Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Brittany Williams, PhD Candidate, University of Adelaide

Though oysters may be brainless bivalves, they can “hear” and swim towards attractive sounds of the sea.

We played the crackling sound of snapping shrimp, which indicates a healthy reef, to baby oysters using underwater speakers. We discovered the oysters swim towards the sound.

This opens the possibility of playing marine sounds to attract oysters to reef restoration projects, accelerating their recovery.

Submarines and shrimp

This story of using the sounds of the sea begins in World War II, when US submarines detected a mysterious crackling sound over the sonar.

At first, it was feared to be jamming by the enemy. Other guesses were the crackling was created by shipworms (a type of mollusc), clams clapping, or pebbles rolling on the sea floor. But the true culprit? Snapping shrimp.

Snapping shrimp use their large snapping claws to rapidly shoot out a jet of water to stun prey. This snap is so rapid it creates a flash of light nearly as hot as the Sun (shrimpoluminescence) and generates a loud snapping sound that can exceed 210 decibels – louder than a rock concert!

When snapping shrimp aggregate, as they do on healthy reefs, their intense snapping sounds like bacon crackling on a frying pan.

Once the source of the sound was understood, Allied submarines even used the crackling chorus of healthy reefs to acoustically mask their location from the enemy. Today, many snorkellers and divers will be familiar with this crackle.

Swimming oysters

Baby oysters have no ears, but we found they can still detect snapping shrimp crackle and swim towards it. They swim using fine hairs called cilia that act as paddles, allowing them to move not only up and down in the water column, but also from side to side.

This discovery tells us baby oysters have more control over where they go in the ocean than was previously thought.

To conduct our research, we built affordable underwater speakers with engineers at the non-profit environmental organisation AusOcean to broadcast the snapping shrimp crackle in the ocean. When we used these speakers in places with little background noise, we attracted high numbers of baby oysters.

By contrast, places with high levels of human-made background noise, such as from outboard motors and shipping, made our speaker sounds harder to hear, resulting in fewer baby oysters being attracted.

Sound and animals

Just as music can reduce depression and increase the mood of humans, playing sound can change the behaviour of a diversity of animals. For example, ibises have more sex when their vocalisations are played to them.

Marine animals have broad vocal repertoires. Fish honk, drum and pop; whales whistle and moan; and seals groan, grunt and growl.

These sounds, combined with those of waves, wind and rain, create the marine soundscape. A soundscape filled with snapping shrimp crackle indicates to marine animals a healthy place to live, with plenty of food and habitat.

More than visual and chemical cues, sound is a useful sensory cue for marine animals in their day-to-day lives, because it travels a long way underwater. Sound can be heard by animals from afar and act as a beacon for them to follow.

Ocean music and conservation

The sounds produced by marine animals, such as the snapping shrimp, are fading due to habitat loss and climate change. At the same time, human-made ocean noise is on the rise, from activities such as shipping, sonar and offshore pile-driving.

This means animals such as the baby oyster are becoming lost at sea, not knowing where to find healthy habitats to settle and live in.

Read more:
The surprising benefits of oysters (and no, it’s not what you’re thinking)

Using acoustic technology to broadcast ocean music in the form of snapping shrimp crackle presents an opportunity to lead animals along highways of sound, all the way to coasts where we are trying to restore healthy habitats.

Sound technology offers a relatively inexpensive way to help speed up the recovery of oyster reef habitats. This would allow us to sooner experience the benefits provided by reefs.

The perfect playlist?

We still have much to learn about marine sound and how human activities pollute the marine soundscape.

The future of ocean restoration could be full of rhythms and melodies engineered to attract animals. Who knows what we will find on the playlist of the best sounds for habitat restoration?

Perhaps Mozart and Taylor Swift will make the cut.

Brittany Williams is a PhD candidate at the University of Adelaide.

Dominic McAfee receives funding from the Australian Research Council, and from the South Australian Department for Environment and Water.

Sean Connell receives funding from the Australian Research Council and the South Australian Department for Environment and Water.

– ref. Baby oysters follow the crackling sound of snapping shrimp – https://theconversation.com/baby-oysters-follow-the-crackling-sound-of-snapping-shrimp-182514

Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Henry Cutler, Director, Centre for the Health Economy, Macquarie University

This election campaign has been somewhat different to most past campaigns. Traditionally, the Coalition campaigns on the economy and defence, while the Labor Party tenders its credentials on health and education.

However, this time around has seen a dearth of announcements across all portfolios, and from both parties.

Health care is no exception, despite COVID blowing out surgery wait times and a health-care workforce close to collapse.

Why are political parties and voters so apathetic to the health-care debate?

Health policy announcements so far

The Coalition promises to reduce out-of-pocket costs for medicines listed on the Pharmaceutical Benefits Scheme and will give more people access to the seniors’ health-care card. These policies are targeted at older Australians.

Labor has also promised to reduce out-of-pocket costs for pharmaceuticals and increase access to the seniors’ health-care card. It will introduce GP urgent care clinics and will support aged-care wage increases and mandating nurse time in residential care homes.

These are mostly promises to increase funding. No party has sought to engage in serious debate on reform, despite a long list of identified system issues and intense pressure points.

Why isn’t there more health-care debate?

It seems health care is just not as important to voters in this election.

On average, voters ranked it their sixth most important issue, which is three down from the last election, when it was ranked third.

That is not surprising when there are big issues at front of mind, such as climate change, cost of living increases, and rising interest rates.

Most people feel comfortable with the state of health care. A consumer sentiment survey found 84% of respondents were satisfied with the health services they received.

Read more:
The private health insurance rebate has cost taxpayers $100 billion and only benefits some. Should we scrap it?

Parties are also hamstrung this election. Health care reform is expensive, and promising big spends when the budget is at a record deficit, opens the potential for being labelled fiscally irresponsible.

Labor seems to be low-balling its health policy given it leads the polls. It learned from the last election that proposing complex policy through campaign soundbites is risky, because it’s too easy to criticise step-change reform.

The Coalition launched its health campaign in the budget. It took a grassroots approach to wooing voters, with no big policy announcement but lots of smaller funding promises dispersed across electorates. Battling Labor on health in the election lead-up seems unattractive for the Coalition given its poor handling of vaccine purchasing and rollout.

But whoever wins, health care remains a problem that needs to be addressed.

Long surgery wait lists

People are waiting longer than ever before for public hospital elective surgery, with COVID blowing out waiting lists in 2020-21.

A key reason is the initial suspension of non-urgent elective surgery to deal with COVID in 2020.

Victorian waiting times were hardest hit. They experienced a threefold increase in the number of people waiting more than a year for elective surgery in 2020-21. New South Wales was hit next hardest, experiencing a twofold increase.

Non-urgent elective surgery was also suspended during the Delta and Omicron waves. These will have blown waiting times out further, which is not yet reflected in the data. All states and territories are still playing catch-up.

Read more:
How to clear Victoria’s backlog of elective surgeries after a 6-month slowdown? We need to rethink the system

Workforce collapse

Most of Australia’s health workforce seem weary, demotivated and burned out. Some 92% of 431 clinicians surveyed in January 2022 agreed health-care workers have a right to feel abandoned by government.

With unemployment at 4%, the labour market has little spare capacity to increase the supply of workers.

Health care and medical job advertisements are at an all-time high and there are not enough candidates to fill these roles. Workforce shortages are being experienced all over Australia, in rural and remote regions and major cities. Psychiatrists are particularly in short supply – a key concern when 24% of Australians reported in October 2021 they were experiencing serious psychological distress.

Sectors with significant workforce gaps are buckling under pressure, such as nursing, and in some places would collapse if a mutated COVID strain were to outmanoeuvre current vaccines.

Workforce shortages lead to poor care quality, worse health outcomes and sometimes avoidable death. Poor workforce planning and funding constraints by governments over the last decade are mostly to blame.

Read more:
A burnt-out health workforce impacts patient care

The Coalition government has released several health workforce strategies, but has not seriously implemented or funded promised activities.

Solutions the parties could offer

As a matter of urgency, any new government should lead collaboration with state government, private sector, non-government agencies, and specialist medical colleges to reduce surgery wait times and reduce workforce strain.

It is not ideological to suggest the public hospital system should strengthen its integration with private hospitals. Even a public hospital system that returns to full capacity will not have enough resources to shorten waiting times.

Public hospitals need more targeted money to streamline processes and patient journeys, improve wait-list management and prioritise strategies, and reduce low-value care.

Read more:
The coronavirus ban on elective surgeries might show us many people can avoid going under the knife

Proactively matching patients with hospital resources by giving patients explicit public hospital choice would reduce waiting times. Many patients will travel to a non-local hospital for a shorter wait.

More investment in hospital-in-the home programs would free up hospital beds. And increasing training places at hospitals and ramping up migration would attract more nursing and specialist time.

Voters have not yet had the opportunity to signal their support for major health-care policy reform in this election. The real work leading health-care reform will be up to whoever’s in government after May 21.

Jeffrey Braithwaite receives funding from:

Jeffrey is not an active member of any associations but has been involved in NHMRC Research Committee activities but in no way does this cause any conflict of interest for this particular paper.

Henry Cutler 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. With surgery waitlists in crisis and a workforce close to collapse, why haven’t we had more campaign promises about health? – https://theconversation.com/with-surgery-waitlists-in-crisis-and-a-workforce-close-to-collapse-why-havent-we-had-more-campaign-promises-about-health-182327

Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Jodie L. Rummer, Associate Professor & Principal Research Fellow, James Cook University

Widespread coral bleaching has now occurred on the Great Barrier Reef for the fourth time in seven years. As the world has heated up more and more, there’s less and less chance for corals to recover.

This year, the Morrison government announced a A$1 billion plan to help the reef. This plan tackles some of the problems the reef faces – like poor water quality from floods as well as agricultural and industrial runoff. But it makes no mention of the elephant in the room. The world’s largest living assemblage of organisms is facing collapse because of one major threat: climate change.

Our window of opportunity to act is narrowing. We and other scientists have warned about this for decades. Australia has doubled down on coal and gas exports with subsidies of $20 billion in the past two years. When these fossil fuels are burned, they produce carbon dioxide and other greenhouse gases that trap more heat in the atmosphere that also warms the ocean.

If our next federal government wants to save the reef, it must tackle the main reason it is in trouble by phasing out fossil fuel use and exports as quickly as possible. Otherwise it’s like putting bandaids on an arterial wound. But to help the reef get through the next decades of warming we’ve already locked in, we will still need that $1 billion to help reduce other stressors.

Why is this new bleaching event such bad news?

Past bleaching events have been linked to El Niño events. Stable atmospheric conditions can bring calm, cloud-free periods that heat up the water around the reef. That can bring extreme summer temperatures – and that is when corals bleach.

This year is a La Niña, which can bring warmer-than-usual temperatures but also tends to bring more clouds, rain, and storms that mix up the waters. These usually spread the heat to the deeper parts of the ocean and mean lower temperature for corals. Not this time.

Global warming means corals are already close to their bleaching threshold, and it doesn’t take much heat to tip the balance. Water temperatures across the reef have been several degrees hotter than the long-term average. And the corals are feeling the heat.

Four times in seven years means that bleaching events are accelerating. Predictions have suggested that bleaching will become an annual event in a little over two decades. It may not be that long.

You always remember the first time you see bleaching in real life. For co-author Jodie, that was in 2016, off Lizard Island, a previously pristine part of the reef far from human impacts or water quality issues. The water was shockingly warm. Looking at our dive computers, we saw that the temperatures we had been simulating in our laboratories for 2050 were already here.

For a week, the marine heatwave pushed the corals to their limits. When corals experience heat stress, some initially turn fluorescent while others go stark white. Then the water goes murky – that’s death in the water. It’s heartbreaking to see. Grief is common among marine scientists right now.

Read more:
The $1 billion Great Barrier Reef funding is nonsensical. Australians, and their natural wonder, deserve so much better

Corals can recover from bleaching if they get a recovery period. But annual bleaching means there is not enough time for proper recovery. Even the most robust corals can’t survive this year after year.

Some people hope the reef can adapt to hotter conditions – but there is little evidence it can happen fast enough to outpace warming. While some fish can move to cooler waters further south, corals face ocean acidification, yet another problem caused by carbon dioxide emissions. As CO₂ is absorbed by the ocean, the changed chemistry makes it harder for corals to build their skeleton (and for other marine organisms to form a shell). There’s no safe place for corals to go.

What does the next government need to do?

The evidence is clear. We see it with our own eyes. We’re barrelling towards catastrophic levels of warming, and there’s not enough action.

As it stands, policies on offer by our two major parties will not save the reef, according to new research by Climate Analytics. Current Coalition emissions reduction targets of 26-28% by 2030 would lead to a 3℃ warmer world, which would be devastating for the Great Barrier Reef.

Labor’s policies of a 43% reduction by 2030 still lead to 2℃ of warming. The teal independents and the Greens have policies compatible with keeping warming to 1.5℃, though how to achieve those goals is unclear. What is clear is that every tenth of a degree matters.

We need leaders who are serious about climate action. Who can acknowledge the truth that the problem is real, that we’re causing it, and that it’s hurting us right now.

Read more:
Australia’s next government must tackle our collapsing ecosystems and extinction crisis

There are still a few people sceptical that humans can change the climate. But today the changes are apparent.

The words “unprecedented” and “record-breaking” are starting to lose relevance for natural disasters because they are used more and more. Australians faced the 2019/20 Black Summer of megafires. This year we’ve had major flooding. Marine heatwaves have killed off almost all of Tasmania’s giant kelp.

But climate impacts are also being seen around the world – extraordinary drought gripping California, fires in melting Siberia and events scientists consider to be “virtually impossible without the influence of human-caused climate change”. That includes the accelerating impacts on coral reefs worldwide.

We need government policies matching the scale and urgency of the threat. That means getting to net zero as soon as possible. It isn’t only about the reef – it’s about all land and sea natural systems vulnerable to climate change, and the people who rely on them.

No developed country has more to lose from inaction on climate than Australia. But no country has more to gain by shifting to clean energy, through new economic opportunities, new jobs, and better protection for our natural treasures.

Jodie L. Rummer has received funding from the Australian Research Council (ARC) and the ARC Centre of Excellence for Coral Reef Studies. She is also affiliated with the Australian Coral Reef Society.

Scott F. Heron has received funding from Australian Research Council and NASA ROSES Ecological Forecasting.

– ref. What the next Australian government must do to save the Great Barrier Reef – https://theconversation.com/what-the-next-australian-government-must-do-to-save-the-great-barrier-reef-182861

Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Carly Steele, Lecturer, Curtin University

In the title we quote Michelle Martin (with her permission), who is a proud Kija woman and passionate educator. She sees a system that does not adequately recognise Aboriginal students’ worldviews or knowledge. Instead, the education system measures Aboriginal students according to white language and cultural systems.

We know that languages other than English have features that do not exist in English, and use diverse modes of communication. This is particularly true of many Aboriginal languages. According to Centre for Aboriginal Policy Research fellow Inge Kral, these languages have complex ways of conveying meaning, including:

[…] language, sign, gesture and gaze, special speech styles and registers, non-verbal communication and the iconic representations found in body painting, carved designs and sand drawings.

But the school system – and the way it assesses students – does not recognise this.

This is certainly the case for NAPLAN testing, which is limited in what it tests and how. And, due to the “backwash effect” of high-stakes standardised assessment on teaching practices, teachers are also inclined to set their students tasks that closely align with NAPLAN-style assessments. This is commonly known as “teaching to the test”.

In our new paper, we argue the languages and methods of classroom assessments need to be expanded. Such changes will make assessment more inclusive and fairer for all, particularly First Nations students.

Read more:
How can Australia support more Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander teachers?

Why are current school assessment practices ‘unfair’?

One test, one language

Most assessment practices currently follow a “one test, one language” principle. We argue this is inherently unfair to users of multiple languages.

Consider the following example from New York University researchers.
“Paco” is a child with a linguistic repertoire of both Spanish and English. But when judged in each of these languages separately, his knowledge is considered deficient. The assessment does not accurately judge Paco’s knowledge and skills or recognise and value his bilingual identity.

In this example, the purposes of assessment are not fully met. The assessment also privileges the monolingual student. They can use the full extent of their language knowledge, whereas a bilingual student is only permitted to use half of their’s.

One mode of communication

Current assessment practices are not only monolingual, but they tend to be in writing. Therefore a “one test, one language, one mode” approach is used. For some users of Aboriginal languages, this means their messages cannot be fully communicated because culturally it is appropriate to use gesture or signing to communicate certain information.

For example, some Aboriginal languages use cardinal direction – the use of compass directions such as north, south, east and west. In English a left/right system is used which is centred on personal location. In contrast, cardinal direction in these languages are not centred on personal location but true compass directions.

In Guugu Yimithirr, an Aboriginal language in Far North Queensland, cardinal direction can be communicated using only body position and gesture with compass-like accuracy.

This is just one example of how languages can differ, and why English-based testing might disadvantage speakers of these other languages.

How can we make assessment fairer for all?

We propose two main ways to make school assessment fairer for all:

1. assessment practices should allow students to use all their available linguistic resources to express their knowledge and understanding.

2. methods of assessment need to be expanded to embrace linguistic practices in other languages.

Some might argue that if assessment includes languages other than English, the teacher will not be able to understand and grade the student’s work.

However, we respond that it provides teachers with an opportunity to engage in meaningful dialogue with children to learn about their social, linguistic and cultural backgrounds. This will help teachers to see what these children are capable of in their additional language/s. This can be supported by using “translanguaging” education and “two-way” learning in the classroom.

Translanguaging education

“Translanguaging” is a term used to describe the ways individuals will use all their available meaning-making resources to communicate – such as signs and languages. In a classroom that uses a translanguaging approach to learning, this practice is not only allowed, but actively valued.

Translanguaging has been shown to improve learning and foster inclusivity in the classroom. It is used to demonstrate that all languages and therefore all children, are welcome in this classroom.

Translanguaging also strongly aligns with the “two-way” approach to learning – one that has been advocated for in First Nations educational contexts for over half a century. Two-way learning is premised on dialogue between teacher and student and an equal exchange of knowledge about language and culture.

Read more:
Invisible language learners: what educators need to know about many First Nations children

New modes of communication

Storytelling practices in schools are currently dominated by Western narrative writing. This represents just one storytelling style in a written mode. There are many styles of narratives across many modes, such as sand drawings, art, drama, singing and dancing.

This example from Ngaanyatjarra, an Aboriginal language group in Western Australia, shows the telling of a traditional sand story:

As part of a research project with Aboriginal youth, Inge Kral and her colleagues documented ten young First Nations women who used iPads to record traditional sand stories. In doing so, they used multiple ways of communicating.

Kral and her colleagues comment on the way these young people seamlessly blended and integrated to create new ways of communicating:

The films burst with colour, energy and originality, and we see traditional iconography merging with contemporary symbols as the young storytellers recount stories of trips out bush collecting traditional foods with humorous memories of flat tyres and seeing scary animals.

This example shows school children are skilled at representing their knowledge and understanding across multiple modes of communication like oral, digital, drawing.

It is important to note these innovative and creative practices were produced outside the classroom, not inside. It is time for that to change.

By allowing linguistic freedom of expression and expanding modes of communication in assessment, we can enrich our understanding of the world and make classroom assessment fairer.

Rhonda Oliver receives funding from Australian Research Council. She is affiliated with Curtin University and supports the not-for-profit organisation “Kate Mullin Association” which supports Education and Literacy initiatives for Aboriginal students and their teachers.

Carly Steele, Graeme Gower, and Sender Dovchin 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. ‘Stop measuring black kids with a white stick’: how to make school assessments fairer for all – https://theconversation.com/stop-measuring-black-kids-with-a-white-stick-how-to-make-school-assessments-fairer-for-all-180024

Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Mark Harvey, Senior Lecturer in Creative Arts, University of Auckland

The past two years have made it impossible to ignore the problem in Aotearoa New Zealand’s arts sector. The pandemic has been brutal, with venues shut, festivals cancelled and audiences staying home.

At the same time, art in all its forms – books, music, TV, film, even the visual and performing arts – helped people through lockdowns and uncertainty. We were reminded how vital art is for our well-being, sense of belonging, education and aspirations for a better world.

The government acknowledged this with emergency relief packages in 2020 and earlier this year.
Yet the basic model for arts funding hasn’t changed and still doesn’t deliver equitable, sustainable income for artists or arts organisations. Nor is it delivering equitable and sustainable access to the arts for all people.

The evidence has been stark. People working in the creative arts earn just NZ$35,800 a year on average, with only $15,000 of that coming from their creative practice. It’s hard to be hopeful about support for up-and-coming artists when the funding system and wider arts economy is geared towards an elite few.

The existing funding model has also been questioned for the amount that ultimately reaches artists themselves, and what this means for audiences and everyone involved the sector.

The pandemic brought this all to a head, with arts sector advocates calling for more than a temporary lifeline, and nothing less a long-term vision and strategy for a sustainable, diverse, equitable future for the sector.

Rather than ask what the arts should receive in next week’s budget, we propose instead a complete revamp of Aotearoa New Zealand’s arts policy and funding systems.

New world, old models

As we emerge (tentatively) from a world-changing experience, now is the perfect moment to listen to those calls for action. The government has already indicated an understanding of the multiple ways in which the arts are important to society, beyond just the economic.

And while the pandemic placed immense financial pressure on those working in the arts, it also showed how the sector could be funded at an unprecedented level that acknowledges the vital relationship between the arts, society and well-being.

Read more:
Australia should have a universal basic income for artists. Here’s what that could look like

According to a 2021 survey by Creative New Zealand, most New Zealanders support public funding of the arts. But despite the many social and political changes since the country adopted the British arts council model in 1963, the essential funding rationale has barely changed from its colonial origins.

Specifically, and in spite of the official rhetoric, the government’s arts policy initiatives still rely on a calculus, embedded in policy over the past 40 years, that measures the primary value of art based on its direct or indirect contribution to the economy and GDP.

How about we set 2023 – the 60th anniversary of the Arts Council – as the year we come up with a completely new system?

10 ways forward

Change needs to start with the state genuinely listening to artists, others involved with the sector, and the wider population, about the role and function of the arts beyond purely economic measures. That should include Māori views of art as integral to, and integrated with, all aspects of life and society.

Genuinely listening implies an open-ended process, not one where there is already a plan waiting in the wings to be implemented regardless. Such a process could draw on marae-based decision making and consensus-based democracy models, with the process guided by Te Tiriti o Waitangi.

Read more:
Even if next week’s budget avoids the issue, it’s time New Zealand seriously considered a wealth tax

But we can also look overseas for inspiration with alternative ways of resourcing the arts. Research we’re involved with has thrown up ten tangible ways New Zealand’s support for the arts could be improved:

• a liveable universal wage, benefit or income for artists

• a social insurance or welfare scheme for artists, including pensions

• tax exemptions and credits

• liveable pay standards and fair minimum fee scales aligned with expertise

• long-term funding schemes, grants of five years and longer available for all artists

• royalties for all arts disciplines

• housing support for artists

• subsidised arts studios, venues and offices

• participatory grant systems where artists and communities decide on funding allocation

• arts funding in all levels of education, including fully subsidised tertiary education

Read more:
Why the budget should treat public health like transport – vital infrastructure with long-term economic benefits

Transformative change

Revamping government policies and structures will ideally involve a more holistic recognition of the multiple ways the arts benefit society. For example, the Treasury’s Living Standards Framework considers individual and collective well-being and wealth beyond the merely financial.

Similarly, we might listen to the late Manuka Henare’s proposal for a Māori economic model that placed mana, well-being and self-determination at its centre. Or the Māori adaptation of so-called “doughnut economics”, based on fairness, sustainability and social well-being.

Applying these kinds of values to arts policies and funding would help avoid tokenism and the risk of sliding back towards the economic status quo.

In 2017, the government promised it would be transformative, although the catchphrase was quietly dropped. It’s time to revive that transformative ideal and begin the change that would make a difference, for and through the arts, for generations to come.

Mark Harvey is affiliated with Arts Makers Aotearoa.

Molly Mullen is affiliated with Te Ora Auaha: Creative Wellbeing Alliance Aotearoa.

– ref. The arts helped us through the pandemic – NZ’s budget should radically rethink how and why they’re funded – https://theconversation.com/the-arts-helped-us-through-the-pandemic-nzs-budget-should-radically-rethink-how-and-why-theyre-funded-182278

Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Joanna Mendelssohn, Principal Fellow (Hon), Victorian College of the Arts, University of Melbourne. Editor in Chief, Design and Art of Australia Online, The University of Melbourne

It is fair to say that Richard Wynne, who died in 1895, would not recognise many recent entries in the art prize that he endowed with £1,000 to reward a “landscape painting of Australian scenery”.

Since 1999, when Gloria Tamerre Petyarre was awarded the Wynne Prize for her magical sequence of Leaves, the Wynne has been dominated by works by Indigenous artists living in communities in central and northern Australia.

Rather than inhibiting artists from different traditions, the presence of such superb art appears to have inspired non-Indigenous artists to also be their best. It is therefore well worth a visit to see the full range of entries in the Art Gallery of NSW’s annual festival of prizes.

Not all appreciate this liberation of landscape. In 2017, the veteran Australian artist John Olsen attacked the awarding of the Wynne Prize to Betty Kuntiwa Pumani for Antara, a painting of her mother’s Country.

He claimed the “real” Australian landscape tradition was represented by artists such as Elioth Gruner and Brett Whiteley, while Pumani’s painting was of “a cloud cuckoo land”.

From memory this may have been the year that the gallery changed the design of the exhibition spaces so that the most exciting Wynne entries – almost all by Indigenous artists – filled the large central court.

As a young man in the 1950s, Olsen had demonstrated against the reactionary conservatism of the Trustees of the Art Gallery of NSW; in his old age he objected to their openness to new ideas.

Both Olsen’s pomposity and the dreariness of an Australian landscape tradition that colonises the land was mocked by Abdul Abdullah in his painting A Terrible Burden, a Wynne finalist in 2019.

Abdullah has expressed surprise at Olsen’s strident defence of the conservative tradition of Australian landscape as his own paintings are so abstract, although he tells me “his cultural contribution doesn’t hold a flame to Ken Done, who is very good at painting ‘place’.”

Read more:
‘I think Archie would be pleased’: 100 years of our most famous portrait prize and my almost 50 years watching it evolve

Origins of the prize

As with its more famous partner competition, the Archibald Prize, the Wynne is not quite what its benefactor envisaged.

Richard Wynne’s will originally designated the Art Society of NSW as the body to administer the prize, not the Art Gallery of NSW. In 1895, shortly after Wynne’s death, the Art Society experienced an acrimonious split when a number of artists led by Tom Roberts and Julian Ashton established a rival body, The Society of Artists.

By the time the prize was first awarded in 1897 the executors, Perpetual Trustees, decided it was more prudent to have it administered by the Art Gallery than a group of squabbling artists.

The tensions between artists is perhaps one reason why for many years there was no formal exhibition of entries. Walter Withers was awarded the first prize in 1897 for a painting that had already been bought by the Art Gallery. As he wrote to the Argus:

I was unaware that such a prize existed until I read the telegram in your issue of November 24, announcing the honour that had been done to my work.

A search through both the National Library’s Trove and the Art Gallery of NSW’s digital archive shows that, as with all art prizes judged by a committee, on many occasions considerations other than merit influenced the judges’ decisions.

In 1898 the Trustees began the practice of both visiting Art Society exhibitions and inviting interested artists to deposit their offerings for consideration. This was also the first year the prize was awarded to William Lister Lister, a stalwart of the Art Society (later renamed the Royal Art Society of NSW). He was awarded the prize a total of seven times.

With the exception of the 1898 award, Lister Lister was a trustee and therefore a judge on each of the other six times he won. He was not alone in this.

Sydney Long, a fellow trustee and fellow member of the Royal Art Society, was awarded the Wynne in 1938 and 1940. The only artist to be awarded the Wynne more often than Lister Lister was the South Australian, Hans Heysen, who was awarded the prize eight times. Heysen, from South Australia, exhibited with the Society of Artists.

For many years, it is fair to say many of the decisions governing the Art Gallery of NSW were a fine balance between two competing factions, with each taking it in turn to award the various prizes to their members and supporters.

In 1899, the young George Lambert, associated with the Society of Artists, was awarded the Wynne for his heroic painting of horses ploughing through mud, Across the Black Soil Plains. He was also awarded the NSW Government’s newly established Travelling Art Scholarship, a recognition of his precocious talent.

The eccentric nature of the management of the prize led to the situation in 1921 when the Trustees commissioned Elioth Gruner to paint The Valley of the Tweed, with the prize as a part of the commission.

The cosy duopoly of the art societies was challenged in 1943 after William Lister Lister’s sudden death.

Instead of replacing him with another representative of the Royal Art Society, the minister for education, Clive Evatt, appointed his sister-in-law, the collector and painter of modern art, Mary Alice Evatt, to be the first woman trustee in the gallery’s history.

In January 1944, Evatt advocated for William Dobell’s portrait of Joshua Smith to win the Archibald Prize. The following year she voted for the Wynne to go to Sali Herman’s urban landscape, McElhone Stairs, a painting with a complete absence of gum trees, painted by a Jewish immigrant who exhibited with the Contemporary Art Society.

The Wynne continued to reward interesting paintings when Russell Drysdale won with Sofala (1947), and Lloyd Rees for The Harbour from McMahon’s Point(1950).

A changeable landscape

By the early 1960s, the old exhibiting societies were less relevant to artists trying to establish a career. But the new dealer galleries understood the value of prizes to their artists’ profiles.

The new superstars of Australian art, John Olsen, Fred Williams and Brett Whiteley, began to be listed as prize winners.

The Wynne was still very much a “boy’s club”, as if the Australian landscape could only be captured by one gender. Lorna Nimmo had won in 1941, but her watercolours did not appeal to the Trustees.

It took until 1971 for Margaret Woodward to be the next woman winner, with her painting, Karri Country.

She was followed in 1994 with Suzanne Archer’s Waratah Wedderburn.

(While the prize is most well known for its landscapes, figurative sculptures can also enter, and Rosemary Madigan had won with her classic stone torso in 1986.)

Ann Thomson was awarded the 1998 prize with her abstract painting, Yellow Sound, which may have encouraged the Trustees to cast their net wider. For the following year the Wynne Prize was awarded to Gloria Tamerre Petyarre.

This bastion of the Australian landscape tradition was never the same again.

Easily the most memorable painting to be awarded the Wynne in recent years was in 2016, when the Ken family collaborative painted Seven Sisters, the grand narrative of protecting country.

Although some non-Aboriginal artists have won this century, Aboriginal art continues to dominate. The gallery now also hosts the Roberts Family prize, specifically for work by Indigenous artists.

What we are seeing here in this oldest, and potentially crustiest of art prizes, is concrete evidence of a whole new tradition of Australian art – or rather evidence that the oldest tradition is using art as a means to reclaim the land.

Read more:
Australians’ favourites show Aboriginal art can transcend social divisions and art boundaries

Joanna Mendelssohn has in the past received funding from the Australian Research Council and the Australia Council.

– ref. From gum trees to cities to sweeping deserts: how 125 years of the Wynne Prize traces Australia’s shifting relationship to our landscape – https://theconversation.com/from-gum-trees-to-cities-to-sweeping-deserts-how-125-years-of-the-wynne-prize-traces-australias-shifting-relationship-to-our-landscape-179764

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

The Liberals have used John Howard extensively during this campaign. These days, they celebrate their party hero as the great winner. He was, however, the last Liberal prime minister to take his party into the wilderness.

There are comparisons and contrasts between 2007 and 2022. In each election the Coalition government was “old” – in 2007 it was seeking a fifth term; now it’s asking for a fourth.

People were “over” Howard, as they’re “over” Scott Morrison. But the feeling against Howard was that he’d had his time – it’s visceral against Morrison.

Kevin Rudd was a fresh face, plugged into the rising issue of the times, climate change. Anthony Albanese often projects more as old Labor than future Labor.

Oh, and interest rates went up by 25 basis points during each campaign – to 6.75% (an 11 year high) in 2007 and to 0.35% in 2022 (still at rock bottom).

Despite Albanese’s campaign hiccups, at the end of this penultimate week, based on the objective evidence, the election appears his to lose.

The Australian newspaper’s YouGov poll, which surveyed almost 19,000 people across all lower house seats between April 14 and May 7, had Labor on track to majority government.

This is not predictive – it’s a snapshot. Both sides know the final campaign days provide risks and opportunities.

A sizeable number of voters have yet to firm up their decisions. In particular, how will soft Liberal voters who are put off by Morrison break? Between those who opt to swallow hard and stick with the government and those who can’t stomach the PM any longer?

But to state the obvious, Morrison has a short time in which to try reduce a big margin. Last minute scare campaigns can play effectively; unexpected developments can change the dynamics. But that’s only if enough voters in the right seats retain an open mind.

The Liberals have left their launch, to be held in Brisbane on Sunday, until the last moment. New policy will be announced. Morrison needs to garner some momentum from it for the home run.

Next week will see the release of important economic data, on unemployment and wages. The government will be hoping the unemployment figure, most recently 4%, will have a three in front of it. That would be good news for the Coalition’s economic pitch.

The wages number could play to Labor.

Wages growth was 2.3% in the year to December. Any increase on that for the year to March would be expected to be small. The Reserve Bank has forecast wage growth of 2.7% in the year to June, indicating it doesn’t anticipate much in March.

If next week’s figure is modest, Labor will be able to use it to highlight its case that many people are going backwards in real terms, given the 5.1% inflation rate.

One skill in politics is to be able to turn a negative into a neutral, or a positive, and Albanese did this in the argument over wages and inflation this week.

He initially slipped up, when he embraced the desirability of the minimum hourly wage being increased by 5.1%, to match inflation. The reasons he should not have been so precise have been well canvassed.

But when subsequently he translated such a rise into “two coffees a day”, the proposition would look to many voters more than reasonable (regardless of some counter economic arguments).

Morrison jumped on Albanese’s wages position as evidence the opposition leader did not understand economic matters, with the derogatory put down that “Anthony Albanese is a loose unit on the economy.” But that meant the prime minister was advocating a real wage cut for the lowest paid workers.

The Albanese-as-risk claim is about the best attack line the government has got, but when the debate is about wages, the government is fighting on Labor’s preferred turf.

If Albanese’s campaign has had mistakes and glitches, Morrison’s is undermined by the very obvious fact he’s leading a divided party.

Hardly any Liberals would have heard of Katherine Deves before she shot to prominence as Morrison’s captain’s pick for Warringah. Now her views on transgender issues, which the PM thinks will work for him among some ethnic voters, are causing the Liberals serious internal and external angst.

In a video, former prime minister Tony Abbott, who lost Warringah to independent Zali Steggall in 2019, has urged reluctant Liberal members in the seat to get behind Deves.

“The more I see of Katherine Deves the more impressed I am with her courage, with her common sense, with her decency and with quite frankly her capacity to win this seat back for the Liberal Party,” Abbott says.

Voters’ disgruntlement with Abbott’s high profile campaign against marriage equality was a factor in his defeat in 2019. His words about Deves suggest he remains tone deaf to the views of many in the party and the public within his old seat.

While Abbott lavishes praise on Deves, treasurer Josh Frydenberg, fighting for his political life against a teal candidate in Kooyong, was again distancing himself from Morrison’s defence of her.

“I myself have been very clear in rejecting what Katherine Deves has been saying. Her comments have been insensitive, they’ve been inappropriate,” he reiterated on the ABC.

Morrison has said that in his “captain’s pick” candidates for various NSW seats he was anxious to run women.

A study by the Australian National University’s Global Institute for Women’s Leadership, released Thursday, of candidates from the major parties found only about 20% of female Coalition candidates are running in safe seats. This compares with 46% of male candidates. More than half (51%) of Coalition women candidates are running in marginal seats – under 6% – compared with 25% of male candidates.

Some “80% of female candidates in the Coalition are […] running in seats they are unlikely to win, or that are precarious to hold. The equivalent proportion of men running in these seats is 54%,” the study says.

If the Liberals lose this election, addressing the women problem will be among many issues confronting a shattered party.

Meanwhile women present a major obstacle in Morrison’s attempt to pull this election out of the fire.

The female teal candidates will be attractive to women voters in those seats. More generally, Morrison is significantly more unpopular with women than with men. Women voters could be in the vanguard if May 21 delivers him a mortal blow.

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

– ref. Grattan on Friday: It’s Albanese’s to lose, as Morrison looks for some momentum – https://theconversation.com/grattan-on-friday-its-albaneses-to-lose-as-morrison-looks-for-some-momentum-182953

Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Mitchell Harley, Scientia Senior Lecturer, UNSW Sydney

Environmental scientists see flora, fauna and phenomena the rest of us rarely do. In this series, we’ve invited them to share their unique photos from the field.

Extreme storms can cause devastating erosion and leave beachfront houses teetering on cliff edges. But our new research, published today, finds storms might also help replenish beaches by bringing in new sand from deeper waters.

We studied three extreme storms in Australia, the United Kingdom and Mexico. One, in Sydney in 2016, famously ripped a swimming pool away from a property overlooking the coastline.

For the first time, we’re able to show just how much new sand can be added to a beach in a single storm alone – over 400,000 cubic metres in some cases. That’s equivalent to the typical volumes of sand engineers use to nourish beaches artificially.

As sea levels rise, this natural form of beach replenishment might be an important factor in offsetting some of the damaging effects of climate change on beaches. Yet, with little knowledge of exactly how much sand is moving around offshore, predicting the future of beaches in the coming decades is extremely difficult.

Wave after wave

Violent storm waves strip beaches of sand above the waterline, which often erodes sand dunes. In deeper waters, however, these same waves help stir up sediment lying dormant on the seabed. This sand is then pushed towards the shore and settles as the storm passes.

To study the three storms in Australia, the UK and Mexico, we used high-resolution monitoring equipment including twin engine airplanes, drones and jet skis mounted with an echo-sounder for measuring the seabed.

In Australia, we measured Narrabeen Beach in Sydney. In the UK, we monitored the impact of several storms during the winters of 2013-2014 and 2015-2016, at Perranporth beach in Cornwall. And in northwest Mexico, we recorded the impact of the 2018-2019 winter on La Mision Beach.

In the time-lapse video below, you can see just how quickly the water can encroach on beachfront houses during extreme storms. Beneath the water surface, however, huge volumes of sand is also moving about.

By capturing the three-dimensional seabed changes for each event, we could quantify for the first time the precise sand volumes mobilised during these extreme storms.

To give an indication of the scale of beach change, the amount of sand added to the beach resulting from the stormy periods was on the order of 100 cubic metres for every metre length of beach – that’s like 20 tip trucks pouring sand on every metre-wide strip.

Read more:
The seas are coming for us in Kiribati. Will Australia rehome us?

As the beaches spanned several kilometres, this amounted to 130,000 cubic metres for La Mision beach, 400,000 cubic metres for Narrabeen and 420,000 cubic metres for Perranporth.

The time-lapse video below is of Wamberal Beach during a storm in 2020. While it wasn’t included in our study, it’s another great example of how large storm waves cause abrupt changes to beaches.

Rethinking coastal erosion

Exactly how a coastline might change due to sea-level rise is a key question facing coastal managers, as they plan for the escalating impacts of climate change.

The Intergovernmental Panel for Climate Change projects global sea levels to rise up to 76 centimetres by 2100, under a middle-of-the-road emissions scenario where global temperatures rise 2.1-3.5℃.

The response of the coast to sea-level rise has previously been estimated using an approach known as the Bruun rule. This rule states that for a given metre of sea-level rise, the coastline is expected to retreat between around 20m to over 100m, depending on the steepness of the coast.

Using the Bruun rule, global sea-level rise caused by climate change has been projected to result in losing almost half the world’s sandy beaches by 2100. However, not all coastal scientists share this view.

Let there be no doubt: sea-level rise is a tragic consequence of climate change, and it poses an existential threat to many coastal communities, especially for island nations in the Pacific.

What our new research confirms is that the Bruun rule approach is overly simplistic, as it doesn’t take into account the many complex local factors about how individual beaches respond to sea-level rise.

This includes the amount of sand stored in deeper water immediately off the coast, and its potential to replenish beaches during extreme weather events.

Improving predictions in an uncertain future

While this research has focused only on three extreme storm sequences, it shows that understanding how sediment moves along the coast is fundamental to planning for climate change impacts.

There are two ways we can significantly improve long-term predictions of coastal change in this uncertain future:

1. upscaling efforts in mapping the seabed to learn how much sediment is presently stored in the deeper coastal waters

2. increasing routine coastal monitoring of the entire nearshore system, from the sand dunes down to deeper waters. This is currently carried out by UK coastal observatories.

A greater understanding of sand movements off the coast, combined with computer modelling, can better forecast future shorelines. This will give coastal managers the information needed to make critical long-term planning decisions for communities.

Read more:
Why some beaches, including in Queensland, are getting bigger despite rising sea levels

Mitchell Harley receives funding from the Australian Research Council

Gerd Masselink receives funding from NERC.

– ref. ‘Like 20 tip trucks pouring sand on every metre-wide strip’: how extreme storms can replenish beaches, not just erode them – https://theconversation.com/like-20-tip-trucks-pouring-sand-on-every-metre-wide-strip-how-extreme-storms-can-replenish-beaches-not-just-erode-them-182039

Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Muriel Porter, Honorary Research Fellow, Trinity College Theological School, University of Divinity

When same-sex marriage was legislated by the Commonwealth in 2017, it quickly became a potential flashpoint in the Anglican Church of Australia.

For the conservative Diocese of Sydney, which contributed $1 million to the “no” campaign in the national same-sex marriage plebiscite, it became the line in the sand that could open up a major rift in the national church.

This week was the first opportunity for the diocese to prosecute its anti same-sex marriage agenda nationally, after COVID stopped the scheduled 2020-21 meetings of the triennial General Synod.

The national church now stands on the brink of that rift, with General Synod – the church’s “federal parliament” – this week refusing to endorse the Sydney position against same-sex marriage.

Sydney Diocese holds that the Bible sanctions marriage between a man and a woman only, and that this traditional position is a central doctrine of the Anglican Church.

What will happen next is up in the air. As an Anglican layperson who was a member of General Synod for 30 years, and as a reporter for the UK weekly newspaper Church Times, I have been following the General Synod meeting via live stream.

The Sydney contingent at the synod is clearly unhappy. The Sydney archbishop, Kanishka Raffel, told the synod the church was “in a perilous position, and no one should be mistaken about that”.

The issue of same-sex marriage was, he said, a “tipping point”, adding that “we ought to stop wasting each other’s time by gathering this way and supporting these structures”.

Read more:
Talk of same-sex marriage impinging on religious freedom is misconceived: here’s why

Quite what he was suggesting was not clear, but it sounded like a potential move away from the national church structure – in other words, a breakup of the national church. If that happened, each of the 23 dioceses across the country would be on its own. It would be less a schism, and more a return to the situation before the national church was formed in 1961.

However, given Sydney Diocese’s huge representation on the synod following a couple of decades of what is often referred to as “branch stacking” within church circles, most observers do not expect that to happen.

The results of the elections to the standing committee of the General Synod, held yesterday, reveal the conservatives are now in almost complete control of the national church.

Progressive Anglican clergy and laity from around the country who had long been members of the committee have been cast aside. From here on, the national church’s central structures will prosecute a virtual carbon copy of Sydney’s conservative position on same-sex marriage and other issues as well.

Same-sex marriage is not the first flashpoint within the church. Most of the other 22 dioceses are celebrating 30 years since women were first ordained priests. Women clergy are now a quarter of the total number, and there are also seven women bishops across five dioceses. One diocese, Perth, has a woman archbishop, Kay Goldsworthy.

Women clergy and bishops are not only not ordained in Sydney Diocese, they are not even recognised there. In Sydney Diocese, where women are not permitted to lead in either the church or the home, Goldsworthy would not be recognised as a priest, let alone an archbishop.

During the ordination of women debates in the 1980s and ‘90s, there were threats of schism. They came to nothing. Instead, Sydney Diocese has systematically taken over the national church by increasing its representation on the General Synod through a loophole in its constitution. Now it holds a third of the clergy and laity members, as well as members from other dioceses where it has been planting like-minded churches and clergy.

That is why conservatives have now taken over the standing committee, and why they gained large majorities among the clergy and lay members for their move at General Synod against same-sex marriage.

It was the diocesan bishops who thwarted the move. A little more than half of the diocesan bishops could still be identified as progressives. In direct contrast to the Sydney position, they see the blessing of same-sex marriages as a means of offering acceptance and God’s grace to same-sex people in loving, committed relationships.

Moves are afoot in the General Synod as it approaches its conclusion on Friday to call on the progressive bishops to “repent” of their “sinful” position. Those moves might well be successful, but they won’t affect the decision made in what might well be the progressives’ last stand in the national Anglican church.

Read more:
Talk of same-sex marriage impinging on religious freedom is misconceived: here’s why

However, all is not lost for the progressive position. The General Synod is a limited federal structure that gives the individual dioceses great autonomy. Until now, the progressive dioceses have held back on same-sex marriage blessings to maintain national church unity.

Only two public blessings of same-sex marriages have occurred since the church’s highest court, the Appellate Tribunal, ruled in 2020 that these services were acceptable in terms of the church constitution. It’s hardly been a tsunami, as the bishop of Ballarat, Garry Weatherill, told this week’s General Synod.

Now that real unity is clearly a dead letter, some dioceses will perhaps step out confidently to embrace same-sex blessings and other progressive causes, just as they embraced women clergy 30 years ago. The Anglican Church of Australia might present many different faces in the future.

Muriel Porter is an Anglican layperson who was a member of General Synod for 30 years.

– ref. Anglican disunity on same-sex marriage threatens to tear the church apart – https://theconversation.com/anglican-disunity-on-same-sex-marriage-threatens-to-tear-the-church-apart-182936

Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Dean Biron, PhD in Cultural Studies; teaches in School of Justice, Queensland University of Technology

In May of 1972 the Rolling Stones released their 10th British studio album and first double LP, Exile on Main St. Although initial critical response was lukewarm, it is now considered a contemporary music landmark, the best work from a band who rock critic Simon Frith once referred to as “the poets of lonely leisure.”

Exile on Main St. was both the culmination of a five-year productive frenzy and bleary-eyed comedown from the darkest period in the Stones’ history.

By 1969 the storm clouds of dread building around the group had become a full-blown typhoon. First, recently sacked member Brian Jones was found dead, drowned in his swimming pool.

Then, as the decade ended in a rush of bleak portents, they played host to the chaos of the Altamont Speedway Free Concert, a poorly organised, massive free concert, which ended with four dead including a murder captured live on film.

Yet amidst all this the Stones produced Let It Bleed (1969) and Sticky Fingers (1971), two devastating albums that wrapped up the era like a parcel bomb addressed to the 1970s.

Songs like Gimme Shelter, the harrowing Sister Morphine, and Sway, which broods on Nietzche’s notion of circular time, exuded the kind of weary grandeur that would define Exile.

Rock folklore

The story behind Exile on Main St. has become rock folklore. Fleeing from England’s punitive tax laws, the Stones lobbed in a Côte d’Azur mansion that was a Gestapo HQ during World War II.

Mick Jagger was largely sidelined, spending much of the time in Paris with pregnant wife Bianca. The musicians were jammed into an ad-hoc basement studio, a cross between steam-bath and opium den, powered by electricity hijacked from the French railway system. The house was beset by hangers-on, including the obligatory posse of drug-dealers.

Yet with control ceded to the nonchalant, disaster-prone Keith Richards – the kind of person a crisis would want around in a crisis – they somehow harnessed the power of pandemonium.

The result was a singular amalgam of barbed soul, mutant gospel, tombstone blues and shambolic country, as thrilling in its blend of familiar sources as works by contemporaries Roxy Music and David Bowie were in the use of alien ones.

Jagger shuffles his deck of personas from song to song like a demented croupier, the late, great drummer Charlie Watts supplies his customary subtle adornments, and a cast of miscreants – most crucially, pianist Nicky Hopkins and producer Jimmy Miller – function as supplementary band members.

All 18 tracks contribute to the ragged perfection of the document as a whole. Tumbling Dice and Happy are textbook rock propelled by a strange union of virtuosity and indolence. And there is an undeniable beauty to the likes of Torn and Frayed and Let it Loose, albeit a beauty that is tentative, hard-earned.

The package is completed by its distinctive sleeve art, juxtaposing a collage of circus performers photographed by Robert Frank circa 1950 with grainy stills from a Super-8 film of the band and a mural dedicated to Joan Crawford.

Exile confused audiences at first: Writer John Perry describes its 1972 reception as mixing “puzzlement with qualified praise”. The response of critic Lester Bangs was typical. After an initial negative review, Bangs came to regard it as the group’s strongest work. Critic Stephen Thomas Erlewine confirms that the record over time has become a touchstone, calling it a masterful album that takes “the bleakness that underpinned Let It Bleed and Sticky Fingers to an extreme.”

Inspiration

The roll call of artists inspired by Exile is extensive, from Tom Waits and the White Stripes to Benicio del Toro and Martin Scorsese. But two album-length homages stand out.

In 1986, underground punks Pussy Galore concocted a feral, abstract facsimile of the entire double-LP. In 1993, singer-songwriter Liz Phair used the original as a rough template for her acclaimed Exile in Guyville.

Nonetheless, journalist Mark Masters notes that by the 1980s, the social and cultural circumstances that produced Exile were waning as acts such as Minutemen, Mekons, The Go-Go’s and Fela Kuti gave listeners access to fresh modes of rebellion.

Read more:
Brown Sugar: why the Rolling Stones are right to withdraw the song from their set list

Circa 1972, the Rolling Stones deserved the title “greatest rock and roll band in the world.” That it is still claimed 50 years on shows how classic rock continues to overbear all that followed.

The grandfathers of rock

When in 2020 Rolling Stone magazine made a half-hearted attempt to tweak the classic rock canon – elevating Marvin Gaye, Public Enemy and Lauryn Hill alongside or above Exile and the Beatles – the response was predictably unedifying.

One reader complained that the magazine was catering to “young people with no musical history and older people who don’t know anything.” Others raged that rap is not music and the list was proof of rampant political correctness.

Such archaic, ignorant language is typical of gatekeepers of the classic rock tradition. It is a language of exclusion, ensuring that exceptional new music by, say, Fiona Apple (which sounds something like rock) or Liz Harris (which sounds rather different) will always be rated below what came before.

The Rolling Stones have an inevitable, if ambiguous, relationship to all of this. In terms of race, writer Jack Hamilton argues that they were always “fiercely committed to a future for rock and roll music in which black music and musicians continued to matter.”

How they intersect with gender is perhaps more troubling, though also conflicted. While eminent female musicians such as Joan Jett, Carrie Brownstein and Rennie Sparks continue to champion the Stones, their role as leading purveyors of an inherently masculine, increasingly archaic musical form cannot be avoided.

Exile on Main St. is a significant album made by a bunch of haggard rebels whose heyday (and rebellion) is past but whose art lives on in complex ways.

Along with Sly and the Family Stone’s There’s a Riot Goin’ On and Neil Young’s Tonight’s the Night, it fits snugly into an aesthetic of washed out, narcotic-smeared masterpieces from the early seventies.

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

– ref. Exile on Main St turns 50: how The Rolling Stones’ critically divisive album became rock folklore – https://theconversation.com/exile-on-main-st-turns-50-how-the-rolling-stones-critically-divisive-album-became-rock-folklore-181704

Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Ria Hopkins, PhD Candidate, National Drug and Alcohol Research Centre, UNSW Sydney

One in five Australians live with chronic pain lasting three months or more. Common causes include back and neck pain, headache, and joint pain.

Opioid medicines – such as oxycodone, morphine, fentanyl and codeine – are essential medicines and provide relief to many people with this type of pain.

However, opioids can also cause side effects and harms including dependence and overdose, which may be fatal.

Over the past decade, measures have been introduced in Australia to curb growing rates of opioid use and harms. But this has come at the expense of access for some people who genuinely need them.

In our new study, one-third of participants prescribed opioids long-term for chronic, non-cancer pain had difficulties getting ongoing prescriptions.

Read more:
1 in 5 Aussies over 45 live with chronic pain, but there are ways to ease the suffering

Tightening access

In 2018, codeine was made a “prescription-only” medicine. In the same year, Australia’s Chief Medical Officer wrote to doctors prescribing a lot of opioids to encourage them to consider reducing their prescribing.

States have also introduced prescription monitoring programs, allowing providers to see whether their patients are getting opioids from other doctors or pharmacies.

We’re underaking a long-term study of just over 1,500 Australians prescribed opioids for chronic non-cancer pain. We started asking questions about accessing opioid prescriptions in our 2018 interviews with participants.

These weren’t prescriptions for new pain conditions, but ongoing prescriptions for people who had been using these medicines for four years, on average, and living with pain for ten years, before the study.

Opioids can cause significant harm

Over the past 30 years, the amount of opioids (doses per Australian per day) dispensed on the Pharmaceutical Benefits Scheme (PBS) has increased four-fold.

There has also been a 15-fold increase in opioid prescriptions dispensed on the PBS between 1995 and 2015. Australia currently ranks eighth among countries using the most opioids.

Read more:
2,200 deaths, 32,000 hospital admissions, 15.7 billion dollars: what opioid misuse costs Australia in a year

As opioid use has risen, so have harms. Opioids are the main drug involved in drug-induced deaths.

Pharmaceutical opioids are now involved in more deaths than heroin. Pharmaceutical opioids also contribute more to poisoning-related hospital visits than heroin, with hospitalisations doubling since 1999.

So what did our research find?

In our study, one in five people reported problems relating to accessing doctors.

As opioids become more restricted, people may need to visit their doctor more frequently because they’re given smaller pack sizes and fewer repeats. They may be put in a position where they’re unable to get prescriptions if doctors aren’t available.

Opioids can cause dependence and tolerance with continuous and long-term use. However, sudden interruptions to opioid medicine supply may place people at risk of experiencing unpleasant withdrawal symptoms such as nausea and vomiting, flu symptoms, and muscle cramping.

One in ten people in our study reported their doctor wanted to reduce or stop opioid medicines against their wishes.

Patients and doctors need to work together

More doctors are practising “opioid tapering” (reducing opioid doses over time), especially in the United States, following the release in 2016 of Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) guidelines for chronic pain.

However, there were soon reports of opioids being ceased without reducing the dose first, which risks withdrawal. This prompted the CDC to warn that applying guidelines without adequate care could harm patients.

Worryingly, studies have linked stopping or reducing opioids with death by suicide and overdose, even for people prescribed opioids at low doses to begin with.

These studies also found people who stopped opioids were more likely to visit the emergency department or be admitted to hospital for mental health crises, illicit drug use and overdoses.

Read more:
Opioid script changes mean well, but have left some people in chronic pain

For some people, reducing or stopping opioids will be the right thing for them, clinically. Some studies suggest stopping opioids can be done without increasing pain.

Some studies suggest pain may even improve when opioids are stopped. However, participants in these studies are usually enrolled in special pain programs. These programs are notoriously difficult to access in Australia and it is common to wait months to years for services.
Increased investment in pain services and programs is needed.

There is also a need for opioid tapering to be undertaken in a collaborative way, with patients and doctors working as a team to achieve agreed upon goals.

Balancing benefits and harms

Since we conducted our study, new restrictions introduced in 2020 reduced the quantities of opioids that can be prescribed on the PBS. For most opioids, doctors can only supply quantities and repeats for up to three months at a time.

So it’s likely to have become harder for people with pain to access pain medicines. In a survey released last month by Painaustralia, half of the respondents said their pain management was worse, and their pain was more severe, because of the changes.

When it comes to using opioids for chronic non-cancer pain, it’s important to balance both benefits and harms. Potential opioid-related harms need to be recognised and addressed. At the same time, adequate treatment of pain is essential, and we need to make sure people don’t suffer harms due to changes to opioid access.

The needs of people who live with pain and the impact of restrictions on them need to remain at the centre of all decisions and discussions about opioids.

Read more:
Patients leaving hospital sometimes need opioids. Doctors can reduce risks of long-term use and dependence

Ria Hopkins receives funding from the Australian National Health and Medical Research Council (NHMRC).

Natasa Gisev 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. One in three people with chronic pain have difficulty accessing ongoing prescriptions for opioids – https://theconversation.com/one-in-three-people-with-chronic-pain-have-difficulty-accessing-ongoing-prescriptions-for-opioids-182678

Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By David Lindenmayer, Professor, The Fenner School of Environment and Society, Australian National University

This federal election campaign has involved very little discussion of environmental or natural resource policies, other than mining. An exception is a A$220 million Morrison government pledge for the forestry industry.

The money will be invested in new wood-processing technology and forest product research, and used to extend 11 so-called “regional forestry hubs”. Some $86 million will aid the establishment of new plantations.

Prime Minister Scott Morrison said he would not support “any shutdown of native forestry” and claimed the funding would secure 73,000 existing forestry jobs. The spending on native forests, however, is problematic. In 2019-20, 87% of logs harvested in Australia came from plantations, and more investment is needed to bring this to 100%.

Here, we show how directing public funds to native forest logging is bad for the economy, the climate and biodiversity, and will increase bushfire risk.

1. Economics

Native forest logging has long been a marginal economic prospect. The Western Australian government has recognised this, electing to halt the practice by the end of 2023. It will instead create sustainable forestry jobs by spending $350 million expanding softwood timber plantations.

The move followed Victoria’s promised end to native forest logging in 2030.

In Victoria, native forest logging has repeatedly incurred substantial losses across large parts of the state. Data from the state’s Parliamentary Budget Office in 2020 show Victoria would be more than $190 million better off without its native forest logging sector.

Native forest logging sustains far fewer jobs than the plantation sector, and does not produce substantial employment opportunities in any mainland Australian state.

For example, only about 300 direct and indirect jobs are sustained by native forest logging in southern NSW.

A recent economic analysis showed ceasing native forest harvesting in that region would bring $62 million in economic benefits – a result likely to be repeated in native forestry areas across Australia.

About 87% of sawn timber used in home construction is derived from plantations. The vast majority of native forest logged in Victoria and southern NSW goes into woodchips and paper pulp.

Victoria exports 75% of plantation-derived eucalypt pulp logs. A small percentage of this diverted for domestic use would readily replace native forest wood at Victoria’s biggest paper mill at Maryvale. The feasibility of this has been known for years.

Read more:
Logged native forests mostly end up in landfill, not in buildings and furniture

2. Climate change

Native forest logging in Australia generates around 38 million tonnes of carbon dioxide (CO₂) a year.

Victoria’s phase-out of native forest logging by 2030 will reduce emissions by 1.7 million tonnes of CO₂-equivalent gases each year for 25 years, equivalent to taking 730,000 motor vehicles off the road annually.

Ending native forest logging in southern NSW would likely be the biggest carbon abatement project in that state.

These benefits also bring economic value. Even under relatively low market prices for carbon, the value of not logging, in terms of reducing greenhouse gases, far exceeds the economic benefits of native forest logging.

Read more:
Decaying forest wood releases a whopping 10.9 billion tonnes of carbon each year. This will increase under climate change

3. Bushfire risk

There’s now unequivocal evidence that logging native trees makes forests prone to more severe bushfires. Analysis of the 2019-20 Black Summer fires showed logged forests always burn more severely than intact ones.

Under moderate fire weather conditions during Black Summer, logged forests burned at higher severity than intact forests burning under extreme fire weather.

These logging-generated risks were particularly pronounced in southern and northern NSW. Importantly, they were also evident in Victoria’s 2009 Black Saturday fires in Victoria.

Read more:
Coming of age: research shows old forests are 3 times less flammable than those just burned

4. Biodiversity conservation

Numerous studies have demonstrated the damage native forest logging causes to biodiversity. In Victoria, for example, a 2019 analysis of areas proposed for logging showed it would negatively affect 70 threatened forest-dependent species, such as the Leadbeater’s possum.

The bottom line is that ongoing logging will drive yet further declines of Australia’s threatened species and add to the nation’s sad record on biodiversity loss.

The upshot

The empirical evidence points in one direction: ending native forest logging in Australia would bring substantial and multiple benefits to society and nature.

We welcome the Morrison government’s spending on supporting new plantations. To create the most positive return on taxpayer investment, however, the bulk of other industry funding should be directed to enhancing manufacturing and markets for high-value wood products from plantation timber.

David Lindenmayer receives funding from the Australian Research Council, the Australian Government, and the Victorian Government.

Brendan Mackey receives funding from the Australian Research Council and the federal government. He is on the board on the not-for-profit organisation Great Eastern Ranges and is a member of the Queensland government’s Native Timber Advisory Panel.

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

– ref. 4 reasons why the Morrison government’s forestry cash splash is bad policy – https://theconversation.com/4-reasons-why-the-morrison-governments-forestry-cash-splash-is-bad-policy-182145

Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Niro Kandasamy, Lecturer, University of Sydney

The Sri Lankan state is descending into a full blown political and economic crisis, as more people contend with starvation, death and severe disruptions. Now they are also facing the brutal violence of the state.

The BBC reports at least nine people died and more than 200 were injured as vehicles and houses were set alight during fighting between government supporters and critics this week.

The island is facing its worst economic crisis since independence, and the responses of the state indicate it is incapable of protecting its citizens.

The deployment of military force, however, is unlikely to quell unrest. The anger and frustration displayed by the public, aggravated by pro-government protesters, is only likely to grow – fuelling further distrust in the ruling government.

Read more:
Sri Lanka: protests spread as petrol prices rise by 90%

The use of force

The army was this week given orders to shoot “law-breakers” on sight, as people gathered in the street to protest shortages in food, fuel and medicines.

Economic problems underpin the recent political unrest, with Sri Lanka confronting the very real prospect of bankruptcy as its foreign reserves run dry.

As I wrote recently in the Australian Institute of International Affairs, the country’s 22 million citizens are now suffering thanks to a legacy of government corruption, nepotism and poor economic management. The island is deeply in debt to China and unable to raise enough revenue due to a slew of tax cuts.

Its nationalist president, Gotabaya Rajapaksa, came to office in November 2019 after campaigning on national security and appealing to Sinhala-Buddhist nationalism.

The Rajapaksa family has since grown increasingly powerful; Gotabaya installed his brother Mahinda (himself a former president) as prime minister and appointed other relatives to ministerial positions.

Recent constitutional changes have increased the power of the president to suppress political opposition, erode democratic institutions and further entrench discrimination against minority Tamils and Muslims.

A predictable economic crisis

Poor economic mismanagement is not new in Sri Lanka, with consecutive governments failing to manage inflation, debt and spending.

But the decisions of the current government have brought the island to the brink of bankruptcy.

It is the worst economic crisis Sri Lanka has faced since it gained independence from British rule in 1948.

One significantly disastrous policy under Gotabaya Rajapaksa’s presidency was the banning of chemical fertiliser. This caused farmers’ livelihoods to collapse and led to lower crop yields as well as plantation closures, job losses and food shortages.

This triggered inflation and effectively crushed key export industries like tea and rubber.

Meanwhile, COVID wrecked the tourism industry, a key revenue generator for Sri Lanka.

The war in Ukraine has affected fuel shortages and crippled tourism, with Russia and Ukraine being key tourist markets.

Militarisation is the norm in Sri Lanka

Authoritarianism by the state is not new in Sri Lanka, as minority Tamils and Muslims well know. These groups faced horrifying violence before, during and after the civil war fought between 1983 and 2009.

This week’s deployment of security forces is a rapid development in the recent crisis, but militarisation has been a central pillar of Sri Lankan governance for years.

The ministry of defence received 12.3% of total estimated government expenditure in 2022 – the highest allocation for any ministry in the budget. This is despite its civil war ending 13 years ago.

The Tamil population in the north and east of the island face the brunt of this militarisation, which encroaches on their everyday lives.

The military runs civilian life, from schools, to recreation and religious activities. There is an estimated one military personnel per six civilians in the north and east.

The same military massacred tens of thousands of Tamils during the war, resulting in a genocide.

The United Nations continues to call for investigations into violations of international humanitarian and human rights law and international crimes.

At least 115 Tamil parents have died since the civil war ended without knowing the whereabouts of loved ones forcibly disappeared by Sri Lankan security forces as the war ended.

One 75-year old woman, Thangarasa Selvarani, had been protesting on the roadside over her abducted son for five years; she recently died without finding out what had happened to her child.

So what’s next?

The prime minister, Mahinda Rajapaksa, resigned as violence in the country escalated.

Protesters gathered at the Trincomalee port after unconfirmed reports he had gone there with family after fleeing his Colombo residence.

Anti-government protests across the island will continue, as President Gotabaya Rajapaksa holds firm and politicians shelter in safe houses to avoid the public.

Gotabaya is so far refusing to resign, instead seeking to appoint a new cabinet.

A new cabinet will not solve the problem, and the growing crackdown on civilians will only further erode trust in this government.

Read more:
What’s happening in Sri Lanka and how did the economic crisis start?

Niro Kandasamy volunteers at the Tamil Refugee Council.

– ref. The Sri Lankan state is using violence to unleash fury on its citizens, as its political and economic crisis deepens – https://theconversation.com/the-sri-lankan-state-is-using-violence-to-unleash-fury-on-its-citizens-as-its-political-and-economic-crisis-deepens-182937

Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Evita March, Senior Lecturer in Psychology, Federation University Australia

Prime Minister Scott Morrison says one of his “great missions” is to make social media a safer place for young people.

If the Coalition is re-elected, Morrison says one of the first pieces of legislation will be an anti-trolling bill, after it was introduced but not passed in the last parliament.

In March, Labor said the bill needed “significant amendments”.

To understand if this bill will be effective in targeting trolling, we need to understand why people troll. I have been researching the psychology of internet trolls for more than seven years – this is what I have found.

What does the bill propose?

Last September, the High Court ruled Australians with a social media page can be liable for defamatory posts others people make on their page – even if they are not aware of the posts.

In response, the anti-trolling bill was introduced. The bill aims to make it easier to obtain contact details of anonymous social media users and “unmask” them. However, the online safety comissioner has questioned whether the bill will actually target trolling. Lawyers have also warned the bill could increase legal costs and waste court time.

My research shows trolls have complex motivations for their behaviour, which are not addressed by the bill.

Read more:
High Court rules media are liable for Facebook comments on their stories. Here’s what that means for your favourite Facebook pages

Who are the trolls?

Today, trolling is understood to be a malicious, antisocial act where the “troll” seeks to cause their target distress or harm. Commonly, it is a form of online harassment. In my research, I describe this as “malevolent trolling”.

In our Australian-first 2016 study, we found people who engage in more trolling behaviours, such as disrupting comment sections and upsetting people, were more likely to be callous, lack guilt and personal responsibility for their actions, and enjoy harming others. That is, they had higher scores on the personality traits of psychopathy and sadism. We also found trolls were more likely to feel rewarded when engaging in antisocial behaviour, and enjoyed being cruel to others and creating a sense of social mayhem.

Read more:
‘Don’t feed the trolls’ really is good advice – here’s the evidence

We have also shown that people who troll have lower affective empathy – the ability to share the emotions of others. We expected people who troll to also have low cognitive empathy – the ability to analytically understand the emotions of others.

However, we found people with high cognitive empathy combined with high psychopathy were more likely to troll. This paints a rather dangerous, malevolent portrait of the internet troll – they know what can hurt you but are less likely to experience guilt about their behaviour.

We have also found self-esteem is unrelated to trolling. Interestingly (and concerningly) we found self-esteem to interact with sadism – the higher an individual’s level of sadism and the higher their self-esteem, the more likely they are to troll. So, the more someone enjoys harming others and the greater their sense of self-worth, the more likely they are to troll.

Taken together, our findings suggest people who troll are callous, enjoy harming others, lack the ability to share the emotional pain they inflict on their targets, have a good understanding of what will hurt their targets and do not have low self-worth.

Based on these findings, we suggest “don’t feed the trolls” could be good advice, because letting trolls know they have caused harm likely reinforces their behaviour.

Why do people troll?

We can also understand trolling by applying theoretical frameworks.

According to General Strain Theory, when we experience something stressful we may have an aggressive response. So trolling could be seen as a response to experiencing stress. Indeed, during the 2020 COVID lockdowns in Australia there was a 300% increase in cyber abuse reports.

Read more:
New research shows trolls don’t just enjoy hurting others, they also feel good about themselves

The Broken Windows Theory is also helpful here. According to this theory, the more antisocial behaviour we see, the more likely we are to engage in the behaviour ourselves. Simply, the behaviour becomes normalised.

In combination, General Strain Theory and Broken Windows Theory suggest people who are stressed and who are exposed to more instances of trolling, are more likely to troll. This, in turn, normalises the behaviour, leading to even more trolling.

This effect can be seen in in an experiment by researchers from Stanford and Cornell universities. The researchers primed participants to be in a good or bad mood and then had them look at online discussions forms, some with primarily negative comments. Participants were then asked to post their own comment on the discussion forum. Those who were primed to be in a bad mood and who then viewed trolling were more likely to troll.

What does this mean for the bill?

The anti-trolling bill dangerously fails to address the complexity of the issue. Equating trolling with just defamation means the many other behaviours associated with trolling – harassment, disruption, intention to harm – would remain unlegislated.

But perhaps most concerning is the apparent ongoing lack of an evidence-based approach to targeting this harmful online behaviour.

Read more:
The government’s planned ‘anti-troll’ laws won’t help most victims of online trolling

This includes more empathy training throughout schools, with a particular focus on digital empathy. Developing digital empathy includes increasing understanding of how the online environment can impair empathy and connection, and what strategies you can employ to overcome this. This knowledge and skill development could be embedded in all digital school curriculum.

Cyber abuse, such as trolling and cyberbullying, have remained unchecked for too long. There is an urgent need to address and manage these harmful behaviours in a meaningful way.

Evita March 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. Morrison says his anti-trolling bill is a top priority if he’s re-elected – this is why it won’t work – https://theconversation.com/morrison-says-his-anti-trolling-bill-is-a-top-priority-if-hes-re-elected-this-is-why-it-wont-work-178148

Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Stephen Hickson, Economics Lecturer and Director Business Taught Masters Programme, University of Canterbury

Removing the goods and services tax (GST) from food is not a new idea. Te Pāti Māori are currently pushing for its removal from all foods. In 2011 Labour campaigned on removing GST from fruit and vegetables. In 2017 NZ First wanted GST removed from “basic food items”.

It’s an idea that voters like. A recent poll suggests 76% of New Zealanders support removing GST from food. But regardless of the support, removing GST on food always was, and still is, a bad idea.

The problem starts with the issue of motivation. Over the years, there has been no single clear goal for removing GST on food. Sometimes advocates argue it’s to encourage healthy eating or reduce obesity, sometimes it’s to help low income families afford better food.

As inflation increases to levels not seen for 30 years, the main reason given now is to ease the cost of living stress on those struggling to keep up.

Sacrificing simplicity

But the beauty of New Zealand’s tax system is its simplicity. Removing GST on food, or some types of food – for example, “healthy food” – makes that system more complex and costly.

There are a number of potential complications.

Let’s start with the obvious – what would count as “food”? Is milk powder food? Probably yes, so what about milk? Or flavoured milk? Oranges are food, so what about 100% natural orange juice? A broad definition of “food” would include lollies, potato chips, McDonalds and KFC, but many would object to removing GST from these on health grounds.

We would then need to decide what is acceptable to exempt and what is not. The arguments would go on and on.

In Australia, the quesion of whether an “oven baked Italian flat bread” is a bread (so not subject to GST) or a cracker (subject to GST) went to court, and involved flying a bread certification expert from Italy to testify. The only reason why that job exists is due to complexity in tax systems around the world.

Read more:
FactCheck: is the GST as efficient but less equitable than income tax?

In Ireland, the court was required to rule on whether Subway was serving “bread” or “confectionery or fancy baked goods” due to the difference in GST treatment.

In the UK, guidance on how GST on food is applied runs to 40 pages with 130 example categories; in Australia, an 87 page document covers some 1500 food types.

NZ First campaigned on exempting “basic food items” but this is also difficult to define. Are pies basic food items? Is a cold pie sold in a supermarket that you heat yourself different from a heated one sold in a bakery or one served at your table in a café?

Even worse would be to define “basic food” as what is sold in supermarkets. We already have an issue with a lack of competition in the supermarket industry and that sort of exemption would hand the existing duopoly even more market power.

Food costs won’t drop that much

Exempting some things and not others adds cost to the system.

Food outlets sell more than just food. With the proposed exemptions some things they sell will be subject to GST and some not. Some predominantly non-food outlets such as petrol stations also sell food.

Ultimately, someone has to pay the cost of complexity and the ones most happy about that will be the accountants.

Another issue is one of expectations. Food prices will drop but not by the full amount of GST. Basic economics teaches us that when something is taxed, producers and consumers share the burden of that tax.

Read more:
Cheaper food comes with other costs – why cutting GST isn’t the answer

The price rises for consumers but producers have to absorb some of that extra cost. When the tax comes off, therefore, the reverse happens, and producers and consumers share the cost reduction.

The 2018 Tax Working Group (TWG) didn’t support removing GST on food. It emphasised how such exemptions lead to “complex and often arbitrary boundaries”, particularly when trying to target specific types of food such as “healthy food”.

They also stated that such exemptions are a “poorly targeted instrument for achieving distributional aims”.

This is important given the current push to help New Zealanders, particularly those on low incomes, with the cost of living.

Alternative solutions

The working group explained that if the goal was to support those on low incomes, and the government was willing to give up the GST revenue from food, then it would be better to continue to collect the GST and simply refund it via an equal lump sum payment to every New Zealand household or taxpayer.

Higher income households pay more GST on food because they spend more on food than lower income households. Hence lower income households would get more back via a refund than what they pay in GST on food.

This would be simpler and a more effective way to address an issue faced by low income households.

The intentions with removing GST on food are good, but good intentions don’t always equal good policy. If the government wishes to increase support to New Zealand households it should do so in the most efficient way, which removing GST on food is not.

Stephen Hickson 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. Removing GST on food is back in the news, proving some bad ideas just never go away – https://theconversation.com/removing-gst-on-food-is-back-in-the-news-proving-some-bad-ideas-just-never-go-away-182592

Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Steven Conway, Senior Lecturer – Games and Interactivity, Swinburne University of Technology

EA Sports and FIFA will part ways after almost 30 years of collaboration. This is surprising for a number of reasons, not least because it is such a large part of EA’s success: FIFA, a video game franchise using the world governing body of soccer’s official licence, is regularly played by 35 million people. 325 million copies of the game have been sold since it was launched in 1993.

The American gaming company EA openly acknowledges its dependency upon the series. A 2020 regulatory document stated their US$5.6 billion in revenue was “primarily driven” by FIFA 21 and FIFA 20.

As one might expect, this powerhouse relationship seems to have soured over money. According to the New York Times, FIFA wanted double its usual licence fee, from US$500 million every four years to US$1 billion.

EA will release its new brand of soccer video game, EA Sports FC, in 2023. FIFA are also outlining plans to introduce its own set of digital games. FIFA President, Gianni Infantino, remarked this week:

I can assure you that the only authentic, real game that has the FIFA name will be the best one available for gamers and football fans.

This series has always revolved around an amorphous insistence upon authenticity and reality.

Read more:
Are esports the next major league sport?

Welcome to the real

EA Sports’ famous motto, “if it’s in the game, it’s in the game”, is not your average marketing braggadocio: it’s a declaration of intent. Even at its inception, the publisher was claiming to be more authentic than its competition.

It always wanted to be associated with established sports media. Its first game, based on America’s National Football League, was endorsed by NFL legend John Madden, credited as “co-designer” for 1988’s John Madden Football.

By the early 90s, EA Sports had reached agreement with the relevant governing bodies for NFL, American hockey, golf and lastly, in 1993, soccer.

On the back covers of these early games you’ll see words such as “actual”, “authentic” and “realistic” plastered liberally. These are, rather paradoxically, aligned with phrases such as “just like TV”, detailing features such as live commentary, instant replays and a host of camera angles.

In our heavily mediated society, signs of mediation are signs of reality.

The early FIFA games were filled with innovations. FIFA International Soccer in 1993 was the first soccer game to give the impression of three-dimensions, rather than the flat, two-dimensional appearance of competing games.

Graphical flourishes abound from 1996’s FIFA 97, featuring multi-dimensional players (instead of 2D sprites) and motion-captured animations provided by cover star David Ginola. This iteration also introduced live commentary provided by John Motson and Andy Gray, familiar voices to any English soccer fan.

Its successor, FIFA: Road To World Cup 98, would introduce a “title song” (Blur’s Song 2), beginning a tradition fusing musicians with the series, now an aspiration for many bands.

FIFA Football 2002 provided the now familiar convention of “power bars”, where the power of a shot (and later pass) is determined by how long the player holds the button. This expanded the skill curve for the game, paving the way for mechanics in later years such as dribbling controls and tricks.

FIFA 09 inaugurated the multiplayer “Clubs” mode, allowing players to compete against one another online. This edition also introduced user-controlled goal celebrations: an infamous feature among online players for the rage induced by taunting, elongated routines.

FIFA 19 was perhaps the nail in the coffin for the dominance of the FIFA licence. EA Sports was able to secure an exclusive licence with the Union of European Football Associations, introducing enormously popular competitions such as the European Champions League, Europa League and Super Cup to the game.

Read more:
Why does crowd noise matter?

Road to Wembley?

It’s interesting to look back now at how proud EA Sports were when teaming up with FIFA. The back cover for 1993’s FIFA International Soccer read:

EA Sports has teamed up with the governing body of international soccer to bring you the most realistic soccer game ever created.

This is a far cry from contemporary pronouncements, such as EA CEO Andrew Wilson’s recent dismissal that FIFA’s only contribution to the series’ success was “four letters on the front of the box”.

While Wilson’s comments on FIFA are condescending, they aren’t too far off the mark. Outside of “those four letters”, the game series has never really seemed to care too much about that particular endorsement.

EA Sports’ claims to authenticity and reality have centred upon two things: domestic representation, and expanding the simulation claims of its game.

The first is evident in the series’ emphasis on expanding from international teams in the first game to include leagues such as England’s Premiership, Spain’s LaLiga and Germany’s Bundesliga with the painstaking recreation of their stadiums, team kits and player likenesses.

The second is illustrated by EA Sports’ concentrated efforts to implement familiar sports media conventions into the unfamiliar territory of video games.

Tack onto this constant improvements in the physics engine, player motion capture and team statistics, and EA Sports’ value is obvious for your average fan.

In recent years, EA Sports have even adopted mechanics from older media such as trading cards. Players can purchase “card packs” which provide a random selection of footballers to use in the game. (This has drawn the eye of legislators concerned EA is promoting gambling.)

The road forward for EA Sports’ series is clear; FIFA’s plans are much less defined.

EA Sports’ new series has the rights to “19,000+ players, 700+ teams, 100+ stadiums and 30 leagues”, including the English Premiership and UEFA Champions League. It’s an extraordinarily strong defence. If FIFA really want to compete, it will need to field a formidable attack.

Read more:
World Cup 2022: if Qatar can silence critics with a strong tournament, an Olympic bid could be next

Steven Conway 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. FIFA and EA sports are splitting: a look at 30 years of game innovation, and what fans can expect next – https://theconversation.com/fifa-and-ea-sports-are-splitting-a-look-at-30-years-of-game-innovation-and-what-fans-can-expect-next-182851

Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Christina Zorbas, Postdoctoral Research Fellow, Deakin University

The cost of living is on the rise. The recent Consumer Price Index (a measure of inflation of a standard basket of goods) revealed Australians’ grocery baskets are one of the biggest casualties.

The latest data tell us the fruit and veg in our shopping baskets costs, on average, 6.7% more than this time last year. Some items rose by far more. A cucumber, for example, went from A$2.20 last year to A$3.70 this year. The cost of lettuce has become a touchstone during the current election campaign.

The Australian Bureau of Statistics (ABS) reports fruit and vegetable prices have gone up because supply chains were affected by the COVID pandemic (for example, border closures and loss of farm workers), floods, and international conflict (increasing fuel and transport costs).

But takeaway foods only went up by 0.7%.

The ABS suggests the cost of takeaway foods did not increase as much because of government-funded subsidies and voucher programs in New South Wales and Victoria.

The COVID pandemic has focused our attention on public health and government responses. But when it comes to building resilient food systems that support healthy and affordable diets for all – one of the most important actions for public health – governments struggle to act.

Do healthy foods cost more than unhealthy options?

There is some debate out there as to whether healthy foods cost more than unhealthy options.

The verdict usually comes down to how you measure what constitutes healthy food and who you talk to.

Our assessments consistently tell us one thing: healthy diets are not affordable for everyone. For people who receive low incomes, healthy diets make up about a quarter of their disposable income (the money that comes into their household after taxes).

One in four Australians say groceries are a big financial stress.

Read more:
VIDEO: Election focus is on hip pocket nerve with rising living costs and interest rates

The price of ‘brain food’

We’ve monitored diet prices for many years and the implications of recent fresh food increases will continue to be heartbreaking for everyday people.

During our research, one single mother living in regional Victoria told us:

People look at cost first and foremost […] Bag of chips, $1.75, carrots, hummus and celery, $6 or $7. I know what I’m going to pick if I’m in a pinch, and it definitely ain’t the healthy choice.

Another mother of two put the purchase of fresh fruit into context, saying:

My little girl likes raspberries and blueberries. And I like her to have them, they’re brain food. But they range from $4 to $7 for a punnet. And that’s a huge portion of your weekly income.

All the nutrition knowledge in the world won’t help guide healthy choices if people can’t afford healthy food.

Supermarket specials can make unhealthy, ultra-processed foods and drinks look like good value for money. We’ve previously shown unhealthy options are on special twice as much as healthy alternatives.

This pattern of discounting can be particularly persuasive for people on low incomes.

Finally, making food takes time. Buying takeaway foods may save time – even though regular consumption can cost us our health.

Read more:
Supermarkets put junk food on special twice as often as healthy food, and that’s a problem

Making healthy diets affordable for everyone

Our food system does not prioritise the health of people or the planet.

While lines for food banks are growing, discussions about removing the GST-exemption on fresh fruit and vegetables have been brewing.

As we face global food crises, our governments could be planning ways to keep healthy diets affordable for everyone – for example, by increasing subsidies to keep the prices of healthy foods down.

In the Northern Territory, the Aboriginal-led Bagala Community Store has shown governments what’s possible by setting healthier supermarket pricing standards. When more specials were put on fruit and veg, consumption climbed by 100%.

In New Zealand, the government provides healthy lunches to kids at school to reduce food costs for families.

Price is only half of the food affordability issue. As the cost of living rises, our incomes are spread thinner.

Even though there has been talk about lifting the minimum wage, we remain far from addressing the root causes of health inequalities as we head into this election.

Healthy diets will only be affordable for all Australians if government income supports are lifted above the poverty line. Our government income support rates (provided through JobSeeker) are the second lowest of high-income countries.

Research from the beginning of the pandemic showed for the first time, JobSeeker made healthy diets affordable for people on low incomes. But the payments were later rescinded and people were put back into poverty. With rising housing costs, it’s a wonder anyone who depends on JobSeeker (A$345.50/week for a single parent) now can buy food let alone seek out a healthy diet.

Read more:
‘Too many people, not enough food’ isn’t the cause of hunger and food insecurity

What’s next?

Governments and food industries are not doing enough to make healthy diets affordable. The failure to respond to rising food prices, food insecurity, and intergenerational poverty is a missed opportunity.

Spikes in our food prices are a stark illustration of how vulnerable our food system is.

In the meantime, our team at Deakin University’s Institute for Health Transformation will keep an eye on food prices and people’s lived experiences of them. We will keep calling for appropriate policies that prioritise our right to affordable healthy diets.

Christina Zorbas works for Deakin University and the Victorian Health Promotion Foundation (VicHealth). She receives funding from Deakin University and VicHealth.

Kathryn Backholer receives funding from the National Health and Medical Research Council, the Australian Research Council, the National Heart Foundation, the Cancer Council Victoria, VicHealth, the WHO and UNICEF.

– ref. Yes, $5 for lettuce is too much. Government should act to stem the rising cost of healthy eating – https://theconversation.com/yes-5-for-lettuce-is-too-much-government-should-act-to-stem-the-rising-cost-of-healthy-eating-182295

Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Rohitash Chandra, Senior Lecturer, UNSW Sydney

Machine learning and other artificial intelligence (AI) methods have had immense success with scientific and technical tasks such as predicting how protein molecules fold and recognising faces in a crowd. However, the application of these methods to the humanities are yet to be fully explored.

What can AI tell us about philosophy and religion, for example? As a starting point for such an exploration, we used deep learning AI methods to analyse English tranlsations of the Bhagavad Gita, an ancient Hindu text written originally in Sanskrit.

Using a deep learning-based language model called BERT, we studied sentiment (emotions) and semantics (meanings) in the translations. Despite huge variations in vocabulary and sentence structure, we found that the patterns of emotion and meaning were broadly similar in all three.

This research opens a path to the use of AI-based technologies for comparing translations and reviewing sentiments in a wide range of texts.

An ancient book of wisdom

The Bhagavad Gita is one of the central Hindu sacred and philosophical texts. Written more than 2,000 years ago, it has been translated into more than 100 languages and has been of interest to western philosophers since the 18th century.

The 700-verse poem is a part of the larger Mahabharata epic, which recounts the events of an ancient war believed to have occurred at Kurushetra near modern-day Delhi in India.

Read more:
Indian philosophy helps us see clearly, act wisely in an interconnected world

The text of the Bhagavad Gita relates a conversation between the Hindu deity Lord Krishna and a prince called Arjuna. They discuss whether a soldier should go to war for ethics and duty (or “dharma”) if they have close friends or family on the opposing side.

The text has been instrumental in laying the foundations of Hinduism. Among many other things, it is where the philosophy of karma (a spiritual principle of cause and effect) originates.

Scholars have also regarded the Bhagavad Gita as a book of psychology, management, leadership and conflict resolution.

Countless translations

There have been countless English translations of the Bhagavad Gita, but there is not much work that validates their quality. Translations of songs and poems not only break rhythm and rhyming patterns, but can also result in the loss of semantic information.

In our research, we used deep learning language models to analyse three selected translations of the Bhagavad Gita (from Sanskrit to English) with semantic and sentiment analyses which help in the evaluation of translation quality.

We used a pre-trained language model known as BERT, developed by Google. We further tuned the model using a human-labelled training dataset based on Twitter posts, which captures 10 different sentiments.

These sentiments (optimistic, thankful, empathetic, pessimistic, anxious, sad, annoyed, denial, surprise, and joking) were adopted from our previous research into social media sentiment during the onset of the COVID-19 pandemic.

Patterns of sentiment

The three translations we studied used very different vocabulary and syntax, but the language model recognised similar sentiments in the different chapters of the respective translations. According to our model, optimistic, annoyed and surprised sentiments are the most expressed.

Moreover, the model showed how the overall sentiment polarity changes (from negative to positive) over the course of the conversation between Arjuna and Lord Krishna.

Arjuna is pessimistic towards the beginning and becomes optimistic as Lord Krisha imparts knowledge of Hindu philosophy to him. The sentiments expressed by Krishna show that with philosophical knowledge of dharma and mentorship, a troubled mind can get clarity for making the right decisions in times of conflict.

One limitation of our model is that it was trained on data from Twitter, so it recognises “joking” as a common sentiment. It applies this label inappropriately to some parts of the Bhagavad Gita. Humour is complicated and strongly culturally constrained, and understanding it is too much to ask of our model at this stage.

Due to the nature of the Sanskrit language, the fact that the Bhagavad Gita is a song with rhythm and rhyme, and the varied dates of the translations, different translators used different vocabulary to describe the same concepts.

The table below shows some of the most semantically similar verses from the three translations.

The uses of sentiment analysis

Our research points the way to the use of AI-based technologies for comparing translations and reviewing sentiments in a wide range of texts.

This technology can also be extended to review sentiments expressed in entertainment media. Another potential application is analysing movies and songs to provide insights to parents and authorities about the suitability of content for children.

Rohitash Chandra receives funding from NHMRC and ARC – ITTC Data Analytics for Resources and Environments

– ref. AI, philosophy and religion: what machine learning can tell us about the Bhagavad Gita – https://theconversation.com/ai-philosophy-and-religion-what-machine-learning-can-tell-us-about-the-bhagavad-gita-182517

Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Narelle Miragliotta, Senior Lecturer in Australian Politics, Monash University

Scott Morrison and Anthony Albanese faced off in the third and final leaders’ debate on Wednesday night on the Seven network, ten days ahead of the federal election on May 21.

Both leaders were criticised after the previous debate for being overly shouty and aggressive, so were perhaps unsurprisingly more civil this time around.

The debate canvassed a wide range of issues, including wages, inflation, women’s labour participation, childcare, an integrity commission, and climate change.

Of the around 160 undecided voters from pubs across the country, 50% awarded the debate to Albanese, 34% voted for Morrison, while 16% were still undecided.

Three Australian political experts analyse the debate and give their verdict on the leaders’ performances.

Read more:
A shouty, unedifying spectacle and a narrow win for Albanese: 3 experts assess the second election debate

Narelle Miragliotta, Senior Lecturer in Australian Politics, Monash University

Leaders’ debates are an important ritual of elections, even if voters seem to pay little attention to them. TV ratings for the last two leaders’ debates suggest fewer voters are switching on than in previous elections.

In fairness, there are few incentives for voters to tune in to these events. These debates were relegated to (fairly) late evening viewing, and as more than one commentator observed of the second debate particularly, a poor debate format does little to help leaders distinguish themselves. It is painful and boring to watch squabbling politicians.

This final debate was not as shouty or as undignified as the second. Scott Morrison managed to stifle his smirk, Anthony Albanese avoided stumbling over his words, there was some substantive discussion on policy, each avoided talking over the other, and both even managed to say something nice about the other.

In their two-minute opening address, each leader stressed their perceived strengths. Morrison acknowledged his government hadn’t got everything right and there were big challenges ahead for the nation, but maintained that only his government has the experience to deliver the essential services and the infrastructure needed to keep the country safe.

For his part, Albanese spoke about his belief in the power of government to build a “better future” and the intention to work collaboratively with state governments, unions, workers, and small businesses to deliver that better future.

There was, however, no new major policy revelations, even if there was slightly more discussion about their policies for addressing climate change. Both leaders managed to stick to their speaking points, leaning in to their narratives about the character flaws of their opposite. Morrison reiterated his now familiar line that Albanese is dangerous and inexperienced, while Albanese reminded voters about Morrison’s trust and integrity deficits.

Perhaps one of the more interesting moments was when both leaders were asked to explain the appeal of the independents and minor parties. While Albanese was willing to acknowledge that leadership churn and instances of political corruption had eroded trust in the major parties, Morrison was only prepared to venture that it was the result of some unspecified external forces. Only one leader was willing to acknowledge the established parties’ complicity in public erosion in confidence in the major parties.

Is anyone likely to change their mind about either leader? Unlikely. Did either leader do enough to encourage the undecided voter off the proverbial electoral fence? According to around 160 undecided voters, Albanese won this debate. And if one had to venture why, it might be that there are limits to an appeal to the electorate that relies heavily on incumbency.

Verdict: Albanese over Morrison, but only just

Read more:
View from The Hill: Albanese and Morrison caught on fly-papers of wages, gender

Stephen Mills, Honorary Senior Lecturer in the School of Social and Political Sciences, University of Sydney

After last weekend’s shouty debate, this was the civil one, intelligently structured to allow the two leaders to argue their case across a range of substantive issues.

Both leaders managed to obey host Mark Riley’s injunction to talk about policy, not to interrupt, and to stick to the time limit.

Morrison did well in reciting his government’s achievements and throwing shade at Albanese’s inexperience and risk. Albanese did well in swinging each discussion around to his abundant, albeit sketchy, policy promises. Morrison chided Labor not to “promise the world when you know you can’t pay for it”; Albanese responded with his aspirational mantra: “we can do so much better than that”.

The downside was that, especially at the start of the debate, both leaders fell back on that scourge of modern politics, their talking points, generating storms of statistics and piles of platitudes.

Of the seven topics, I scored the first two (wages and cost of living) as a draw. I scored the third topic (character) as a win for Albanese, and the fourth (boat turnbacks) as a clear win for Morrison.

The most lively exchanges in the debate occurred on the fifth topic, covering the “teal” independents and their push for an integrity commission. The Labor leader had the better lines, including the simple acknowledgement, “We do need to clean up politics”. He also undermined Morrison’s brandishing of “347 pages of legislation” by saying, if legislation needed to be pre-approved by the opposition, “why would you vote for Scott Morrison on Saturday week?” I scored this as a win for Albanese.

The sixth topic, mining and carbon taxes, seemed a throwback to an earlier era of Australian politics, offering an easy start for Morrison on lower taxes; he threw in the pro-WA GST changes for good measure. But Albanese swung the debate to climate change, outlining plans for lower power prices, renewables and electric vehicles. When Morrison protested, Albanese punched hard: “…there he goes again. He says he supports net zero by 2050 and comes up with all the reasons why nothing should happen”. I scored this topic to Albanese.

Both men displayed a complete lack of empathy in dealing with the final topic, women. Despite “cheaper child care” being a Labor strong suit, this ended in a draw.

Unfortunately there was no mention of the Uluru Statement from the Heart or China and, in stark contrast to previous elections, hardly a peep about debt and deficits.

Verdict: Win to Albanese

Read more:
Over the last 30 years, a fifth of polls have called the wrong winner. Here are 3 things poll-watchers need to understand

Susan Harris Rimmer, Professor and Director of the Policy Innovation Hub, Griffith University

I had four questions going into this final leaders debate:

• was this the last chance to influence the roughly 7 million voters who will vote early or submit a postal vote, and if so, who best took advantage of that?

• will either leader finally address climate change issues with the primacy they deserve?

• is either leader going to go after the women’s vote after polling showed a distinct gender gap at this point in the campaign?

• and what’s the impact of commercial television stations hosting all three debates?

Vote Early?

Elections in Australia are changing since the pandemic. More and more voters will be missing out on their democracy sausage by voting early or by post according to the Australian Electoral Commission.

The ALP held their launch in Perth on May 1, but the Coalition launch is this Sunday in Brisbane. The Greens got in early with a launch in January. The other minor parties have been out early with only a few key policy ideas, such as the UAP or the “teal” indepedent candidates. Will the early birds catch the worm this time round or are the Coalition right to think people only pay attention in the last 10 days?

If I were a voter going to the pre-polling booth tomorrow, would I have enough of an idea about the key policy differences between the major parties from that debate? The voter would certainly have a contrasting narrative to consider – that, roughly, the ALP has a plan for the future that sees investment in social policy as key, while the Coalition wants a strong economy and anyone but the Prime Minister is a risk.

But most of the debate felt like a rehash of the 2019 election issues that no longer turn voters around, like boat arrivals or a carbon tax.

Vote Climate?

Griffith’s Climate Action Beacon conducted the first of five annual Climate Action Surveys in September-October 2021 with 3,915 Australian adults completing the online questionnaire. This is one of the most ambitious climate change surveys yet conducted in Australia. We found this could be the climate election.

87% of the respondents indicated they believe climate change should be a priority for the government.

76% stated that climate change will be important to them when they vote in the next federal election, but this percentage varied by preferred political party: Australian Greens (90%), Australian Labor Party (72%), Liberal Party (45%), National Party (54%), and One Nation Party (33%).

Of note, mean levels of concern tended to be higher among intending National Party voters than intending Liberal voters. Also, the prevalence of recent increases in levels of concern about climate change was higher among intending National Party voters (43%) than among intending Liberal voter (33%).

So surely Morrison is taking a risk by not mentioning climate issues at all while Anthony Albanese made four references including opening and closing with the need for climate action.

Bogans vote but so do feminists

Polling this week said the Coalition and Morrison in particular was losing the support of female voters, and that Albanese needed to make more of an impression on female voters.

Mr Morrison’s approval rating was at 44% among women at this point in the 2019 election campaign, but is now just 29% averaged over the past three polls. Primary vote support for the Coalition among women has averaged 28% over the course of the campaign, compared with 34% among men.

It was good to see childcare raised as a key issue in this debate but treatment of women within parliament was handled badly. If this was the pitch to female voters from both leaders, it needed much more, especially from the Prime Minister.

Game On

The debate chaired by Mark Riley was a marked improvement from the previous free-for-all that was an unedifying democratic spectacle, but the game show trappings in the Channel 7 format were in poor taste.

The practice of using commercial stations for all three debates has some serious issues for voters actually trying to make decisions.

Verdict: Anthony Albanese by a margin but not a romp. Families settling for “mince rather than steak” is a line people will remember. But note that of the Channel Seven pub test folk, 16% were left undecided. That might mean minor parties are still the big winners from these three debates.

Susan Harris Rimmer receives funding from the Australian Research Council and ONI.

Narelle Miragliotta and Stephen Mills 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. Were minor parties the big winners? 3 experts on the final leaders’ debate – https://theconversation.com/were-minor-parties-the-big-winners-3-experts-on-the-final-leaders-debate-182848

Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Martin Whiting, Professor of Animal Behaviour, Macquarie University

Invasive species offer a rare research opportunity, as they often colonise new environments very different to their native habitat. One such species is the Jackson’s three-horned chameleon (Triocerus j. xantholophus), which was accidentally introduced to the Hawaiian Islands in the 1970s.

Our study, published today in Science Advances, shows Hawaiian chameleons display much brighter social signals than individuals from their native habitat range in East Africa – and could represent an example of rapid evolution.

A long way from home

In 1972, about 36 Jackson’s chameleons made their way from their native Kenya to the Hawaiian island of Oahu, destined for the pet trade.

The chameleons were a little worse for wear by the time they arrived in Hawaii, following a long and taxing journey that would have begun days before they were loaded onto the plane in Nairobi.

The story goes that an Oahu pet shop owner, Robin Ventura, opened the crate in his garden to give them fresh air and an opportunity to recover. Presumably, he underestimated the speed with which chameleons can move (and recover) – and they quickly dispersed into the surrounding area.

This founding population represented an accidental invasion, and subsequently became an unplanned experiment in evolution. What happens when an animal with colourful social displays – from a population with lots of bird and snake predators – is introduced to an island virtually free of predators?

Read more:
How do chameleons and other creatures change colour?

Evolution in action?

We predicted Hawaiian chameleons, as a result of being relatively free from predation, would have more elaborate or brighter displays than their Kenyan counterparts. We also predicted they would be more conspicuous when viewed by their East African predators, such as birds and snakes.

In the animal kingdom, bright or colourful displays can attract the attention of sharp-eyed predators. This reduces an individual animal’s likelihood of survival and, by extension, its reproductive fitness (or the number of genes it passes on to future generations).

When survival is threatened, natural selection acts as a brake and halts the further elaboration of colour, or shifts bright colours to areas of the body less visible to predators.

For instance, many lizard species have bright colours concealed on their undersides or throats. In South Africa, male Augrabies flat lizards will signal to rival males by raising their underside and exposing the throat, which is puffed out.

On the other hand, conspicuous displays may also increase fitness. For example, brighter or more colourful males may gain greater access to females, either by winning contests with rival males, or simply appearing more attractive to females.

This tug of war between survival and fitness is well documented in species with fixed or seasonally dependent colouration. For instance, guppies become less colourful when dangerous predators share their streams. However, it’s less understood in animals with dynamic colour change such as chameleons.

Although we have a good understanding of how chameleons change colour, we don’t know if they modulate their displays when there are more predators in their environment. It may also be that natural selection prevents them from producing colour signals that are colourful or bright beyond a certain threshold.

To test our predictions, we travelled to Kenya and Hawaii to study colour change in wild chameleons.

Vibrant test subjects

Chameleons are great study subjects because they have a very strong stimulus response. You can pop them on a branch away from their usual haunts and present them with a fake predator or another chameleon, and they will devote all their attention to the stimulus while completely ignoring you!

We presented each male chameleon with a rival male, a female, a model bird predator and a model snake predator – each in a one-on-one interaction. During the presentations we measured their colour using an optic spectrometer.

This instrument allows us to quantify two metrics of colour: chromatic contrast (essentially how colourful they are) and luminance contrast (how bright they are). We could then estimate how detectable a displaying chameleon would be to an observer – be it another chameleon, or a bird or snake predator.

We also measured the leafy vegetation that forms the backdrop against which a chameleon signals. This way we could estimate how detectable a displaying chameleon would be against a particular background.

An exciting example of rapid change

The results were particularly exciting and exceeded our expectations. We found Hawaiian chameleons had much brighter displays than Kenyan chameleons during male contests and when courting females. They were also more conspicuous against their Hawaiian background than a Kenyan background.

This is consistent with what scientists term “local adaptation”. This is the idea that signals will be fine-tuned to be more detectable in the environment in which they are used.

For Hawaiian chameleons, one unintended consequence of being brighter was they were also more detectable to their native predators.

Interestingly, this effect was more pronounced when facing birds compared to snakes – probably because snakes have poorer colour discrimination than birds. Finally, Hawaiian chameleons also had a greater capacity to change colour than Kenyan chameleons – they could do so over a greater range.

We can’t be completely sure brighter signals in Hawaiian chameleons represents rapid evolution. It’s also possible this degree of colour change is due to plasticity, which is when an animal changes to a different state due to prevailing environmental conditions.

Nevertheless, plasticity itself can evolve – and colour change in chameleons may be a combination of both evolutionary change and plasticity.

Martin Whiting works for Macquarie University. He receives funding from the Australian Research Council.

– ref. A tug of war between survival and fitness: how chameleons become even brighter without predators around – https://theconversation.com/a-tug-of-war-between-survival-and-fitness-how-chameleons-become-even-brighter-without-predators-around-182427

Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Justine R. Smith, Professor of Eye & Vision Health, Flinders University

Toxoplasma gondii is probably the most successful parasite in the world today. This microscopic creature is capable of infecting any mammal or bird, and people across all continents are infected. Once infected, a person carries Toxoplasma for life. So far, we don’t have a drug that can eradicate the parasite from the body. And there is no vaccine approved for use in humans.

Across the world, it’s estimated 30–50% of people are infected with Toxoplasma – and infections may be increasing in Australia. A survey of studies conducted at blood banks and pregnancy clinics across the country in the 1970s put the infection rate at 30%. However, a recent Western Australian community-based study found 66% of people were infected.

The disease caused by this parasite can scar the back of the eye. Our new research looked for signs of disease in otherwise healthy people and found a significant number bore the mark of Toxoplasma.

Read more:
Cats carry diseases that can be deadly to humans, and it’s costing Australia $6 billion every year

We don’t just get it from cats

The cat is the primary host for Toxoplasma.

Cats catch the parasite when they eat infected prey. Then, for a couple of weeks, they pass large numbers of parasites in their faeces in a form that can survive for long periods in the environment, even during extreme weather.

When the faeces are ingested by livestock while grazing, parasites lodge in the muscle and survive there after the animals are slaughtered for meat. Humans can become infected by eating this meat, or by eating fresh produce or drinking water soiled by cats. It is also possible for a woman infected for the first time during pregnancy to pass the infection to her unborn child.

While infection with Toxoplasma is extremely common, the most important health statistic is the rate of the disease caused by the infection, which is called toxoplasmosis.

Read more:
Disease-causing parasites can hitch a ride on plastics and potentially spread through the sea, new research suggests

How it affects the eye

Toxoplasma really likes the retina, the multi-layered nerve tissue that lines the eye and generates vision. Infection can cause recurring attacks of retinal inflammation and permanent retinal scarring. This is known as ocular toxoplasmosis.

Contrary to much that is written about ocular toxoplasmosis, medical research shows this condition usually affects healthy adults. However, in aged persons or people with a weakened immune system, or when contracted during pregnancy, it can be more severe.

An attack of active inflammation causes “floaters” and blurred vision. When the inflammation progresses to scarring, there may be permanent loss of vision.

In a study of patients with ocular toxoplasmosis seen at a large ophthalmology clinic, we measured reduced vision to below driving level in more than 50% of eyes, and 25% of eyes were irreversibly blind.

How many eyes?

Ophthalmologists and optometrists are quite familiar with managing ocular toxoplasmosis. But the extent of the problem is not widely recognised, even by the medical community. The number of Australians with ocular toxoplasmosis had never been measured, until now.

We wanted to investigate the prevalence of ocular toxoplasmosis in Australia, but we knew it would be challenging to get funding for a major survey of this neglected disease. So, we used information collected for a different purpose: as part of the Busselton Healthy Ageing Study, retinal photographs were taken from more than 5,000 baby boomers (born 1946–64) living in Busselton, Western Australia. The photographs were gathered to look for other eye diseases, macular degeneration and glaucoma.

By screening these retinal photographs, we estimated the prevalence of ocular toxoplasmosis at one in 150 Australians. This might seem surprisingly common, but it fits with the way people catch Toxoplasma.

In addition to pet cats, Australia has huge populations of feral cats. And Australia is home to a lot of farmland, including over 50% of the global organic farming area.

Most importantly, many Australians like to eat their red meat rare, putting them at real risk.

Read more:
I’ve always wondered: can I flush cat poo down the toilet?

How the condition is treated

To diagnose ocular toxoplasmosis, a retina examination is necessary, ideally with the pupils dilated.

The retinal lesion is easy to spot, because of the way Toxoplasma activates retinal cells to produce certain proteins, and an ophthalmologist or optometrist can immediately recognise the appearance. Often a blood test is also performed to make the diagnosis.

If the condition is mild, the doctor may let the body’s own immune system control the problem, which takes a few months. However, usually a combination of anti-inflammatory and anti-parasitic drugs is prescribed.

Stopping the spread

Toxoplasma infection is not curable, but it can be prevented. Meat sold in Australian supermarkets may harbour Toxoplasma__. Cooking meat to an internal temperature of 66℃ or freezing it ahead of cooking are ways to kill the parasite.

Fresh fruit and vegetables should be washed before eating, and drinking untreated water (such as straight from rivers or creeks) should be avoided. Gloves should be worn when changing cat litter, and hands washed afterwards.

The World Health Organization and other international and national health bodies are promoting an approach called One Health for diseases that cross humans, animals and their environments. This involves different sectors working together to promote good health. Now we know just how common ocular toxoplasmosis is in Australia, there is real justification to harness One Health to combat Toxoplasma infections in this country.

Read more:
A dangerous parasite could be used to treat cancer – new research in mice

Justine R. Smith receives funding from NHMRC, Macular Disease Foundation Australia, Australian Department of Industry, Science, Energy and Resources, and Flinders Foundation.

João M. Furtado 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. One in three people are infected with _Toxoplasma_ parasite – and the clue could be in our eyes – https://theconversation.com/one-in-three-people-are-infected-with-toxoplasma-parasite-and-the-clue-could-be-in-our-eyes-182418

Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Johanna Reidy, Lecturer, Department of Public Health, University of Otago

The global pandemic might have revealed the importance of robust public health infrastructure, but we still have trouble grasping the vital need to invest in it.

An analogy might help. Wellington’s recently opened Transmission Gully motorway shortens journeys from the Kāpiti Coast to the city by up to 15 minutes. First proposed 100 years ago and finally built over the past eight years, the final cost will be at least NZ$1.25 billion. Worth it to some, questionable to others.

But the key value isn’t the infrastructure itself, it’s the time saved. The efficiency and petrol saving on a journey without traffic lights and single lanes will last long after the delays and overspend on the project are forgotten.

Investment in public health has clear parallels with investment in major transport projects. Time saved on a journey is akin to lives saved from a premature end by the kinds of hidden services, like safe drinking water, that are designed to improve, protect and promote the health of the whole population.

But both infrastructure and public health investments can take years before the benefits are realised. Urgent maintenance – filling pot holes or filling hospitals – tends to crowd out strategic investment.

Public health is always the Cinderella of services in a publicly funded health system that delivers personal as well as public services, and is always vulnerable to budget cuts and under-investment.

Sadly, COVID has shown there are no fairy godmothers to step in and wave a magic wand. Globally, the lack of maintenance of public health systems is forecast to cost more than $US12.5 trillion according to the International Monetary Fund.

The value of public health

Governments of all political persuasions want healthy populations, they just disagree on how to achieve the goal. Because of this, public health has been consistently undermined.

As the Labour government’s May 19 budget approaches, we need to acknowledge that the massive investment in tackling the pandemic could have been spent earlier to strengthen public health infrastructure.

That said, the question now is how governments can invest to be better prepared for the current and inevitable next public health threat. The shared value of public well-being must be protected by maintaining existing healthcare while investing more in public health.

First and foremost, we need to ensure public health is actually valued and invested in – whether or not there’s a pandemic. The past two years have shown how much New Zealanders are willing to pay, not just to keep themselves healthy, but to keep family, whānau and others safe.

Read more:
New Zealand’s health restructure is doomed to fall short unless its funding model is tackled first

Unfortunately, when all is going well, the true value of public health investment is invisible and unnoticed. Only when there are service failures (for example, the 2016 Havelock North water disaster), controversial health issues (such as raising the age for buying cigarettes), or a global pandemic, does public health become front of mind.

Also, public health’s focus on the whole population rather than on individual cases means it’s not as readily relatable. This lack of an emotional focal point means public health isn’t always uppermost in the minds of decision makers at budget time.

Headlines such as “Fully immunised child doesn’t die”, “Water still drinkable” or “Slight reduction in obesity rates means improved disability-adjusted life years!” are worthy, but not necessarily newsworthy.

Public and personal health

Public health’s long-term view disadvantages it within a three-year election cycle that favours fast outcomes, even if those outcomes are more expensive. It’s easier and quicker to see the impact of treatment than prevention.

Currently, the system is set up to fund personal (individual) health. It’s harder to cut personal healthcare, if only because a real person missing out on surgery or drug therapy makes better headlines.

Read more:
Community healthcare workers were left feeling isolated and under-appreciated during the pandemic

But a cut to a health promotion budget doesn’t have a face or a name. Public health is simply an easier place to make cuts and is often the first area to lose investment. Historically, it has sometimes had to be ring-fenced to stop it being pillaged to fund other services.

Disinvestment and a focus on personal health occurs even though public health has a better marginal return than personal health – it’s cheaper per person to spend on public health than on personal health.

This is because public health prevents or slows ill health. It’s less costly to tackle the root causes of rheumatic fever, for instance, than to pay for treatment, especially heart valve replacement and long-term care and rehabilitation.

Read more:
NZ’s health service is failing some communities: building a better national system requires local partnerships

The road to better investment

COVID has highlighted the need for both personal and public health services. The solution is balance, with investment in one reinforcing the other. Without prevention, personal health services would be swamped. Both aim to improve lives, but require different investment approaches.

There are two main things governments can do.

1. Adopt investment mechanisms that specifically acknowledge public health will always lose in a popularity contest to personal health, and adjust the budget process accordingly. This means calculating the future benefits of public health investment and redressing the current bias in budget spending.

2. Set fixed goals with robust measurement systems to capture short, medium and long-term progress. Allow for flexibility in how those goals are met according to policy priorities and the sociopolitical context. One immediate solution would be to ring-fence long-term public health investment, plus have dedicated strategy and funding, to address the major drivers of ill health – obesity, for example.

It’s time to invest in public health infrastructure as we would with major transport projects. Transmission Gully wasn’t funded by an annual budget allocation in competition with routine maintenance needs. The project’s size, the time-frame for completion and the road’s broader economic benefits all shaped decisions.

Proper investment in services that generate extra years of healthy life and avoid costly cures are surely no less important than the minutes saved on a trip into town.

The authors 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. Why the budget should treat public health like transport – vital infrastructure with long-term economic benefits – https://theconversation.com/why-the-budget-should-treat-public-health-like-transport-vital-infrastructure-with-long-term-economic-benefits-180322

Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Stephen Healy, Senior Research Fellow, Institute for Culture and Society, Western Sydney University

Cost of living is a major focus in this election campaign, and yet political leaders have been unacceptably silent on the disproportionate impact of climate change on Australians with low incomes. This is particularly true for Western Sydney, home to around 2.5 million people.

Over the last half century, the balance of Sydney’s social housing has been pushed to the west, where it can be up to 10℃ hotter than the breeze-cooled coast. Meanwhile, rapid housing development reduces existing tree canopy daily, further intensifying heat.

This situation locks in cycles of disadvantage for decades and generations to come. Even if we limit global warming to 1.5℃ this century, Western Sydney will still experience fewer than 17 days of 35℃ per year by 2090.

Australia needs a more holistic, forward-thinking approach to the design of hot cities, one that’s up to the task of changing with the climate.

Living with urban heat now

Low-income communities are more likely to live in poorly constructed, heat-affected rental accommodation and least able to afford air conditioning. What’s more, those living in community housing may be restricted from installing air conditioning units.

Our research from 2016 found residents expend a lot of mental and physical energy during summer just to keep their homes bearable, while worrying about how much cooling might be costing.

Read more:
We still live here: public housing tenants fight for their place in the city

After interviewing vulnerable groups of people in Western Sydney – such as elderly citizens, disability carers and young mothers in social housing – we found people turn to lessons from their parents to find relief from heat.

This includes soaking sheets in water, directing fans to blow air over them and create cool pockets in the house, confine themselves to cooler rooms, and cover west-facing windows with blankets or aluminium foil.

This summer’s La Niña weather pattern may have spared Western Sydney from scorching daytime highs, but residents had to contend with hotter and more humid nights. Wet conditions and cloud cover inhibit the capacity of poorly designed houses to shed the heat, leading to sleeplessness.

Many Western Sydneysiders work from home, too. Community organisation Better Renting recently produced a report detailing the impact of poor housing on worker productivity during the pandemic. It found those working from home without the means or capacity to improve their environments said they were stressed, couldn’t focus, and needed to finish work early during summer.

Read more:
Western Sydney will swelter through 46 days per year over 35°C by 2090, unless emissions drop significantly

Air-conditioning can provide relief and is critical for some residents, such as some people living with a disability who depend on cool homes and cars for survival. But air-conditioning displaces the indoor heat to the outside, contributing to a more hostile outdoor environment.

So while air-conditioning offers a short-term solution, it does nothing to address long-term disadvantage.

‘Solutions’ don’t go far enough

Social disadvantage underscores the limitations of well-meaning technical solutions, such as the New South Wales government’s program to plant five million trees by 2030, or City of Sydney’s project of committing to renewable-powered air conditioning.

These solutions don’t go anywhere near far enough to address the fundamental short-sightedness in how we design and plan our cities.

For example, young trees need far more care to reach maturity through extreme weather, unlike older trees, of which many have been cut down to make way for development. And solar-powered air conditioning will not undo the compounding impacts of urban heat, which research shows make us sedentary, passive and lonely and insecure because it keeps us indoors and isolated from each other.

Indeed, Western Sydney’s current trajectory of urban growth will see urban heat and its impacts worsen, particularly as the state government resists mandating lighter-coloured roof tiles as a perceived impediment to development. Lighter-coloured roof tiles are better at reflecting rather than absorbing heat, and are a low-hanging fruit for cooling homes.

This trajectory will subject future generations of Western Sydney residents to a city that may become ultimately uninhabitable for months at a time. These predictions
may seem dire, but we cannot afford to ignore them.

One stark prospect is that even newer and more expensive homes being built in Western Sydney’s growth areas may become stranded assets in a future, when 50℃ summer days are a norm and the area is subject to regular flooding.

So what do we do?

Researchers and policy makers are turning their attention to making Australian cities more “climate-ready”.

While catastrophic for communities, the recent floods, fires and other disasters carry valuable lessons about design failures and community-led solutions that have ultimately kept people safe.

We’ve learnt “climate-readiness” cannot be done in a piecemeal way or achieved in the background of everyday life, like set-and-forget technologies. Instead, it means noticing how the natural and built environments interact, and the social practices that contribute to cooler, more liveable futures.

This might include enrolling communities in the care of young trees around their homes, maintaining breeze ways or shade through neighbourhoods, outdoor cooking during summer to reduce heat inside, or shifting the rhythms of social life to cooler night time hours.

This is encompassed in a process called “transition design”, which takes holistic, long-term view of urban planning to forge a sustainable future. This means starting with what residents want and know works – whether its creating cool pockets in the home or reaching out to neighbours when heat is on its way.

Read more:
How new design patterns can enable cities and their residents to change with climate change

Planners, designers and policymakers should practically link these social solutions to designs that make these more accessible, manageable, engaging and safe.

Parts of everyday life will look very different in future as we grapple with managing energy and adapting homes to changing climates. But we must also recognise and hold on to what’s important, including reclaiming what we’ve lost to rampant development.

Long-term residents of Western Sydney may recall a more liveable city, with shaded pedestrian links between homes and shops, seating and facilities in parks and better access to public transport.

These basic amenities are a commonwealth that allow us to remain at home in an increasingly less hospitable world.

Stephen Healy received funding from the Australian Research Council for a project focused on climate readiness in social housing. This story is part of The Conversation’s Breaking the Cycle series, which is about escaping cycles of disadvantage. It is supported by a philanthropic grant from the Paul Ramsay Foundation.

Abby Mellick Lopes receives funding from the Australian Research Council for a project focused on climate readiness in social housing.

– ref. Climate change hits low-income earners harder – and poor housing in hotter cities is a disastrous combination – https://theconversation.com/climate-change-hits-low-income-earners-harder-and-poor-housing-in-hotter-cities-is-a-disastrous-combination-180960

Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Peter Abelson, Economist, Crawford School of Public Policy, Australian National University

Most Australian voters are either Baby Boomers (born 1946 to 1964), Generation Xers (1965 to 1980) or Millennials (1981 to 1996).

And at one time or another most have been told that their generation is better off (or worse off) than the ones that came before it.

It’s tempting to think the most recent generation is always the worst off, with all the talk about the cost of living and other things in election campaigns.

But without data, or living the lives of other generations, it is hard to be sure.

Boomers are currently aged 58 to 76. They were 25-35 between 1971 and 1996.

Gen Xers are currently 42-57 and were 25-35 between 1990 and 2015. Millennials are in their 20s and 30s right now.

For most of the dimensions of well-being in which we are interested, the questions turn out to be surprisingly easy to answer, so long as we remember that the data tells us a lot about lives on average, and little about the lives of individuals.

In a study prepared for the Australian National University’s Tax and Transfer Policy Institute I’ve attempted to provide answers for nine dimensions of well-being, used by the OECD, comparisons, ranging from income to housing, to personal safety to inequality.

Income and wealth ✅

Net national disposable income per capita has been climbing over time, meaning that Millennials aged 25-35 are 51% better off than Generation Xers were at that age, and 91% better off than Boomers at that age.

And those figures are likely to understate how much better off their standard of living is.

The quality and range of goods and services from food to cars to healthcare to computers to mobile phones with cameras has improved in ways figures can’t capture. Many didn’t exist in the 1970s.

Although the Bureau of Statistics attempts to adjust its measures for improvements in quality, it concedes its efforts are incomplete. The Bureau’s underestimation of quality improvements is likely to be significant.

Millennials are also wealthier than Gen Xers and Boomers were at the same age, although recently the wealth of older Australians has been climbing more rapidly than the wealth of younger Australians, due in large measure to home prices.

Offsetting this, in due course, should be big inheritances passed from Boomers to Gen-Xers and Millennials.

Housing ❌

Millennials aged 25 to 34 are much less likely to own their homes than Boomers were at the same age.

Among those aged 25-34, home ownership has fallen from 60% in 1976 to 37% in 2017-18.

While much of this is due to prohibitively high prices, some is due to Millennials finishing education and entering the workforce and marrying later.

It should be noted that Millennials who do own a home are no worse off in terms of payments relative to income than were Boomers. But getting a deposit (unless there’s an offer from the bank of mum and dad) has become much more difficult.

Private rents have been remarkably constant over the past 25 years, at about 18% of average household income.

Rents for low earners (in the bottom fifth) remain extraordinarily high, in Sydney taking up about 30% of household income. But this isn’t a generational problem. Low earners’ rents have been high and stable as a share of income for decades.

What is a problem for the most disadvantaged is that public housing has slid from 5.8% of the housing stock in the late 1990s to about 3% today.

Work ✅

Women are much more likely to be in paid employment than 40 years ago.

Whereas in 1978, when Boomers were aged 25-35, only 40% of women were in paid work, by 2018 when Millennials were that age, a record 57% were paid workers, a proportion that climbed even higher during COVID to an unprecedented 60%.

Men are less likely to be employed. Whereas in 1978, 75% of men were paid workers, male employment fell to 67% in 1998 when Gen-Xers were 25-35, and stayed there when Millennials were that age in 2018.

And there has been a major shift from blue-collar to white collar work. As detailed in the Intergenerational Report, in 1966, machinery operators and drivers comprised 11% of the workforce, and technicians and tradespeople 21%. By 2016 these proportions had almost halved to 6% and 14%.

The share of the workforce employed in (generally less physically-demanding) professional jobs has doubled, while the share employed in personal service jobs nearly tripled. Arguably these changes mean more pleasant working conditions.

Read more:
Five questions (and answers) about casual employment

Work is also more part-time – the proportion of the workforce employed part-time has doubled, climbing from 15% in 1978 to 30% – and more casual. In 1988 only 19% of the workforce was employed in jobs without leave entitlements. By 1998 the proportion had climbed to 27%, and has since declined to 22.5%.

Health ✅❌

Australians are taller and heavier than half a century ago, in part because of better nutrition.

But we are more obese. Between 2007-08 and 2014-15 the proportion of children defined as overweight and obese women has climbed from 24.7% to 26.4%

Despite this, the extra years of life expected by men who reach 65 have climbed dramatically, from 12.3 years for a boomer born in 1953-54, to 19.6 for a Millennial born in 1994-96, to 22.3 for a man born more recently.

The extra years of life for a woman at age 65 has climbed from 15 to 19.6 to 22.3.

Importantly, the Institute of Health and Welfare finds most of the additional years are healthy years, with the proportion of lives spent in ill health little changed.

Suicide rates have fallen for women (from 7.8 per 100,000 females in the 1970s to 5.7 in the 2010s) but not for men (where they remained at about 18 per 100,000).

On the other hand, both men and women experienced major increases in reported anxiety and mood disorders, with the proportion of women reporting anxiety climbing from 12% to 16% between 1997 and 2017, and the proportion of men climbing from 7% to 11%. But harmful alcohol use and illicit drug use fell.

Education ✅

Millennials are much more educated (in terms of post-school qualifications) than Bsaby Boomers or Generation X.

Between 1975 and 2016 the proportion of men with a tertiary qualification climbed from less than 4% to 20% and the proportion of women with a tertiary qualification from less than 2% to 24%.

The benefits for those with degrees go beyond the financial. The Household, Income and Labour Dynamics survey finds they extend to well-being, social interactivity and healthy behaviours, such as physical activity and abstaining from drinking and smoking.

Safety ✅❌

Between 1996 and 2016 victims of homicide and related offences fell 50%, victims of robbery fell 56%, victims of motor vehicle theft fell 65% and victims of other theft fell by 21%.

Reported sexual assaults moved in the opposite direction, climbing from 80 per 100,000 people in 1996 to 95 in 2016.

Driving on roads has become far safer. Between 1976 and 2016 road deaths per 100,000 people fell from 25.5 to 5.3.

Overseas, far more Australians (many of them conscripts) died in the Vietnam war than in Afghanistan, making the toll from overseas conflicts the greatest for Boomers, much less for Millennials and nonexistent for Generation Xers.

Loneliness and connections ❌

The proportion of Australians actively engaged in community organisations fell from 33% in 1967 to 18% in 200, with major declines in church attendance, membership of unions and political parties, and participation in organised sport.

Whereas in the Boomer year of 1984, Australians had an average of nine trusted friends each, by the Gen-X year of 2018 that number had fallen to five.

In 1984, people could drop in on 10 neighbours. By 2018, it was only four. Seventeen percent of people who could not drop in on a single neighbour in 1984. By 2018 it had climbed to 17%.

Offsetting this to some extent is evidence of substantial volunteer work in the recent floods and bushfires, social support services that did not exist 20 or 30 years ago, and the increasing use of online communication.

Environment ❌

The US National Aeronautics and Space Administration finds the past seven years have been the hottest in recorded history.

The CSIRO finds that Australia’s climate has warmed on average by 1.44°C since national records began in 1910, and the Intergovernmental Panel for Climate Change expects Australia to suffer more from longer and hotter summers and more frequent bush fires than the rest of the world.

More than 1,700 Australian species and ecological communities face extinction.

Only partially offsetting this for Millennials are less air and water pollution than in the 1970s, less water use, and better building standards.

Inequality ❌

While the economy Millennials entered their 20s and 30s is richer than in earlier generations, its wealth and income are less equally distributed.

The Productivity Commission finds income inequality has increased “modestly” since the 1980s and wealth inequality by more.

Between 2003-04 and 2015-16 the wealth of the poorest tenth of households climbed not at all, while the wealth of middle-earners climbed 27%, and the wealth of the top tenth by nearly 40%, largely due to growing superannuation balances and home prices.

Read more:
Intergenerational reports ought to spark action, as well as scare us

Assessing the overall position of Millennial voters compared to Gen-X and Baby Boomer voters requires value judgements about the dimensions that matter the most, and also judgements about the future, including the ways in which Australia will buffeted by and respond to potential major threats including climate change, social media and the erosion of privacy, and conventional and cyber warfare.

Peter Abelson wishes to acknowledge the assistance of Aliya Gul, a millennial.

Peter Abelson is a war-baby.

– ref. How well off you are depends on who you are. Comparing the lives of Australia’s Millennials, Gen-Xers and Baby Boomers – https://theconversation.com/how-well-off-you-are-depends-on-who-you-are-comparing-the-lives-of-australias-millennials-gen-xers-and-baby-boomers-172064

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

Danielle Wood is the CEO of the Grattan Institute, an independent think tank, Its purpose is to research and advocate policies to improve Australians’ lives.

Wood laments the dearth of policy debate in this election.

“There was a lot of optimism when we were coming out of COVID that this might be a period of genuine policy reform. It certainly was a period that laid bare a lot of challenges. We saw trust in government go up and there was a lot of talk of building back better in the sense that government might do some of those big things. But clearly, that’s not the election we’re in right now,” she says.

“We are now in a world where we’ve come out of COVID with government much bigger than what we went in. So we’ve baked in this higher spending on aged care, higher spending on defence, a higher spending on the NDIS.

“In fact, size of governments increase about 2% of GDP, which is pretty extraordinary. Yet we’ve had no conversation about how we pay for that.”

Climate change is to the fore in the minds of many economists as well as voters, and a central feature of “teal” candidates’ campaigns. But the government and Labor are not talking about it a great deal in the campaign.

“I think it’s really interesting to see economists so galvanised by that. We need to get on the path to net zero by 2050. Both major parties have signed on to that as a target. That is a massive economic transition. And frankly, if we don’t start making serious headway over the next decade, we’re going to leave ourselves with a very large and very disruptive task through the 2030s and forties.”

Anthony Albanese this week found himself under attack after advocating a 5.1% rise (reflecting the latest inflation figure) in the minimum wage. Wood says: “Locking in very high wage rises right now is not the right answer. But that’s not to say that wages growing at 2% is a good answer either. So it’s somewhere in between.”

Australia needs to increase productivity, but where should the focus be? “I would like to see a focus on education. There are things we can do in health as well, such as primary care reform, which could make a big difference […] And remember, that’s a big area in the economy and spending.”

Should we be more worried than we are about Australia’s debt level? “I’m not worried about the current levels of debt in terms of sustainability. Obviously we’ve come out of COVID with much higher debt levels than we went in with. But based on at least the current interest profile, it’s very serviceable and sustainable.”

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. Politics with Michelle Grattan: Grattan Institute’s Danielle Wood on election’s thin policy debate – https://theconversation.com/politics-with-michelle-grattan-grattan-institutes-danielle-wood-on-elections-thin-policy-debate-182863

Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By William Peterson, Adjunct Associate Professor, Auckland University of Technology

Review: Cathedral, directed by Shannon Rush for the State Theatre Company of South Australia

Cathedral could not be more South Australian.

This complex and challenging one-hander is the creation of SA- born playwright Caleb Lewis and brought to life by Nathan O’Keefe, one of our state’s acting greats.

The unique and spectacular underwater formations along our state’s Limestone Coast form the backdrop for the story. The play’s title is taken from a beautiful but challenging dive spot southeast of Mount Gambier, a large underwater cavern known as “The Cathedral.”

Lewis’ language describing the coast and its underwater dimensions is sumptuous and arresting, plumbing the depths of geologic time.

O’Keefe delivers these lush lines masterfully, savouring their poetry.

The coast he tells us, is “haunted by a billion, billion ghosts […] We are living on their bones.”

Land and sea floor are formed by “the slow sleep of calcium carbonate. Patterns appear “like dishes in the sea,” with “towers rising and falling over the centuries.”

But always, it is “water pushing it down.”

And it is here, in this liquid world, where the play draws its life.

Read more:
Naracoorte, where half a million years of biodiversity and climate history are trapped in caves

Living with loss

The opening monologue conflates this underwater world with the womb. O’Keefe, as the protagonist Clay, describes “the first sensation” as “floating, then sound,” then of a heartbeat, followed by drifting.

We infer from his revelation of a “brother who never left the water” he has a twin who was never born.

This is our first hint this play will be about water and loss, with how one lives with losses that never go away.

Clay’s life was marked by loss at a young age when his mother died by suicide, leaving him in the care of his grandfather. It was his crusty old “Pops” who taught him to bodysurf and develop the confidence that led him into deep water diving.

These acts of telling are interspersed with scenes from the past acted out as if in real time. In the first of these, Clay is trapped deep inside the cathedral while diving. He calls in a distress signal on a static-filled connection, struggling to survive on a dwindling supply of oxygen.

Read more:
Free divers have long defied science – and we still don’t really understand how they go so deep

This realistic depiction of Clay’s struggle is sometimes problematic: there is literally no place to go when acting out states such as disorientation and panic.

More successful temporal shifts are the economically written passages of dialogue between Clay and the colourful offstage characters populating his life.

One such exchange between Clay and his Pops is built around his insistence that he saw his mother’s corpse on a dive. When Clay insists he saw her, Pops tells him he needs to leave the town, and go “anyplace but here.”

Clay subsequently hits the road. On the beaches of Thailand he befriends another salty character, a Scotsman named Jock.

This encounter leads him to a deep sea diving training course in the North Sea. Ever the straight talker, Jock reminds his trainees “down there you’re just a tadpole in the dark.”

The life-threatening challenges of such work are powerfully expressed, as are the more light-hearted moments of camaraderie between divers.

In the decompression chamber following deep dives, voices sound like divers have been sucking on helium. As Clay recalls, it’s like being in a “tin can full of tough guys that all sound like Elmo.”

These laugh out loud moments give the audience welcome fleeting escape from the play’s emotional demands.

Strength in honesty

The production’s compact, functional set (designed by Kathryn Sproul) effectively evokes the limestone walls of the southeast coast and a jetty. Also serving the production well are Andrew Howard’s sound and compositions and Mark Oakley’s precise, transformational lighting.

Lewis does a superb job of capturing the embodied experience of diving, of hovering over landscapes. He captures the feelings of awe and wonder, but equally the residual fear and terror in back of the mind of all divers – even experienced ones.

Facing fear and death is where the play reaches its dramatic, powerful conclusion. We have all been through the ringer these last few years, with fear and loss intruding into many of our lives. Ultimately the play’s greatest strength is its honesty.

Cathedral plays at the Space Theatre, Adelaide Festival Centre until May 21 before touring regional South Australia.

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

– ref. South Australia’s Limestone Coast was formed from the bones of dead fish. Cathedral brings the story of these caves to the stage – https://theconversation.com/south-australias-limestone-coast-was-formed-from-the-bones-of-dead-fish-cathedral-brings-the-story-of-these-caves-to-the-stage-182121

Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Bruce Mountain, Director, Victoria Energy Policy Centre, Victoria University

Electricity prices in the short-term (“spot”) wholesale markets in Australia are surging again.

As I first drafted this, at 11.30pm on Tuesday, while electricity demands were not high, the prices quoted for each five-minute interval in Queensland, NSW, Victoria and South Australia were around A$250 per megawatt-hour, roughly ten times what they would normally be.

So far this year, average spot prices have been about 50% higher than last year in Victoria, South Australia and Tasmania, about 80% higher in NSW, and 150% higher in Queensland.

If it keeps up (which is likely), retail electricity prices will be on the rise again.

That effect is likely to be big. In NSW and Queensland, it could mean increases as high as 50% for large customers and as high as 20% for households.

Why is it happening? At first glance, it’s hard to say. The minute-by-minute readout comes without explanations.

One reason would be that coal and gas prices are surging. Newcastle “spot” coal is trading at five times its price over the past three years.

Gas and coal prices are spiking

Queensland spot gas costs five times what it did before the invasion of Ukraine.

A second reason might be that electricity producers are making hay while the sun shines by withholding generation capacity.

Steven Percy and I examined the electricity price surges that followed the closure of Victoria’s Hazelwood coal-fired generator in 2017, and found that one firm withheld capacity from the market, driving up prices.

Subsequently the government introduced so-called “big stick” legislation that imposes penalties for manipulating prices, although it has yet to be used.

We do not yet know whether manipulation can explain some of what we see now. It will require detailed study, and such analyses are contested.

The price of sunlight is not

The best way to restrain price surges in the medium term is into increase the penetration of low-cost energy from the wind and sun, and to back it with storage.

South Australia shows what can be done. The Rann and Weatherill Labor governments, and then the Marshall Liberal government, have all pushed the switchover to renewables.

By 2021, more than two-thirds of SA’s electricity came from variable renewable generation, more than in any developed economy we know of.

For most days in 2021, there was no need for any other kind of generation between 10am and 5pm.

Read more:
Labor says power prices are going up, the Coalition says not. Who’s right?

This has had a big impact on prices. From having long had the highest wholesale prices in the National Electricity Market, by 2021 SA had almost the lowest.

Conversely, Queensland, which has long had the least renewable generation, now has the highest prices. In the year to date, Queensland’s average wholesale price has been twice SA’s.

When inputs get cheap, prices fall

The reason, backed by econometric analysis is that when a free resource (wind and sun) displaces an expensive resource (coal and gas), prices fall.

Each state government now accepts this and is rapidly moving to decarbonise its supply, which is leading to a new problem. The states that get there quickly are less keen on sharing their cheaper power than they used to be.

Why would SA want to strengthen its interconnection to NSW, only to have its electricity prices dragged up to those of NSW by trade along that wire?

Read more:
20 years on, the national electricity market is on the way out, and it’s OK

The newly elected SA government opposed the interconnector currently under construction while in opposition. From SA’s point of view, the current high prices in NSW lend weight to its position.

We have reached the end of the beginning of the decarbonisation of Australian electricity. With the fossils-vs-renewables argument now over other than on the fringes, the argument has moved to whether the National Electricity Market can hold together and the best way the Commonwealth can help states get as much sunlight, wind and batteries into their systems as soon as possible.

Bruce Mountain 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. Electricity prices are spiking, ten times as much as normal. Here are some educated guesses as to why – https://theconversation.com/electricity-prices-are-spiking-ten-times-as-much-as-normal-here-are-some-educated-guesses-as-to-why-182849

Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Mohan Yellishetty, Associate Professor, Resources Engineering, Monash University

As the transition to clean energy accelerates, we will need huge quantities of critical minerals – the minerals needed to electrify transport, build batteries, manufacture solar panels, wind turbines, consumer electronics and defence technologies.

That’s where Australia can help. We have the world’s largest supply of four critical minerals: nickel, rutile, tantalum and zircon. We’re also in the top five for cobalt, lithium, copper, antimony, niobium and vanadium. Even better, many of these minerals can be produced as a side benefit of mining copper, aluminium-containing bauxite, zinc and iron ores.

But to date, we are not making the most of this opportunity. Many of these vital minerals end up on the pile of discarded tailings. The question is, why are we not mining them? Compared to other major critical mineral suppliers such as China, we are lagging behind.

While the federal government’s new strategy for the sector is a step in the right direction, small-scale miners will need sustained support to help our critical mineral sector grow.

Why are these minerals so important?

Critical minerals are well-named. Lithium, nickel, cobalt and rare earth elements are critical for modern life as well as the industries of the future. But critical also refers to the fact that supply can be hard to secure.

In a time of huge geopolitical uncertainty, securing these minerals has become an ever more critical issue. Soaring demand for these minerals has led to price volatility, commercial risks, geopolitical manoeuvring and disruptions to supply.

As geopolitical tensions grow, many countries are urgently seeking reliable and secure supplies of critical minerals. When China cut off exports of rare earth elements to Japan in 2010 during a dispute, it threatened many of Japan’s high tech companies.

While cobalt, nickel and copper are perhaps the best known, there are dozens of lesser known minerals vital to the modern world.

Different countries and regions require different minerals, with a total of 73 minerals considered critical across 25 separate assessments as of 2020. Some countries are almost entirely dependent on imports of their critical minerals.

Australia could be a world leader in this area. Why aren’t we?

Critical minerals represent an enormous opportunity for Australia, given our wealth of these minerals and the soaring demand for green technology minerals like cobalt, lithium and nickel.

To date, however, our production of many critical minerals is well behind other countries when compared to our resources base.

Read more:
Imagine it’s 2030 and Australia is a renewable energy superpower in Southeast Asia

Our large resources of the minerals coupled with high environmental, social and governance standards mean the sector is well placed to respond to demand, especially where we could replace supplies from areas where mining is more destructive or dangerous. Think of the “blood cobalt” often mined by children in the Democratic Republic of the Congo.

In March, the federal government released its plan to grow the sector through boosting onshore processing to create high-wage, high-skill jobs and to offer our trading partners secure supplies of these sought-after minerals. This is a worthwhile goal, particularly the aim to make Australia the “major powerhouse of the world in critical minerals by 2030”.

A plan, however, is one thing and delivery is another. We will need to tackle some key challenges for the mining sector to make us a powerhouse.

Bottlenecks, tailings and major miners

While the demand for critical minerals is growing, there are challenges in production.

Around the world, critical minerals such as cobalt, gallium, molybdenum and germanium are produced as by-products of major commodities such as bauxite, zinc, copper and iron ore.

So why are we discarding most of these critical minerals by dumping them in tailings storage? We can, of course, recover these minerals later, but only if the value exceeds the costs of extraction and processing.

If we were smart about this, we would encourage the extraction of these minerals as a way to add value to existing commodities.

One issue is that while the demand is rising, the overall market size for many of these minerals is small relative to our export giants, iron ore and coal. That’s one reason our major miners have not shown much interest in these minerals.

Read more:
Critical minerals are vital for renewable energy. We must learn to mine them responsibly

If the majors aren’t interested, that leaves the door open for small and mid-tier mining and exploration companies such as Cobalt Blue, Iluka, VHM, Australian Vanadium, Australian Strategic Minerals and Critical Minerals Group which have seen the opportunity.

For many smaller miners, however, it can be very difficult to raise capital. That’s where the government’s A$2 billion fund should help, by allowing small and medium miners access to capital to scale up domestic production.

What else do we need to do?

If we get this right, Australia could play a major role in stabilising the markets for several critical mineral supply chains such as rare earth elements, lithium and cobalt.

For us to create this future-focussed industry, we have to plan ahead. The government should look to policies and programs such as:

● stronger domestic processing and refining sectors for metals like cobalt where our high environmental, social and governance reputation would give us an edge

● introducing incentive schemes to encourage mining companies and smelters to retrofit their facilities so they can produce critical minerals as well as process their main ores

● expand the sector’s proposed $50 million research and development centre and regional hubs to include universities, especially the critical mineral research groups.

Acknowledgements: David Whittle contributed to the research base, and Stuart Walsh, Sue Smethurst and Lilian Khaw reviewed the article.

Mohan Yellishetty receives funding from
Australian Government

He is affiliated with the Australasian Institute of Mining and Metallurgy

– ref. Australia has rich deposits of critical minerals for green technology. But we are not making the most of them … yet – https://theconversation.com/australia-has-rich-deposits-of-critical-minerals-for-green-technology-but-we-are-not-making-the-most-of-them-yet-182331

Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Petra Edwards, PhD researcher, University of Adelaide

With dog attacks in the news over recent weeks, some parents may be wondering about how to keep interactions between kids and dogs safe – and how to keep everyone happy.

A review of hospitalisations due to dog bites in Australia found children under nine years presented most often. Dog attacks involving children often involve the family dog or a dog known to the child.

While we need more research around the events leading to these attacks, it’s likely a combination of a series of unfortunate events, rather than an inherently “bad” dog. Any dog can bite.

Read more:
What to do in a dog attack – and why they hate posties so much

Every dog and every child interaction is different, but here are general tips for good interactions and outcomes.

Teach children how to interact with dogs safely

You wouldn’t run up and hug a stranger in the street – let’s not do it to dogs. It is vital children learn how to approach dogs safely.

Children should always stop a few metres from a dog they want to pat and ask the responsible person for permission, before also asking the dog.

You can ask dogs if they want a pat by remembering “pat, pet, pause”.

1. Pat. Pat your leg to encourage a dog over.

2. Pet. If the dog comes to say “hi!”, give them a gentle pat on the shoulder or side. Never pat a dog on the head (dogs hate it!). Stand side-on so the dog can always move away.

3. Pause. Stop after three pats (or three seconds), and wait. If the dog reconnects (leans in or bumps the hand) then pat again for another three seconds. If the dog remains still, leans away or moves away, they don’t want to be patted (at that moment – you can try again later).

Children (and adults) should pat, pet, pause in every interaction with a dog – even the family dog.

Read more:
Curious Kids: how can we tell if an animal is happy without a wagging tail?

Interactions should be short, supervised and managed carefully

Not all dogs are used to kids. Some dogs may be very social and friendly, but not know how to interact with children safely.

Keep social, friendly dogs on-lead or use a play pen (or fence) to keep both dogs and children safe. Use lots of tasty treats to reinforce the dog for keeping four paws on the floor.

Things can escalate quickly if children get excited or if a dog starts zooming around. Keeping interactions short (and supervised) reduces the chance of somebody being hurt.

Be very careful with very large or heavy breeds and young children who can get knocked over easily.

Learn to speak dog

Dogs communicate well, if we learn to listen. Dogs show signs of fear by moving away, cowering or tucking their tail between their legs. If they flick their ears back, turn their head away or close their mouths it means they’re not comfortable.

If we miss these signs, a dog might growl or even bite.

A wagging tail doesn’t always mean a dog is happy – “good” wags are mid-height, slow(ish), with a relaxed body. Dogs also wag high when tense, or very low when very nervous (both signs to say “hi!” from a distance).

Research shows young children find it difficult to identify dog body language – signs of fear or stress – although older children can increase this knowledge with education. It’s up to adults to supervise, watch both dog and child closely, and stop the interaction if the dog or child isn’t coping.

Read more:
Yes, your dog can understand what you’re saying — to a point

It’s important never to punish a dog for growling. Growling is serious (especially around children) and needs to be addressed quickly with careful management and training. However, it is clear communication. Punishing a growl stops the growl, but not the underlying discomfort (or fear) behind it. This means a dog might not give any warning before biting.

Ignoring signs of stress or fear, or finding it funny, puts everybody at risk. Stop the interaction immediately and contact a qualified, experienced dog trainer.

Respect their space

Dogs in their bed, or eating, need their own space. These are dogs’ safe zones – kids should not approach.

Kids also need a “safe” space or time away from the dogs (for example, in their bedroom).

Dogs in public spaces aren’t public property

Just because a dog is in public doesn’t mean it’s comfortable with strangers approaching. Even if a dog is walking with children, they may not want to meet new children.

Always ask the owner of the dog. If the dog is tied up in front of a shop (or you can’t see their parent), say hello another day.

Sometimes pet parents feel pressure to ensure their dog says “hi!” to children, but always listen to the dog, and feel empowered to say no to pats from children. It won’t hurt to miss this one interaction, and offers a learning opportunity for kids to respect the space of animals.

Read more:
Five top tips to consider before getting a canine companion

Petra Edwards is currently employed with RSPCA South Australia.

Susan Hazel is affiliated with the Dog & Cat Management Board of South Australia and the RSPCA South Australia.

– ref. To pat or not to pat? How to keep interactions between kids and dogs safe – https://theconversation.com/to-pat-or-not-to-pat-how-to-keep-interactions-between-kids-and-dogs-safe-182419

Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Dougal Sutherland, Clinical Psychologist, Te Herenga Waka — Victoria University of Wellington

After more than two years of disruptions, lockdowns and uncertainty, employers are facing a new reckoning in 2022: getting staff back into the office.

Dubbed by some the “great hybrid return to work”, employers across a range of industries are being forced to consider what the work environment will look like for staff.

In an environment where labour is tight, just how much can businesses prod employees to come back into the office? And how can bosses design a solution to meet the needs of the collective after more than two years of work-from-home flexing where individual choice has reigned supreme?

This reckoning isn’t isolated to New Zealand, with stories from the United Kingdom, the United States and Australia painting a picture of a world that has fundamentally shifted, and the dawn of what may well become the work-from-home decade.

Granted, not all employees can work from home. Some never have, as they’ve continued to show up on the front line in hospitals, grocery stores and emergency response call outs. But research suggests those who got a taste of working from home are hungry for more.

Placing emphasis on coordination

A 2022 report from Stanford University heralds the benefits of a hybrid approach to work, acknowledging that most – but not all – staff benefit from a bit of time at home and a bit of time in the office.

Read more:
Stressed out working from home? Consider a hotel day pass

The Stanford recommendation is to coordinate the return to the office with agreed days (for example, Tuesday through Thursday in office, Monday and Friday at home) and reassess at the end of the year to create a long-term plan.

This copy and paste plan certainly won’t work for all workplaces but it suggests there is some merit to a coordinated approach.

Fairness as key

Social connection isn’t the only reason some researchers are advocating for a hybrid working model where teams come in on the same agreed-upon days.

This approach can maximise fairness and equity, thereby boosting diversity and inclusion. Having teams in one place at the same time ensures equitable information transfer and opportunities for development and promotion.

This could be especially pertinent for working parents, who may already face difficulty or discrimination from working flexibly or taking parental leave, and for minority groups that have traditionally been pipped at the post for promotions or mentoring opportunities.

Read more:
Working from home: How classism covertly dominated the conversation

Fairness, one of the key protective factors against burnout at work, helps to offset feelings of cynicism, anger or indignation.

Decisions about returning to the office should be transparent and clearly communicated. And while individual approaches may be necessary, plans for work should equally advantage all groups – senior leaders and entry-level graduates alike.

Ask, don’t assume

What works for some won’t work for all, so employers should talk to their employees. This simple advice applies as much to the general well-being of employees as it does to the structure of the work week.

By engaging in genuine conversations with staff and including them in the decision making process, leaders can build and maintain a level of trust that is essential to a strong culture of well-being in the workplace and can ensure the diverse needs of employees are met.

While everyone is neck deep in the process of discovering a new normal, employers should take the opportunity to really tap into the specific wants and needs of their employees by implementing a consultation process.

This may mean providing various options for people to give input, such as informal check-ins (face-to-face, text or otherwise) or more formal meetings and forums; this formal and informal communication can be complemented by anonymous employee surveys to capture opinions that some people may find hard to give in person.

This is a once-in-a-lifetime opportunity to launch a new way of working that meets the needs of employees and allows them to participate in the process of strengthening support and well-being in the workplace.

Build back better

While many leaders may bemoan the reluctance of their employees to return to the office, citing a reduction in collaboration and information sharing in the work-from-home setup, it’s worth asking whether pre-COVID office spaces really that much better.

Open plan offices, the norm for many modern workplaces, can actually increase stress responses in the body and, paradoxically, reduce collaboration, well-being and engagement.

How do businesses strike a balance between opportunities for collaboration and information sharing, while protecting an employee’s individual well-being?

With the aim to build back better, employers need to consider adapting office space in a way that is fit for connection as well as focus, with multiple breakout spots, intentional collaboration opportunities and quiet working zones.

Businesses should harness the power of hybrid working too – perhaps utilising work-from-home days for deep work, with a “no meetings” rule and reserved in-person office days for collaborative working and catch-ups.

The next six months will undoubtedly be a period of trial and error for many businesses as they look to encourage workers back to the office. Following the simple rules – “ask, don’t assume” and “keep it fair” – may go a long way to ensuring the return to the office is helpful for employees and organisations alike.

Gaynor Parkin and Dr Amanda Wallis from Umbrella Wellbeing contributed to this article.

Dougal Sutherland works for Victoria University of Wellington and Umbrella Wellbeing

– ref. The age of hybrid working is here – how can businesses find the right mix between office and home? – https://theconversation.com/the-age-of-hybrid-working-is-here-how-can-businesses-find-the-right-mix-between-office-and-home-182595

Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Greta Nabbs-Keller, Senior Research Affiliate UQ Centre for Policy Futures, The University of Queensland

This is part of a foreign policy election series looking at how Australia’s relations with the world have changed since the Morrison government came into power in 2019. You can read the other pieces here.

Prior to September 2021, the Coalition had a largely positive scorecard on Southeast Asia relations.

But the announcement of Australia’s security deal with the United Kingdom and the United States (AUKUS) to acquire nuclear-powered submarines caused a serious rupture in our relations with Southeast Asia.

Further, the recently-signed security pact between the Solomon Islands and China highlights the ongoing complexities of China’s role in the Pacific and Southeast Asia.

The increasing gravitation of Southeast Asian countries into China’s orbit isn’t a fundamental failure of Australian foreign policy. It’s based largely on profound shifts in the balance of economic, political and military power in the Indo-Pacific that’s seen China’s influence grow exponentially.

But the challenge is one in which the Coalition government appears increasingly ill-equipped to manage.

Read more:
How should the next Australian government handle the Pacific?

Morrison’s track record in Southeast Asia

The Coalition’s track record was mostly positive up until the AUKUS announcement.

Prime Minister Scott Morrison built successfully on Malcolm Turnbull’s rapport with Indonesian President Joko Widodo.

This was in contrast to former Prime Minister Tony Abbott, whose clumsy responses to espionage allegations and the “Bali Nine” drug case did little to endear him to Indonesia’s political leaders.

The Coalition’s policy initiatives on Vietnam have also been commendable. In 2018 the relationship between Australia and Vietnam was elevated to a “comprehensive strategic partnership”. This will broaden cooperation between the two countries, including on defence and security. This is based on Vietnam’s closer alignment with Australia in the face of China’s maritime coercion.

In 2020, Australia signed onto the world’s largest free trade agreement with ten ASEAN member states, China and other Asia-Pacific countries called the Regional Comprehensive Economic Partnership.

This has further cemented Australia’s economic integration with major trading partners in the region.

The pandemic exposed the inadequate health infrastructure and vulnerable informal employment sectors of many Southeast Asian countries.

In response, the Morrison government quickly pivoted its aid program to COVID relief. It channelled $480 million to our hardest-hit regional neighbours.

Treasurer Josh Frydenberg provided a $1.5 billion loan to Indonesia in late 2020 as the country’s finances struggled with the effects of COVID.

Read more:
While rich countries experience a post-COVID boom, the poor are getting poorer. Here’s how Australia can help

AUKUS rupture

However, the Morrison government’s September 2021 AUKUS announcement created a serious rupture in Australia’s relations with Southeast Asia.

The nuclear-powered submarine deal – formulated in secret between Australia, the UK, and the US – threatened to undermine Australia’s foreign policy independence and credibility in Southeast Asia.

It also challenged long-established ASEAN norms opposing the presence of nuclear weapons.

Among ASEAN states it was received most negatively by its largest member state, Indonesia, whose foreign ministry demanded immediate clarification from the Morrison government.

Indonesia perceived the AUKUS agreement – and the informal “Quad” alliance comprising Japan, the US, Australia and India – as anti-China coalitions which would escalate tensions.

The spat highlights Australia and Indonesia’s increasingly divergent regional outlooks. It also highlights longstanding issues in the relationship. Indonesia believes there’s a lack of respect from Australia and that Canberra has failed to consult adequately with Jakarta on vital foreign policy issues.

Whichever party forms government after the election will have to contend with this.

Labor’s wedge

The Solomon Islands security deal with China has dramatically shifted the election dynamic. It has provided Labor with a wedge issue to argue the Coalition is incompetent on national security and regional foreign policy.

Prior to the security agreement, there was little substantive difference between Labor and the Coalition on Southeast Asia.

Where Labor has differentiated itself from the Coalition is in its increased policy commitment to Southeast Asia, its pledge to reverse cuts in Australia’s aid and diplomatic resources, and its regional climate change focus.

Now sensing a political advantage, Labor has flagged a further $525 million in foreign aid for the Pacific if elected. This recalibration of Labor’s regional foreign policy platform will likely extend to Southeast Asia with further announcements planned.

Anti-China rhetoric is currently at fever pitch in the Coalition government. For Australia to be successful in Southeast Asia, governments of both political persuasions require a more sophisticated narrative on the role of China in the region to avoid alienation from key partners.

Governments must also respect the sustainable economic development priorities of Southeast Asian countries on their own terms, not just as pawns in a larger geopolitical game.

On this point, it seems Labor is leading.

Greta Nabbs-Keller 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. How well has the Morrison government handled relations with Southeast Asia? – https://theconversation.com/how-well-has-the-morrison-government-handled-relations-with-southeast-asia-181958

Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Gery Karantzas, Associate professor in Social Psychology / Relationship Science, Deakin University

The “36 questions of love” have taken the dating world by storm.

First published in 1997 as part of scientific research into relationships, the 36 questions of love gained global popularity through Mandy Len Catron’s viral 2015 New York Times essay “To Fall in Love With Anyone, Do This”.

In that essay, she outlines how she used the 36 questions with a university acquaintance on a casual night out. The result was the two fell in love, not dissimilar to two research participants who took part in the study back in 1997.

In the publishing of that essay, a phenomenon was born. Social media, dating websites, dating coaches and bloggers were posting, writing or discussing the 36 questions of love – often framing these questions as a surefire method to find love – backed by science.

As people attempted the 36 questions of love during dates, it became clear the 36 questions typically did not result in people falling in love.

Read more:
Have you found ‘the one’? How mindsets about destiny affect our romantic relationships

What are the 36 questions?

The 36 questions are three sets of 12 questions. Each set is designed to increase the amount of information a person discloses about themselves to a stranger.

Not only does each set of questions increase the amount each person must disclose, but within each set, the questions increase the level of disclosure as they progress.

For example, one question in the first set includes “For what in your life do you feel most grateful?” The second set includes questions such as “What is your most treasured memory?”

The final set, which requires the greatest disclosure, includes questions such as “When did you last cry in front of another person? By yourself?”.

Read more:
Bridgerton offers clever relationship advice — why friendship is the foundation of happy romantic partnerships

Are the 36 questions a scientific hoax?

To answer this, one needs to go back to the original paper published by well-known relationships researcher Arthur Aron and colleagues.

The research aim was to determine if progressively increasing disclosure increases closeness between two strangers. The research was not designed to test whether the questions lead to love.

Across three studies, Aron and colleagues found support for the idea that a gradual increase in disclosure between strangers is related to an increase in closeness immediately after the experiment.

The original research never measured whether people developed feelings of love directly after the experiment or in the future. However, the final study did a brief follow-up with most matched pairs of participants.

Read more:
What is love?

Seven weeks after participating in the study, it was found 57% of the matched pairs had a follow-up conversation, 35% did something together (no more details were provided), and 37% went on to sit together in class. But again, none of these findings have anything to do with people finding love and going on to have a long-term relationship.

If indeed the 36 questions helped Mandy Len Canton find love, that is a positive thing. However, for the dating world to generalise about the love-generating properties of the 36 questions on the basis of one popularised case speaks to how pop culture can heavily misconstrue science.

What does actually lead to love?

Those of us who study how people fall in love and what makes for a lasting relationship know there are many ingredients that go into making a relationship work.

Some of these include:

• the importance people place on what they want in the ideal partner

• people’s similarities and differences

• people’s history of past relationships

• styles of dealing with conflict

• ability to support and respond to a partner in stressful times

• the alignment of partners’ beliefs, values and goals

• each person’s level of commitment and the ability to regulate emotions

(and these are just some of the factors).

Read more:
There are six styles of love. Which one best describes you?

What should we take away from the 36 questions?

The point of the research conducted by Aron and his colleagues is self-disclosure and enhancing closeness are two factors that matter within the larger scheme of factors.

The other important point is the 36 questions provide a structured way to engage in self-disclosure.

Research has shown relationships can falter when people disclose too much about themselves early on in the dating process.

When people do not know each other well, it can be overwhelming for a person to hear very intimate and personal details about another. They may not know how to respond to the disclosure, or feel uncomfortable themselves. This can result in the person who disclosed coming away from the interaction feeling invalidated and vulnerable.

On the other hand, when a person feels their partner responds to their disclosures and vulnerabilities, relationship intimacy is enhanced.

But it is a high bar to set early in a relationship to expect a partner to respond appropriately to another who discloses highly personal information about oneself. Generally speaking, over-disclosure in the early stages of relationships can be problematic, especially for those who are anxious about their relationships.

So taking a gradual and measured approach to self-disclosure and ensuring each partner has the opportunity to disclose at a comfortable pace is very important.

The 36 questions are unlikely to be a “surefire” way to find love, but they can help people understand the importance of taking a gradual approach to self-disclosure. Finding love doesn’t have to be a race.

Gery Karantzas receives funding from the Australian Research Council, he is also the founder of relationshipscienceonline.com

– ref. Do those viral ’36 questions’ actually lead to finding love? – https://theconversation.com/do-those-viral-36-questions-actually-lead-to-finding-love-176984