement, even in the polls at this point in the primary vote level to see the Libs or the Coalition hang on. I think this is going to be a Labor victory.

Sunanda Creagh: Even with Newspoll saying it’s tightening as voting day draws closer?

Andy Marks: You have to look again at that primary vote figure. Early in April, we saw exactly the same primary vote polling as we saw on the weekend. So, there hasn’t really been a discernible shift. You need to see a gap open up to the degree of around about five or six points, for the Coalition to even look like hanging on. It will stay tight, I think until polling day, but I’d suggest the momentum is with Labor and it hasn’t substantially shifted. So with the Coalition on 38% and Labor on 37%, I don’t see it shifting sufficiently for there to be a change in the momentum.

Sunanda Creagh: Let’s talk about the upper house. What do you see as the issues to watch there?

Andy Marks: Look, that’s an interesting one from the New South Wales point of view. Jim Molan, arguably their highest profile senator, finds himself in an unwinnable spot on their ticket. This is largely due to reforms that he instigated, internal party reform. So it’s a big ask therefore for somebody to get up. You know, you’re going to require a quota in excess of 14% of the vote to get a spot. Brian Burston’s the other interesting one. He’s a former One Nation representative, now with Clive Palmer’s outfit, and he’s their parliamentary leader in the house. It’s a very interesting contest there. There’s Doug Cameron, a long-standing senator for Labor, retiring, and Tony Sheldon, the former Transport Workers Union secretary coming in on his spot.

Sunanda Creagh: And just lastly, what do you want to say about preferences? Do you think preferences will make a big difference in this election?

Andy Marks: Look, there’s no doubt that the question around where the United Australia Party’s preferences flow has been a dominant issue in Queensland. I don’t see it being of sufficient weight to shift the momentum, which again in those marginal electorates, up to eight of them, is all with Labor at the moment. So, it will make things a little trickier to call earlier. But, I still see things going Labor’s way in those key seats.

Sunanda Creagh: Any final comments?

Andy Marks: Look, this is a contest where New South Wales will provide plenty of action. But it’s not going to be the place where it’s won or lost. But it’s certainly going to be the place of high drama.

Sunanda Creagh: Andy Marks, thank you so much for your time.

Andy Marks: Thank you.

– ref. ‘Labor will win this election. I think that’s virtually unquestionable’: political scientist Andy Marks on #AusVotes2019 and the key issues in NSW – http://theconversation.com/labor-will-win-this-election-i-think-thats-virtually-unquestionable-political-scientist-andy-marks-on-ausvotes2019-and-the-key-issues-in-nsw-116273

Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Annah Piggott-McKellar, PhD Candidate, The University of Queensland

The original Fijian village of Vunidogoloa is abandoned. Houses, now dilapidated, remain overgrown with vegetation. Remnants of an old seawall built to protect the village is a stark reminder of what climate change can do to a community’s home.

Vunidogoloa is one of four Fijian communities that have been forced to relocate from the effects of climate change. And more than 80 communities have been earmarked by the Fiji government for potential future relocation.

Read more: For Pacific Island nations, rising sea levels are a bigger security concern than rising Chinese influence

Low lying coastal communities like these are especially vulnerable to threats of sea-level rise, inundation of tides, increased intensity of storm surges and coastal erosion. Extreme, sudden weather events such as cyclones can also force communities to move, particularly in the tropics.

But relocating communities involves much more than simply rebuilding houses in a safer location.

It involves providing the right conditions for people to rebuild the lives they knew, such as equitable access to resources and services, social capital and community infrastructure.

Our research documents the experiences and outcomes of relocation for two of these Fijian communities – Vunidogoloa and Denimanu.

The relocated villages

My colleagues and I visited Vunidogoloa and Denimanu, villages in Fiji’s Northern Islands, at the end of 2017 and spoke to village leaders and community members to learn how they felt about the relocation process.

All 153 residents of Vunidogoloa and roughly half of the 170 people in Denimanu moved away from their climate ravaged homes.

Flooding in Vunidogoloa

Vunidogoloa is a classic example of the slow creep of climate change. For a number of decades the residents have fought coastal flooding, salt-water intrusion and shoreline erosion. The village leaders approached the Fijian government, asking to be relocated to safer ground.

The relocation was originally set for 2012 but, after delays, the entire village moved roughly 1.5 kilometres inland two years later. This is often recognised as the first ever village in Fiji to relocate from climate change.

Cyclone in Denimanu

In contrast to Vunidogoloa, Denimanu experienced sudden onset effects of climate change.

While the village had been experiencing encroaching shorelines for years, it was Tropical Cyclone Evan, which hit in 2012 destroying 19 houses closest to the shoreline, that prompted relocation.

Read more: Sidelining God: why secular climate projects in the Pacific Islands are failing

These homes were rebuilt roughly 500 metres from the original site on a hill slope. With the remaining houses still standing on the original site, the village was only partially moved.

Was relocation a success?

The relocation was a success in Vunidogoloa, and residents said they now feel much safer from climate change hazards. One villager told us:

We were so fearful because of the tides living at the old site. We were happy to move away from that fear.

But in Denimanu, where the relocated villagers live on a slope, fears of coastal threats have now been replaced by a fear of potential landslides. This is especially concerning as the village’s primary school was recently destroyed by a nearby landslide.

A relocated Denimanu local said:

We were delighted with the move to the new houses, but we were still worried about the landslide because the houses were on the hill and we know this place.

Ultimately, residents in both villages were happy with many aspects of the relocation process.

For example, they were provided solar power, rainwater tanks, and household facilities that weren’t available in the original villages. Vunidogoloa also received pineapple plants, cattle, and fish ponds, which have helped reestablish their livelihoods.

But it’s not all good news. While new housing was built for the community, they were built to a poor standard, with leaking through the doors and walls, especially in periods of high rainfall. Fiji is located in the tropics, so these infrastructure problems are likely to get worse.

Read more: Don’t give up on Pacific Island nations yet

And moving the Vunidogoloa villagers away from the ocean might damage their livelihoods, as fishing is one of their dominant sources of food. The ocean also provides an important spiritual connection for local people.

The impacts of climate change are set to rise, especially if global action to halt greenhouse gas emissions stagnates. More vulnerable communities will need to move away from their current homes.

While relocating communities to safer, less exposed areas is one option to help people manage climate hazards, it’s not a viable solution for all those affected.

Our research shows relocation must be done in a manner that accounts for the rebuilding of local livelihoods, with sustainable adaptation solutions that put local priorities at the centre of this process.

And we need them before more coastal villages are impacted by both slow and sudden onset climate impacts, putting more people in danger.

– ref. Climate change forced these Fijian communities to move – and with 80 more at risk, here’s what they learned – http://theconversation.com/climate-change-forced-these-fijian-communities-to-move-and-with-80-more-at-risk-heres-what-they-learned-116178

Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Christopher Sainsbury, Senior Lecturer Composition, Australian National University

Indigenous composers have been around for a long time, with Deborah Cheetham and myself working in composition for some 30 years, Troy Russell for 25 years, and William Barton for 20 years, amongst quite a few others. Many more are now emerging, but most are seldom heard.

This is at odds with the fact that numerous Australian composers have referenced Indigenous music and culture in their works, many of which have received much attention.

Some have used Indigenous melodies or songs, themes or narratives, culture or language in original pieces without appropriate engagements with Indigenous peoples. I call it “Indigenous referencing”: either serious overreaching, or various “lite” appropriations.

Almost 20 years ago, I talked to a leading composer about my heritage and identity, to which he responded “you don’t look it”. In a similar talk with another late composer, he simply talked about “the real ones”. I can personally let go of being dismissed. However, in acknowledgement that there are now many more Indigenous composers, such attitudes need gentle correction.

Admittedly I’m a fair-skinned Koori, but the heritage and identity of any Indigenous person is not the call of anyone, and especially not composers who’ve made a focus on referencing Indigenous culture in their works. This referencing can effectively disempower Indigenous composers. Can we imagine artists doing the same in the art sector?

Read more: Indigenous cultural appropriation: what not to do

A way forward

As a composer and Dharug/Eora descendant, I’ve documented the Ngarra-burria First Peoples Composers program, of which I am the founder, in a new Platform Paper.

I do understand the referencing of Indigenous music and culture by non-Indigenous composers. It makes sense as we collectively seek to understand the evolving Australian identity and our place in this land. In some ways, composers such as Peter Sculthorpe were effectively saying “look to Indigenous peoples”, and there’s a depth in that.

However, there are ways to engage with Indigenous peoples, music and culture that are meaningful for all parties. I recommend going to the source, rather than having Indigenous music filtered through the pen of non-Indigenous composers (genuine partnerships between Indigenous musicians and composers are not what I’m concerned about).

The First Peoples Composers Program aims to develop and support Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander composers working in scored music formats and new music styles. Our goals include composer development, making industry connections, lifting visibility, and exploring new expressions of culture.

My Platform Paper recommends such things as including Indigenous composers when making work that references Indigenous culture and sustaining that relationship over the years.

We should throw core funding at Indigenous composers and not just some kind of special funding, because then it’s real. And become informed about cultural agency, or who has authority over cultural expression. Fred Copperwaite, co-artistic director from our partner Moogahlin Performing Arts talks of “First Peoples first”.

And of course we recommend hanging out with Indigenous people. I worked at the Eora Centre for Aboriginal Visual and Performing Arts Sydney for about 25 years, and noted that no composer from the Sydney University Music Department, which was 300 metres away, ever visited us.

Ultimately this Paper is an opportunity to say Indigenous composers are there: they need support, they deserve profiling, and they will enrich the music sector.

Artful expressions of culture

The composers in the first Ngarra-burria program of 2016-18 – Rhyan Clapham, Brenda Gifford, Tim Gray, Troy Russell and Elizabeth Sheppard – have explored artful ways to articulate their culture.

Troy Russell’s Nucoorilma talks of a real-life foot journey over a great distance that his grandmother took about 100 years ago, to marry a man from another region. She and her family were welcomed into that distant country region/language area by locals.

In his piece, we get the picture that in the old times a “welcome to country” was potent with inherent physical effort, and it sounds in his music. Today it brings meaning for all of us about “welcomes”.

Rhyan Clapham (winner of the Create NSW Peter Sculthorpe Fellowship 2017) engages in language reclamation through his music.

He simply takes four words from his Murrawarri language, assigns them to four instruments, and uses the rhythms and the contours of each word to shape the rhythms and the contours of the musical ideas. He is graciously passing language reclamation into the hands of listeners.

The other composers, too, are eager to be heard and share. And this year we have a new group of another five Indigenous composers. Composer mentors have included Kevin Hunt, Kim Cunio, Deborah Cheetham and me.

Indigenous composers must have a place to be heard, and music organisations and ensembles need to take on part of the responsibility for profiling them. Cultural agency needs to be prioritised, and respectful long-term relationships created with Indigenous parties in any music project.

Dr Chris Sainsbury is the author of the new Platform Paper, Ngarra-Burria: New music and the search for an Australian sound, to be launched on May 1 by Currency House.

– ref. It’s time to properly acknowledge – and celebrate – Indigenous composers – http://theconversation.com/its-time-to-properly-acknowledge-and-celebrate-indigenous-composers-115839

Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Michael (Mike) Joy, Senior Researcher; Institute for Governance and Policy Studies, Victoria University of Wellington

A recent update on the state of New Zealand’s environment paints a particularly bleak picture about the loss of native ecosystems and the plants and animals within them.

Almost two-thirds of rare ecosystems are threatened by collapse, according to Environment Aotearoa 2019, and thousands of species are either threatened or at risk of extinction. Nowhere is the loss of biodiversity more pronounced than in Aotearoa New Zealand: we have the highest proportion of threatened indigenous species in the world.

This includes 90% of all seabirds, 84% of reptiles, 76% of freshwater fish and 74% of terrestrial birds. And this may well be an underestimate. An additional one-third of named species are listed as “data deficient”. It is likely many more would be on the threatened list had they been assessed. Then there are the species that have not been named and we have no idea about.

Read more: Climate change is hitting hard across New Zealand, official report finds

Why biological diversity matters

Biodiversity is a word that means different things to different people. Its use has exploded recently as more people appreciate the magnitude of its decline and its importance to people’s future.

Popularly biodiversity is understood as the number of species in a given country or ecosystem. For scientists, the concept is deeper. It includes genetic and ecosystem diversity and has crucial components such as endemicity (species found nowhere else), native diversity (the proportion of native species) and keystone species (species that are crucial to ecosystem function).

Globally, biodiversity in all its guises is undergoing an unprecedented decline. Estimates are that we are now losing species at more than 1,000 times the background or natural rate. People are also moving species outside their native ranges, and this results in a global biological homogenisation and has helped a small number of species to thrive in human-dominated habitats across the world.

The classification of threat status, globally and in New Zealand, is complex. There are multiple levels, ranging from “nationally critical” to “at risk”. When describing levels of biodiversity decline, it is simpler to look at the proportion of species listed as “not threatened”.

In New Zealand, only around 18% of beetles, 26% of freshwater fish, 38% of marine mammals, 12% lizards, 5% of snails and 50% of plants are listed as not threatened or not at risk. This is a rather dire situation, especially given the 100%-pure slogan used to market Aotearoa New Zealand overseas.

Ineffective legal protection

Another important facet of biodiversity decline is that New Zealand has many endemic species, with around 40% of plants, 90% of fungi, 70% of animals and 80% of freshwater fish found nowhere else. If they are lost here they are lost entirely.

In a recent report to the UN Convention on Biological Diversity, the Department of Conservation could not say whether New Zealand’s biodiversity is declining or not. One quarter of the nearly 4,000 species currently classified as threatened or at risk have only been assessed once and there is no way to know whether their conservation status has changed. Of the remaining roughly 3,000 threatened or at risk species, 10% had worsened to a more threatened ranking. Only 3% had improved.

The numbers above show the failure of legislation intended to protect biodiversity in Aotearoa New Zealand. The Wildlife Act (1953) purportedly gives absolute protection to all wildlife. But it is not enforced in any meaningful way, and therefore has had no impact on biodiversity conservation.

The Native Plants Protection Act (1934) stipulates that native plants have protection on conservation land but makes no mention of protection outside that and, in any case, is not enforced. Native fish are not covered by the Wildlife Act and the Freshwater Fisheries Act affords them no protection either.

Human impact on land

Apart from ineffective species protection, another factor is the loss of habitat and ecosystems through land-use change for agricultural and urban intensification. The first changes happened with Polynesian arrival, and then again after European colonisation, including massive forest clearance and wetland drainage. More recently, the expansion of dairy farms has contributed to significant biodiversity losses.

Freshwater fish are a good example. The increase in the proportion of threatened species has gone from around one-quarter in the early 1990s to three-quarters now. This recent loss reveals the failure of successive governments to protect biota, their habitats and ecosystems. Lowland coastal forests and wetlands in particular continue to be degraded by human activity.

Read more: New Zealand’s urban freshwater is improving, but a major report reveals huge gaps in our knowledge

Indigenous terrestrial vegetation cover is now less than 30%, down from approximately 90% in pre-human times. One-third of the country is covered in exotic grasslands.

About one-third of the country is putatively protected by being within the conservation estate. This sounds impressive, but it obscures the true state of protected areas. The ecosystem types in the estate are far from a representative selection. It mostly contains areas that are too steep to farm and too inhospitable to live in.

The failure to protect habitats is reflected in the reduction in ecosystem diversity: 62% of the ecosystems classified as rare are now listed as threatened, and more than 90% of wetlands have been destroyed. This loss is not confined to the past. Estimates are that 214 wetlands (1,250 ha) were lost between 2001 and 2016, and a further 746 wetlands declined in size.

Marine conservation

Protection levels of marine habitats are even worse. New Zealand’s marine area is 15 times larger than its land area, but marine biodiversity is poorly regulated. Only 0.4% is covered by “no-take” marine reserves.

Read more: Squid team finds high species diversity off Kermadec Islands, part of stalled marine reserve proposal

As a signatory to the UN Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs), New Zealand is obligated to reduce biodiversity loss. We have committed to achieving SDG 14 (life under water) and SDG 15 (life on land). The former stipulates that we “conserve and sustainably use the oceans, seas and marine resources for sustainable development”. The latter that we “protect, restore and promote sustainable use of terrestrial ecosystems, sustainably manage forests, combat desertification, and halt and reverse land degradation and halt biodiversity loss”.

There is no sign of any real achievement in reducing biodiversity loss. While New Zealand produced a national biodiversity strategy in 2000, it has been largely ineffective at improving the state of biodiversity. As the OECD noted, the strategy and plan lack clarity and clear implementation pathways.

We have tried writing plans with no teeth. Now it is time for action from all levels of society. Cities and regions need to ensure parks and protected areas are adequately managed. Government must work to update ineffective legislation and commit to enforcing the law.

– ref. Despite its green image, NZ has world’s highest proportion of species at risk – http://theconversation.com/despite-its-green-image-nz-has-worlds-highest-proportion-of-species-at-risk-116063

Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Jonti Horner, Professor (Astrophysics), University of Southern Queensland

One of the great things about science is that, when you start to observe a new object in space, you can never be sure quite what you’ll find.

We received a fantastic reminder of this during observations designed to check whether nearby stars had planetary companions. Our observations confirmed the discovery of a couple of planets, but also yielded an unexpected surprise.

Buried among our candidates was the corpse of a star – a white dwarf – a discovery we announced this month in The Astrophysical Journal.

Read more: Why Pluto is losing its atmosphere: winter is coming

The search for stellar wobbles

Our story begins with a survey called the Anglo-Australian Planet Search (AAPS), which spent 17 years looking for alien worlds using the 3.9-metre Anglo-Australian Telescope at Siding Spring Observatory in New South Wales.

We often say a planet orbits a star (Earth orbits the Sun, for example), but the truth is slightly more complicated. Instead, the two orbit around their common centre of mass. As a result, a star that hosts a planet will wobble, rocking back and forth over time.

Radial velocity surveys search for planets by attempting to detect that telltale wobble. Over its lifetime, the AAPS discovered more than 40 planets in this manner.

But it is almost certain that more planets remained undiscovered in the AAPS data. So we began searching for those hidden worlds.

In several cases we found stars that exhibited distinct signs of a wobble, but for which less than a full orbit had been completed. Without observing a full orbit, we don’t know whether the companions causing the wobble are planets, or other stars.

So how can we work out what we’ve found?

Direct imaging – a new trick

We identified 21 stars around which there could be a planet, but to be sure, we needed more data. Unfortunately, the AAPS had ended, so we needed to do something innovative.

For each of our stars, there were two possibilities: either the wobble is caused by a planet, or by something bigger (such as a brown dwarf or an unseen stellar companion).

Recent advances in astronomical imaging techniques mean we can now use the world’s largest telescopes to look at nearby stars and see objects very close to them – closer than has ever been possible before.

We used the 8.1m Gemini-South telescope in Chile to obtain high-resolution images of our target stars, to see whether we could see any previously hidden companions.

Despite the power of the technique, any planets around our targets would remain invisible. But if the observed wobbles were caused by more massive objects, we should be able to see those objects and hence rule out the planetary hypothesis.

The peculiar case of HD 118473

For 20 of our targets, things went as we expected. In some cases, we detected a previously undiscovered stellar companion. In others, we could rule out massive companions, giving us confidence in the presence of planets around those stars.

But for one star, things got weird. On the basis of the wobble data, we knew that the lowest possible mass the companion could have is around 0.44 times the mass of the Sun. That’s much too massive to be a planet.

With that much mass, we would expect the companion to be a star, fainter and cooler than the Sun, but easily visible with Gemini-South.

But when we looked at our images, no companion star was visible.

A macabre twist

The radial velocity data is clear – there is a massive companion orbiting HD118473, causing that star to wobble back and forth with a period of 5.67 years.

But it can’t be a planet (it’s far too massive), and it can’t be a star (we’d be able to see it). So what could it be?

The answer comes down to the way stars live and die.

Vast as stars are, their supply of fuel is not unlimited. Eventually the fuel runs out and the end of the star’s life is imminent. The more massive the star, the more spectacular that end will be.

A star like the Sun will eventually swell to become a red giant, then will puff off its outer layers, creating a spectacular planetary nebula, and leaving behind a glowing ember – its core, bare and exposed to space.

That core is a white dwarf – around the size of Earth, but with the mass of a star. Tiny, compared with the star from which it came, the white dwarf gradually cools and fades to obscurity over billions of years.

More massive stars die violently – as supernovae that outshine whole galaxies. But they also leave behind corpses that are faint and hard to spot. Neutron stars – the size of a city, but with a mass greater than the Sun – and black holes – tiny and invisible, except when they’re devouring something.

All this brings us back to our hidden companion to HD118473 – the mass of a star, but too faint to see. What could it be?

An unexpected ancient relic

By far the most likely answer is that the hidden companion is a white dwarf. In the distant past, HD118473 was a binary star with the two components shining bright as they orbited their common centre of mass.

Read more: Observing the invisible: the long journey to the first image of a black hole

For a few billion years, nothing changed, until the more massive of the stars reached the end of its life. It swelled to become a red giant then shed its outer layers, leaving behind a white dwarf, too dim for us to detect.

The white dwarf’s companion continues through space as we speak, still whirling in a celestial waltz with what remains of its companion. A dim, hidden relic to deceive exoplanet hunters, and a reminder of how science always has another surprise waiting around the corner.

– ref. How we found a white dwarf – a stellar corpse – by accident – http://theconversation.com/how-we-found-a-white-dwarf-a-stellar-corpse-by-accident-114089

Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Fabien B. Vincent, Research Fellow; Rheumatology Research Group, Centre for Inflammatory Diseases, Monash University

Sjögren’s syndrome hit the headlines when US tennis player Venus Williams declared she was suffering from it.

What is Sjögren’s syndrome? How do you pronounce it anyway? And is there a cure?

What is it?

Sjögren’s syndrome, pronounced “Showgren’s syndrome”, is what doctors call a chronic systemic autoimmune disease. It’s when the body’s immune system mistakenly attacks itself, leading to healthy tissues being destroyed. It’s chronic because it lasts for a long time, and systemic as it affects different organs.

Read more: Explainer: what are autoimmune diseases?

It can occur on its own, when it’s known as primary Sjögren’s syndrome, or with another autoimmune condition, such as lupus, rheumatoid arthritis, or systemic sclerosis, and is then called secondary or associated Sjögren’s syndrome. Like most autoimmune diseases, there is no cure.

Read more: Why ‘It’s never lupus’ – television, illness and the making of a meme

What are the symptoms?

The most common symptoms arise when immune cells (lymphocytes) attack the body’s own saliva and tear glands. This leads to the body producing fewer tears and less saliva (the so-called sicca syndrome).

Fewer tears leads to dry eyes (keratoconjunctivitis sicca), when the eyes feel gritty and like there’s something lodged there. Eyes also get tired after a lot of reading. Less saliva leads to a dry mouth (xerostomia). The mouth often feels uncomfortable or stings, and people have difficulty chewing and swallowing food.

These symptoms of dryness often also affect other parts of the body such as the nose, upper airways, vagina, and skin.

Read more: Explainer: what is the immune system?

Fatigue, and muscle and joint pains occur in more than 80% of people with the syndrome, leading to reduced quality of life.

In 30-40% of people with primary Sjögren’s syndrome, other parts of the body are also affected, such as the skin, joints, brain, nerves, lymph nodes, kidneys, heart, and lungs.

There is also a risk of developing non‐Hodgkin lymphoma, that is roughly 14 times higher than in the general population.

Who is affected?

Sjögren’s syndrome is one of the most common autoimmune illnesses and the primary form affects about 0.3-1.0 per 1,000 people.

According to the Australian Sjögren’s Syndrome Association website, up to 0.5% of Australians have the condition, considerably more than the international figures.

However, this figure needs to be confirmed in a prospective epidemiological study, which has yet to be done.

Setting up an Australian national registry would be useful in determining whether the syndrome really is more common in Australians, and for gaining clues about what might cause this condition.

Nine times as many women are affected as men, and the syndrome is most common in 50-60 year-olds, although children and elderly people can also be affected.

It’s tricky to diagnose

This condition is as challenging to diagnose as it is to manage. General symptoms, such as unexplained fever, involuntary weight loss, pain, fatigue, and even dryness, are not specific to this illness, and can delay the diagnosis for years.

Inflammation of the muscles, joints, skin, nervous system, kidneys or lungs – which may lead to organ failure – can also mislead, as this can mimic other diseases such as rheumatoid arthritis, lupus or multiple sclerosis.

It is also important to distinguish primary Sjögren’s syndrome from non-autoimmune conditions such as perimenopause, endocrine disorders, or fibromyalgia, which do not require monitoring or treatment of organs affected by the condition.

Finally, defining whether it is a primary or secondary disease is not always easy.

Read more: Hidden and unexplained: feeling the pain of fibromyalgia

Primary Sjögren’s syndrome should be suspected in someone with dryness of the mouth and eyes, joint pain and/or fatigue, with or without symptoms of systemic (other organ) complications.

Your doctor will perform a detailed clinical examination, and run non-invasive tests to measure mouth and eye dryness, in consultation with a rheumatologist.

You will also have a specific blood test to confirm the autoimmune disease, and if that is not conclusive you may need a biopsy (a small sample) of the minor salivary gland. This is a minor dental procedure performed under local anaesthetic. It can confirm primary Sjögren’s syndrome and also exclude other diseases that mimic it and need different therapy.

Researchers are looking into whether using simple ultrasound techniques can help with the difficult task of diagnosis.

Can we treat it?

As there is no cure, the best we can do is to manage the symptoms. But the few approved treatment options make this illness extremely challenging to manage.

Fatigue is difficult to treat. Other conditions that cause fatigue such as hypothyroidism and obstructive sleep apnoea need to be ruled out, and patients need to learn how to pace themselves within their limitations, while exercising and keeping as fit as possible.

Artificial tears (eye drops) help lubricate dry eyes and patients need to keep eyelids free from infection. For dental health, regular checkups and fluoride treatment are recommended, as are using sugar-free chewing gum or lozenges to stimulate saliva production.

Chemical stimulation using pilocarpine or cevimeline (the latter not available in Australia) can stimulate saliva and tear production.

Topical cyclosporine can also be used to treat eye dryness, under supervision of an ophthalmologist, and eye drops made from an extract of the patient’s blood can, in extreme cases, be useful.

Systemic (bodily) symptoms can be treated with glucocorticoids, hydroxychloroquine, or immunosuppressants such as mycophenolate mofetil, rituximab, cyclosporine, azathioprine, methotrexate or leflunomide.

However, none of these drugs used to treat the systemic symptoms have been proven to be effective in clinical trials in treating patients with primary Sjögren’s syndrome; their use is “off-label”, based on how we treat other autoimmune diseases such as lupus.

Read more: Explainer: why are off-label medicines prescribed?

Looking to the future

Several new treatments for primary Sjögren’s syndrome are being trialled for their safety and efficacy. If approved, they will allow therapy to be tailored to the individual and should lead to an improved quality of life.

Their aim is to stop the progression of the disease, halt the autoimmune process, and help reduce the use of treatments with strong side-effects, such as glucocorticoids and immunosuppressants.

Read more: Explainer: how do drugs get from the point of discovery to the pharmacy shelf?

Drugs in trials or soon to be tested include:

• belimumab (promising results from a recent phase 2 clinical trial, which targets a molecule called BAFF, and which has recently been approved for use in people with lupus)

• belimumab alone or with rituximab, in a new phase 2 clinical trial, and

• several other biological agents that target different steps in the body’s immune response, largely by interfering with the work of key enzymes or receptors.

Without knowing the precise symptoms Venus Williams lives with, her success and achievements – still competing with the world’s best tennis players at the age of 38 – is more than impressive. Her fighting spirit, always with a positive attitude, drives hope for other people with Sjögren’s syndrome.

– ref. Explainer: what is Sjögren’s syndrome, the condition Venus Williams lives with? – http://theconversation.com/explainer-what-is-sjogrens-syndrome-the-condition-venus-williams-lives-with-111250

Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Paul McGorrery, PhD Candidate in Criminal Law, Deakin University

In the past few years, most parts of the United Kingdom and Ireland have introduced new legislation making it a crime to engage in what’s known as “coercive control” towards an intimate partner.

Yet, with the exception of some laws that came into effect a decade earlier in Tasmania, no Australian state has yet to follow suit. It’s time for that to change.

What is coercive control?

England and Wales were first to outlaw coercive control in 2015, in a statute that was heavily influenced by the work of renowned sociologist Professor Evan Stark from Rutgers University. Ireland followed suit with similar legislation in May 2018, though it has yet to come into effect.

And just a couple weeks ago, a new offence came into effect in Scotland that Stark describes as the new “gold standard” for this sort of law.

In an edited book to be released later this year, Stark describes coercive control as a “malign pattern of domination” that can include “emotional abuse, historical abuse, isolation, sexual coercion, financial abuse, cyber-stalking, and other distal forms of intimidation.”

In other words, it describes a wide range of controlling behaviours that one person (usually a man) commits against another person (usually a woman, and usually a current or former intimate partner). These behaviours collectively strip the other person of their autonomy and sense of self-worth.

Read more: Domestic abuse: the psychology of coercive control remains a legal battlefield

This typically involves some or all of the following: physical violence, intimidation, degradation, isolation and regulation.

For the past few years, we have been keeping track of cases in which offenders have been convicted of controlling or coercive behaviour in England and Wales, and the results reveal a range of deplorable behaviours. For example, some offenders have

• threatened to expose private photographs of their partner or ex-partner

• prevented their partner from ending the relationship by threatening to, or actually engaging in, self-harm

• confiscated or destroyed their partner’s mobile phone

• deleted all male contacts on their partner’s social media

• threatened to or actually harmed their partner’s pets

• demanded that their partner eat certain foods

• demanded that their partner sleep on the floor

• prohibited their partner from seeking or continuing employment

• controlled their partner’s finances, with one giving his partner an allowance out of her own income

• conducted regular inspections of their partner’s home or body for evidence of infidelity.

In most cases (but not all), these behaviours have occurred in the context of a relationship that at some point involved actual or threatened physical violence.

And while there have been some male victims in these cases, the overwhelming majority have been female.

Read more: Sally Challen: what quashing of murder conviction means for similar cases alleging coercive control

Aren’t those behaviours already illegal in Australia?

Few issues have received as much attention in Australia in recent years as family violence. Yet for all the work that has been done, it is perhaps surprising to note that most of the above behaviours – with the exception of actual or threatened physical violence and stalking – are not criminal. (At least, they aren’t criminal unless a court has previously issued an intervention or protection order, but what message does it send to victims if the abuse they suffer is only criminal if it violates a court order?)

A number of Australian law reform bodies have considered introducing a new coercive control offence here. These include the Australian Law Reform Commission in 2010, the Special Taskforce on family violence in Queensland in 2015, and the Royal Commission into Family Violence in Victoria in 2016. However, all ultimately rejected this course of action.

But most of these decisions were made before the UK laws came into effect, or at least before we knew how such an offence would work in practical terms. That is no longer the case.

Read more: Australia should be cautious about introducing laws on coercive control to stem domestic violence

Now that we know what sorts of behaviours this offence would target, it is time to ask again: should coercive control be made a crime in Australia?

The Victorian Law Reform Commission certainly seems to think so. It was recently asked to consider whether family violence victims should be entitled to compensation from the state if they have been subjected to non-physical abuse, even though it is not yet a crime. The commission rejected that approach, and instead suggested the more appropriate response would be to “criminalise such conduct”.

The Coalition party in Queensland had also promised to introduce a similar coercive control offence in that state if it won the 2017 election. The Coalition lost, but the idea was put out there nonetheless.

Arguments against implementing a law

There are some who still adamantly oppose the introduction of a new offence that criminalises what many family violence victims, including those on a recent episode of ABC’s You Can’t Ask That, have called the “worst part” of abuse.

Some of these critics are concerned that women could be mistakenly identified as primary aggressors if police aren’t properly trained. For example, recent research by Women’s Legal Service Victoria found that women had been misidentified as the primary aggressor in about 10% of police-initiated applications for intervention orders.

Critics are also concerned that a new law could divert vital resources away from domestic violence prevention. They also worry the male-centric and adversarial nature of the criminal justice system might make it an inappropriate forum to address an issue that overwhelmingly affects women.

We agree that these issues would need to be addressed as part of any law reform process. But these are obstacles to be overcome, particularly through the involvement of victims of coercive control and advocacy groups in the drafting of any new laws.

These aren’t reasons to turn a blind eye. And they certainly aren’t reasons to expect victims to continue to absorb this sort of abuse as a private burden in which the state has no interest.

– ref. It’s time ‘coercive control’ was made illegal in Australia – http://theconversation.com/its-time-coercive-control-was-made-illegal-in-australia-114817

Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Merja Myllylahti, Co-Director JMAD research center, Auckland University of Technology

This week New Zealand’s largest newspaper, the NZ Herald, launched digital subscriptions for its online content, making history at the same time.

Its paywall is the first for a general newspaper in New Zealand.

Back in 2011, the NZ Herald’s parent company APN (now NZME) launched a digital-first initiative which was deemed critical for its future digital revenue. As a part of that initiative, APN was considering digital subscriptions for the NZ Herald.

Eight years later, this future imagined by APN bosses has arrived and will affect other players in New Zealand media.

Digital access to news

The National Business Review, a business newspaper, has charged its readers since 2009, and digital news outlet Newsroom already charges for its premium content.

The New Zealand portfolio of Stuff, which is now owned by Australian Nine, includes digital news site Stuff, print newspapers and the community site Neighbourly. Stuff has no paywall, but the NZ Herald’s move to paid online content raises the question of whether it will follow its competitor. My bet is that a similar move is unlikely.

Stuff has built its revenue model on e-commerce activities and is now selling broadband access, electricity and health insurance among other things.

Read more: Nine-Fairfax merger rings warning bells for investigative journalism – and Australian democracy

Benefits of online traffic

For years, NZME and Fairfax Fairfax NZ (now part of Nine) avoided charges for their digital news content because of their duopoly in the New Zealand print and online news markets. The two companies feared that if one of them would introduce paid content, the other one would reap the benefits and gain in traffic.

On the other hand, traffic is perhaps not the main concern of the NZ Herald as it is targeting to convert a proportion of its audience to paid readers. For the first year, its aim is modest. It is aiming to gain 10,000 digital subscriptions.

To put the current situation into context, in 2018 Stuff had a unique audience of 2.1 million and the NZ Herald 1.7 million. According to SimilarWeb data, in the first quarter of 2019, Stuff had 34 million monthly visits compared to the NZ Herald’s 27 million.

For several years, NZME and Stuff pursued a proposal to merge. But when ruling against the merger in 2017, the Commerce Commission observed:

Both NZME and Fairfax have currently decided against introducing some form of paywall primarily because of the threat of readers switching to their competing online news websites and the risk of putting advertising revenue at risk.

That risk still exists, and it will be interesting to see whether Stuff gains in audience, traffic and advertising now that the NZ Herald paywall is going up.

The Commerce Commission was also concerned that if the merger had gone through, the combined company would introduce a more expensive paywall. As the merger was denied, this worry does not apply. But we don’t know how restrictive or pricey a joint paywall would have been.

Bundled with syndicated content

The NZ Herald paid content model is a freemium model. It allows readers free access to some content, but the premium content such as business news will be behind a paywall. It is also a very bundled model as the paper promises paid readers syndicated material from the New York Times, the Financial Times, The Times and Harvard Business Review, to name a few.

At this point it is not clear how much and what content exactly this large syndicate offers for the NZ Herald readers, but clearly the deal does not include full access to these sites.

The paper’s premium content editor, Miriyana Alexander, said:

While our major focus is on the delivery of the very best New Zealand journalism, we know that the addition of these four publishers, alongside the likes of the Washington Post and The Daily Telegraph will make for a terrific, unrivalled package of journalism and content.

As indicated in the table below, the annual digital subscription to the NZ Herald will cost NZ$240, compared to The Age’s and The Sydney Morning Herald’s NZ$294. Compared to prices of The New York Times (US) and The Telegraph (UK) it is cheaper, but compared to Le Monde (France) it is substantially more expensive.

All about business

It remains to be seen how much of the NZ Herald’s content will be behind a paywall and how much will continue to be freely accessible. Interestingly, academic studies of paywalled content have found that paywalled newspapers offer news sourced from newswires and syndicates for free whereas the most valuable content such as hard news, financial news, politics and opinion pieces have been hidden behind a paywall.

Alexander says the paper invests especially in business coverage, and it aims to be “the go-to destination for specialist, insightful and essential business journalism”.

The National Business Review and Newsroom Pro are competing in the same market, and they already have paid content strategies in place. I do wonder if the New Zealand market is really big enough for three players focusing and charging for business content.

One major decision is where to draw the line between free versus paid content. In France, Le Monde paywalls roughly 37% of its content, so readers have free access to the majority of its articles. According to Digiday, the paper found that putting more than 40% of its content behind a paywall had a negative impact on the potential of gaining new subscribers. When the paper reduced the number of its paid articles last November, its traffic rose from 84 million to 97 million in a month, increasing its pool of potential subscribers.

Getting the balance rights seems to matter.

– ref. How the decision to paywall NZ’s largest newspaper will affect other media – http://theconversation.com/how-the-decision-to-paywall-nzs-largest-newspaper-will-affect-other-media-116152

Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By David Lee, Associate Professor of History , UNSW

With taxes, health care and climate change emerging as key issues in the upcoming federal election, we’re running a series this week looking at the main issues that swung elections in the past, from agricultural workers’ wages to the Vietnam War.

In 1961, the Australian Labor Party came within a whisker of an unlikely victory.

At the time, the ALP was still recovering from a split with the Democratic Labor Party and was not viewed as a serious threat to the Liberal-Country Party Coalition. The DLP was a conservative, Catholic-based, anti-communist party that consistently gave its preferences to the Coalition over the ALP.

In the 1958 federal election, aided by DLP preferences, the government of Robert Menzies was returned to power in a major swing against the ALP. The Coalition gained 54% of the two-party preferred vote, with 77 seats in the House of Representatives to the ALP’s 45.

What nearly cost the Coalition the next election, though, was the Menzies government’s “credit squeeze”.

Read more: Turnbull is right to link the Liberals with the centre – but is the centre where it used to be?

The end of import restrictions and the credit squeeze

Despite its huge electoral advantages, the Menzies government began to encounter political problems in the early 1960s. From 1952 to 1960, the Menzies government had been forced to license imports because Australia’s rural exports did not earn enough to pay for its imports. An opportunity to abolish import licensing came at the end of the 1950s, when inflation started to rise.

Harold Holt, the then-treasurer, urged the government to end import licensing to boost imports and thereby dampen inflationary pressure. Sir John Crawford, the secretary of trade, disagreed. He feared a blow-out in the balance of payments, and urged caution and a gradual easing of import controls.

Read more: Menzies, a failure by today’s rules, ran a budget to build the nation

Despite Crawford’s objections, the Cabinet preferred Holt’s plan and abolished import restrictions in February 1960. The result, as Crawford predicted, was a balance of payments crisis. In November 1960, Menzies took drastic action, sharply increasing sales taxes and imposing restrictions on credit to bring the economy back into balance.

The consequence of the “credit squeeze” was a minor recession. Unemployment, rose to 53,000 people at the end of 1960, and 115,000 at the end of 1961. The Menzies government’s longevity after 1949 had partly been due to its achievement of high levels of employment. Even moderate levels of unemployment posed a significant danger for a government that would have to face re-election in 1961.

But Menzies remained optimistic. He said:

I do not think we will be beaten. There are no circumstances which would suggest even a remote possibility of the opposition winning 17 seats.

The 1961 election

The ALP, led by Arthur Calwell and Gough Whitlam, seized the opportunity given them by the Menzies government’s apparent mismanagement of the economy. Calwell, despite being a far less impressive television performer than Menzies, campaigned doggedly on the economy. Calwell also received support from the Sydney Morning Herald, whose owner, Sir Warwick Fairfax, had become disenchanted with Menzies.

Calwell promised that, if elected, the ALP would reduce unemployment through a series of selective import controls and expanded social services. Menzies lampooned Calwell’s ideas as pie-in-the-sky rhetoric, and broadened his attack to include the ALP’s alleged closeness to the Communist Party.

Queensland was the key state. The Coalition held 15 of the 18 Queensland seats in the House of Representatives, and the ALP needed to win a swag of them to have any chance of victory. But election observers predicted that the ALP would not pick up more than two or three in Queensland, and that the ALP’s overall gains would be limited to seven or nine seats.

Read more: Memories. In 1961 Labor promised to boost the deficit to fight unemployment. The promise won

Following a frantic whistle-stop tour by Whitlam to north Queensland, the results of the December 9 election surprised everyone. For days, the election hung in the balance.

In the end, the ALP won a total of 15 seats, eight in Queensland. But the vote count finally tipped in Menzies’ favour when Billy Snedden was returned in Bruce and James Killen in Moreton, both supported by DLP preferences.

Menzies was so shell-shocked by the results that he did not congratulate Killen on his victory, forcing Killen to concoct a story that the prime minister had famously greeted him with the words:

Killen, you were magnificent.

Consequences of the election

In the long-term, Menzies and his colleagues were able to turn the near-defeat in 1961 into another decade of Coalition rule, aided by further electoral victories in 1963, 1966 and 1969.

When Labor was finally able to win office in 1972, it faced three years of unremitting hostility from the Senate, non-Labor states and an opposition that regarded an ALP government as so exceptional as to be illegitimate.

If Labor had won in 1961 and lasted until 1964, or perhaps longer, could this have had a longer-term impact on the country? Would Australia have entered the Vietnam War? Would conscription have been introduced? Would Australia have officially recognised the People’s Republic of China a decade earlier?

Menzies’ legacy also would have been cut short by what would undoubtedly have been considered one of the biggest election upsets in Australian history.

– ref. Issues that swung elections: the ‘credit squeeze’ that nearly swept Menzies from power in 1961 – http://theconversation.com/issues-that-swung-elections-the-credit-squeeze-that-nearly-swept-menzies-from-power-in-1961-115140

Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Nicola Short, Lecturer, Auckland University of Technology

Controversy over a rare cultural heritage landscape in South Auckland highlights significant failures of heritage protection in New Zealand.

The case of Ihumaatao shows how culturally and historically important landscapes continue to fall through the cracks of the heritage system.

New Zealand was the last major landmass to be settled some 800 years ago. Ihumaatao is internationally and nationally significant as one of the earliest settlements.

Read more: Local Māori urge government to address long-running dispute over rare cultural heritage landscape

On the Ihumaatao peninsula, 32 hectares of highly contested, privately-owned land is known to mana whenua (local Māori) as “Puketaapapa”. Others call it the “Wallace Block” after the Scottish settler family who were granted the land following Crown confiscation in 1863.

Now known as “Special Housing Area 62” (SHA62), this land is politically contested because the current legal owner, Fletcher Building Limited, plans to build 480 dwellings there. For mana whenua, this land is not only wāhi tapu (a sacred place) but also part of the adjoining Ōtuataua Stonefields Historic Reserve. It contains evidence of continuous Māori and Pākehā (colonial settlers) settler occupation.

Defining heritage status

Heritage New Zealand is the crown entity responsible for managing the national list and protection of historic heritage sites. But within the current planning and policy regime, it is not possible to demonstrate that Ihumaatao meets the threshold of national importance.

The absence of a national strategy or framework, combined with the fact that the strongest planning and protection policies lie with local or regional authorities, has created perverse outcomes. Nationally significant cultural heritage places can be more at risk than locally significant ones.

A comparative understanding of heritage sites on the basis of their national, regional or local significance cannot be established by looking at New Zealand’s heritage lists and schedules. Determining the commensurate level of protection for these places is difficult and at times flawed.

A bias operates in favour of Pākehā heritage. Currently, built colonial heritage represents over 80% of the country’s national heritage list. The vast majority of what the nation identifies and values as New Zealand heritage derives from the last 200 years of occupation. More than 700 years of Indigenous settlement is represented by less that 10% of places and the remaining 10% is either mixed, or the information is unclear.

Weakened legal protection

The ability of Heritage New Zealand to prevent the destruction of Māori heritage, which is largely archaeological, was significantly weakened by the passing of the Heritage New Zealand Pouhere Taonga Act in 2014. This legislation replaced the Historic Places Act 1993, strengthening private property rights and emphasising advocacy and mitigation over protection. The result was a developer friendly regime.

From 2014 to March 2017, Heritage New Zealand granted over 97% (877 of 907) of applications for the modification or destruction of archaeological sites (information sourced through an Official Information Act request).

In the case of Ihumaatao, despite detailed heritage arguments for its protection, Heritage New Zealand granted an authority to modify or destroy archaeological heritage on the special housing block in 2018.

A subsequent Environment Court appeal failed for two main reasons. First, Auckland Council’s planning provisions offered no protections for Māori heritage on private land. Second, Heritage New Zealand’s policies for finding alternatives to modifying or destroying cultural heritage landscapes were not considered legally enforceable because of an exclusive focus on archaeological sites in the statutory provisions.

Read more: Traditional owners still stand in Adani’s way

Funding heritage

Another bias exists. A disproportionate level of resourcing is available for colonial built heritage over cultural heritage landscapes, wāhi tapu and archaeology. Most of the funding for the protection and enhancement of heritage is focused on buildings. The Heritage Equip Fund, only available for earthquake strengthening of heritage buildings, was recently increased to NZ$12 million. Additional funds from government include examples such as Auckland’s St James Theatre (NZ$1.5 million from central government and a NZ$15 million suspensory loan from Auckland Council), Dunedin Court House (NZ$20 million central government) and Christchurch Cathedral (NZ$10 million grant and NZ$15 million suspensory loan from central government, as well as NZ$10 million Christchurch City Council).

Compare this with the National Heritage Preservation Incentive Fund of around NZ$500,000 annually. This fund can be used for wāhi tapu sites and heritage buildings, but in the 2018 year it distributed 97.7% of its allocation to built heritage and only 2.3% to wāhi tapu sites (Opihi rock art site in South Canterbury).

To address the imbalance in heritage listing and conservation, New Zealand needs a national strategic framework. This framework would offer a “big picture view” that implements obligations under the Treaty of Waitangi and equitably speaks to the country’s past.

Ihumaatao is a symptom of a broken system. If the issues are not addressed, it will continue to allow the destruction of New Zealand’s unique heritage, especially our rare cultural heritage landscapes.

– ref. How a bias towards built heritage threatens the protection of cultural landscapes in New Zealand – http://theconversation.com/how-a-bias-towards-built-heritage-threatens-the-protection-of-cultural-landscapes-in-new-zealand-115042

Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By James Miller-Jones, Associate Professor, Curtin University

We often think of black holes as one-way valves that consume everything they come across. But they are also powerful engines that emit radiation and drive energetic jets out into the cosmos.

In research published in the journal Nature, we looked at the emissions from a nearby black hole that’s “feeding” off its orbiting stellar companion.

While bright black hole outbursts have been studied in the past, this black hole is behaving in a way never seen before.

Read more: Observing the invisible: the long journey to the first image of a black hole

So what makes this one different? To answer that, we need to look at what happens when things fall towards a black hole.

A release of energy

Our everyday experience tells us that a rock falling off a cliff on Earth will speed up as its gravitational potential energy is converted into the kinetic energy of motion.

In a similar way, the release of gravitational energy as gas falls towards a black hole can power some of the most dramatic phenomena in our universe.

The infalling gas swirls around the black hole in a thin disk, known as an accretion disk, whose inner regions become so hot they emit X-ray radiation.

The strong magnetic fields close to the black hole help generate narrow beams of energy and matter called jets. These jets move away from the black hole at close to the speed of light.

We seem to see jets anywhere in the universe where there are inflows of matter onto a central object such as a black hole. But we do not yet understand the nature of this connection between the inflowing gas and the outflowing jets.

A black hole ‘feeding frenzy’

In June 2015, we had a perfect opportunity to study this link. It occurred during an extraordinarily bright outburst of a black hole in a binary system (two objects gravitationally bound together) known as V404 Cygni, about 7,800 light years away in the constellation of Cygnus.

This binary system comprises a black hole (about nine times the mass of our own Sun) in a 6.5-day orbit with a normal star (about 70% of the mass of our Sun). The star is big enough that its outer layers are captured by the black hole’s gravity.

During the 2015 outburst, the black hole was feeding extremely rapidly. It generated more energy every second during the outburst than the Sun emits over three days.

Astronomers all over the world trained their telescopes on this outburst, providing data right across the electromagnetic spectrum, from radio waves to X-rays.

Our team focused on the bright radio emissions from the outflowing jets, using the National Science Foundation’s Very Long Baseline Array (VLBA). This is a continent-sized array of ten 25-metre wide radio dishes, spread across the United States from Hawaii to the Virgin Islands.

This allowed us to make detailed images of the jets, zooming in to a region roughly the same size as our Solar System. This is the equivalent of seeing a dollar coin in Sydney from a location in Perth.

Usually, we make radio images by combining all the data from a single observation together. But the jets from this black hole were changing so rapidly that we only saw a blur – as if we were trying to take a picture of a waterfall with a one-second shutter speed.

To see what was going on, we had to break up our data into much shorter images, each made from only 70 seconds of data.

Rapidly wobbling jets

This allowed us to track the movements of the jets over the course of our four-hour long observation.

But our research showed something unexpected. Rather than moving along the same channel, the jet direction was changing rapidly over time.

In the few systems where jets have previously been seen to change direction, this has occurred relatively slowly, on timescales of months. In V404 Cygni, the jet direction was changing on timescales of hours, or even minutes.

Our best explanation for such rapid changes is that the jets were being redirected by a wobbling inner accretion flow around a spinning black hole.

During the bright outburst, the intense radiation from the black hole caused the inner few thousand kilometres of the accretion disk to become puffed up into a doughnut-shaped structure.

According to Einstein’s General Relativity, the spinning black hole drags spacetime – the very fabric of the universe – around with it.

If the binary orbit is not aligned with the black hole spin axis, this frame dragging will cause the puffed up inner disk to precess – it wobbles around like a spinning top that is slowing down. We believe that the precessing inner disk is responsible for redirecting the jets.

To generate a precessing disk, the plane of the binary orbit and the black hole spin must be out of alignment. This can happen when a black hole is formed in a supernova explosion.

Read more: Why Pluto is losing its atmosphere: winter is coming

The explosion gives a kick to the system, pushing it out of alignment. We suggest that similar jet precession could occur any time a spinning black hole is feeding rapidly from a disk that is not aligned.

X-ray observations of other stellar-mass black holes show that such misalignments are likely to be common. Other misaligned situations could include phenomena such as tidal disruption events, where a supermassive black hole’s enormous gravity shreds a star that wanders too close, and the black hole feeds on the resulting debris.

– ref. Like a spinning top: wobbling jets from a black hole that’s ‘feeding’ on a companion star – http://theconversation.com/like-a-spinning-top-wobbling-jets-from-a-black-hole-thats-feeding-on-a-companion-star-116067

Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Danielle Wood, Program Director, Budget Policy and Institutional Reform, Grattan Institute

The 2019 election has been heralded as a “generational election” or an “age war”. Labor goes to the election with a series of policies on climate change, housing affordability, wages and budget sustainability clearly designed to appeal to young and middle-aged Australians concerned about their future.

But while the record numbers of enrolled young voters may make this look like a political masterstroke, the fact remains that the Australia’s voter base, like its population, is ageing. Baby boomers will remain a political force in this country for some time to come.

Youth enrolment is rising, but not just because of the marriage equality plebiscite

Youth voter enrolment is at an all-time high, with 88.8% of eligible 18- to 24-year-olds — some 1.7 million Australians — enrolled to vote. This is somewhat higher than the previous peaks for the marriage equality plebiscite (88.6%) and the 2016 election (86.7%).

Many commentators have credited the marriage equality plebiscite with driving increased youth engagement and participation. Between August 8 and 24, 2017, in the lead-up to the plebiscite, the Australian Electoral Commission added almost 100,000 people to the electoral roll. Around two-thirds of these were aged 18 to 24.

But while the numbers sound impressive, this uptick in youth enrolment was actually smaller than the normal increase we see before a federal election.

Around 300,000 Australians turn 18 every year, so younger voters are continually being added to the electoral roll. However, many new voters — whether new citizens or young Australians who have recently turned 18 — complete their enrolment paperwork in the lead-up to elections. This is why we see a sharp increase in enrolments, and particularly in youth enrolments, in the months before a poll.

Enrolments for 18- to 19-year-olds jumped by more than 80,000 people in the final weeks before the 2013 and 2016 elections. In contrast, net enrolments only grew by around 48,000 for the 18-19 age group in the weeks prior to the marriage plebiscite.

Because the marriage equality plebiscite was held in the normal three-year window between elections, it probably brought forward some of the enrolments that would normally have occurred in the lead-up to the 2019 election. But it is not clear that the plebiscite had the sizeable and lasting effect on youth enthusiasm that has been claimed. Enrolments for under-25s for the 2019 election are around 2 percentage points higher than for the 2016 federal election.

The more significant change in youth enrolments occurred between 2013 and 2016, and for reasons that had little to do with any increased political engagement among young people.

In 2012, the government empowered the AEC to directly enrol citizens (and update their details) once it had sufficient information from other government agencies, including Centrelink and the national driver licence database. The AEC also introduced entirely online enrolments in the lead-up to the 2013 election.

The AEC says direct enrolment resulted in almost 279,000 new enrolments between the 2013 and 2016 elections; online enrolments accounted for another 365,000.

An ageing population means an ageing voter base

The effect of an ageing voter population dwarfs the modest growth in youth enrolments.

The biggest change in voter demographics since the last federal election in 2016 was the enormous growth in voters aged 70 and over. As Australians live longer and healthier lives, voters will, on average, be older.

Around 300,000 more voters age 70 and over are enrolled to vote now than for the 2016 election, a 13% increase in just three years. In the same period, enrolments for younger voters aged 18 to 34 have only grown by around 135,000, or 3%.

The recent increase in older voters is part of a long-term trend towards an ageing population overall. The first time Australia had more residents 55 and over than aged 18 to 29 was in 1991. Since then, the relative share of those 55 and older has continued to increase and is forecast to grow further over the next two decades.

Older Australian residents are also more likely to be citizens than younger Australians because new residents tend to be younger than the average Australian. This factor decreases the relative proportion of younger Australian residents enrolled to vote.

How might this affect the election outcome?

If Labor is relying on a surge of younger voters to deliver it victory then its hopes may be misplaced. Of course, that doesn’t mean a platform focused on some of the environmental and economic concerns of younger Australians cannot succeed.

But it does suggest that electoral success will depend on persuading enough older voters that Labor’s proposals can provide future generations with the same standard of living that they have enjoyed.

– ref. More grey tsunami than youthquake: despite record youth enrolments, Australia’s voter base is ageing – http://theconversation.com/more-grey-tsunami-than-youthquake-despite-record-youth-enrolments-australias-voter-base-is-ageing-115842

Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Jack Anderson, Professor of Sports Law, Melbourne Law School, University of Melbourne

Earlier this month, Australian rugby player Israel Folau wrote on Instagram that hell awaits “drunks, homosexuals, adulterers, liars, fornicators, thieves, atheists and idolaters.”

Rugby Australia subsequently announced that his comments breached the game’s code of conduct and it would seek to terminate his four-year contract of employment signed only last year and worth a purported A$4 million.

Exercising his right under the code, Folau has sought a full code of conduct committee hearing on the matter. Here are the legal arguments likely to be made at the hearing, scheduled for Thursday.

Rugby Australia’s case

In seeking to terminate Folau’s contract, Rugby Australia won’t rely on any specific term in the player’s contract. Rather, its arguments will be premised on the general contractual clause that players employed by Rugby Australia must abide by its code of conduct.

Read more: Israel Folau’s comments remind us homophobia and transphobia are ever present in Australian sport

The preamble to the code outlines Rugby Australia’s “core values”, including a safe, fair and inclusive environment for all involved in the game. More specifically, a key clause states that players must “use social media appropriately”. Examples of related breaches of the code include making

any public comment that would likely be detrimental to the best interests, image and welfare of the game.

In addition, there is a clause in the code that asks players to

treat everyone equally, fairly and with dignity regardless of gender or gender identity, sexual orientation, ethnicity, cultural or religious background, age or disability.

Rugby Australia’s argument is likely to be that Folau breached all of the above, entitling the organisation to seek unilateral termination of his contract. This would also take into account the fact that Rugby Australia had previously warned Folau about the exact same behaviour in April 2018.

In brief, Rugby Australia’s case will be that Folau breached his duty as an employee to obey the lawful, reasonable instructions of the employer and, given the repeated nature of the misconduct, termination of contract is justified.

Israel Folau’s case

There are likely to be two principal aspects to Folau’s submissions at the hearing – procedural and substantive unfairness.

On procedural unfairness, Folau may argue that even before a hearing was arranged, Rugby Australia had prejudged its outcome by declaring it would seek to terminate his contract. He may also point to comments by the national team coach, Michael Cheika, that he would have difficulty ever selecting Folau for the national team again.

Folau’s substantive unfairness argument also seems likely to be two-fold – one based on an interpretation of the code and one, possibly, based on human rights or discrimination law.

Read more: Taking sides: sport organisations and the same-sex debate

On the first element, Folau could argue that the phrase in the code about using “social media appropriately” is overly subjective, and its scope left to be defined at the whim of the employer.

Rugby Australia’s reply here would be crucial. It could counter that Folau’s activity on social media prior to the disputed Instagram post of April 10 – he posted 52 times on Instagram, of which 43 had a religious theme – is evidence of the organisation’s respect of his right to hold such views.

Human rights and discrimination law

Central to this whole affair is Folau’s faith. Australia doesn’t have a federal bill of rights or a religious discrimination act. Neither does New South Wales, where the hearing is to be heard.

But Australia has ratified the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (ICCPR). Article 18 of the ICCPR says that everyone has the right to freedom of thought, conscience and religion.

If this point is argued, the issue will be whether the restrictions Rugby Australia have placed on Folau’s freedom to manifest his religious beliefs are legitimate, necessary and proportionate, given that Folau’s views conflict with another fundamental right – the right not to be discriminated against because of one’s sexual orientation. This is protected under Articles 2 and 26 of the ICCPR.

In sum, the point of contention may well be, as is often the case in human rights law, a matter of conflicting rights. To quote Anthony Whealy, former NSW Supreme Court judge,

Clearly the intent [of the code] is to whole-heartedly “include” the gay community in the rugby movement. But is its intention to “exclude” traditional Christian and other religious beliefs?

At the federal level, a person who suffers discrimination in employment on the basis of religion has two options. First, that person can make a complaint to the Australian Human Rights Commission. Secondly, he or she could make an application to the Fair Work Commission for breach of the Fair Work Act 2009, which prohibits employers from terminating a person’s employment for reasons including religious views.

Read more: Australia needs a better conversation about religious freedom

NSW’s Anti-Discrimination Act of 1977 also protects against discrimination of one’s “ethno-religious origin”.

In contrast, Rugby Australia’s member protection policy, which works in tandem with the code of conduct, goes further than NSW law by specifically protecting “religion, religious beliefs or activities” against discrimination.

It will be interesting to see whether Folau, as part of his defence, will counter-claim that Rugby Australia has breached its own member protection policy

Possible outcomes of the hearing

If Folau doesn’t succeed at the hearing, he has a right to appeal and may well decide to pursue the matter in federal court.

Rugby League’s code of conduct is currently being argued in federal court: Jack de Belin is seeking various remedies against the National Rugby League pursuant to its policy to stand down players who are facing serious criminal charges, pending the outcome of the criminal trial.

Even if Folau succeeds at his hearing, a point so far underplayed in this whole affair is what is called the concept of “mutual trust and confidence” between employer and employee. Put simply, employment law recognises that there is little point reinstating a worker who has been terminated unless the parties are able to work with mutual trust and confidence in a viable, productive way.

Given the unique employment environment of sport, it seems reasonable to suggest that even if Folau succeeds in the hearing, it is highly unlikely he will ever play again for the Wallabies or even the Waratahs.

In fact, if Folau wins, it is likely there will be a settlement to pay out his contract. The full-time player will then be free to become a full-time preacher.

– ref. Explainer: does Rugby Australia have legal grounds to sack Israel Folau for anti-gay social media posts? – http://theconversation.com/explainer-does-rugby-australia-have-legal-grounds-to-sack-israel-folau-for-anti-gay-social-media-posts-116170

Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Stephen Duckett, Director, Health Program, Grattan Institute

Opposition leader Bill Shorten declared on Sunday that Labor has a “vision of universal access to dental care in Australia”.

Labor’s pensioner dental plan would would give aged pensioners up to A$1,000 of subsidised dental care every two years.

The policy is a welcome advance, but both sides should go further. The current system is a mess. It leaves many Australians without timely access to dental care, which only causes more painful and costly problems down the track.

Australians should demand their politicians introduce a universal dental care scheme. As with Medicare, this would ensure all Australians have access to subsidised basic dental care, including check-ups and treatment for tooth decay.

The Labor scheme is just a start on this road, covering pensioners over 65 and Seniors’ Health Care Card holders.

Read more: Two million Aussies delay or don’t go to the dentist – here’s how we can fix that

The mess we’re in

Dental care is a glaring gap in our health system. When Australians need to see a GP, Medicare picks up all or most of the bill. When they need to see a dentist, most Australians are on their own.

The result is that about two million Australian adults each year don’t get dental care when they need it because of the cost.

There have been various attempts to expand Commonwealth support for dental care over the years. But most have been abolished – whether because of cost overruns, a budget crunch, or change in governmental priorities.

Australia does offer some public dental care for adults, but the system is woefully inadequate. All state and territory governments operate means-tested public dental schemes, generally restricted to pensioners and concession card holders.

About five million adults fit the eligibility criteria, but the schemes aren’t funded anywhere near enough to provide services to all eligible people who need care. Only about one-fifth of eligible adults receive care in the public system each year.

In most states and territories, most people who seek public dental care have to wait more than a year to be seen. The wait is sometimes more than two years.

The states and territories spend A$836 million a year of their own money on public dental care. The Commonwealth chips in another A$108 million under a National Partnership Agreement that’s set to expire next year.

The total is well short of what’s needed. By way of comparison, the federal government spends more than A$700 million each year subsidising dental care through the private health insurance rebate.

From little dental problems, big problems grow

The situation is a little better for children. More than half of Australian children are covered by the Child Dental Benefits Schedule (CDBS), a federal government initiative in place since 2013.

The scheme covers children who live in low- and middle-income households – those that receive Family Tax Benefit Part A or another Commonwealth payment.

Read more: Dental report card fail: half of adults and one-third of kids don’t brush twice a day

The main problem with the child dental scheme is that not many children use it.

When the scheme was introduced, the Commonwealth expected about 80% of eligible children would use it. In the event, only 35% did so, and the figure has barely budged since then.

It may be that usage is so low because many parents just don’t know that the child dental scheme exists and that their children are eligible for care under the scheme.

Whatever the reasons, the Commonwealth should work with the states to promote the scheme and boost uptake – and in the process, rigorously determine which strategies are most effective in getting kids to the dentist.

Filling the gap in Australia’s health system

As we recommended in a recent Grattan Institute report, the Commonwealth government should fill the gap in Australia’s health system by moving towards a universal dental care scheme.

This scheme should build on the child dental scheme, which provides a useful model that could be expanded to ultimately cover everyone.

Read more: Grattan Orange Book. What the election should be about: priorities for the next government

A universal scheme should allow care to be delivered by either private dentists or public clinics, just as the child dental scheme does. Consultations should be bulk-billed, meaning patients have no out-of-pocket costs.

Prices should be set out in a tightly controlled schedule, much as in Medicare, with reasonable and closely monitored caps on usage.

Dental practices that participate in the scheme should make public a range of data so the government – and taxpayers – can monitor their performance and the oral health outcomes of their patients.

Steps towards a universal dental system

It would be impractical to adopt a universal scheme overnight. We calculate it would cost about A$5.6 billion a year.

The development of such a scheme would entail reshaping of Commonwealth-state relations, and would require more dentists and other oral health professionals than we currently have in Australia.

Because of these challenges, we recommended the Commonwealth outline a ten-year plan for a universal scheme and start progressively expanding the number of people who are eligible for publicly funded care.

Read more: Child tooth decay is on the rise, but few are brushing their teeth enough or seeing the dentist

The Labor policy broadly fits with our recommendations. It builds on the child dental scheme and uses the public-private model we recommended.

The extra funding – A$2.4 billion over the next four years, according to Labor – would represent a very big increase in public funding for dental care.

Importantly, Labor sees this policy as a step towards a universal system. Once implemented, this pensioner dental scheme and the existing Child Dental Benefits arrangements will still leave a lot of Australians without subsidised Commonwealth dental cover.

The next step is setting out a plan to get to provide that cover. When will coverage be extended to other Australians who need care? How will we expand the oral health workforce to ensure we can provide care to everyone who needs it?

Australians should demand answers to these sort of questions – from both Labor and the Coalition.

– ref. Too many Australians miss out on timely dental care – Labor’s pledge is just a start – http://theconversation.com/too-many-australians-miss-out-on-timely-dental-care-labors-pledge-is-just-a-start-116169

Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Simon Coghlan, Senior lecturer in health ethics, University of Adelaide; Research fellow in robot ethics, University of Melbourne

Vets often grapple with the moral dilemma of when a client wants to kill an inconvenient pet. Clients might, for instance, hint that caring for the pet has become too much trouble, or that it interferes with their lifestyle or living situation. This is called “convenience euthanasia”.

Most vets have no qualms about euthanasia and believe it’s necessary for animals suffering severely or threatening public safety because of uncontrollable aggression.

But vets may also feel strongly that killing animals for insufficient reasons is, though legal, contrary to their professional role.

Read more: Why you shouldn’t bury your pet in the backyard

A recent North American study found nearly 27% of vets across different practice types “sometimes or often” received what they considered inappropriate requests for ending animal lives. Most vets had received such requests at least once, only about 7% had never received them.

Just over 75% said they never or only rarely carried out “inappropriate” euthanasia.

Another 2018 study focusing on small animal practice found 83% of vets did not agree that euthanasia was always ethical.

I argue in a recent journal article vets should be strong advocates for their patients. A veterinary professional who is a strong patient advocate works diligently on behalf of animal patients to promote their interests.

As health care professionals, vets are powerfully guided by a duty to protect their patients from harm, including premature death.

Moral dilemmas

Veterinary boards and associations say euthanasia is sometimes morally necessary and should occur when suffering cannot be relieved. Vets often have to persuade clients it’s time to “let go”.

It’s true some medical and behavioural conditions cannot be adequately treated. But sadly, some owners cannot afford veterinary treatment for treatable problems. This can lead to agonising moral decisions for both pet owners and veterinarians.

Some owners assume vets must administer a lethal injection to their pet on request.

But vets are free to conscientiously decline “inappropriate euthanasias”. The Guidelines of the Veterinary Practitioners Registration Board of Victoria make this professional freedom explicit:

Veterinary practitioners may refuse to euthanise animals where it is not necessary on humane grounds if they have a moral objection but must give the client the option of seeking the service elsewhere.

Euthanising healthy or treatable animals

What if the animal presented for euthanasia is healthy, or has a problem that is treatable and affordable? What if the client has overestimated the severity of the condition, refuses to explore other options, or is mistaken about the animal’s quality of life?

Read more: Vets can do more to reduce the suffering of flat-faced dog breeds

Even when requests for euthanasia go beyond mere “convenience”, they can still be deeply morally troubling for vets. This can cause moral distress to veterinarians.

Moral distress is thought to be one reason why veterinarians suffer professional burnout and compassion fatigue. In fact, vets have a higher suicide rate than the general population.

Of course, vets should not ignore clients’ genuine interests and should foster the bond between humans and animals. Vets should be prepared to sympathetically explore with clients why they are struggling to care for their pets, and to suggest other options where appropriate.

The problem with refusing euthanasia

Some vets worry that euthanasia refusals risk owners illegally mistreating or killing the animal themselves. This assumption may sometimes be true, but it often lacks evidence.

Read more: Pets and owners – you can learn a lot about one by studying the other

Owners absolutely intent on killing their healthy or treatable pets can still attend a willing vet clinic or animal shelter. But it is possible that in light of the vet’s clear moral stance, some owners will reconsider their decision to end their pets’ lives – now and in the future. And at least some owners will be persuaded to surrender their pet to another home.

Another concern is that conscientious objection unfairly shifts responsibility from one vet to another. But declining to kill animals for inadequate reasons should be prioritised over any notion of being “unfair” to other vets.

What’s more, many clients who love their pets may be reassured that their vet is a strong patient advocate who does not kill animals for frivolous or inadequate reasons.

So, when your pet is suffering irremediably, your veterinarian is very likely to recommend euthanasia. But when a companion animal is not ready to die, you may or may not find that your vet will, for ethical and professional reasons, decline a request to end the animal’s life. And often it will be their moral imperative to do so.

– ref. Why your veterinarian may refuse to euthanise your pet – http://theconversation.com/why-your-veterinarian-may-refuse-to-euthanise-your-pet-110263

Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Nicole Gurran, Professor of Urban and Regional Planning, University of Sydney

Despite the cooling property market, affordable rental housing remains in critically short supply across Australia. Unable to get a private rental unit or social housing, many low-income renters must resort to informal and insecure accommodation. These range from share homes or rooms, to dwellings that breach planning or building regulations.

Our newly released study sought to shed light on this problem. We found more people are living in shared rooms or dwellings, often in uncrowded and unsuitable conditions. And illegal dwellings are on the rise in Sydney.

Read more: Tracking the rise of room sharing and overcrowding, and what it means for housing in Australia

What is informal housing?

“Informal housing” usually costs less because it breaches planning, building or tenancy rules, or offers residents few protections under these rules. Examples include unauthorised or illegally constructed dwellings, as well as informal rental agreements, like share housing or room rentals.

Wherever there is a shortage of affordable housing or barriers to access, a market for informal alternatives will emerge.

In Australia’s major cities, low-income earners, recent migrants and international students face particular barriers to getting affordable rental housing. These groups often face discrimination, lack rental references or or may fall prey to international agents who offer inadequate accommodation at inflated costs.

Read more: Room sharing is the new flat sharing

In England, illegal “beds in sheds” are a well-recognised problem. In parts of the United States such as California, unauthorised dwellings may contribute around 5% of new housing supply.

No similar estimates exist in Australia. Our standard housing indicators – new dwelling completions, rent and sales data, as well as five-yearly Census changes in tenure – conceal the informal and illegal arrangements that proliferate in unaffordable markets.

Homelessness growth in Greater Sydney by classification, 2011-2016

More are resorting to informal arrangements

Informal arrangements like renting a room in someone’s home or sharing with friends have always been part of Australia’s housing system.

Living in a share house might well be a rite of passage for young people. Sharing well into adulthood and into retirement is a different matter.

Share housing in the Greater Sydney region increased across all age groups above 24 years old between 2011 and 2016, according to the ABS Census. Those aged over 45 now amount to 20% of sharers. In particular, many more older women are sharing because they lack the means to own their own home or rent independently.

Greater Sydney share households (persons) by age group, 2011 and 2016, and % female 2016

Read more: Generation Share: why more older Australians are living in share houses

For our study, we interviewed council building inspectors and tenant support workers serving inner and southwestern Sydney. We also examined informal housing types emerging within suburban neighbourhoods.

Our study found the types of share accommodation are changing. As well as few legal protections, sharers often live in uncrowded and unsuitable conditions, where conflict between residents becomes more likely. Tenants informally renting rooms or secondary dwellings from onsite owners report uncomfortable feelings of surveillance and insecurity.

Read more: Overcrowded housing looms as a challenge for our cities

Secondary dwellings, or “granny flats”, are often viewed as a flexible or informal housing type. Unlike other states, New South Wales planning law encourages these developments as a form of affordable rental supply. This offers a sensible relief valve in Sydney’s tight housing market.

But in some areas – such as Fairfield – granny flats have come to dominate new housing development.

Secondary dwelling development and proportion of all dwelling approvals in Fairfield

This is because “codification” – fast, often privately certified approval for compliant applications – has made granny flats a low-cost option for home owners who want to increase the utility of their properties. Landlords see secondary dwellings as a low-cost, high-yield investment.

But it’s unclear whether these secondary dwellings are being rented out as lower-cost accommodation and, if so, whether they are an appropriate and secure rental housing option in the long term.

Read more: When granny flats go wrong – perils for parents highlight need for law reform

Illegal dwellings on the rise

One problem our study focused on was the growing incidence of illegal dwellings in Sydney. These include secondary dwellings that are built, or converted from a garage or shed, without planning permission.

These arrangements can be very dangerous. Unsound construction, inadequate or absent insulation, ad hoc electrical wiring, and poorly drained sites expose occupants to serious health and safety risks. The invisible nature of informal housing increases fire risks – with emergency response staff less likely to suspect people are living in a garage or outbuilding.

Illegal dwellings may be more accessible for lower-income earners and others facing rental discrimination. But they are not necessarily low cost. Our study found evidence of illegal granny flats being advertised for over $300 a week. A building inspector commented: “There’s nothing affordable about paying good money for rubbish.”

A lot of resources are needed to identify and remove illegal dwellings. Building inspectors usually become aware of illegal dwellings through complaints from neighbouring residents. Participants in our study described the problem as endemic, as local government lacks the resources for proactive enforcement strategies.

Informal housing solutions?

Informal housing is not necessarily exploitative or dangerous. In fact, it can offer solutions beyond prevailing models of private or public housing provision. For instance, self-organised housing cooperatives or “deliberative” developments are promising alternatives to private rental or ownership. But these remain niche options in Australia.

Read more: Supersized cities: residents band together to push back against speculative development pressures

The message from our study is that the informal housing sector needs to be recognised and monitored within the wider housing system. Measures to improve security and living conditions for occupants, and to ensure informal dwellings comply with planning rules, are critical.

Structurally, it’s essential to remove the barriers to private rental experienced by lower-income and vulnerable groups. As many others have argued, this means adequate funding for social and affordable housing, inclusionary planning to ensure affordable homes are included in new developments, adequate resourcing for tenant advice and crisis services, and further tenancy reform.

Read more: Co-housing works well for older people, once they get past the image problem

– ref. Informal and illegal housing on the rise as our cities fail to offer affordable places to live – http://theconversation.com/informal-and-illegal-housing-on-the-rise-as-our-cities-fail-to-offer-affordable-places-to-live-116065

Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Emily Millane, Research Fellow and PhD Candidate, Crawford School of Public Policy, Australian National University

In the field of tax, hard truths are playing out in this year’s election. The first is that special concessions that privilege older, wealthier voters have created a constituency very opposed to change.

The second is that the longer these settings are left in place, the harder it is becoming to change them.

Political science tells us that constituencies emerge around policy settings. The mushrooming of age-based constituencies is making tax reform difficult, with implications for intergenerational equity.

The more pressing that reining in generous and ever more expensive concessions grows, the easier it is becoming for political parties to use scare tactics about taking them away in order to muster support.

Tax measures get labels, like ‘retiree tax’

Hence, the Coalition’s use of the phrase “retiree tax” to describe Labor’s proposal to end cash payments of unused dividend imputation tax credits. The payments were introduced by the Howard government, and allow share market investors to make use of credits for company tax paid in creating their dividends to receive the credits in cash.

It is a “retiree tax” only to the extent that self-managed superannuation funds that don’t pay tax in the retirement phase make use of them and superannuants who don’t pay tax because superannuation income is tax free make use of them.

Chair of the House Economics Committee, Liberal member of parliament Tim Wilson, has conducted hearings around the country on the “retiree tax”, while operating a website entitled “stop the retirement tax” that offers visitors draft submissions opposing the tax to send to his inquiry, a matter Labor wants taken up by the parliament’s privileges committee.

Policies get called ‘super lies’ and ‘death taxes’

There was Shorten’s “super lie” in the first week of the campaign. In response to a question about whether a Labor government would increase taxes on superannuation, Shorten said it would not. His statement was technically incorrect given that Labor has for a long time planned to further tighten some of the super tax concessions tightened by the Turnbull government in 2016. Labor isn’t proposing to go any further than it said it would in 2016.

A cynic could be forgiven for thinking that the first weeks of the campaign were so tepid that the media needed something with which to entertain itself. Shorten’s gaffe was the reason week one of the campaign was judged to have been won by the prime minister, who labelled Shorten a liar.

Now both sides are accusing the other of planning a “death tax”.

The reality is that neither side in planning one, despite it being an efficient and worthwhile addition to the tax system.

New political movements are growing

Outside of government, we now have the “Save our Super” group, formed in opposition to the superannuation tax increases imposed by the Turnbull government, and this year a “Self Managed Super Fund Party” which didn’t register in time to field candidates.

Each illustrates the power of age-based privilege.

The “retiree tax,” the “super lie,” “Save our Super” and the “SMSF Party” all coalesce around the same type of issue: the prospect of a largely aged-based tax concession being ended or reduced. In the case of the “death tax” it refers to the threat of new tax where none currently applies.

In a society where fewer people will be of working age and able to contribute to revenue through taxes on wages, the government will have two options: either increase taxes (on someone) or cut spending (on someone).

The 2009 Henry Tax Review pointed to another option: increased private funding of retirement costs.

Exactly where Australia is going to strike a balance is an open question. It is a choice.

And age is becoming the ultimate political divide

The other choice is how about whether we manage the transition to an ageing society in a way that ensures the economic security of the young. The Coalition is banking on the broad appeal of its income tax cuts while at the same time getting stuck into Labor’s “retiree tax”.

Labor has set out an agenda of reducing tax concessions that it argues go to older, wealthier Australians and investing the proceees in childcare. But it can’t shake the “retiree tax” label. Its website is fighting back, pointing to Tony Abbott’s attmept to cut payments to pensioners and Scott Morrision;s support of a pension age of 70.

Read more: Words that matter. What’s a franking credit? What’s dividend imputation? And what’s ‘retiree tax’?

The “retiree tax” label is haunting Labor in a similar way that Prime Minister Theresa May in Britain was was haunted by talk of a “dementia tax’” during the 2017 elections. It was a proposal to include the value of the family home in the means test for in-home care.

We are heading down the road of aged-based entitlement and political expediency. Whether it’s too late to turn back, time and this election will tell.

– ref. The newest election faultline isn’t left versus right, it’s young versus old — and it’s hardening – http://theconversation.com/the-newest-election-faultline-isnt-left-versus-right-its-young-versus-old-and-its-hardening-116079

Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Robert Hassan, Professor, School of Culture and Communication, University of Melbourne

It was a bright cold day in April, and the clocks were striking thirteen. Winston Smith, his chin nuzzled into his breast in an effort to escape the vile wind, slipped quickly through the glass doors of Victory Mansions, though not quickly enough to prevent a swirl of gritty dust from entering along with him.

As novel-openers go, they don’t come much better than this one in George Orwell’s Nineteen Eighty-Four. See how the unexpected “striking thirteen” runs powerfully into the beginnings of characterisation and world-building in just two arresting sentences.

Orwell knew that words could both grip the attention and change the mind. He wrote the book as the Cold War was becoming entrenched, and it was meant as an explicit warning on the nature of state power at that time.

The book still sells by the thousands, and is read by students who are compelled to do so. But it can be read voluntarily and profitably, and it can tell us a lot about contemporary politics and power, from Donald Trump to Facebook.

A world of ‘doublespeak’

Nineteen Eighty-Four became an instant classic when published in 1949. People could see in it a world that could easily become a reality. The memory of Nazi dictatorship was still fresh, the Soviet Union had erected the Iron Curtain, and the USA had the atomic bomb.

The novel’s setting is a dystopian Britain, which has become a part of Eurasia, a region in perpetual war with the other super-regions of Oceania and Eastasia. Oppression, surveillance and control are facts of life in a society ruled by the Party and its four Ministries of Truth, Peace, Plenty and Love.

It is a world of “doublespeak” where things are the opposite of what they appear; there is no truth, only lies – only war and only privation.

Read more: What does ‘Orwellian’ mean, anyway?

One of Orwell’s innovations is to introduce us to a new political lexicon, a “Newspeak” where he shows how words can be used and abused as a form of power. Words like “Thoughtcrime”, where it is illegal to have thoughts that are in opposition to the Party; or “unperson”, meaning someone who has been executed by the Party (e.g. for Thoughtcrime) will have all record of his or her existence erased.

Not only do we use many of these words today, but the manipulative function that Orwell described is still intact. For example, when Kellyanne Conway, advisor to US president Donald Trump, stated in 2017 that the Administration has its own “alternative facts”, she was indulging in “doublethink”: an attempted psychological control of reality through words.

Nineteen Eighty-Four became an Amazon bestseller following the election of Trump and the airing of this interview.

Within the corridors of Orwell’s Ministry of Love, though, there’s a tiny flickering of real love that develops between protagonist Winston and co-worker Julia. They share unlawful thoughts about other possible ways of living and thinking, based upon vague and unreliable memories of a time before world wars and Big Brother and the Party.

But through its immense powers of surveillance and the efforts of the Thought Police, Big Brother knows everything, and soon the lovers are suspects. Winston is arrested and brought before O’Brien, the novel’s antagonist and a Party heavyweight who is openly cynical about the power structure of society. For him power is a zero-sum equation: if you don’t use it to keep others down, they will use it similarly against you.

There is much drama, suspense and even horror in Orwell’s book. He wrote about what he saw around him, but filtered it with an acute sensitivity to the innate fragility of civilisation. In 1943, when the plot-lines of Nineteen Eighty-Four were probably gestating in his head, Orwell wrote:

Either power politics must yield to common decency, or the world must go spiralling down into a nightmare into which we can already catch some dim glimpses.

1984 goes digital

These days, a lot of power politics circulates online. Orwell, who worked for the BBC during the war, was sensitive to the power of communications. What he calls the “telescreen” is essentially a surveillance device that “received and transmitted simultaneously”.

He writes of the device that “any sound that Winston made, above the level of a very low whisper, would be picked up by it; moreover […] he could be seen as well as heard”. Remind you of anything? Alexa or Siri and their ilk may be fads, but the technology now exists; and so then does a new kind of power.

Such power is contingent and shifting and does not always reside with governments.

Donald Trump wields a new digital power through Twitter and Facebook and can “speak to his base” whenever he’s angry, bored or overcome by impulse. But through ownership of new digital technologies, new actors – data corporations – have acquired old powers. These are the powers to manipulate, surveil, and influence millions of people through access to their data.

And their power in turn can be leeched by hackers, state-sponsored or independent. The complexity of political power today means we need to be more attuned to its changing forms, to more effectively strategise and resist.

Orwell’s “common decency” reference may now sound rather quaint. But its very absence in social media is a problem.

The algorithms that Twitter, Facebook and Google insert into our communications act essentially as “manipulation engines” that can cause division, favour extreme views, and set groups of people against each other.

Divide-and-rule is not their intention – getting you online in order to sell your data to advertisers is – but that is the effect, and democratic politics is the worse for it.

Read more: How political engagement on social media can drive people to extremes

Understanding the nature of political power is even more important today than when Orwell wrote. Oppression and manipulation were “simpler” and more brutal then; today, social control and its sources are more opaque.

Orwell’s imperishable value as a writer is that he provides a template on the character of political power that tells us that we cannot be complacent, cannot leave it to government to fix, and cannot leave it to fate and hope for the best.

Things did not turn out so well for Winston Smith. Pushed to the limit by torture and brainwashing, he betrays Julia. And in his abject state he convinces himself, finally, of the rightness of the Party: “He had won the victory over himself. He loved Big Brother.”

The story ends there. But for Orwell the writer and activist, the struggle for Truth, Peace, Plenty and Love was only beginning.

Today, Nineteen Eighty-Four comes across not as a warning that the actual world of Winston and Julia and O’Brien is in danger of becoming reality. Rather, its true value is that it teaches us that power and tyranny are made possible through the use of words and how they are mediated.

If we understand power in this way, especially in our digital world, then unlike Winston, we will have a better chance to fight it.

– ref. Guide to the classics: Orwell’s 1984 and how it helps us understand tyrannical power today – http://theconversation.com/guide-to-the-classics-orwells-1984-and-how-it-helps-us-understand-tyrannical-power-today-112066

Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Michelle Grattan, Professorial Fellow, University of Canberra

The Perth studio audience of undecided voters gave the campaign’s first debate to Bill Shorten by a decisive margin.

Of the 48 present, 25 thought the opposition leader won, 12 believed the night was Morrison’s and the rest were undecided.

In my opinion, the outcome was less clear cut. I’d score it pretty evenly. Shorten had more to say. Morrison had more energy.

At one level the Seven West Media debate was an unsatisfying encounter, perhaps because we’d heard almost all of it before. But nevertheless it was revealing because, despite forced grins, the strain and effort were so visible in this “best in show” hour.

Perched uncomfortably side by side, with questions coming from two journalists and audience members, both leaders had tried to prep to the nth degree, although Shorten had a couple of lapses.

There were a few spontaneous comebacks – debating is part of a politician’s skill set, though perhaps not as well-developed as once – and the audience managed a handful of laughs.

The exchanges did lay out the essence of how these two leaders are fighting this campaign.

Shorten has the detailed policy, with big initiatives that will appeal to voters. But his program is costly, and he has to mount a heavy argument to support the tax changes that will pay for it all. He describes these as closing loopholes; Morrison casts them as massive increases.

Morrison is running hard on lines that boil down to stick-with-what-you-know, and you-can’t-trust-Bill. In the campaign he is all attack and that, and a certain quickness, came through repeatedly in the debate.

The contrast in messaging was summed up at the end. “He’s not telling you what the cost of change is,” Morrison said – in other words, don’t venture down the scary Shorten road.

Shorten’s riposte was to point to “the cost of not changing” – in other words, voters would be worse off – in everything from hospital care to climate change – unless they took the new path he offered.

Shorten was caught out when asked the price of a popular electric car.

This was the modern version of that old question to leaders about the price of milk and bread.

“I haven’t bought a new car in a while so I couldn’t tell you,” he admitted.

Like the cocky kid in the class, Morrison jumped in to say: “I can tell you how much [an] electric car costs, more than [a] standard – it’s $28,000 […] that’s for the same type of car”.

That gave Shorten the opportunity for a quip to cover his inability to answer what someone who is advocating an ambitious target for new electric cars should have known.

“Well that’s great, we’ve got a Prime Minister spending his times in the motor pages” he said.

Morrison quickly came back: Well that’s where most Australians often spend their time, mate […] they read about cars, they read about footy, they read about the races […] “

Shorten provided a robust defence of Labor’s policy to cancel cash refunds from franking credits, but Morrison forced him to concede on a detail.

Pressed on the cost of Labor’s emissions reduction policy Shorten said there wasn’t “one number”, but was strong on the need for action. Morrison didn’t get far on trying to raise the alarm on border security.

Asked about the awkward subject of Clive Palmer and preferences, Morrison abandoned his earlier line of leaving Palmer to speak for himself, saying “Clive Palmer should pay his workers and Clive Palmer should settle things up. […]

“Clive Palmer should do what every other Australian should do and that is they should abide by the law […] But “do we think that the United Australia Party would be more dangerous to the Australian economy than Bill Shorten, the Labor Party and the Greens? Well I’m sorry, I think Bill Shorten, the Labor Party and the Greens are”.

Shorten drove home the point that Palmer owed $70 million to the taxpayers, asked rhetorically how Morrison and his government had been taken hostage by Palmer and Pauline Hanson, and conjured up the spectre of Palmer calling in a debt from the government.

Each leader stepped carefully when pressed on what they admired about the other.

The true answer probably is “bugger all”, but that’s not an acceptable one.

Morrison came closest to it however, saying “I respect anyone who serves in the Australian Parliament”.

Shorten produced unexpected praise for what Morrison was doing on mental health and for being “a man of deep conviction”.

When asked why voters should trust them to do what they promised, and what they would do to restore trust, both sounded lame.

Morrison pointed to party rule changes to protect prime ministers and then defaulted to “who do you trust” on economy, immigration etc.

Shorten referenced Labor’s plan for an anti-corruption commission, and said Labor had put all its policies out for people to see.

But on trust, neither had a fundamental answer to what is at present the unanswerable question in Australian politics.

– ref. View from The Hill: Shorten had the content, Morrison had the energy in first debate – http://theconversation.com/view-from-the-hill-shorten-had-the-content-morrison-had-the-energy-in-first-debate-116218

Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By David McCooey, Professor of Writing and Literature, Deakin University

The death of the Australian poet Les Murray at the age of 80 is a profound loss for his family and friends. It is also a great loss for literature. Whether one writes “world literature” or “Australian literature” here signifies not only Murray’s standing, but also a profound tension in his status as a poet. Murray has long been seen, not only as Australia’s pre-eminent living poet, but also as its national poet.

Often referred to as the “Bard of Bunyah” — after the property in New South Wales on which he grew up, and to which he returned in adulthood — Murray was often seen as an unofficial Australian poet laureate (though he repeatedly said he was not interested in such a role).

He was the poet that John Howard turned to when, as prime minister, Howard wanted help with drafting a preamble to the Australian constitution. (The preamble was, along with a proposed Australian republic, sunk at the 1999 referendum.)

Murray was the poet of the rural poor, and many of his poems deal with Australian life beyond the metropolitan centres, as well as with Australian history.

But he was, especially since the 1990s, lauded as a global poet; routinely name-checked with figures such as the Saint Lucian Derek Walcott and the Irish poet Seamus Heaney. Indeed, Murray was touted for a time for the Nobel Prize, which Heaney won in 1995. And just as Murray’s poetry can be seen as “intensely Australian”, it can also be seen as “intensely transnational”, concerned with global histories, languages, and cultures.

Perhaps not surprisingly then, as a supposedly “national poet”, Murray is no Banjo Paterson. He was not an easy poet. His signature style was a potent mix of ordinary language, specialist vocabulary, and eccentric syntax. His poetry cannot be mistaken for anyone else’s.

It is something of a critical cliché to say that poetry makes us see things anew, but Murray’s really did that with its extraordinary linguistic power. This was the case particularly with his representation of the animal world, as seen in the sequence of poems entitled “Presence” from Translations from the Natural World (1992). Who else has described cows as Murray does in The Cows on Killing Day?

All me are standing on feed. The sky is shining.

All me have just been milked. Teats all tingling still

from that dry toothless sucking by the chilly mouths

that gasp loudly in in in, and never breathes out.

And what about this description of an Emu in Second Essay on Interest: The Emu? “Weathered blond as a grass tree, a huge Beatles haircut / raises an alert periscope and stares out / over scrub”.

Certainly, his poems also deal with the “big subjects”: death, nation, religion (Murray was a Catholic convert), family, and poetry itself. Many of his best poems are about such topics. We see this in his extraordinary elegy for his father, The Last Hellos, and in essayistic poems such as Poetry and Religion, The Tin Wash Dish, and The Instrument.

But as Second Essay on Interest, and other serio-comic poems like it show, one should never underestimate the importance of play and comedy in Murray’s work. His poems, like the poet himself, are profoundly creative because they are profoundly uninterested in compliance, whether with majority opinion, political ideology, or the literary history that so profoundly informed his art.

Non-compliance

This anti-authoritarian streak shaped Murray’s career from the beginning. When he had to write a statement for Australian Poetry Now (1970), a poetry anthology notable for its avant-gardist experimentation, Murray provocatively stated that “Real experiment would be Baptist, or funny, or popular, or charitable in spirit and tone —something unthinkable like that”.

This connection between creativity and non-compliance, between comedy and art, is one that Murray himself thematised. As he wrote in Cycling in the Lake Country, “We are a colloquial nation, / most colonial when serious”. (For the radical-conservative Murray, to be “colonial” was akin to being authoritarian.)

As Murray’s peer, the poet and critic Chris Wallace-Crabbe once wrote, “Time burns the isms”. While Murray’s various forays into cultural and political controversies will remain of interest to historians, it is the poetry — recently brought together in Murray’s latest Collected Poems (the last in his lifetime, as it turned out) — that will be read for many years to come.

In Collected Poems, as well as his masterly long work, the verse novel Fredy Neptune (1998), we can see his extraordinary poetic strengths: his linguistic capaciousness, his formal range (from epigram to epic), his wit and playfulness, his originality, his difficulty and his clarity.

While Murray was associated with the political right, his best poems are everything that a One-Nation version of Australia would distrust: complex, witty, genuinely anti-authoritarian, transnational, and encyclopedically knowledgeable.

They are also profoundly human, alive not just to the poet’s sufferings, but also to those of others. Murray’s humanity is perhaps most clearly shown in his generosity, his sharing of his attentive, thoroughly original, view of the world.

In the end, poetry knows no national boundaries, and poetry, and the English language, is the poorer for his passing.

– ref. Vale Les Murray, a witty, anti-authoritarian, national poet who spoke to the world – http://theconversation.com/vale-les-murray-a-witty-anti-authoritarian-national-poet-who-spoke-to-the-world-116186

Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Richard Holden, Professor of Economics, UNSW

Through smirks, jabs and plenty of policy disagreements, Scott Morrison and Bill Shorten took aim at one another in the first leaders’ debate of the 2019 federal election and attempted to provide voters with a sense of how their parties would govern if elected.

The two party leaders grilled one another on their stances on climate change, wage growth, border protection – and even the influence of Clive Palmer on the election. In one of the final questions, they were also prompted to say something nice about one another – and they both managed to find something positive to say.

Here’s what our leading academic experts made of it.

Denis Muller, Senior Research Fellow in the Centre for Advancing Journalism, University of Melbourne

The winner of the first debate between Scott Morrison and Bill Shorten was Australian democracy.

The reason is that two unwritten democratic norms were clearly on display:

• Mutual toleration, which means each side accepts the other as a legitimate rival for power, and

• Forbearance, which means each side recognises that there are restraints on that power.

These are not to be taken for granted in an era when these two norms have broken down in the world’s most powerful democracy, the United States, and are under perilous strain in the United Kingdom over Brexit.

It is a sign that the extreme polarisation that has gripped those two polities has not so far undermined Australian mainstream politics, even though there is hate and divisiveness at the extremes.

That is not to say the leaders’ debate was without spirit. There was plenty of aggression from Morrison and a good deal of mockery of it from Shorten.

But it showed both leaders understand a truism about Australian politics. As Judith Brett puts it in her recent book From Secret Ballot to Democracy Sausage, Australian elections are won and lost in the centre.

The temperature of the leaders’ debate was moderate. Each leader stuck to his party’s perceived policy strengths: Morrison to economic management, lower taxation and border security; Shorten to climate change, health and education.

But it was hardly game-changing.

Leaving aside the fact that 110,000 people were reported to have voted on Monday when pre-polling opened, the debate was screened live at 7pm AEST on Channel 7TWO, which is channel 137 on my set-top box when I finally unearthed it.

And it was replayed, with some audience reaction, on the main Channel 7 service at 9.45pm AEST, which is not exactly prime time.

Richard Holden, Professor of Economics, UNSW

Scott Morrison won the first leaders’ debate hands down. He was clearer and more articulate on all issues, and took the debate up to the opposition leader.

On the economy, Morrison emphasised the importance of building and maintaining a strong economy in order to pay for social programs. Bill Shorten pressed his case for increased Medicare funding, his dental program for pensioners and increased wages for childcare workers.

Two exchanges stood out. When discussing the Fair Work Commission’s decision to cut certain penalty rates for some workers, Morrison said it was important to abide by the decision of the “independent umpire”. Shorten, by contrast, said he would intervene. Morrison, thinking quickly on his feet, pressed for consistency: When should a government intervene? For which workers? Why have the commission if governments interfere?

Shorten was caught flat-footed and resorted to criticising Morrison for voting against overturning the penalty-rates decision eight times – and making hand gestures to that effect.

On climate change, Morrison pressed Shorten on the cost of Labor’s 45% emissions-reduction target. Shorten was evasive, though he did point out that inaction has a cost, as well, and argued persuasively for lowest-cost abatement. However, Shorten missed an easy opportunity to criticise the government for its sharp-elbowed use of so-called “carryover credits” from the Kyoto Protocol period.

Shorten looked like a man under pressure, following the Newspoll today showing his lead narrowing to 51-49.

Morrison, by contrast, was at ease and relished the opportunity to show his command of policy detail – even the opposition’s policies. Unlike Shorten, he knew the cost of a Nissan Leaf and how many pensioners will be affected by Labor’s franking-credit policy.

Shorten stumbled over key figures, the correct name of surgical procedures he plans to fund, and smiled at odd moments – just like Hillary Clinton did in the final US Presidential debate against Donald Trump.

Labor will be hoping for a different election outcome, and a better performance from Shorten in Friday’s second debate.

Join Richard Holden for an online Q&A on Tuesday from 2-3pm AEST (30th April) to discuss the economic issues raised by the leaders’ debate. Post your questions in the comments section below.

Marian Sawer, Emeritus Professor, School of Politics and International Relations, Australian National University

Prime Minister Scott Morrison and Opposition leader Bill Shorten awkwardly perched on moulded plastic chairs putting their pitches to a subdued studio audience did not make for lively viewing.

It reminded me that Australia really should follow comparable democracies like Canada and the UK and have leaders’ debates where all the parliamentary party leaders are represented. There were issues tonight that either the Nationals’ or the Greens’ leaders should have been responding to – whether about preference deals with Pauline Hanson’s One Nation or so-called death taxes.

The content of the “debate” was extraordinarily predictable: the Coalition will provide stronger economic management and border protection and cut taxes; Labor will spend more on schools, hospitals, dental care for pensioners and childcare and do something about climate change.

Morrison said people could trust him because he delivered: as social services minister he had stopped welfare dependency; as immigration minister he had “stopped the boats”. Shorten said there needed to be institutional responses to the loss of trust, such as the federal Integrity Commission that Labor has promised.

The style was also predictable, with Morrison getting in some folksy references to cars and footy, and Shorten presenting himself as more in touch with the lives of working families, their childcare costs and lack of wages growth.

Shorten came across as the more consensual leader, saying he agreed with the government on some issues. He got a round of applause when he praised Morrison for his mental health policies. He did have some digs, though, about preference deals and Clive Palmer’s digital wallpaper being sent around Australia while still not paying his workers.

All in all, not much to see except the government relying on the words “taxes” and “boats” for a Pavlovian response and Labor emphasising its commitment to do something about inequality and the costs of maintaining tax loopholes for the wealthy.

Those who voted today probably knew this already.

– ref. Morrison and Shorten take aim at one another in leaders’ debate: experts respond – http://theconversation.com/morrison-and-shorten-take-aim-at-one-another-in-leaders-debate-experts-respond-116187

Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Kate Charlton-Robb, Conservation geneticist and dolphin researcher, Monash University

For women who marry men, in 2019 this question still comes up: will you be taking your husband’s name?

It is no longer a legal requirement nor the default position for Australian women to take their partner’s name. But recent evidence suggests it’s still a common occurrence – the majority of Australian women make this choice.

As professional women, we’re interested in the question of how this decision impacts on identity and career progression.

Read more: Marriage has changed dramatically throughout history, but gender inequalities remain

The average age of women getting married in Australia is now 30, an age when career and professional identity have already been established for many of us. So name choice is not only a personal decision but can carry professional implications.

Does taking on someone else’s name change your sense of self? Professionally speaking, does a new name lessen the impact of your own hard work? What happens if, like 43% of marriages, it doesn’t work out and you are left with a name that no longer reflects your personal status?

As a scientist, your name is your “brand”; it holds your publication record and your scientific reputation. For most male scientists, the main name-related decision will be whether to use full names or initials for publications and other work.

For women, navigating a possible name change with marriage can be complicated, demanding considered and deliberate decision-making. This is true not just for science, but for most professional careers.

Here are our own stories – three unique perspectives – regarding how we worked out name choices through marriage, divorce and career progression.

Married, changed name, now divorced

Kate: As a younger bride, I had no real career established at the time of my wedding, and held the perception that a marriage is forever. I chose to change my name.

That marriage ended in divorce years later. By then I had published a number of scientific papers under my new name, and my career was well established. So I was faced with another name choice: keep and/or adjust my name, or switch back to my maiden name.

I felt the pressure to keep my ex-husband’s name for professional continuity, so decided to tack on a bit of “me” (by adding a hyphen and Robb to my married surname of Charlton). I went on to describe and name a new dolphin species, a legacy which is, and always will be, in part, stamped with my ex-husband’s name.

Some years later, I feel incredibly conflicted every time I am introduced by my ex-husband’s name, as it no longer reflects who I am, personally or professionally.

This has led to name change indecision. How do I, now well established in my career, take on yet another name, one that I can identify with, that reflects who I am now, without jeopardising my professional identity and legacy?

At the end of the day, it may appear trivial to some, but I have to be happy with who I am and with many years in my science career left. I have to be true to myself in needing my own form of name identity back.

I will be making the change: from Dr Kate Charlton-Robb to Dr Kate Robb. It is, after all, the name I identify with and want to be identified as.

Read more: Small and isolated dolphin populations are under threat

Married, later reverted to maiden name

Tara: When I got engaged, I struggled with the concept of changing my name. Just like my partner, I liked my name. It was part of my identity, my origin, and I was proud of it.

There were questions from family members whenever the subject came up. Mainly, what would we call our children, and was I worried about divorce, given my mother had divorced twice? There were never demands, just the feeling of subtle pressure from parents and grandparents to conform to tradition. Eventually I relented and took my husband’s name.

Years later I started a PhD. I would be the author of a huge body of work. Something to be truly proud of, except it bothered me that it wasn’t really going to be in my own name.

Adding to this, I was simultaneously witnessing two close friends going through stressful divorces. Despite being happily married, as a child of divorce it is sometimes hard not to hold lingering fears.

So, with the support of my husband, I commenced the process of changing back to my birth name. Together we faced the bombardment of questions, and answered with patience: “yes, we are still happily married. No, we are not getting divorced”.

Now I have a seven year career in science, and am proud of my achievements in my own name.

Never considered changing name

Valerie: I didn’t change my name when I got married. I am originally from Quebec where women don’t take on their husband’s name. Quebec law states that “in marriage, both spouses retain their respective names” (Civil Code of Quebec). Getting married there carried the expectation that I would keep my name.

My husband is from New Zealand, where either spouse can change their name when getting married. If it had been something important to me, we could have married in New Zealand instead. There was never any expectation from others for me to change my name.

I know women who are divorced and had to change their names back, while others decided to keep their ex-husband’s name as it was how they were known professionally and personally. It all seems very messy.

I didn’t think about rates of divorces or my career when I got married, although now, as I am still establishing my career, I think changing my name would be more difficult. The reality is that I never contemplated changing my name. My name is part of my identity.

Complicated and personal

Changing your last name upon marriage is a complex issue for some women. It’s a issue that can create long term, ongoing considerations.

But we do have choice. Yes, some women do change their name. But others choose to keep their maiden name, or use a hyphenated or merged name. Others keep their maiden name professionally, but take on their husband’s name legally.

We encourage women to consider all of their options, to think not just about the present but also about the future, and above all stay true to their own identity and personal preferences.

– ref. How three scientists navigated the personal and career implications of a name change with marriage – http://theconversation.com/how-three-scientists-navigated-the-personal-and-career-implications-of-a-name-change-with-marriage-114918

Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Michelle Grattan, Professorial Fellow, University of Canberra

ANU marketing lecturer Andrew Hughes says this is the first election where the advertising spend and activity has been more focussed on digital.

He told The Conversation that on Monday, the first day of pre-polling, there was a surge in social media ads – the Coalition had over 230 different ads on Facebook while Labor had over 200.

“The sheer volume of ads is probably the highest we’ve ever seen in Australian politics because of the number of ads just on Facebook alone,” he said.

He also spoke about the major parties pivoting between positive and negative ads and the effectiveness of this strategy, personal branding, and the rise of micro-targeting.

Hughes said Clive Palmer’s huge advertising spending spree seemed to be working for him – but it raised the question of the need for caps.

Also, “as that tipping point between traditional and social media goes more in favour of social media […] in the future I believe the conversation will be on how many ads Australians should be exposed to as a quantity, not by dollar value.”

New to podcasts?

Podcasts are often best enjoyed using a podcast app. All iPhones come with the Apple Podcasts app already installed, or you may want to listen and subscribe on another app such as Pocket Casts (click here to listen to Politics with Michelle Grattan on Pocket Casts).

You can also hear it on Stitcher, Spotify or any of the apps below. Just pick a service from one of those listed below and click on the icon to find Politics with Michelle Grattan.

Additional audio

A List of Ways to Die, Lee Rosevere, from Free Music Archive.

Image:

Bianca De Marchi/AAP

– ref. Politics with Michelle Grattan: Andrew Hughes on political advertising – and Clive Palmer – http://theconversation.com/politics-with-michelle-grattan-andrew-hughes-on-political-advertising-and-clive-palmer-116183

Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Andrew Lavender, Lecturer, School of Physiotherapy and Exercise Science, Curtin University

Perhaps your GP has recommended you exercise more, or you’ve had a recent health scare. Maybe your family’s been nagging you to get off the couch or you’ve decided yourself that it’s time to lose some weight.

How do you find the motivation, time and resources to get fit, particularly if you haven’t exercised in a while? How do you choose the best type of exercise? And do you need a health check before you start?

Read more: Health Check: how much physical activity is enough in older age?

Overcoming barriers to exercise

Motivation

Understanding the effect a sedentary lifestyle has on your health often hits home only after a serious event such as hearing bad news from your doctor. For some people, that’s often enough motivation to get started.

Surviving a serious illness as a result of an inactive lifestyle, such as a heart attack or stroke, can also be frightening enough to provide a great deal of motivation.

So, if you have not exercised for several years or haven’t exercised before, a it’s a good idea to get a health check with your GP before starting.

Then you need to keep motivated enough to stick with your exercise program. You can track your training or fitness level and set some achievable goals to keep going.

Lack of time

Finding the time and effort to fit exercise into your daily routine is challenging. We know being “time poor” is a common reason for not exercising. And many people such as office workers, vehicle or machine operators have low activity levels at work and don’t feel like exercising after a long day.

Read more: Time scarcity is a slippery slope to inactivity

One way to get around these barriers might be to attend a group exercise session or join a sports club. If you find exercise boring, you can encourage a friend to join you or join an exercise group to make it enjoyable. If you played sport in your youth, that might provide an option.

Having a friend to exercise with or team mates to support you gives a sense of commitment so that you have to be there and will be challenged if you fail to show up.

Resources

You don’t need to join a gym with a lot of fancy equipment to get fit. There are many YouTube videos of safe routines that you can follow and adjust as you get fitter.

This one demonstrates a 15 minute cardio exercise routine that you can do at home.

Many exercises – including squats, push ups and sit ups – don’t need special equipment. And rather than improving muscle strength with weights at the gym, you can fill milk bottles with water instead.

Yes, you’ll huff and puff. But it gets easier

You might be thinking about starting aerobic exercise like the cardio workout above, or walking, jogging, swimming or cycling. All need oxygen to provide energy over several minutes or longer.

When we perform aerobic exercise, our heart rate increases along with our breathing rate and depth. This is because this type of exercise requires oxygen to provide energy to keep going.

Read more: Health Check: what should our maximum heart rate be during exercise?

When we are not used to this type of exercise our body is inefficient at using the oxygen we breathe to generate energy for our skeletal muscles. That’s why when we start an exercise program we huff and puff more, get tired quickly and may not finish the exercise.

But if we keep exercising regularly, our bodies become more efficient at using oxygen and we become better at generating enough energy for our muscles to work.

Over weeks of regular exercise, the number and efficiency of our body’s mini-powerhouses – mitochondria – increase in each cell. This increases the energy they can supply to the muscles, exercising becomes easier and we recover faster from each session.

Read more: Explainer: what are mitochondria and how did we come to have them?

That’s why it’s important to continue and repeat exercise sessions, even after a shaky start or a few set-backs. Yes, it can be a big challenge, but aerobic exercise gets easier over time as the body gets used to providing the energy it needs.

Thinking of yoga or simple stretches? Here’s what to expect

Yoga is a great way to start an exercise program and you can perform it at various levels of intensity. Stretching and other moves improve flexibility and strength. Yoga also emphasises breathing and relaxation through meditation.

Yoga, like other forms of exercise, will be challenging to begin with. But it does get easier over the weeks as your body adapts. So, it is important to be persistent and make the exercise part of your routine with at least three sessions of up to one hour every week.

Read more: The yoga paradox: how yoga can cause pain and treat it

At the start, you may get sore muscles. While this can be uncomfortable, the soreness goes away after about a week. You can reduce this soreness by starting with low intensity and building gradually over the first month.

Once your muscles become used to the new movements, the soreness will be minimal as you progress.

Read more: Health Check: why do my muscles ache the day after exercise?

Watch your joints

We know being overweight or obese has detrimental effects on the heart, bones, joints and other organs including the pancreas, which regulates blood glucose (sugar) levels. Obesity can also affect brain health and is linked to poor cognition.

The good news is that regular exercise can help reduce these negative effects.

But if you are overweight or obese, taking up exercise can place great strain on your joints, particularly the articulating surface, the cartilage surface of bones that contact each other. So hips, knees and ankles can become inflamed and painful.

So it may be best to include exercise that reduces weight bearing, such as exercise in water or using a stationary exercise bike or rowing machine. Once you’ve lost some weight and your cardiovascular function has improved, then you can add more walking or jogging to your exercise program.

The right diet helps power you along

A healthy diet you can maintain in the long term is a very important part of any fitness routine. Not only can it help you lose weight, it can also provide the right type of fuel to power your new exercise program.

Read more: Health Check: what’s the best diet for weight loss?

Getting plenty of fibre from fruit, vegetables and whole grains will help to reduce weight and keep it off while exercising.

Sugar, especially the type found in fizzy drinks and sweets, are low in nutrients and increase the risk of diabetes, metabolic syndrome and cardiovascular disease. So cut down on refined carbohydrates like some breads and rice, sugary cereals and refined pasta since these include sugars we are trying to avoid and have had their fibre removed. Replace them with oats, carrots or potatoes.

It’s best to avoid fad diets, which tend to be restrictive and difficult to maintain. They can lead to a yo-yo effect where you lose weight only for it to return.

Read more: Food for fitness: is it better to eat before or after exercise?

In a nutshell

Once you’ve decided to start exercising, and had a medical check if needed, start slowly and build your exercise routine up over weeks and months. Make it interesting and enjoyable, perhaps by working out with a friend or group. Set some achievable goals, try to stick to them and don’t give up if you have a set back.

Weight loss and getting fit requires different approaches for different people so find what works for you and make it part of your lifestyle. Increase the intensity and frequency of your exercise gradually from a minimal three times a week for 20 minutes to longer, more intense sessions more often.

– ref. Health Check: how to start exercising if you’re out of shape – http://theconversation.com/health-check-how-to-start-exercising-if-youre-out-of-shape-114437

Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Katie Woolaston, Lawyer, Queensland University of Technology

Two small children were hospitalised in recent weeks after being attacked by dingoes on K’gari (Fraser Island).

The latest attack involved a 14-month-old boy who was dragged from his family campervan by dingoes, an incident that could have ended with much more serious consequences than the injuries he sustained.

Fraser Island, famous for its wild dingo population, was renamed K’Gari in 2017. And the number of tourists involved in negative interactions with dingoes appears to be increasing.

Read more: Why do dingoes attack people, and how can we prevent it?

The dingo, a wild dog of the Canis genus, were likely brought to Australia by Asian seafarers around 4,000 years ago.

While dingoes exist in many parts of Australia today, those on K’gari are thought to be “special” because of their genetic purity. This means they have not interbred with wild and domestic dogs to the same extent mainland dingoes have, and so are considered the purest bred dingoes in Australia.

They are legally protected because of this special status, and because they live in a national park and World Heritage Area. Unfortunately, it is precisely this protection and separation from humans that has driven much of the increase in interaction and aggression towards people.

Read more: Like cats and dogs: dingoes can keep feral cats in check

This ongoing human-dingo conflict on K’Gari shows how our laws and management practices can actually increase negative encounters with wildlife when they don’t consider the history, ecology and social circumstances of the conflict area.

Law and policy ‘naturalised’ dingoes

The island’s laws and policies, such as the international World Heritage Convention and the more local Fraser Island Dingo Conservation and Risk Management Strategy, are focused on conserving a particular human idea of “natural wilderness”.

In practice, this means the management policy focuses on “naturalising” the dingo by effectively separating them from people and the sources of food they bring.

But dingoes, although wild animals, have never effectively been naturalised on K’Gari, so our attempts to maintain their “natural” and “wild” status is not entirely accurate.

Dingoes have a long history of being close with Aboriginal people. This human-dingo relationship continued as the island was used for mining and logging, as employees also lived with dingoes. They were fed by people, scavenged scraps from rubbish tips, and fed on leftover fish offal.

It is only in the last few decades we have sought to rewild dingoes by removing all forms of human-sourced food, separating them from human settlement.

Read more: Living blanket, water diviner, wild pet: a cultural history of the dingo

Separating the animals from humans won’t work, however, when more than 400,000 tourists visit K’Gari every year, expecting to see a dingo.

International law and local management prioritise tourism, and a tourism-based economy is certainly preferable to the logging and sand-mining economies that existed before the national park was given World Heritage status in 1992.

But are such large visitor numbers in a relatively small space sustainable?

This question has been asked often, including by the Queensland government in their Great Sandy Region Management Plan.

Yet, there has been no serious consideration given to reducing tourist numbers or increasing fees, despite research suggesting visitors are willing to sacrifice some access for improved environmental outcomes and less crowding.

Such proposals have been specifically rejected by decision-makers within the Dingo Management Plan.

Read more: Dingoes do bark: why most dingo facts you think you know are wrong

So where does that leave us?

We essentially have three options:

1. if we wish to stick with the policy of dingo naturalisation and human separation, we must change our attitudes and values towards dingoes so people maintain an appropriate distance and do not inadvertently feed them. This can happen with education, fines and collaboration. While this is essentially what policies have attempted so far, there has been little effect on overall incident numbers

2. we can take the naturalisation policy to its expected endpoint and completely separate tourists and dingoes. This may mean more fencing, greater fines and fewer annual visitors so rangers can educate and manage all visitors effectively

3. we can drastically reevaluate how we value wildlife and how we place ourselves within the natural world. This would see an enormous overhaul of the regulatory framework, and would also require a deeper understanding of all the causes of conflict, other than just the immediate issue of tourism, habituation and feeding.

In practice, an effective dingo management policy would probably require a combination of all three options to maintain the pristine state of K’Gari, conserve the dingo population and improve human safety.

– ref. Dingoes and humans were once friends. Separating them could be why they attack – http://theconversation.com/dingoes-and-humans-were-once-friends-separating-them-could-be-why-they-attack-115917

Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By James C. Murphy, PhD Student in Politics & History, Swinburne University of Technology

With taxes and health care emerging as key issues in the upcoming federal election, we’re running a series this week looking at the main issues that swung elections in the past, from agricultural workers’ wages to the Vietnam War.

Some issues electrify Australian voters. They take over elections, crowding out all other factors. We saw it in 2001 with terrorism and in 1954 with communism.

It also happened back in 1929 when Australians went to the polls, focused almost solely on arbitration.

In its early days, Australia pioneered a system of compulsory arbitration — basically a new kind of court to settle disputes between unions and employers and set wages. From the late-1800s, arbitration courts were set up in most of the Australian states, and after Federation, a federal court was established in Canberra. At first, this federal layer was designed only to deal with the most serious, nationwide industrial disputes, but it soon became a full-fledged second layer of arbitration governing all facets of industrial relations.

Most unions and employers rather begrudgingly came to accept arbitration as a kind of compromise – an institution that could make industrial disputes a little more civil and, hopefully, a little less violent.

Read more: Unions have a history of merging – that’s why the new ‘super union’ makes sense

But not all accepted the compromise. In the 1920s, the Coalition government (it was the Nationalist-Country Party Coalition back then, but they are roughly comparable to today’s Liberals and Nationals), led by Prime Minister Stanley Melbourne Bruce, made several attempts to water down the arbitration system, or at least remove one of the layers.

While unions saw the dual-layered system as an important check preventing a pro-business state or federal government from watering down hard-won protections and wages, the government believed it allowed unions to “venue-shop” until they got the result they wanted.

The Coalition also believed that high wages were putting off foreign investors and risked Australia’s economic development. Something had to be done.

The Coalition’s unpopular assault on arbitration

Initially, Bruce tried to solve the problem by asking the states to give up their courts in favour of one centralised system in Canberra. The states, then mostly governed by Labor, refused to hand over their powers to the feds.

Next, Bruce sought to change the Constitution to beef up the Commonwealth’s power to regulate industrial relations. The referendum, brought in 1926, failed to gain a majority of votes or states, with only Queensland and New South Wales voting “yes”.

Frustrated, and alarmed by a growing economic crisis and a slew of bitter strikes, the Coalition government changed direction, attempting to abolish the federal layer of arbitration. In 1929, Bruce introduced the Maritime Industries Bill, a law taking the Commonwealth out of arbitration for most industries, leaving just the state courts.

The bill did not pass. Six MPs, led by former Prime Minister Billy Hughes, dramatically crossed the floor to add an amendment requiring a popular mandate for the law, either through a referendum or a general election. Bruce told the house he considered the bill a matter of confidence and called an early election.

Read more: The state of the union(s): how a perfect storm weakened the workers’ voices

(This “hair trigger” approach to confidence has since fallen out of vogue. Losing on any old bill – or indeed, even a very important one – is no longer treated as a proxy confidence vote. See, for instance, the case of the Medevac Bill passed against the wishes of the Coalition government last year. The government continued in office.)

What happened on election day and why it still resonates today

In the 1929 election, both sides of politics insisted that arbitration was the question being answered by the electorate. Labor, under James Scullin, clearly tapped into the public mood with his argument that arbitration, though imperfect, was the best hope for progress in Australia. The Coalition lost 18 seats and with them, their majority. Scullin took Labor into government for the first time since 1917.

To add insult to injury, Bruce lost his own blue-ribbon seat of Flinders – the first time a sitting Australian prime minister lost his seat.

It would prove a rare event, not occurring again until 2007, when John Howard lost Bennelong. Funnily enough, that election, like 1929, was also largely focused on a conservative government’s fundamental reforms to the industrial relations system.

Only twice in the past century have Australians seen fit to throw a prime minister out of parliament, and both times, it was over proposed reforms to industrial relations. It’s a striking fact — one that might tempt us to question whether there is some deep continuity here. It could speak to the legacy of trade unions, which have made industrial relations a fraught area for governments, even well after the heyday of union power and organisation.

For my money, I’d say this speaks more to the basic attitude to government in Australia — what Laura Tingle, borrowing from linguist Afferbeck Lauder, dubbed “aorta politics” (as in, “they oughta fix x”; “they” being the authorities).

Read more: Cabinet papers 1992-93: the rise and fall of enterprise bargaining agreements

Very much unlike our more libertarian cousins in the US and UK, Australians have historically wanted the state to solve many of their problems. Whether or not it is a good idea, we’ve had the state irrigate farmland, deliver the mail, provide electricity, pay for our health insurance and help us buy our first home. Nowadays, Australians seem to expect it to tackle things like domestic violence and climate change.

And even today, as in 1929, we expect the state to keep the industrial peace – to prevent bosses or unions from going too far in their quest for economic power, to keep things civil.

The point here is not that arbitration or even industrial relations shall forever be a sacred cow in Australian politics. What we learn from 1929 is simply that the Australian voter does not take kindly to our governments trying to drop an issue because it is too hard. We are, it seems, a demanding lot.

– ref. Issues that swung elections: an arbitration dispute and the first ousting of a PM from parliament – http://theconversation.com/issues-that-swung-elections-an-arbitration-dispute-and-the-first-ousting-of-a-pm-from-parliament-115129

Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Reza Tajaddini, Senior Lecturer in Finance, Swinburne University of Technology

There is disquiet about the French owners of the luxury brands Luis Vuitton, Christian Dior, Givenchy and Gucci giving a whopping €300 million to the rebuilding of Notre Dame Cathedral. Such largesse, critics say, could be better used for humanitarian causes.

Read more: Why are we so moved by the plight of the Notre Dame?

This is more than a rhetorical point. It is almost certain that some of the profits made by all sellers of luxury goods come from criminals who have siphoned off government funds. Rather than being spent on health, education and other social welfare programs, the money has been spent on luxury goods.

Luxury goods are used to facilitate corrupt transactions and launder dirty money. Using data for 32 high-income and emerging economies, we have found a strong correlation between luxury item expenditure and societal corruption.

Our findings confirm previous research, such as luxury car sales being substantially higher in OECD countries with higher perceived corruption levels.

We are not saying that luxury brands are doing anything criminal. Nonetheless they could make a great gift to the world by pitching in to build the institutional architecture needed to combat corruption.

Corrupt figures

Anecdotal evidence of the connection between corruption and luxury items is easy to find.

Right now, Malaysia’s former prime minister, Najib Razak, is on trial over the looting of billions of dollars from government accounts. Police raided his multiple homes and collected 280 boxes of luxury items estimated to be worth more than US$270 million. This included 12,000 pieces of jewellery worth up to US$220 million, 423 watches worth US$19.3 million and 567 handbags worth more than US$10 million.

Last year, Brazilian customs officials found luxury watches worth an estimated US$15 million in the bags of the entourage of Teodorin Obiang, vice-president of Equatorial Guinea. The son of Teodoro Obiang Nguema Mbasogo, president since 1979, he was convicted of corruption by a French court in 2017.

Swiss authorities seized his fleet of luxury cars, including a Koenigsegg One:1 (one of just seven built, worth US$2 million) in 2016. The same year Dutch authorities seized his US$120 million super-yacht at the request of a Swiss court.

Equatorial Guinea, meanwhile, ranks 141 out of 189 nations on the UN’s Human Development Index.

The list goes on and on. When the Viktor Yanukovych was deposed as Ukrainian president in 2014, for example, his palatial home revealed wealth far in excess of his official income. So too did the home of his attorney-general, Viktor Pshonka, which included a nest of Fabergé eggs.

Calculating the correlation

Our analysis covers all countries for which annual data on luxury spending per capita are obtainable, from 2004 to 2014. The sample includes the major emerging economies (Brazil, China, India, Russia and South Africa) and major high-income countries (US, Japan and Germany). Collectively the 32 sample countries represent about 85% of the world’s GDP.

We have cross-referenced these data with two corruption measures: the World Bank’s Control of Corruption Index, and Transparency International’s Corruption Perceptions Index.

Our calculations make allowances for variables such as relative wealth and spending by tourists. Greater spending on luxury goods is to be expected in richer nations and in international travel hubs such as Singapore, Hong Kong and Dubai. We have also controlled for factors such as inequality, with demand for luxury goods increasing as the income gap widens.

Our results suggest stronger anti-corruption controls reduce luxury spending. More press freedom and information transparency help too, presumably because this increases the chance of corruption being exposed.

Conspicous consumption

In countries where paying bribes to government officials to secure government contracts or operating licences is common practice, luxury goods are often used instead of direct monetary payments. Such “gifts” do not leave a transaction trail so are less likely to result in legal action against corrupt officials.

Another explanation for the link between corruption and luxury spending is that corrupt individuals send signals about their “services” by demonstrating a lavish lifestyle beyond their official source of income. It is a form of conspicuous consumption – buying something not for its intrinsic utility but as a signal to others.

Read more: Why we are willing to pay for mega expensive things

Transparency International notes in its 2017 report Tainted Treasures: Money Laundering Risks in Luxury Markets: “For individuals engaged in corruption schemes, the luxury sector is significantly attractive as a vehicle to launder illicit funds. Luxury goods, super yachts and stately homes located at upmarket addresses can also bestow credibility on the corrupt, providing a sheen of legitimacy to people who benefit from stolen wealth.”

Cleaning up the luxury market

We agree with Transparency International that laws, policies and practices to combat this connection are underdeveloped.

Anti-corruption policies need to include monitoring luxury markets and developing regulations that increase transparency in luxury gifting.

The merits of doing so are demonstrated by anti-corruption efforts in China. In 2012 the Chinese government initiated plans to track corruption by looking at luxury goods ownership. As a result, consumption of luxury goods fell from US$93.48 billion in 2011 to US$73.1 billion in 2014.

There needs to be established global policies. The countries that host the largest luxury markets – China, France, Germany, Italy, Japan, the US and Britain – must also do more to ensure sellers of luxury goods follow due diligence and reporting requirements.

In Britain, for example, Transparency International reports that auction houses (such as Sotheby’s and Christie’s) filed just 15 of the total 381,882 suspicious transaction reports made to law enforcement authorities in one year.

In Antwerp, the largest diamond exchange in the world, suspicious transaction reports by precious stones dealers were totally lacking.

Luxury goods dealers have too little motivation to ensure those buying their trinkets and toys are not using money gained corruptly.

If the contribution of France’s luxury empires to rebuild one of Christendom’s most famous churches sparks a conversation about the problems of the luxury goods market and what can be done to to fight corruption, that will be a positive.

More than one French icon is on the line.

– ref. It’s the luxuries that give it away. To fight corruption, follow the goods – http://theconversation.com/its-the-luxuries-that-give-it-away-to-fight-corruption-follow-the-goods-113553

Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Tanya Latty, Senior Lecturer, School of Life and Environmental Sciences, University of Sydney

You’d think it would be a simple piece of biological accounting – how many distinct species make up life on Earth?

But the answer may come as a bit of a shock.

We simply don’t know.

We know more accurately the number of books in the US Library of Congress than we know even the order or magnitude – millions and billions and so on – of species living on our planet, wrote the Australian-born ecologist Robert May.

Read more: Trapdoor spider species that stay local put themselves at risk

Current estimates for the number of species on Earth range between 5.3 million and 1 trillion.

That’s a massive degree of uncertainty. It’s like getting a bank statement that says you have between $5.30 and $1 million in your account.

So why don’t we know the answer to this fundamental question?

It’s hard to count life

Part of the problem is that we cannot simply count the number of life forms. Many live in inaccessible habitats (such as the deep sea), are too small to see, are hard to find, or live inside other living things.

New species are discovered on almost every dive, says David Attenborough.

So, instead of counting, scientists try to estimate the total number of species by looking for patterns in biodiversity.

In the early 1980s, the American entomologist Terry Erwin famously estimated the number of species on Earth by spraying pesticides into the canopy of tropical rainforest trees in Panama. At least 1,200 species of beetle fell to the ground, of which 163 lived only on a single tree species.

Assuming that each tree species had a similar number of beetles, and given that beetles make up about 40% of insects (the largest animal group), Erwin arrived at a controversial estimate of 30 million species on Earth.

Many scientists believe the 30 million number is far too high. Later estimates arrived at figures under 10 million.

In 2011, scientists used a technique based on patterns in the number of species at each level of biological classification to arrive at a much lower prediction of about 8.7 million species.

All creatures great and very, very small

But most estimates of global biodiversity overlook microorganisms such as bacteria because many of these organisms can only be identified to species level by sequencing their DNA.

As a result the true diversity of microorganisms may have been underestimated.

After compiling and analysing a database of DNA sequences from 5 million microbe species from 35,000 sites around the world, researchers concluded that there are a staggering 1 trillion species on Earth. That’s more species than the estimated number of stars in the Milky Way galaxy.

But, like previous estimates, this one relies on patterns in biodiversity, and not everyone agrees these should be applied to microorganisms.

It’s not just the microorganisms that have been overlooked in estimates of global biodiversity. We’ve also ignored the many life forms that live inside other life forms.

Most – and possibly all – insect species are the victim of at least one or more species of parasitic wasp. These lay their eggs in or on a host species (think of the movie Aliens, if the aliens had wings). Researchers suggest that the insect group containing wasps may be the largest group of animals on the planet.

What do we mean by species?

A more fundamental problem with counting species comes down to a somewhat philosophical issue: biologists do not agree on what the term “species” actually means.

The well-known biological species concept states that two organisms belong to the same species if they can interbreed and produce fertile offspring. But since this concept relies on mating, it cannot be used to define species of asexual organisms such as many microorganisms as well as some reptiles, birds and fish.

It also ignores the fact that many living things we consider separate species can and do interbreed. For example, dogs, coyotes and wolves readily interbreed, yet are usually considered to be separate species.

Other popular species definitions rely on how similar individuals are to one another (if it looks like a duck, it is a duck), their shared evolutionary history, or their shared ecological requirements.

Yet none of these definitions are entirely satisfactory, and none work for all life forms.

There are at least 50 different definitions of a species to choose from. Whether or not a scientist chooses to designate a newly found life form as a new species or not can come down to their philosophical stance about the nature of a species.

The cost of species loss

Our ignorance about the true biodiversity on our planet has real consequence. Each species is a potential treasure trove of solutions to problems including cures for disease, inspirations for new technologies, sources of new materials and providers of key ecosystem services.

Yet we are living in an age of mass extinction with reports of catastrophic insect declines, wide-scale depopulation of our oceans and the loss of more than 50% of wildlife within the span of a single human life.

Our current rate of biodiversity loss means we are almost certainly losing species faster than we are naming them. We are effectively burning a library without knowing the names or the contents of the books we are losing.

So while our estimate of the number of species on the planet remains frustratingly imprecise, the one thing we do know is that we have probably named and described only a tiny percentage of living things.

Read more: Squid team finds high species diversity off Kermadec Islands, part of stalled marine reserve proposal

New species are turning up all the time, at a rate of roughly 18,000 species each year. For example, researchers in Los Angeles found 30 new species of scuttle fly living in urban parks, while researchers also in the US discovered more than 1,400 new species of bacteria living in the belly buttons of university students.

Even if we take the more conservative estimate of 8.7 million species of life on Earth, then we have only described and named about 25% of life forms on the planet. If the 1 trillion figure is correct, then we have done an abysmally poor job, with 99.99% of species still awaiting description.

It’s clear our planet is absolutely teeming with life, even if we cannot yet put a number to the multitudes. The question now is how much of that awe-inspiring diversity we choose to save.

– ref. How many species on Earth? Why that’s a simple question but hard to answer – http://theconversation.com/how-many-species-on-earth-why-thats-a-simple-question-but-hard-to-answer-114909