Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Joakim Goldhahn, Rock Art Australia Ian Potter Kimberley Chair, The University of Western Australia

Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander readers are advised this article contains images and names of deceased people.

For students of Australian art and art collectors around the globe, Arnhem Land is synonymous with bark painting: sheets of tree bark carefully prepared as a canvas for painting by Aboriginal artists.

Bark painters such as John Mawurndjul and Yirawala are some of the most internationally renowned and sought-after Australian artists.

As the market for bark paintings emerged in the early 20th century, recording the name of individual artists was far from the collector’s mind. Museums and art galleries are full of early artworks, sometimes attributed to particular “clans” or geographic areas, but rarely including the name of the artists.

Such collections are routinely named after the collector rather than the creators. One such collection, the Spencer/Cahill Collection at Museums Victoria, is the focus for our ongoing research project.

The Spencer/Cahill Collection is vast and includes many precious objects collected by Sir Baldwin Spencer when he visited Oenpelli (Gunbalanya), Northern Territory in 1912. He later acquired further artworks and objects via his “on the ground” contact, buffalo shooter Paddy Cahill.

Our project’s main focus is the approximately 170 bark paintings commissioned at Oenpelli between 1912 and 1922.

Earlier bark paintings in museum collections were generally removed from bark huts found by explorers and collectors during their travels. Spencer and Cahill took the additional step of commissioning paintings on bark from the artists: these works represent the birth of the bark painting Aboriginal art movement.

Spencer’s earlier collecting experiences had been conducted to document – as Spencer and others described – a “doomed race” before it became extinct.

In Oenpelli, Spencer was mesmerised by local artists who decorated their stringy bark huts with paintings depicting animals and spirit beings, which resemble paintings found in rock shelters in the vicinity.

He compared the delicate lines in the artworks with “civilised” Japanese or Chinese artworks and concluded the local bark paintings were:

so realistic, always expressing admirably the characteristic features of the animal drawn, that anyone acquainted with the original can identify the drawings at once.

Spencer’s encounter led him to refigure his perception of Aboriginal art towards a more aesthetic appreciation. At Oenpelli, he selected a handful of the most skilful artists to paint a series of bark paintings for him.

He left with 50 artworks. Over the following years, around another 120 barks were sent down to Melbourne.

Spencer did not record the name of the artist for each painting. But, thanks to an unpublished interview from 1967, we can now successfully link bark paintings from this collection to an individual artist.

Read more:
Review – Transformations: Early Bark Paintings from Arnhem Land

Paddy Compass Namadbara

Paddy Compass Namadbara (c. 1892-1978) is remembered by people in western Arnhem Land as a skilful artist, a “clever man”, a strong community leader and family man.

During the 1950s and 1960s he spent much of his time on Minjilang (Croker Island), where he often painted alongside contemporary artists such as Yirawala and Jimmy Midjaumidjau.

In 1967 he was visited by researcher Lance Bennett, who was there to collect bark paintings and information for a book he was writing on contemporary Aboriginal art.

During these interviews, Namadbara casually identified his own works in a book published by Baldwin Spencer in 1914, Native tribes of the Northern Territory of Australia. One work features a barramundi, another a swamp hen, black bream and painted hand stencils.

Bennett asked Namadbara to recreate this painting from 1912, a painting now in The Bennett Collection at the National Museum of Australia in Canberra.

Bennett took the time to ask Namadbara about his personal experiences of Spencer’s visit to Oenpelli in 1912. Namadbara said Spencer asked chosen artists to create bark paintings on small, transport-friendly bark sheets, which they had never done before. This transformed the traditional bark-hut paintings into a new media: bark paintings.

Cahill, who acted as a middleman, is remembered by Namadbara as asking Aboriginal people to shed their western clothing so Spencer could film and photograph ceremonies that were “properly old fashioned”.

Spencer asked Namadbara to cross his hands when he created his hand stencils on the bark with the swamp hen and the black bream, which the artist found peculiar. They asked the artists to leave some of the paintings not fully decorated, so that the motifs would stand out better in photographs.

The payment for the 50 bark paintings consisted of a bag of tobacco and two bags of flour.

Read more:
This 17,500-year-old kangaroo in the Kimberley is Australia’s oldest Aboriginal rock painting

Ongoing connection

The master artists who created works for early collectors deserve to be recognised, as do the vital ongoing connections that remain between the paintings and the communities from which they were acquired.

Gabriel Maralngurra, Namadbara’s kin-grandson and one of the researchers on this project, explains:

these paintings they remain part of us, part of our community. It doesn’t matter if they are far away, we still hold them close.

Being able to identify the artists in this and other museum collections revitalises the significance of these artworks for contemporary First Nation communities, artists and their families.

It also assists cultural institutions to better understand the significance and ongoing cultural links to these collections – collaboratively charting a path for this priceless Australian heritage.

Joakim Goldhahn receives funding from the Australian Research Council and Rock Art Australia. This research is being undertaken in collaboration with Injalak Arts and Museums Victoria.

Gabriel Maralngurra is affiliated with Injalak Arts.

Luke Taylor receives funding from the Australian Research Council.

Paul S.C.Taçon receives funding from the Australian Research Council.

Sally K. May receives funding from the Australian Research Council. This research is being undertaken in collaboration with Injalak Arts and Museums Victoria.

– ref. Paddy Compass Namadbara: for the first time, we can name an artist who created bark paintings in Arnhem Land in the 1910s – https://theconversation.com/paddy-compass-namadbara-for-the-first-time-we-can-name-an-artist-who-created-bark-paintings-in-arnhem-land-in-the-1910s-180243

Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Lisa Marriott, Professor of Taxation, Te Herenga Waka — Victoria University of Wellington

Tax is back in the news. Often this means a looming budget or election, as is indeed the case now, with the government’s 2022 budget delivered next week.

The election is much further away, but if the past couple of weeks are anything to go by, the interim will see the parties’ contrasting tax positions given plenty of attention.

So it’s probably time to discuss “wealth taxes” – a term broadly used here to capture the bucket of potential taxes on wealth, including capital gains, inheritance, gift, land or other types of tax on assets.

As recently as May 3, Prime Minister Jacinda Ardern said her government doesn’t have current plans to introduce a wealth tax but was also refusing to rule one out. Either way, it’s an issue that is unlikely to go away any time soon.

What we tax

To put it in context, there are three primary means of taxation, or three “limbs”, to use a frequently used tax term.

The first is income – taxes on earnings such as wages, salaries or company earnings. The second is taxing consumption – taxes on purchases of goods and services. Finally, there are taxes on wealth – taxes on what you own, usually assets.

In Aotearoa, we have comprehensive regimes for the first two of these.

Income tax is mostly paid by individuals and companies. In 2020-21, individuals paid income tax of NZ$45 billion or 46.4% of total taxation revenue. Companies paid $15.8 billion or 16.2% of total taxation revenue in the same period. While not without its issues, it is better than many income tax systems.

Read more:
Inflation has already eroded tomorrow’s minimum wage rise – NZ’s low-income workers will need more support

Our goods and services tax (GST) is a broad-based consumption tax. This does what it says: it taxes goods and services.

Globally, our GST is often referred to as a model system due to its broad base and few exemptions. GST collected in 2020-21 was $25.6 billion (net), or 26.3% of total tax revenue.

Other consumption taxes include fuel, tobacco, and alcohol excise and duty. These are also all paid by the final consumer and totalled $5 billion in 2020-21 (5.2% of total tax revenue).

The primary issue with GST and excise taxes is that they fall more heavily on lower income earners as a proportion of earnings.

The missing limb

But where is limb three? This is largely absent in Aotearoa, although we do tax assets in a small number of specific situations, such as the “bright-line” test for residential housing.

But the default is that we don’t tax wealth, and unless a transaction is explicitly included in the legislation, it will not attract tax. Why is this a problem?

First, as the OECD puts it, wealth accumulation “operates in a self-reinforcing way and is likely to increase in the absence of taxation”.

Read more:
With a mandate to govern New Zealand alone, Labour must now decide what it really stands for

The OECD also argues “there is a strong case for addressing wealth inequality through the tax system”. This is because higher income earners have greater capacity to save, which facilitates investment creation and further wealth accumulation.

Additionally, wealth inequality is greater than income inequality. But income is comprehensively taxed while wealth is not.

Not the law’s fault

The discussion inevitably comes back to fairness. We’re all familiar with the stories of the untaxed passive gains made by property owners, while those earning wages or salaries pay tax on every dollar earned.

We can’t blame “the wealthy” for this outcome. They are only following the rules as outlined in tax legislation, as they are required to by law.

We can, however, blame governments – and not just the current one, despite its parliamentary majority offering an opportunity for action that recent past governments haven’t had.

Read more:
With their conservative promises, Labour and National lock in existing unfairness in New Zealand’s tax system

The issue is that none appear willing to tackle the political unpalatability of introducing a wealth tax. And in the absence of a government willing to take a leadership role, the wealthy continue to benefit at the expense of those who have less.

It is important to note that wealth taxes are not typically directed at an individual’s personal home. They are intended to tax wealth in the traditional meaning of the word – for example, people who own multiple houses or are “land banking”.

Importantly, taxes are flexible instruments, they can have exclusions where appropriate, such as for Māori land.

An informed debate

Revenue minister David Parker’s recent proposals indicate some positive steps forward. Capturing more accurate information about high wealth individuals has the potential to provide the mandate for change.

As Parker said, current data used for policy purposes “effectively ignores the wealthiest”. He cited evidence that the maximum net worth collected in the current survey data used for policy purposes was $20 million, which is “out by a factor of hundreds”.

The question is, what will the government do when that information is available?

Collecting information is just the first step to inform debate in a democratic society. The issue is how much inequality our democracy is willing to tolerate.

Better quality data on who wins and who loses from a wealth tax will contribute to better quality debate. Whether we want a wealth tax, however, can only be determined at the ballot box. This should be put to the vote.

Lisa Marriott 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. Even if next week’s budget avoids the issue, it’s time New Zealand seriously considered a wealth tax – https://theconversation.com/even-if-next-weeks-budget-avoids-the-issue-its-time-new-zealand-seriously-considered-a-wealth-tax-182505

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

Both Anthony Albanese and Scott Morrison landed themselves onto the sticky paper on Tuesday, as they trudged through this campaign’s penultimate week.

The issues couldn’t have been more different. But each was an area of their respective vulnerabilities – economic numbers in Albanese’s case and social views in Morrison’s.

The opposition leader unwisely tied himself to a specific figure for what would be an appropriate rise in the minimum wage. The Prime Minister dug himself further in behind his controversial Warringah candidate, Katherine Deves, and in the process fell into factual error.

Labor is campaigning hard on the need for wages to rise. Higher wages have until recently had general support across the political spectrum. But the latest 5.1% inflation figure has complicated the debate, and business is warning of the potential for substantial wage rises to entrench high inflation.

In Sunday’s leaders’ debate, Albanese conceded a Labor government could not “guarantee” real wage increases. Rather, “our objective is to have real wage increases and we have practical plans to do that”.

This was a prudent statement. The power of governments to influence wages is limited.

Under questioning on Tuesday about the minimum wage – at present just $20.33 an hour – Albanese said it should at least keep up with the cost of living. “We think no-one should go backwards,” he said.

When he was asked whether this meant he would support a rise of 5.1%, he said , “absolutely”. He answered without hesitating, and probably without thinking through the implications.

For one thing, this inflation figure may not be the relevant number.

Shane Wright, economics writer at the Sydney Morning Herald, quickly pointed out in a tweet that the Fair Work Commission had to look at inflation for 2022-23, which the Reserve Bank was forecasting at 4.3%, rather than the 5.1% number, which was the year to March.

Labor says it would replace the Morrison government’s submission to the current minimum wage case with one that argued for a rise. But it also says that submission might not nominate a figure.

Albanese points out the commission last time awarded a rise above inflation. On the other hand, critics argue the inflation spike creates special circumstances this time.

Albanese’s embrace of the 5.1% number again indicated he doesn’t always think through the detail.

But whether in this instance it will do him any harm is another matter.

The important message for many people will be that Labor will actively support a pay rise for the lowest earners, at a time when cost of living pressures are bearing down heavily on workers.

Albanese said on the ABC on Tuesday night that “the idea that people who are doing it really tough at the moment should have a further cut in their cost of living is, in my view, simply untenable”. Many voters mightn’t be too concerned about the fine print of the numbers.

On the other side of politics Deves, Morrison’s “captain’s pick”, has refuelled the furore around her by saying on Monday that when she had referred to trans children being surgically “mutilated”, this was “actually the correct medico-legal term”.

Deves has been widely condemned for this and other offensive (and now removed) tweets. But she insisted in an interview with Sky, “When you look at medical negligence cases that is the terminology that they use”.

Questioned at his Tuesday news conference Morrison said “the issues Katherine commented on yesterday, they’re incredibly sensitive.

“What we’re talking about here is gender reversal surgery for young adolescents. And we can’t pretend this is not a very significant, serious issue.

“And the issues that have to be considered first and foremost [are] the welfare of the adolescent child and their parents. We can’t pretend that this type of surgery is some minor procedure.

“Now I’m sure many other Australians are concerned. This is a concerning issue. It’s a troubling issue. And for us to pretend it’s a minor procedure – it’s not. It is extremely significant. And it changes that young adolescent child’s life forever.”

It was quickly pointed out to Morrison that the government’s own website said reassignment surgery couldn’t be undertaken by minors.

Regrouping, the PM said, “You will also understand that this process can begin in adolescence”. The surgical procedure could not take place then but discussions could commence, he said.

Morrison said he wouldn’t use Deves’ language of surgical mutilation. Asked whether he had spoken to her about her language, he said “I’m sure we’ll have the opportunity to talk”, but on terminology “I’m not a surgeon […] I’m not the Chief Medical Officer.”

One of Morrison’s motives in choosing Deves was that he judged her views against trans people competing in women’s and girls’ sport would resonate in outer suburban areas and seats with high numbers of voters from ethnic communities.

It’s notable that initially he highlighted her push on female sport but now has willingly moved on to the gender reassignment issue.

He hasn’t had much concern, it seems, for whatever fallout his defence of Deves might have where there are “teal” candidates running against Liberal incumbents.

He declared he had no regrets about choosing Deves. A lot of Liberals do, however.

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

– ref. View from The Hill: Albanese and Morrison caught on fly-papers of wages, gender – https://theconversation.com/view-from-the-hill-albanese-and-morrison-caught-on-fly-papers-of-wages-gender-182781

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

As well as her interviews with politicians and experts, Politics with Michelle Grattan includes “Word from The Hill”, where she discusses the news with members of The Conversation politics team.

In this podcast Michelle and politics + society editor Amanda Dunn canvass
how the interest rate rise has played against the government, Scott Morrison defending Katherine Deves (again), the major parties’ keeping the climate change issue low key, “gotcha” questions, and the coming Liberal launch.

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. Word from The Hill: Scott Morrison defends Katherine Deves (again), but slips up on surgery detail – https://theconversation.com/word-from-the-hill-scott-morrison-defends-katherine-deves-again-but-slips-up-on-surgery-detail-182777

Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Rolf Gerritsen, Professorial Research Fellow, Northern Institute, Charles Darwin University

Northern Territory Chief Minister Michael Gunner has resigned suddenly, making the announcement just after delivering the NT budget in parliament. He will stay on as a backbencher.

“My head and my heart are no longer here, they are at home,” said Gunner, who is the Labor leader and had recently celebrated the birth of his second child.

“I have grappled with this decision for some weeks and welcoming little Nash into the world sealed the deal.”

The news initially came as a surprise to me. But looking closely at the forward estimates in today’s budget papers, it became clear he’s planned it for at least a month. The forward estimates promise a return to surplus earlier than most people thought; given the years of deep deficit, I thought that seems highly improbable.

But he wants to be remembered for a budget that suggests economic and fiscal recovery is underway. He won government in 2016 promising the elimination of the budget deficit. What he has in mind is a legacy budget.

Read more:
State of the states: six politics experts take us on a trip around Australia

Federal implications: the seat of Lingiari

Gunner’s resignation may have federal election implications in the division of Lingiari, which covers most of the Northern Territory.

The seat is in play due to the resignation of Labor’s Warren Snowden, who has held the seat since 2001.

Labor’s opponent is the Country Liberal Party (known as the CLP), which has been running hard on crime in its federal election campaign. Crime is usually a state issue but the CLP aimed to link crime rates with Gunner’s legacy as chief minister, and by association, Labor federally.

So with Gunner stepping down, it takes the wind out of the CLP’s sails in terms of its capacity to associate crime rates with Labor in the federal election campaign. It may end up helping Labor retain the seat.

A cunning and resolute politician

The first Territory-born chief minister, Gunner is a resolute and cunning politician.

He’s been the subject of vituperative attacks in the media, but I believe him when he says he wants to spend more time with his family. A lot of politicians say that, but in his case the idea has more credibility than usual. He has an impeccable personal behaviour record, so the stated reason for his resignation makes sense. It’s not covering for something else.

His wife is an ABC journalist and in his resignation press conference he mentioned he’s looking forward to supporting her in the way she has supported him.

Gunner is member for the state seat of Fannie Bay and was first elected to the Northern Territory Legislative Assembly in August 2008.

As well as chief minister, he was – until today – treasurer. He took over that role after Nicole Manison, who is currently deputy chief minister and will probably be the next leader.

As treasurer he faced a real challenge managing the NT’s spiralling deficit, which revealed constrained opportunities to raise revenue along with large, recurrent expenditure commitments.

A mixed legacy

When he was elected chief minister in 2015, Gunner restored stable government after the chaos of leadership under former CLP chief minister Adam Giles. He won a second term in the 2020 election, the first of the successful “COVID election” first ministers.

But I can’t say he will be remembered for much.

We have had lots of rhetoric from the Gunner government about Indigenous housing and conditions, but not a lot of action. He was vocal on health and on crime but we haven’t seen great improvements in those areas.

He lifted a moratorium on fracking, which earned him the ire of environmentalists, and he was increasingly at odds with the police force, who were angry at his defence of the police commissioner over the Zachary Rolfe case.

So he will not be fondly remembered by key constituencies like police, conservationists and, to a degree, older people living in urban areas who are angry about crime rates being high.

But his departure will help Labor in Lingiari; it removes a lightning rod for dissatisfaction.

Rolf Gerritsen previously worked as a public servant, in the role of director of social and economic policy in the NT Department of Chief Minister.

– ref. Northern Territory Chief Minister Michael Gunner resigns. Could this help Labor in the federal election? – https://theconversation.com/northern-territory-chief-minister-michael-gunner-resigns-could-this-help-labor-in-the-federal-election-182759

Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Benjamin Clark, Deputy Engagement Editor, The Conversation

Channel Nine’s leaders’ debate on Sunday night may have been a “shouty, unedifying spectacle”, but Scott Morrison and Anthony Albanese will do it all again on Wednesday evening on Channel Seven.

Why? In the latest episode of our election podcast Below the Line, our panel of experts explain that our political leaders are under pressure to persuade voters as quickly as possible, given early voting centres have now opened and Australians can cast their ballots.

But what policies aren’t being talked about on the debate stages and the campaign trail? Plenty, according to the University of Sydney’s Simon Jackman and Anika Gauja and La Trobe University’s Andrea Carson. Below the Line’s usual host Jon Faine is away for this episode, but will return later in the week.

Anika identifies migration and the casualisation of work as two key issues the major parties have largely steered clear of in the campaign so far. Simon is dumbfounded by how quickly politicians and the media have dropped the topic of COVID, given how many Australians have died with the disease in 2022. Meanwhile, Andrea wonders why renters can barely get a look in amid all the discussion of first-homebuyer schemes.

Finally, the panel discusses preference deals and whether they could lead to candidates being elected to the lower house despite having relatively few first preferences themselves.

Below the Line is a limited-edition election podcast brought to you by The Conversation and La Trobe University. The show is produced by Courtney Carthy and Benjamin Clark.

To become one of the thousands of people who help The Conversation produce journalism by experts, make a tax-deductible donation here.

Image credit: Alex Ellinghausen/AAP

Audio credit: Channel Nine/60 Minutes

Disclosure: Simon Jackman is an unpaid consultant on polling data for the Climate 200 network of independent candidates.

– ref. Below the Line: What issues are politicians ignoring this election? – podcast – https://theconversation.com/below-the-line-what-issues-are-politicians-ignoring-this-election-podcast-182757

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

The Reserve Bank is pushing up interest rates to take money out of our hands.

The first increase in the current round
will add about A$65 a month to the cost of paying off a $500,000 mortgage.

The second will add a bit more. If, as the bank’s forecasts assume, there are another four such increases this year, that’s a further $275 a month, and so on.

The point, in the words of the Reserve Bank Governor Philip Lowe, is to “slow the economy, to get things back onto an even keel”.

In a helpful video, the Governor explains that rate rises take money out of mortgagee’s hands directly, make it harder to borrow, make people “feel less happy”, and hit the price of houses and other assets so people “don’t feel as confident and they don’t spend as much”.

Which is fair enough, if the Governor decides that’s what’s needed.

So why on earth are we scheduled to do the opposite?

As the RBA takes, the government will give

From mid-2024 the government will put an awful lot of money in to people’s hands. Stage 3 of the income tax cuts will cost $15.7 billion in its first year.

By way of comparison, that’s almost as much as the $16.3 billion will be spent on the Pharmaceutical Benefits Scheme that year, and more than the $10.5 billion that will be spent on higher education.

That it is mistimed ought not be a surprise. Stage 3 was legislated in 2018.

The treasurer at the time, back in the year Grant Denyer won the Gold Logie, was Scott Morrison, who said he was legislating Stages 1, 2 and 3 of the tax cuts all at once (and Stage 3 six years ahead) in order to provide “certainty”.

A tax switch settled years ahead of time

So uncertain was the treasury about the future back then that it only forecast the economy two years ahead, and produced less reliable and more mechanical “projections” for the following two years, neither of which extended to 2024.

At the time the Reserve Bank had been cutting interest rates (12 times in a row), at the time inflation was 1.9%. It looked as if the economy could do with a bit of a boost, albeit a boost which wouldn’t be delivered for six years.

In saying that things have changed, it’s fair to also acknowledge that things might change back again. We can’t be sure what will be needed in 2024, although we can be a good deal more sure than we had back then.

Backed by Labor

The Stage 3 tax cuts, opposed by Labor at first, but now backed by Labor treasury spokesman Jim Chalmers after “weighing up a whole range of considerations”, are overwhelmingly directed at high earners.

Of the $184.2 billion the parliamentary budget office believes Stage 3 will cost in its first seven years, $137.9 billion is directed to Australians on $120,000 or more.

Part of Stage 3, the part that cuts the rate applying to incomes over $45,000 from 32.5 cents in the dollar to 30 cents, will benefit most taxpayers.

The bigger part, that extends that low tax rate all the way up to $200,000, abolishing an entire tax rate, benefits most those on $200,000 and above.

For those high earners, the part of their income that was taxed at 37 cents will be taxed at 30, as will another part of the rest that was taxed at 45 cents.

A politician, on a base salary of $211,250, will get a tax cut of $9,075. A registered nurse on $72,235 will get a tax cut of $681 according to calculations prepared by the Australia Institute.

Read more:
Stages 1 and 2 should pass. Stage 3 would return tax to the 1950s

More broadly, a typical middle earner can expect $250 a year, whereas a typical earner in the top fifth can expect $4,230 according to a separate analysis by the parliamentary budget office.

The fate of the middle earner will be made worse by the loss of the $1,000+ middle income tax offset which wasn’t extended in this year’s budget, sending the middle earner backwards.

The typical female earner will go backwards too after the loss of the offset, getting half as much as the typical (higher earning) male, according to the budget office.

A tax switch that’ll send some bakcwards

The logic is (or was) that middle and higher earners would need big tax cuts to compensate them for bracket creep (which is wage rises pushing them into higher tax brackets), though there’s been a lot less of that than expected.

Were it not for the fact that Labor supports and will implement it, Stage 3 would provide a stark contrast with Labor leader Anthony Albanese’s approach unveiled on Tuesday of asking the Fair Work Commission to lift the minimum wage to compensate for inflation.

Read more:
Why the RBA should go easy on interest rate hikes: inflation may already be retreating and going too hard risks a recession

Such an increase would go to low wage earners first, and flow through more slowly to award wages. It would give the greatest help to those who needed it the most when they needed it, rather than years in the future when things might be quite different.

Peter Martin 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. Stand by for the oddly designed Stage 3 tax cut that will send middle earners backwards and give high earners thousands – https://theconversation.com/stand-by-for-the-oddly-designed-stage-3-tax-cut-that-will-send-middle-earners-backwards-and-give-high-earners-thousands-182751

Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Hannah R. Feldman, Research Fellow, Institute for Water Futures, Australian National University

While there was plenty of heat in Sunday’s night’s debate between Labor and Coalition leaders, one issue was barely mentioned: climate change. This raises a large red flag for Australia’s young voters.

In an election term marred by extreme bushfires, floods and heat waves, there was a conspicuous lack of climate change questioning during the debate. And when prompted on how young people will fare this election, both leaders quickly pivoted to housing reform and job security for all Australians.

For a generation that will face an extreme increase in environmental disasters in their lifetime, research consistently shows climate change represents one of the top challenges on the minds of young people. Students have recently been taking this message across the country, demanding greater climate action by political leaders ahead of the federal election on May 21.

So which party really has young interests at heart – and which doesn’t? Let’s look at where the major players stand on youth and climate change policy.

Read more:
How do the major parties rate on climate policies? We asked 5 experts

How does Labor rate?

According to vote compass data, more Australians have rated climate change as their top concern this election than any other issue. Climate change was also overwhelmingly rated as the top issue in The Conversation’s #SetTheAgenda poll.

But despite the long-term vision of voters, Opposition Leader Anthony Albanese was keen to focus squarely on immediate returns in Sunday’s debate, especially on issues related to “right now” – a phrase repeated nine times in his closing remarks.

Albanese took the campaign to classrooms this week, and pivoted to housing reform when directly asked about the future of youth lives in Australia.

Not only was this a missed opportunity to mention the newly announced funding for high-achievers to study teaching, but also to draw attention to the fact Labor also has an engagement plan to reconnect with young people in politics.

Youth voters often feel shut out of policy engagement exercises, finding consultation processes disingenuous and serving the agendas of people in power, rather than through genuine youth representation.

Labor policy looks to overcome some of these challenges by connecting government with youth voices in decision making. While this is still a very top-down approach, it could be a promising step towards meaningful integration of young people in politics.

With these foundations, it’s unfortunate that climate change and youth issues have not been openly championed by Albanese. Young people will have to go searching through buried policy to see whether they’ll be heard after May 21, but not before.

What about the Coalition?

Likewise, the Liberal National Party has been generally shying away from climate change discourse.

We saw this clearly in March, for example, when the federal court found Environment Minister Sussan Ley holds no duty of care towards young people facing the climate crisis. Ley had successfully appealed a previous ruling in a landmark case brought by eight students, setting a disappointing stage for the Coalition’s campaign trail.

The Liberal Party, however, do have policy support for communities and structures that surround young Australians, including funding for schools, parents, and getting young people into jobs, as Prime Minister Scott Morrison repeatedly highlighted in Sunday’s debate.

But Liberal Party youth policy also comes with a great irony: if elected, they promise large investments in youth mental health, despite climate change (and a lack of action) being a key source of anxiety and worry for young people.

Read more:
Australians are 3 times more worried about climate change than COVID. A mental health crisis is looming

Much research, including my own, has shown climate change presents an extreme burden on the mental health of young people, particularly teenagers. But while anxiety can be a source of disengagement from politics entirely, other young people can use it as motivation to engage with politics in ways they haven’t before.

This will likely be a driving force in School Strike 4 Climate events in the lead up to May 21 (and beyond), including planned action at Treasurer Josh Frydenberg’s Kooyong electorate offices.

Overall, the Coalition’s hopes for an employed youth sector are not without merit, but failing to link the need for youth reform with the climate emergency seriously tarnishes any credibility they may have had on youth issues.

The Greens and Independents?

At the last election in 2019, Australian youth were overwhelmingly left-leaning, with the lowest Liberal vote on record for voters under 35. Indeed, 37% of 18-24 year olds were primarily voting for the Greens, and that number is likely to remain high on May 21.

The Greens are the only major player in the upcoming election to specifically mention youth and climate change together in their policies. They acknowledge the long term consequences of current climate action on future Australians, and also align strongly with the demands of the School Strike 4 Climate movement.

Read more:
Polls show a jump in the Greens vote – but its real path to power lies in reconciling with Labor

Much of the Greens climate policy is mirrored in some way by “teal” Independents. But the crossbench hopefuls are decidedly targeting different demographics in their contested seats: those trending Green are generally younger and on lower incomes than those in seats turning teal.

In key electorates such as Wentworth in New South Wales or Goldstein and Macnamara in Victoria, young people represent 16-18% of registered voters. Climate-aligned platforms may well be the deciding factor in seats moving away from the major parties.

The verdict

While the near-sighted campaign trail might not care too much about youth voters, the long term consequences of their treatment will come with very real returns as they age.

Late teens and early-20s are critical ages for formulating political personas that only grow stronger into adulthood. Issues that matter to youth such as climate change are not going to diminish in their lifetimes.

Albanese may have won Sunday night’s debate by a hair according to The Conversation’s expert panel, but it was clear that Australia’s young people were not winners in the political shouting match.

The future of youth engagement and climate change may take a positive turn with a Labor government or a powerful crossbench, but the major parties are still too narrowly focused on the short term.

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

Hannah R. Feldman 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. Young voters will inherit a hotter, more dangerous world – but their climate interests are being ignored this election – https://theconversation.com/young-voters-will-inherit-a-hotter-more-dangerous-world-but-their-climate-interests-are-being-ignored-this-election-182663

Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Gareth Edwards, Associate Professor, University of East Anglia

At last year’s Glasgow climate conference, countries lined up to increase their ambition to cut greenhouse gas emissions. Even Australia brought a new target of net-zero emissions by 2050, and signed the final agreement which called for a global “phase down” of coal.

That leaves Australia with two particularly important tasks. First, our power grid – reliant on coal for about half our electricity – must shift to renewable energy. Second, we must dramatically reduce coal exports, which produce about 3% of global CO₂ emissions when burned overseas.

Clearly, Australia needs to have a serious conversation about what the move away from coal means, and how to make it fair. This shift is often called a “just transition”. In our recent study we examined how the idea is understood in Australia.

We found several barriers to a productive conversation about the just transition – not least, an almost complete absence of the federal government in talking about or planning for it. This is a failing the next government must not repeat.

A tale of two coal industries

First, it’s important to define “just transition”. Many different definitions are used, but include as a key feature that no-one is left behind when making necessary changes to energy and economic systems.

That means sharing the costs and benefits of the changes fairly, supporting workers with new jobs or retraining, and supporting communities through broader economic changes.

Our research into the just transition in Australia involved reviewing academic research and other literature; interviews with key people from civil society, government and industry; and analysis of hundreds of media articles.

Interviewees reported that the limited discussion in Australia about a just transition has focused on the electricity sector, particularly after the sudden, high-profile closure of Victoria’s Hazelwood Power Station in 2017. Discussion about winding back coal exports was considered too difficult.

Australia’s electricity sector is on the road to decarbonising, and coal-fired power stations are closing faster than expected. In February, for example, Origin Energy announced it would close its massive Eraring Power Station in three years – the soonest timeframe allowed under national rules.

But Australia’s coal mining industry dwarfs the power industry. Some 90% of Australia’s black coal is exported. Most ends up in Asia, either in power stations producing electricity or blast furnaces producing steel. Australian coal contributes more to CO₂ emissions overseas than at home.

Read more:
How do the major parties rate on climate policies? We asked 5 experts

Just transition is a toxic term

Our study revealed how “just transition” is a problematic term in Australia. This is largely driven by parts of the media and some politicians who equate the transition with job losses.

This “jobs versus environment” narrative has been cultivated throughout the so-called “climate wars” plaguing federal politics over the past 15 or so years.

The narrative was exemplified by Nationals leader Barnaby Joyce late last month. Asked if the government planned move away from coal, he said “we’re not going to be saying to people the word ‘transition’ because that equals unemployment”.

The argument resonates in regional communities for two main reasons, according to our interviewees. First, most people calling for a “just transition” are not locals and there is a perception they don’t understand the needs and aspirations of coal towns. And second, many communities have had bad past experiences of economic restructuring programs.

Many interviewees said it’s important to discuss the just transition, but they avoid using the term explicitly because of the negative connotations.

Government leadership is sorely needed

A just transition is not just something environmental or union campaigners are calling for. Our research revealed almost all key stakeholders are willing to plan for it – from industry to community groups, investors and some state and local governments – even if their motivations differ.

These groups also agreed a lack of government leadership was the biggest barrier to action. In particular, the federal government has been almost completely absent from discussions.

Whichever side wins the May 21 election needs to start talking about, and actively planning, a just transition. That means introducing policies to encourage coal power generation and coal exports to wind down, supporting new industries and helping communities manage the change.

Federal government support is crucial because the transition away from coal affects all of society. Governments can set up the stable, long-term institutions and policy mechanisms to support state and local transition efforts.

How to have productive conversations

Our research highlighted ways the federal government and others can have productive conversations about the just transition away from coal.

Outsiders going to regional communities should listen to people to understand their aspirations and fears.

Explain that the transition away from coal is already underway, and be explicit about what a just transition means: reducing coal production, but increasing other energy sources and diversifying regional economies.

Make clear that the transition is an opportunity for regional people with skills that society needs as our energy systems change. And explain the practical actions available to help communities undergoing major change.

Finally, centre conversations on livelihoods and communities, rather than wages and workers. The transition will only be just if it involves everyone.

Which way now?

In the absence of strong government policy, progress towards a just transition has been challenging. Notwithstanding this, we are seeing change.

Australia’s power generation industry is already transitioning away from coal. And Australia’s two largest export-oriented coal miners, Glencore and BHP, also see clear limits on ongoing coal exports.

The shift away from coal is now inevitable. But if not managed effectively, the transition will be disorderly rather than just. This will damage not just coal communities, but Australia’s economy and international standing.

Read more:
The world doesn’t care about swings in marginal seats. Climate action must spearhead a new Australian foreign policy

Gareth Edwards receives funding from the Leverhulme Trust for a Leverhulme International Fellowship (2021-22) and from the British Academy under its ‘Just transitions to decarbonisation in the Asia Pacific Region’ programme.

Robert MacNeil receives funding from the British Academy under its ‘Just transitions to decarbonisation in the Asia Pacific Region’ programme.

Susan M Park receives funding from the British Academy, the Canadian Research Council for the Humanities and Social Sciences, and is a Hans Fischer Senior Fellow at the Technical University of Munich.

– ref. Australia’s next government must start talking about a ‘just transition’ from coal. Here’s where to begin – https://theconversation.com/australias-next-government-must-start-talking-about-a-just-transition-from-coal-heres-where-to-begin-181707

Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Rob Nicholls, Associate professor in regulation and governance, UNSW Sydney

On Friday, the Wall Street Journal published information from Facebook whistleblowers, alleging Facebook (which is owned by Meta) deliberately caused havoc in Australia last year to influence the News Media Bargaining Code before it was passed as law.

During Facebook’s news blackout in February 2021, thousands of non-news pages were also blocked – including important emergency, health, charity and government pages.

Meta has continued to argue the takedown of not-for-profit and government pages was a technical error. It remains to be seen whether the whistleblower revelations will lead to Facebook being taken to court.

Read more:
The Conversation’s submission to the Australian Senate Inquiry into the News Media Bargaining Code

The effects of Facebook’s “error”

The News Media Bargaining Code was first published in July 2020, with a goal to have Facebook and Google pay Australian news publishers for the content they provide to the platforms.

It was passed by the House of Representatives (Australia’s lower house) on February 17 2021. That same day, Facebook retaliated by issuing a statement saying it would remove access to news media business pages on its platform – a threat it had first made in August 2020.

It was arguably a reasonable threat of capital strike by a foreign direct investor, in respect to new regulation it regarded as “harmful” – and which it believed fundamentally “misunderstands the relationship between [its] platform and publishers who use it to share news content”.

However, the range of pages blocked was extensive.

Facebook has a label called the “News Page Index” which can be applied to its pages. News media pages, such as those of the ABC and SBS, are included in the index. All Australian pages on this index were taken down during Facebook’s news blackout.

But Facebook also blocked access to other pages, such as the page of the satirical website The Betoota Advocate. The broadness of Facebook’s approach was also evidenced by the blocking of its own corporate page.

The most major harm, however, came from blocks to not-for-profit pages, including cancer charities, the Bureau of Meteorology and a variety of state health department pages – at a time when they were delivering crucial information about COVID-19 and vaccines.

Whistleblowers emerge

The whistleblower material published by the Wall Street Journal, which was also filed to the US Department of Justice and the Australian Competition and Consumer Commission (ACCC), includes several email chains that show Facebook decided to implement its blocking threat through a broad strategy.

The argument for its broad approach was based on an anti-avoidance clause in the News Media Bargaining Code. The effect of the clause was to ensure Facebook didn’t attempt to avoid the rules of the code by simply substituting Australian news with international news for Australian users. In other words, it would have to be all or nothing.

As a consequence, Facebook did not use its News Page Index. It instead classified a domain as “news” if “60% [or] more of a domain’s content shared on Facebook is classified as news”. One product manager wrote:

Hey everyone – the [proposed Australian law] we are responding to is extremely broad, so guidance from the policy and legal team has been to be over-inclusive and refine as we get more information.

The blocking approach was algorithmic and based on these rules. There were some exceptions, that included not blocking “.gov” – but no such exclusion for “.gov.au”. The effect of this was the taking down of many charity and government pages.

The whistleblower material makes it clear a number of Facebook employees offered solutions to the perceived overreach. This included one employee proposal that Facebook should “proactively find all the affected pages and restore them”. However, the documents show these calls were ignored.

According to the Wall Street Journal:

The whistleblower documents show Facebook did attempt to exclude government and education pages. But people familiar with Facebook’s response said some of these lists malfunctioned at rollout, while other whitelists didn’t cover enough pages to avoid widespread improper blocking.

Amendments following the blackout

Following Facebook’s news blackout, there were last-minute amendments to the draft legislation before it was passed through the Senate.

The main change was that the News Media Bargaining Code would only apply to Facebook if deals were not struck with a range of key news businesses (which so far has not included SBS or The Conversation).

It’s not clear whether the amendment was as a result of Facebook’s actions, or if it would have been introduced in the Senate anyway. In either case, Facebook said it was “satisfied” with the outcome, and ended its news blackout.

Read more:
This week’s changes are a win for Facebook, Google and the government — but what was lost along the way?

Facebook denies the accusations

The definitions of “core news content” and “news source” in the News Media Bargaining Code were reasonably narrow. So Facebook’s decision to block pages so broadly seems problematic – especially from the perspective of reputational risk.

But as soon as that risk crystallised, Facebook denied intent to cause any harm. A Meta spokesperson said the removal of non-news pages was a “mistake” and “any suggestion to the contrary is categorically and obviously false”. Referring to the whistleblower documents, the spokesperson said:

The documents in question clearly show that we intended to exempt Australian government pages from restrictions in an effort to minimise the impact of this misguided and harmful legislation. When we were unable to do so as intended due to a technical error, we apologised and worked to correct it.

Read more:
Publishers take on Facebook and Google for failing to pay up under the News Media Bargaining Code

Possible legal action

In the immediate aftermath of Facebook’s broad news takedown, former ACCC chair Allan Fels suggested there could be a series of class actions against Facebook.

His basis was that Facebook’s action was unconscionable under the Australian Consumer Law. We have not seen these actions taken.

It’s not clear whether the whistleblower material changes the likelihood of legal action against Facebook. If legal action is taken, it’s more likely to be a civil case taken by an organisation that has been harmed, rather than a criminal case.

On the other hand, one reading of the material is Facebook did indeed overreach out of caution, and then reduced the scope of its blocking over a short period.

Facebook suffered reputational harm as a result of its actions and apologised. However, if it engaged in similar actions in other countries, the balance between its actions being a stuff up, versus conspiracy, changes.

The Wall Street Journal described Facebook’s approach as an “overly broad and sloppy process”. Such a process isn’t good practice, but done once, it’s unlikely to be criminal. On the other hand, repeating it would create a completely different set of potential liabilities and causes of action.

Disclosure: Facebook has refused to negotiate a deal with The Conversation under the News Media Bargaining Code. In response, The Conversation has called for Facebook to be “designated” by the Treasurer under the Code. This means Facebook would be forced to pay for content published by The Conversation on its platform.

Rob Nicholls is a member of the UNSW Allens Hub for Technology, Law and Innovation from which he receives research funding. He is also the faculty lead for the UNSW Institute for Cyber Security (IFCYBER), which provides support. UNSW has received an untied gift from Facebook, which is used to fund some of Rob’s research.

– ref. Stuff-up or conspiracy? Whistleblowers claim Facebook deliberately let important non-news pages go down in news blackout – https://theconversation.com/stuff-up-or-conspiracy-whistleblowers-claim-facebook-deliberately-let-important-non-news-pages-go-down-in-news-blackout-182673

Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Kate Murphy, Senior Lecturer in Contemporary History, Monash University

Universities like to associate themselves with exceptional individuals through the awarding of honorary doctorates, but this practice has often attracted controversy, creating headaches for university administrators.

Honorary doctorates highlight uncomfortable but important questions about the purpose of the university and its role in reinforcing and perpetuating social inequality.

The tradition and purpose of honorary doctorates

Honorary degrees (usually, though not always, doctorates) are awarded by universities to recognise outstanding achievement in a particular field, or service to the broader community.

While some universities have established separate honorary degrees, such as the “Doctor of the University” at Griffith University, most Australian universities have maintained the traditional system in which a range of degrees may be awarded honoris causa. This means no degree is actually undertaken, but the nominee receives the distinction in name anyway.

A committee, usually including members of the university’s senior executive, representatives of the university council and professors, receives nominations and determines which will be approved.

Universities gain a number of benefits from conferring honorary doctorates. The acceptance of an honorary degree by an exceptionally distinguished person often generates publicity and brings “reflected glory” on the university, in the words of one former Vice-Chancellor, preserved in the Monash University archives.

Honorary doctorates have long been used to foster advantageous connections with individuals, countries or organisations. The University of Oxford awarded the first recorded honorary doctorate in around 1478 to a brother-in-law of Edward IV in a clear attempt to “obtain the favour of a man with great influence”.

Honorary degrees have, unsurprisingly, usually been awarded to well-known individuals. The honouring of less-known individuals, and members of socially disadvantaged groups, has been much rarer.

Read more:
Why do we still hand out honorary academic titles?

Controversy and protest

In Australia, especially since the post-World War II dawn of federal funding for universities, honorary doctorates have occasioned public debate and sometimes protest.

In August 1962, the Australian National University declined to award an honorary degree to King Bhumibol of Thailand, reportedly because of his lack of academic qualifications. This created diplomatic embarrassment for the Australian government in the context of an impending royal visit.

The University of Melbourne stepped into the breach to make Bhumibol an Honorary Doctor of Laws in September 1962, which was judged a bad look in university circles. The Vice-Chancellor of Monash University, Louis Matheson, commented a little smugly in an internal memo that “There is no subject to which a university should bring more delicacy and sureness of touch than the selection of its honorary graduates”.

Matheson was forced to eat humble pie when in 1967 a furore erupted over his university’s honouring of Victorian Premier Henry Bolte, shortly after Bolte had sanctioned the controversial execution of Ronald Ryan.

Monash’s staff and student associations alike opposed the move, and the ceremony took place off-campus to minimise the risk of disruption by students. At a faux awards ceremony held by students on campus, a degree was awarded to a piglet. “No pedigree for pigs” was inscribed on the campus lawn.

Read more:
Honorary doctorates: well deserved, or just a bit of spin?

After the Bolte row, Monash determined to never again honour a politician in office. Other universities have discovered since that doing so doesn’t always end well. The University of Adelaide’s award of an honorary doctorate to Foreign Minister Julie Bishop in 2017 was overshadowed by student protests about planned fee hikes and funding cuts for universities.

Undermining standards?

It is often said handing out “unearned” doctorates devalues the university’s highest academic qualification. The award of honorary doctorates to celebrities and especially sportspeople tends to raise eyebrows and draw bitter jokes from academics about when they should expect their honorary Olympic medal.

Swimmer Ian Thorpe was recognised in 2014 by Macquarie University for sport and philanthropy, the late Shane Warne had an honorary PhD, and cricketer Sir John Bradman famously turned down more than one honorary doctorate.

Places of privilege

Recent public discussion of honorary degrees has focused on the diversity of recipients. The University of Melbourne was suspended from a lucrative research funding program earlier this year after awarding honorary doctorates to a group of six white men.

The under-representation of women among honorary degree recipients was highlighted by equal opportunity policies in the late 1980s and early 1990s. In 1995 Monash acknowledged that since 1964 it had awarded honorary doctorates to 122 men and just 13 women. Along with other universities, it sought to correct this, aiming for equal gender representation among recipients – a target which remains far from being achieved.

The recent University of Melbourne controversy suggested to many that modern universities, despite their public relations nous, still carry echoes of the tone-deaf ivory tower.

Melbourne no doubt exposed itself to criticism through unfortunate optics and poor handling (the university claimed a larger group of intended recipients, including three women and an Indigenous man, were unable to attend the ceremony). However, the failure of such honours to represent the diversity of the community is a sector-wide problem.

Honorary doctorates have failed to cast off their function and reputation as a kind of academic peerage. They are uncomfortable reminders that our universities are still led and occupied, for the most part, by the socially privileged few.

Kate Murphy 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. Why award honorary doctorates, and what do the choices say about our universities? – https://theconversation.com/why-award-honorary-doctorates-and-what-do-the-choices-say-about-our-universities-179300

Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Melissa Conley Tyler, Honorary Fellow, Asia Institute, The University of Melbourne

We are into the final fortnight of the election campaign, and commentators have noted that climate change has been almost invisible. This is despite the latest IPCC report in April calling for urgent action to avoid catastrophic climate change.

So what would a positive vision for Australia as a climate leader look like?

Read more:
Scorched dystopia or liveable planet? Here’s where the climate policies of our political hopefuls will take us

Fast-forward 8 years

Imagine it’s 2030. Australia is a renewable energy superpower helping meet Southeast Asia’s energy needs. It exports renewable energy via cable from northern Australia and ships green hydrogen first from Queensland and Tasmania, and then from all around the country.

It is a significant exporter of green commodities – such green steel produced with renewable energy – and the critical minerals used in renewable technology such as solar panels and electric vehicles. It works closely with the region on climate risk assessment and disaster preparedness.

Seem fanciful? Not necessarily.

Southeast Asia’s needs

Southeast Asian countries are highly exposed to the effects of climate change, with ASEAN rating Southeast Asia as one of the world’s most at-risk regions. Southeast Asia is already experiencing the growing intensity and magnitude of extreme weather events including flash floods, forest fires, landslides and cyclones – and the economic, environmental and social damage they cause.

In an era of climate disasters, Australia needs to avoid getting caught in a spiral of simply responding to events. As one of the primary security threats of this century, we know climate change is a huge challenge for Australia’s strategic and foreign policy. But it is also an opportunity.

Southeast Asian countries will increasingly be looking for renewable energy sources, green commodities, critical minerals and associated technologies and infrastructure, with countries as diverse as Singapore, Vietnam and Cambodia and Laos all putting in place national green growth plans.

Australia’s resources

Australia should be in a position to facilitate this. It has a major competitive advantage thanks to its renewable energy resources.

One provider, Sun Cable, estimates its undersea cable from Darwin could provide up to 15% of Singapore’s electricity supply.

Australia’s natural endowment of nickel, copper, lithium and cobalt are critical to the development of solar panels and electric vehicles (which in turn can lead to job creation in raw materials, technological development and service delivery).

Read more:
IPCC says the tools to stop catastrophic climate change are in our hands. Here’s how to use them

Southeast Asian countries are looking for partners in their energy transition not just within ASEAN but among other countries. Australia’s recent green economy agreements with Singapore, Indonesia and Vietnam demonstrate this. But there are other countries who could also take advantage of this market. For example, major players in hydrogen include Japan, Korea, China and Germany.

There are barriers to overcome

To achieve this, Australia will need to overcome ambivalence and inconsistency around climate and energy policy. This has led to uncertainty for energy market operators meaning they can’t plan and commit to major projects.

In many Southeast Asian countries, there are also vested interests and political calculations that create barriers. For example, there are strong political incentives to subsidise fossil fuels in some countries that have to be managed, as Indonesia did when it scrapped petrol subsidies.

Finding ways for those who currently benefit from fossil fuel to benefit from renewables may be necessary to help them transition.

Read more:
Climate change is a security threat the government keeps ignoring. We’ll show up empty handed to yet another global summit

A window of opportunity

There is a window of opportunity for Australia to become actively involved in influencing Southeast Asian economies towards sustainable infrastructure and renewable energy sources.

Australia could use blended finance – where development finance attracts private finance – to support investment. For example, blended finance into Indonesia’s emerging car battery industry could help it become a global electric vehicle manufacturing hub, both securing a critical tech supply chain and expanding export markets for Australian lithium.

Government has a role in compiling and promoting up-to-date assessments of regional needs and Australia’s opportunity to supply these, including in critical minerals, green steel, green aluminium and hydrogen. As industry becomes more aware of the opportunities for Australian renewable exports, the volume will rise.

Australia should also work with regional bodies on related policy issues, including standards, certification and regulation and with Southeast Asian governments on policy creation and regulation. Australian can share its expertise around energy market design to assist with development of a region-wide ASEAN electricity market.

The pathways are there for Australia to be a significant partner to achieve the global goal of net zero by 2050 in Southeast Asia, a region that will be a litmus test for the rest of the world.

Read more:
As Asia faces climate change upheaval, how will Australia respond?

Melissa Conley Tyler is Program Lead at the Asia-Pacific Development, Diplomacy & Defence Dialogue (AP4D). This research is based on a report “What does it look like for Australia to be a Partner in Climate Leadership in Southeast Asia?” funded by the Australian Civil-Military Centre. Thanks to all those involved in consultations to produce this report.

– ref. Imagine it’s 2030 and Australia is a renewable energy superpower in Southeast Asia – https://theconversation.com/imagine-its-2030-and-australia-is-a-renewable-energy-superpower-in-southeast-asia-177646

Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Marcus Harmes, Professor in Pathways Education, University of Southern Queensland

The BBC’s announcement that the Rwandan-Scottish actor Ncuti Gatwa will play Doctor Who from 2023 is making global headlines.

Even people who don’t watch the show have been taking to social media to comment about Gatwa’s casting. The announcement makes his the 14th casting of the show’s lead actor, the 13th to be male and the first ever to be a person of colour.

Despite a few of the usual gloomy voices, there is genuine excitement among both fans and casual viewers, proving that his casting means the 14th Doctor and the show’s 60th year look to be special.

Changing with the times

Necessity is the mother of invention, as the saying goes, and necessity has enabled Doctor Who’s incredible near six decades of (interrupted) production to become the world’s most enduring science fiction series.

William Hartnell, a veteran film and stage actor, was announced as the lead in a new science fiction series in 1963 and viewers watched his adventures in space and time over the next three years.

By October 1966, Hartnell was exhausted and unwell, arteriosclerosis affecting his ability to learn lines. The BBC could cancel the show, or, do something inventive and keep the character and series intact but change the lead actor.

Patrick Troughton, another respected and prolific actor, became the Doctor. Because the Doctor is an alien Time Lord, the character has the ability to regenerate when his or her body becomes old, ill, or injured. The excellence of Troughton’s performance meant the renewal of the character was a success, now repeated more than a dozen times.

Thinking of the incredible contrast between Hartnell and Gatwa, is reminder of not only how long Doctor Who has lasted, but how the British acting profession and indeed Britain itself has changed.

Born in Edwardian England in 1908, before the invention of television and before films had sound, Hartnell was an established leading man in his mid 50s when cast as the Doctor. Gatwa is a child of the nineties, born 1992.

From Hartnell to Gatwa

The black and white Doctor Who of the Hartnell era was also monochrome in more ways than one. An all-white leading cast of the Doctor and his companions reflected the demographics of the British acting profession of the time.

Gatwa’s casting in Doctor Who is owed to what the showrunner Russell T Davies called a brilliant and show stealing audition. His acting credentials are already sky high after the massive success of Sex Education.

Read more:
Netflix’s Sex Education is doing sex education better than most schools

Doctor Who has a history of showcasing not only performers from minority backgrounds but narratives and histories of people of colour.

Besides the casting of Noel Clarke, Freema Agyeman and Pearl Mackie, to most recently Tosin Cole and Mandip Gill, the series has made casting choices that insist on the presence of black and minority ethnic people in Britain’s future and past.

The classic Doctor Who (made 1963-1989) did cast actors from minority backgrounds, but not as Doctors or companions. Since the David Tennant era (2005-2010) the show runners have made diversity part of their casting process for leads and guests alike.

Sophie Okonedo played Liz X, a British queen in the far future, while stories set in Roman Britain and 16th and 17th century England made casting choices that reflected the historically accurate presence of black people in pre-modern and early modern England.

Gender is not scary

To say that in 2017 the casting of Jodie Whittaker as the Doctor after 12 men in succession caused an epic meltdown is an understatement.

The Australian comedian Mark Humphries hilariously satirised the reactions of mostly older male fans in a sketch offering a helpline for Doctor Who fans unable to cope with the “new reality: a fictional alien that is a woman”.

Immediately after her casting, Whittaker had to assure male fans not be afraid of her gender. The anger and fear that, from some quarters, greeted her casting also prompted soul searching among fans on the sometimes unwelcoming space that fandom can be for females.

Towards 60 years

It is unlikely that Gatwa’s casting will provoke satire based on race the way Whittaker’s did on gender. However with the announcement only days old, already there is counter reaction.

The conservative Telegraph has declared this shows Doctor Who’s producers no longer care about pleasing “legacy fans”, presumably suggesting that viewers old enough to remember William Hartnell can’t cope with Ncuti Gatwa.

However doomsayers predicted the show would implode with a female lead: clearly it did not. Gatwa not only brings a huge following from Sex Education but a high social media profile.

He will be the lead for the show’s 60th anniversary special. What that special will involve is as yet unknown, but 60 is an astonishing age for a television program to reach.

When played by Hartnell, the Doctor cautioned against pessimism: “there must be no tears, no regrets, no anxieties” he said, a hopeful sentiment worth remembering as we watch a young actor take the TARDIS into a new decade.

Marcus Harmes 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. 60 years and 14 Doctors: how Doctor Who has changed with the times – and Ncuti Gatwa’s casting is the natural next step – https://theconversation.com/60-years-and-14-doctors-how-doctor-who-has-changed-with-the-times-and-ncuti-gatwas-casting-is-the-natural-next-step-182677

Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Jane Hall, Professor of Health Economics and Director, Centre for Health Economics Research and Evaluation, University of Technology Sydney

During elections, we usually hear calls for the government and opposition to commit to increasing funding for hospitals.

While states are responsible for running hospitals, the federal government shares responsibility for paying for them.

The federal government also has the primary responsibility for keeping people out of hospital – through the primary care system, which includes general practice.

South Australia is the latest state to pressure both major parties to commit to greater levels of federal funding for hospitals.

Past hospital funding agreements didn’t account for increasing volume

Although state and territory governments are responsible for managing public hospitals, they have been reliant on federal government contributions since the 1940s, when when the states lost some of their taxation powers during World War II.

States and territories became even more reliant on federal government funding with the advent of Medicare in the 1980s, which gave all Australians the right to free public hospital treatment.

Up to 2011, the federal government and the states and territories negotiated how much the federal government would pay every five years. Negotiations were often accompanied by blame-shifting and acrimony between premiers and prime ministers.

Read more:
Public hospital blame game – here’s how we got into this funding mess

As a result, federal funding for hospitals was influenced by the timing of elections and the cycle of the five-year agreements, reaching a low of 38% in 2007, down from around 50%.

This was, in part, due to the fact that the federal government’s contribution did not alter when hospital activity went up.

Hospitals are paid for each procedure

Since 2011, the federal contribution to public hospitals has been based on the number and type of patients treated. This is known as activity-based funding.

All states and territories measure hospital activity by case “type”, weighted to reflect the complexity of a hospital’s activity. A lung transplant, for example, has a higher value than resolving an ingrown toenail.

The idea of measuring hospital activity and even using this as a basis for funding is not new. What was new in 2011 was using activity-based funding to determine the federal contribution.

Since 2011, the federal government pays 45% of the growth in the cost of delivering hospital services each year. This means the federal government’s annual increase in contribution can reflect both additional costs and activity.

State and territory governments are responsible for the remaining costs.

Since 2017-18, the growth in federal government expenditure has been limited to 6.5% each year. So even if a hospital performs many more procedures than the previous year, the federal government caps its annual expenditure growth at 6.5% more than the previous year.

Funding also encourages efficiency

Activity is one component of hospital funding, the other is the price paid for each unit of activity. The basis for this is the “nationally efficient price”.

The Independent Hospital Pricing Authority determines this price, based on its analysis of actual costs and assessment of unavoidable and legitimate variations in costs. For example, the 2022-23 efficient price for a hip replacement was deemed to be A$19,798.

This means the price is the same across Australia. Adjustments are made for patients from rural and remote areas, and for Indigenous patients. Sicker patients or those with multiple underlying conditions will fall into a different case type, with a higher price.

This provides a benchmark for comparing hospital efficiency as well as the level of funding the hospital will receive.

The goal is to treat more patients but keep costs constrained

The hospital funding system is designed to address efficiency by providing incentives to increase output, while constraining the growth in costs.

Since 2011, we’ve seen a substantial reduction in the rate of increase in costs, with an overall growth rate of 2.1%.

Annual growth in costs (per national weighted activity unit):

But there is further to go

The Independent Hospital Pricing Authority has, in recent years, started measuring hospital quality. This has created financial incentives for hospital managers to minimise errors, complications and unnecessary re-admissions. But so far, these are still quite targeted and only apply to certain procedures.

Activity-based funding is criticised for funding activity irrespective of the value of that activity. Just like all fee-for-service payments, it encourages a greater volume of services.

If the level of admissions provided is too low and the hospital is treating too few patients, then incentives to increase the volume are appropriate. But if some services do little to improve patient health outcomes, or if there is too little investment in keeping people well, then a change in incentives is warranted.

COVID has added a further complication. Hospital activity was decreased, particularly by canclling elective admissions to maintain spare capacity to handle COVID admissions. And costs were increased due to infection control requirements, such as personal protective equipment and staff on furlough after exposure.

The latest federal-state/territory agreement commits all governments to explore better ways to pay for health care. This will require not just thinking about hospitals but understanding their place in the health system and how to improve co-ordination across community and primary care.

If elected, Labor and the Coalition have both said they’re open to having further discussions with the states and territories about hospital funding.

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

Jane Hall receives funding from the National Health and Medical Research Council; and is a member of the Independent Hospital Pricing Authority

Kees Van Gool receives funding from National Health and Medical Research Council. He is affiliated with the Independent Hospital Pricing Authority.

– ref. Remind me, how are hospitals funded in Australia? – https://theconversation.com/remind-me-how-are-hospitals-funded-in-australia-177915

Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Timothy Chapman, Postdoctoral Fellow in Geology, University of New England

Some 252 million years ago the world was going through a tumultuous period of rapid global warming.

To understand what caused it, scientists have looked to one particular event in which a volcanic eruption in what is now Siberia spewed huge volumes of greenhouse gas into the atmosphere.

However, there is evidence the climate was already changing before this.

Sea surface temperatures had increased by more than 6–8℃ in the hundreds of thousands of years leading up to the Siberian outpouring. Temperatures increased again after it, so much so that 85–95% of all living species eventually went extinct.

The eruption in Siberia obviously made a mark on the planet, but experts remained puzzled about what caused the initial warming before it.

Our research reveals Australia’s own ancient volcanoes played a big role. Prior to the event in Siberia, catastrophic eruptions in northern New South Wales spewed volcanic ash across the east coast.

These eruptions were so large they initiated the world’s biggest ever climate catastrophe — the evidence for which is now hidden deep in Australia’s thick piles of sediment.

Ancient volcanoes

Our study, published today in Nature, confirms eastern Australia was shaken by repeated “super eruptions” between 256 and 252 million years ago.

Super eruptions are different to the more passive Siberian event. These catastrophic explosions spewed massive amounts of ash and gasses high into the atmosphere.

Today we see evidence of this in light-coloured layers of volcanic ash in sedimentary rock. These layers are found across huge areas of NSW and Queensland, all the way from Sydney to near Townsville.

Our study has identified the source of this ash in the New England region of NSW, where the eroded remnants of volcanoes are preserved.

Though erosion has removed much of the evidence, the now innocuous-looking rocks are our record of terrifying eruptions. The thickness and spread of the ash produced is consistent with some of the largest volcanic eruptions known.

How big were the super eruptions?

At least 150,000 km³ of material erupted from the northern NSW volcanoes over four million years. This makes them similar to the supervolcanoes of Yellowstone in the United States and Taupo in New Zealand.

To put it into perspective, the 79AD eruption of Mt Vesuvius, which obliterated the Italian city of Pompeii, produced just 3–4km³ of rock and ash. And the deadly Mt St Helens eruption in 1980 was about 1km³.

The Australian eruptions would have repeatedly covered the entire east coast in ash — metres thick in some places. And a massive outpouring of greenhouse gases would have triggered global climate change.

Environmental devastation

Ancient sedimentary rocks provide us with a timeline of the environmental damage caused by the eruptions. Ironically, the evidence is preserved in coal measures.

Today’s coal deposits in eastern Australia show ancient forests used to cover much of this land. After the super eruptions, however, these forests were abruptly terminated in a series of bushfires over some 500,000 years, 252.5–253 million years ago.

Read more:
How Australia’s geology gave us an abundance of coal – and a wealth of greentech minerals to switch to

Typically the plant matter accumulated in swamps and was then buried under sediments. The burial process provided heat and pressure which enabled the conversion of the plant matter into coal.

Without the forests, there was no plant matter to accumulate. The ecosystem collapsed and most animals became extinct.

The subsequent eruptions in Siberia only exaggerated the devastation started by Australia’s supervolcanoes.

And this collapse of ecosystems was not limited to Australia, either. The catastrophic event affected all of the ancient continents. It had a substantial influence on the evolution of life — which eventually led to the rise of the dinosaurs.

Australia’s super eruptions were a key marker of change in the ancient world. As we look to achieving a more habitable climate in the future, who knew the clues to environmental catastrophe lay buried beneath our feet?

Acknowledgement: we would like to thank our colleague Phil Blevin from the Geological Survey of New South Wales for his contribution to this work.

Timothy Chapman has received funding from Australia Research Council. He is affiliated with the University of New England.

Ian Metcalfe is an Adjunct Professor at the University of New England and has received both Australian Research Council and industry grants for research on the Permian-Triassic boundary and end-Permian mass extinction.

Luke Milan is staff at the University of New England and has received funding from the Australian Research Council in the past.

– ref. How a volcanic bombardment in ancient Australia led to the world’s greatest climate catastrophe – https://theconversation.com/how-a-volcanic-bombardment-in-ancient-australia-led-to-the-worlds-greatest-climate-catastrophe-178037

Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By James Walter, Emeritus Professor of Political Science, Monash University

In troubled times, people look for strong leaders – men and women who offer decisive action to address collective problems, and promise the capacity to deliver. They initially present as larger-than-life characters, and we’ve had our share of them: Robert Menzies, Gough Whitlam, Bob Hawke, Paul Keating and perhaps Kevin Rudd.

The dual problems of the pandemic (with its tail of economic problems) and of the destabilisation of the international order, with the rise of an assertive China and the outbreak of war in Europe, has provoked a crisis mentality in which the demand for such leadership is intensified.

Read more:
How changing times made Australia’s political leaders more disposable

But when one ponders the daily newsfeed of the election campaign and the record of the past three years, the results are dispiriting. Each of the major parties is spraying cash at carefully targeted demographic sectors and seats. Neither is showing leadership in addressing the budget problems that portend a horror budget after the election.

The one-man band that was Scott Morrison in the 2019 campaign has failed to deliver, and he is trying to run the same campaign in different circumstances. The cautious superintendence of a small-palette agenda by Anthony Albanese has led many to castigate its lack of ambition. The major parties are in decline, and neither appears capable of delivering the big ideas needed for current challenges.

Consider Morrison’s claim to the mantle of strong leadership. If one rates him against John Howard – not a larger-than-life character but certainly a strong leader – Morrison fails to measure up. Howard had a rocky first term, but demonstrated the courage of his convictions early with gun law reform, despite opposition from the National Party and many in rural constituencies.

He ran a disciplined cabinet, and persisted with the economic reforms introduced by Labor but adapted them to his own purposes, building a coherent policy program. He made the brave decision to introduce a goods and services tax (GST), and never introduced a new policy measure without showing how it aligned with specific liberal values, rather than waffling about “Australian” values.

He carried his party with him, regularly visiting party branches to talk with and listen to members. He could rightfully claim that whether people agreed or disagreed with him, they knew who he was and what he was about. The result: eventually he “owned” the party.

Now Morrison, too, has had a difficult first term, with challenges not of his making. But there has been no courageous decision, and certainly not the will to challenge the way in which he has been held hostage by the National Party and its costly demands.

Morrison has been reactive rather than proactive: rarely thinking long-term, but preoccupied with the immediate. He has failed to see crises coming or imagine what his role in addressing them should be.

The overwhelming impression is that there is nothing of substance behind the “ScoMo” persona. And it is a canker that has spread throughout the government as the paucity of policies now on offer demonstrates.

Read more:
Leaders only inspire when we feel part of their group

What, then, of the Labor Party? Anthony Albanese is not a big personality, like Hawke or Keating, nor an adept media operator like Rudd or Morrison. He is not a dominating figure on the campaign trail, although he managed to outfox Morrison in both leaders’ debates so far.

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

In having been careful not to present a big target, open to the demolition Morrison visited upon Shorten, he has disappointed the Labor faithful.

To take one instance, the party has had three years to address a factor thought to be integral to Labor’s loss in 2019: its disregard of the impact of its climate transition policies on the communities most affected.

Its failure since to prosecute the case for the transition to renewables as presenting opportunities and growth is inexcusable. It has now done so in a detailed and costed policy proposal, but too late: those front-line communities think neither party has done enough to explain any advantage that will offset the disappearance of jobs so long central to their economies.

Maybe the same might be said of the Labor policies now presented: they are modest, and beg questions about how they might be afforded. But they promise to take action on and responsibility for real problems in health, aged care, the energy transition and jobs, gender pay equity, manufacturing and housing affordability.

Unlike the Coalition’s policy program, Labor’s relies on substantiating research and represents a start that might in the right circumstances be built upon. Still, Albanese and his team will have their work cut out to convey these messages when few are paying attention.

Perhaps we need finally to be looking for different leadership capacities. Julia Gillard, after all, did not present as a strong leader in 2010 relative to Rudd in 2007.

Yet, despite having to negotiate in a minority government, being belittled and demeaned by Tony Abbott and his colleagues, incrementally undermined by some within her own ranks, and continually under assault in some media quarters, she was the closer on much that Rudd left unfinished, achieved the only workable emissions-reduction scheme we have had to date, and passed more legislation than any other administration, not all of which the Coalition has subsequently been able to reverse.

Read more:
Australians to our leaders: ‘lift your game and think long term’

At Albanese’s campaign launch, journalist Katherine Murphy noted he was modelling a different style of leadership:

He’s not a powerful orator […] He didn’t seek to dominate the room: he sought connections in it, looking for faces, connections, cues[…] [without] the hallmarks of toxic masculinity. Rather than a set jaw, there’s an incline of the head, a gesture of listening – a physical glance at humility.

This brings to mind John Bew’s marvellous biography of Clement Attlee. In the 1945 British election, the Tories and some in his own Labour Party ranks assumed that Attlee – a diminutive, unassuming man they called “a sheep in sheep’s clothing” – would be overpowered by the venerated war leader Winston Churchill. Yet Attlee prevailed, and then presided over a transformation of British society that has led to Bew arguing persuasively that he was Britain’s greatest peacetime prime minister. Might Albanese be Australia’s own Attlee?

James Walter 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. Times are tough, and may get tougher, so where can Australians find strong political leadership? – https://theconversation.com/times-are-tough-and-may-get-tougher-so-where-can-australians-find-strong-political-leadership-182326

Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Treasure McGuire, Assistant Director of Pharmacy, Mater Health SEQ in conjoint appointment as Associate Professor of Pharmacology, Bond University and Associate Professor (Clinical), The University of Queensland

Australia’s surge in COVID cases this year has seen many people looking for ways to protect themselves or boost their immunity and recovery. An upswing in sales of dietary supplements has followed.

In Australia, the Therapeutic Goods Administration includes vitamins, minerals, amino acids, enzymes, plant extracts and microbiome supplements under the term “complementary medicine”.

The supplement industry’s global estimated worth  was about US $170 billion (A$239 billion) in 2020. Australian complementary medicines revenue was estimated at A$5.69 billion in 2021 – doubling in size over the past decade. The latest data shows 73% of Australians bought complementary medicines in the previous year, with vitamins featuring in more than half of purchases.

But how likely are these purchases to be effective in preventing COVID or treating it?

Fear, avoidance and laboratory studies

Historically, the public has purchased supplements from sources that also provide health-care advice. Lockdowns and blanket health messages about social distancing and personal hygiene have created a new normal. So people are doing more shopping online for supplements and turning to the internet, friends or social media for vitamin recommendations. For some, this has led to an unhealthy fear of COVID (coronaphobia) and negative impacts on daily life.

As with any medicine, consumers should seek information from reliable sources (doctors, pharmacists or evidence-based peer-reviewed articles) about the potential benefits and harms of supplements before purchase. Strong evidence supports vaccination as effective against the acute respiratory symptoms of COVID. Researchers have also looked at whether supplements may prevent or reduce the duration and severity of this viral infection by boosting the immune response.

Deficiencies in essential nutrients that support immune function (vitamin C, vitamin D, zinc and selenium) have been shown to increase susceptibility to infection, including COVID. But there is little evidence supplementation in a healthy person prevents respiratory infections such as COVID. An evidence gap exists between a supplement’s action in laboratory or animal studies and findings from well designed and conducted clinical trials.

Read more:
No, CBD is not a miracle molecule that can cure coronavirus, just as it won’t cure many other maladies its proponents claim

A pandemic ‘infodemic’

Ready access to supplements without a prescription from a myriad of online and shopfront sources and the uncontrolled spread of claims that supplements can prevent or treat COVID symptoms, has created an “infodemic”.

These claims are fuelled by supplement manufacturers being able to “list” their products on the Australian Register of Therapeutic Goods, with limited evidence of safety or effectiveness. This appearance of official approval tallies with the common misperception that “natural” means “safe”.

Supplements can cause harm in the form of adverse effects, drug interactions and expense. They also add to a patient’s medication burden, may delay more effective therapy, or give false hope to the vulnerable.

Read more:
Lemon water won’t detox or energise you. But it may affect your body in other ways

Vitamins A to zinc

The recent COVID A to Z Study illustrates some of the challenges involved.

It was designed to test the effectiveness of high-dose zinc, vitamin C, and a combination of both, to shorten the duration of COVID-related symptoms compared with usual care in adult outpatients with confirmed infection.

These nutrients were chosen because:

• vitamin C studies in mice showed this antioxidant to be essential for antiviral immune responses against the influenza A virus, especially in the early stages of the infection
• deficiency of zinc, an essential trace element, has been associated with increased susceptibility to viral infections.

The authors planned to include 520 patients but the safety monitoring committee recommended the study be stopped early, due to low likelihood of detecting significant outcome differences between the groups. There were also more adverse effects (nausea, diarrhoea, and stomach cramps) reported in the supplement groups than those receiving usual care.

Little evidence of benefits

Despite the large variety of complementary medicines marketed, most clinical trials to date have studied the impact of vitamin D, vitamin C or zinc to reduce the risk of contracting COVID, improve rates of hospitalisation or death.

Even with high treatment doses, results have been generally disappointing. Vitamin D, zinc and some probiotics may be beneficial to prevent viral infections. Vitamins D, C, A, zinc, calcium and some probiotics may be beneficial to treat viral infections. But other supplements studied (including copper, magnesium, selenium and echinacea) are unlikely to be beneficial or are not supported by sufficient data.

However, supplements may be beneficial when individuals are unable to achieve a balanced and varied diet.

Read more:
Sugar detox? Cutting carbs? A doctor explains why you should keep fruit on the menu

Potentially harmful

High doses or chronic use of COVID supplements have also been linked with adverse effects: vitamin D with muscle pain and loss of bone mass; vitamin A with elevated liver function tests and blurred vision; vitamin E with bleeding risk; plant extracts, magnesium with gastrointestinal effects; and selenium with hair loss and brittle nails.

So, the evidence is not convincing that taking vitamins and supplements will prevent you catching COVID or help you recover from the infection, unless you have a known nutrient deficiency or a poor diet.

Read more:
Vitamins and minerals aren’t risk-free. Here are 6 ways they can cause harm

Treasure McGuire 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. Can taking vitamins and supplements help you recover from COVID? – https://theconversation.com/can-taking-vitamins-and-supplements-help-you-recover-from-covid-182220

Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Jake Whitehead, E-Mobility Research Fellow, The University of Queensland

Poll after poll suggests climate change is one of the most pressing issues for Australian voters. Of the 10,000 people who responded to The Conversation’s #SetTheAgenda poll, more than 60% picked climate change as the issue most impacting their lives.

And yet, climate change has barely been discussed by either major party in this election campaign so far.

Since the last federal election, we’ve watched record-smashing floods, bushfires and heatwaves take lives and destroy livelihoods, corroding our national spirit. Disasters such as these will worsen with every fraction of a degree of global warming. Which town will be hit next? Who will be trapped by rising floodwater, or encroaching flames?

Strong national policies on climate change will help us be better prepared, bring global emissions down, and provide strong leadership in this time of crisis. So how did the major parties’ climate policies stack up? We asked five experts to analyse and grade different aspects of this enormous portfolio.

Here are their detailed responses:

Coalition

Labor

Dr Jake Whitehead is on unpaid leave from his role as a Research Fellow at The University of Queensland. He was a Lead Author of the AR6 Transport Chapter for The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), a Member of the International Electric Vehicle Policy Council, and Director of Transmobility Consulting. He has previously received government and industry funding for several sustainable transport projects, including research on both hydrogen and electric vehicles, and mobility-as-a-service. He is also holds a part-time position as the Head of Policy at the Electric Vehicle Council.

Ian Lowe is emeritus professor of science, technology and society at Griffith University. He received funding from the national energy council in the 1980s for a study of Australia’s energy options up to 2030. He was president of the Australian Conservation Foundation from 2004 to 2014.

Johanna Nalau is an Australian Research Council DECRA Fellow at Griffith University and receives funding from the Australian Research Council. She is a Lead Author of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change Working Group II (Chapter 15 and Summary for Policymakers) and Co-Chair of the Science Committee in the World Adaptation Science Program at United Nations Environment Program.

Matt McDonald has received funding from the Australian Research Council and the Economic and Social Research Council in the UK.

Samantha Hepburn 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 do the major parties rate on climate policies? We asked 5 experts – https://theconversation.com/how-do-the-major-parties-rate-on-climate-policies-we-asked-5-experts-181790

Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Mandy Treagus, Associate Professor, Department of English, Creative Writing and Film, University of Adelaide

When the final 12 episodes of Grace and Frankie were released, the show became the longest running television series on Netflix.

Over 94 episodes, this unlikely hit went where no other series had taken viewers: into the lives of older women forced to restart their lives, both socially and sexually, after their marriages of 40 years had ended.

Their husbands’ revelation that they had been lovers for 20 years – and now planned to marry each other – threw the central characters fractiously together in an admittedly idyllic San Diego beach house.

The show broke new ground when it launched in 2015, not only for its frank and fearless portrayal of ageing, but because its central characters were ageing women.

Older women are one of the least visible demographics on television, and to see them front and centre is still unusual.

The Golden Girls (1985-92) is the only real precedent for Grace and Frankie, although the ages of its characters are surprising in retrospect.

In the first season of The Golden Girls, Rose is 55, Dorothy is 53, Blanche is 47 and Sophia is 79. In the reboot of Sex and the City, And Just Like That…, Miranda and Charlotte are 54, while Carrie is 55 – and they are certainly not portrayed as old.

But at the start of this series, Grace (Jane Fonda), Frankie (Lily Tomlin) and their former partners Robert (Martin Sheen) and Sol (Sam Waterson), are in their 70s.

Read more:
And Just Like That: how Sex and the City sequel is broadening the representation of 50+ women on TV

The trouble with ageing

The show covers many of the issues of ageing from the perspective of the aged. These include a broad range of health problems – arthritis, immobility, a knee reconstruction and mini-strokes – as well as negotiating the competing claims of children, grandchildren, lovers and friends.

In season four, following multiple health issues and falling victim to a major scam, Grace and Frankie are tricked by their children into moving into aged care.

When they find that they are not allowed to run a business there – among other lost freedoms – they launch an escape bid, stealing a golf cart and heading back to the beach house which has been sold from under them.

The issue of children making choices for their ageing parents against their will is fraught. Older parents often require assistance from their children but at the same time don’t want to lose their autonomy. Children can jump in to resolve issues without taking their parents’ agency into account.

Here, this tension is mostly a source of humour at the expense of the aged care home. But Grace and Frankie also gives a glimpse into how vulnerable people can become when they have health issues.

Read more:
For Australians to have the choice of growing old at home, here is what needs to change

Let’s talk about sex

One of the most striking elements of the show is its forthright approach to sex. Part of this is the frank acknowledgement that with age comes certain sexual challenges.

Typically, popular culture has run from the idea that older women could be sexual, especially as they do not conform to dominant ideas of beauty.

The issue of what is often obliquely referred to as “feminine dryness” is tackled directly when Frankie concocts a lube from yams.

Together, both Grace and Frankie also develop a vibrator that not only takes account of arthritic hands but also of limited mobility.

Though it provides the opportunity for numerous missteps, their company “Vybrant” is ultimately a success, with women of all ages giving the product rapturous endorsement.

Giving women the power to take control of their own sexual needs is something the show is emphatic about.

Read more:
When it comes to older people and sex, doctors put their heads in the sand

Finding joy

Bringing the challenges of coming out in your 70s for Robert and Sol into mainstream programming is also ground-breaking. Older gay men are another group who rarely see themselves on television.

Aspects of gay life – equal marriage, polyamory, promiscuity and leather men, together with gay musical theatre and obsessive dog ownership – are all depicted as part of the new world Robert and Sol enter into.

Coming out, and living the lives they have longed for, has its ongoing challenges for both characters. It is this willingness to look at every issue with both honesty and humour that has marked the approach by directors and writers Marta Kauffman and Howard J. Morris and made the show such a success.

The key focus of Grace and Frankie, despite its many diversions into the lives of ex-husbands, new lovers, friends and children, is always the friendship of Grace and Frankie.

Their friendship is hard won, severely tested, and often seems completely over – but it is the central love of both women’s lives, enabling them to go into old age with confidence, support and times of joy.

Mandy Treagus 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. Grace and Frankie is the longest running series on Netflix – and a show for women who don’t see themselves on television – https://theconversation.com/grace-and-frankie-is-the-longest-running-series-on-netflix-and-a-show-for-women-who-dont-see-themselves-on-television-182298

Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Heather Shearer, Research Fellow, Cities Research Institute, Griffith University

Rental housing in Australia is less affordable than ever before. It is no exaggeration to call the situation a crisis, with vacancy rates at record lows.

But there are some relatively simple, easy-to-implement and cost-effective things that can be done to ease rental affordability pressures.

These include relaxing planning restrictions on small and non-traditional houses, allowing granny flats to be rented to anyone, permitting property owners to let space to tiny house dwellers, and possibly even subsidising the building of granny flats or modification of houses for dual occupancy.

Read more:
Stability and security: the keys to closing the mental health gap between renters and home owners

‘Dependant’ persons only

The degree to which local councils permit very small dwellings depends on factors such as dwelling type, lot characteristics, planning scheme zoning and overlays, and state regulations.

Subject to these constraints, granny flats are generally legal in Australia, though states such as Queensland and Victoria restrict who can live in them.

In Queensland, most councils limit occupancy to members of the same household, defined as a group who “live together on a long-term basis and make common provision for food or other essentials for living”.

In Victoria, granny flats can only “provide accommodation for a person who is dependant on a resident of the existing dwelling” (and are hence called Dependant Person’s Units).

While these laws are sometimes ignored, they limit the potential for this affordable housing option for other individuals who struggle in the housing market. Extra council regulations and fees also make building a granny flat complicated, time-consuming and expensive, particularly if they incur infrastructure charges.

Desperately seeking parking space

Tiny houses, especially those on wheels, are typically not approved for permanent residence. Councils consider them caravans, with periods of permitted occupancy ranging from zero to about three months.

Some councils will tolerate them but, if receiving a complaint, can demand the tiny house be removed at short notice.

This can cause extreme distress. Some tiny house owners report living in constant fear of being moved on. In recent years we’ve seen increasing numbers of posts on tiny house social media pages pleading for “parking space”.

Because of these barriers, most tiny houses in Australia aren’t in urban areas, where demand for rental properties is highest, but hidden “under the radar” in more rural areas.

These areas typically have poorer access to public transport, employment, education and health services. If unknown to authorities, tiny house dwellers may also be at higher risk from natural disasters such as bushfires and floods.

Benefits from easing restrictions

Removing some restrictions on letting granny flats and permitting and regulating longer-term occupancy for tiny house dwellers can help ease these rental affordability challenges.

There are other benefits too. For local councils trying to limit unsustainable, low-density expansion on their fringes, these changes enable a relatively gentle and unobtrusive form of densification in places where resistance to change is common.

It could also support more ageing in place (enabling the elderly to downsize while staying in their neighbourhood), reduce development pressures on the natural environment, and provide valuable income both for home owners and give local councils a new stream of rate income.

Read more:
So, you want to live tiny? Here’s what to consider when choosing a house, van or caravan

Allowing property owners to let space to a tiny-house dweller (with appropriate regulations on aesthetic appearance, safety features and environmental impacts) could be a cost-effective and rapid way to increase rental supply for some demographics. Single women over 50, for example, are at high risk of homelessness and also the demographic most interested in tiny house living.

This crisis needs innovative responses

We have seen that, when disasters strike, governments can introduce innovative responses to local housing crises.

In response to the massive floods of February and March, the New South Wales government’s Temporary Accommodation Policy changed the rules to allow a moveable dwelling or manufactured home to be placed in a disaster-affected area for up to two years, or longer subject to council approval.

Allowing tiny houses for a trial period of, say, two years could provide a valuable pilot project, and perhaps alleviate the concerns of some local ratepayers. In nine years of research into the tiny house movement in Australia, we have found some councils are willing to consider permitting tiny houses – but only if another council does it first.

A longer-term solution is to encourage the building of more granny flats as part of a program of moderate densification, as is happening in Auckland, New Zealand.

Rather than subsidising expensive renovations of existing homes – as the Morrison government did with its HomeBuilder grants scheme – federal, state and territory governments could offer incentives to divide or extend homes in well-designed and sustainably constructed ways to enable dual living.

Read more:
Up on a roof: why New Zealand’s move towards greater urban density should see a rooftop revolution

While not as visibly dramatic as floods and bushfires, the crisis of housing affordability deserves equally imaginative policy responses. After all, adequate housing is enshrined in the UN’s Universal Declaration of Human Rights.

The crisis is complex and multifaceted. There are no easy solutions to address it in its entirety, and for every demographic. Tiny houses and granny flats are not suitable for all households. But business as usual is no solution.

We need a willingness to experiment with and learn from innovative and even disruptive approaches.

Heather Shearer is a member of the Australian Greens Party and of the Australian Tiny House Association.

Paul Burton receives funding from the ARC (LP 190101218) and the City of Gold Coast as part of a long-standing Urban Growth Management Partnership. He is a Vice President of the Queensland Division of the Planning Institute of Australia and a member of the National Education Committee of PIA.

– ref. Tiny and alternate houses can help ease Australia’s rental affordability crisis – https://theconversation.com/tiny-and-alternate-houses-can-help-ease-australias-rental-affordability-crisis-182328

Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Michael Ambrose, Research Team Leader, CSIRO

Apartment living is booming in Australia. Many people choose apartments for their good energy efficiency, which reduces the need for heating and cooling and leads to lower power bills. But not every apartment is as energy efficient as the development advertises.

All proposed new dwellings, including apartments, require an energy rating certificate. Generally, apartments achieve a higher average energy star rating than houses in the same area.

However, the method used to assess and report the energy efficiency of new developments – averaged across the entire development – could lead some purchasers to believe their new apartment is more energy efficient than it is.

My colleagues and I collected energy rating profiles for more than 5,500 apartment developments across Australia to explore what’s really going on. In many cases, we found clusters of apartments far below the energy star rating for the complex as a whole.

Averages can be misleading

Australia’s home energy star ratings are formally known as the Nationwide House Energy Rating Scheme (NatHERS). The scheme measures the “thermal performance” of a new home – or how well it remains at a comfortable temperature without artificial heating or cooling.

Last year in New South Wales, 58% of all energy rating certificates issued were for new apartments, reflecting the popularity of this type of dwelling.

In some areas, demand for apartments is skyrocketing. In the ACT, for example, 33% of certificates issued last year were for apartments, up from 7% four years earlier.

For a residential development to comply with the National Construction Code, the average rating across all apartments must be at least 6 stars. The maximum rating is 10 stars. Across Australia last year, the average rating of new apartments was 6.6 stars, compared to an average of 6.2 stars for houses.

This averaging process means some apartments may be above the average and some below. It may also mean some individual apartments don’t meet the minimum 6 star requirement.

In fact, there may be a significant cluster of apartments that rate below 6 stars – for example, west-facing apartments exposed to the afternoon sun that require a lot of cooling.

Conversely, a small number of apartments may rate well above 6 stars. These may be north-facing apartments that are also well insulated by other apartments above, below and on either side. These apartments will pull up the average star rating of the development.

This is a legitimate approach to energy ratings of apartment blocks. But it does raise an important question: do buyers know the energy rating of their individual apartment – especially those apartments with a below-average rating?

Read more:
Low-energy homes don’t just save money, they improve lives

Crunching the numbers

We collected data from NatHERS certificates for more than 5,500 apartment developments across Australia comprising both the certificates for individual apartments and the rating of developments as a whole.

Generally, ratings for individual apartments were close to the average of the entire complex. But in about 19% of apartment developments, at least 10% of apartments rated 5 stars or lower.

The chart below shows the star rating distribution for a development in Melbourne with about 150 apartments. The average star rating for the development was 6.2 stars. However, 47% of apartments rated below 6 stars while 23% rated above 7 stars.

We also examined a large development in Sydney with more than 400 apartments. The development has an average rating of 7 stars. However, as illustrated below, 16% of apartments rate below 6 stars and 1% (five apartments) are below 5 stars.

Those five apartment owners will likely have much higher energy costs than most of their neighbours. But they may not have realised that at the time of purchase, and the sale price may not have reflected this poorer energy performance.

Know what you’re buying

Energy ratings are mandatory for all new individual dwellings in Australia. However, providing the result to consumers is not.

Recent research has shown most real estate advertisements do not promote a home’s energy rating, and real agents often don’t know what the rating is.

Energy rating certificates could be included as standard in the information provided to someone looking to buy an apartment.

But in the meantime, if you’re planning on buying a new apartment, ask for a copy of the energy rating certificate. Only then will you know what you’re paying for.

Read more:
House hunters are rarely told the home energy rating – little wonder the average is as low as 1.8 stars

Michael Ambrose has received funding from government departments including the Department of Industry, Science, Energy and Resources. CSIRO owns the AccuRate Sustainability software which is the benchmark tool used in the NatHERS software accreditation process. CSIRO receives financial benefit from the creation of NatHERS Certificates which is then used to maintain and develop the accreditation software.

– ref. Analysis of 5,500 apartment developments reveals your new home may not be as energy efficient as you think – https://theconversation.com/analysis-of-5-500-apartment-developments-reveals-your-new-home-may-not-be-as-energy-efficient-as-you-think-182143

Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Stephen Morey, Senior Lecturer, Department of Languages and Linguistics, La Trobe University

In Australia, we choose our political representatives and governments through a democratic electoral system.

Generally, these systems should have four main aims. These are to:

1. secure easy access to voting for everyone of voting age

2. ensure the party whose candidates attract the most votes wins a majority in parliament

3. establish a parliament that, as much as possible, represents the opinions of all voters

4. uphold the equal value of each individual vote.

With a federal election fast approaching, let’s assess Australia’s own electoral system.

Overall, Australia rates well on access to voting and on ensuring the most popular party wins government.

But there’s still room for improvement to ensure the largest possible number of people have a member of parliament they feel represents them, and to reduce the number of wasted votes.

1. Access to voting

Australia is good at encouraging people to vote, made easier by the fact it’s compulsory.

The Australian Electoral Commission runs campaigns to get voters enrolled, and has achieved some success in the lead-up to the May 21 election.

But the cut-off date for this election was April 18 – a full 33 days before election day. This early closing date is to ensure the electoral roll is complete before candidate nominations close. But this means some people will miss out on voting, which isn’t ideal.

In some countries, people can claim enrolment even on election day. Introducing this in Australia may improve our electoral system.

Australia is also great at giving voters multiple choices for how and when they can vote.

Elections are held on a Saturday when more people, particularly working professionals, have ample time to attend a polling booth.

But if you can’t, there’s postal voting and early voting at pre-poll centres. And if you’re not in your own area, you can still vote.

So on access to voting, I score Australia 4.5 stars out of 5.

2. Government by majority

We usually elect one of two major parties preferred by a majority of voters.

However, the growing number of political parties has made this process more complex.

In 1974, Labor won 49% of the first preferences and the Coalition 46%, which translated into a narrow Labor majority. Back then, almost everyone voted for candidates from major parties.

A year later, in 1975, Coalition candidates won 53% of the votes, which led to a large Liberal majority. This was the last time any party won a majority of first preference votes at a federal election (Bob Hawke came close in 1983 with 49% for Labor).

Read more:
You don’t understand me: is local politics truly representative of the people?

So how can we be sure the party we want is winning government?

In Australia, we have preferential voting. This means we’re required to mark preferences one, two, three, and beyond. It means we can calculate a “two-party-preferred vote” – whether you ultimately prefer Labor over the Coalition or vice-versa.

In Australian elections, the party with the majority of two-party-preferred votes has generally won.

But not always. In 1998, Labor won 51% after preferences, but still lost the election. This happens when parties have a lot of safe seats, but narrowly lose the more marginal seats.

So on government by majority, I score Australia 4 stars.

3. Ensuring everyone is represented

In the Senate, there are Labor, Coalition, and Greens members in every state. In some states, there are others from the Centre Alliance, Jacqui Lambie Network, and One Nation parties, as well as independents such as Rex Patrick.

So at least in the Senate, a large majority of voters have a senator representing a party they voted for.

However, that isn’t the case in the House of Representatives.

In seats where no candidates gained 50% of first preferences, the winner received less than 40% of the first preferences. As a result, these candidates were only elected narrowly by transfer of preferences.

In the electorate of Macquarie in 2019, for example, Labor MP Susan Templeman won just 38% of the votes but narrowly scraped through with 50.2% after preferences.

She was the candidate ultimately preferred by most voters, but the 49.8% who preferred someone else aren’t represented by a candidate they wanted.

A proportional system like the one for state elections in Tasmania would more fairly represent the majority of voters, with more than 85% of people voting for candidates from parties that were elected to represent them.

On making sure everyone is represented, I’d give us 3.5 stars, because there are too many people who don’t feel represented.

4. Equal (and not wasted) votes

Equality of votes is less straightforward.

Since Federation, 12 senators have been appointed to the Senate from each state, regardless of their respective populations.

As a result, in 2019, it took 50,285 votes to win a Senate spot in Tasmania but 670,761 votes in New South Wales.

In the House of Representatives, each electorate has more or less the same number of voters. It’s effectively a “one person, one vote” system.

In reality, however, there are many wasted votes due to “safe seats” – those that almost never change party.

This is why ABC election analyst Antony Green lists only 49 seats as “key seats” despite there being 151 seats in the House of Representatives. In other words, over two-thirds are essentially safe seats.

Some would argue voters in these 104 safe seats don’t contribute to the election result. But in actual fact they do, because a seat only becomes safe if supported by the majority of voters.

In proportional systems like Tasmania and the ACT, there are no truly safe seats, because names on the ballot paper are rotated and the voters choose which candidates from which party are elected.

Proportional systems also reduce the number of “wasted votes”. In our preferential system, most MPs in the House of Representatives win with between 50.1% and 60% of the votes after preferences. That means between 49.9% and 40% are voting for defeated candidates. These votes are “wasted” in the sense that they don’t lead to the election of a candidate. But in the Senate, which uses proportional voting, at least 85% of votes count to the elected candidates.

Since the House of Representatives is the main game, and there are too many people whose votes don’t elect anyone in that house, I can only give 3 stars for us on this.

Australia has a good electoral system, and the rules of the election are conducted very fairly by the independent Australian Electoral Commission. But there are aspects that could be improved. So let’s give ourselves a mark of 15/20 and work to make it even better.

Stephen Morey is the National Secretary of the Proportional Representation Society of Australia (prsa.org.au). He is also a life member of the Australian Labor Party but does not hold any position within that organisation.

– ref. Is our electoral system truly democratic? How Australia stacks up on 4 key measures – https://theconversation.com/is-our-electoral-system-truly-democratic-how-australia-stacks-up-on-4-key-measures-180868

Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Matthew Hall, Senior Researcher, Environmental Law Initiative and Visiting Scholar, Faculty of Law, Te Herenga Waka — Victoria University of Wellington

Nature in Aotearoa New Zealand is in serious trouble. With many of our species and habitats at risk of disappearing forever, the government’s 2020 biodiversity strategy sets the scene in stark terms:

Despite all that we are doing to try to protect and restore habitats and assist species, Papaptūānuku and Aotearoa New Zealand’s indigenous biodiversity is in crisis.
Around 4,000 species are threatened or at risk of extinction. Many plants and wildlife continue to decline or are just hanging on.
We need to act urgently to ensure that nature is healthy and thriving for its own sake and for current and future generations.

The strategy – full title, Te Mana o te Taiao: Aotearoa New Zealand Biodiversity Strategy 2020 – contains staggered goals for the years 2025, 2030 and 2050. The task of achieving those 2025 goals falls to the recently released Biodiversity Strategy Implementation Plan.

The government deserves credit for acknowledging a biodiversity crisis and responding with a plan. As the strategy acknowledges, there is much good work already happening to protect and restore habitats and species.

Unfortunately, comparing the strategy and the plan reveals a serious disconnect between important goals and the associated actions.

Missing in action

In keeping with the government’s wish that the plan be a living document, we identify fundamental issues that need to be urgently addressed if we’re to avoid sleepwalking into a biodiversity crisis.

For example, one of the biodiversity strategy’s 2025 goals states:

The most ecologically damaging pollutants (eg. excess nutrients, sediment, biocides, plastics, light and sound) and pollutant sources have been identified, and an integrated plan for their management is in place.

Yet the plan merely refers back to existing resource management instruments, despite the failure of these to prevent the proliferation of ecologically damaging pollutants such as nitrates or pesticides.

Similarly, another 2025 goal sates:

Environmental limits for the sustainable use of resources from marine ecosystems have been agreed on and are being implemented.

The plan then refers to a “best practice framework” for aquaculture, the implementation of the existing quota management system, the Fisheries Amendment Bill, and the forthcoming Natural and Built Environments Act. None of these actions involves the agreement and implementation of environmental limits for marine ecosystems by 2025.

Other core goals around marine bycatch, freshwater fisheries and ecosystem restoration also suffer from similar disconnects between aspiration and action. To meet these key goals, the plan should be updated with concrete actions that directly align with the strategic goals.

Beyond business as usual

Around two-thirds of the plan represents measures already in place. While many are targeted at the 2025 goals and will obviously have value, it’s clear business as usual has led us to the current crisis.

Addressing the scale of of the crisis demands a step-change in our approach to biodiversity protection and conservation. Fundamental to that is moving beyond business as usual, and for the government to produce a set of quantifiable targets and limits for biodiversity conservation.

The current biodiversity strategy “goals” are vague and hard to quantify – for example: “Significant progress has been made in protecting marine habitats and ecosystems of high biodiversity value.” Even with an agreed set of national indicators it will be difficult to know if goals have actually been met.

Read more:
Bringing the tūī back to town – how native birds are returning to NZ’s restored urban forests

Instead, we must heed the call of scientists and produce smart national and regional biodiversity targets that clearly set out how much of an ecosystem, a species or a population we wish to sustain as a nation.

The strategy and plan do contain references to environmental limits in the freshwater and marine environments, as well as the work to introduce limits into the new Natural and Built Environments Act.

While this is welcome, it’s not clear from the plan that these will be dedicated biodiversity limits (the minimum we need for an ecosystem, species or population to survive), beyond which we cannot lawfully proceed.

Such limits, in theory, should prevent biodiversity continually being traded away for development, perhaps the key driver of biodiversity loss.

Read more:
Why a sense of kinship is key to caring about the living world

Consensus on the crisis needed

With targets and limits in place, the Department of Conservation (DOC) should urgently review all legally protected land in Aotearoa New Zealand, to determine the extent to which it meets our target levels for ecosystems, species and populations. A similar review was done by Australian scientists in 2016.

Legal protections are vital, as habitats that aren’t legally protected are more likely to be cleared for land development. Where species or ecosystems are underrepresented on protected public and private land, the government should detail concrete actions to increase the levels of those ecosystems and habitats under protection.

Read more:
How New Zealand’s review of ecologically important land could open the door to more mining on conservation land

A good starting point would be to examine where areas of stewardship land (ecologically significant land not currently managed by DOC) could be restored back to ecosystem health.

Underpinning all this is the political will and resourcing to make it happen. Already the strategy and plan have been through two governments, with maybe another to follow next year’s general election. DOC is massively under-resourced and facing a budget crisis.

To ensure the longevity of this work, perhaps what’s needed most is long-term cross-party support for urgently addressing the biodiversity crisis.

Without that support and funding, regardless of what the plan is on paper, the government won’t be able to take the big actions necessary to match the scale of our biodiversity crisis.

Matthew Hall is a Senior Researcher at the Environmental Law Initiative.

Allan Brent is Senior Legal Advisor to the Environmental Law Initiative.

– ref. Without a better plan, New Zealand risks sleepwalking into a biodiversity extinction crisis – https://theconversation.com/without-a-better-plan-new-zealand-risks-sleepwalking-into-a-biodiversity-extinction-crisis-182279

Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Kathryn Barnsley, Adjunct researcher, University of Tasmania

Menthol is the minty cigarette ingredient that conjures up images of beaches, snow-covered ski slopes and glamorous yacht parties, all crisp white and fresh green. Menthol as a deadly additive is under threat at last.

Several countries, including Canada, Ethiopia, Turkey, Chile, the European Union and the United Kingdom, have banned the use of menthol and other flavours in tobacco products.

Late to regulating menthol in tobacco products, the US Food and Drug Administration has also announced a ban.

In Australia, we have done little to change what’s inside cigarettes and other smoking products. So we lag even further behind the many other countries that have banned menthol.

For ‘timid’ ladies

The marketing of menthol by the tobacco industry in Australia has long been targeted at supposedly sophisticated smokers. In Melbourne in the 1990s, tobacco giant Philip Morris – in its personality analysis of smokers of its Alpine menthol brand – found the “Alpine Gal is a physically timid lady”, so the packaging had to be “gentle”, not “dare devil”.

More recently, the industry added menthol “crush balls” or capsules in filters in Australian cigarettes, so users get a burst of menthol by biting on the filter. Once again, women and children are the target market. A study from Wales showed the fact that:

[…] three in five 11–16 year-old smokers reported using menthol cigarettes in the past 30 days highlights how appealing these products are to young people, particularly capsule cigarettes, used by 70% of menthol smokers.

A search of millions of tobacco industry documents confirms menthol is designed to attract new young smokers, who incorrectly believe it makes cigarettes somehow less harmful.

In 2012, Australia’s then health minister and Attorney-General Nicola Roxon regulated the outside of cigarette packets, introducing plain packaging with graphic health warnings. Although significant, the packaging change did nothing to alter what was inside the product.

Nor have subsequent governments.

In other words, we have not yet regulated the most damaging aspects of cigarette design that increase and maintain addiction.

Read more:
Next step for tobacco control? Make cigarettes less palatable

Not really ‘light’ – just dangerous

Menthol is associated with so-called “light” cigarettes, which the Australian Competition and Consumer Commission (ACCC) has found misleading and deceptive and banned the use of the term. The ACCC did not ban the content or engineering of cigarettes.

It is not just additives in cigarettes, and the smoke emissions, that are harmful. The “engineering hoax” of filters – which don’t make smoking any safer – is an even more dangerous fraud.

Read more:
Filters: a cigarette engineering hoax that harms both smokers and the environment

A new era of additives

Australia’s new National Tobacco Strategy Consultation Draft says it will “explore” regulation of filters, additives – including menthol – and nicotine content, but offers little certainty.

In the UK, the ban on menthol cigarettes not only triggered a switch to menthol vapes, but also prompted the tobacco industry to invent new products to exploit loopholes in the law.

Late last year, the Organised Crime and Corruption Reporting Project – a network of investigative journalists – found:

A key goal of Big Tobacco was to get menthol defined as vaguely as possible.

So, any attempts at legislative control must be tightly worded. Big tobacco will drive its legal trucks through anything vague.

The effects of bans are mixed

Canadian research showed a fall in smoking rates followed their menthol ban.

Other research suggested targeting menthol in cigarettes might cause a switch to vaping, as in the UK. We know that vaping is a global public health problem and that flavourings drive uptake in adolescents. The FDA will not immediately ban menthol in e-cigarettes.

Vaping causes lung damage and exacerbates COVID symptoms.

E-cigarettes and heat-not-burn products should be regulated in exactly the same way as other tobacco products, and flavours should be regulated or eliminated.

New Zealand has moved to reduce nicotine content, the principal addictive drug in tobacco. But NZ has dropped the ball on e-cigarettes by separating its regulatory framework from other tobacco products. The country is experiencing high rates of teenage vaping uptake.

Read more:
A damning review of e-cigarettes shows vaping leads to smoking, the opposite of what supporters claim

Smoking kills

There are three million smokers in Australia. Two-thirds will die from smoking-related diseases.

Most will have health problems, and our hospital emergency departments and wards deal with much higher rates of smokers being admitted than the general population.

The crushing burden on the health system and the associated economic cost could be effectively reduced with comprehensive regulatory measures on tobacco.

Endgame

The four endgame initiatives that will reduce smoking and vaping to a minimum in Australia are:

1. a ban on sales of both combustible and vape tobacco products to anyone born after the year 2004

2. regulation to eliminate flavours (including, but not limited to, menthol) in combustible, vape and emerging tobacco products

3. staged reduction in nicotine content

4. a ban on filter ventilation engineering in cigarettes.

Banning menthol as a standalone reform would make a modest contribution to reducing smoking and vaping rates in Australia.

However, substantive reduction in smoking rates will only occur with a comprehensive suite of measures, already strongly supported in the community. These include phasing out the sale of tobacco products completely.

Kathryn Barnsley is co-convenor of SmokeFree Tasmania.

– ref. The US FDA has moved to ban menthol cigarettes. Australia should do that and more – https://theconversation.com/the-us-fda-has-moved-to-ban-menthol-cigarettes-australia-should-do-that-and-more-182435

Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Andreea Lachsz, PhD Candidate, University of Technology Sydney

Aboriginal and/or Torres Strait Islander readers are advised that names of deceased people are included in this article.

The Victorian Aboriginal Legal Service is representing family members of Veronica Nelson, Ms Calgaret, and Michael Suckling in coronial investigations/inquests into their deaths in custody.

When someone is placed in prison, they are entirely dependent on prison officers and prison health-care providers. Incarcerated people do not get to choose when they see a doctor or mental health practitioner, when they take medicine, or what type of care they receive. They cannot call 000 and be taken to a hospital if they are dangerously ill.

In Victoria, if a person in prison is Aboriginal and/or Torres Strait Islander, they do not get access to culturally competent care through Aboriginal community-controlled health organisations. In Victoria, prison health care is provided by for-profit private companies contracted by the state government.

Imprisoned peoples’ physical health and/or social and emotional well-being is at the mercy of prison officers and prison healthcare providers.

Through our practice at the Victorian Aboriginal Legal Service, we have seen the differences between how people are treated in the community and how they are treated in prisons and youth prisons.

Read more:
Does the pre-election budget address ways to realistically ‘close the gap’ for Indigenous people?

The right to healthcare continues when people are incarcerated

International law requires “prisoners should enjoy the same standards of health care that are available in the community”. This healthcare should be “free of charge” and “without discrimination”. It also makes clear everyone has the right to the “highest attainable standard of physical and mental health”.

The Victorian Charter of Human Rights and Responsibilities requires that persons deprived of liberty (such as people in prison or police custody) be treated with humanity and respect.

The Coronial Inquest into the death of Yorta Yorta woman, Aunty Tanya Day, found that police and prison staff must ensure access to medical care for detained people. Under law, incarcerated people in Victoria have the “right to have access to reasonable medical care and treatment necessary for the preservation of health”.

Yet incarcerated people in Australia are excluded from access to funding under Medicare and the Pharmaceutical Benefits Scheme. This impacts not only health care in prisons by Aboriginal health services, but also the ability to provide continuity of care to incarcerated Aboriginal people as they enter and exit prison.

In Victoria, health care in prisons is the responsibility of the Department of Justice and Community Safety, not the Department of Health. Health care is provided by a subcontracted and fragmented system of multiple, private health-care providers. This contributes to inconsistent health care across the prison system.

From our clients in prison, we hear about limited access to health care for critical conditions such as cancer, diabetes and heart problems. What’s more, people in prison are often prescribed medication without a thorough health check. Self-harm incidents among Aboriginal people in Victorian prisons have risen by more than 50%. Despite this, we still hear of lack of access to counselling, psychiatric care, trauma and grief support.

Read more:
How the kidnapping of a First Nations man on New Year’s Eve in 1788 may have led to a smallpox epidemic

Imprisonment should not be a death sentence

There have been more than 500 Aboriginal and/or Torres Strait Islander deaths in custody since 1991. Last year, a Guardian analysis on the 30th anniversary of the report of the Royal Commission into Aboriginal Deaths in Custody found:

For both Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander people and non-Indigenous people, the most common cause of death was medical problems, followed by self-harm.

However, the Guardian also found Indigenous people who died in custody were three times more likely not to receive all necessary medical care, compared with non-Indigenous people. For Indigenous women, the result was even worse – fewer than half received all required medical care prior to death.

This conclusion is chilling, given that incarcerated people, particularly Aboriginal people, have higher rates of underlying health conditions than the general population.

The Royal Commission into Aboriginal Deaths in Custody recommended prison health care be culturally safe and “be of an equivalent standard to that available to the general public”. This recommendation still has not been implemented.

Multiple upcoming coronial inquests will examine deaths in custody in Victoria’s prisons, and the adequacy of prison healthcare. Aboriginal man, Michael Suckling, died of a suspected stroke at Ravenhall Correctional Centre. His death will be examined in a coronial inquest later this year.

Veronica Nelson, a proud Gunditjmara, Dja Dja Wurrung, Wiradjuri and Yorta Yorta woman, died at Victoria’s main women’s prison, Dame Phyllis Frost Centre. A coronial inquest into her death began last week. The inquest will examine matters including the adequacy of the healthcare Veronica was provided in prison, and whether her Aboriginality affected the treatment she received.

Ms Calgaret, a proud Yamatji, Noongar, Wongi and Pitjantjatjara woman, died at Sunshine Hospital after being transferred from Dame Phyllis Frost Centre in a critical condition in November 2021. The death of a newborn baby at the same prison is also being examined in an upcoming coronial inquest. Despite these deaths and widespread calls for the Victorian Government to invest in community not prisons, the government is proposing to expand Dame Phyllis Frost Centre.

Read more:
Racism is a public health crisis – but Black death tolls aren’t the answer

Culturally safe healthcare for Aboriginal people

The Australian Health Practitioner Regulation Authority has defined cultural safety as follows:

Cultural safety is determined by Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander individuals, families and communities. Culturally safe practise is the ongoing critical reflection of health practitioner knowledge, skills, attitudes, practising behaviours and power differentials in delivering safe, accessible and responsive healthcare free of racism.

The first Aboriginal community controlled health organisation was founded in Redfern in 1971, “in response to experiences of racism in mainstream health services and an unmet need for culturally safe and accessible primary health care.” Aboriginal-led health organisations are essential to ensuring culturally safe health services are provided to Aboriginal people, and are a manifestation of Aboriginal self-determination.

In the Northern Territory and the ACT, Aboriginal community controlled health organisations have begun coming in to prisons to deliver primary health services in adult and youth prisons.

This is a crucial first step to providing culturally safe healthcare to incarcerated Aboriginal people. This will improve access to healthcare for those who are imprisoned, and provide support and consistency upon release. This is vital when many of our community members cycle in and out of prison at frequent intervals, due to failures of the justice system.

Time to action the lessons learned

In prisons, officers and prison health staff make life and death decisions every day. When they are negligent, there must be accountability, space for truth, and justice.

The Victorian and Federal governments do not need any more “examples” of what can happen when healthcare is not equivalent to that in the community, and is not culturally safe. Aboriginal people are dying in custody, becoming disabled, or living with the preventable development or exacerbation of mental or physical health conditions as a result of negligent practices.

The writing is on the prison wall.

It is time for governments to care, it is time for them to act.

This article was written with permission from Apryl Day to write about Aunty Tanya Day, and the family members, whom VALS represents, of Veronica Nelson, Ms Calgaret, and Michael Suckling.

Andreea Lachsz is the Head of Policy, Communications and Strategy at the Victorian Aboriginal Legal Service. VALS is representing the family members of Ms Veronica Nelson, Ms Calgaret, and Michael Suckling in coronial investigations/inquests into their deaths in custody.

Nerita Waight runs the Victorian Aboriginal Legal Service which receives funding from Department of Justice and Community Safety and Corrections Victoria . Nerita is currently a member of the Victorian Women’s Correctional Services Committee.

Sarah Schwartz is a Senior Lawyer / Advocate at the Victorian Aboriginal Legal Service and acts for family members of Veronica Nelson, Ms Calgaret and Michael Suckling in coronial proceedings into their deaths in custody.

– ref. Victoria’s prison healthcare system should match community healthcare – https://theconversation.com/victorias-prison-healthcare-system-should-match-community-healthcare-180558

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

Social structure is an important aspect of species’ biology. Having a pecking order and male or female territoriality can help species thrive.

For instance, this can prevent inbreeding, by ensuring males or females leave their family territory to reproduce. It can also help with passing important knowledge and resources down through family lines.

Many Australian species, such as the kangaroo, have a male-dominated social structure. However, recent research into lesser-known native animals has found it’s actually girls who run these worlds.

The houseproud greater stick-nest rat

The greater stick-nest rat (Leporillus conditor) is a native rodent about the size of a guinea pig. It was once widespread across the southern half of mainland Australia. But by the 1930s, grazing, changes in land use and introduced predators reduced its range down to a single island off the coast of South Australia.

Now, thanks to some fantastic conservation efforts, it persists in multiple safe havens across the country.

This species builds nests out of sticks and dry grass, bonded together with special sticky urine. The nests can reach huge sizes and are surprisingly complex – with multiple burrows, chambers and even levels that keep the inhabitants safe from predators and extreme heat and cold.

The construction is so advanced that nests can last for thousands of years, when protected from the elements by caves or rock overhangs.

These stick nests are communal and used over many generations. For a long time, however, there was little understanding of how the nests are passed down. A study published last year by myself and my colleagues used trapping data and genetic samples taken over many years to investigate this.

We found females were more closely related to each other over shorter distances, while males were not. Also, females that were caught in consecutive months and years were typically found in the same nest (or one next door), while males were not.

The evidence pointed to one thing: female greater stick-nest rats typically remain in, or near, the nest they were born in – while males leave and disperse across the landscape.

This strategy has two major benefits. First, it helps prevent inbreeding within populations.

Second, since the nests are a huge energy investment for a little rat, passing them down through the female line improves the likelihood of breeding success for future generations, by giving descendants protection from predators and extreme temperatures.

Researchers of greater stick-nest rats have also observed dominant behaviour in females and, occasionally, aggression towards males that come near their nest. Males have even been seen presenting flowers to a resident female, as if attempting courtship!

Read more:
Fierce female moles have male-like hormones and genitals. We now know how this happens.

Female dominance in Australian species

The greater stick-nest rat isn’t the only Australian rodent with females that rule the roost.

The broad-toothed rat, a sub-alpine species found in south-eastern Australia, demonstrates female territoriality in the summer months while the males roam across larger home ranges. But when the cold winters set in, and snow covers the landscape, males and females can be found huddling together in shared nests.

Meanwhile, the ash grey mouse, a native rodent from the biodiversity hotspot of southwest Western Australia, forms groups of multiple females that share a burrow and raise their young together.

Female social dominance can also be found in marsupials, such as the thumb-sized honey possum, which is also native to southwest Western Australia. Females of this species are larger than males and are sexually promiscuous. They mate with multiple males to produce tiny babies, no bigger than a grain of rice.

The brush-tailed phascogale, another small marsupial species, has females which settle and occupy territories that are sometimes surrendered in part to their daughters when they reach adulthood.

The males, meanwhile, move more freely over large home ranges that overlap with other individuals. A key factor in the marking of brush-tailed phascogale territories is believed to be a kind of scent marking, by way of faeces left in prominent positions around the home range boundaries and nesting sites.

Other native species exhibit similarly variable and complex social structures. But with so many of our fauna threatened, endangered or difficult to find and study in the wild, we have much to learn about how they interact.

The science of sociality

While the complexities of these social hierarchies are fascinating, they’re often hard to determine. Previously, such knowledge could only be gained through long-term studies in the field or in captivity. This is difficult when the species is shy, or tiny like the honey possum.

Thankfully, advances in genetic and animal tracking technology are providing experts deeper insight into the dynamics of these species, with much less cost and effort. With tracking devices becoming more lightweight, powerful and durable, researchers can now remotely monitor the movement and dispersal of species across their home ranges.

In addition, DNA from tissue, skin or hair samples can be sequenced to provide high-quality data to inform on how individuals in an area are related. This can show us how family groupings coexist.

Yet even with these improvements, there is still much we don’t know about the secret lives of Australia’s animals. With the combined pressures of habitat loss, feral predators and climate change, researchers are racing against the clock to better understand our wildlife and hopefully preserve it.

Wildlife reserves such as the Arid Recovery Reserve, where our study on greater stick-nest rats was conducted, combine research with hands-on management to inform conservation efforts – and are taking steps to safeguard our precious native species’ place in the future.

Read more:
What Australian birds can teach us about choosing a partner and making it last

Isabelle Onley receives funding from the following sources: the University of Adelaide, Australian Government Research Training Program Scholarship, Nature Foundation South Australia, Biological Society South Australia/Nature Conservation Society of South Australia, and the Field Naturalists Society of South Australia.

– ref. Meet the territorial females and matriarchs in Australia’s backyard – https://theconversation.com/meet-the-territorial-females-and-matriarchs-in-australias-backyard-181617

Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Denis Muller, Senior Research Fellow, Centre for Advancing Journalism, The University of Melbourne

What does a democracy do when a dominant news media organisation goes rogue during an election campaign?

In 2022, News Corporation is confronting Australia with this question once again, as it did in 2019, 2016 and 2013, and as it did in the United States in 2016 and 2020.

“Going rogue” here means abandoning any attempt at fulfilling one of the media’s primary obligations to a democratic society — the provision of truthful news coverage — and instead becoming a truth-distorting propagandist for one side.

The evidence that News Corp has gone rogue during the current federal election is plentiful. It can be seen every morning in its newspapers across the country, and every evening on Sky News after dark.

A sample of its election coverage over the period April 27 to May 2 makes the case.

On May 2, the Daily Telegraph in Sydney devoted its front page to a publicity puff for Katherine Deves, the Liberal candidate for Tony Abbott’s old seat of Warringah.

Deves is campaigning to have transgender women banned from sport, but has had to apologise twice as statements by her have emerged claiming “half of all males with trans identities are sex offenders”, and likening her view on the issue to standing up to Nazis.

The Telegraph splashed the headline “They are all with me”, alongside a photo of a smiling Deves, pushing the argument that “the silent majority” supported her position. Rowan Dean on Sky went so far as to say this could win the election for the government.

On May 1, the Herald Sun in Melbourne turned its front page into a campaign poster for Josh Frydenberg. According to the headline, Frydenberg was in the “fight of his life” to retain Robert Menzies’ old seat of Kooyong against a “teal” independent, Monique Ryan.

Inside, the paper produced a double-page spread promoting Frydenberg with the banner headline, “Why you need to vote for me”, reportedly lifted straight from a Liberal campaign advertisement.

Pictures of his wife and children featured prominently in this piece of rank propaganda.

Meanwhile, on Sky after dark, the big guns Andrew Bolt, Peta Credlin and Paul Murray kept up a relentless barrage of pro-Liberal, anti-Labor and anti-teal propaganda.

Bolt picked up on a Scott Morrison jibe about Labor’s policy on the Solomon Islands, saying it involved sending the ABC to head off China in the south Pacific.

Over the week it was part of an eclectic contribution from Bolt, touching on Hong Kong, border protection, male birth control and a new twist on the concept of climate denialism. On Bolt’s planet, increasing power prices are the result of “being in denial” by thinking coal-fired power stations can be replaced by wind and solar energy.

Credlin also spent a lot of time on climate but had a quite different take. Having re-run a Liberal attack ad saying Labor is proposing a carbon tax, she went on to say the Coalition is divided more fundamentally than Labor on climate.

To her obvious chagrin, the Liberal Party had allowed itself to be distracted by this and by identity wars, a clear reference to the Deves problem, and she conceded the government was “a little bit shop-soiled”.

But Credlin’s main targets were the teal independents – women candidates standing on a platform of climate action, integrity and gender equality against Liberal incumbents in seats such as Goldstein and Kooyong in Melbourne, and Wentworth and North Sydney in Sydney.

Their sheer impertinence made her cross.

It meant, she said, the “hard heads” at Liberal campaign headquarters were having to spend time and money defending Liberal seats that “by right” they should not have to defend. In other words, the Liberal Party was entitled to occupy these seats without serious challenge.

Then there was Murray, presenting himself as “the last line of defence for common sense”.

In this role he was running a countdown: by the evening of May 2, there were only 19 days left to “save the country from the mad left”.

When a Labor figure, Nicholas Reece, tried to argue the cost of Labor’s election promises was dwarfed by the debt run up by the present government, Murray shouted him down, saying, “I’m not interested.”

Murray also asserted, without a shred of evidence, that Labor and the Greens had struck a power-sharing deal, so in the event of a hung parliament Labor would govern with the Greens’ support. This added up to the fact that “Labor and the Greens are the same thing”.

The lesser lights on Sky, such as Chris Smith, Chris Kenny and others, made their own toxic contributions, using words such as “fraud”, “sewer” and “spewing” in crude attacks on the teal independents.

And so it went for the whole week: propaganda, distortions, crudity and pro-Liberal apologia.

A fraud on the people

This abandonment of a fundamental news media obligation to truth-telling is by definition harmful to a democratic society. Not only does it rob the population of a bedrock of reliable news, it debases the entire discourse. It is also a fraud on the people by misrepresenting propaganda as news.

The dilemma facing a democracy is that measures needed to counter these harms would violate free-speech principles to a degree that would harm democracy in a different way.

Any abridgement of free speech must be proportional to the harm that is sought to be avoided. How that balance might be struck in a case like this is highly contestable on political as well as ethical grounds.

Yet existing measures are clearly ineffectual. The broadcast industry’s codes of practice for television and radio require news programs to be accurate and fair – but give no guidance on what this consists of. Current affairs programs are exempt even from this requirement.

The broadcast regulator, the Australian Communication and Media Authority, is a “co-regulator” that has shown itself to be utterly captured by the industry it is meant to hold to account.

Read more:
10 years after Finkelstein, media accountability has gone backwards

Newspapers are accountable to the Australian Press Council, but it has proved just as ineffectual as the ACMA. In any case, it is fatally compromised by being reliant on funding from the newspaper companies, among which the largest contributor is News Corporation.

All efforts to establish an effective independent media accountability body have foundered on the rock of implacable opposition from the commercial media organisations.

Yet, even if one were to be established, the dilemma would remain: what standards would strike the right balance, and how would they be enforced during an election campaign in ways that did not unreasonably burden free speech?

In the end, democracies are thrown back on conventions, which provide the boundaries within which politics operates in ways conducive to the public good.

The conventions depend on people in power, including those running media organisations, living up to the responsibilities that their role in a democracy imposes on them.

By convention, those responsibilities include prioritising the public interest over the private interests of media organisations and their owners, and providing news content calculated to inform, not repel, the voting public.

News Corporation fails on both counts.

It prioritises the understood financial and ideological interests of one man, Rupert Murdoch, over the public interest, and its toxic news content is calculated to reinforce the worldview of its target audiences.

If News Corp were merely an online echo chamber, this would be bad enough, but it is not.

The ready availability of its newspapers to the population as a whole, and the spread of its Sky after dark content beyond the confines of pay television into regional free-to-air services, make it a far more damaging influence than any online filter bubble.

WIN and Southern Cross Austereo, the companies that carry the Sky content on free-to-air TV into regional Australia, are complicit in inflicting this damage on the Australian polity. They too have abandoned their conventional responsibilities.

In an age where communications businesses are enjoined to “move fast and break things”, breaking these conventions risks breaking democracy itself. Events in the United States since 2016 provide a stark example of what this looks like when it happens.

Denis Muller 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. As News Corp goes ‘rogue’ on election coverage, what price will Australian democracy pay? – https://theconversation.com/as-news-corp-goes-rogue-on-election-coverage-what-price-will-australian-democracy-pay-181599

Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Phillip Mendes, Professor, Director Social Inclusion and Social Policy Research Unit, Monash University

Young people transitioning from out-of-home care – whether it’s foster, kinship or residential care – are disadvantaged in many ways. Many have experienced abuse, neglect, family hardship or illness. They may feel long-term grief due to family separation.

And while some enjoy stable placements with committed foster or kinship carers, others – particularly those in residential care, supervised by rostered staff – may experience instability as friends or support workers come and go.

Most exit the out-of-home care system at 18, or younger, without ongoing support.

Unfortunately, however, many such young people quickly encounter homelessness, unemployment and contact with the criminal justice system soon after leaving out-of-home care. Instead of leaving these people to fend for themselves at age 18 (or younger), we need a nationally consistent model of extended care that supports care leavers until age 21.

Read more:
New bill in NSW could prove crucial to helping reduce numbers of First Nations children in out-of-home care

A tough transition

A 2021 study by the CREATE Foundation (which represents young people who have experienced out-of-home care) found homelessness was common among people exiting the system. Almost 100 of the 325 sampled care leavers aged 18-25 experienced homelessness in the first year after their transition.

Another study found:

More than half the 1,848 Victorian care leavers in this study (using data from leavers during 2013 and 2014) accessed homelessness services in the four years after leaving care, while one in three had multiple homeless experiences. Participants with experiences of residential care and multiple foster care placements were more likely to experience housing disruptions.

Another national study noted care leavers were three times as likely as other young Australians to have received social security payments.

Of course, many care leavers do integrate effectively into the social and economic mainstream. Some have difficult lives but still manage to cope, while others struggle to overcome adversity and social exclusion.

In general, those who achieve successful transitions tend to leave care later than 18 years of age and receive ongoing support well into their twenties from, for example

• foster or kinship carers

• extended family members

• formal mentors or neighbours

• friends

• members of sporting, religious, cultural and other community groups.

These supportive relationships, which mirror the assistance that most of their non-care peers naturally access from their parents, provide the social capital needed to acquire housing, food, clothing, a driver’s licence and entry into sustainable education, employment and training.

According to one young person who remained with their foster family in Victoria beyond 18 years:

I was in the same home for 11 years, they were like my parents so they didn’t kick me out or anything. It wasn’t like I was in their care; I was like a part of the family.

Conversely, those who experience troubled transitions from out-of-home care may experience social isolation, emotional adversity and hardship.

One young person from Victoria who was suddenly forced to leave care commented:

I mean if you have a kid, you’re not going to kick him out as soon as they turn 16. You’re not going to, you know, tell your kid that ‘oh you have to find your own way to learn how to drive or anything’. You’re going to take them by the hand, you’re going to help them with each of these things. Even after your kid’s left, you’re still going to, you know, check up on them, you’re going to go there make sure they’re eating properly, cleaning the place properly. I had no idea how to clean anything.

Young people who have harder transitions often include those in youth justice custody when they turn 18 years of age, some young parents, those who have a major cognitive disability or poor mental health and some Indigenous young people who have been prevented from forming a connection with their culture, identity and community.

Read more:
Reunifying First Nations families: the only way to reduce the overrepresentation of children in out-of-home care

Extended care as an early intervention strategy

The best way to boost the life chances of all care leavers is to introduce a nationally consistent model of extended out-of-home care from 18 to 21 years. This is the model advocated by the Home Stretch campaign led by Anglicare Victoria.

Evidence from evaluations of extended care programs in the US and UK confirms providing support until age 21 can improve outcomes for care leavers.

As of April 2022, the Home Stretch model has informed the introduction of major extended care safety nets in six out of Australia’s eight states and territories.

• Victoria and Western Australia offer support to young people leaving all forms of out-of-home care until age 21

• South Australia, Tasmania and the Australian Capital Territory fund an allowance to foster and kinship carers only until age 21. South Australia has introduced a trial program for residential care leavers in February 2022 – but it is only funded for two years to support 20 young people

• Queensland offers the same assistance only until 19 years

• the Northern Territory has promised to legislate universal extended care soon

• New South Wales is the outlier in currently providing no form of extended care.

No state or territory allows young people living in residential care to remain in their existing homes beyond 18 years of age.

Nor have any of them introduced Staying Close programs similar to those trialled in the UK, whereby residential care leavers are supported to live close to their former accommodation and maintain existing relationships with their former carers and support networks.

The federal government, via the recently updated National Framework for Protecting Australia’s Children, should establish a nationally consistent model of extended care that would universally assist all care leavers until age 21.

Phillip Mendes receives funding from Australian Research Council, Australian Housing and Urban Research Institute, Sidney Myer Fund. 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.

– ref. Homelessness is common for teens leaving out-of-home-care. We need to extend care until they are at least 21 – https://theconversation.com/homelessness-is-common-for-teens-leaving-out-of-home-care-we-need-to-extend-care-until-they-are-at-least-21-181167

Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Nicholas Wood, Associate Professor, Discipline of Childhood and Adolescent Health, University of Sydney

Over the last year, COVID vaccination recommendations have been updated regularly. So it can be difficult to keep track of how many vaccine doses you and your family members need.

This may seem confusing, but it is actually a good approach to take when navigating a pandemic, especially when the virus keeps changing. Let’s look at the current Australian recommendations and why vaccine advice needs to evolve over time.

Read more:
Do COVID boosters cause more or fewer side effects? How quickly does protection wane? Your questions answered

Why do recommendations need updating?

The nature of the COVID pandemic has changed over the past two years and will likely continue to change. The virus of today is more contagious and less deadly than the virus of 2020.

The collective immunity of the Australian population has improved, thanks to most of us getting vaccinated (95% of Austalians aged over 16 have had two doses) and a surge of infections at the start of this year.

A changing virus and rising immunity levels in the population mean the benefits and risks of vaccination also change.

The goal is to make sure we use the current vaccines in a way that offers the most benefit and least harm.

Read more:
Why are there so many new Omicron sub-variants, like BA.4 and BA.5? Will I be reinfected? Is the virus mutating faster?

Recently ATAGI recommended the interval between primary doses (that is the first two doses) should be eight weeks and people should wait until three months after they have had natural infection before they get the next vaccine they are due. The advisory group said the extended dose interval had been shown to improve immune response to vaccination and may reduce the risk of myocarditis and pericarditis.

Preventing serious illness

ATAGI’s COVID vaccination recommendations are designed to minimise the risk of serious illness in the individual being vaccinated.

Preventing the spread of virus was of prime importance last year. We’ve since learnt serious illness is less common with the Omicron variant and the vaccines’ ability to prevent its spread is short-lived and limited.

ATAGI has now identified the prevention of serious illness and death as the principal role for vaccines at this stage of the pandemic.

Nonetheless, a substantial number of people still become seriously unwell from Omicron and require hospitalisation. Fortunately, booster doses of the COVID vaccines remain excellent at preventing severe infections.

Who needs a winter shot?

There are several groups of people for whom a “winter” booster dose is recommended – to be given from four months after the booster or third dose (whatever the season).

A person’s age is the single biggest risk factor for severe COVID disease. The presence of immunosuppression or some other chronic health conditions is important too, but age plays the most substantial role.

Risk of death and admissions to intensive care units are highest among those aged 65 and older. So the benefits of preventing serious illness with a winter dose are most clear in this age group. A study from Israel showed reduced COVID hospitalisations and deaths after a second booster (a fourth dose) in Israeli adults aged 60 years and over.

This case is strengthened because the very rare, yet serious, side effects of vaccination – like myocarditis after mRNA vaccines – are uncommon in this age group. If you are over 65, you should plan for a winter dose from four months after your booster. Accordingly, residents of aged care facilities are recommended a winter dose, as are those in disability residential care.

First Nations people aged 50 years and older and anyone aged 16 years and older who have severe immune-suppression are also recommended for a winter shot.

What about others aged 16 to 64?

For most Australians aged 16 to 64, it is not clear a fourth “winter booster” vaccination is needed.

UK data shows the primary course and booster or third dose of COVID vaccination have been effective at preventing serious disease from Omicron, however indicate that immunity from the booster dose is also likely to wane.

Read more:
16-17 year olds can now get their COVID boosters. Why not younger children?

Are kids aged 5–15 due another shot? What about under 5s?

COVID vaccination has not been recommended for babies and children under 5 years.

When it comes to children and young teenagers (who are not severely immunocompromised) we don’t have enough evidence of the extra benefit of a booster (third) dose.

What we do know is that serious illness in this age group, including those with severe immunocompromise and other medical conditions, is rare. Studies in the US, South Africa and the UK have suggested that although there may be a higher hospitalisation rate with Omicron compared to Delta infection they were less severe (less likely to need ICU, ventilation or lead to death).

We also know the risk of vaccination, principally myocarditis, is rare in children under 11 years old (but under active surveillance) and side effects are proportionally larger in teenagers.

At present, the benefits of vaccination are smaller than for adults and the majority of already-vaccinated young teenagers are not experiencing severe disease.

Read more:
The Moderna vaccine is now available for 6 to 11 year olds. Here’s what parents need to know

The most up-to-date advice from ATAGI is available and shown below. But as the benefit versus risk equation continues to change, expect these recommendations to change too. Remember the aim remains the same: to prevent serious illness for you and in our community.

The University of Sydney where Nicholas Wood is employed receives funding from the NHMRC for the conduct of vaccine research. He holds a Churchill Fellowship awarded in 2019.

– ref. COVID vaccination recommendations evolve over time. Who is due for which dose now? – https://theconversation.com/covid-vaccination-recommendations-evolve-over-time-who-is-due-for-which-dose-now-181779

Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Wesley Morgan, Research Fellow, Griffith Asia Institute, Griffith University

Late last year, more than 100 former diplomats and officials called for a new Australian foreign policy — with climate action at the centre — to help cement Australia’s future in a world rapidly shifting to net-zero emissions.

Failure to act on climate change, they argued, would erode our national interests and international influence. Australia’s allies, partners and competitors would penalise us for not pulling our weight. Regardless of who wins the federal election, Australia’s next government must heed this advice.

There’s a saying that “all politics is local”. But Australian climate politics is dictated as much by the realities of a warming planet, and seismic shifts in global energy markets, as by marginal electorates in Queensland.

Managing the transition to a net-zero emissions economy must be a priority task for the next government. Our strategic and economic success depends on it.

How did we get here?

In recent times, Australian foreign policy has promoted the nation as an energy superpower – a major supplier of coal and gas to Asia. Reducing emissions has been a secondary focus, as Australia’s diplomatic machinery is tasked with promoting fossil fuel exports.

This wasn’t always the case. When a scientific consensus on global warming emerged in the late 1980s, the Hawke Labor government appointed an ambassador for the environment to promote climate action, and supported ambitious national targets to cut emissions.

By the mid 1990s however — under the influence of a powerful fossil fuel lobby and following a national recession — the Keating government was increasingly concerned about potential economic costs of climate action. The subsequent Howard government decided taking serious climate action was not in Australia’s interests

The argument then, as it is now, was that Australia’s economy depends on fossil fuels, and cutting emissions would cost us relatively more than it would other countries.

So ever since, rather than act on climate change, Australia has sought to minimise obligations to cut emissions while expanding coal and gas exports.

Today, Australia has one of the weakest 2030 emissions targets in the developed world. At last year’s global climate talks in Glasgow, Australia refused to join other developed nations in strengthening its ambition.

United Nations Secretary-General Antonio Guterres describes Australia as a holdout on climate action. He is right. Australia is among a small, isolated group of countries — including Russia and Saudi Arabia — resisting global efforts to cut emissions.

Not by coincidence Australia is also the world’s third-largest fossil fuel exporter, behind only Russia and Saudi Arabia.

Read more:
Scorched dystopia or liveable planet? Here’s where the climate policies of our political hopefuls will take us

The world is changing around us

When Prime Minister Scott Morrison last year sought support from his Nationals colleagues for a net-zero by 2050 target, he urged them to accept economic reality. The world is transitioning to net-zero. And climate action is now a key pillar of the Western alliance, and so key to Australia for national security reasons.

Morrison’s arguments show how the world has changed since he came to power in August 2018.

Australia’s most recent foreign policy white paper, released in 2017, forecast strong global growth in demand for fossil fuels. Those forecasts have proved wrong.

Instead, Australia’s key destination markets, such as Japan, China and South Korea, are phasing out fossil fuels. In the past two years alone, more than 100 countries, representing around 90% of the global economy, have committed to net-zero emissions.

This mega-trend has fundamentally altered Australia’s economic prospects.

Climate has also moved to the centre of global geopolitics. Major powers are integrating climate into defence and strategic planning, foreign policy, diplomacy and statecraft.

The European Union will next year start imposing border costs on imports from countries not doing enough to cut emissions, a move which could eventually shave A$12.5 billion from the Australian economy annually. G7 countries are planning a “climate club” to impose costs on countries that don’t meet shared standards for climate policy.

In the US, a new Indo-Pacific strategy signals an intention to pressure countries such as Australia to set a stronger 2030 target. This is partly so the US and allies might work together to press China to cut emissions.

Security mismatch in the Pacific

The recent security deal between the Solomon Islands and China may demonstrate how Australia has yet to integrate climate action into its own statecraft.

For decades, Pacific island countries — including the Solomon Islands — have argued climate change is their first-order security threat, particularly for atoll island states who face inundation from rising seas.

But those concerns are not reflected in Australia’s current efforts to engage more closely with the Pacific. The recent Pacific Step Up strategy is largely driven by concern that China could leverage infrastructure lending to establish a military base in the region.

A former Australian intelligence chief, Nick Warner, says Australia’s position on climate has “undermined our standing in the Pacific” — a view echoed by former Australian High Commissioner to the Solomon Islands, Peter Hooton.

The lesson is clear. In a warming world climate policy is foreign policy.

Australia as a clean energy superpower

Our foreign policy must be retooled to reposition Australia as a clean energy superpower, and to seize the economic opportunities that will flow.

As the sunniest and windiest inhabited continent on the planet, Australia has world-class renewable energy resources and enviable reserves of minerals needed for the electric vehicles, batteries and wind turbines of the future.

Australia is well-placed to export zero-emissions electricity to growing economies in Asia. Our renewable energy advantage also means we can competitively produce zero-carbon versions of the commodities the world urgently needs – steel, aluminium, hydrogen and fertilisers.

The Business Council of Australia estimates clean export opportunities could generate 395,000 jobs by 2040. With the right policy framework, Australia could grow a new clean energy export mix worth A$333 billion each year, almost triple the value of existing fossil fuel exports.

Read more:
How can Aboriginal communities be part of the NSW renewable energy transition?

A big task for the next government

Whichever party wins the election on May 21 should reposition Australia as a global climate leader. This will require negotiation between domestic constituencies resisting change and an international context that’s changing regardless.

The Department of Foreign Affairs and Trade, and Australia’s diplomatic network, should be tasked with promoting climate action. And a climate change ambassador should be appointed – separate from the existing ambassador for the environment.

Australia should also bid to host the annual UN climate summit and co-host the UN talks with Pacific island states.

Above all, the next government must strengthen Australia’s 2030 emissions reduction target before global climate talks in Egypt in November. We should at least match our key allies and commit to halving emissions this decade. Failure to do so will only bring increasing diplomatic and economic costs.

Read more:
Polls show a jump in the Greens vote – but its real path to power lies in reconciling with Labor

Wesley Morgan is a researcher with the Climate Council

– ref. The world doesn’t care about swings in marginal seats. Climate action must spearhead a new Australian foreign policy – https://theconversation.com/the-world-doesnt-care-about-swings-in-marginal-seats-climate-action-must-spearhead-a-new-australian-foreign-policy-181713

Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Elizabeth Elliot Noe, Postdoctoral Fellow, Lincoln University, New Zealand

Urbanisation, and the destruction of habitat it entails, is a major threat to native bird populations. But as our new research shows, restored urban forests can return native birds to our cities and improve species richness.

We define restored urban forests as green areas within a city, dominated by native vegetation that has been planted intentionally. To evaluate restoration success, we tracked changes in native bird communities in 25 restored forests in two of New Zealand’s cities, Hamilton and New Plymouth.

The forests we used in our study ranged widely in their ages, including one where initial restoration efforts began 72 years ago. We also compared these restored forests to remnant patches of native, mature forest – both within and beyond the city – that had never been clear-felled.

Our findings show older restored forests support more species of native birds, and some are close to the species richness of untouched remnants of native forest. The abundance of birds increased as the forest canopy became denser.

Contrary to our initial predictions, introduced invasive mammals had no significant effect on either species richness or abundance of native birds in urban forests.

Read more:
The urban forest of the future: how to turn our cities into Treetopias

Older restorations are better

We found the younger forests supported small-bodied insect-eating and omnivorous birds such as fantails, silvereyes and grey warblers. Older plantings were also home to nectar and fruit-feeding species such as tūī.

This increase in native species richness suggests older sites provide a greater variety of food and other resources, meeting the needs of more species over time. We also found greater overall numbers of fantails and tūī in older restored forests.

To monitor these native bird communities, we counted all terrestrial birds seen and heard along 200m transects.

It appears native bird diversity in restored forests is becoming increasingly similar to what we find in urban forest remnants, but there is still a noticeable gap between the oldest restored areas and both urban and rural remnants.

This could mean it might take more than 72 years for a forest to provide the same quality of habitat as remnant forest, underscoring the importance of protecting the remaining forests, both within and beyond the city limits.

Rats and possums also like restored forests

We also needed to know how mammals affect native birds at our sites, so we used camera traps to detect cats and chew cards to track rats and possums.

Chew cards are small sheets of corrugated plastic, with the edges filled with peanut butter, which allow us to identify rodents and possums by their bite marks. To our surprise, we did not find any significant influence of rat and cat numbers on the diversity and abundance of native birds.

This was unexpected because both rats and cats prey on native birds and rats also take their eggs. However, other research has shown three of our widely detected native birds (grey warbler, fantail and silvereye) are capable of coping with a certain level of predation.

In 2006, a study proposed the idea that the bird communities we see in our cities today are those less affected by predation – the “ghosts of predation past”.

We believe this to be the case in our study – birds that are highly vulnerable to predation by invasive mammals have already disappeared from New Zealand cities. The remaining birds are those that can survive despite current levels of predation.

Read more:
Thousands of city trees have been lost to development, when we need them more than ever

We never detected rats and possums in the youngest restored forests. They seem to prefer a certain level of vegetation complexity, canopy cover and tree height in restoration plantings. Once these habitat requirements are met, after about nine years, rats and possums become relatively widespread.

It appears the changes in vegetation structure and complexity that occur as the restored forest ages benefit native forest birds but also provide habitat for invasive predators.

Urban forests benefit people and nature

In urban areas that have undergone extreme deforestation and habitat modification, increasing the number and quality of native forest through restoration planting is a necessary first step towards re-establishing native forest bird communities. But this should eventually be accompanied by invasive mammal control.

Our findings highlight the considerable opportunity forest restoration presents to enhance native bird diversity. This allows us to reconcile human development with protection and improvement of native biodiversity in cities.

As people continue to move to cities, urban restoration provides a renewed link between people and native environments.

Despite the conservation challenges urban environments present, there is growing recognition of the benefits to both native species and people. Ecological restoration is a potentially powerful tool for mitigating the detrimental effects of urbanisation.

Read more:
Save the trees: Never-ending construction in cities threatens the urban forest

By providing habitat for birds, urban green spaces also allow city residents daily contact with charismatic species. This facilitates an emotional connection with nature which in turn promotes public support for conservation and restoration.

The United Nations has declared 2021-2030 the decade of ecosystem restoration – a rallying call for the protection and revival of ecosystems around the world, for the benefit of people and nature.

Our study shows every New Zealander can contribute to this revival of our iconic native birds by planting native trees in their own urban neighbourhoods.

Elizabeth Elliot Noe receives funding from Bioprotection Aotearoa.

Andrew D. Barnes receives funding from MBIE, the Marsden Fund, and the University of Waikato.

Bruce Clarkson receives funding from MBIE.

John Innes receives funding from MBIE, NZ Transport Authority and occasionally Waikato Regional Council.

– ref. Bringing the tūī back to town – how native birds are returning to NZ’s restored urban forests – https://theconversation.com/bringing-the-tui-back-to-town-how-native-birds-are-returning-to-nzs-restored-urban-forests-182064

Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Esperanza Vera-Toscano, Senior research fellow, The University of Melbourne

We often hear a job is the best way to get someone out of poverty. In many cases this is true, and anti-poverty strategies should prioritise improving people’s access to jobs.

But this isn’t the complete solution. For many – particularly those with disability or substantial caring responsibilities that limit their scope to work – the income support system remains crucial to avoiding persistent poverty.

It may not feel like it at a time of rising living costs, but the incomes of Australians have on average risen substantially over the last three decades and continue to trend upwards – we have never been richer.

However – as highlighted by the Productivity Commission – some in the community continue to be left behind.

Our new study of income poverty shows persistent poverty remains a significant problem in Australian society.

Looking back over the first two decades of this century, we found around 13% of the population are persistently poor.

We defined these as people who persistently have to live on incomes that are less than 60% of the median income in Australia (a definition employed by Eurostat for European Union member countries).

Poverty then isn’t simply a temporary experience in Australia, and tackling persistent disadvantage needs to be a policy imperative.

Why do people descend in poverty – and often stay there?

Understanding what drives poverty and its persistence is an essential first step to alleviating it.

Using data from the longitudinal Household, Income and Labour Dynamics in Australia (HILDA) Survey, we examined the extent and nature of persistent poverty among the same sample of Australians tracked over time.

Specifically, we looked at

• why do people descend into poverty?
• why do some people remain in poverty, while others escape it?
• why some of those who escape poverty remain out of poverty while others fall back into it.

We also examined the degree to which the depth of poverty (how far someone’s income is below the poverty line) impacts on the likelihood of staying in poverty.

We found persistent poverty is more prevalent among:

• women
• single-parent families
• older people
• Indigenous Australians
• people with a disability
• less-educated people, and
• people living in more disadvantaged regions.

This is consistent with previous studies of poverty made at a single point in time.

Perhaps unsurprisingly, those in deep poverty – the poorest of the poor – are the most likely to be persistently poor (up to five times more likely than the average person in the community).

The very poor are therefore a policy priority – not only because they are very poor now, but because they are more likely to remain poor.

‘Falling’ into poverty

Similarly, among those initially not in poverty, those with incomes closest to the poverty line – the poorest of the non-poor – are at greater risk of falling into persistent poverty.

Another policy priority therefore needs to be preventing those close to the poverty line falling into actual poverty.

When we examined the “trigger events” for people falling into poverty or rising out of it, we found the household’s success in the labour market is critical. In other words, people need to be able to get a job.

An increase in the number of employed people in the household is strongly associated with lifting people out of poverty.

There is also a strong association between a lack of work and the risk of persistent poverty.

Clearly, then, policy measures geared towards increasing employment, and retaining employment for those already employed, are key to reducing persistent poverty.

It’s not just about jobs, though

But employment isn’t the only factor of importance. Any change in family type, but particularly becoming a single-parent family, increases the risk of poverty.

More broadly, the household context plays a crucial role in determining individuals’ poverty experiences.

Who you live with, what they do, and what happens to them are important. The household perspective then is critical to understanding poverty and designing appropriate policy responses.

The onset of disability or substantial caring responsibilities is also much more likely to tip you into poverty and keep you there.

Put simply, those who are more likely to experience persistent poverty tend to be constrained in their ability to participate in the labour market. Having a job may not be an option at all.

Focusing only on labour market-related anti-poverty policy measures therefore isn’t enough to fully address persistent poverty in the Australian community.

Many of those highly exposed to persistent poverty have very constrained access to paid work, because of factors such as:

• long-term health conditions
• high caring responsibilities for young children or
• significant disabilities.

Even among couple-parent households, we found the more dependent children in the household, the lower the probability of exiting poverty.

This highlights the importance of child care assistance to facilitate employment participation and sustained income adequacy for families with young children.

An unavoidable conclusion

But even improvements in child care assistance aren’t enough. The simple fact is that, for a significant number of people, income support will continue to determine their living standards.

The unavoidable conclusion is that boosting income support payments beyond their current austere levels remains a crucial pillar of policy for governments genuinely committed to reducing persistent disadvantage.

Unfortunately, this does not appear to be on the agenda of either of the major parties.

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.

Roger Wilkins receives funding from the Australian Research Council and the Paul Ramsay Foundation.

– ref. Poverty isn’t a temporary experience in Australia. We need urgent policy tackling persistent disadvantage – https://theconversation.com/poverty-isnt-a-temporary-experience-in-australia-we-need-urgent-policy-tackling-persistent-disadvantage-181343

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

The opposition has increased its winning margins in both Newspoll and the Australian Financial Review’s Ipsos poll, as Scott Morrison and Anthony Albanese clashed in a shouty, fractious debate on Sunday night.

With pre-polling opening on Monday, Newspoll has Labor leading 54-46% on a two-party preferred basis, compared to 53-47% a week before.

Albanese has narrowed the gap as better PM – his rating has risen 3 points and Morrison has fallen a point. Morrison leads by a whisker – 44-42%.

In the Ipsos poll, Labor leads the government 57-43%, compared to 55-45% a fortnight ago, and Albanese is ahead of Morrison as preferred PM 41-36%, a 3-point widening of the gap.

The poll results follow last Tuesday’s interest rate rise and Albanese’s stumble on Thursday when he was asked to name the six points of his NDIS policy.

The interest rate increase further elevated cost of living in the campaign, and this appears to have helped Labor, despite some hopes by the Coalition that having economic issues front and centre might be to its advantage.

The Nine debate – which will be followed on Wednesday by the final leaders’ debate, on the Seven network – was scored by more than 30,000 viewers and listeners as a draw.

The two clashed heatedly at several points especially after Albanese said, “When I was a minister, we put US marines into Darwin. When you have been a minister we have had the Port of Darwin sold to a company connected with the Chinese Communist
Party”. This brought a strong reaction from Morrison.

With wide ranging questions from a journalist panel and each other, Albanese dodged when asked why he would not investigate allegations the late senator Kimberley Kitching had been bullied, and again refused to admit he’d been caught out over his NDIS policy.

Pressed on why people questioned his honesty Morrison could only reply in terms of having disagreements with people from time to time.

Neither leader fell into any major hole. The level of assertiveness and aggression was notable, with the moderator, Sarah Abo, at times trying in vain to stop them talking over each other and her.

In Newspoll, conducted Wednesday to Saturday of 1523 voters and published in Monday’s Australian, Labor is up a point to 39% on primary votes; the Coalition is on 35%, down a point. The Greens are stable on 11%.

Morrison’s satisfaction rating has dipped 3 points to 41%; dissatisfaction with him has increased by 4 points to 55%. His net satisfaction is minus 14.

Albanese’s satisfaction increased a point to 41% and his dissatisfaction rating fell by 2 points to 47%. He has a net rating of minus 6.

In the Ipsos poll, the Coalition’s primary vote is down 3 points to 29%; Labor’s primary vote is 35% (up a point). The Greens are steady on 12%.

This gives Labor a 52-40% two-party lead with 8% undecided.

Taking out the undecideds puts Labor on 38% primary vote, with the Coalition on 32%. Labor then leads 57-43% in two party terms, compared to 55-45% a fortnight ago.

Morrison’s approval declined 2 points to 32%; his disapproval increased 3 points to 51%, for a net figure of minus 19. There was only minor change in Albanese’s approval figures. His approval was 30%; his disapproval 36%, and his net rating minus 6.

The poll of 2311 was done Wednesday to Saturday.

Morrison sparked fresh controversy at the weekend when he said a re-elected Coalition would deal with religious discrimination legislation and protection for gay students “sequentially” rather than at the same time. He would not be pinned down on a timeline but given an inquiry by the Australian Law Reform Commission it could be a year or more between the two.

Morrison said Australians of faith were being discriminated against all the time. He said there was no evidence religious schools sought to expel students because they were gay.

Several Liberal backbenchers, including Trent Zimmerman and Katie Allen, who crossed the floor earlier this year to protect trans students’, which led to Morrison abandoning the religious discrimination bill, indicated their position had not changed.

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. View from The Hill: Labor widens leads in Newspoll and Ipsos, as pre-polling starts – https://theconversation.com/view-from-the-hill-labor-widens-leads-in-newspoll-and-ipsos-as-pre-polling-starts-182655