Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Frank Bongiorno, President, Council for the Humanities, Arts and Social Sciences and Professor of History, Australian National University

There is no modern Australian politician whose name is as synonymous with a certain way of doing politics as that of Graham Richardson, who has died at 76 after a long battle with cancer.

Whatever it Takes was the apt title of Richardson’s 1994 memoir, a book that achieved a notoriety because of its author’s defence of lying.

That notoriety typified some of the hypocrisy that has marked commentary on Richardson’s career as the ultimate Labor powerbroker. Everyone knows that politicians lie. And, as an account of his controversial career, there were more holes in Richardson’s book than a slice of Swiss cheese. Nonetheless, it had a certain rough-and-tumble frankness that gained him attention and readers.

One paradox of Richardson’s public life is that he was very good at getting attention even while much of his most consequential political activity happened far from the prying eyes of the public. In the proverbial, and often literal, smoke-filled back rooms, plots were hatched, deals done, and plans made to elevate someone or other, or do them over – all of it laid down with a careful precision belied by the apparently easy-going gregariousness of the man.

Born on September 27 1949, Richardson was the son of Fred, who would become state secretary of the Amalgamated Postal Workers’ Union. His mother, Peggy, worked as his father’s office manager for a time and reputedly had fine political judgement.

Graham was educated at Sydney Catholic schools and joined the Labor Party at 17. A brief stint studying law at the University of Sydney came to naught: as one of a group of ambitious young men on the Labor Party Right that included Paul Keating and Kerry Sibraa, he was made for an early plunge into politics.

The rise was swift. He was working in the New South Wales Labor Party office by 1971 and in 1976, became state secretary. Neville Wran’s landslide win in the 1978 NSW state election – the first of two “Wranslides”, as they were called, both while Richardson was in charge of the party machine – did much to focus attention on his skills. His name became synonymous with deals done around the lazy Susan in Chinese restaurants.

Unfortunately for Richardson, his name also became synonymous with a state party whose affairs descended into criminality and violence as Left and Right stacked branches relentlessly in their struggle for political control of the inner-city.

Historian Craig Wilcox has rather euphemistically described Richardson as having “loosely umpired” this bitter contest. In reality, he was up to his eyeballs in it and acquired some deeply unpleasant allies along the way.

It is unlikely Richardson had the capacity to control the worst of them, and that would culminate in one of the most notorious instances of violence in Australian political history: the bashing of Left activist Peter Baldwin in July 1980, in connection with a struggle for control of the Enmore branch. Images of Baldwin’s horrifically battered face on the front pages of the nation’s newspapers were not going to lived down any time soon by a party official who had been flaunting his ability to make things happen.

By then, Richardson was already a kingmaker and breaker. As NSW factional warlord, he played a key role in the demise of Bill Hayden’s federal leadership in 1982 and his replacement by Bob Hawke in early 1983.

In 1991, with Richardson now a senior cabinet minister and still the man wielding the Right’s numbers in his home state, it was Hawke’s turn to be dethroned. Later, during a low point for the government following the 1993 election, Richardson was apparently manoeuvring against Keating. But by then, his clout had seriously declined.

He had entered the Senate in 1983 and was a key figure in shaping the national faction system within the Labor Party that has prevailed ever since. Alongside Robert Ray who led the Victorian Right, Richardson was able to play a formidably influential role in both matters of policy and the division of ministerial and other spoils.

Richardson’s dodgy associations continued to dog him as he rose to positions of greater power in the Hawke government. There was the “Love Boat” scandal, in which Australians were invited to picture a naked Richardson, along with other Sydney identities, frolicking with a prostitute on Sydney Harbour. The woman concerned later recanted the story, but the incident had again exposed Richardson’s tendency to become embroiled in scandal. The Enmore affair, as the Baldwin bashing was called, continued to dog him.

But another side to Richardson emerged in 1986: the man who had seen the light and converted to environmentalism. He credited an unlikely trip to Tasmania with Bob Brown to look at the forests for this surprising outcome.

But it wasn’t really such a surprise: the electoral potency of conservation was becoming too obvious for this famously astute operator to ignore. Following Labor’s victory at the 1987 election, Richardson became minister for the environment and the arts, entering the full Cabinet six months later with sport, tourism and territories added to his responsibilities.

Decisions to save forests in Queensland and Tasmania, and the protection from mining of Kakadu National Park, owed much to his growing influence.

Richardson must be considered instrumental in the longevity of the Hawke and Keating Labor governments, through the electoral deals with the Greens that these decisions facilitated, and his ability to extract large sums of money from the rich.

The latter, however, raised questions about the integrity of the government as well as its relationship to dodgy entrepreneurs. But the money was critical to the 1987 win and the Greens preferences to the slim 1990 victory, won on the back of a primary vote of less than 40%. Richardson played a central part in each case, but was furious after the 1990 election when Hawke tried to shunt him off to London as high commissioner. Instead, he took on the thankless social security portfolio.

The last years of Richardson’s career were mired in scandal. There was the Marshall Islands affair, when he was alleged to have sought to exercise influence on behalf of a businessman and friend who was also a cousin by marriage.

That led to his 1992 resignation as communications minister, the job Keating had given him on his elevation to the prime ministership. After time on the backbench, he was back as health minister following Keating’s surprise 1993 election win, but he retired from politics the following year.

Richardson subsequently had a lucrative career as a lobbyist and in the media. He was also a member of the Organising Committee for the Sydney Olympic Games.

He suffered declining health following a cancer diagnosis in 1999 but continued his work as a media commentator with fortitude. He had a son and daughter by his first marriage, to Cheryl, in 1973, and a son by a subsequent marriage to Amanda.

His chequered, contested career will loom large in any assessment of what the Australian Labor Party, and even Australian society, became in the final decades of the 20th century.

Frank Bongiorno does not work for, consult, own shares in or receive funding from any company or organisation that would benefit from this article, and has disclosed no relevant affiliations beyond their academic appointment.

– ref. Kingmaker, Labor warrior and no stranger to scandal: Graham Richardson dies at 76 – https://theconversation.com/kingmaker-labor-warrior-and-no-stranger-to-scandal-graham-richardson-dies-at-76-269357

Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Casper Laing Ebbensgaard, Lecturer in Human Geography, University of East Anglia

When you look at the promotional materials advertising luxury high-rise developments in London, it is obvious that the fantasy of living in the sky is fused by a desire for sunlight and “unobstructed” views of the city. Phrases such as “the brightest addition to London’s skyline” or apartments being “flooded with natural light” and offering “expansive sky views” are common.

It is a dream with a dark side, however, which plays out below in the shadows of London’s mushrooming cityscape. In a recent paper, I show how daylight and shadow are unevenly distributed across the urban population. Vulnerable and marginalised residents are disproportionately affected by overshadowing, a lack of privacy and the overbearing nature of new high-rise developments.

Dubbing such socially skewed access to daylight “light violence”, as I do, may sound dramatic. But it captures something insidious.

When you build tall buildings, it is no surprise that they cast shadows in the surrounding environment. In northern climates, where sunlight is scarce, especially during long, overcast winter days, the compounding effect of living in shadows can be potentially harmful. Scientific studies show that depriving people of daylight can lead to increased stress, sleep disruption and early onset of myopia or short-sightedness. Sudden changes in daylight are also linked to an increased risk of cardiovascular diseases.

To protect the health and wellbeing of residents, the UK’s Building Research Establishment (BRE) issue national planning guidance that sets out minimum daylight levels. Yet, in practice, the guidance is advisory. And in cases where a proposed development breaches the BRE guidelines, they are easily dismissed and breaches often deemed legally acceptable.

Take the example of Buckle Street Studio, a 13-storey apartment hotel that caused daylight to drop to levels in breach of BRE guidance for 201 windows across 166 rooms in 58 individual flats in neighbouring buildings. As I show in my paper, for each of these 58 homes, the drop in daylight levels amount to material harm. It is a deterioration of the living environment that will compromise the health and wellbeing of its residents.

Standing a mere nine meters from the newly built tower, Goldpence Apartments, a seven-storey housing block comprised of social and affordable homes, was the worst affected block. Of the 58 households in Goldpence apartments, 35 would be directly affected by the development. In fact, 33 residents submitted written objections that expressed both a concern for their individual homes and the lack of light for communal spaces in the neighbourhood.

The proposal was called in for a public inquiry, with a planning inspector assessing the reasons for the council’s refusal. In the final report, he sided with the developer and said that the existing levels of amenity and low levels of daylight in neighbouring buildings constituted a local norm, which the residents in Goldpence Apartments should expect

The research draws attention to the legal process through which the harm resulting from a drop in daylight is both neutralised in the planning inquiry and normalised through the planning process. Levels breaching the BRE regulations would be expected, because neighbouring flats already had poor living conditions.

I argue that this kind of race to the bottom amounts to a form of soft or light violence. It is a legally accepted and politically encouraged erosion of living conditions that disproportionately affects vulnerable and marginalised residents.

A dark future?

When Buckle Street Studios completed, the residents in Goldpence Apartments were not only exhausted from the lengthy planning process but had lost faith in the planning system’s ability to protect them. As I show in a related paper,
they had to come to terms with no longer being able to see the sky from inside their homes.

Many left their curtains drawn all day or rearranged furniture in their children’s bedrooms to prevent neighbours overlooking them. Instead of letting their defeat define them, the residents developed coping strategies that have allowed them to process and deal with the imposing presence of Buckle Street Studios.

This demonstrates how people deal with light violence in everyday life by developing innovative solutions to the challenges they face. And, if they can, so too can city builders.

The architects who design the towers of tomorrow should be able to uphold standards and produce healthy living environments rather than detract from them. More sensitive daylight design would include considering the orientation of buildings, the size and placement of windows and in some cases using reflective materials or diffusers.

Yet, to ensure healthy living environments for all the residents in the city – both those living on upper floors flooded in natural light, and those living below – city-builders must acknowledge the deeper challenge of addressing the socioeconomic divisions that are created as part of new developments. And, they should take the role of design more seriously in challenging residential segregation rather than smoothing over it.

Casper Laing Ebbensgaard does not work for, consult, own shares in or receive funding from any company or organisation that would benefit from this article, and has disclosed no relevant affiliations beyond their academic appointment.

– ref. Daylight robbery? How London’s skyscrapers deprive marginalised people of light – https://theconversation.com/daylight-robbery-how-londons-skyscrapers-deprive-marginalised-people-of-light-267332

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

No matter how many times you see a leader being torn apart, the brutality of it always shocking.

In the latest assault on Sussan Ley, Victorian senator Sarah Henderson, a rightwinger and strong opponent of net zero, declared on Friday, “I do have to say, really honestly, I do think Sussan is losing support. But I do believe in miracles, we can turn things around.

“But things are not good. I don’t support things they way they are at the moment.”

It can be said pretty confidently that Henderson doesn’t believe in miracles. She wants Ley replaced. But she didn’t take the next obvious step, which would be to call for a spill of the leadership when there’s a meeting of the Liberal Parliamentary Party.

Most observers believe Ley will be forced out by her party – the issue is how long it will take. Removing her, the party’s first female leader, this year would be seen as indecent, and (as of now) that is not expected. Anyway, the ducks are not yet in a row.

Henderson’s attack drew the predictable response, with colleagues supporting Ley and Angus Taylor, her main rival, saying he wasn’t challenging.

It was noted that Jane Hume, who has sniped at Ley after being passed over for her front bench, was supportive.

“I think Sussan has been really consistent in her messaging since she was elected. She has wanted to lower emissions, but not at any cost,” Hume said. Hume voted for Taylor. But she is a moderate – and a strong supporter of net zero, the issue of the moment.

The coming week will be hell for Ley and the opposition. If she can’t navigate it successfully, those ducks will be lining up sooner rather than later. If she does, her precarious position will be strengthened, although not permanently.

With a precision that eludes them when it comes to policy substance, the Liberals have set out a timeline for deciding their position on net zero.

On Wednesday there will be a meeting of the Liberal party room, for a general discussion.

On Thursday Liberal shadow ministers will meet. Opposition energy spokesman Dan Tehan will put a submission for the party’s policy on energy and emissions reductions.

Liberals have been told they must attend these meetings in person – they can only dial in if they are sick or overseas on parliamentary business. Some are muttering about the inconvenience.

After the Liberal shadow ministry meeting three senior Liberals and three senior Nationals will discuss “the respective party positions”. This committee will be asked to come up with a “joint Coalition position”.

That will go on Sunday to a meeting of the joint parties, held virtually, for endorsement “subject to the agreement of both parties”.

That’s the plan. If the two parties can’t get a combined policy, what happens is anyone’s guess. They could agree to disagree. The Coalition could blow up.

Last Sunday, the Nationals announced they had ditched net zero.

As of Friday, it was unclear where the Liberals will land. Certainly their present commitment to net zero by 2050 is dead. The choice is between no mention of net zero at all, or referring to it in some aspirational, long distance form. Things are fluid. The manoeuvring will continue over the next few days.

Standing back from the present imbroglio around net zero and Ley, it’s clear the Liberals have a longer term crisis over leadership.

They can replace Ley with Taylor, or even Andrew Hastie (long shot) but you wouldn’t find many observers who’d think any of them – Ley, Taylor, Hastie – could take the Liberals back to power. Nor is there anyone else in the parliamentary party who stands out.

Given the Liberals are looking at two terms in opposition at a minimum, one interesting question is whether a return to parliament by former treasurer Josh Frydenberg could help.

Frydenberg was defeated in Kooyong in 2022 by the teal Monique Ryan. He now has a senior role in the banking world. But it is well known the former treasurer still yearns for politics. He’s made sure his supporters control the Liberal party in Kooyong.

His autobiography comes out next year, which he has worked on with respected author Gideon Haigh. If Frydenberg hasn’t clarified by then whether he’ll have another crack at Kooying, the speculation will be intense.

At this year’s election, Ryan beat Liberal candidate Amelia Hamer with a two-candidate vote of 50.67-49.33%. Hamer is now running for preselection for the state Liberal seat of Malvern, which may remove the issue of Frydenberg pushing aside a woman who came close.

Kooyong has become a hard electorate for a Liberal candidate, with a high proportion of renters; on the other hand, the redistribution before the last election put some Liberal territory in. Ryan would be hard to dislodge but Frydenberg would have name recognition, having won the seat four times.

From his point of view, if he ran he would be taking a series of gambles. Kos Samaras, from RedBridge political consultancy, says he’d face three challenges in trying to reach the leadership and then make the Liberals electorally competitive. One: winning the seat. Two: winning the support of a party that’s been taken over by regional conservatives. Three: convincing that party to embrace a moderate conservative platform that would be saleable in the big cities.

For the Liberal Party, having Frydenberg in parliament would widen their leadership options, and could encourage the recruitment of some other high-profile candidates, as well as attracting more business support.

Would Frydenberg, if he were leader, be a likely vote winner? Ideologically, he’s centrist. He should be able to carry the economic debate competently. The risk would be that he was seen as a return to the past. But everything is relative and potentially he stands up well against the present Liberal top echelon.

Realistically, the next election would be the last opportunity for Frydenberg, now 54, to try for a return to politics. There will be a lot of polling in Kooyong as he weighs up his future.

Michelle Grattan does not work for, consult, own shares in or receive funding from any company or organisation that would benefit from this article, and has disclosed no relevant affiliations beyond their academic appointment.

– ref. View from The Hill: Could the return of Josh Frydenberg help the Liberals’ fortunes? – https://theconversation.com/view-from-the-hill-could-the-return-of-josh-frydenberg-help-the-liberals-fortunes-268989

Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Hunter Bennett, Lecturer in Exercise Science, University of South Australia

Your alarm goes off. Somehow you manage to get dressed, drag yourself to the gym, and start squatting.

But why does it feel so hard? Your legs are heavy and the weight you lifted only a couple of days ago – in the afternoon – feels almost impossible.

No, you’re not imagining it. There’s a large body of evidence to suggest most of us are stronger, more powerful, and have better endurance later in the day.

There are several reasons exercising can feel much harder first thing in the morning. Here’s why, and how you can adjust to morning exercise if you need to.

Your circadian rhythm affects your workout

Your body has a natural 24-hour clock that regulates hormones, body temperature and when you feel most awake or ready for sleep.

This clock is called your circadian rhythm. It is controlled by the brain but can also be influenced by external factors such as sunlight. This might explain why exercising in the morning in winter can be especially hard for some of us.

Research shows your circadian rhythm is clearly linked to exercise performance, which tends to follow a daily pattern.

Most people reach their peak between 4 and 7pm. This means we tend to be stronger, faster and more powerful in the afternoon and early evening.

We don’t know exactly why. But there are a few potential explanations.

Body temperature

Your core body temperature is at its lowest around 5am, and steadily increases across the day. When your body temperature rises, your muscles contract more efficiently. We think this is part of the reason people are typically stronger and more powerful later in the day.

Hormonal fluctuations

Insulin – the hormone that regulates blood sugar (glucose) levels – tends to be highest in the morning. This leads to a decrease in blood sugar, meaning less glucose your body can use as fuel, likely affecting how hard you can push.

Nervous system function

While we don’t know exactly why, there is some evidence to suggest your nervous system is better at sending signals to your muscles throughout the day. This allows you to use more of your muscle fibres during exercise, essentially making you stronger.

But what if I’m a morning person?

Your sleep chronotype can also affect exercise performance.

This describes your natural inclination for sleep and wakefulness at certain parts of the day – basically whether you’re a “morning person” (an “early bird”), or feel more productive and alert in the evening (a “night owl”).

Research shows night owls with a late chronotype do notably worse when exercising in the morning, compared to people with an early chronotype.

While we don’t know why this is the case, it might be that night owls experience smaller fluctuations in hormones and temperature throughout the day – although this is just speculation.

Interestingly, being sleep deprived seems to affect physical performance in the afternoon more than in the morning. So if you’re staying up late and not getting much sleep, you may actually find it easier to exercise the next morning than the next afternoon.

So, does timing matter?

Whatever time of day, if you can feel yourself working you will make progress – for example, increasing muscle strength and improving aerobic fitness and heart health.

So if you’re exercising to get bigger, stronger and fitter, the timing doesn’t actually matter.

Besides, when we exercise often comes down to motivation and convenience. If you like to exercise earlier in the day and that suits you best, there’s no reason to change.

But you can adapt if you need

If you have a sporting event coming up in the morning – and you usually train in the afternoon – you might want to prepare by doing some early exercise so you’re at your peak.

There is evidence to suggest that repeatedly training in the morning can close the gap between your afternoon and morning performance.

Basically, your body can get used to exercising at a particular time, although it will likely take a few weeks to adapt.

Finally, if you find exercising close to bedtime makes you feel too alert and is disrupting your sleep, you may want to try doing something more gentle at night and/or exercising earlier in the day.

Hunter Bennett does not work for, consult, own shares in or receive funding from any company or organisation that would benefit from this article, and has disclosed no relevant affiliations beyond their academic appointment.

– ref. Here’s why morning exercise feels so hard – https://theconversation.com/heres-why-morning-exercise-feels-so-hard-267743

Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Adrian Beaumont, Election Analyst (Psephologist) at The Conversation; and Honorary Associate, School of Mathematics and Statistics, The University of Melbourne

Donald Trump’s net approval has slumped to its lowest this term as the United States government shutdown breaks the record for the longest shutdown. Democrats had big wins in state elections on Tuesday.

I previously covered the ongoing US government shutdown on October 9, eight days into a shutdown that began on October 1. This shutdown has now lasted 38 days, beating the previous record 35-day shutdown that was set during Trump’s first term.

Although Republicans hold the presidency and majorities in both chambers of Congress, they cannot pass a budget without Democratic support in the Senate owing to the Senate’s requirement for 60 votes out of 100 senators to invoke “cloture” and end a “filibuster”.

Republicans hold a 53–47 majority over Democrats in the Senate, so they need seven Democrats to vote with them to obtain cloture. Democrats are refusing to help to pass a budget unless health insurance subsidies are extended.

For the first three weeks of the shutdown, Trump’s ratings were resilient, with his net approval in analyst Nate Silver’s aggregate of national polls rising slightly to -7.5 on October 19.

But since then, Trump’s net approval has slumped 5.5 points to -13.0, a low for him this term. Currently, 55.1% disapprove of Trump’s performance while 42.1% approve.

Trump’s net approval on the four issues tracked by Silver have all fallen recently. He now has a net approval of -4.9 on immigration, -17.6 on the economy, -17.8 on trade and -28.9 on inflation.

In Silver’s historical comparison on how Trump’s ratings compare with previous presidents since Harry Truman at this point in their presidencies, Trump’s net approval is only better than during his own first term. Joe Biden’s net approval was -8.3 at this point, making him the next worst on net approval.

Since a peak for the US benchmark S&P 500 stock market index on October 29, it has lost 2.5%. But in the last six months, it has gained nearly 20%.

Trump’s ratings will probably rebound if the shutdown ends soon. Unless something goes badly wrong with the US economy or the stock market, his ratings will probably return to net high single-digit negative, not net double-digit negative.

Democrats had big wins at state elections

US state elections occurred on Tuesday in New Jersey and Virginia. Democrats won the Virginia governorship by 57.2–42.6 over Republicans, a gain for Democrats. They also won the other two statewide races for lieutenant-governor and attorney-general.

Democrats won the lower house of the Virginia legislature by 64–36, a 13-seat gain for Democrats. The upper house was not up for election, but Democrats hold a 21–19 majority there. At the 2024 presidential election, Kamala Harris defeated Trump in Virginia by 5.8 points, though Trump won the overall popular vote by 1.5 points.

Democrats held the New Jersey governorship, winning by 56.4–43.0, far exceeding polls that gave Democrats a low single-digit lead. They lead in the lower house by 53–19, with eight seats uncalled.

If the uncalled seats go to current leaders, Democrats will win by 57–23, a five-seat gain. Democrats hold the upper house by 25–15, which was not up for election. Harris beat Trump in New Jersey in 2024 by 5.9 points.

In June, democratic socialist Zohran Mamdani had won the New York City Democratic mayoral nomination, defeating former New York governor Andrew Cuomo by 56.4–43.6 after preferences to win the Democratic primary. On Tuesday, Mamdani defeated Cuomo, who ran as an independent, in the general election
by 50.4–41.6, with 7.1% for a Republican.

Unlike the primary, the general election used first past the post. But preferences would not have changed the outcome as Mamdani exceeded 50%.

In response to Texas Republicans gerrymandering Texas to create five additional federal Republican seats, California Democrats proposed retaliatory gerrymandering of California’s federal seats. A referendum was needed to approve this gerrymander. With 79% reporting, “yes” to gerrymandering had won by 63.9–36.1. Harris won California in 2024 by 20.1 points.

See also my coverage of these elections for The Poll Bludger. In this piece, I wrote about past and upcoming elections in the Netherlands, Bolivia and Chile.

Implications for the 2026 midterm elections

At November 2026 midterm elections, all of the House of Representatives and one-third of the Senate will be up for election. In Virginia and New Jersey’s gubernatorial elections, there were respectively 8.8 and 7.5 point swings to Democrats from the 2024 presidential margin in those states.

If these swings are applied to Trump’s national margin of 1.5 points in 2024, Democrats would win nationally by 6.0 points (New Jersey swing) or 7.3 (Virginia swing). So if the swing in either state occurs nationally in 2026, Democrats are very likely to gain control of the House.

There will be 35 seats up for election in the Senate next November (33 regular and two special elections). Republicans hold 22 and Democrats 13, but only two Republican seats are thought vulnerable: Maine and North Carolina.

In 2024, Harris won Maine by 6.9 points and Trump only won North Carolina by 2.2 points. Trump won all other states Republicans are defending by at least a double-digit margin. Even if the swing in Virginia happened nationally, Democrats would gain only two seats and Republicans would hold the Senate by 51–49.

It’s become increasingly difficult for Democrats to win the Senate, as the two senators per state rule skews Senate elections towards low-population, rural states.

In the Fiftyplusone generic ballot average, Democrats lead Republicans by 45.0–41.9. The low single-digit lead for Democrats hasn’t changed since April. The current 3.1-point Democrat lead is below what happens from applying the swing in New Jersey and Virginia nationally.

While Trump’s ratings have dropped, there hasn’t been a Democratic surge on the generic ballot. That suggests voters are blaming both parties for the shutdown.

Adrian Beaumont does not work for, consult, own shares in or receive funding from any company or organisation that would benefit from this article, and has disclosed no relevant affiliations beyond their academic appointment.

– ref. Trump’s ratings slump as shutdown grinds on; Democrats have big wins in state elections – https://theconversation.com/trumps-ratings-slump-as-shutdown-grinds-on-democrats-have-big-wins-in-state-elections-269182

Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Justin Ellis, Senior Lecturer in Criminology, University of Newcastle

It’s been a decade since the US Supreme Court recognised a constitutional right to same-sex marriage in the landmark case, Obergefell v Hodges. The US Supreme Court will meet today to consider a request to overturn that 2015 decision.

In 2015, Kim Davis, a former Kentucky county clerk, made global headlines when she refused to grant a marriage license to a gay couple based on her religious beliefs. The couple, David Moore and David Ermold, filed a lawsuit against her, alleging she had violated their constitutional right to marry.

In a separate case, a US District judge ordered Davis to issue marriage licences to both gay and straight couples. When she refused, she was briefly jailed.

Then, in 2016, the Kentucky legislature passed a law that sought to accommodate clerks opposed to same-sex marriage by removing their names and signatures from licensing forms.

In the meantime, Moore and Ermold’s case continued. In 2023, a jury awarded them damages of US$50,000 (A$77,000) each.

Davis appealed that decision, arguing she could not be held liable because issuing Moore and Ermold a marriage license would have violated her right to freely exercise her religion. Davis’ appeal was rejected by the 6th Circuit Court on the grounds the First Amendment protects her as a private citizen, but not in her role as a government clerk.

This is when the US Supreme Court became involved. Davis is now asking the highest court in the country to review the 6th Circuit Court’s decision. She is arguing that she appeared before that court as an individual, not as a representative of the state.

There’s something bigger at stake, though. Davis is also asking the Supreme Court to overrule their 2015 decision in the Obergefell case that legalised same-sex marriages federally.

Today, at its private conference, the Supreme Court will decide whether to review Davis’ request.

What are the chances same-sex marriage could be overturned?

The chances of the US Supreme Court reviewing the case are unlikely – the court receives more than 7,000 such petitions each year and only chooses to hear 1% of them.

If it was to grant a review, the court would also likely consider Davis’ petition at two consecutive conferences.

However, given the more conservative configuration of justices on the Supreme Court, Obergefell v Hodges cannot be taken for granted.

It would take the votes of just four justices to take up the question and grant a review. It would then require a fifth justice to overturn Obergefell. The current court is dominated by conservative appointees by six to three.

Three of the conservative justices also wrote their own dissents to Obergefell. As Justice Samuel Alito wrote at the time, “the Constitution says nothing about a right to same-sex marriage.”

One argument the conservative justices could use to overturn Obergefell is the view same-sex marriage does not pass the “history and tradition” test.

This happened in the Dobbs v. Jackson Women’s Health Organization decision in 2022 that overturned Roe v Wade and ended the US constitutional right to abortion, handing jurisdiction back to the states.

Alito reasoned at the time abortion did not meet the test because it was not “deeply rooted in the nation’s history and tradition”.

The Dobbs decision also showed the court’s willingness to overturn precedent.

Another reason the court might choose to overturn Obergefell is that the conservative majority has prioritised First Amendment free speech protections over other constitutional and legal rights.

On the other hand, Moore and Ermold argue in their response to Davis’ petition that the case is a “relatively easy” one that “does not merit” the justices’ intervention.

They argue, for instance, that Davis’ didn’t develop her current First Amendment argument until very late in the process, in her reply to the 6th Circuit Court, filed nine years into the case.

By waiting so long to raise this argument, they argue, Davis has deprived them and the lower courts of “a fair opportunity to address it”.

State legislatures and LGBTQ+ rights

Davis’ petition for a review may seem like a longshot. But it illuminates a worrying trend in the US of conservative lawmakers trying to curtail LGBTQ+ rights in the states.

The American Civil Liberties Union counts 616 such bills in state legislatures so far in 2025. These include:

• 32 free speech and expression bans
• 109 bills that would weaken civil rights laws (including 61 based on religious exemptions); and
• 277 bills that would restrict student and educator rights.

Seventy-one of the bills have been passed into law, including nine based on religious exemptions.

A tactic in this strategy is to introduce resolutions in state legislatures calling on the US Supreme Court to overturn its ruling in Obergefell. These resolutions are considered symbolic, as state law does not have control over what the Supreme Court does. But they outline a persistent, anti-same-sex marriage narrative.

Anti-LGBTQ+ misinformation and disinformation

There is also a broader assault on sexual and gender diversity happening in the US, much of which was foregrounded in The Heritage Foundation’s Project 2025 manifesto for a 2025 Republican presidency.

This includes anti-LGBTQ+ misinformation and disinformation that seeks to portray same-sex-attracted men, drag queens and transgender women as sexualised threats to children.

The LGBTQ+ community finds itself under constant threat from an onslaught of coordinated online campaigns, in addition to constant legal and legislative action. And this directly impacts the capacity for safe LGBTQ+ participation in public life.

As a result, LGBTQ+ individuals and organisations are already reconsidering their relationship with visibility, and how they can continue to advocate for progress.

Justin Ellis does not work for, consult, own shares in or receive funding from any company or organisation that would benefit from this article, and has disclosed no relevant affiliations beyond their academic appointment.

– ref. Will the US Supreme Court consider a request to overturn same-sex marriage? – https://theconversation.com/will-the-us-supreme-court-consider-a-request-to-overturn-same-sex-marriage-268888

Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Frank Jotzo, Professor, Crawford School of Public Policy and Director, Centre for Climate and Energy Policy, Australian National University

Australia’s National Party has ended its commitment to reaching net zero by 2050.

In its anti-net zero plan, the party calls for emissions targets and climate policies to be watered down. The plan draws on a new report.

This would be economically damaging. Walking away from net zero would undermine investment confidence, raise power prices, drive up taxes, undermine green export potential, harm Australia’s international reputation and run against our intrinsic interest in strong global climate policy as a nation highly exposed to climate damage.

The announcement by the Nationals shouldn’t be interpreted as the policy of a future government, given the rural party is the junior partner in the Coalition, the Liberal party is struggling to respond, and there’ll be more political positioning to come. But it will have influence. The spectre of policy reversal spooks businesses and investors.

The cost of a messy transition

It’s not plausible Australia would give up on net zero in the long term. There’s strong public support for climate action, and we know how net zero can be achieved.

Australia’s long-term economic and broader national interest is aligned with strong climate action. This fundamental interest will very likely prevail above the political skirmishes and cycles. Yet Australia’s climate wars could flare up again, with uncertainty, detours, delays and inefficiencies.

The recent Treasury net zero modelling report examines the question of a messy transition.

In a “disorderly transition” scenario, the report estimates wages in 2050 would be 2.5% lower and per capita GDP 1.6% lower compared with the steady trajectory of progress implied by the government’s 2035 emissions target of a 62–70% cut below 2005 levels. These aren’t trivial numbers – they represent a palpable loss to Australian households and quality of life.

A disorderly transition means delayed action and stranded assets. It’s more expensive in part because of uncertainty driving up financing costs for the necessary investments.

Is Australia cutting emissions faster than than the OECD?

National party leaders claim Australia has been cutting emissions faster than other rich countries. In their announcement, they made a very specific claim:

OECD countries have been cutting their emissions by 1% per year. Australia has been cutting its emissions by about 2% per year – double the OECD rate. Our emissions cuts will be capped and calibrated, which is common sense.

The maths of the claim is simple, but the substance of it is misrepresented. Australia has cut overall national emissions around 29% below 2005 levels, while other rich countries in the OECD have cut emissions 15% on average.

There are two fallacies here. First, Australia is unique among developed countries in that land-use change and forestry emissions played a large role in the national emissions profile until the 2000s. Falls in emissions have mainly come from these sectors.

In every other sector bar electricity, Australia’s emissions have increased or flatlined since 2005. When land use and forestry is excluded, emissions have only fallen 5%. So in the metric that matters for the OECD comparison and for the actual low-emissions transition, Australia is below average, not in front.

Second, Australia is wealthier and has higher emissions on a per capita basis than the OECD average. There’s greater opportunity to cut emissions faster, and a higher expectation that Australia do so. Emissions can be cut deeply while maintaining activity not just in electricity but in industry, transport and agriculture.

Power-sector paralysis

The Nationals suggest propping up ageing coal plants with government intervention.

Left alone, the energy market will phase out coal in favour of wind and solar power. That’s because old coal plants are expensive to run and are less and less reliable. Renewables and storage are cheaper options.

Keeping coal power on life support would cost Australians more, through higher power prices or higher taxes to pay for subsidies.

It would sap investor confidence, drive up investment finance costs and slow down the needed modernisation of the power sector. Investors would be looking elsewhere.

Industrial modernisation delayed

Another suggestion by the Nationals is to scrap or weaken incentives for heavy industries to cut emissions under the Safeguard Mechanism, which allows emissions credit trading. This would delay modernisation of industrial facilities and worsen investment conditions because of policy uncertainty.

Under the Nationals plan, Australia’s land-based carbon credit scheme would revert back to a government “emissions reductions fund”, with government buying the credits, rather than have industry buy credits as currently.

This would mean fewer carbon projects on the land, lower credit prices, and less money for diversified income streams to landholders, farming and forestry businesses.

Squandering green opportunities

Shelving climate ambition and policy would also pull the rug out from under Australia’s ample green commodity opportunities. Australia has the chance to become a large exporter of commodities such as green iron and ammonia and to move into sustainable, high-value and low-emissions agriculture for export.

This relies to a fair extent on reputation. Other countries are poised to capture these emerging markets. And international demand for coal and gas will decline anyway.

Choosing prosperity

After years as a climate laggard, Australia’s international reputation on climate policy has improved. This will be on display at the COP30 climate conference in Brazil over the next two weeks. Pacific neighbours, trading partners and investment funds have taken note.

Parts of the political spectrum might see an advantage in playing to the Trump administration on climate change. But that would come at a cost to relationships and economic opportunities with other countries, including China, the clean energy investment leader.

The world’s energy and industrial system will shift to low-carbon options. The question is whether Australia embraces that transformation to our advantage, or locks into declining industries while economic opportunities pass by. Walking away from net-zero offers no pathway to future prosperity.

Australia’s previous economic successes have stemmed from embracing new opportunities, such as riding the China-led resources boom. The conservative side of politics knows this. Choosing prosperity over politics would have it on the side of sensible climate policy.

Frank Jotzo leads research projects on climate, energy and industry policy. He advises state governments including as a commissioner with the NSW Net Zero Commission and chair of the Queensland Clean Economy Expert Panel. He also led the Carbon Leakage Review for the federal government.

– ref. Own goal: why the Nationals’ retreat on net zero would be bad economics – https://theconversation.com/own-goal-why-the-nationals-retreat-on-net-zero-would-be-bad-economics-269180

Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Phil Borell, Senior Lecturer (Above the Bar), Aotahi School of Maori and Indigenous Studies, University of Canterbury

The jerseys might be red or blue, green and gold, or black and white – but rugby league’s future is decidedly brown.

As the New Zealand Kiwis and Toa Samoa prepare to clash for the Rugby League Pacific Championship’s Pacific Cup on Sunday, it’s clear the top calibre Pacific players have catapulted the game to another level.

The throngs of Pacific fans behind them – including superstar Toa Samoa supporter Dwayne “The Rock” Johnson – are bringing their own force as this thrilling competition draws to a close.

That energy was on full display as Toa Samoa fended off Mate Ma’a Tonga in Brisbane two weeks ago, while the PNG Kumuls clinched their third straight Pacific Bowl with a commanding victory over Fiji Bati last week.

This weekend promises plenty more action: along with the men’s cup decider, the Kiwi Ferns will square off against the Australian Jillaroos in the women’s competition final on Sunday.

Launched by the National Rugby League (NRL), the Pacific Championships are the latest evolution of the Oceania Cup – which itself replaced the old ANZAC Test once played solely between Australia and New Zealand.

The shift reflects the code’s growing centre of gravity in the Pacific, where nations such as Samoa, Tonga and Papua New Guinea are now driving the game’s expansion – on and off the field.

Pacific pride in the stands

It’s no secret that Māori, Pacific and Indigenous Australian athletes have become a major presence in professional rugby league, with Polynesian players now making up more than half of NRL contracts.

What hasn’t attracted as much attention, however, is the impact of their fans.

Almost 45,000 diehard Samoan and Tongan supporters packed Brisbane’s Suncorp Stadium two weeks ago, creating an atmosphere the tier-one nations could only dream of.

As rugby league commentator Andrew Voss said on his morning show the day after the match:

What do we do with Samoa and Tonga? We have something here that is a jewel in the crown that rivals State of Origin.

It’s worth remembering the ancient rivalry between the island nations of Samoa and Tonga predates not only State of Origin, but also the Australian nation state itself.

When Mate Ma’a Tonga played the Kiwis at Eden Park on Sunday, Tongan fans – affectionately known as the “sea of red” – made up the clear majority of a record 38,144-strong crowd.

Their passionate support for a team that ultimately lost has seen the sea of red dubbed the “greatest show in sports”.

Pacific fans are arguably what make the game what it is today: unwavering in their support, patriotic to extremes and as visible as they are vocal. These fans have lifted rugby league up, rather than the other way around.

From our seats, as Māori and Pacific academics and sporting practitioners, Pacific rugby league not only rivals State of Origin, it has the potential to surpass it as a true global rivalry that extends beyond Australian states.

League loyalty comes home

As more elite Pacific players join the exodus away from the green and gold or black and white jerseys of their host nations – including Payne Haas, Roger Tuivasa-Sheck, Jason Taumalolo and Isaiya Katoa, among others – it’s becoming even clearer the international game’s current growth depends heavily on Pacific talent.

The Australian Kangaroos will always be strong, with or without Pacific players: they have a seemingly endless conveyor belt of young people eager to play the game.

But that doesn’t mean they won’t feel the loss as their Origin superstars navigate their way back “home” to represent their heritage.

The real impact, however, may be felt most by the New Zealand Kiwis and New Zealand Rugby League as they work to redefine themselves. The Kiwis were once the first home-away-from-home for Pacific rugby league players.

Before Samoan and Tongan teams were playing test matches against tier-one nations, most of their NRL players had links to Aotearoa through birth or migration. This often led to them representing the Kiwis at the highest level.

Now, as Tongan and Samoan teams become serious contenders, New Zealand is likely to take the biggest hit. This isn’t a bad thing. If anything, it will open pathways for more Pacific athletes to earn higher honours.

But it does create uncertainty about what New Zealand and Australian teams might look like in a few years, after having had first choice of Pacific athletes for so long.

It’s clear the future of rugby league is brown – let’s nurture it.

Phil Borell is the Chairman of Canterbury Rugby League.

Dion Enari does not work for, consult, own shares in or receive funding from any company or organisation that would benefit from this article, and has disclosed no relevant affiliations beyond their academic appointment.

– ref. The future of rugby league in Australia, NZ and the Pacific is here – and it’s brown – https://theconversation.com/the-future-of-rugby-league-in-australia-nz-and-the-pacific-is-here-and-its-brown-269067

Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Ray Laurence, Professor of Ancient History, Macquarie University

At its height, the Roman empire covered some 5 million square kilometres and was home to around 60 million people. This vast territory and huge population were held together via a network of long-distance roads connecting places hundreds and even thousands of kilometres apart.

Compared with a modern road, a Roman road was in many ways over-engineered. Layers of material often extended a metre or two into the ground beneath the surface, and in Italy roads were paved with volcanic rock or limestone.

Roads were also furnished with milestones bearing distance measurements. These would help calculate how long a journey might take or the time for a letter to reach a person elsewhere.

Thanks to these long-lasting archaeological remnants, as well as written records, we can build a picture of what the road network looked like thousands of years ago.

A new, comprehensive map and digital dataset published by a team of researchers led by Tom Brughmans at Aarhus University in Denmark shows almost 300,000 kilometres of roads spanning an area of close to 4 million square kilometres.

The road network

The Itiner-e dataset was pieced together from archaeological and historical records, topographic maps, and satellite imagery.

It represents a substantial 59% increase over the previous mapping of 188,555 kilometres of Roman roads. This is a very significant expansion of our mapped knowledge of ancient infrastructure.

About one-third of the 14,769 defined road sections in the dataset are classified as long-distance main roads (such as the famous Via Appia that links Rome to southern Italy). The other two-thirds are secondary roads, mostly with no known name.

The researchers have been transparent about the reliability of their data. Only 2.7% of the mapped roads have precisely known locations, while 89.8% are less precisely known and 7.4% represent hypothesised routes based on available evidence.

More realistic roads – but detail still lacking

Itiner-e has improved on past efforts with improved coverage of roads in the Iberian Peninsula, Greece and North Africa, as well as a crucial methodological refinement in how routes are mapped.

Rather than imposing idealised straight lines, the researchers adapted previously proposed routes to fit geographical realities. This means mountain roads can follow winding, practical paths, for example.

Although there is a considerable increase in the data for Roman roads in this mapping, it does not include all the available data for the existence of Roman roads. Looking at the hinterland of Rome, for example, I found great attention to the major roads and secondary roads but no attempt to map the smaller local networks of roads that have come to light in field surveys over the past century.

Itiner-e has great strength as a map of the big picture, but it also points to a need to create localised maps with greater detail. These could use our knowledge of the transport infrastructure of specific cities.

There is much published archaeological evidence that is yet to be incorporated into a digital platform and map to make it available to a wider academic constituency.

Travel time in the Roman empire

Itiner-e’s map also incorporates key elements from Stanford University’s Orbis interface, which calculates the time it would have taken to travel from point A to B in the ancient world.

The basis for travel by road is assumed to have been humans walking (4km per hour), ox carts (2km per hour), pack animals (4.5km per hour) and horse courier (6km per hour).

This is fine, but it leaves out mule-drawn carriages, which were the major form of passenger travel. Mules have greater strength and endurance than horses, and became the preferred motive power in the Roman empire.

What next?

Itiner-e provides a new means to investigate Roman transportation. We can relate the map to the presence of known cities, and begin to understand the nature of the transport network in supporting the lives of the people who lived in them.

This opens new avenues of inquiry as well. With the network of roads defined, we might be able to estimate the number of animals such as mules, donkeys, oxen and horses required to support a system of communication.

For example, how many journeys were required to communicate the death of an emperor (often not in Rome but in one of the provinces) to all parts of the empire?

Some inscriptions refer to specifically dated renewal of sections of the network of roads, due to the collapse of bridges and so on. It may be possible to investigate the effect of such a collapse of a section of the road network using Itiner-e.

These and many other questions remain to be answered.

Ray Laurence does not work for, consult, own shares in or receive funding from any company or organisation that would benefit from this article, and has disclosed no relevant affiliations beyond their academic appointment.

– ref. The Roman empire built 300,000 kilometres of roads: new study – https://theconversation.com/the-roman-empire-built-300-000-kilometres-of-roads-new-study-269186

Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Tayla Broadbridge, PhD Candidate in Mathematics, University of Adelaide

Eating plenty of fruit and vegetables is key to staying healthy and avoiding diseases such as heart disease and stroke. But it’s often easier said than done.

Places where many people eat poorly are often called “food deserts”, and their existence has typically been blamed on a lack of nearby supermarkets or grocery stores.

However, my colleagues and I have discovered food deserts exist in the heart of one of Europe’s biggest and most cosmopolitan cities, surrounded by local shopping options.

In new research published today in PLOS Complex Systems, we analysed hundreds of millions of Tesco supermarket transactions across London and discovered surprising patterns in who buys what kind of food and where they do it.

Our results show the factors that influence how people eat are complex – with implications for nutrition in cities around the world.

The rise of ‘food deserts’

The term “food deserts” emerged in the late 1990s to describe areas where residents were denied access to affordable, healthy food due to a lack of supermarkets or poor transport links. As a result, food deserts have usually been defined by distance to supermarkets.

More recent research has revealed the picture is more complex. It’s not just how close the person is to a supermarket and how affordable the food is. There are other factors, such as how many shops are available, and whether the shops stock culturally appropriate foods and accept different forms of payment.

Our new paper builds on this. It takes a different approach to identifying food deserts – based on what people actually put in their shopping baskets.

420 million shopping lists

We used a dataset of Tesco grocery purchases containing 420 million anonymised transactions from 1.6 million London Clubcard holders to analyse residents’ food buying, based on the areas linked to shoppers’ loyalty cards.

Two clear purchasing patterns emerged from the data – one involving sugary, processed and high-carbohydrate foods usually considered unhealthy, the other involving purchases of fresh fruits, vegetables and meat, usually considered to be healthier.

We then mapped the areas of London where each of these purchasing patterns was most common. This revealed distinct geographic patterns.

Inner northwest London had the most nutritious purchasing behaviour – with high fruit, vegetable and fish purchases. The east and outer west of London followed a less nutritious pattern, high in sweets and soft drinks.

Because our analysis is based on supermarket purchases, it doesn’t capture all food consumption – such as meals eaten out, takeaway orders, or shopping from smaller local stores.

Still, using real transaction data offers a major advantage over traditional surveys, which often rely on what people say they eat rather than what they actually buy.

Lower income linked to less nutritious food

Here’s what emerges when we define food deserts by what people actually buy. Even in cities with stores nearby, some neighbourhoods are still “deserted” of nutritious options. Often, it’s not about distance at all – it’s about economic and social factors.

We then analysed how demographic and socioeconomic factors such as age, income, Black, Asian and minority ethnic populations, car ownership, and walk time to stores relate to diet quality across London.

We found that income and the proportion of Black, Asian and minority ethnic residents were among the strongest factors linked to diet quality. But their influence varied across the city. Lower income was linked to less nutritious food purchasing throughout London, and this effect was strongest in parts of the east and west.

This suggests that affordability and social disadvantage shape what’s within reach – even when supermarkets are nearby.

Some factors that might be expected to influence diet had surprisingly little effect. For example, car ownership was linked to less nutritious purchases in certain areas, while walk time to stores had very low association with diet quality.

Together, these patterns suggest two things: the reasons people eat unhealthily are local and vary from place to place, and they’re shaped more by social and economic conditions than by how close shops are.

Global relevance

While our study focuses on London, the findings have relevance beyond the United Kingdom.

The same inequalities that shape London’s dietary health also exist in Australian cities. Australia is highly urbanised, with around 73% of the population living in major cities.

Here too, poor diet is one of the nation’s leading causes of preventable disease. In 2022, 66% of Australian adults and 26% of children were living with overweight or obesity, according to the Australian Institute of Health and Welfare (AIHW). On top of that, the average servings of fruit and vegetables have declined across all age groups since 2017–18, according to AIHW data.

A similar data-driven approach using anonymised grocery transaction data from sources such as Woolworths Everyday Rewards card or Coles’ Flybuys programs could help reveal which communities face the greatest nutritional constraints, and why.

Another important takeaway from our work is that food access is not a one-size-fits-all problem. Understanding what people buy – not just where they live – is key to creating healthier and more equitable food environments.

Focusing on actual purchasing behaviour allows policymakers to design more effective, community-informed interventions that promote fairer, healthier food choices.

Tayla Broadbridge does not work for, consult, own shares in or receive funding from any company or organisation that would benefit from this article, and has disclosed no relevant affiliations beyond their academic appointment.

– ref. ‘Food deserts’ found even in areas with supermarkets nearby – new study – https://theconversation.com/food-deserts-found-even-in-areas-with-supermarkets-nearby-new-study-269083

Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Paula Lorgelly, Professor of Health Economics, University of Auckland, Waipapa Taumata Rau

New Zealand’s drug-buying agency Pharmac is currently consulting on a change to how it manages its waiting list for medicines.

This represents one of the stages of Pharmac’s “reset” through which the agency seeks to become more outward-focused and transparent.

The consultation focuses on how Pharmac manages its Options for Investment list – essentially a wish list of what Pharmac would like to fund if it had the budget.

For medicines that have been at the bottom of the list for more than two years, Pharmac wants to decline 20% if there are more than 100 applications on the overall list, or 10% if there are fewer than 100.

A useful analogy is to think of Pharmac’s list like a Christmas wish list. Children put items on it and parents will buy them if they can afford them. Not everything is affordable, and Christmas morning can result in disappointment.

Similarly, Pharmac disappoints patients (and clinicians and industry) by not funding all medicines that are submitted for review.

A never-ending list

Pharmac currently has 123 medicines on the Options for Investment list. The disappointment continues because Pharmac doesn’t tell anyone where these medicines are on the list, for fear of losing their hand at negotiating a better deal with the supplier.

Pharmac keeps unfunded medicines on this list for many years. A 2023 report found applications stay on the list for an average of 5.9 years.

However, after several years, the most effective must-have drugs can change. Relying on assessments from many years ago carries risk, and reducing some of the old listings may have some merit.

But for patients who have been asked to wait for many years, the removal of medicines from the list may come as a bitter blow. Telling your children you can’t afford a toy for Christmas is a harsh truth, but telling them to wait each year and then breaking the news that they were never going to get it seems rather cruel.

Can more money solve the problem?

New Zealand spends less on health than most similar countries.

Recent estimates also suggest New Zealand spends substantially less (4.9%) of its total health expenditure on pharmaceuticals, compared to the average OECD spending of 13.3%.

If Pharmac’s current budget of NZ$1.7 billion were doubled, the agency might be able to clear the current list completely. But this would come at a cost to other parts of the health system.

Pharmac’s budget has increased quickly in recent years, but New Zealand also has a growing waiting list for specialist appointments and elective surgery, capacity issues at hospitals and difficulty attracting and retaining health professionals.

Historically, Pharmac’s ability to keep costs down has allowed New Zealand to do more in these other parts of the health system.

The experience elsewhere is that spending a lot of money on expensive new drugs (as the UK does) has led to a large net reduction in population health. This happened because new cancer and biological drugs are expensive and do not offer the same value in terms of quality-adjusted life years as spending elsewhere in the health system.

It might be better for New Zealand to keep its pharmaceutical spending down and put more effort into improving other parts of the health system.

Clearer expectations on value for money

Another alternative is for Pharmac not to have a list at all, as the list breeds disappointment and frustration. If Pharmac were to set clearer expectations and be willing to say no, that could be avoided.

A better alternative would be for Pharmac to base some of its purchasing decisions on the opportunity cost of spending money elsewhere in the health system.

That is, instead of basing decisions on ministerial demands or becoming more responsive to industry and patient lobbying, Pharmac (or the Ministry of Health) could ask how much health would be gained from spending money on other parts of New Zealand’s system.

Once that is known, Pharmac could commit to providing a similar value for money to that delivered elsewhere by our hospitals, primary care and in public health. Doing this would require research, but this has already been conducted elsewhere and could be replicated here, albeit with some political will.

Otherwise, the danger is that Pharmac resets from running a wish list poorly to a process that’s even worse.

Paula Lorgelly consults to Pharmac and has in the past consulted to the pharmaceutical industry. She has received funding from the Health Research Council, the Ministry of Health and the EuroQol Foundation. Paula is a member of the EuroQol Group which owns the EQ-5D instrument which is widely used in health technology assessments.

Braden Te Ao has consulted Pharmac previously and receives funding from the Health Research Council of New Zealand and the Ministry of Health for various research projects requiring an economic analysis. He currently serves as a director for ProCare Health Ltd and is a member of the Ngā Pou Hauora o Tāmaki Makaurau Iwi Māori Partnership Board.

Richard Edlin consults to Pharmac and has in the past consulted to the pharmaceutical industry.

– ref. Pharmac wants to trim its controversial medicines waiting list – no list at all might be better – https://theconversation.com/pharmac-wants-to-trim-its-controversial-medicines-waiting-list-no-list-at-all-might-be-better-268276

Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Jacqueline Peel, Professor of Law, The University of Melbourne

Along with delegates from all over the world, I’ll be heading to the United Nations COP30 climate summit in the Brazilian Amazon city of Belém. Like many others, I’m unsure what to expect.

This year, the summit faces perhaps the greatest headwinds of any in recent history. In the United States, the Trump administration has slashed climate science, cancelled renewable projects, expanded fossil fuel extraction and left the Paris Agreement (again). Trump’s efforts to hamstring climate action have made for extreme geopolitical turbulence, overshadowing the world’s main forum for coordinating climate action – even as the problem worsens.

Last year, average global warming climbed above 1.5°C for the first time. Costly climate-fuelled disasters are multiplying, with severe heatwaves, fires and flooding affecting most continents this year.

Climate talks are never easy. Every nation wants input and many interests clash. Petrostates and big fossil fuel exporters want to keep extraction going, while Pacific states despairingly watch the seas rise. But in the absence of a global government to direct climate policy, these imperfect talks remain the best option for coordinating commitment to meaningful action.

Here’s what to keep an eye on this year.

A smaller-than-usual COP?

A persistent criticism of the annual climate summits is that they have become too big and unwieldy – more a trade show and playground for fossil fuel lobbyists than an effective forum for multilateral diplomacy and action on climate change. One solution is to deliberately make these talks smaller.

The Belém conference may end up having a smaller number of delegates, though not by design so much as logistical headaches.

Brazilian President Luiz Inácio Lula da Silva backed the decision to invite the world to the Amazon to display how vital the massive rainforest is as a carbon sink. But Belém’s remote location on the northeast coast, limited infrastructure and shortage of hotels have seen prices soar, putting the conference out of reach for smaller nations, including some of the most vulnerable. These constraints could undermine the inclusive “Mutirão” (collective effort on climate change) sought by organisers.

Show me the money

Climate finance is a perennial issue at COP meetings. These funding pledges by rich countries are intended to help poorer countries reduce emissions, adapt to climate change or recover from climate disasters. Poorer countries have long called for more funding, given rich countries have done vastly more damage to the climate.

At COP29 in Baku, Azerbaijan last year, a new climate finance goal was set for US$300 billion (~A$460 billion) to be raised annually by developed countries by 2035, with the goal of reaching $US1.3 trillion (~A$2 trillion) in funding from both government and private sources over the same period.

To deliver the second goal, negotiators laid out a “Baku to Belém” roadmap. The details are due to be finalised at COP30. But with the US walking away from climate action and the European Union wavering, many eyes will be on China and whether it will step into the climate leadership vacuum left by developed countries. The EU has only just reached agreement on a 2040 emissions reduction target and an “indicative” cut for 2035.

Climate finance will be the priority for many countries, as worsening disasters such as Hurricane Melissa in Jamaica and Typhoon Kalmaegi in the Philippines once again demonstrate the enormous human and financial cost of climate change.

The latest UN assessment indicates the need for this funding is outpacing flows by 12–14 times. In Belém, poorer countries will be hoping to land agreement on greater finance and support for adaptation. Work on a global set of indicators to track progress on adaptation – including finance – will be key.

Brazilian organisers hope to rally countries around another flagship funding initiative set to launch at COP30. The Tropical Forests Forever Facility would compensate countries for preserving tropical forests, with 20% of funds directed to Indigenous peoples and local communities who protect tropical forest on their lands. If it gets up, this fund could offer a breakthrough in tackling deforestation by flipping the economics in favour of conservation and protecting a huge store of carbon.

2035 climate pledges

Belém was supposed to be a celebration of ambitious new emissions pledges which would keep alive the Paris Agreement goal of holding warming to 1.5°C. Nations were originally due to submit their 2035 pledges (formally known as Nationally Determined Contributions) by February, with an extension given to September after 95 per cent of countries missed the deadline.

When pledges finally arrived in September, they were broadly underwhelming. Only half the world’s emissions were covered by a 2035 pledge, meaning the remaining emissions gap could be very significant. Australia is pledging cuts of 62–70% from 2005 emissions levels.

That’s not to say there’s no progress. A new UN report suggests countries are bending the curve downward on emissions but at a far slower pace than is needed.

How negotiators handle this emissions gap will be a litmus test for whether countries are taking their Paris Agreement obligations seriously.

Rise of the courts

Even as some countries back away from climate action, courts are increasingly stepping into the breach. This year, the International Court of Justice issued a rousing Advisory Opinion on states’ climate obligations under international law, including that national targets have to make an adequate contribution to meeting the Paris Agreement’s temperature goal. The court warned failing to take “appropriate action” to safeguard the climate system from fossil fuel emissions – including from projects carried out by private corporations – may be “an internationally wrongful act”. That is, they could attract international liability.

It will be interesting to see how this ruling affects negotiating positions at COP30 over the fossil fuel phase-out. At COP28 in 2023, nations promised to begin “transitioning away from fossil fuels in energy systems”. If countries fail to progress the phase-out, accountability could instead be delivered via the courts. A new judgement in France found the net zero targets of oil and gas majors amount to greenwashing, while lawsuits aimed at making big carbon polluters liable for climate damage caused by their emissions are in the pipeline.

An Australia/Pacific COP?

A big question to be resolved is whether Australia’s long-running bid to host next year’s COP in Adelaide will get up. The bid to jointly host COP31 with Pacific nations has strong international support, but the rival bidder, Turkey, has not withdrawn.

If consensus is not reached at COP30, the host city would default back to Bonn in Germany, where the UN climate secretariat is based.

Outcome unknown

As climate change worsens, these sprawling, intense meetings may not seem like a solution. But despite headwinds and backsliding, they are essential. The world has made progress on climate change since 2015, due in large part to the Paris Agreement. What’s needed now on its tenth anniversary is a reinfusion of vigour to get the job done.

Jacqueline Peel receives funding from the Australian Research Council under a 2024 Kathleen Fitzpatrick Australian Laureate Fellowship.

– ref. Geopolitics, backsliding and progress: here’s what to expect at this year’s COP30 global climate talks – https://theconversation.com/geopolitics-backsliding-and-progress-heres-what-to-expect-at-this-years-cop30-global-climate-talks-268662

Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Wesley Morgan, Research Associate, Institute for Climate Risk and Response, UNSW Sydney

Ten years on from the landmark Paris Agreement, countries have taken big strides in limiting emissions and the clean energy transition is accelerating rapidly. But geopolitical headwinds are growing and the damage bill for climate pollution is rising. Climate action hangs in the balance.

Next week, these issues will come to a head as negotiators gather in Brazil for COP30, the 30th annual global climate talks. This year’s talks could be pivotal, as all countries were due to set more ambitious targets to cut emissions. Will the world double down on the clean energy transition – or will momentum stall and fossil fuel interests win out?

Australia has a larger role than its size and clout might suggest. After two decades as one of the world’s worst climate laggards, the new national emissions target compares favourably with much of the developed world. Australia is also bidding to host the next COP talks with Pacific nations.

Prime Minister Anthony Albanese has attracted some criticism over his decision not to attend the summit. But Climate and Energy Minister Chris Bowen will be there, alongside dozens of negotiators and experts from Australia and the Pacific.

The outcome is uncertain. But for the first time in years, Australia will be a leader in working towards a consensus on a managed transition away from fossil fuels.

What’s at stake at COP30?

The world’s climate talks are returning to their birthplace. The UN Climate Convention was signed in Rio de Janeiro in 1992 before talks began three years later. This year, the 30th Conference of Parties will be held in the Amazonian city of Belém.

For COP30 to succeed, it must firm up global commitment to the Paris Agreement. That may seem hard, given the United States is once again walking away from climate action.

But there is good news. The Paris Agreement is working, slowly but surely. Countries agreed to set emissions targets and increase their ambition every five years. These targets are bending the curve of emissions and limiting warming.

Before Paris, the world was on track for a catastrophic outcome: 4°C degrees of warming this century. The first wave of global emissions targets brought this closer to 3°C. In 2021, upgraded targets brought projections down to 2.1–2.8°C. Tallying up the new round of national targets suggests it may be possible to limit warming to 1.9°C. That assumes, of course, all targets are met in full. The new United Nations emissions gap report suggests 2.3–2.5°C is more likely.

The bad news is the Paris Agreement is not working fast enough. The longer we take to bring global emissions to net zero, the more heating we bake in. Every fraction of a degree intensifies damage to ecosystems and human communities. We are seeing these worsening impacts now at 1.2°C of warming. Almost every corner of the world is already reeling from intensifying heat, storms, floods, droughts and fires.

What can Australia do?

Australia’s delegation will arrive in Belém with a much stronger target: cutting emissions 62–70% by 2035 (from 2005 levels).

This isn’t aligned with the science – a cut of at least 75% is needed to align with the Paris goal of limiting warming to 1.5°C. But it’s an improvement.

Australia’s 2030 target was one of the weakest among wealthy nations. But only a handful of nations now have a more ambitious 2035 target.

That’s not all. Australia’s rapid shift to renewable energy is one of the fastest in the world. One in three Australian homes now has rooftop solar. Grid operators are at the forefront of soaking up more and more clean power. The federal government plans to have the main grid running on over 80% renewable power within five years. These successes offer an encouraging story.

Our turn next?

If the COP31 bid succeeds, it would mean Adelaide would host Australia’s largest ever diplomatic meeting. Success would help cement Australia’s place in the Pacific at a time of increasing geostrategic competition.

In 2022, the Australian government announced its bid to host the COP talks with the Pacific. Since then, Bowen has effectively been auditioning to head the talks, taking on key roles at the annual climate talks. At last year’s talks in Azerbaijan, he co-chaired negotiations for a new global finance goal.

The bid has broad support. But Turkey has refused to withdraw a rival bid. The standoff is expected to be resolved in the second week of talks in Belém.

If Australia secures hosting rights, leaders will have a positive story to tell about the renewables shift. But hosting would also draw attention to Australia’s huge gas and coal exports. Long one of the largest coal exporters, Australia’s gas production has doubled since the 2015 Paris Agreement. The emissions of these exports are three times larger than the entire domestic economy.

Until recently, these exported emissions were considered a customer responsibility. But in July, the world’s highest court found countries are legally responsible for climate damages caused by fossil fuel production and consumption, noting countries approving new fossil fuel projects may be committing “internationally wrongful acts”.

This finding is likely to ripple through these talks. Two years ago, nations at COP28 in Dubai agreed to “transition away from fossil fuels” in their energy systems. Bowen hailed the announcement:

if we are to keep 1.5°C alive, fossil fuels have no ongoing role to play in our energy systems – and I speak as the climate and energy minister of one of the world’s largest fossil fuel exporters.

Bowen and the Australian delegation will have to bring this level of clarity to Brazil amid backsliding by other major fossil fuel exporters such as the United States.

If COP31 comes to Adelaide, Bowen will need to go further. No one has yet given a sunset date for Australia’s fossil fuel industry. Working alongside Pacific nations, Australia can build a global legacy: beginning the managed phase out of fossil fuel production.

Wesley Morgan is a fellow with the Climate Council of Australia

Ben Newell receives funding from the Australian Research Council.

– ref. As global climate action threatens to stall, can Australia step up at COP30 in Brazil? – https://theconversation.com/as-global-climate-action-threatens-to-stall-can-australia-step-up-at-cop30-in-brazil-267430

Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Gary Mortimer, Professor of Marketing and Consumer Behaviour, Queensland University of Technology

More than 1.4 million people are employed in Australian retail and fast food businesses. Sadly, it’s not always a happy or safe place to work.

A union survey of more than 4,600 frontline workers found 87% had experienced customer verbal abuse in 2023 – consistent since 2016.

But incidents have become more frequent: in 2023, 76% of those who’d been abused experienced it daily, weekly or monthly, compared with 54% just two years earlier.

Retailers have spent millions on beefed up staff security measures, including body-worn cameras.

The lead up to Christmas is a notoriously bad time for customer violence and abuse against workers. On Thursday, a large collective of retail groups launched a national “Be Kind in Retail” campaign, urging shoppers to be compassionate and patient over Christmas.

But there is one ultra-cheap solution, trialled since 2020, which our three-part study has now confirmed seems to significantly reduce customers’ intention to verbally abuse workers.

A name and a story

In late 2017, the Shop, Distributive and Allied Employees’ Association (SDA) union launched its “No One Deserves a Serve” campaign to reduce abuse of frontline staff.

Later, as part of this initiative, the union bought 500,000 adhesive plastic “under badges”, which were handed out for free from early 2020 to retail staff to stick to existing name badges.

An under badge is a small personal identifier attached below a name tag that can convey a short humanising message in a few words. Examples include “I’m a mother” or “I’m a son”.

The badges were trialled with retailers such as Woolworths, Target, Big W and KFC.

Around 2020, lead author Gary Mortimer’s daughter came home from her job at a supermarket wearing one of these under badges.

Surprisingly however, there’s been little research done into the evidence behind low-cost solutions to customer abuse, and whether such badges really could help curb customer abuse. So, we decided to investigate.

What our research found

In our recently published study, we began by speaking with 17 supermarket workers in late 2024, who had participated in the “No One Deserves a Serve” campaign.

Some said they’d felt awkward about wearing phrases like “I’m a son”.

But overall, participants said under badges seemed to reduce verbal abuse, created opportunities to chat and increased customers’ empathy.

A 39-year-old supermarket worker said:

[Customers] treat us like dirt. I recall this old fellow coming in and carrying on […] and then he just calms down when he sees that I’m a mother. He starts talking about his kids when they were younger. It was like I suddenly became a real person, not just a worker.

Another 22-year-old worker said:

I think badges made customers see us as equals.

Interestingly, none of the workers interviewed were still wearing their under badge. It was not always unclear why; one participant told us it had fallen apart, while others may have been lost.

How did almost 1,000 customers respond?

We also ran two experiments with a total of 940 customers.

First, we created a scenario where we described a poor service experience, which elicited anger.

We then presented artificial intelligence (AI) generated images of fictional retail workers. Some had just their name badge, while others disclosed personal information such as “I’m a daughter” on an under badge.

We then asked 600 respondents how likely a “reasonable” customer would be to shout, complain aggressively, become verbally abusive, or argue with the worker.

While the under badge didn’t completely deter verbal abuse, there was a statistically significant reduction in customers’ intention to engage in verbal abuse when the additional badge saying “I’m a mum/dad/daughter/son” was also worn.

Finally, we replicated the experiment with 340 different customers. We changed the under badges to read, “I’m a local”.

The same procedures were used, and we again confirmed that any form of self-disclosure – that is, revealing something about our “personal story” – reduced customer abuse.

How humanisation can reduce customer abuse

Two theories can help explain why revealing something about ourselves fosters greater levels of respect and empathy in others.

The first, social penetration theory describes the way we move from shallow, to deeper relationships with others.

It suggests we assess the “rewards” and “costs” attained from interacting with other people. Social rewards may include being liked. Social costs emerge from feelings of vulnerability.

The second, social exchange theory, suggests when the social rewards are greater than the costs of the interaction, exchanges will continue.

However, for self disclosure to work, these theories suggest the information shared must be perceived as “more than what is expected”, possibly of a personal nature.

This “extra” personal disclosure tips the balance in favour of the customer, simply: “I’ve learned something about this worker, without having to divulge anything in return.”

Our research demonstrates when workers disclose personal information, a social exchange takes place. Customers see the worker as a human – not just an extension of the retail brand.

Trying to keep retail workers safer

Over the five years since the badges launched, we’ve observed far fewer worn in shops. However, the SDA told The Conversation it is still sharing them and they are still available.

But it’s something businesses of all sizes could experiment with. Looking online to gauge current costs, we found it could cost as little as 17 cents per badge (plus GST) for a large business with 10,000-plus employees, to 43 cents for a smaller order of fewer than 1,000 badges.

It seems a small price to help remind customers that retail workers deserve to be treated as equals.

Gary Mortimer has received past funding from the Building Employer Confidence and Inclusion in Disability Grant, the AusIndustry Entrepreneurs’ Program, the National Clothing Textiles Stewardship Scheme, the National Retail Association and the Australian Retailers Association. He is an independent director and board chair of Services and Creative Skills Australia, a federally-funded jobs and skills council.

Maria Lucila Osorio Andrade and Shasha Wang do not work for, consult, own shares in or receive funding from any company or organisation that would benefit from this article, and have disclosed no relevant affiliations beyond their academic appointment.

– ref. As retail workers brace for the silly season, this 20c solution could dial down customer verbal abuse – https://theconversation.com/as-retail-workers-brace-for-the-silly-season-this-20c-solution-could-dial-down-customer-verbal-abuse-269074