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

What if we had an opportunity to double the size of the tourism industry, or to quadruple the size of the beef industry, or to boost the economy by more than any of the presently proposed tax switches?

What if we could do it while permanently improving the lives of disadvantaged young people?

We surely wouldn’t let it slip away.

Yet we do every day while we fail to address the gap in school achievement between between rural, regional and remote children and their city counterparts.

New estimates

In a report for UNSW Gonski Institute on Education launched on Monday, Jessie Zhang and I estimated the size of the gap. We also document its causes, and outline what the research in the United States and Europe tells us about ways to narrow it.

Over the past decade education research has undergone a transformation with the use of large-scale randomised controlled trials to determine what works.

Read more: We need a radical rethink of how to attract more teachers to rural schools

It isn’t easy because correlations can be misleading. If, for instance, we discover that women who eat more fish during pregnancy tend to have children who perform better in primary school, we might be tempted to conclude its the Omega-3 fatty acids that do it.

It’s hard to work out what works

But women who eat a lot of fish tend to be wealthier. It might be that extra wealth – and the educational resources it affords – that are driving the better performance.

Who knows? Increasingly, the social scientists who construct randomised trials do.

Using techniques from pharmaceutical and other trials they are getting good at zeroing in actual causes and ignoring mere correlations.

Read more: Five things we wouldn’t know without NAPLAN

What works the most, according to the US studies, are high-dose-small-group tutoring, balanced incentives for students, managed professional development for teachers, smaller class sizes, and a culture of high expectations.

Some of what works is as good as free

Some of these measures are expensive, some are almost free.

All have been shown to have a high return in the US.

There are good reasons to believe they could be highly effective in rural, regional and remote Australia.

It would be worthwhile conducting our own randomised controlled trials in our own cultural and educational environment to be sure.

The prize is big

In our report we translate the differences in school achievement to the differences in human capital and eventually lifetime earnings.

This puts the economic benefit of closing the urban-non urban gap at A$56 billion — about 3.3% of Gross Domestic Product.

Massive though that number is, it is both narrow and an underestimate. It focuses purely on how better skills can translate into better wages.

Read more: How to get quality teachers in disadvantaged schools – and keep them there

It doesn’t consider how the benefits of better skills can spread and multiply throughout the economy. Nor does it consider the benefit of revitalising country towns, or the benefits of better physical and mental health.

Bigger than we can measure

Most of all, it doesn’t capture the truth that bridging this achievement gap would provide a world of expanded opportunities for millions of young Australians, and give them the chance to live out their full potential.

Bridging the urban non-urban achievement gap between is easier said than done, but the potential benefits from it to both the economy and the lives of Australians who would become more able to achieve their full potential are too big to ignore.

Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Elizabeth Watt, Research Fellow, Deakin University

Last week, Massachusetts Senator Elizabeth Warren released a video strongly suggesting two things: she is running for US president in 2020, and she has Native American ancestry.

The second claim was apparently confirmed by the results of a DNA test, which compared genetic data from Warren’s whole genome with that from people of known Central and South American ancestry.

Warren has come under fire from both sides of US politics for releasing her genomic information. Many have questioned the veracity of the test. Others have said that even if Warren does have Native American ancestry, that doesn’t make her Native American.

Read more: Two Native American geneticists interpret Elizabeth Warren’s DNA test

Things would likely have unfolded differently from a similar scenario in Australia. For starters, there isn’t enough DNA data of Indigenous Australians to do the kind of genetic test that Warren did here. And Indigenous communities in Australia are generally more accepting of people who discover Indigenous heritage later in life, due to the Stolen Generations.

But Australia too is grappling with a bigger conversation about what DNA testing means when it comes to Indigenous identity and culture.

Indigenous recognition in the United States

In the United States, Indigenous-specific rights are reserved for members of the 573 federally recognised tribes. As Cherokee Nation’s Secretary of State Chuck Hoskin junior noted in his response to Warren’s announcement, admixture tests can’t distinguish between North and South American ancestry, let alone between tribal groups.

Even if the resolution of these tests increased, the Cherokee and other tribes have made it clear they won’t provide an avenue to membership. Most have minimum “blood quantum” requirements – a complicated calculation of one’s ancestry determined by the number of documented ancestors in tribal censuses from the late 19th century.

Within this “tribal roll” system, Hoskin pointed out, DNA testing has only one, very specific use:

to determine lineage, such as paternity to an individual.

While blood quantums are controversial, many Native Americans defend them on the grounds that they provide a “stand-in for cultural affiliation”. They argue that strict membership rules protect tribes against the increasing number of so-called “ethnic frauds”, “fake Indians”, “New Age poseurs” and “wannabes” identifying as Native American.

The genetic testing boom has added to this apparent “onslaught”, which is one of the reasons Warren’s use of DNA testing has angered so many tribal citizens.

As the enrolment clerk of the Mashantucket Pequot tribe noted in 2006:

It used to be “someone said my grandmother was an Indian”. Now it’s “my DNA says my grandmother was an Indian”.

DNA testing for Indigenous ancestry in Australia

For those watching from Australia, this debate is at once familiar and strange.

Like the US, there are growing numbers of people who identify as Indigenous Australian. And, as in America, this has created debate about who “is” and “isn’t” Aboriginal.

Debates have been particularly heated in Tasmania, where the self-identifying Aboriginal population has risen from 671 people in the 1971 census to 23,000 in 2016. The prospect of using genetics to “prove” these new claims to Aboriginality had been raised at various times over the past 15 years, by both the “new identifiers” and their detractors.

So far, however, DNA testing has been dismissed on technical grounds in Australia.

As we’ve previously explained, there is a deficit of Indigenous autosomal samples in public and private databases. The term “autosomal” refers to genetic material not on the sex chromosomes and not in mitochondria (a separate type of DNA passed from mother to child).

Not even AncestryDNA, which has amassed more than 10 million samples, has enough to offer a “direct estimate of Aboriginal Australian ethnicity”. This means Aboriginal ancestors can only be reliably detected through direct maternal or paternal lines (using mitochondrial and Y-chromosome tests).

The only two companies to offer “Aboriginality tests” – DNA Tribes and GTDNA – rely on short tandem repeat (STR) genetic testing. STR is commonly used in criminal cases and for paternity testing.

Journalist Andrea Booth has recently highlighted the deep flaws in using STRs for ancestry purposes. She and her NITV colleague Rachael Hocking both took tests with DNA Tribes. While Booth, who is of East Asian and European ancestry, received results suggesting “Central Australian ancestry”, Hocking’s known Walpiri ancestry was “nowhere to be seen”.

Read more: Explainer: can a DNA test reveal if you’re an Indigenous Australian?

Differences in community attitudes

But even if the future holds more accurate Indigenous ancestry testing, situations like Warren’s would likely play out very differently in Australia.

With the exception of the tense situation in Tasmania, Australians who have come to identify as Aboriginal in recent years have generally received a warm welcome from Indigenous communities relative to their American counterparts.

There is widespread sympathy for those affected by the Stolen Generations, who – with the help of government-funded services such as Link Up – have reconnected with Indigenous family. Some lack documentary evidence of their genealogical links. But they may still gain recognition from one of the many diverse regional organisations (including Stolen Generations organisations) that can provide “Certificates of Aboriginality”.

Unlike Native American tribes, these organisations may not require applicants to have Aboriginal ancestors from their specific community or region, and none have “blood quantum” requirements, which are widely considered offensive in Australia.

This approach means that the geographically broad ancestry information offered by genetic tests may carry greater meaning in Australia than in the US. It also means that the question of whether a person can “become” Aboriginal after discovering ancestry through a DNA test is more complicated.

Read more: A DNA test says you’ve got Indigenous Australian ancestry. Now what?

As Waanyi and Jaru man Gregory Phillips points out, “cultural knowledge and experience of living Black” is an important criterion for determining Aboriginality. But he goes on to qualify that the Stolen Generations:

…through no fault of their own, might not be able to say they have cultural knowledge or experience of growing up Black, but if they can prove their Aboriginality through biological descent, then of course they can claim Aboriginality.

Hocking also expressed sympathy for those looking for evidence of Aboriginality when reflecting on her own “dodgy DNA results)”, stating:

I feel for our brothers and sisters who were part of the Stolen Generations, perhaps looking for some closure, only to be given results … which say, ‘You are not black.’

Given these more inclusive attitudes and systems of recognition, it’s unlikely an Australian Elizabeth Warren would be summarily dismissed by the Indigenous community.

But it also means that, if an “Aboriginal DNA test” is developed, its impact on Indigenous identification could be greater than it has been on Native American tribes.

Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Renae Barker, Lecturer in Law, University of Western Australia

The Ruddock review on Religious Freedom has recommended the creation of a Religious Discrimination Act as part of its 20 recommendations.

Some have argued there is no pressing need for a Religious Discrimination Act. All states and territories, except South Australia and New South Wales, currently prohibit discrimination on the basis of a person’s religion. Religious discrimination is also prevented at the workplace under the federal Fair Work Act.

However, a Religious Discrimination Act is necessary to introduce other important protections for Australia’s religiously diverse population. Besides Christians, who make up about half the population, Australia is home to other religious minorities, including Muslims (2.6% of the population), Hindus 1.9% and Sikhs 0.5%. A Religious Discrimination Act would also protect the growing number of Australians who identify as having no religion (30%).

As Chief Justice John Latham explained in the Jehovah’s Witnesses case of 1943:

…it should not be forgotten that such a provision as s. 116 [of the Constitution] is not required for the protection of the religion of a majority. The religion of the majority of people can look after itself. Section 116 is required to protect the religion (or absence of religion) of minorities, and, in particular, of unpopular minorities.

Read more: Why Australia does not need a Religious Discrimination Act

Religious discrimination is not a new issue

Religious discrimination is not a new discussion in Australia. Twenty years ago, the Human Rights and Equal Opportunity Commission noted that:

Despite the legal protections that apply in different jurisdictions, many Australians suffer discrimination on the basis of religious belief or non-belief, including members of both mainstream and non-mainstream religions and those of no religious persuasion.

Submissions received by the commission detailed the areas in which people experienced religious discrimination. For example, Pagan groups found it difficult to hire facilities to conduct events, while Muslim, Buddhist and Sikh communities reported having problems with planning authorities. Some people said they kept their religions a secret at work for fear of being fired or denied promotions.

The commission recommended the introduction of a federal Religious Freedom Act, which included provisions prohibiting discrimination on the basis of a person’s religion.

What’s the state of religious discrimination in Australia?

Australians already enjoy a relatively high level of religious freedom. However, this does not mean that people are never discriminated against on the basis of their religion.

In 2014, for instance, the parliament banned people wearing face coverings from entering the open public viewing gallery in Parliament House. Instead, they were relegated to the glass viewing area usually reserved for school children. The effect of the ban was to discriminate against Muslim women who wear burqas or niqabs as part of their religious devotion.

During the same-sex marriage postal survey, there were reports of people claiming they were discriminated against because they supported the “No” campaign. An entertainer who worked as a contractor for a children’s party business was fired after changing her Facebook profile frame to one that included the words “it’s OK to vote no”. She claimed she was discriminated against due to her Christian beliefs.

Read more: The ‘gay wedding cake’ dilemma: when religious freedom and LGBTI rights intersect

Under the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, Australia is also obligated to enact laws prohibiting both religious discrimination and vilification.

Religious vilification is behaviour that incites hatred, serious contempt for, or revulsion or severe ridicule of a person or group of people because of their religion. Only three states – Victoria, Queensland and Tasmania – currently prohibit religious vilification.

In response to concerns about the tone of the same-sex marriage debate, the federal government passed a temporary Marriage Law Survey (Additional Safeguards) Act 2017 (Cth). The act prohibited vilification on the basis of a person’s “view in relation to the marriage law survey question” or a person’s “religious conviction, sexual orientation, gender identity or intersex status.” It automatically lapsed on November 15 2017, the day the survey results were released.

Without the full details of the Ruddock review, it is unclear whether the proposed Religious Discrimination Act would include provisions prohibiting religious vilification.

What would a Religious Discrimination Act do?

Introducing a Religious Discrimination Act would also fix an anomaly in the existing Racial Discrimination Act. Section 9 of this act prohibits discrimination on the basis of a person’s “race, colour, descent or national or ethnic origin”.

Ethnic origin has been interpreted by the courts to cover both Sikhs and Jews. By contrast, Muslims and Christians are not covered by the Racial Discrimination Act, as they do not constitute a single ethnic group.

But as the Federal Court of Australia explained in Jones v Scully, ethnic origin covers more than a person’s racial identity. It includes groups who have shared customs, beliefs, traditions and characteristics derived from their histories.

Those claiming discrimination on the basis of their lack of religious beliefs are also not covered under the Racial Discrimination Act. This creates a discrepancy in the treatment of different religious groups under the law.

Read more: Ruddock report constrains, not expands, federal religious exemptions

As Australia continues to debate the best way to protect freedom of religion, while also guaranteeing the rights of other groups, such as the LGBTI community, balance and compromise will be necessary.

As part of that balancing act, the government has already announced it will remove some religious exemptions from the Sex Discrimination Act, making clear, for instance, that students cannot be expelled from religious schools on the basis of their sexuality.

Other restrictions, such as requiring religious organisations to be transparent in their use of exemptions in anti-discrimination legislation such as the Sex Discrimination Act, may also be needed.

A Religious Discrimination Act should also be part of the compromise and balance. Religious discrimination may not be an everyday occurrence for many Australians. However, this does not mean the law should ignore those who have been discriminated against because of their faith or lack of it.

Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Madhan Balasubramanian, NHMRC Sidney Sax Research Fellow, University of Sydney

Australians spend up to A$300 million each year on health-care costs abroad. As part of this phenomenon, each year around 15,000 of us are travelling overseas for cosmetic surgery tourism, including dental procedures.

We don’t have firm numbers on exactly how much Australians spend on dental procedures. But we know for sure dental implants, crowns and bridges (prosthetic devices implanted to cover a damaged tooth or missing teeth), endodontics (such as root canal treatments) and other cosmetic dental procedures are becoming highly desirable.

There has never been more pressure to have a straight, bright and white set of teeth.

Read more: 50 shades whiter: what you should know about teeth whitening

The rise of dental tourism

Health-care tourism refers to people travelling overseas to undergo a medical or dental procedure. People travel for a range of dental procedures including having implants, crowns and bridges fitted, or for dentures, root canal treatment, fillings, veneers and teeth whitening.

In Australia, three in ten people have avoided visiting a dentist due to cost, while one in five were unable to afford treatment recommended by a dentist. Dental care in Australia is not subsidised for the majority of Australians, and about half don’t have any private dental insurance, which makes the allure of dental tourism clear.

Some companies offer all-inclusive packages for sun, sea and smiles, meaning you can receive dental care as part of your holiday.

Dental treatment abroad including flights and luxury hotel accommodation is often still cheaper than some dental treatments at home. For Australians, the most popular destinations are countries in Southeast Asia such as Thailand, Indonesia, Malaysia and the Philippines.

Patients who travel tend to be ordinary people with modest incomes. And, like medical tourism, a substantial part of overseas dental travel involves diaspora patients returning to their home country for more familiar (and cheaper) care.

Read more: Medical tourism: having an op overseas adds to the everyday risk of surgery

What are the risks?

Dentistry, whether provided at home or abroad, is never risk-free. You might pay top dollar to see the best provider and still have something go wrong.

The Australian Dental Association advocates for patients to reconsider mixing holidays abroad with their oral health care. The association says the standards of dentistry overseas aren’t as good as in Australia and there could be issues with cleanliness and infection risk.

While there are no strong population-based studies that prove overseas dental treatment leads to poor outcomes, case studies do exist. These have shown lack of accountability and regulation are the main issues with dental tourism, particularly when complications arise.

Education, training and practice philosophies of overseas-trained dentists might be different to those of Australian-trained dentists. Dental education systems in a few major tourist destinations in Southeast Asia and the Indian subcontinent are facing several challenges in terms of rapid privatisation, quality and regulation.

On the other side on the coin, Australia has also had reported cases of poor infection control practices.

Things to consider

Whether you choose to have dental treatment overseas or in Australia, here are some things to consider:

Have you had enough time to think about your treatment? If you have a plane to catch and a tight schedule, you need to be wary about being pressured into committing to treatments before you feel ready. Holidays come and go but the effects of dental treatment stick around for a lot longer.

Have you been able to ask questions? Most dentists are really good at telling patients about treatments and different options. If you don’t feel you can ask questions, or that you are getting answers that satisfy your needs, you should be able to have a second opinion. Don’t be afraid to ask for one.

What happens if things don’t work out? Dentistry is as much of an art as it is a science. No matter how skilled your dentist, sometimes things don’t go to plan or are more complex than first thought. It usually isn’t too much of a problem to put things right, but if you need to see a dentist again, is this going to be difficult?

From dental tourism to transnational dental care

In this era of globalisation, overseas travel for dental care seems unavoidable. On a positive note, increased international flows of patients are likely to stimulate debate and develop solutions to enable more effective and cheaper access to dental care in Australia.

Host countries that benefit from dental tourism and have modified their clinical facilities for an international clientele may be encouraged to offer similar levels of quality care to local patients.

Read more: How to fill the gaps in Australia’s dental health system

Professional and patient regulation and other mechanisms (such as insurance) that are preserved for national interests will need to widen to include the concerns of overseas health-care travellers.

Regional cooperation across countries where dental tourism occurs will need to be actively pursued. This includes streamlined support for understanding dental tourism such as the inflows and outflows of patients, types of treatments, care providers and after care. Better data on dental tourism are vital for tracing and explaining this phenomenon.

Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Lucinda Beaman, FactCheck Editor

Between now and November 24, when Victorians will choose their next government, they’re sure to be hit with more than their fair share of political spin, misinformation, half-truths, and maybe even a few brazen falsehoods.

That’s why we’ll be turning our fact-checking efforts to the issues facing Victorians as they decide the future course of their state.

And it’s why we want to hear from you, our readers – particularly those of you who live in Victoria. What’s the most pressing issue for you in this election campaign? What do you want to see fact-checked?

With your help, we’ll identify the most questionable claims and test them against the evidence, working with some of Australia’s leading academic experts to bring you information you can trust.

Here’s how you can get in touch with us, plus some ideas for locating material in need of myth-busting.

Things that make you go ‘hmmm’

Many of our FactChecks are published in response to statements made by politicians and other influential public figures. But there are plenty of other potential sources of misinformation.

Whenever you read or hear something that makes you think: “Really? Is that right?” That’s the perfect time to request a FactCheck.

For a claim to be checkable, there needs to be a data set or body of research evidence against which it can be tested. But don’t worry too much about that – we can assess the possibilities when we receive your suggestion.

The email address for requests is checkit@theconversation.edu.au. It helps if you can let us know where and when you came across the claim.

If the source is an online article or social media post, send us a link, where possible.

If it’s something you read in print, perhaps in a newspaper, a letter or a pamphlet, consider taking a photo with your phone.

It’s not always easy to remember the exact details of a quote, especially if you heard it on the radio or on television. In those cases, just provide as much information as you can.

Perhaps the questionable claim is something you heard at a leaders’ debate or community event.

It could be a statement made in an advertisement, or a robo-call from a politician.

There’s a growing trend of misinformation being spread through private messaging platforms like WhatsApp. If you receive a viral message or meme that you would like to share with us, you can take a screen shot on your phone. If you’re not sure how to do that, you can find instructions here and here.

Alternatively, if you haven’t spotted a particular claim, but there’s an election issue you’re interested in, or a perception in your community you’d like to see explored in more detail, let us know.

How we do FactChecks at The Conversation

The Conversation’s FactCheck unit has been running since January 2013.

Our method is unique, and we’re proud of it. Our experienced journalists work closely with some of Australia’s most respected academic experts to test claims against the best available data and scientific research. Our FactCheck authors bring years, and often decades, of expertise to the task.

After being rigorously researched, verified and tested from all angles, each FactCheck is subject to a blind review from another academic expert, who analyses the article without knowing the author’s identity. This is a valuable process that ensures the integrity and accuracy of The Conversation’s FactChecks.

These are just some of the reasons our FactCheck unit is accredited by the International Fact-Checking Network, an alliance of fact-checkers hosted at the Poynter Institute in the United States.

The accreditation means we’re committed to a code of principles that require non-partisanship and fairness, transparency of sources and methodology, transparency of funding and organisation, and a commitment to open and honest corrections.

Steal our FactChecks (seriously)

At The Conversation, we believe that a healthy information ecosystem is fundamental to a healthy society, and that everyone should have access to accurate information.

That’s why The Conversation publishes all of its content under a Creative Commons licence. This means our FactChecks, and all other articles, can be republished online or in print, for free.

Our FactChecks have been republished by The Guardian, the ABC, SBS, Fairfax and more.

All you need to do is click the blue “Republish this article” button on the right hand side of the article. The republishing guidelines are simple, and you can find them here.

Stay in touch

You might like to sign up to our GetFacts newsletter, so you’ll receive FactChecks direct to your inbox when they’re published.

The GetFacts newsletter is also home to blind reviewed articles from The Conversation’s excellent Research Check series and other great myth-busting science pieces.

We look forward to reading your FactCheck suggestions, and wish you a well-informed election season.

The Conversation is an independent, not-for-profit media service. If you value what we do, please consider becoming a Friend of The Conversation by making a tax-deductible donation.

The Conversation’s FactCheck unit was the first fact-checking team in Australia and one of the first worldwide to be accredited by the International Fact-Checking Network, an alliance of fact-checkers hosted at the Poynter Institute in the US. Read more here.

Have you seen a “fact” worth checking? The Conversation’s FactCheck asks academic experts to test claims and see how true they are. We then ask a second academic to review an anonymous copy of the article. You can request a check at checkit@theconversation.edu.au. Please include the statement you would like us to check, the date it was made, and a link if possible.

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

What if we had an opportunity to double the size of the tourism industry, or to quadruple the size of the beef industry, or to boost the economy by more than any of the presently proposed tax switches?

What if we could do it while permanently improving the lives of disadvantaged young people?

We surely wouldn’t let it slip away.

Yet we do every day while we fail to address the gap in school achievement between between rural, regional and remote children and their city counterparts.

New estimates

In a report for UNSW Gonski Institute on Education launched on Monday, Jessie Zhang and I estimated the size of the gap. We also document its causes, and outline what the research in the United States and Europe tells us about ways to narrow it.

Over the past decade education research has undergone a transformation with the use of large-scale randomised controlled trials to determine what works.

Read more: We need a radical rethink of how to attract more teachers to rural schools

It isn’t easy because correlations can be misleading. If, for instance, we discover that women who eat more fish during pregnancy tend to have children who perform better in primary school, we might be tempted to conclude its the Omega-3 fatty acids that do it.

It’s hard to work out what works

But women who eat a lot of fish tend to be wealthier. It might be that extra wealth – and the educational resources it affords – that are driving the better performance.

Who knows? Increasingly, the social scientists who construct randomised trials do.

Using techniques from pharmaceutical and other trials they are getting good at zeroing in actual causes and ignoring mere correlations.

Read more: Five things we wouldn’t know without NAPLAN

What works the most, according to the US studies, are high-dose-small-group tutoring, balanced incentives for students, managed professional development for teachers, smaller class sizes, and a culture of high expectations.

Some of what works is as good as free

Some of these measures are expensive, some are almost free.

All have been shown to have a high return in the US.

There are good reasons to believe they could be highly effective in rural, regional and remote Australia.

It would be worthwhile conducting our own randomised controlled trials in our own cultural and educational environment to be sure.

The prize is big

In our report we translate the differences in school achievement to the differences in human capital and eventually lifetime earnings.

This puts the economic benefit of closing the urban-non urban gap at A$56 billion — about 3.3% of Gross Domestic Product.

Massive though that number is, it is both narrow and an underestimate. It focuses purely on how better skills can translate into better wages.

Read more: How to get quality teachers in disadvantaged schools – and keep them there

It doesn’t consider how the benefits of better skills can spread and multiply throughout the economy. Nor does it consider the benefit of revitalising country towns, or the benefits of better physical and mental health.

Bigger than we can measure

Most of all, it doesn’t capture the truth that bridging this achievement gap would provide a world of expanded opportunities for millions of young Australians, and give them the chance to live out their full potential.

Bridging the urban non-urban achievement gap between is easier said than done, but the potential benefits from it to both the economy and the lives of Australians who would become more able to achieve their full potential are too big to ignore.

Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Emma Quilty, PhD Candidate, School of Humanities and Social Science. Research Officer at Everymind, University of Newcastle

Netflix is releasing the Chilling Adventures of Sabrina this week. Unlike its predecessor, the sitcom Sabrina the Teenage Witch (1996), this version looks like it will be a much darker revamp.

The previous Sabrina series featured the comedic high school adventures resulting from Sabrina’s new witchy powers – with commentary provided by Salem the talking cat. The new series follows Sabrina as she tries to decide between the witchy world and the mortal realm. Based on the trailer, this decision looks like it will involve some dark themes including a sweet 16 “dark baptism” and dinner time with Satan.

The new series will join a lineage of other witches in current pop culture, including those from the American Horror Story and Salem television series. The new film Suspiria, a remake of the 1977 film of the same name starring a coven of witches at a dance academy, will also be released around Halloween.

Read more: A murky cauldron – modern witchcraft and the spell on Trump

The original Sabrina, along with other witchy shows from the ’90s such as Charmed and Practical Magic, have been, in part, responsible for inspiring young people to pursue witchcraft as a form of spirituality.

According to the 2016 Australian Census results, 15,222 Australians identify with the pagan belief system, and 6,616 practise witchcraft — numbers that are slightly down from the 2011 census.

Witchcraft offers women an alternative to prescriptive definitions of what it means to be female. A “traditional” definition of a good woman is someone who aspires to be married, obey their husband and take care of the home.

Witchcraft also gives women a sense of control over the world and a feminist politics that goes beyond hashtags like the #MeToo movement, which showed how widespread misogyny is.

The changing face of witchy women

As women’s politics have changed, so have the witches on our screens. In the ’90s, glamorous witches, such as those in Charmed and Practical Magic, represented the rise of liberal feminism that focused on individual freedom as feminist liberation.

For example, the adventures of the Charmed ones often focused on the importance of having a male romantic partner. The happy ending in Practical Magic featured one sister finding love and the “wild” sister being tamed. And each show featured a narrow range of characters who were predominately heterosexual, white and able-bodied.

Today, witches are more gothic, darker and edgier, pointing towards a more radical feminist politics.

Season three of American Horror Story, for instance, featured women with Down syndrome and Marie Laveau as the Voodoo Queen of New Orleans. The Salem television series features the main character Mary, the queen of the witches, who controls the town of Salem by subjugating her high-ranking husband.

These shows move beyond surface-level liberal-feminist concerns by tackling more complex issues including racial politics, disabilities and class. It will be interesting to see if the new Sabrina series will embrace radical feminism and be transgressive, or simply reproduce outdated stereotypes of women.

Teen witches

The other interesting feature of the new Sabrina is the age of its protagonist. Teenage witches have been featured in a number of series since the ’90s, such as Buffy the Vampire Slayer (1996-2003) and, more recently, in Coven, the third season of the American Horror Story television series.

The figure of this style of teen witch arguably began with the release of The Craft (1996). This film was one of the first to show images of teenagers gathering at night to light candles and practise magic.

Each of these stories shows young women coming into young adulthood and discovering their power. The main characters are outcasts or “weirdos” who use witchcraft to change the world around them. At the same time, they face the gritty reality of being teenagers facing issues such as divorce, racism and suicide.

The allure of witchcraft

In the 2015 horror film The Witch, adolescent women are tempted into witchcraft by Satan, depicted in the film as a goat called Black Phillip. The film, set in 1630s America, plays on a Puritan family’s beliefs and fears. Black Phillip speaks to the eldest daughter of the religiously devout family, tempting her with the lure of a “delicious” life:

Wouldst thou like the taste of butter? A pretty dress? Wouldst thou like to live deliciously?

The final scene shows her being drawn into the forest where she undresses and joins a coven of witches dancing and levitating around a bonfire.

Read more: The Witch – excellent supernatural fodder

The new Sabrina trailer features very similar imagery, featuring witches gathering in the woods. Satan also makes several appearances in the trailer – in the woods he looks wild and insidious, in Sabrina’s house he looks like a gentleman in his tailored suit.

Nature can be understood as a symbol of the wild and feminine, which sits in opposition to society, which embodies infrastructure and the masculine. By entering a pact with Satan, witches symbolically escape institutional and patriarchal control.

The rise of the dark and powerful witch in popular culture stems from the need for female role models capable of fighting the ugly and violent reality of the world they live in.

Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Georgia Garrard, Senior Research Fellow, Interdisciplinary Conservation Science Research Group, RMIT University

Urban nature has a critical role to play in the future liveability of cities. An emerging body of research reveals that bringing nature back into our cities can deliver a truly impressive array of benefits, ranging from health and well-being to climate change adaptation and mitigation. Aside from benefits for people, cities are often hotspots for threatened species and are justifiable locations for serious investment in nature conservation for its own sake.

Australian cities are home to, on average, three times as many threatened species per unit area as rural environments. Yet this also means urbanisation remains one of the most destructive processes for biodiversity.

Read more: Higher-density cities need greening to stay healthy and liveable

Despite government commitments to green urban areas, vegetation cover in cities continues to decline. A recent report found that greening efforts of most of our metropolitan local governments are actually going backwards.

Current urban planning approaches typically consider biodiversity a constraint – a “problem” to be dealt with. At best, biodiversity in urban areas is “offset”, often far from the site of impact.

This is a poor solution because it fails to provide nature in the places where people can benefit most from interacting with it. It also delivers questionable ecological outcomes.

Read more: EcoCheck: Victoria’s flower-strewn western plains could be swamped by development

Building nature into the urban fabric

A new approach to urban design is needed. This would treat biodiversity as an opportunity and a valued resource to be preserved and maximised at all stages of planning and design.

In contrast to traditional approaches to conserving urban biodiversity, biodiversity-sensitive urban design (BSUD) aims to create urban environments that make a positive onsite contribution to biodiversity. This involves careful planning and innovative design and architecture. BSUD seeks to build nature into the urban fabric by linking urban planning and design to the basic needs and survival of native plants and animals.

BSUD draws on ecological theory and understanding to apply five simple principles to urban design:

1. protect and create habitat
2. help species disperse
3. minimise anthropogenic threats
4. promote ecological processes
5. encourage positive human-nature interactions.

These principles are designed to address the biggest impacts of urbanisation on biodiversity. They can be applied at any scale, from individual houses (see Figure 2) to precinct-scale developments.

BSUD progresses in a series of steps (see Figure 1), that urban planners and developers can use to achieve a net positive outcome for biodiversity from any development.

BSUD encourages biodiversity goals to be set early in the planning process, alongside social and economic targets, before stepping users through a transparent process for achieving those goals. By explicitly stating biodiversity goals (eg. enhancing the survival of species X) and how they will be measured (eg. probability of persistence), BSUD enables decision makers to make transparent decisions about alternative, testable urban designs, justified by sound science.

For example, in a hypothetical development example in western Melbourne, we were able to demonstrate that cat containment regulations were irreplaceable when designing an urban environment that would ensure the persistence of the nationally threatened striped legless lizard (Figure 3).

What does a BSUD city look, feel and sound like?

Biodiversity sensitive urban design represents a fundamentally different approach to conserving urban biodiversity. This is because it seeks to incorporate biodiversity into the built form, rather than restricting it to fragmented remnant habitats. In this way, it can deliver biodiversity benefits in environments not traditionally considered to be of ecological value.

It will also deliver significant co-benefits for cities and their residents. Two-thirds of Australians now live in our capital cities. BSUD can add value to the remarkable range of benefits urban greening provides and help to deliver greener, cleaner and cooler cities, in which residents live longer and are less stressed and more productive.

Read more: Why a walk in the woods really does help your body and your soul

BSUD promotes human-nature interactions and nature stewardship among city residents. It does this through human-scale urban design such as mid-rise, courtyard-focused buildings and wide boulevard streetscapes. When compared to high-rise apartments or urban sprawl, this scale of development has been shown to deliver better liveability outcomes such as active, walkable streetscapes.

By recognising and enhancing Australia’s unique biodiversity and enriching residents’ experiences with nature, we think BSUD will be important for creating a sense of place and care for Australia’s cities. BSUD can also connect urban residents with Indigenous history and culture by engaging Indigenous Australians in the planning, design, implementation and governance of urban renaturing.

Read more: Why ‘green cities’ need to become a deeply lived experience

What needs to change to achieve this vision?

While the motivations for embracing this approach are compelling, the pathways to achieving this vision are not always straightforward.

Without careful protection of remaining natural assets, from remnant patches of vegetation to single trees, vegetation in cities can easily suffer “death by 1,000 cuts”. Planning reform is required to move away from offsetting and remove obstacles to innovation in onsite biodiversity protection and enhancement.

In addition, real or perceived conflicts between biodiversity and other socio-ecological concerns, such as bushfire and safety, must be carefully managed. Industry-based schemes such as the Green Building Council of Australia’s Green Star system could add incentive for developers through BSUD certification.

Importantly, while BSUD is generating much interest, working examples are urgently required to build an evidence base for the benefits of this new approach.

Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Trevor Kilpatrick, Professor of neurologist and clinical director, Florey Institute of Neuroscience and Mental Health

US actress Selma Blair announced on the weekend she has been diagnosed with multiple sclerosis. “I have probably had this incurable disease for 15 years at least,” she wrote. “And I am relieved to at least know.”

Multiple sclerosis is an autoimmune disease, where the body mistakenly attacks the brain and spinal cord. It does this by damaging myelin – the protective coating around the nerves. When myelin is damaged, messages can no longer be clearly transmitted from the brain and spinal cord to other parts of the body.

The resulting symptoms include extreme tiredness, loss of concentration and memory, numbness, sensitivity to heat and cold, difficulties walking and balancing, spasms, dizziness and low mood.

Read more: Explainer: multiple sclerosis

Blair, aged 46, is one of 400,000 people in the United States with MS. The prevalence is similar to that in Australia, where around 25,000 people live with the disease. The average age of onset for MS is 30, and around three-quarters of those affected are women.

There’s still a lot we don’t know about the causes, but so far the research indicates our genes and environment each have a role in driving susceptibility to MS.

Genetics

Genetics plays an important role in the development of MS, with more than 200 genetic markers implicated in the disease. Collectively, the identified genes may account for up to 25% of the genetic component of MS risk, but each gene in isolation carries only a small risk.

Because of this, it’s not possible to generate a “genetic risk score” that accurately conveys the risk any given person has of developing MS. So we cannot single out the individuals who are at greater risk, even if we know how many of them might exist in the community.

Researchers are now trying to adopt a more sophisticated genetic approach to help identify individuals at risk by focusing on families who have more than one relative with the disease. We know, in some instances, family members who don’t have symptoms could still harbour asymptomatic disease. This could mean the MS is either at an earlier stage, less severe or “blocked” before it has become clinically overt.

Identifying mutations common to affected family members could help understand the genes likely to be directly relevant to the cause of MS. The unanswered question is whether findings in families can be extrapolated to the general population.

Viruses

There is a strong association between the Epstein-Barr virus, which often results in glandular fever in young adults, and development of MS. If you have not been exposed to the virus, you will likely not get the disease.

There are many theories for how the virus may be implicated in MS. The virus infects a type of white blood cell important for the immune system. Infection of the cell could then cause corruption of the immune response, which could lead to the autoimmunity of MS.

But the Epstein-Barr virus is not sufficient on its own to trigger MS, as more than 90% of people who aren’t affected by MS have been exposed to the virus.

Read more: Humans are to blame for the rise in dangerous viral infections

Sunlight

Sunlight, or more specifically exposure to ultraviolet (UV) radiation, decreases with increasing distance from the equator.

The further away from the equator you live the greater your risk of developing MS. In Australia, those living in northern Queensland are seven times less likely to develop MS than those in Tasmania.

Ultraviolet light is known to have many effects on the immune system and our synthesis of vitamin D. In particular, UV appears to have an impact on immune activity, making immune cells more tolerant and in some instances suppressing immune activity.

Hormones

The fact women are more likely to develop MS than men may be related to hormonal changes.

We know disease activity drops during pregnancy. We also know women who have multiple children are on average less likely to get the disease and, if they do, it is likely to be less severe.

Lifestyle

Smoking significantly increases a person’s chances of developing MS. Smokers, and people exposed to second-hand smoke, are almost twice as likely to develop MS. In particular, they are more likely to develop progressive forms of MS.

For people who already have MS, there is good evidence that stopping smoking reduces the severity of disease progression.

Although the subject of ongoing research, it would appear smoking influences the production of certain proteins in the lungs that may trigger immune cells to become more alert. At the extreme, this could set off the immune response.

Read more: Explainer: what is inflammation and how does it cause disease?

What we suspect

There is a great deal of interest in the role nutrition and diet could play in the development and management of MS. These studies are complex due to the many potential nutritional components found in our diets.

It is possible that keeping cholesterol and fats in a healthy range could help MS symptoms, such as reducing levels of fatigue. However, this is an ongoing area of research.

There is stronger evidence when it comes to body weight and obesity and the risk of MS. Studies have shown that being overweight or obese, particularly during adolescence, is associated with an increased risk of developing MS. It is also associated with worse outcomes in people who have MS. Not much is known about the mechanisms that may be responsible for this.

The results of physical therapy for people with MS are varied but have been associated, at least in the short term, with some benefit, such as improved balance and coordination.

Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By James Hereward, Research fellow, The University of Queensland

The crops we rely on today have been bred over thousands of years to enhance certain characteristics. For example, sweetcorn started life as a wild grass called teosinte.

But every time we select for a trait through breeding – such as repeatedly crossing selected plants to produce bigger fruits – we lose genetic diversity which is the essential variation for other traits like disease resistance. This leaves our crops vulnerable to pests and disease.

Precise gene editing technologies could offer a solution.

CRISPR gene editing has been successfully used to re-domesticate wild tomato plants. One research group edited only six genes and produced a commercially sized fruit in a wild relative of tomato, Solanum pimpinellifolium. Another group achieved a similar result by editing only four genes.

Read more: A fresh opportunity to get regulation and engagement right – the case of synthetic biology

As a society we need to work out how such technology and plants will be regulated to ensure safety and acceptability.

The new domestication

The new approach, termed “de novo domestication” or “new domestication”, allows the genetic diversity of the wild plant to feature in a new crop. These new tomato lines retain all of the diversity of their ancestors, providing protection against disease.

They taste good too, apparently.

This was possible thanks to years of painstaking research into the genes that underpin the essential traits related to domestication. Without this, scientists wouldn’t know which genes to target and edit.

Some of the genes were identified by crossing plants with different traits (like large versus small fruits). Others were discovered by comparing wild relatives with domesticated plants.

Could we do this with other wild species?

We currently rely on very few plant species for the majority of the world’s food production. More than half of our plant-derived energy intake comes from just three grasses (wheat, rice and corn). Gene editing could provide a way to expand this.

Read more: Fewer crops are feeding more people worldwide – and that’s not good

Showing the broader value of the tomato approach described above, another research group applied the same method to an orphan crop Physalis pruinosa (known as the ground cherry). Orphan crops are those that have been neglected and escaped modern agriculture for various reasons. They receive little investment, research or breeding effort.

The researchers hope the ground cherry will one day find its place alongside the strawberry, blueberry, blackberry and raspberry in large-scale agriculture.

The “de novo domestication” approach potentially provides a way to domesticate any edible wild plant. With an estimated 20,000 known edible species, the possibilities for domestication could be extraordinary – particularly in Australia, where broad, economically successful crop domestication of native foods has been mostly limited to the macadamia nut.

Gene sequencing getting cheaper

To create new crops, we need good working knowledge of the gene targets, and the genome sequence (which contains the complete code of all genes inside each cell) of the plant species that we want to domesticate.

Genome sequencing used to cost many millions of dollars and require massive research teams. It’s now increasingly cheap and routine.

Our understanding of the target genes comes largely from studies of major agricultural crops. Some domestication genes will only work in species that are closely related to the crop in which they were discovered.

Versions of the domestication genes targeted in the tomato studies are found in many plant species, so the approach might well work in more distantly related species too.

How should we regulate this?

We should be fostering this kind of innovation, but we need to do it safely.

Worldwide, policymakers have wrestled with the implications of the new genetic tools. Debate has sprung up around how to regulate genome editing, compared with existing genetic modification methods.

Editing genes in a crop is different to traditional genetic modification, or transgenics – in which a gene from a different species is inserted into a plant.

In contrast to both of these approaches, classic crop breeding has relied on random processes like irradiation to induce new genetic diversity. CRISPR editing is similar but more efficient and precise, because it targets a specific desired mutation.

In July, European courts ruled that edited plants fall under the same regulation as transgenics. This places them under very strict regulations that create significant hurdles to enter the market, potentially driving talent and funding out of Europe.

In contrast, the US Department of Agriculture (USDA) said it would not regulate genome-edited crops.

A balanced approach

A reasonable balance between these two regulatory approaches is probably the most sensible way forward. Genome editing shouldn’t completely escape regulation.

If it can be demonstrated that the edited plant doesn’t contain any new genes (including CRISPR machinery) then the regulation should be much less stringent than for transgenics, because the changes are so similar to conventional plant breeding. Sequencing the genome of the edited crop is a good way to provide evidence of this.

In Australia, genetically modified organisms are regulated by the Office of the Gene Technology Regulator (OGTR). The current legislation defines genetic modification very broadly, but is under review. South Australia is an exception to this, with a ban on genetically modified crops.

Read more: Organic farming with gene editing: An oxymoron or a tool for sustainable agriculture?

Ideally, regulation should focus more on questions around the types of genetic modifications that we should allow in our crops than the way that they were introduced and where they came from.

But edited organisms shouldn’t be completely excluded from regulation. Evidence should be requested, and provided, that new crops are functionally equivalent to the products of conventional breeding and the subsequent approval process should reflect this.

The primary priority for policymakers and regulators is to ensure crop safety. Maintaining an open and transparent dialogue will be crucial so that the public can trust the decisions.

Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Garry Barrett, Professor and Head of School, School of Economics, University of Sydney

This article is the first in the Reclaiming the Fair Go series, a collaboration between The Conversation, the Sydney Democracy Network and the Sydney Peace Foundation to mark the awarding of the 2018 Sydney Peace Prize to Nobel laureate and economics professor Joseph Stiglitz. These articles reflect on the crisis caused by economic inequality and on how we can break the cycle of power and greed to enable all peoples and the planet to flourish. The 2017 Sydney Peace Prize will be presented on November 15 (tickets here).

In June 2017, Australia achieved a world record of sorts – 26 years of uninterrupted economic growth. This was achieved with a mix of good luck and good management. The resources boom, prudent fiscal management and some difficult economic decisions guided Australia through the global financial crisis with an economy that continued to grow.

Throughout much of this period, Australia has experienced declining unemployment and growing wages. On the surface this might suggest Australia is a “Goldilocks economy”, avoiding the boom and bust cycle.

However, beneath the veneer it is clear not all have shared in the prosperity generated over the past 27 years. We have seen an enduring rise in economic inequality over the past four decades.

Read more: Don’t believe what they say about inequality. Some of us are worse off

Since the late 1970s, there has been a clear and persistent increase in individual earnings and family income inequality. Since the late 1980s, much of the gain in real income has been concentrated at the very top of the distribution.

From an international perspective, Australia now ranks among the more unequal of the OECD economies.

What has happened to pay packets?

A good place to begin to understand how inequality has increased is by examining the labour market. Studies based on Australian Bureau of Statistics and other data sources show a significant increase in wage inequality across workers since the late 1970s.

A range of forces have driven this increase. These include technological change such as computerisation and developments in IT that have fundamentally altered business practices and organisational forms. This has delivered substantial wage gains for some high-skilled workers, while minimal wage growth for low-skilled workers has led to increasing polarisation.

Of course, one of the defining features of the Australian economy over the past three decades has been its internationalisation. Globalisation has exposed more jobs and workers to international competition. This has left some workers, especially the low-skilled, with relatively smaller pay packets.

Read more: How rising inequality is stalling economies by crippling demand

Many institutions are no longer recognisable from those that shaped Australia from the beginning of the 20th century. Unions and centralised wage bargaining traditionally played a pivotal role in protecting the lowest-paid workers’ wages.

Together these forces have contributed to greater wage volatility. The result is that much of the recent gains in real wages have been concentrated toward the very top of the wage distribution.

Families matter

Families can help limit the impacts of the market forces generating inequality. By coordinating work, caring, spending and saving decisions, families can dampen the effects of market-generated volatility and inequality on economic well-being.

Indeed, the rise in earnings and income inequality across families is less pronounced than the inequality across individuals. Nonetheless, “assortative matching”, whereby individuals tend to partner with a similarly educated and skilled individual, has led to a growing gap between the resources of the “haves” and “have-nots”.

The state’s helping hand

As in other countries, there has been a general trend of the Australian state providing less social protection and so acting less as an “equaliser”. For the unemployed, the safety net offered by the Newstart program has been progressively diminished. Access to the Disability Support Pension is increasingly restrictive, and delayed access to the Age Pension means these programs have become less generous over time.

Beyond the labour market, changes to the tax codes have reduced the progressivity of the system.

In total, the broad direction of changes to the tax-transfer system in recent decades has been to reduce the equalising influence of the state.

Intergenerational mobility

The high level of economic inequality at a point in time cannot be readily dismissed as an artefact of a dynamic and mobile economy. Research has shown that Australia’s high level of economic inequality is also associated with lower intergenerational mobility.

Recent evidence based on longitudinal data indicates children’s earnings are strongly related to their parents’. From an international perspective, Australia is relatively immobile. This means the economic advantages and disadvantages we see today may persist over future generations.

Read more: The inequality you can’t change that lasts a lifetime

One may well ask: is Australia witnessing the end of the “fair go”?

Is it all doom and gloom?

Despite these developments, there is cause for some optimism. Sustained community pressure has led to policy reforms that improved equality. A recent study showed that the one-off 19.5% increase in the Age Pension for singles (7.9% for couples) recommended by the Harmer Review significantly reduced poverty and inequality among the elderly.

The introduction of the National Disability Insurance Scheme in 2012 represents an important expansion of social protection, which may substantially reduce economic inequality.

Community reaction to the evidence presented at the ongoing Royal Commission into Misconduct in the Banking, Superannuation and Financial Services Industry has led to a commitment to increase the funding and powers of corporate regulators.

Similarly, the Gonski Report of 2012 refocused policy debate on school funding toward needs-based models.

These developments have been driven in part by strong community concerns and a recognition that those most in need have missed out on the prosperity generated by over a quarter of a century of uninterrupted economic growth. Together, they provide hope the fair go has not gone forever.

Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Simon Chapple, Director, Institute for Governance and Policy Studies, Victoria University of Wellington

New Zealand’s opposition National Party is embroiled in a rolling controversy that erupted last week when former National MP and senior whip Jami-Lee Ross accused his leader Simon Bridges of corruption. Bridges has vehemently denied these accusations, and the evidence released does not support any allegations of illegality.

One dimension of the controversy that has attracted less attention is the connected issues of political party donations and foreign influence on New Zealand’s democratic system.

Read more: New Zealand’s Pacific reset: strategic anxieties about rising China

Foreign influence

The discussion of foreign influence in New Zealand politics plays out mostly in terms of the activities of the People’s Republic of China. The local debate was initiated by Professor Anne-Marie Brady’s “Magic weapons” paper last year. Despite her warnings that China’s foreign influence activities have the potential to undermine the sovereignty and integrity of the political system of targeted states, the dominant view among New Zealand’s main political parties might best be described as “nothing to see here, time to move on”.

Reactions in New Zealand contrast sharply with the situation in Australia, where there has been a much more open democratic debate on the issue of China’s influence, as well as law reform designed to mitigate foreign interference.

Read more: Soft power goes hard: China’s economic interest in the Pacific comes with strings attached

Last week, Jami-Lee Ross released a recording of a conversation he had with opposition leader Simon Bridges in June (full transcript). The transcript alleges that Zhang Yikun, a wealthy Chinese immigrant and a former member of the People’s Liberation Army with ongoing links to the Chinese state, made a donation to the National Party of $100,000. The conversation then turned to new candidates for the National party list, and the possible candidature of Colin Zheng, manager of a construction company owned by Zhang.

Keeping track of political donations

At a national level, there are rules under the Electoral Act 1993 regarding political donations to both candidates and to political parties. For candidates, a donor’s name and address must be reported for donations of more than $1,500. For party donations, the name and address of the donor must be reported where donations exceed $15,000.

For both candidates and parties, foreign donations (defined as from people who are not citizens or residents on the electoral roll or from incorporated or unincorporated bodies outside New Zealand) exceeding $1,500 are forbidden. Each registered political party must file an annual return of party donations with the Electoral Commission, which are then made public. In terms of party donations which hit a $30,000 threshold, a return must be filed within ten working days, as opposed to annually.

There are also restrictions on how much can be spent during a general election period, which also effectively constrain donations. Political party spending is capped at just over $1.1 million, plus $26,200 per electorate contested, for a total election spend of just under $2.7 million if all 60 electorates are contested.

Spending limits also apply to persons or groups who are not contesting the election directly but seek influence. They can spend up to $12,600 on election advertising during the regulated period without having to register with the Electoral Commission. A person or group whose spending exceeds that amount must register and they can spend a maximum of $315,000 on election advertisements.

Who raises what from whom

In 2017, National raised $4.6 million in party donations, vastly exceeding Labour’s $1.6 million, as well as busting the limits of what they could spend in that year’s election. $3.5 million of the National’s donations (76%) were anonymous under the $15,000 threshold, compared with 0.7 million of Labour’s (44%). The Green Party raised $0.8 million, with 72% under the disclosure threshold, and New Zealand First raised $0.5 million, with 84% under the threshold.

There is no requirement for political parties to report the amounts of overseas donations under $1,500. Consequently the public does not know how many foreign donations come in under that amount.

It would be easy for a foreign state to funnel money into a political party from a large number of foreign donors, all under the $1,500 threshold. Equally, if that state had access to local actors, it could funnel money into the system at amounts above or below the $15,000 threshold.

What donors get for their donations is unclear. At its least malign, donors seek to passively promote a political ideology which they consider to be beneficial. Where donations are part of developing a long-term quid pro quo relationship along multiple dimensions, donors’ and receivers’ motivations and exactly what is traded is very difficult to pin down from the outside.

Transparency International reports that New Zealand political parties are one of the weakest pillars supporting local transparency and good governance. Within this weak pillar, one of the weakest strands involves political finance and donations.

They argue that with the demise of mass political participation, parties are increasingly dependent on donations to function. This weakness means that local politicians are more likely to seek to “supply” influence, or at least dangle the prospect of influence, in front of wealthy bidders.

The “demand” to buy political influence has also risen. With the increase in worldwide inequality and kleptocracy, there are more rich people for whom buying influence is the norm. Specifically in New Zealand, there has been an influx of wealthy expatriates from China, where buying influence is an accepted practice. They often retain close links to the Chinese Communist Party, which runs an authoritarian, anti-democratic and oppressive regime. It is thus not surprising that issues of donations and foreign influence are increasingly entering into domestic political debates.