In the midst of Labor’s campaign about the cost of living, the Coalition has zeroed in on one of those costs – taxes – and guaranteed to stop them rising. Its Lower Tax Guarantee promises:
No new taxes on Australian workers.
No new taxes on retirees.
No new taxes on superannuation.
No new taxes on small businesses.
No new taxes on housing.
No new taxes on electricity
In addition, the Coalition promises to continue to adhere to its taxation “speed limit” by keeping tax revenue below 23.9% of gross domestic product.
Labor, fearing its tax policies cost it the last election, isn’t mentioning tax much, and is backing the Coalition’s already-legislated Stage 3 tax cuts aimed at Australians on more than $90,000, and due to start in mid-2024.
As it happens, most Australians are due to pay a good deal more tax from mid next year when the Coalition’s Low and Middle Income Tax Offset ends.
This will give taxpayers with incomes between $48,001 and $90,000 a cut in their tax rebate of $1,500 next financial year.
Actually, we will need more tax
One of the problems with the pledge is that we are likely to need more tax.
Even on optimistic assumptions about productivity growth set out in the budget, the deficit – the extent to which revenue falls short of spending – is projected to be an usually high 3.4% of GDP next financial year, followed by 2.4%, 1.9%, 1.6% and then continuing without disappearing thereafter.
Budget deficits were an appropriate response to the pandemic.
But, as the Coalition keeps reminding us, unemployment is now just under 4% and set to fall lower, which means we might be at what the authorities call “full employment”, or so close to it the difference hardly matters.
The presumption that from now on Australia should aim for a balanced budget is baked into the budget fiscal strategy that targets “a budget balance, on average, over the course of the economic cycle”.
The continuing deficits the budget is forecasting risk aggregate demand (private and government spending) exceeding what the economy is able to produce.
In the coming year the budget forecasts an increase in aggregate demand of 4.5%, unmatched by the increase in Gross domestic product of 3½%.
The result is likely to be a budget-driven increase in inflation, at a time when the Reserve Bank is trying to ward off a surge in (largely foreign-produced) inflation.
Realistically, sound management requires the incoming government to balance the budget, if not straight away, then at least by 2023-24.
Failure to balance the budget will result in unacceptably high inflation and increasingly severe action by the Reserve Bank to restrain it, with damaging consequences for living standards.
There are only two ways to balance budgets: cut spending or increase revenue, and the biggest source of government revenue – by far – is tax.
The Morrison government has committed itself to an arbitrary tax ceiling that limits total taxation revenue to 23.9% of GDP, forevermore.
Labor is not committed to such a ceiling and nor does it talk much about appropriate levels of tax.
The reality is that according to the latest Treasury and Department of Finance projections, government spending will settle at 27.2% of GDP in ten years time, well above the tax ceiling.
Tax pays for services
The government is also guaranteeing essential services, but many are hugely underfunded, examples include:
the promise to fully implement the recommendations of the aged care and disability services royal commissions
tertiary education, which will be funded less in 2024-25 than it was pre-pandemic in 2018-19
health funding – abstracting from the impact of the pandemic, the rate of increase in health funding is projected to be less than half the increase pre-pandemic
defence, diplomacy, and foreign aid spending which will be needed to plug a massive capability gap over the next twenty years or so years
Certainly, there are opportunities for budget savings, starting with electorate giveaways and dodgy infrastructure projects that have no business case. But realistically, these savings will fall well short of what’s needed to fund the extra spending we are going to have to make.
In short, guarantees of both the provision of essential services and lower taxation are incompatible. No party can credibly promise both.
What this election needs is a debate about the best way to raise the needed revenue, followed by a full-scale review of taxation after the election.
The starting point should be to work out how much extra revenue is required.
A rough estimate is an extra 4% of GDP. While that might seem like a lot, it would leave Australia as one of the lower taxing countries in the OECD. It hasn’t hurt the OECD’s prospects.
Michael Keating receives funding from the ARC more than ten years ago, but nothing more recently
The human brain is said to be the most complex biological structure ever to have existed. And while science doesn’t fully understand the brain yet, researchers in the expanding field of neuroscience have been making progress.
Neuroscientists have made substantial inroads towards mapping the complex functions of the brain’s 85 billion or so neurons and the 100 trillion connections between them. (To put this astronomical number into perspective, there are upwards of 400 billion stars in the Milky Way galaxy.)
Enter Neuralink, a Silicon Valley start-up backed by Elon Musk that has developed a neuroprosthetic device known as a brain-computer interface. Among other things, Musk claims this chip could cure tinnitus, the neurological condition that causes ringing in your ears, within five years. But is this possible?
What is Neuralink?
The coin-sized Neuralink device, called a Link, is implanted flush with the skull by a precision surgical robot. The robot connects a thousand miniature threads from the Link to certain neurons. Each thread is a quarter the diameter of a human hair.
The device connects to an external computer by Bluetooth for continuous communication back and forth.
In future, Neuralink prostheses might help people with various kinds of neurological disorders where there is a disconnect or malfunction between the brain and the nerves that serve the body. That includes people with paraplegia, quadriplegia, Parkinson’s disease and epilepsy.
Since its establishment in 2016, Neuralink has been recruiting top-class neuroscientists from academia and the broader research community to develop the technology to treat these conditions.
Neuralink’s monkey can play Pong with his mind
In April 2021, the company released a remarkable proof-of-concept video. It showed a nine-year-old macaque monkey called Pager successfully playing a game of Pong with his mind, by having an implanted Neuralink device connected to a computer running the game.
Pager the monkey played the computer game Pong with his mind. Pixabay.com
Pager was shown how to play Pong using a joystick. When he made a correct move, he’d receive a sip of banana smoothie.
As he played, the Neuralink implant recorded the patterns of electrical activity in his brain. This identified which neurons controlled which movements.
When the joystick was disconnected, Pager was able to play the game and win using only his mind.
Human trials to further develop the Neuralink prototype are expected to commence towards the end of 2022, contingent on United States Food and Drug Administration (FDA) approval.
Musk’s tinnitus claims
Elon Musk has claimed the Neuralink device could cure tinnitus by 2027.
Tinnitus is a neurological condition that manifests as a ringing or buzzing in the ears in the absence of an external source.
Tinnitus is a common problem, caused when the nerve that connects the inner ear with the brain, known as the vestibulocochlear nerve, is damaged due to prolonged loud noise, injury or deficiencies in blood supply.
A cure for tinnitus has proven elusive. Treatment currently centres on masking the sound or learning to ignore it.
At present, the Neuralink prosthesis connects to the cerebral cortex, the surface layer of the brain. This is where the device can remedy damage to the brain’s ability to process motor sensory input or output.
Are Musk’s claims credible?
These claims might appear grandiose. Yet the underlying science is not controversial.
Neural implants have been helping people since the early 1960s when the first cochlear implant was placed in a person with impaired hearing. There has been much progress in the 60 years since then.
Neuroscientists are broadly optimistic the device has potential to treat tinnitus. It may also be useful in treating obsessive compulsive disorder, repairing brain injuries, and treat conditions such as autism or degenerative diseases of the nervous system using deep brain stimulation.
As Paul Nuyujukian, director of the Brain Interfacing Laboratory at Stanford University, observes:
We are on the cusp of a complete paradigm shift. This type of technology has the potential to transform our treatments. Not just for stroke, paralysis, and motor degenerative disease, but also for pretty much every other type of brain disease.
What do we need to be cautious of?
The FDA categorises Neuralink as a class III medical device, the riskiest category. Before human trials start, Neuralink must successfully clear the rigorous FDA regulatory controls.
To be approved, the company must provide exhaustive clinical trial data from non-human test subjects (such as Pager the monkey) to conservatively justify moving to the next phase. Some monkeys have died during Neuralink’s tests, and critics have raised animal welfare concerns.
The approvals process for human testing could take some time.
The regulators will be looking for unintended negative consequences of the device, such as depression. Also of interest will be how practical it is to remove or repair a device should it malfunction, and how to manage the risk of brain injury or infection.
Once FDA-approved, Neuralink will enlist human volunteers and the next round of trials will proceed.
How long it will be until the device is commercially available and how much it will cost is anyone’s guess. It could be years and with a price tag that puts it out of reach for all but the wealthy.
So it’s wise to not hold out false hope for an affordable implant in the short term.
David Tuffley 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.
In the Wentworth Project, sponsored by the University of Canberra’s Centre for Change Governance and The Conversation, we are tapping into voters’ opinions in this seat, which appears to be on a knife edge.
In this podcast we talk with the two main candidates, Liberal incumbent Dave Sharma and “teal” independent Allegra Spender, as well as with Kerryn Phelps, the former independent member in the seat, who has mentored Spender and is on the advisory council of Climate 200, which is donating to her campaign.
Sharma says “Kerryn Phelps was a genuine independent candidate or a more traditional independent candidate. […] This independent candidate is really sort of a franchise or party operation.”
Sharma casts the teals, who are challenging Liberals in a range of city seats, as reflecting “populism as a political force”.
“People think populism only belongs to the right because of Donald Trump. I think the independents are basically harnessing a populist mood, which is similar to what Donald Trump did, which is ‘a curse on all your houses.’”
Morrison is not campaigning in the teal seats. Asked how much the Prime Minister is a drag on the vote, Sharma stresses the team. “Scott Morrison is the leader of our team and the spokesperson for the team. But it’s also got a range of ministers in there who control different portfolios and we’re putting ourselves forward, and I certainly am here, as a team.”
Spender says “there’s a feeling amongst the community that I hear, that they feel that the parties are looking after themselves first and the community after”.
On a possible hung parliament, she says, “I would be willing to work with either party, or major party on supply and confidence, because I want stable government”. She would talk first to whichever side had the greatest number of seats.
Wentworth is seeing enormous spending. Spender says her campaign will probably spend between $1.3 and $1.5 million (with something under 30% expected to come from Climate 200).
She favours caps on spending and donations. “I’d like to see a cap in what individuals or companies can give. I’d like to see real time information in terms of what has been given. And then I think at the same time, you need to look at political advertising and how that is used because the government just spent $30 million spruiking their clean energy credentials […] immediately before the election being called.”
Kerryn Phelps says of Wentworth: “I’ve had a medical practise in Double Bay for around two decades, and so I know the community well. It’s generally seen as an affluent community, but it’s actually quite diverse. There are clearly strong beliefs about the economy and business. And so a candidate would need to have business experience. But the people also have a very strong social conscience. They’re very environmentally aware. And I think that’s particularly highlighted by the fact that it’s bounded by the harbour and the ocean.”
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.
Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Prudence Flowers, Senior Lecturer in US History, College of Humanities, Arts, and Social Sciences, Flinders University
AP Photo/Jason DeCrow
A leaked United States Supreme Court draft opinion reveals it is poised to strike down Roe v. Wade, the landmark 1973 decision that guaranteed abortion as a constitutional right.
The end of Roe v. Wade would dramatically impact reproductive rights in the US. It would also likely have symbolic consequences globally, shaping the strategies and tactics of the trans-national anti-abortion movement.
Overturning Roe v. Wade would put the US Supreme Court out of step with public sentiment.
Abortion is a routine and safe health-care procedure accessed by approximately one in four American women. 2021 polling indicated 80% of Americans support abortion in all or most cases, and at least 60% support Roe v Wade.
About half the states are expected to immediately ban abortion; 16 states plus the District of Columbia have laws protecting abortion rights.
In the short term, a patient’s ability to legally access abortion would effectively be a lottery, determined by geography or having the financial resources to travel significant distances.
In the longer term, opponents of abortion view this moment as a beginning rather than an end. Republican lawmakers are already strategising about legislation that would ban abortion nationwide after six weeks.
Abortion is a routine and safe health-care procedure accessed by approximately one in four American women. Kristopher Radder/The Brattleboro Reformer via AP
Abortion in Australia is regulated by state and territory legislation and the overall trend in the 21st century has been to enshrine abortion as a legal right. In 2021, South Australia became the last jurisdiction to decriminalise the procedure.
Politically, abortion is the subject of conscience votes. It normally does not function as a partisan issue for the major parties, with the notable exception of the 2020 Queensland election, when the LNP promised a review of the recently passed abortion decriminalisation law while One Nation pledged to roll it back.
But while legal abortion in Australia seems secure, we are still a long way from treating abortion as the routine health care it is.
Access is a key issue
In most of Australia, patients needing abortion care face significant barriers to access.
With the exception of South Australia and the Northern Territory, most public hospitals do not offer abortion care. Instead, private clinics provide abortion services and patients pay hundreds of dollars out-of-pocket.
Regional patients face immense logistical barriers and travel and procedure costs. The pandemic inadvertently led to the permanent closure of regional abortion clinics in Queensland and New South Wales. Telehealth services for early medication abortion can sometimes help but shouldn’t be the only option.
Broadly, there is a significant shortage of trained surgical abortion providers. Although early medication abortion can be prescribed by GPs, very few are certified to do so. Until COVID, many private regional abortion clinics relied on doctors working on a fly-in-fly-out model.
In the 2019 federal election, Labor promised “free abortions” via a major sexual and reproductive health policy but has not revisited this proposal in the current campaign.
American tactics imported to Australia
While Australia does not share the US’ intense partisan politics over abortion, we also do not share the approach of Canada where abortion is normalised as reproductive health care.
There has also been a disturbing domestic trend towards the increasing political stigmatisation of abortion.
Amanda Stoker, the assistant minister for women, recently addressed the annual Queensland anti-choice rally.
The end of Roe v. Wade will likely embolden our own anti-abortion activists and politicians, who can question public provision of abortion, push for additional legal and medical regulations, and seek to revise laws by emphasising US talking points such as “late-term” and “sex-selective” abortions.
Legislatively eroding abortion is a strategy that has proven immensely successful in the US.
It ensures abortion is not viewed as health care, that anti-choice rhetoric is amplified in mainstream media, and that abortion patients and providers are further stigmatised.
Cumulatively, these tactics have a chilling effect that will likely make access to abortion even harder.
If the US Supreme Court overturns Roe v. Wade this year, it will mean the end of a decision that has survived 49 years worth of hostile legal challenges. AP Photo/Alex Brandon
If the US Supreme Court overturns Roe v. Wade this year, it will mean the end of a decision that has survived 49 years worth of hostile legal challenges.
It demonstrates the power and danger of long-term tactics relying on stigma and the gradual erosion of rights. It reminds us all that rights must be continually defended, never taken for granted.
Prudence Flowers has received funding from the South Australian Department of Human Services. She is a member of the South Australian Abortion Action Coalition.
Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Rajib Dasgupta, Chairperson, Centre of Social Medicine and Community Health, Jawaharlal Nehru University
In India in 2021, an estimated 504,000 people died from tuberculosis, or TB. That’s almost one per minute. More than a quarter of the estimated TB cases worldwide are in India.
In 2018, the UN committed to end the TB epidemic globally by 2030. The “End TB” strategy sought to reduce TB incidence by 80%, deaths by 90%, and eliminate catastrophic costs for TB-affected households.
Tuberculosis is a disease caused by infection with the bacteria Mycobacterium tuberculosis. It mainly affects the lungs, and the bacteria spreads when an infected person coughs or sneezes.
Some people are infected but do not get any symptoms, which is known as “latent TB”. In others, the infection begins to cause symptoms within weeks or months, which is known as “active TB”.
Up to 10% of those with latent TB eventually develop active TB years after the initial infection.
Antibiotics are the mainstay treatment of TB. However, the bacteria has been known to become resistant and find a way to beat these antibiotics. Drug-resistant strains of TB have become a global concern.
When India gained independence in 1947, there were about half a million TB deaths annually and an estimated 2.5 million Indians suffered from active tuberculosis.
India’s first national survey of TB, conducted from 1955 to 1958, found on average four of every 1,000 people in India had TB.
The National Tuberculosis Institute was established in 1959 and an interdisciplinary group of epidemiologists, tuberculosis specialists, microbiologists, biostatisticians, sociologists, public health nurses and X-ray engineers conducted a series of research studies that culminated in the National Tuberculosis Programme in 1963. The key strategy of the program was to use chemotherapy to treat TB.
What did the most recent survey find?
The results of the most recent national TB survey in India (2019–21) have just been released, and found just over three people per 1,000 had active TB cases. This is not a great improvement on the last survey from the 1950s (four per 1,000) and much higher than the WHO’s 2020 estimate of 1.8 per 1,000.
The highest prevalence was in Delhi, at over five per 1,000. Groups with higher prevalence included the elderly, malnourished, smokers, those with alcohol dependence and diabetics.
Despite the plan to eliminate catastrophic costs due to TB, an estimated 7-32% of TB sufferers and 68% of TB sufferers whose infection is resistant to frontline antibiotics experienced catastrophic costs. Catastrophic costs are said to be incurred when the total costs of treatment exceeds 20% of the annual household income.
What happened to TB during the catastrophic COVID outbreak in India?
This probably indicates TB diagnoses were lost in 2020 during the COVID outbreak. Given hospitals were overwhelmed by COVID cases, people with TB symptoms would have been less able to get care, or would have been hesitant about going to hospital for fear of catching COVID. Even the National Institute of Tuberculosis and Respiratory Diseases (NITRD) was converted into a designated COVID Care Centre in May 2021.
One might have thought lockdowns to stop the spread of COVID (which spreads person-to-person) would have seen a decrease in the incidence of TB (which also spreads person-to-person). This effect was certainly seen for infections such as influenza.
We can only speculate as to why TB cases didn’t decrease, but the fact TB was already endemic in India, and the fact lockdowns probably increased overcrowding for socioeconomically disadvantaged households, could have meant TB was able to more effectively spread in crowded households.
This was exacerbated by the healthcare system at time bordering on collapse as resources had to be allocated for COVID cases, and access to diagnostics and treatment were reduced during the lockdown periods.
Detect refers to early identification of presumptive TB cases, at the first point of care, and prompt diagnosis using high sensitivity diagnostic tests
treatment refers to initiating and sustaining all patients on first-line anti-tuberculosis drug treatment for drug-sensitive TB patients and appropriate antibiotics for drug resistant TB
prevent refers to scaling up air-borne infection control measures at health care facilities, treatment for latent TB infection in contacts of confirmed cases, and addressing social determinants of TB including crowded housing and sanitation
build refers to strengthening and building on the existing health service to prevent and treat TB and positioning TB high on the health and development agenda.
It is looking like we may be too late to reach the 2025 elimination goal. But if we follow these four steps, we might come closer to eliminating TB in India.
Jens Seeberg is the principal investigator and Rajib Dasgupta is the chair of the scientific advisory board of Antimicrobial resistance and labor migration across healthcare boundaries in Northern South Asia (AMR@LAB), funded by the Novo Nordisk Fonden.
Jens Seeberg 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.
There is more than one useful perspective on the present Russian war in Ukraine. None of these put the Kremlin and Vladimir Putin’s Russian war machine in anything other than an egregious light; Mr Putin is a geopolitical warrior of the worst order. He believes that he is waging a war against the treasonous secession of a territory that, in the view of him and many other Russians, should be an integral part of a Russian/Slavic ethno-political union.
(It is important to note that the western coalition of countries has a very different view. In the western view, the Soviet Union was dissolved, giving birth to fifteen sovereign, unaligned and autonomous nation states. The objective reality for almost all countries is of course some point in between full independence and some subjection to a higher or bigger authority.)
Putin’s badness does not however make good all those who would wage rhetorical or physical war against Russia. Further, most of history is scripted by the winners of conflicts. And as time passes, particular agendas come to the fore, reflecting ephemeral cultural concerns which inevitably influence different generations of historians.
One of today’s most prevalent cultural concerns is racism, and rightly so. A result, though, is that historical events come to be seen almost entirely through an ahistorical lens; in the case of 2020, the liberal anti-racism lens. Thus World War Two (WW2), more than ever, is understood as a fascist racist genocide against Jews; and that ‘the liberal west’ were fighting tooth and nail against the racist fascist Nazis because they were racist and fascist. Likewise, the United States’ Civil War of 1861-1865 is understood by many as a simple battle of good versus evil, black versus white; an anti-racist North fighting to the death against the racist slavers in the South, in order to free the ethnically African slaves.
In reality, both of these tumultuous conflicts were principally about something else; though the ‘bad guys’ were infused with self-serving views of racial superiority. War crimes were committed aplenty by all sides in these conflicts. In WW2, the principal motivation of the German aggressors – under the sway of both the Nazi government and substantial grievances carried over from WW1 – was ‘lebensraum‘, a desire to expand the greater German nation into the ‘Slavic’ territories to Germany’s east, including an expansion into Ukraine’s wheatlands and Russia’s oilfields beyond. Thus the central component of Nazi racism was the convenient belief that Slavs were an inferior people; a natural labouring caste. In the West, we continue to be unaware – through convenient ignorance – that WW2 (and WW1 for that matter) were principally struggles between Teutons and Slavs. (With the proviso that WW2 was also made up of another war of Japanese imperialism, in which Japan’s elite had also granted itself a conviction of ‘far-eastern’ racial superiority.)
The Jews on the other hand were not presented as racial inferiors; rather, they were presented by German nationalists – and by just about all other ethnically-European peoples including the Slavs – as a ‘devious but clever’ ethnic/religious people. The Jews were the ever-present scapegoat ‘race’ who have inherited that role for much of the history of Christianity. Many of the worst pogroms against Jews took place around the time of the Black Death in the fourteenth century; Jews were accused of poisoning the water-wells as a means to genocide, and suffered brutal backlashes as a result of those easily disprovable claims. In the fifty years from 1875 to 1925, the worst anti-Jewish pogroms took place in the western parts of ‘greater Russia’, including the early Soviet Union. And they continued in the Baltic States and Ukraine before the Germans arrived. The West – including the English-speaking West – was generally unsympathetic; many liberal westerners believed in the anti-Jewish conspiracy theories and, on that point at least, had some empathy towards the German Nazis.
Wars of Secession
The conflict that I will most focus on is that of the American ‘Civil War’. But we should note that secessions from de jure or de facto political unions are angst-ridden and usually violent affairs. Working backwards, Brexit was certainly angst-ridden, though was fortunately achieved without warfare. Other recent secession states also substantially avoided bloodshed: Slovakia and Slovenia, for example. And the three ex-Soviet Baltic States did manage to shift into both Nato and the European Union, again without bloodshed. Other secessions from ex-Soviet states did take place, militarily though successfully. The attempted secession of Chechnya from Russia was an unsuccessful and bloody affair.
Outside of the former Soviet Union, the secessions from the former Yugoslavia of Bosnia and Kosovo were bloody, and are still incomplete. The attempted secession of Catalonia from Spain failed. The secession from Sudan of South Sudan was a bloody success, though the new country continues to have many problems including tribal division.
Eritrea seceded from Ethiopia in 1991, after a long war of independence. Sadly, Eritrea continued to be entangled with wars in Ethiopia. And it descended into becoming what might best be described as the ‘Stalinist’ state which it is today. Eritrea voted with Syria and Belarus in the UN General Assembly in support of Russia’s invasion of Ukraine. In the mid-2010s, Eritrea – per capita – was a very significant source Mediterranean ‘boat people’ refugees.
In the 1970s, the secession of Bangladesh from Pakistan was a successful though bloody affair. The attempted secession of Biafra from Nigeria was a bloody failure. Much more recently, the long Sr Lankan Civil War – a failed secession attempt by northern Tamils – ended in a bloodbath. The successful secession of Algeria from France in the 1960s was also a very bloody affair.
In the Caribbean, a number of countries seceded from their quasi-American de facto colonial realities: especially Cuba and Nicaragua. Two other attempted secessions were put down militarily through United States ‘gunboat diplomacy’; Grenada in the 1980s and the Dominican Republic in the 1960s. Across the Pacific, Philippines suffered similarly in 1900.
In the late 1910s and early 1920s, Ireland seceded from the United Kingdom, a secession which included a rebellion and a civil war. Similar events occurred in Finland around the same time, as that country seceded from Russia. (Finland, by the way, could have been the model for Ukraine, in the early 2020s. An opportunity tragically squandered.)
A final country worth mentioning is Haiti, which successfully though bloodily (and with the help of an epidemic disease, yellow fever) seceded from France 220 years ago. Haiti’s secession was an uprising of plantation slaves; of Africans, transplanted into the ‘new world’, creating a neo-Africa which (like Eritrea) has been unable to live up to the aspirations of its founders. In all parts of the world, the road to post-secession success is commonly riddled with disappointments.
The US Civil War: The Confederate Secession
In 1860 the ‘Union’ of the United States of America was made up of 33 semi-autonomous states, divided informally into southern and eastern ‘slave states’ and northern and western ‘free states’. Seven of the former states seceded from the Union as the ‘Confederacy’ in February 1861, just weeks before the inauguration of newly elected president Abraham Lincoln. Hostilities began in April with the Confederate attack on Fort Sumter, a major Union military site now in Confederate territory.
Thus, Lincoln’s hand was somewhat forced in the direction of suppressing the secession. But it’s unlikely that Lincoln could have tolerated the secession for long, even had the Fort Sumter attack not taken place. After Lincoln called for troops to put down the secession, four more slave states joined the confederacy, including Virginia, adjacent to Washington DC. Washington itself was surrounded by slave states, with Maryland and Delaware – slave states to the north of the federal capital – showing divided loyalties.
By 1860, before the Civil War, the two-party political divide had become established, with the Democratic Party (founded by Thomas Jefferson) prevailing in the slave states, and Lincoln’s Republican Party prevailing in the free states. Lincoln’s predecessor, James Buchanan, had been a Democratic president.
The Civil War that followed lasted for four years and cost more lives in the United States than all other wars (before and after) combined. Latest estimates give an overall death toll of 750,000 in a country of just over 30 million people. The accepted number of civilian deaths is 50,000; although it was almost certainly higher. The demographic technique used to raise the death toll to 750,000 from 620,000 was based on comparisons between the 1860 and 1870 censuses, and focussed only on additional male deaths (using females as a control).
The Civil War was pursued by Lincoln as a war against secession, not a war against slavery; although of course the ‘right’ to maintain slaves was at the core of the secessionary movement. We should not presume that this was a war of northern anti-racists versus southern racists. Indeed the problem of ideological racism in the imperialist west was really only getting started in the 1860s, as the ideas of Social Darwinism took hold. Racism was becoming endemic throughout the western world; and, as well, it should be understood that tribalist and sectarian forms of racism were pretty much endemic in the non-western world.
Slavery was understood in 1860 as essentially a labour issue, rather than as a race issue. The division between north and south reflected divergent economic development, with the south taking a liberal free trade position (seeing its future in agrarian terms), whereas the north was pursuing a protectionist model of economic development through industrialisation and its need to stablish a strong domestic market for locally produced manufactured goods.
The Civil War became a particularly nasty war, fought mostly on Confederate territory, which became for a long time a military stalemate. From a Confederate point of view, this was a war of defence; defence of their territory from the destruction and depredation being inflicted by an invading force, a force superior in numbers but inferior in passion.
The Confederates miscalculated, in the sense that they hoped for much more support – including direct military support – from the United Kingdom and possibly France; the United Kingdom in particular was committed to the liberal free trade cost-competitive model of economic development. Nevertheless, the Confederate armies put up an amazing fight.
What were the counterfactuals? If Lincoln had withdrawn after Fort Sumter, and accepted the secession of the original seven states, then the savagery could have been avoided, and the slave issue would have been eventually resolved, probably as it was resolved in Brazil in the 1880s. But a display of apparent weakness on Lincoln’s part might have encouraged the remaining eight slave states to join the secession, leaving Washington DC – the Union capital – as a geographical enclave. And such apparent weakness could easily have led to further secessions in the mid-west and far-west. Had the secession succeeded, the USA today might have just been Pennsylvania, New York and New England.
An import part of the Civil War, and its brutality, was the ‘scorched earth’ deployment of Union troops through Georgia in 1864 – General Sherman’s ‘March to the Sea’. Many wars of attrition have since followed that model of wanton destruction of land and people. The Georgia campaign may have been, literally, overkill. Could Lincoln have suppressed the secession with a lesser level of destruction?
What if Lincoln’s troops had lost the war? Today he would be zero rather than hero; known as a maker of widows. Perhaps a war criminal in light of the Georgia campaign? Washington would have become capital of a US Confederate state which would have gained international recognition soon enough; and slaves would have been freed eventually, decades later. Once matters get taken so far, there is no going back; there’s only victory or ignominy. Abraham Lincoln, like Julius Caesar, crossed his Rubicon.
Epilogue: The Great American Political Realignment
The origins of the Democratic Party lie in the southern plantations and in Thomas Jefferson’s agrarian dream of white liberal yeoman autonomy. The Republican Party – and its forerunner, the Federalist Party – began with Alexander Hamilton’s commitment to industrialisation and grew with the subsequent development of big business in the northern states. Jefferson was a libertarian slave-owning patrician. The more conservative Hamilton was of humbler origins, born in the British West Indies as the result of an ex-nuptial union; rumours that his mother was of ‘mixed race’ have not been substantiated. (Certainly, Jefferson had children of mixed race.) Hamilton would almost certainly have become an early American president; that is, had he not been killed in a duel.
A quick purview of the 1920 presidential election results shows a substantial win to the Republican Party. The alignment of red (Republican) and blue (Democrat) states very much reflected the conflicting origins of the two parties. The 2004 election, again a Republican victory, shows a near complete geographical switch. All the blue states in 1920 were red in 2004. And all the blue states in 2004 were red in 1920. The geographic switch largely happened in the 1970s and 1980s, though Bill Clinton being a southerner raised the Democrat vote in the 1990s in the south to higher levels than might otherwise have occurred.
Yet the Democrats continue to be the party of liberalism (although some aspects of the meaning of ‘liberalism’ in America have changed), and the Republicans continue to be the party of conservatism. As the party of liberalism, the Democrats have always been the party of internationalism, hence the greater and ongoing propensity of the Democrats to participate – or at least align – in international conflicts. Historically the more nationalist Republicans have taken a more neutral stance than the Democrats with respect to conflicts in Europe and Asia, preferring not to get involved.
The American Civil War was, in part, a desire on the part of the South to remain internationally connected; to sell cotton and tobacco to Europe, and to buy goods – and labourers – on the world market. The South paid a very high price in its quest to maintain its version of the good life. The North won a great victory, and then freed the slaves; Abraham Lincoln won his venerated place in history.
*******
Keith Rankin (keith at rankin dot nz), trained as an economic historian, is a retired lecturer in Economics and Statistics. He lives in Auckland, New Zealand.
In the course of her Met Gala attendances, Kim Kardashian has worn floral Givenchy (attending for the first time in 2013, pregnant with her first child), silver Balmain, gold Versace and latex “wet look” Thierry Mugler.
Last year, following the separation from her husband Ye (Kanye West) she wore head-to-toe black Balenciaga, an ensemble that rendered her a shadow, a silhouette, recognisable only by the familiar shape of her body.
This year, on the arm of new beau Pete Davidson, Kardashian has once again altered her body and reimagined her look. She lost 7kg in a matter of weeks and spent 14 hours bleaching her hair blonde: all to fit into a delicate, beaded Jean Louis dress, originally drawn by a young Bob Mackie and once worn by Marilyn Monroe.
The dress was famously worn by Marilyn Monroe. Getty Images
This is not just any vintage gown. This is a piece of American history. Monroe wore the dress in 1962 for the 45th birthday celebrations for President John F. Kennedy, where she famously serenaded him with a sultry rendition of Happy Birthday, Mr President.
The ethics of wearing such a fragile piece of material history are one thing. The logistics required – beyond the crash diet and hair dye – are quite another.
The elaborate nature of this performance attests to Kardashian’s commitment to the event, her dedication to fashion and her desire to attract maximum attention.
Vogue reports Kardashian wore the dress for only a matter of minutes, just as she walked the red carpet.
She was ushered out of her hotel through barricades against the paparazzi, fitted into the gown by a conservationist from the Ripley’s Believe It or Not Museum (who purchased the dress at auction in 2016 for a record US$4.8 million) in a small fitting room outside the museum, escorted up the steps by Davidson and hovering security guards, and then changed into a replica of the dress (also owned by Ripley’s) for the remainder of the party.
The interview in Vogue illustrates her reverence for Monroe, especially in that gown and at that historic event.
Monroe and Kardashian share much in common. They have recognisable bodies; famous for their sex appeal. They are petite women, 1.68cm and 1.57cm respectively. Both have been married three times. Kardashian, at 41, is just five years older than Monroe when she died, only three months after serenading the President at Madison Square Garden.
They are also vastly different. Monroe, a silver screen icon; an actor of remarkable talent. Kardashian, a reality TV star and icon of the modern celebrity age; famous for being famous.
By wearing this dress, radically (unhealthily) transforming her body into an approximation of Monroe, Kardashian attempted to reiterate their likeness.
Just as she has morphed herself into a facsimile of Cher or Naomi Campbell, or transformed her style under the tutelage of her ex-husband, Ye: Kardashian is nothing if not a fashion chameleon.
Reshaping the nature of celebrity
Kardashian is also irrefutably herself. She has constructed her own form of celebrity and has fought fiercely for its legitimacy. Her inclusion on the Met Gala guest list in the first place – initially only as Kanye’s plus-one – was hard won.
So, what does it mean for this peerless contemporary celebrity to appropriate the dress, the aura, the mythology of an historical Hollywood icon?
Some commentary has suggested Kardashian would be lucky to have half the charisma, the magic of Monroe. This may be correct, yet it also somewhat misses the point.
Regardless of your thoughts about Kardashian, it is undeniable she is an astute (albeit frequently tone deaf) business woman, who has made a living from her body and her ability to modify it.
For better or worse, she has altered the nature of celebrity and, along with her sisters, has reshaped American beauty ideals.
Of course, she is also a billionaire: one of the only women in the world with the financial means and cultural capital to acquire the rights to wear such a gown – extracted from its usual home in a temperature-controlled vault.
Other commentary decried the extravagance of the Met Gala itself. These familiar dissenting voices were perhaps louder than ever this year, as the event celebrated the so-called Gilded Age in American history (1870-1900) at a moment when political, economic, environmental and health crises the world over continue to proliferate.
However, that is the joy of fashion. It reminds us that, regardless of our differences, we are all bodies wrapped in garments. So, as women’s rights are brutally peeled back across the United States, I couldn’t help but revel in the extreme extravagance for a moment and savour this elaborate celebration of an iconic American woman.
Harriette Richards 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.
It is common to hear people use stigmatising, discriminatory and hurtful labels such as “psycho”, “schizo” or “totally bipolar”. Others might minimise conditions by saying they too are “a bit OCD” because they value structure and organisation.
This kind of everyday use of pseudo-clinical terms can be upsetting for young people who are struggling with these conditions. Worse still, it can stop them seeking care.
Clinical terms can have the same effect. For our recent research, we worked with young patients, carers and clinicians to develop new mental health vocabulary that carries less stigma, but remains accurate.
Labels can provide concise and understandable descriptions of clinical and theoretical ideas. Diagnoses enable patients and health professionals to follow evidence-based advice for effective care, because best practice guidelines are available for all labelled medical conditions.
In other words, naming a condition is the first step towards identifying the best treatment available. Labels can also help create communities of individuals who share a similar clinical description, and reassure individuals they are not alone.
On the other hand, labels can result in stigma and discrimination, poor engagement with services, increased anxiety and suicidal thoughts, and poorer mental health.
The process of posing a diagnosis, may treat an individual’s strengths or their vulnerabilities as abnormalities and pathologise them.
For example, a young person’s vivid imagination and artistic drive – strengths that allow them to produce wonderful artwork – might be recast as a sign of illness. Or their experience of growing up in poverty and disadvantage, could be seen as the cause of their mental illness, rather than environmental factors that may have merely contributed to it.
As such, clinicians should seek to understand a person’s difficulties through a holistic, humanistic and psychological perspective, prior to giving them a label.
Stigma around mental health labels may prevent young people seeking help. Unsplash, CC BY
In the past decade, there have been efforts to improve naming of psychiatric disorders. Attempts to update psychiatric terms and make them more culturally appropriate and less stigmatising have resulted in renaming schizophrenia in several countries.
Proposed terms such as Si Jue Shi Tiao (thought and perceptual dysregulation) in Hong Kong, and Johyenonbyung (attunement disorder) in South Korea, have been suggested as alternatives that carry less stigma and allow a more positive view of psychiatry.
These new terms, however, were generated by experts in the field. Consumers and clients within the mental health system have rarely been consulted, until now.
Thoughts from those ‘at risk’
Currently, “ultra-high risk (for psychosis)”, “at-risk mental state” and “attenuated psychosis syndrome” are used to describe young people at elevated risk of developing psychosis. But these labels can be stigmatising and damaging for the young people who receive them.
At Orygen, new, less stigmatising ways to describe the “risk for psychosis” concept were co-developed with young people with lived experience of mental ill-health.
During focus groups, former patients were asked how they would like their experiences to be termed if they were believed to be at risk for developing a mental illness.
This discussion resulted in them generating new terms such as “pre-diagnosis stage”, “potential for developing a mental illness” and “disposition for developing a mental illness”.
The terms were then presented to three groups: 46 young people identified as being at risk for psychosis and currently receiving care; 24 of their caregivers; and 52 clinicians caring for young people.
Most thought these new terms were less stigmatising than the current ones. The new terms were still judged as informative and illustrative of young people’s experiences.
Patients also told us they wanted terms like these to be fully disclosed and raised early in their care. This revealed a desire of transparency when dealing with mental ill-health and clinicians.
Labels can, and should, be revisited when stigma becomes associated with them.
Co-designing new diagnostic labels with patients, their carers and clinicians is empowering for all involved. Several similar projects are underway in Italy and Japan to include a cultural perspective in renaming terms related to young people at risk of developing serious mental ill health.
We hope to integrate and use more terms generated by young people in mainstream early intervention psychiatric services. We hope this will have a meaningful impact on young people’s mental health by allowing better access to care and less stigmatisation.
If this article has raised issues for you, or if you’re concerned about someone you know, call Lifeline on 13 11 14.
The authors do not work for, consult, own shares in or receive funding from any company or organisation that would benefit from this article, and have disclosed no relevant affiliations beyond their academic appointment.
Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Jessica Vredenburg, Senior Lecturer (Assistant Professor) in Marketing, Auckland University of Technology
GettyImages
From Nike to Ben & Jerry’s to Airbnb, more and more brands are taking a stand on sociopolitical issues (often called brand activism), to the point it’s arguably become a component of any brand’s strategy.
But as consumers grow more accustomed to such initiatives, they’ve also become increasingly critical. While its clear many consumers want brands to take a stand, it’s not always clear what that stand should be.
So weighing in on a divisive issue becomes a calculated risk. Customers may stop buying a brand if it supports the “wrong” side of an issue, or supports it in the wrong way.
If and when this happens, the door opens for rival brands to pick up those disgruntled customers purely by remaining neutral on an issue, gaining an edge simply by observing and reacting to what the first brand has done. This raises an important question: is there a second mover advantage when it comes to brand activism?
Bystander brands and free agents
Take Gillette’s now infamous 2019 “The Best Men Can Be” campaign, for example. The short film features images of violence between boys, sexism in movies and at work, as well as news clips of the #MeToo movement. A voice asks, “Is this the best a man can get?”.
The day after the Gillette ad was released, rival Dollar Shave Club tweeted a short and simple message: “Welcome to the Club”. Comments on the tweet suggest it resonated with a group of consumers seemingly offended by the Gillette ad.
Our research examines what we call “bystander brands” that appeal to disaffected consumers of rival brands, who are offended by an activist stance and now “free agents” with no fixed brand allegiances.
As second movers, these bystander brands can, at least in the short term, benefit from consumer scepticism (or cynicism) fuelled by a perceived overload of brand activism – some of it inauthentic, opportunistic, imitative or just “woke washing” – which devalues such activism overall.
Our findings suggest that deliberate bystander brand strategies – waiting for a competitor to take a stand then appealing to alienated or offended customers – can appeal to certain consumers.
So far, research in this area has tended to focus on how sociopolitical brand activism works, how it can be most effective, and how companies can avoid reputational damage in the process.
But little has been said about brands that might be drawn into activist conversations simply through their competitors taking a stand. Rivals or bystander brands could remain silent on an issue, take a neutral stance, or announce an opposing position.
Appealing to a competitor’s customers is typically very challenging, given the strong psychological “contracts” that build brand loyalty. The fallout from brand activism represents a rare situation where market share is up for grabs.
For example, following Nike’s endorsement of Colin Kaepernick with its 2018 “Dream Crazy” campaign, many enraged customers looked for alternative athletic brands. What are the likes of Adidas and Under Armour to do in this position? Surprisingly, the research has yet to address this potential market share in limbo.
Brands have struggled to navigate activism in the modern era, with noticeable missteps around Black Lives Matter and #metoo. Steve Dykes/Getty Images
The conservative consumer
We find the desire to reject sociopolitical brand activism particularly true for customers who identify as “conservative”. While boycotting brands is a bipartisan affair, the way consumers engage in boycotts differs.
Past research finds conservatives can be quicker to seek punishment and want corrective action as a result of their moral outrage. Brand rivals are sometimes even viewed with hostility as the “enemy”. Switching from an offending brand to a rival satisfies a desire for retaliation, a pattern we observed across three studies.
Furthermore, our work finds that intentionally mentioning such rivalries in brand advertising is more effective at attracting “free agent” conservatives, relative to their more liberal counterparts, who were less concerned with brand rivalry or persuaded by advertising based on it.
Strategically, then, remaining “activism adjacent” as a bystander brand represents a critical opportunity. As other brands risk losing customers with sociopolitical platitudes or inauthentic campaigns, rivals can maintain relevance in an increasingly nuanced marketing landscape. It can be as simple as a cheeky tweet.
Para penulis tidak bekerja, menjadi konsultan, memiliki saham atau menerima dana dari perusahaan atau organisasi mana pun yang akan mengambil untung dari artikel ini, dan telah mengungkapkan bahwa ia tidak memiliki afiliasi di luar afiliasi akademis yang telah disebut di atas.
New Zealand Parliament Buildings, Wellington, New Zealand.
Political Roundup is entirely subscriber-funded. The ethos behind this public service is to help foster a robust and informed public debate, with a great diversity of perspectives. If you appreciate what we are doing in providing non-partisan analysis and information about politics, economy, and society, please consider helping us keep going, by donating via Victoria University of Wellington’s fundraising page here: https://bit.ly/VUWDemocracyProject
Political Roundup: Trevor Mallard’s petty fiefdom
Is Parliament just the fiefdom of Trevor Mallard and his colleagues? That’s the impression the public might take from yesterday’s news that the Speaker of Parliament is issuing trespass notices to political opponents who visited the protest in March on the lawns of Parliament.
Speaker Mallard has the absolute right to decide who can and can’t visit Parliamentary grounds. However, in arbitrarily trespassing selected political figures, he brings both himself and the institution of Parliament into yet more disrepute. In particular, the decision to threaten New Zealand First leader Winston Peters with arrest if he visits Parliament makes a further mockery of how authorities have dealt with dissent. A sense of pettiness now pervades Mallard and those that defend him.
Parliament already has a bad rap. Poll after poll shows confidence in and respect for the institution has been declining in recent times.
One of the big problems is that Parliament and politicians are seen as out of touch, elite, and aloof. To get a better understanding of the problem, in 2018 Parliament actually commissioned a Colmar Brunton survey into how the public feels about Parliament. The results were so bad they were buried.
Here’s what New Zealanders think of Parliament:
21% “feel a sense of ownership of Parliament”
16% “feel connected to Parliament”
13% “would speak highly of Parliament”
7% “would speak highly of MPs”
27% trusted Parliament, compared to 29% who expressed distrust, and 41% who declared trust in the “civil service”
60% “believe big business and vocal minorities are the ones who influence Parliament”
37% “feel there’s no point in trying to influence Parliament as nothing will change”
These results are a real problem for an institution that is constitutionally regarded as the “people’s place”. And Mallard’s actions over the protest, and attempts to punish those people who attended the protest just reinforce the notion that Parliament is actually just the fiefdom of elites.
The big problem for Mallard in sending out trespass orders to figures who came to observe the protest is that it is entirely arbitrary and issued without justification. Over the course of the weeks of the protest, the site was visited by dozens, if not hundreds, of journalists, politicians, academics, public servants, and so forth.
I was one of these – visiting as an academic researcher of politics and political commentator. Like many others, I wasn’t there to support the protest in any way but to observe and try to understand what was occurring. In my case, I made it clear that I opposed the politics of those protesting.
To what extent Winston Peters was opposed to the protesters is less clear. But there has been no attempt for Speaker Mallard to explain why Peters is being legally banned from the place. Was he considered part of the protest? Or in some way encouraging it? We don’t know.
It seems unlikely that other observers at the protest such as media and academics will be trespassed, because that would surely create an immense fightback by all those who value democratic principles. But in lieu of such public figures – or even just neutral members of the public – being trespassed, Mallard needs to explain such inconsistencies. At the moment it looks as if he is simply targeting those that he doesn’t like.
If the criteria is that anyone who visited and was perceived to show support for an illegal occupation should be banned then there will be many current and former MPs, – especially Māori MPs from Labour, Greens and Te Pāti Māori – who would end up with quite a stack of trespass orders. That’s the problem with denying access to basic human and democratic rights to score political points – own goals are inevitable in the end.
Being the representative of Parliament, and the Labour Party who keeps him in the role, Mallard’s actions also reflect on the rest of the politicians in the institution. Those who stand by his decisions on this issue will have to also bear responsibility for them. And those that don’t will need to make their opposition clear.
As with all of Mallard’s other missteps over managing the protest, this one also seems destined to backfire. Not only will his actions reinforce the sense of persecution of the actual protesters, who felt conspiracies and the heavy hand of the state, but it will boost the political chances of Winston Peters in his attempted electoral comeback.
Peters is now well placed to enter the upcoming Tauranga by-election, and potentially do very well. By-elections can throw up some odd surprises, as voters don’t feel constrained to vote with the same degree of seriousness as in general elections. A large proportion of locals might well want to use a vote for Peters as a protest vote against the Government, or even just a slap in the face of Mallard for being dictatorial. And given that National appears to have chosen a weak and uninspiring candidate, anything could happen.
Of course, a surprise win by Peters would make Mallard’s trespass order somewhat moot and embarrassing, as the Speaker would have to rescind it to allow a triumphant Peters to take up his elected place.
Regardless of this unlikely scenario, there seems a good chance that Mallard will be forced to rescind the trespass notices, and stop sending out more. His survival as Speaker might depend on it. Certainly, if wiser heads around him, such as the Prime Minister, care about how the public feels about the institution of Parliament, or even about the Labour Party, then Mallard’s overreach will soon be put on notice.
Further reading on Mallard’s trespassing of Winston Peters
There’s something wonderful about sitting under the night sky, watching a meteor shower play out overhead. However, observers in the southern hemisphere usually get the short end of the stick, with most of the best showers strongly favouring those north of the equator.
Every May, however, southern observers get a special treat – the Eta Aquariid meteor shower. This year conditions promise to be perfect, making it the ideal opportunity for some autumnal meteor observation.
The forecast peak for this year’s Eta Aquariids falls on the morning of Saturday, May 7. The Moon is well out of the way, so meteors won’t be lost in its glare.
But what if skies are cloudy? Well, if you miss the morning of the peak, don’t panic! The Eta Aquariids are famed for their broad peak, and meteor rates typically stay high for about a week around the peak (May 4–11). So if Saturday morning is cloudy, try looking again on Sunday, or even Monday.
To get the best view, you’ll want to get up in the early hours of the morning and be well away from any bright city lights. Give your eyes time to adjust to the darkness. Take a chair or recliner to get comfortable, relax and gaze skywards.
You won’t even need a telescope! To best observe meteor showers, you’ll want to watch as wide an area of sky as possible. Using a telescope or binoculars would make the spectacle almost impossible to observe.
Dust and debris from a famous comet
As the Earth orbits the Sun, it continually runs into dust and debris from comets and asteroids. Every April and May, the Earth spends about six weeks traversing a river of dust left behind by the famous Comet 1P/Halley.
Comet 1P/Halley was photographed on March 8, 1986, during its last pass around the Sun. NASA/W. Liller
Every 76 years or so, Comet Halley swings close to the Sun. Its icy surface heats up until the ices boil off into space in a process called “sublimation”. This shrouds the comet in a gaseous coma, which is blown away from the Sun to generate the comet’s tail.
The gas escaping Halley’s surface carries dust grains, which gradually spread around the comet’s orbit. Some move ahead of the comet, while others lag behind.
Over thousands of years, the space around Halley’s orbit has become thick with dust grains. The comet is essentially moving through a dirty snowstorm of its own making! And each year, the Earth runs through that broad river of dust – giving birth to the Eta Aquariid meteor shower.
Interestingly, the Earth runs into Halley’s debris again in October, producing the famous Orionid meteor shower. But we get a better show in May each year with the Eta Aquariids, as this is when we move closer to the centre of the dust stream.
When dust left behind by a comet smashes into Earth’s atmosphere, it becomes a spectacular fiery streak of light high in the sky. This usually happens about 80km above the ground, although the largest bits of debris can penetrate pretty deep into the atmosphere before burning up entirely.
The dust grains in a meteor shower all move around the Sun at essentially the same speed and in the same direction. This means the grains are also travelling in the same direction as they hit the Earth.
But as they move towards an observer on the ground, that observer’s perspective will make their paths diverge, and they will seem to be radiating out from a single point in the sky. That point is known as a shower’s “radiant”.
The Orionid meteors are a great example of how meteors in a shower seem to radiate from a single point in the sky. Phil Hart
Meteors showers are named for the constellation in which their radiant lies. So the Eta Aquariids have a radiant near the star Eta Aquarii – the tenth-brightest star in Aquarius.
To see the Eta Aquariids, you’ll need to wait until the radiant rises – before that, the body of the Earth gets in the way. We’re lucky here in the southern hemisphere, as the Eta Aquariid radiant rises in the east at around 1:30 to 2am, local time.
The Eta Aquariids radiant will rise between 1.20am and 2.20am for cities across Australia. Museums Victoria
While the Eta Aquariid meteors can be seen anywhere in the sky, the ideal place to see the best number of meteors is about 45 degrees to the left or right of the radiant itself.
Fortunately, this year we have another spectacular sight in the morning sky. Four planets – Saturn, Mars, Jupiter and Venus – will all be in a line. To see the best meteor show, look about 45 degrees to the left or right of this line of planets.
The line of planets and the Eta Aquariid radiant as they will appear at around 4am on May 7 from Sydney (rising in the east). The sky will look mostly the same from Brisbane, Canberra and Perth at 4am (local time), Melbourne, Hobart and Adelaide at 4:30am (local time) and Darwin at 5am (local time). Museums Victoria/Stellarium
To see how the planets and radiant will rise from your location, visit the Stellarium planetarium website, set your location and move the date and time forward to the morning of May 7. If you turn on the “constellations” and “constellations art” (at the bottom of the screen), you can watch Aquarius and the planets rising from the comfort of your computer.
How many meteors should I expect to see?
The Eta Aquariids are the second best shower of the year for people in Australia. They can put on a spectacular show – but don’t expect to see meteors falling like snowflakes.
When the radiant first rises above the horizon, at around 1.30am, meteors from the shower will be few and far between. If you see five or six Eta Aquariids in that first hour, you should probably count yourself lucky.
That said, these early meteors could be really spectacular. Known as “Earth grazers”, they often seem to streak from near one horizon all the way across the sky. Earth grazers are the result of meteors hitting our atmosphere at a very shallow angle, almost edge on. They’re rare, but incredible to witness!
As the night goes on, and the radiant climbs higher into the sky, the number of meteors should increase. In the hour before dawn, you could easily see 20 to 30 meteors per hour.
Oh, and a word of warning: meteors are like buses – if you’re expecting 30 per hour, you can easily wait ten minutes and see nothing, before three come along at once. Make sure you dress warm so you can stay under the stars for at least half an hour, if not more!
The authors do not work for, consult, own shares in or receive funding from any company or organization that would benefit from this article, and have disclosed no relevant affiliations beyond their academic appointment.
There’s something wonderful about sitting under the night sky, watching a meteor shower play out overhead. However, observers in the southern hemisphere usually get the short end of the stick, with most of the best showers strongly favouring those north of the equator.
Every May, however, southern observers get a special treat – the Eta Aquariid meteor shower. This year conditions promise to be perfect, making it the ideal opportunity for some autumnal meteor observation.
The forecast peak for this year’s Eta Aquariids falls on the morning of Saturday, May 7. The Moon is well out of the way, so meteors won’t be lost in its glare.
But what if skies are cloudy? Well, if you miss the morning of the peak, don’t panic! The Eta Aquariids are famed for their broad peak, and meteor rates typically stay high for about a week around the peak (May 4–11). So if Saturday morning is cloudy, try looking again on Sunday, or even Monday.
To get the best view, you’ll want to get up in the early hours of the morning and be well away from any bright city lights. Give your eyes time to adjust to the darkness. Take a chair or recliner to get comfortable, relax and gaze skywards.
You won’t even need a telescope! To best observe meteor showers, you’ll want to watch as wide an area of sky as possible. Using a telescope or binoculars would make the spectacle almost impossible to observe.
Dust and debris from a famous comet
As the Earth orbits the Sun, it continually runs into dust and debris from comets and asteroids. Every April and May, the Earth spends about six weeks traversing a river of dust left behind by the famous Comet 1P/Halley.
Comet 1P/Halley was photographed on March 8, 1986, during its last pass around the Sun. NASA/W. Liller
Every 76 years or so, Comet Halley swings close to the Sun. Its icy surface heats up until the ices boil off into space in a process called “sublimation”. This shrouds the comet in a gaseous coma, which is blown away from the Sun to generate the comet’s tail.
The gas escaping Halley’s surface carries dust grains, which gradually spread around the comet’s orbit. Some move ahead of the comet, while others lag behind.
Over thousands of years, the space around Halley’s orbit has become thick with dust grains. The comet is essentially moving through a dirty snowstorm of its own making! And each year, the Earth runs through that broad river of dust – giving birth to the Eta Aquariid meteor shower.
Interestingly, the Earth runs into Halley’s debris again in October, producing the famous Orionid meteor shower. But we get a better show in May each year with the Eta Aquariids, as this is when we move closer to the centre of the dust stream.
When dust left behind by a comet smashes into Earth’s atmosphere, it becomes a spectacular fiery streak of light high in the sky. This usually happens about 80km above the ground, although the largest bits of debris can penetrate pretty deep into the atmosphere before burning up entirely.
The dust grains in a meteor shower all move around the Sun at essentially the same speed and in the same direction. This means the grains are also travelling in the same direction as they hit the Earth.
But as they move towards an observer on the ground, that observer’s perspective will make their paths diverge, and they will seem to be radiating out from a single point in the sky. That point is known as a shower’s “radiant”.
The Orionid meteors are a great example of how meteors in a shower seem to radiate from a single point in the sky. Phil Hart
Meteors showers are named for the constellation in which their radiant lies. So the Eta Aquariids have a radiant near the star Eta Aquarii – the tenth-brightest star in Aquarius.
To see the Eta Aquariids, you’ll need to wait until the radiant rises – before that, the body of the Earth gets in the way. We’re lucky here in the southern hemisphere, as the Eta Aquariid radiant rises in the east at around 1:30 to 2am, local time.
The Eta Aquariids radiant will rise between 1.20am and 2.20am for cities across Australia. Museums Victoria
While the Eta Aquariid meteors can be seen anywhere in the sky, the ideal place to see the best number of meteors is about 45 degrees to the left or right of the radiant itself.
Fortunately, this year we have another spectacular sight in the morning sky. Four planets – Saturn, Mars, Jupiter and Venus – will all be in a line. To see the best meteor show, look about 45 degrees to the left or right of this line of planets.
The line of planets and the Eta Aquariid radiant as they will appear at around 4am on May 7 from Sydney (rising in the east). The sky will look mostly the same from Brisbane, Canberra and Perth at 4am (local time), Melbourne, Hobart and Adelaide at 4:30am (local time) and Darwin at 5am (local time). Museums Victoria/Stellarium
To see how the planets and radiant will rise from your location, visit the Stellarium planetarium website, set your location and move the date and time forward to the morning of May 7. If you turn on the “constellations” and “constellations art” (at the bottom of the screen), you can watch Aquarius and the planets rising from the comfort of your computer.
How many meteors should I expect to see?
The Eta Aquariids are the second best shower of the year for people in Australia. They can put on a spectacular show – but don’t expect to see meteors falling like snowflakes.
When the radiant first rises above the horizon, at around 1.30am, meteors from the shower will be few and far between. If you see five or six Eta Aquariids in that first hour, you should probably count yourself lucky.
That said, these early meteors could be really spectacular. Known as “Earth grazers”, they often seem to streak from near one horizon all the way across the sky. Earth grazers are the result of meteors hitting our atmosphere at a very shallow angle, almost edge on. They’re rare, but incredible to witness!
As the night goes on, and the radiant climbs higher into the sky, the number of meteors should increase. In the hour before dawn, you could easily see 20 to 30 meteors per hour.
Oh, and a word of warning: meteors are like buses – if you’re expecting 30 per hour, you can easily wait ten minutes and see nothing, before three come along at once. Make sure you dress warm so you can stay under the stars for at least half an hour, if not more!
The authors do not work for, consult, own shares in or receive funding from any company or organisation that would benefit from this article, and have disclosed no relevant affiliations beyond their academic appointment.
Josh Frydenberg says they are fake independents, John Howard called them anti-Liberal groupies, Scott Morrison points out they are only standing in Liberal seats, and that a vote for them is in fact a vote for Labor.
Well, they would say this, wouldn’t they, as the Liberal heartland fractures, risking not only the return of the government but the careers of its more promising golden sons.
It is now clear Frydenberg is fighting for his future in Kooyong, against paediatric neurologist Monique Ryan. If he loses, he won’t be the next federal Liberal leader.
There are 15 teal candidates standing against incumbents in the lower house, but the ones to watch are in the once blue ribbon Liberal seats of the comfortable middle and upper middle class: Kooyong and Goldstein in Victoria, Wentworth, North Sydney and Bradfield in New South Wales, and Curtin in Western Australia.
The challengers are all well-educated, well-connected professional women, from a range of occupations – medicine, journalism, business, finance. Tellingly, none has been a political staffer. They would bring real life experience into the parliament, and they are backed by strong community campaigns.
The strength of support for these candidates in once blue ribbon Liberal seats reveals a fracturing of the Liberal Party’s traditional support among the upper middle class. Two of the women, Allegra Spender and Kate Chaney, are from families with deep connections to the Liberal Party. Both have the name recognition an independent needs to win.
These candidates have taken the “Voices of …” identity from Cathy McGowan’s successful 2013 campaign against Sophie Mirabella in the Victorian seat of Indi. McGowan has also been an important source of advice on how to organise a community-based campaign.
But these candidates are crucially different from McGowan, who was elected to make a noise about local issues in a rural electorate, such as an unreliable mobile phone network.
While the teal independents have taken the ‘voices of …’ slogan and advice from Cathy McGowan, the campaigns are crucially different. AAP/Mick Tsikas
The teal candidates in these once safe Liberal seats are not campaigning for better local facilities. They are arguing instead for different national policies – on climate change, a federal integrity commission and the treatment of women, with climate change the most important. These are all matters of national policy on which the federal government has failed to lead. In terms of the history of the Liberal Party, these candidates represent a significant class defection.
In the early 20th century, when it became clear Labor aspired to be a party of government, the established middle-class parties fought off the challenge with two core arguments: poorly educated working men and trade unionists did not have the skills or experience to provide competent government; and the party of the trade unions and the working class would be a sectional party that would govern on behalf of its supporters and not of the nation as a whole.
As Labor’s electoral support grew, these two claims buoyed the political self-confidence of the social formation I call “the moral middle class”. They were the people with the education and worldly experience to manage the nation’s affairs. They had the character, integrity and perspective to put the national interest before their own.
We hear weak echoes of these arguments in Morrison’s repeated refrain that only the Coalition can be trusted with the national government’s core responsibilities of economic management and national security. But that is all they are now, the weakest of echoes that Morrison barely understands.
The plausibility of the Liberals’ claims to superior competence has been undermined both by its policy failures in government since 2013 and the poor calibre and performance of many of its ministers. The team Morrison is taking to this election cannot claim to be more competent than Labor’s. It is the B team of a tired government, with some spectacularly poor performers, such as the bumbling Richard Colbeck.
Likewise, the plausibility of the Liberals’ historic claim to a commitment to national rather than sectional interests has been undermined by the government’s failure to take climate change seriously and its capture by the fossil fuel lobby, the soft corruption of its electoral bribery, its refusal of an effective federal integrity commission, and its electoral strategy of largely ignoring the interests of those unlikely to vote Liberal in favour of men in hard hats.
Morrison thinks more like a campaign director than a prime minister, so if your vote is already locked in you are of little interest, no matter what contribution your work might be making to the nation.
The Morrison government’s claim they operate in national rather than sectional interests does not stand up to scrutiny, abandoning many voters in favour of men in hard hats. AAP/Lukas Coch
Since John Howard, the Liberal Party has increased its support among less well-educated, suburban and regional manual workers, and argued Labor is the party of the inner-city elites. The culture wars morphing into the climate wars were crucial in this shift, as were election campaigns focused on the hip pockets of aspirational voters.
The relationship between tertiary education and voting has shifted, with higher levels of education increasingly correlating with voting for Labor or the Greens. The cost is the increasing alienation of the well-educated elites who once gave the Liberals their support.
Judith Brett 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.
It’s hard to survive in bitterly cold Antarctica. But the ice continent is home to more than 1,100 species who have adapted to life on land and in its lakes.
Penguins are the most well known, but Antarctica’s diversity lies in its microbes and species like mosses, lichens and tardigrades (water bears). Most of these survive in the few ice-free areas on the continent.
Our new research provides a comprehensive inventory of Antarctic species. We believe it will help the 54 nations who are party to the Antarctic Treaty fulfil one of its major conservation goals – the continent-wide protection of Antarctic species.
Despite their toughness, climate change, introduced species and human activities pose growing threats for these species. We need rapid and widespread protection for Antarctica’s biodiversity if these species are to survive.
How can so many species live in Antarctica?
Our inventory found 1,142 land and lake-dwelling species currently known to live on the Antarctic continent. This list is dominated by extraordinarily resilient groups, such as lichens, mosses and invertebrates, which have evolved to thrive under extreme conditions.
The number of species within each taxonomic group that live in Antarctica. Groups like bacteria with poorly-resolved species lists are excluded. Laura M. Phillips
These species have developed unique adaptations to live in this frozen desert, where sub-zero temperatures are the norm and life sustaining water is often locked up as ice.
Antarctic mosses have the incredible ability to freeze and almost completely dry out. They come back to life during the brief periods when it’s warm enough for ice to melt, and take advantage of liquid water to rehydrate and grow.
A moss bed at Casey Station, Antarctica. Laura M. Phillips Tardigrade in its active form and after freezing. Laura M. Phillips
Tardigrades are, famously, masters of survival. During tough times, they can enter a frozen, inactive state very close to death. Some have remained frozen for over 30 years before recovering and resuming their normal lives as if nothing happened.
And then, of course, there are the penguins. Five of the world’s 18 species live in Antarctica, with another four species on sub-Antarctic islands. These birds are built for the cold with thick layers of insulating fat and feathers to keep warm.
Gentoo penguin adult and chicks. Steven L. Chown
Isn’t Antarctica already protected?
It’s a common belief that Antarctica is already highly protected. But, in practice, this is only true for specific areas.
In 1991, the nations party to the Antarctic Treaty agreed to conserve the unique continent through the Madrid Protocol. This agreement set the foundations for a network of 75 protected areas – those with outstanding environmental, scientific, historic, aesthetic and wilderness value.
This approach aided conservation, by restricting entry and limiting what people can do, safeguarding biodiversity from issues such as wildlife disturbance, pollution, and introduction of invasive species.
But there are still large gaps, leaving many species unprotected.
One solution is already outlined in the Madrid Protocol: protect the “type localities” of each species. This refers to the location where the very first specimen of a species was collected and described. These specimens are crucial for taxonomy, as they act as the point of reference to check against unknown or ambiguous specimens.
Vegetation on the Clark Peninsula, Antarctica, the type locality for five lichen species. Laura M. Phillips
Importantly, protecting the type locality of a species ensures any species can be protected, even if we know little about their habitat or distribution. This is especially important for Antarctic species, because for many, the type locality is the only known location for that species.
To date, however, no Antarctic protected areas have been created specifically to conserve type localities. That’s where our research can help.
What needs to be done?
The reason there are no protected areas of this kind is because we haven’t had a comprehensive list of Antarctic species and their type localities. That’s why we undertook this research.
Once we had the list, we mapped the type localities across the continent to see how many of these sites are currently protected.
The distribution of protected (green) and unprotected (purple) type localities across Antarctica. Rachel I. Leihy
We found more than a quarter (28%) of all species already have their type localities protected for other reasons, such as scientific interest or wildlife colonies. That’s because they occur in the few and small ice free areas across the continent, where most of the existing protected areas have been created. The remaining 72% of the continent’s type localities are not protected in this way.
There is now a great opportunity to protect these localities. If we focus first on areas with multiple type localities, we could get many more species protected.
Over time, we could expand this network. We estimate another 105 new protected areas would cover all remaining type localities.
We would also need to update the plans for existing protected areas to ensure the value of type localities are taken into account.
Longer term, we will need to embrace a systematic conservation framework across Antarctica to ensure the world’s last great wilderness remains full of life.
Laura Phillips is affiliated with Securing Antarctica’s Environmental Future, Monash University, Melbourne, Australia
Rachel Leihy works for the Arthur Rylah Institute for Environmental Research and is affiliated with Monash University, Melbourne, Australia.
This research was done as a part of the Australian Research Council funded program Securing Antarctica’s Environmental Future, and it was also funded by an Australian Antarctic Program grant.
Review: Gillian Wearing Editing Life, and Cindy Sherman Untitled Film Still #58, PHOTO 2022.
As we struggle to recover from the pandemic, “Being Human” – the theme of this year’s PHOTO 2022 international biennale in Melbourne – could not be more apt.
It is a recognition that interacting with other humans is the most cherished part of being alive, and one which we enthusiastically embrace.
This biennale has a wealth of outdoor experiences as well as indoor ones. Walks around Melbourne create surprise encounters in the city (or curated walks and cycle tours are available).
There are five stands: society, nature, history, mortality and self. The latter two are keenly addressed in works by Gillian Wearing at ACMI and Cindy Sherman outside the NGV Australia.
Through their close proximity, the PHOTO 2022 curators have effectively encouraged a conversation between artists.
Both adopt impressive scale. Sherman’s work is larger than most billboards at 20 metres high. Wearing’s giant floor-to-ceiling self-portraits wrap around the gallery.
Both artists use their own bodies and faces to communicate ideas beyond the self; they connect to human experience of the world, mortality and gender.
British conceptual artist Gillian Wearing is on display at ACMI in a survey of four works.
In Rock ‘n’ Roll 70 Wallpaper, she asked collaborators to visualise how she might look when she is 70, creating 15 different imaginary photographic portraits.
Using age rendering tools created by artificial intelligence, her possible future selves are depicted.
The images’ size, as a collage of portraits extending floor to ceiling, create a dramatic experience while also illuminating the psychological dimension of the portraits.
On walking into the gallery, you are surrounded by the many kinds of expressions and gazes of a variously aged Wearing: vulnerable, defensive, benign.
The work asks us to question how we feel about and react to ageing. How we might respond to not knowing whether an image is a truthful depiction. And, emotionally, how we contemplate the unknown factor of what time will impose upon the human form.
A second work is a deep fake video made with collaborators Wieden+Kennedy, a global advertising agency best known for working with Nike.
In the video, a digital mask of Wearing’s face is disconcertingly mapped onto the faces of others, making them eerily familiar and yet unknown. The participants were strangers responding to an advertisement to be in the film. On watching this, I am struck by the question: what is the true self? Are you obedient to social norms, a fraud, an authentic or frustrated character?
A person is more than a name, or an image. We embody and reflect experiences. Can we be who we say we are, or the persona we offer to the world?
The work creates the impression we are all one, an idea undercut by knowing that these are all constructed portraits.
There are two self-portraits, one of Wearing at age 17, and another titled Self-Portrait of Me Now in A Mask. Together, they expand Wearing’s reflection on ageing. The latter explicitly picks up on Wearing’s extensive interest in masking, self-production and personas.
As the video work in the exhibition offers:
We all wear masks. We’re all actors. When you leave your front door in the morning, you’re putting on a performance for the world.
Cindy Sherman and women photographers
Sherman’s work conveys a similar sentiment.
All representation – even of real things – is selected and presented by someone. When we are photographed, we offer an idea of ourselves to the photographer, we perform ourselves. The photographer selects the frame, the tone, the style and which image is presented.
From this point of view, an image is never neutral.
The American artist Cindy Sherman has portrayed herself in her photographs as film stars, unhappy housewives, socialites and other iconic female roles — conveying commentary on gender and celebrity.
The scale of Cindy Sherman’s Untitled Photograph #58 is spectacular. Lisa French
The image outside the NGV Australia on Flinders Street, Untitled Film Still #58, is one from a series of 69 self-portraits Sherman produced from 1977-80. All in black and white, they recall scenes from movies. In most of those images, a single female figure appears as if caught spontaneously.
The monumental presence in Flinders Street is spectacular. The woman looks at something beyond the frame – as many in this series do – and the averted gaze invites the viewer to contemplate both the woman and what is just out of frame.
Perhaps she is aware of being looked at or objectified, concerned with being on the street and wary of the urban environment.
Wearing edits life while Sherman imitates it, but in all of these works, the images are not about the photographers themselves as people. They draw on their experience, but are about issues such as what women face in their lives, bodies and culture, and about how visual representations construct meaning.
Gillian Wearing: Editing Life and Cindy Sherman’s Untitled Film Still #58 are on display until 22 May.
Lisa French 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.
Keir Starmer, Anthony Albanese and Jacinda Ardern.Getty Images Europe, Lukas Coch/ AAP Image, and Robert Kitchin/Pool Photo via AP
With due caution about the (in)accuracy of opinion polls, Australian voters may bring in a Labor government on May 21. If so, what kind of government would they get?
One obstacle to answering this is that the Australian Labor Party (ALP) has been out of office for so long, having lost three elections since 2013. And it’s difficult to find comparable case studies, as the social-democratic left has generally not performed well in various elections over the past decade or more.
British Labour, for example, has lost four elections since 2010, although it’s showing signs of revival with Keir Starmer at the helm.
And the tide may be turning in the left’s favour. New Zealand Labour formed a coalition government after the 2017 election and then, following an election dominated by COVID-19 in 2020, hit a record high of 50% and won a single-party majority (virtually unheard of under the proportional MMP system).
And in Germany, social democrat Olaf Scholz now leads a coalition as federal chancellor following last year’s election.
ALP Leader Anthony Albanese and Liberal prime minister Scott Morrison at the first leaders’ debate of the 2022 federal election in April. AP
Three brands of labour
The three labour parties (British, Australian and New Zealand) have converged around some key values and ideas, indicating how the ALP might govern. There’s always likely to be a gap between rhetoric and actual policy implementation, but examination of leaders’ speeches gives some evidence about where they’re heading.
Our comparative analysis of speeches by the three party leaders indicates a “thin” labourism in relation to the parties’ social-democratic traditions.
ALP leader Anthony Albanese’s key speeches since becoming leader in 2019 show he’s big on economic growth, with an emphasis on social mobility (“aspiration”), fairness and security.
Along with talk of jobs and wages – essential themes for any politician wishing to appeal to working people – there’s reference to nation-building and infrastructure. These themes are reflected in the approach being taken by shadow treasurer Jim Chalmers.
Albanese, Starmer and New Zealand’s Jacinda Ardern are alike in that their speeches use the words “economy”, “growth” and “jobs” more than any others – although Ardern refers to the environment noticeably more frequently than the other two.
Like Starmer and Ardern, Albanese downplays traditional social-democratic vocabulary like “progressive”, “dignity”, “solidarity” and “equality”. These leaders also lack the enthusiasm of the third-way “soft neoliberals” who governed during an era of deregulation and downsizing and yet claimed they could “modernise” social democracy, as popularised by the UK’s former prime minister Tony Blair.
Safe centrism
Today’s labour leaders do, however, steer a “safe” centrist path between being pro-growth (or at least not anti-business) and seeking gains for low- and middle-income earners.
They normally avoid explicit talk of class, redistribution and trade unions. None of them critiques the market economy – they just want it to be fairer. Once in office, the gains for workers from a labour government will be incremental, not transformational.
One can see this in New Zealand. The pandemic has meant a major detour, but Ardern hasn’t made great progress towards her avowed social goals: getting everyone into an affordable home and reducing child poverty. The gains she can cite are incremental at best.
Under Albanese, the ALP removed some politically troublesome tax policies which had originally been intended to deliver greater fairness. Labor reversed its 2019 policy positions on negative gearing, capital gains tax and franking credits. Further, Albanese announced no lift in the unemployment benefit under Labor, and also signed up to the Coalition’s stage three tax cuts – in effect removing an entire income tax bracket.
In the campaign he presents himself as professional, “reasonable” and a safe pair of hands – but above all, not radical. There have been some “gaffes and stumbles” and then a positive COVID test, but the latest polls will be reassuring.
A thin ideological platform
One impact of the pandemic has been a return of strong governmental action backed by borrowing. At the state level, premiers (notably Labor premiers) have gained credit for taking more decisive (or less indecisive) actions to prevent spread of the disease, reduce pressures on hospitals and save lives.
New Zealand Labour’s exemplary performance in disease control showed how a government can be rewarded electorally for this – although recent opinion polls show Ardern’s government could be beaten by a centre-right coalition next year.
Ardern’s commitment to lift the minimum wage, and Starmer’s and Albanese’s focus on job security exemplify the incremental approach that’s focused on workers but doesn’t want to “frighten the horses” of capitalism.
Labour leaders have to work harder than their centre-right opponents to convince voters they’re not anti-business, that they understand macroeconomic policy and that they won’t get too tax-hungry – and yet also appeal to those for whom “economy” might mean how the next paycheck will cover rent and groceries.
Labour parties now find themselves on a thin ideological platform, anxious not to be an easy target for their pro-business opponents, especially during an election campaign.
An attenuated social-democratic value base is all that’s left now.
The authors do not work for, consult, own shares in or receive funding from any company or organisation that would benefit from this article, and have disclosed no relevant affiliations beyond their academic appointment.
The Reserve Bank, as expected, has thrown its wild card into the election campaign, but neither government nor opposition can be sure which side will be more damaged, or advantaged, by it.
Tuesday’s interest rate rise had been anticipated, was inevitable, and is the result substantially (though not entirely) of external forces. As to its timing: given the recent big inflation spike, the bank could not credibly have held off for another month.
Governor Philip Lowe made it clear the (independent) bank did not take into account any political considerations, in what is the first rise during a campaign since 2007, the election John Howard lost. “The election has no influence at all on today’s decision,” Lowe said.
But the decision feeds into this volatile battle, so will have political fallout. It will affect voters’ mood and anxieties. They may attribute blame.
It was obvious the extraordinarily low interest rates from the height of the pandemic could not and would not last. But many people (and, earlier, the Reserve Bank itself) had not expected rates to start to move up again as soon as this.
Indeed, at one stage the bank said it did not anticipate an increase before 2024. Not only was it wrong in that judgement, but some critics are now saying it should have acted earlier than now to raise rates.
The bank is starting on a road to “normalise” rates. The trouble is that the totally abnormal levels necessary in the COVID economy have become “normal” in the minds of many people, some of whom used them to bid up home prices in the expectation they would be able to afford the payments.
The rise of 25 basis points, taking the cash rate to 0.35%, was larger than the economic experts had been forecasting. But it is not just this one rise that will have an impact on voters’ calculations. Lowe made it plain more will follow, indicating the official rate will probably reach 2.5% at some unspecified time.
Some people are well placed at the moment to deal with this increase, having fixed rate mortgages and money put away. But others are not.
And, crucially, the rise comes on top of living costs going up on many other fronts. This will make it difficult for many people to cope. Some, even if not over-stretched immediately, will be anxious about how they will be placed in the future, such as when the fixed rate on their mortgage ends.
Politically, there will be cross currents.
The Essential poll, released on Tuesday, showed cost of living at the top of issues important to people “when it comes to voting at this year’s federal election”: 47% said it was “very important”, and 32% said was “important”.
Significantly, when people were asked which party they trusted more to manage various issues, on cost of living 40% said Labor, 30% said the Coalition, and 30% saw no difference.
That result is bad for the government. It suggests while polls usually give the Coalition the edge on economic management, when the economy issue gets down to the nitty gritty of household budgets, the government’s advantage may evaporate.
Morrison is also hoist on his own petard. On Monday, asked whether a rate rise would hurt the Coalition, the PM said, “It’s not about what it means for politics. I mean, sometimes you guys always think, see things, through a totally political lens.”
But of course Morrison mostly puts a political frame around economic data, extracting as much credit as possible when it’s good. So it would not be surprising if he cops a political backlash for something basically out of his control.
Morrison argued on Tuesday the government had provided a “shield” for Australians in the budget against cost of living pressures, just as it had provided them with an economic “shield” during the pandemic. (The government on Tuesday quickly announced that if re-elected it would freeze for two years the “deeming” rate used to determine the income earned by pensioners and beneficiaries from financial assets “to ensure payments are not reduced as earnings increase from deposit accounts held by social security recipients”. The PM described this as another “shield”.)
But Morrison’s basic pitch is that the rate rise reinforces the case for this not being a time for voters to risk switching to an alternative without an economic plan and an opposition leader who couldn’t remember some basic statistics.
The government will ramp up its “don’t risk it” warning even further in coming days. Negative messages are powerful in elections. But whether Morrison, himself viewed so negatively by voters, can drive this one home is another matter.
Michelle Grattan ne travaille pas, ne conseille pas, ne possède pas de parts, ne reçoit pas de fonds d’une organisation qui pourrait tirer profit de cet article, et n’a déclaré aucune autre affiliation que son organisme de recherche.
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 the Reserve Bank’s increase in interest rates, and which side wins or loses from it, as cost of living is centre stage in the election battle. They also discuss Anthony Albanese’s launch, and the implications for the Liberals if Josh Frydenberg were to lose in Kooyong.
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.
Reserve Bank Governor Philip Lowe has announced he will lift the cash rate for the first time in a decade, by 0.25 percentage points, taking it from 0.10% to 0.35%.
Most market economists thought the bank would raise rates, but they were divided as to whether the bank would start small by lifting rates from 0.10% to 0.25%, or jump all the way to 0.50%.
The bank seems to have been similarly torn, and come in halfway between.
Backtracking on previous guidance
The hike comes despite the bank’s previous statements that it was keen to wait until the latest data on wages, due in a fortnight (just before the election).
Last Wednesday’s inflation news, which showed prices climbing much faster than expected, forced the bank to revise its stance and act quickly to tap on the brakes.
With so-called “trimmed mean” inflation (the RBA’s preferred measure of underlying inflation) jumping to 3.7% in the March quarter, the bank’s goal of having underlying inflation back in its target band has been fulfilled.
Indeed it is now just above the target band.
The only question the Reserve Bank board had to consider was whether inflation was sustainably back in the target band, something it has said it would need to see before it lifted rates.
A sustainable increase in prices is only likely when wages are also growing faster, which is why the bank was initially planning to wait for the wage news.
But it says its business liaison program (the regular meetings it has with businesses) has told it businesses are expecting to lift wages by much more than they have so far, meaning the official wage growth figures should be about to climb.
Businesses expect to pay their staff more. Shutterstock
These wage rises would be driven by the difficulty in finding staff, and greater demands from staff given what’s happening to the cost of living. Workers may be becoming keener to walk if they don’t get what they want.
Treasury analysis of Tax Office data finds that workers who move jobs typically get pay rises of 8-10%.
The higher inflation has been driven by a series of large, hopefully temporary, shocks, most notably Russia’s invasion of Ukraine, Australia’s floods, and the COVID lockdowns in China.
We don’t know how long the foreign shocks will last, but if they quickly subside, it would take domestic price pressure to make high inflation sustainable.
That’s why news of higher “non-tradable” (domestically driven) inflation last Wednesday convinced the bank the current inflation is likely to last.
Non-tradable inflation was 4.2% over the year to March, suggesting much of Australia’s higher inflation was home-grown.
More hikes imminent
The Reserve Bank never lifts rates once. In his press conference, Lowe said it was “not unreasonable” to expect the cash rate to climb to 2.5%.
“How quickly we get there, and if we do get there, will be determined by how events unfold,” he added, pointing out that 2.5% is the middle of the bank’s target band for inflation, meaning that when the cash rate gets there it will be zero in inflation-adjusted terms, rather than negative as it is at the moment.
Financial markets are pricing in 2.5% by the end of the year. That implies another two percentage points of hikes over the next six meetings, something that would mean a hike each and every month for the rest of the year.
Many doubt that rates will rise that high that fast. However, over the past year the market pricing has proved more accurate than economists and the Reserve Bank’s own guidance, as the governor conceded in his press conference, describing his guidance as “embarrassing”.
A hike to 2.5% means an extra $600
“We were told thousands of Australians would die from the pandemic, hospitals will be full, that we would have double-digit unemployment, perhaps 15% unemployment, that deep scarring would last for years, perhaps decades,” he said, indicating things had turned out far better than government advisers expected.
If fully passed on, today’s increase will add around $65 to the monthly cost of servicing a $500,000 mortgage. If the cash rate gets to 2.5%, it’ll be an extra $600.
Isaac Gross 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.
One of the stranger things about the Reserve Bank’s announcement of why it’s lifting interest rates by 0.25 percentage points is that it suggests inflation will come down by itself.
“A further rise in inflation is expected in the near term,” the RBA says, “but as supply-side disruptions are resolved, inflation is expected to decline back towards the target range of 2-3%.
So why raise rates now, for the first time in more than a decade? The bank says it is about “withdrawing some of the extraordinary monetary support that was put in place to help the Australian economy during the pandemic”, which is fair enough.
But our latest burst of inflation is weird, and resistant to rate hikes. If the Reserve Bank isn’t careful, too many more rate hikes like this might help bring on a recession.
Labor’s Anthony Albanese is as good as correct when he says “everything is going up except your wages” – not completely correct, because wages are going up, by a minuscule 2.3% per year on the official figures; but essentially correct, because when it comes to prices, almost every single one is going up.
Every three months the Bureau of Statistics prices around 100,000 goods and services. They account for almost everything we buy, the exceptions including illegal drugs and prostitution, where pricing would be “difficult and dangerous”.
Among the types of bread the bureau prices are rye, sliced white, and multigrain, from all sorts of stores in every capital city. Where the bureau doesn’t price a type of loaf, it is a fair bet its price moves in line with the loaves it does price.
Then it groups these 100,000 or so prices into “expenditure classes”, 87 of them. “Bread” is one, “breakfast cereals” is another. Furniture and rent are two others.
Rarely do the expenditure classes move as one. Typically, only 50 or so of the 87 climb in price. But in the March quarter just finished, an astounding 70 climbed in price; according to Deutsche Bank economist Phil O’Donaghoe, that’s the most ever in the 72-year history of the consumer price index.
And the prices that climbed most – by far – were the ones we had little choice but to pay.
Necessities up, treats not as much
The bureau divides the 87 classes of goods into “non-discretionary” and “discretionary”.
It classifies bread as non-discretionary, biscuits as discretionary; petrol as non-discretionary, new cars as discretionary, and so on.
In the year to March, non-discretionary inflation (the price rises we can’t avoid) was a gargantuan 6.6% – well above the official inflation rate of 5.1%, and the highest in records going back to 2006.
Discretionary inflation – the price rises on the treats we splurge on if we’ve got the money – was only 2.7%.
Not since 2011 has the gap been that wide, which makes this inflation unusual.
While price rises are extraordinarily widespread – because most things need diesel to move them, and we were hit with floods, COVID-linked supply problems and the invasion of Ukraine all at once – they don’t seem to be the result of splurging.
These price rises are more like a tax.
The usual response to the usual hike in inflation is to hike interest rates. It’s a way to take away access to cash and push up mortgage and other payments so people have less money to spend and push up prices.
But this hike in inflation is doing that by itself, as the government recognised in the budget by handing out $250 cash payments to compensate.
These price rises are like a tax
If the big price rises are beyond our control and making us poorer, hiking interest rates to make us poorer still, in the hope we will splurge less on things whose prices we can influence (and whose price rises are small) might not achieve much.
Done repeatedly, the Reserve Bank could push up interest rates because inflation is high, discover inflation is still high, push interest rates higher in response, notice inflation is still high, push interest rates even higher in response… and so on, until it had brought on a recession.
A recession is already a risk with these sorts of price rises. If big enough, they can force consumers to cut other spending to the point where the economy stagnates and creates unemployment in the face of inflation – so-called “stagflation”.
Inflation might have already fallen
Another response would have been to wait. Seriously. The floods, invasion and supply problems pushing up prices in recent months are likely to pass, pushing down inflation and pushing down a lot of prices.
It might have already happened. The oil price has fallen 11% from its peak, down 2.5% in the past two weeks alone. And inflation has fallen – on one measure, to zero.
The official Bureau of Statistics measure of inflation is produced every three months, but for 13 years now the Melbourne Institute of Applied Economic and Social Research has produced its own simpler monthly measure, which tracks the official rate pretty well.
Although missing a lot (tracking fewer types of bread, and a national rather than a city-by-city measure) it is produced quickly and more often, providing a better insight into prices in real time.
The latest, released on Monday, points to an inflation rate of zero in April.
Why rate hikes need only be mild
That’s right. While some prices continued to rise as always, enough prices fell to offset that. The high inflation in the lead-up to March stopped or paused in April.
It’s different in the United States. There, inflation is being supercharged by wage growth averaging 9% and the Federal Reserve is about to lift interest rates aggressively.
Here, wages growth in the year to December was just 2.3%. We’ll get the figures for the year to March in a fortnight. There’s a good case for future rate hikes to be a good deal less aggressive.
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.
Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Deborah Ascher Barnstone, Professor, Course Director Undergraduate Studies, School of Architecture, University of Technology Sydney
shutterstock
By 2030, climate change will make one in 25 Australian homes “uninsurable” if greenhouse gas emissions continue unabated, with riverine flooding posing the greatest insurance risk, a new Climate Council analysis finds.
As a professor of architecture, I find this analysis grim, yet unsurprising. One reason is because Australian housing is largely unfit for the challenges of climate change.
In the past two years alone we’ve seen over 3,000 homes razed in the 2019-2020 megafires, and over 3,600 homes destroyed in New South Wales Northern Rivers region in the recent floods.
Building houses better at withstanding the impacts of climate change is one way we can protect ourselves in the face of future catastrophic conditions. I’m part of a research team that developed a novel, bushfire-resistant house design, which won an international award last month.
We hope its ability to withstand fires on its own will encourage owners – who would otherwise stay to defend their home – to flee when bushfires encroach. Let’s take a closer look at the risk of bushfires and why our housing design should one day become a new Australian norm.
The house would be made from locally sourced, recycled steel frame. Deborah Ascher Barnstone, Author provided
Houses today are easy to burn
The Climate Council analysis reveals that across Australia’s 10 electorates most at risk of climate change impacts, one in seven houses will be uninsurable by 2030 under a high emissions scenario. This includes 25,801 properties (27%) in Victoria’s electorate of Nicholls, and 22,274 properties (20%) in Richmond, NSW.
Bushfires are among the worsening hazards causing homes to be uninsurable, and pose a particularly high risk to many thousands of homes across eastern Australia.
For example, the Climate Council found 55% of properties in the electorate of Macquarie, NSW, will be at risk of bushfires in 2030, if emissions do not fall. This jumps to 64% of properties by 2100.
The typical Australian house was not designed with bushfires in mind as most were built decades ago, before bushfire planning and construction regulations came into force.
This means they incorporate burnable materials, such as wood and plasterboard, and have features such as gutters which can trap embers.
What’s more, the gaps between building materials are often too large to keep embers out, which means spot fires can start on the inside of the house. And many houses are situated too close to fire-prone grasses and trees.
Indeed, at least 90% of houses currently in bushfire zones risk being destroyed in a bushfire.
How our new design can withstand fire
The prototypical bushfire resistant house we designed won first prize in the New Housing Division of the United States Renewable Energy Laboratory’s Solar Decathlon.
The house has three pavilions that can be built at different times to save cost. Deborah Ascher Barnstone, Author provided
The house would be made from locally sourced, recycled steel frame. It would be mounted on reinforced concrete pilings to minimise its disturbance on the land, touching the ground only lightly. In this way, we help preserve the site’s biodiversity.
The primary building material is rammed earth – natural raw materials such as earth, chalk, lime, or gravel – which is not combustible.
The roof and some cladding are made of fire-resistant corrugated metal. Its glass facades have fire shutters made of fibre cement sheeting, a material that’s non-combustible and can be closed to seal the house.
Importantly, the gaps between these construction materials are 2 millimetres or less.
The sloped roofs tilt inwards to capture rainwater. And as the roofs are made of corrugated metal, which has channels in it, the house does not require gutters.
These channels guide rainwater into two open retention ponds either side of the entry, and into protected tanks beneath the house. This also helps protect the house in a bushfire, as it means the fire can’t penetrate from beneath.
A view of the entry bridge and retention ponds. Deborah Ascher Barnstone, Author provided
When bushfires strike, the risk to life is highest when people stay and defend their homes. A design that can resist fire on its own encourages its owners to leave.
But it’s worth noting that it’s not a bunker for people to shelter in. No matter how well designed a house is, it always will be too dangerous to stay when a fire comes through, and particularly in the catastrophic and extreme fire conditions we’re increasingly experiencing.
It’s cost effective, too
The estimated cost of construction is between A$400,000 and $450,000. We deployed several strategies to keep costs down:
the house is designed to be energy and water independent, so will not need city utilities
it uses common construction techniques and is based on the construction industry standard for sheeting, so won’t require specialised builders and won’t waste any material
rammed earth is relatively inexpensive because it can be sourced in many locations, often for free. We also envision using recycled materials wherever possible.
Aesthetically speaking, the design also presents an elegant domestic space, one that’s flexible enough it can easily be adapted to almost any site.
The house is characterised by open spaces and inside/outside living. Deborah Ascher Barnstone, Author provided
The next stage is to build and test a prototype of the house so we can evaluate its performance and make improvements. We’re currently speaking to some potential funders to make this happen.
As climate change brings worsening disasters, Australia must brace for thousands more houses becoming destroyed. Innovative architecture like ours offers a chance for treasured homes and possessions to survive future catastrophes.
Deborah Ascher Barnstone 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.
Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Jim Gillespie, Associate Professor in Health Policy, Menzies Centre for Health Policy & Sydney School of Public Health, University of Sydney
Medicare has been mentioned a lot this election campaign but we’ve seen relatively few substantial policy announcements from the major parties.
Voters want improvements to Medicare and the health system. More than 13% of respondents to The Conversation’s #SetTheAgenda poll said health was one of the issues having the greatest impact on their life right now. Cost of living pressures were also a key concern.
As one respondent said, candidates should be talking about “increasing Medicare rebates to reduce gap payments” as they compete for votes, while another saw improving “rural and regional access to high quality care” as the key issue.
So what have the major parties committed to? And is this enough? We asked five experts to analyse and grade the major parties’ Medicare policies – from A for top marks to F for a failed effort.
Here are their detailed responses:
Coalition
Labor
Jim Gillespie receives funding from the National Health and Medical Research Council.
Lesley Russell worked as a policy advisor on health and related issues for the federal Australian Labor Party from 2002 to 2007.
Richard Norman receives funding from the National Health and Medical Research Council, the Australian Research Council, and the Medical Research Future Fund.
Rosemary V Calder has received funding from the Australian government Department of Health. She has worked for both the Coalition and Labor governments, and was head of the Office for the Status of Women under the Howard government.
Stephen Duckett 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.
We’re halfway through the federal election campaign, and by now you’ve probably seen a significant amount of political advertising – much of it online.
Online political advertising is more pervasive than its analogue predecessors, it can cost less (per individual ad), be deployed more rapidly, and can be micro-targeted towards specific audiences. The targeting can be aimed at protected social categories such as race and gender, and has been used to amplify mis- and disinformation.
Unlike billboards or TV ads which can be widely seen, targeted ads may be invisible beyond their intended audience. Researchers like us try to get a handle on online advertising through projects like the Australian Ad Observatory.
Here’s what we know so far about the state of online advertising in the federal election.
Dashboards
The big dogs in the online advertising world are Meta and Google. Meta allows advertising across its products including Facebook, Messenger, Instagram, and WhatsApp. Google allows ads in its search products, YouTube, and on Android.
Both companies have ad transparency dashboards. (Here is Meta’s, and here is Google’s.)
The dashboards detail the ads that are running, who is running them, and some basic aggregate data on targeting by geography, gender, and age.
For example, we can see the Australian Electoral Commission has spent around $383,000 on Facebook advertising in the past month, largely promoting election-related facts and voter registration information.
Meta’s ad transparency dashboard shows information about ad spending and targeting. Meta Ad Library
However, these tools are quite basic, and don’t offer all the information on how ads are targeted, nor insights into trends and patterns. To fill the void, researchers and journalists have been building their own.
Analysing spending data from April 1 2022 onward, we can already see differences in how particular parties are strategically purchasing ads on platforms like Facebook.
In the lower house, the traditional Liberal stronghold of Kooyong has been an early standout. Polling suggests the incumbent, Treasurer Josh Frydenberg, is under threat from “teal” independent Dr Monique Ryan.
Since the start of April Frydenberg has tipped around $80,000 into Facebook advertising in his own seat, while Ryan has spent around $41,000. Altogether, more than twice as much has been spent in Kooyong as in the next highest spending seats of Maribyrnong, North Sydney, and Wentworth.
In the senate, Queensland has so far attracted the most spending at around $110,000. Here, a rogues’ gallery of former LNP and other far-right candidates are scrambling to win one of the two seats that are likely to be up for grabs.
Beyond Facebook
We have also seen significant spending from political parties and registered organisations on Google ads. The total amount has been $17.7 million since 15 November 2021, of which United Australia Party’s ads account for a whopping $15 million, which includes many YouTube ads.
Ads in this gaming ecosystem are very difficult to track. The Google transparency dashboard doens’t include data that enables us to determine which ads appear in this specific ecosystem. However, users of our Ad Observatory have sent us photos and screenshots of UAP ads appearing within their mobile games. It seems some of that $15 million is finding its way into mobile in-game advertising.
Perhaps the most creative use of online advertising so far has come from Stephen Bates, the Greens candidate for Brisbane. Bates took out a series of ads on Grindr, a social networking and dating app for gay, bi, trans, and queer people, and men who have sex with men.
Bates’ tongue-in-cheek ads have slogans like “Spice up Canberra with a third” and “The best parliaments are hung”. Unlike other sometimes cringe-worthy attempts by politicians to appeal to specific communities, Bates has leaned into his own identity as an openly gay candidate in selecting this platform and developing ads using Grindr’s platform-specific vernacular.
In Brisbane, Greens candidate Stephen Bates has taken out cheeky ads on Grindr. Screenshot, Author provided
What about Twitter, TikTok and the other big platforms?
Meanwhile, if you spend your time on Twitter or TikTok you won’t see any political advertising during this campaign.
Why not? It’s complicated, but it mainly goes back to the Cambridge Analytica scandal of the mid 2010s, in which personal profile data of more than 50 million Facebook users was siphoned from the platform and used to build a profiling tool that was then leveraged for political gain.
Mass-scale online ad microtargeting using this tool may have played a significant role in the success of Donald Trump’s 2016 US presidential campaign and the Brexit “leave” campaign the same year.
These events thrust online political advertising into the spotlight. In its wake lawmakers and civil society groups around the globe have steadily ramped up pressure on the platforms regarding online political advertising.
In response, Twitter and TikTok have decided political ads aren’t worth the trouble, and banned them outright.
Facebook instead shut access to third-party data gathering – which had the side effect of making genuine, ethical scholarly research more difficult.
Does any of this work, though?
Online political advertising is but one part of an overall campaign, but it can be used to tip the balance in one party’s favour.
In other countries, online advertising may focus on encouraging supporters to vote and discouraging opponents. However, Australia’s compulsory voting means campaigns are likely to focus on persuading a relatively small number of swinging voters. This is turn means specific highly contested seats (such as Kooyong) may play an amplified role within our elections.
One thing to watch in this election and beyond are the growing calls for truth in political advertising. Online election advertising will only become more intense, so we will need ways to reign in mis- and disinformation.
Daniel Angus receives funding from Australian Research Council through Discovery Projects DP200100519 ‘Using machine vision to explore Instagram’s everyday promotional cultures’, DP200101317 ‘Evaluating the Challenge of ‘Fake News’ and Other Malinformation’, and Linkage Project LP190101051 ‘Young Australians and the Promotion of Alcohol on Social Media’. He is an Associate Investigator with the ARC Centre of Excellence for Automated Decision Making & Society, CE200100005.
Axel Bruns receives funding from the Australian Research Council through Discovery project DP200101317 Evaluating the Challenge of ‘Fake News’ and Other Malinformation, Laureate Fellowship FL210100051 Dynamics of Partisanship and Polarisation in Online Public Debate, and the Australian Research Council Centre of Excellence for Automated Decision-Making and Society (ADM+S).
Ehsan Dehghan receives funding from the Digital Society Project, for a project to create a dataset of candidates in the 2022 Australian federal elections
One of the Morrison government’s biggest challenges in this election campaign is the rise of the “teals”, a group of 22 independents who have received funding from Climate 200.
Running on platforms of science-backed climate action, integrity reform and real progress on gender equality, they are challenging Liberal MPs in urban electorates traditionally considered Liberal party heartland.
Treasurer Josh Frydenberg, who is facing a serious threat from medical doctor Monique Ryan in the inner-Melbourne seat of Kooyong, has repeatedly used the term “fake” independents to describe these challengers. Former Prime Minister John Howard has similarly accused them of “posing” as independents. Prime Minister Scott Morrison says they are the “voices of” Labor and the Greens.
This strategy of playing the woman and not the ball – as well as the advertising spend in electorates like Kooyong – suggests the Liberals are concerned. They have some good reasons to be.
The teal appeal
It is certainly true these independents are running in Liberal, not Labor seats. But as Climate 200 convener Simon Holmes a Court argues, they are running with the goal of dislodging government MPs (which of course, happen to be Liberal).
It is worth noting that not all the Climate 200-backed independents use the teal colour for their campaigns. North Sydney’s Kylea Tink uses pink, while Indi’s Helen Haines uses orange. Yet, the choice of teal for most campaigns – a colour between blue and green – does give an indication of their message to the moderate Liberal voters they are trying to attract.
The teal independents are speaking directly to moderate Liberal constituents who are frustrated with the (blue) Liberal Party’s positioning on social and environmental issues.
Kooyong residents have been bombarded with campaign material from sitting member Josh Frydenberg and independent challenger Monique Ryan. Diego Fedele/AAP
While these same voters may never vote Labor or Greens, many are alienated by Morrison and his government, particularly on climate change and women’s issues.
It is significant that 19 of the 22 Climate 200 candidates are women, all of whom have had highly successful careers in their own right. High-profile candidates include Ryan (Kooyong), a professor and head of neurology at the Royal Children’s Hospital, Zoe Daniel (Goldstein) a former ABC foreign correspondent, and Allegra Spender (Wentworth) the chief executive of the Australian Business and Community Network.
The teal independents are not political staffers taking the next step towards inevitable political careers. These are professional women making a radical sideways leap because, they say, this is what the times require. It’s a compelling story.
Climate 200
To receive Climate 200 funding and campaign support, teal independents have agreed to run on three key policies – climate, integrity, and gender equality – and have demonstrated they have the backing of their communities.
Holmes a Court has been at pains to argue his organisation is not a political party – it is a platform to support independents based on their commitment to the three main goals. As he told the National Press Club in February:
The movement is nothing like a party – there is no hierarchy, no leader, no head office. No coordinated policy platforms.
Policy comparison
So, how do the independent candidates measure against the Coalition, Labor and the Greens? I have reviewed the policy platforms of Spender, Ryan and Daniel as three of the most high profile new independent candidates.
On climate, Spender proposes to cut emissions by “at least 50% by 2030”, while Daniel and Ryan want 60% by 2030, and Daniel adds an 80% renewable energy target by 2030.
These targets are more ambitious than both the Coalition and Labor, but less ambitious than the Greens, who want 75% emissions reduction by 2030, and net zero by 2035.
On integrity in politics, all three independents variously demand a “strong”, “effective” anti-corruption body “with teeth”, greater transparency around tax-payer funded programs, reform of political campaign funding rules, and truth in political advertising. These policies largely align with Labor’s integrity policies, which include a National Anti-Corruption Commission by the end of 2022. They also align with those of the Greens, who add a role for the National Audit Office to audit all government programs.
Finally, all the teal independents have a range of policies to increase women’s safety and equality, including childcare, parental leave, better pay for caring professions, women’s rights at work and programs to end family violence. On these policies, and simply the way they recognise the urgency of this issue, the independents are also more aligned with Labor and the Greens than the Coalition.
The Liberal response
The Liberal Party is certainly taking this challenge seriously, diverting campaign funding and resources to seats that it would otherwise consider safe.
For example, it is spending up big on nine-metre-wide billboards to “sandbag” Kooyong, a seat that has been held by that party since Federation. In Wentworth, Dave Sharma’s posters use the same colour teal as his challenger, Spender, and have no Liberal party logo. In Goldstein, a stoush over election signs ended up in court.
Another way they are taking it seriously is by trying to undermine the authenticity of the independents. If voters are seeking something different from the major parties, what better way to sway them away from changing their vote than suggesting their local independent isn’t really independent?
On this, the Liberal party is incorrect. It is better to locate these candidates within a lineage of independents that includes Tony Windsor, Cathy McGowan, and Kerryn Phelps. Their goal is to use the power of the cross-benches in a hung parliament. A Labor majority would, in fact, diminish their power if elected, and work against their ambitions.
The power of independents
Major polls are suggesting a tight race between the major parties. A hung parliament, with independents holding the balance of power, is a highly possible outcome post May 21.
Despite fear campaigns from both major parties, it is worth remembering that Australia’s last minority government was one of the most successful, passing more legislation than any modern government before or since.
Windsor and Rob Oakeshott have both said they decided to support Julia Gillard’s government because she treated them with respect during negotiations in 2013, unlike her opponent, Tony Abbott.
This is a lesson that the Liberal party would do well to heed again.
Amy Nethery 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.
New Zealand Parliament Buildings, Wellington, New Zealand.
Political Roundup is entirely subscriber-funded. The ethos behind this public service is to help foster a robust and informed public debate, with a great diversity of perspectives. If you appreciate what we are doing in providing non-partisan analysis and information about politics, economy, and society, please consider helping us keep going, by donating via Victoria University of Wellington’s fundraising page here: https://bit.ly/VUWDemocracyProject
Political Roundup: Why Labour won’t introduce a radical wealth tax
Prime Minister Jacinda Ardern has been perceived as “softening her line on wealth taxes” – and therefore being open to the introduction of a new type of progressive taxation on the rich. This was the description published yesterday by leftwing wealth researcher Max Rashbrooke, who was reporting on the fact that Ardern would not rule out introducing a wealth tax when interviewed on breakfast TV.
His interpretation was shared by many on the political right, who also stated that Ardern and Labour were obviously considering a new tax on assets. This then led to a lot of excitement on all sides about an alleged U-turn or broken promise on Ardern’s stated disavow that she would ever introduce such a policy.
Wishful thinking by left and right
It seems that both left and right want to believe that Ardern’s Labour Government are going to bring in radical wealth taxes. But it’s wishful thinking on everyone’s part – for very different reasons.
The right wants to believe a new tax is coming because it will allow National and Act to run a popular campaign against an overtaxing administration. It’s point scoring. And it also reinforces the partisan views of those who want to believe they are opposing some sort of “socialist” government.
On the other hand, the left want to believe a wealth tax might be implemented since this Government has done so little that is genuinely leftwing, and has generally failed to be transformational as promised. The left know that a wealth tax would help fund many social goods desired by leftwing voters and would help enable redistribution at time when inequality of wealth is extraordinarily bad. After all, the Labour Government has overseen what financial journalist Bernard Hickey says is a $2 trillion transfer of wealth to the rich over the last few years.
Don’t expect to see a radical wealth tax implemented
In reality this Government is highly unlikely to implement any sort of radical wealth tax. Such a major economic shift is not in the character of Ardern’s Labour Government. They are more conservative than they are socialist. Grant Robertson is Labour’s most orthodox Minister of Finance in decades.
The public itself might be persuaded of the advantages of a radical wealth tax. We are living in especially radical and unsettled times. There is much heightened concern about inequality and fairness, and there’s an openness to new and unorthodox political ideas – whether in terms of money printing by the government or welfare benefit increases. A case could be made that a tax on wealth would be advantageous for the vast majority of taxpayers, especially if it involved a reduction of taxation on those on lower or middle incomes.
Yet, it would take a very significant campaign and organic societal debate to lay the groundwork for the acceptance of such a radical tax – which is why it’s unlikely to occur. Today’s political parties simply aren’t up to that task. The days of mass membership parties that are highly active and integrated with society are over. Hence politics is now reactive rather than persuasive.
In the past, parties and their leaders sought to change the views of society on issues like tax. In the twentieth century, party leaders and activists would be part of debate and discussion at every level of society. From the household and community meetings, through to the mass media, parties would be heavily trying to shape opinion rather than just reflect it. These days, it’s the other way around: focus groups and polling shape political parties instead.
Witness the 2018 debate when the Government’s working group released its capital gain tax proposals. Labour politicians and activists decided to stay out of the public debate, before a decision to cancel the tax change was announced with reference to the public being opposed. A 2023 wealth tax discussion is likely to face a similar lack of leadership.
The likelihood of a wealth tax is also significantly reduced by the fact that modern political parties only operate domestically in a highly globalised world. In the past, leftwing parties were more internationalist, and so the New Zealand Labour Party would pursue things like wealth taxes in concert with leftwing parties elsewhere. This meant that policies implemented here were in line with progressive policies in Australia, Britain, etc.
These days, with various nations in a race to the bottom to create a more welcoming policy environment for business and the wealthy, the introduction of such taxes makes less practical sense. “Capital flight” occurs – the wealthy shift their businesses or assets to other more hospitable climates. So, with New Zealand being in competition to attract and retain international wealth, taxes on wealth become something akin to cutting off your nose to spite your face. It’s not surprising therefore that many countries are currently getting rid of wealth taxes – whereas in 1990 there were 12 major countries with wealth taxes, by 2017 this had dropped to just 5.
A moderate wealth tax is more likely
In the unlikely event that Labour did actually propose a tax on the rich at the next election, it would surely be a very mild and relatively ineffective one – it would be highly targeted and low in yield. The Greens, in fact, have set the parameters for what they think is possible with their 2020 election proposal for a wealth tax.
Although wishful thinking by those on left and right painted it as radical, it was relatively mild. The Greens promised to give every New Zealander a $1m exemption to their wealth tax, and then only a 1% tax above this threshold. Given that it only applied to net wealth (assets minus liabilities) and allowed families to pool their wealth for the calculation (families of four had, say, a $4m exemption, before the tax applied), meant it was more symbolic than substantial. As Ardern herself said at the time, the tax wouldn’t raise much money due to “the fact that people would change the value of their assets in order to avoid tax, the fact that people will often move funds offshore”.
Has the Government done a U-turn on wealth taxes?
Much of the debate over the last day about the possibilities of a wealth tax have focused more on the politics of whether the Prime Minister is doing a U-turn, and what it means when politicians “rule out” particular policies.
It is true that Labour and Ardern have been ambiguous about ruling out a wealth tax. Back at the 2020 election Ardern did in fact specifically rule out a wealth tax (as well as a capital gains tax), saying: “I won’t allow it to happen as Prime Minister”. But then yesterday she was given multiple opportunities to rule one out in the future, and she refused.
Of course, wealth taxes are often confused with capital gains taxes – the latter is a subset of the former. Perhaps in her 2020 disavowal of a wealth tax, Ardern may simply have thought the conversation was only about capital gains. Regardless of what has happened in Ardern’s past statements, the main point is that voters would get a chance to vote for or against such a tax reform if Labour made such a proposal at the next election.
So, what is David Parker doing?
Much of the current debate about wealth taxes has arisen because the Minister of Inland Revenue, David Parker, gave a speech last week detailing the research that he has IRD doing to into wealth and the amount of tax that the rich pay. He also announced a proposed law, the Tax Principles Bill, that would include “principles” to assess future tax changes against.
All of this is very sensible, and to be expected – especially from a leftwing party in power. Parker should in fact be congratulated on his work to get more research and evidence of the actual wealth and tax situation. This issue will be one of ongoing debate and reform – and so it’s useful to have reliable information on this.
Yes, it is possible that such research might lead the Labour Party to come up with new tax proposals at the next election. This is a good thing. And the research might also help parties such as National do the same thing. This is desirable, as no party believes that the tax status quo is sufficient. There’s a widespread acknowledgement that the tax system has all sorts of dysfunctions and unfairness, and that some degree of reform is required.
The problem will be if such research is done for nothing, or just results in tinkering. It would be even worse if this research and the various speeches by Parker turned out to be just for show. Such activity could just be to mollify a disappointed leftwing constituency that wants to believe transformational change is still to come from this administration.
Given we’ve seen so many working groups established just so Labour can kick a contentious idea into touch, we should be sceptical about whether this is occurring again. Whatever Parker and Labour’s strategy and intentions prove to be, it seems likely that a radical wealth tax will continue to be wishful thinking for left and right for some time yet.
“Going home” is a classic metaphor for exiting prison. But most people exiting prison in Australia either expect to be homeless, or don’t know where they will be staying when released.
Our recent research for AHURI (the Australian Housing and Urban Research Institute) shows post-release housing assistance is a potentially powerful lever in arresting the imprisonment–homelessness cycle.
We found ex-prisoners who get public housing have significantly better criminal justice outcomes than those who receive private rental assistance only.
The benefit, in dollars terms, of public housing outweighs the cost.
problematic alcohol or other drug use (up to 66%) and
past homelessness (33%).
People with such complex support needs are often deemed “too difficult” for community-based support services and so end up entangled in the criminal justice system.
Also, prisons are themselves places of stress and suffering. So people leaving prison a high-needs group for housing assistance and support.
There are about 43,000 people in prison in Australia. Over the year there will be even more prison releases (because some people exit and enter multiple times).
Meanwhile, funding for social housing – public housing provided by state governments, and the community housing provided by non-profit community organisations – has been declining in real terms.
We must turn both those trends around.
The difference public housing makes
In our research, we investigated the effect of public housing on post-release pathways. We analysed data about a sample of people with complex support needs who had been in prison in NSW.
The de-identified data show peoples’ contacts before and after prison with various NSW government agencies, including criminal justice institutions and DCJ Housing, the state public housing provider.
We compared 623 people who received a public housing tenancy at some point after prison with a similar number of people who were eligible for public housing but received private rental assistance only (such as bond money).
On a range of measures, the public housing group had better criminal justice outcomes.
The charts below compare the number of police incidents for each group.
The first chart shows recorded police incidents for the private rental assistance group, which gradually rose over the period for which we have data.
The second chart shows police incidents for the public housing group: they also had a rising trend, until they received public housing (year 0 on the x-axis), after which police incidents went down 8.9% per year.
Police incidents, private rental assistance and public housing groups. Authors provided.
For the housed group:
court appearances were down 7.6% per year
proven offences (being found guilty of something at trial) were down 7.6% per year
time in custody was down 11.2% per year
time on supervised orders (court orders served in the community, including parole) initially increased, then went down 7.8% per year
justice costs per person, following an initial decrease of A$4,996, went down a further $2,040 per year per person.
When we put a dollar value on these benefits, providing a public housing tenancy is less costly than paying Rent Assistance in private rental (net benefit $5,000) or assisting through Specialist Homelessness Services (net benefit $35,000).
Unfortunately, public housing is in very short supply.
For our public housing group, the average time between release and public housing was five years. Others are never housed.
Post-release pathways are fraught
We interviewed corrections officers, reintegration support workers, housing workers, and people who had been in prison, across three states.
They were unanimous: there is a dearth of housing options for people exiting prison.
A Tasmanian ex-prisoner, who lived in a roof-top tent on his car on release, said:
You basically get kicked out the door and kicked in the guts and they say, ‘Go do whatever you need to do, see ya’.
Planning for release is often last-minute. A NSW reintegration support worker told us:
It’s not coordinated. We’ll get a prison ringing up on the day of release saying, ‘Can you pick this woman up?’ on the day of release, when they knew it was coming months in advance. There’s no planning.
A housing worker in Victoria described those next steps as a series of unstable, short-term arrangements, beset by pitfalls:
They could easily be waiting a couple of years, realistically. And for them that’s a long time, and so far off in the distance it’s difficult to conceive of. And a long time in which for things could go wrong in their lives – to be homeless or back in prison, all sorts of things … What they do in the meantime: they couch surf, stay with family, stay in motels, stay in cars/stolen cars, stay with friends, sleep rough, all those things.
A Tasmanian corrections officer told us:
People want to come back to custody because they’ve then got a roof over their head. They don’t have to worry; they’re getting fed, they can stay warm.
It’s not just about housing support
Community sector organisations specialising in supporting people in contact with the criminal justice system, such as the Community Restorative Centre (CRC) in NSW, do extraordinary work providing services and support that aim to break entrenched cycles of disadvantage and imprisonment.
However, this sector’s funding has been turbulent, marked by short-term programs.
In another project by some members of this research team, we saw the difference CRC made to 275 of its clients over a number of years. This evaluation found supported clients had 63% fewer custody episodes than a comparison group – a net cost saving to government of $10-16 million.
These support services would be even more effective if clients had more stable housing. As it is, specialist alcohol and other drug case workers are often spending their time dealing with clients’ housing crises.
Secure, affordable public housing is an anchor for people exiting prison as they work to build lives outside of the criminal justice system.
It is also a stable base from which to receive and engage with support services. It pays to invest in both.
Chris Martin receives funding from the Australian Housing and Urban Research Institute (AHURI) and the ACOSS-UNSW Poverty and Inequality Partnership. 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.
Eileen Baldry receives funding from the ARC, the NHMRC and AHURI. She is affiliated with the Justice Reform Initiative, the NSW Ageing and Disability Commission, the Noffs Foundation and the Public Interest Advocacy Centre.
Patrick Burton is funded by the AHURI and is affiliated with the Justice Reform Initiative, Brain Injury Association of Tasmania and JusTas.
Rebecca Reeve receives funding from the Paul Ramsay Foundation. She is affiliated with the Social Outcomes Lab.
Rob White receives funding from the Australian Housing and Urban Research Institute and is affiliated with the Justice Reform Initiative, Just Desserts (drug court support group) and the Brain Injury Association of Tasmania (criminal justice steering group).
Ruth McCausland receives funding from the Paul Ramsay Foundation, NHMRC, AHURI and Australian Partnership Prevention Centre, and is affiliated with the Community Restorative Centre.
Stuart Thomas receives funding from the ARC, Department of Health, National Mental Health Commission, Mental Health Victoria, Mind Australia, AHURI and ACEM. He is affiliated with the Law Enforcement and Mental Health Special Interest Group of the Global Law Enforcement and Public Health Association. .
Concerns about fake news and misinformation spreading on social media among Chinese communities are once again emerging, as they were during the 2019 election campaign.
There have been allegations against both major parties in recent weeks. The ABC reported a group of Liberal Party supporters systematically spread fake news about prominent Labor supporters in the Chinese community via WeChat.
At the same time, a local Labor branch in Queensland is accused of spreading a conspiracy meme against Gladys Liu, the incumbent Liberal candidate of the ultra-marginal Victorian seat of Chisholm and the first ethnic Chinese woman to serve in the House of Representatives.
Liu’s supporters are also not free from controversy. Some were accused of spreading misinformation in Chinese communities during the last federal election.
Drawing on my research on Chinese language media and Chinese communities in Australia, here are are some ways we can tackle fake news in non-English speaking communities.
Fake news and CALD Australians
Fake news is often systematically arranged by interest groups (such as political organisations) to achieve certain goals. This contradicts the popular assumption it’s fragmented or emerges spontaneously.
While every section of the society is subjected to fake news, culturally and linguistically diverse (CALD) communities are often more vulnerable to misinformation.
My as yet unpublishedresearch suggests many Chinese Australians who cannot understand English haven’t been accessing public health messages from government or health authorities during the COVID pandemic.
This aligns with previous findings that Chinese Australians trust political news on Chinese platforms such as WeChat not because of the platform itself, but because of the people from the similar cultural and linguistic communities they share the platform with.
My research
In my as yet unpublished research, only two of 31 older Chinese Australians I interviewed read English mainstream Australians news daily. The vast majority obtained most of their news about COVID from instant messenger groups, social media platforms such as WeChat, and from sources outside Australia.
None of the participants were aware of the Chinese language version of ABC news. Only around half of the interviewees knew about the SBS Mandarin and Cantonese services, but none were aware of their social media accounts and smartphone apps.
The participants’ feedback shows the failure of mainstream media to engage non-English speaking CALD Australians. This can create a breeding ground for the spread of misinformation, which can potentially distort voters’ decisions and influence election outcomes.
What can we do?
There are several things governments should do in collaboration with communities to help CALD Australians gain direct access to credible news and to become more aware of misinformation.
Promote the ABC and SBS
Both federal and state governments should promote ABC and SBS in-language news, such as SBS Mandarin, especially during important public conversations such as pandemic management and elections.
A good example is SBS’s COVID myth buster portal, which is available in more than 60 languages. This collates culturally appropriate news and information to help CALD communities stay informed about COVID, and serves as a good model for other important topics and events such as an election.
Promoting the ABC and SBS requires a strategic approach. Instead of governments running a mass campaign, which can be costly and ineffective, a better approach would be to co-develop resources and information with the language teams of the respective services. These resources can then be promoted to community leaders for them to disseminate to their communities.
More resources and training should be devoted to support journalists’ cultural literacy.
But typically these don’t have specific resources and training to support CALD communities.
They’re often too general and lack systematic programs to help CALD Australians learn how to download, operate, and access credible news and information and to improve their political literacy.
Tackling fake news in CALD communities requires partnerships between governments, community groups and media organisations.
There should be a particular focus on digital literacy of community leaders.
And more resources should be devoted to improve journalists’ cultural competence in communicating with CALD Australians.
Wilfred Yang Wang is affiliated with the Centre for Holistic Health, Victorian Multicultural Commission and Knox City Council’s Multicultural Advisory Committee on voluntary basis.
In the majority of cases, children who catch COVID won’t end up suffering serious illness. Kids have fewer symptoms, less severe disease, and tend to recover faster than adults.
The best case scenario for children sees them having relatively manageable symptoms, recovering fully, and soon testing negative. As researchers, we wanted to understand why some children have a far worse experience.
If they don’t recover, children with COVID can go on develop two different disorders. The first is Multisystem Inflammatory Syndrome in Children (MIS-C) where patients have painful inflammation on their skin, eyes and even internal organs such as the heart, lungs, and brain. The most fascinating (and confusing) thing about MIS-C is it never occurs in adults, only children. The second disorder is Acute Respiratory Distress Syndrome (ARDS), a life-threatening respiratory failure as a result of serious COVID.
By comparing blood samples from healthy children and those with serious COVID, we identified two sets of proteins that were switched on in kids with these frightening syndromes.
We have spent the past two years trying to understand how children’s bodies deal with COVID, and why it is so different from adults. Through our research, we wanted to understand exactly what the virus does to children to trigger a small number of them to develop MIS-C or ARDS, so we could help to figure out new ways of diagnosing or even treating them.
You may have heard of genomics – a scientific technique that can investigate all of a person’s genetic information (their genome) at once. In our study, we used proteomics which allows us to look at hundreds of proteins (the proteome) simultaneously.
Whenever something changes in the body (such as catching a virus like COVID) it can cause changes to your proteome. This helps tell us which systems of the body are affected.
We took blood samples from healthy children (collected at the Royal Children’s Hospital, Melbourne) and compared them to blood samples from children with MIS-C or ARDS (collected at the Hôpital Necker Enfants Malades, France). We performed proteomic experiments on the samples and found hundreds of proteins from each patient.
When we compared the amount of each protein in samples from children with severe COVID to the healthy blood samples, we found there were 85 proteins that changed in MIS-C and 52 proteins that changed in ARDS.
Listing a set of proteins is just the first step. It’s really important for us to know exactly what functions these proteins have in the body. By understanding the role each of those proteins plays, we can start to understand the biology underneath the disease.
Proteins that control blood-clotting and the immune system were affected in both MIS-C and ARDS patients, telling us these systems play an important role in severe COVID. We were also able to show that children with MIS-C have affected proteins connected to B cells (which help facilitate an immune response) and antibodies (which fight off foreign invaders in the body). Meanwhile, children with ARDS have affected proteins connected to the breakdown of red blood cells (which transport oxygen around the body).
Most children who get COVID will only have mild illness. Shutterstock
Fortunately, cases of MIS-C and ARDS are rare. But that doesn’t mean we shouldn’t try to understand how they work. Especially when severe COVID is so dangerous for the children affected and frightening for their families.
By narrowing down the potential blood proteins involved in severe COVID from hundreds down to less than 100, we can hone in on developing better diagnostic and treatment information.
This study was part of our larger research aim, which was to understand how COVID impacts adults and children differently.
The author wishes to acknowledge the strong collaborations between the University of Melbourne, the Royal Children’s Hospital, the Royal Children’s Hospital Foundation, Murdoch Children’s Research Institute, Hôpital Necker and the Australian Proteome Analysis Facility that made this work possible.
Conor McCafferty 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.
People with intellectual disability only have their disability noted by hospital staff in one in every five hospital admissions, our new study shows.
Recognising someone has a disability is critical to their care. This finding helps explain why many people with intellectual disability do not get hospital care that best meets their needs.
Urgent action is needed to make our hospital system safe, effective and tailored to the needs of around 450,000 Australians living with intellectual disability.
A system of neglect
Our research looked at historical information from hospitals and disability services in New South Wales between 2005 to 2015 (the most recent accessible data).
We found 12,593 adults with intellectual disability who used disability services in this time. In total, these adults went to hospital 80,960 times from 2005 to 2015. But in only 19,261 of these visits did the hospital recognise the person had an intellectual disability.
Intellectual disability is broadly defined as a lifelong condition that affects intellectual skills, behaviour and the ability to perform everyday tasks.
Intellectual disability exists across a spectrum. People with mild intellectual disability might engage in activities like full time work and sport. People with profound intellectual disability may not be able to communicate and require full time care.
Little has changed in the health care system to fix this issue since the data in our research was collected.
In 2008, Australia ratified the United Nations Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities, which protects the right to the highest attainable standard of health without discrimination on the basis of disability. But the reality for Australians living with intellectual disability is starkly different.
Based mainly on evidence from people with intellectual disability on the autism spectrum, the commission found people with cognitive disabilities face neglect in the health system. They found people with disabilities experience higher costs, longer waiting lists, physically inaccessible services and complex medical forms.
A person with intellectual disability may experience delayed diagnosis and inefficiency because of communication difficulties. Health professionals may lack the skills to assess and manage medical conditions when intellectual disability is also present.
Most of this difference in life expectancy is not specifically related to the intellectual disability itself or its causes. Rather, it relates to lifelong health disadvantage, lack of access and failure to manage emerging health conditions.
Potentially avoidable deaths (from conditions that could have been prevented through individualised care or treatment, like viral pneumonia, asthma, or diabetes) are more than twice as likely in people with intellectual disability.
To improve the recognition of intellectual disability when someone goes to hospital, we would like to see a national health disability indicator in the form of a code. When noted on their health records, this indicator would tell the health care system a patient has an intellectual disability (with the permission of that person), and they might need reasonable adjustments to be made.
This indicator would help make intellectual disability visible in hospitals, and ensure people get the best possible care.
An indicator of this kind is already used in the UK. People with disabilities help set up their own indicators to make sure their needs are met.
Reasonable adjustments are things that need to be done to make health care accessible to a person with disability.
For people with intellectual disability, reasonable adjustments can include adjusting communication, providing extra time and support, and involving the person in choices and decisions. Research shows reasonable adjustments improve care.
In the UK, all hospitals must make reasonable adjustments and the person with disability must be asked about what adjustments they need. Hospitals that do not make reasonable adjustments risk losing accreditation and funding.
In New South Wales, hospitals are meant to make reasonable adjustments for people with disability. However, our study suggests most of the time, when a person with intellectual disability goes to hospital, this does not happen because the hospital remains unaware of their needs.
Adrian Raymond Walker currently works in the Department of Developmental Disability Neuropsychiatry at The University of New South Wales, Sydney. The department receives core funding from the NSW Government Department of Health, and receives grants from multiple sources including the National Health and Medical Research Council.
Julian Trollor receives core funding for his university department from the NSW Government Department of Health. He is also the recipient of multiple grants from national competitive grant bodies including but not limited to the National Health and Medical Research Council. He sits on multiple Commonwealth and State government committees related to the health and wellbeing of people with disabilities.
Artist’s impression of the PSR J0523-7125 in the Large Magellanic Cloud. Carl Knox, ARC Centre of Excellence for Gravitational Wave Discovery (OzGrav), Author provided
When a star explodes and dies in a supernova, it takes on a new life of sorts.
Pulsars are the extremely rapidly rotating objects left over after massive stars have exhausted their fuel supply. They are extremely dense, with a mass similar to the Sun crammed into a region the size of Sydney.
Pulsars emit beams of radio waves from their poles. As those beams sweep across Earth, we can detect rapid pulses as often as hundreds of times per second. With this knowledge, scientists are always on the lookout for new pulsars within and outside our Milky Way galaxy.
This pulsar, named PSR J0523-7125, is located in the Large Magellanic Cloud – one of our closest neighbouring galaxies – and is more than ten times brighter than all other radio pulsars outside the Milky Way. It may be even brighter than those within it.
Source: Youtube/NASA.
Why wasn’t PSR J0523-7125 discovered before?
There are more than 3,300 radio pulsars known. Of these, 99% reside within our galaxy. Many were discovered with CSIRO’s famous Parkes radio telescope, Murriyang, in New South Wales.
About 30 radio pulsars have been found outside our galaxy, in the Magellanic Clouds. So far we don’t know of any in more distant galaxies.
Astronomers search for pulsars by looking for their distinctive repeating signals in radio telescope data. This is a computationally intensive task. It works most of the time, but this method can sometimes fail if the pulsar is unusual: such as very fast, very slow, or (in this case) if the pulse is very wide.
A very wide pulse reduces the signature “flickering” astronomers look for, and can make the pulsar harder to find. We now know PSR J0523-7125 has an extremely wide beam, and thus escaped detection.
The Large Magellanic Cloud has been explored by the Parkes telescope several times over the past 50 years, and yet this pulsar had never been spotted. So how were we able to find it?
An unusual object emerges in ASKAP data
Pulsar beams can be highly circularly polarised, which means the electric field of light waves rotate in a circular motion as the waves travel through space.
Such circularly polarised signals are very rare, and usually only emitted from objects with very strong magnetic fields, such as pulsars or dwarf stars.
We wanted to pinpoint unusual pulsars that are hard to identify with traditional methods, so we set out to find them by specifically detecting circularly polarised signals.
When looking at data from our ASKAP Variables and Slow Transients (VAST) survey, an undergraduate student noticed a circular polarised object near the centre of the Large Magellanic Cloud. Moreover, this object changed brightness over the course of several months: another very unusual property that made it unique.
This was unexpected and exciting, since there was no known pulsar or dwarf star at this position. We figured the object must be something new. We observed it with many different telescopes, at different wavelengths, to try and solve the mystery.
Apart from the Parkes (Murriyang) telescope, we used the space-based Neil Gehrels Swift Observatory (to observe it at X-ray wavelengths) and the Gemini telescope in Chile (to observe it at infrared wavelengths). Yet we detected nothing.
The object couldn’t be a star, as stars would be visible in optical and infrared light. It was unlikely to be a normal pulsar, as the pulses would have been detected by Parkes. Even the Gemini telescope didn’t provide an answer.
Ultimately we turned to the new, highly sensitive MeerKAT radio telescope in South Africa, owned and operated by the South African Radio Astronomy Observatory. Observations with MeerKAT revealed the source is indeed a new pulsar, PSR J0523-7125, spinning at a rate of about three rotations per second.
Below you can see the MeerKAT image of the pulsar with polarised “sunglasses” on (left) and off (right). If you move the slider, you’ll notice PSR J0523-7125 is the only bright object when the glasses are on.
Our analysis also confirmed its location within the Large Magellanic Cloud, about 160,000 light years away. We were surprised to find PSR J0523-7125 is more than ten times brighter than all other pulsars in that galaxy, and possibly the brightest pulsar ever found.
The discovery of PSR J0523-7125 demonstrates our ability to find “missing” pulsars using this new technique.
By combining this method with ASKAP’s and MeerKAT’s capabilities, we should be able to discover other types of extreme pulsars – and maybe even other unknown objects that are hard to explain.
Extreme pulsars are one of the missing pieces in the vast picture of the pulsar population. We’ll need to find more of them before we can truly understand pulsars within the framework of modern physics.
This discovery is just the beginning. ASKAP has now finished its pilot surveys and is expected to launch into full operational capacity later this year. This will pave the way for even more discoveries, when the global SKA (square kilometre array) telescope network starts observing in the not too distant future.
Akncowledgement: We acknowledge the Wajarri Yamatji as the traditional owners of the Murchison Radio-astronomy Observatory site where ASKAP is located, and the Wiradjuri people as the traditional owners of the Parkes Observatory.
Yuanming Wang receives support from the China Scholarship Council, and as a Graduate Student with the University of Sydney and CSIRO Astronomy and Space Science.
David Kaplan receives funding from the National Science Foundation.
Tara Murphy receives funding from the Australian Research Council.
Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Susan Harris Rimmer, Professor and Director of the Policy Innovation Hub, Griffith Business School, Griffith University
Clive Palmer has had a tough run leading up to the 2022 election campaign.
He faced COVID-19 without the protection of vaccination in March, tripped at his National Press Club speech and reported being knocked unconscious for about 20 seconds when he fell during a rehearsal for his United Australia Party (UAP) campaign launch in April.
Palmer, a dedicated litigant, has also suffered some recent set-backs in the court room.
As it contests the 2022 federal election, is the UAP also on a downward trajectory or will it tap into populist sentiment reacting against vaccine mandates and climate change?
UAP’s influence since 2013
In the first federal election in 2013, Palmer’s share of the primary vote (as the Palmer United Party) was 5.49% nationally and about 11% in Queensland. This was enough to win a single seat in the lower house and three in the Senate.
There was no UAP federal campaign in 2016 due to Palmer stepping back to address the collapse of his Queensland Nickel company. But in 2019, he ran candidates in all lower house seats, winning a total of 3.4% of the national vote. The UAP was well short of the quota to land a Senate spot, even in Queensland.
Nevertheless, the 2019 House of Representatives election saw a record vote of about 25% for minor parties overall, so preferences decided a record number of seats. This means minor parties deserve our serious attention in the 2022 election.
ABC election analyst Antony Green has noted while UAP’s preference flows didn’t significantly affect any results in 2019, its “anti-Labor message and broadcast weight of Clive Palmer’s political advertising” did have an impact.
2022 challenges
The UAP is fielding 22 Senate candidates, including Palmer, and running candidates in every lower house seat. Palmer’s best chance of electoral success is in Queensland, where he is challenging Pauline Hanson, Campbell Newman and the Coalition’s Amanda Stoker for the final Queensland Senate spot.
Palmer is certainly throwing plenty of money at the campaign, with expectations he will spend A$60-70 million in the lead up to election day. This compares with the unprecedented $84 million he spent in 2019.
The UAP share of the primary vote has only slightly increased despite the massive spend at the start of the campaign and the impact of the pandemic. The most recent Newspoll, conducted April 27-30, showed the UAP vote steady at 4%. This is after spending millions on advertising.
Key differences in 2022
The familiar UAP yellow and the big budget is back, but there are some key differences in 2022.
The first is policy. In 2019, the focus of UAP advertising was anti-Bill Shorten and anti-ALP sentiment.
But Palmer launched his 2022 campaign in Coolum, with the unexpected announcement the party would push for the enactment of a bill of rights to “save Australia”.
Palmer is tipped to spend as much as $70 million on the 2022 election. Darren England/AAP
Other key UAP policies include maximum 3% interest on home loans, abolishing federal cabinet and bringing Australian super investments back from overseas. There is also a focus on opposing COVID measures, tapping into anger over restrictions and mandates. The focus on “freedom” may entice to voters after a difficult pandemic period for so many.
UAP damaged the ALP vote in 2019, but don’t expect the same thing this time. Palmer has pledged to put the Liberals, Labor and Greens last on how-to-vote cards, diffusing the impact on preferences.
A second key difference in 2022 is new leader Craig Kelly (Palmer is now “chairman”). Former Liberal MP Kelly joined as UAP leader in August 2021, bringing his controversial positions on COVID, coal and climate change with him, as well as a significant following.
But will this help the UAP vote? Kelly has been rated as one of Australia’s “least likeable” politicians. In December 2021, a Resolve Political Monitor survey found only 9% of surveyed Australians had a positive view of Kelly. This was only slightly higher than Palmer, on 8%. Kelly faces a tough road to win his seat of Hughes in 2022 without Liberal Party endorsement against a wide field.
Kelly has also been permanently banned from Facebook for disinformation, limiting his ability to reach supporters.
Legal problems
Beyond the campaign, Palmer (who has listed “litigation” as a hobby) is pursuing and facing distracting court action.
He recently lost a case in the High Court against Western Australia on border closures and has been engulfed in defamation proceedings against WA Premier Mark McGowan.
Palmer is also facing two sets of criminal charges brought by ASIC. The first involves alleged breaches of takeover provisions in the acquisition of his Coolum resort and the second relates to allegations he improperly funded his successful 2013 election campaign.
The ASIC action is due to return to the Brisbane Supreme Court for a two-day hearing on May 31 and June 1. Apart from distracting from his election campaign, it could potentially land Palmer in jail – making the Senate result irrelevant.
What does Palmer actually want?
As political scientist John Wanna has noted, we still don’t really know why Palmer is spending all this time, energy and money on elections:
Is it for political influence or policy influence? To achieve a higher profile? Buying his way to power? To let the ‘established’ political elite know he remains a key player perhaps? Or more genuinely attempting to represent ordinary Australian values, and shift policy contours?
Palmer has displayed a long interest in politics but perhaps he enjoys the game of it all.
And amid ongoing disquiet over his huge election spending, perhaps his
ultimate legacy will be to prompt overdue reform of political advertising regulation.
SDA tenant, Tom, in his accessible apartment.Housing Hub, Author provided
The federal government has been warning that the rising cost of the National Disability Insurance Scheme (NDIS) is unsustainable. More than a third of NDIS funding is spent on in-house support provided to 5% of NDIS participants with the highest needs.
Fresh data, released Friday, shows there are 3,435 people under 65 living in aged care, and each month another 44 enter. While there has been a 21% drop in younger people living in aged care, the decline is mostly due to people either dying (562 people) or remaining in aged care until they turn 65, and “ageing out” of the cohort. During 2021, only 30 younger people left aged care to live in Specialist Disability Accommodation (SDA).
Well-designed homes that foster more independent living and increase community connection can potentially reduce support costs and the need for younger people to live in aged care.
Our new research found specialist housing, that incorporates technology and communication tools, improves independence, health, well-being and community integration. New disability housing has enormous potential to improve the effectiveness of paid support and address housing and workforce issues.
Up to two-thirds of disability housing in Australia is old stock that is not fit for purpose and does not meet current standards or foster independence.
Group homes are the main model of housing in Australia for people with disability. Up to six people with disability live together, but they have little or no say in where or with whom they live. They are often separated from the community with few opportunities to engage or belong.
Some group homes resemble “mini-institutions” where the structure of the residents’ daily life is determined by staff rosters, routines and priorities.
The current Royal Commission has found people with disability are vulnerable to neglect and abuse when they are segregated and only engage with paid workers. Independence is not fostered, and there is no drive to reduce paid support over time.
Housing that meets needs
In 2016, the NDIS began to address the shortage of contemporary disability housing in Australia by introducing Specialist Disability Accommodation (SDA payments. These are only for the 6% of NDIS participants with the most specific housing needs.
Disability housing is expected to boom with a A$12 billion hoped sector to deliver housing for over 28,000 NDIS participants.
SDA housing might have extra wide doorways, a hoist in the bathroom and concierge support on call.
The policy has seen a significant increase of new housing for people with disability. Of 2,399 new dwellings built, 50% were apartments integrated into mainstream developments. A further 1,033 apartments are under construction – mostly for single occupants, with a small number grouped together making delivering disability support more efficient.
New research published by La Trobe University and the Summer Foundation supports these efforts.
We interviewed 15 people people with disability (neurological disorder or cerebral palsy) and complex needs before and six months to two years after they moved into specialist housing. We found designing with the tenant in mind leads to better outcomes.
Before moving into new SDA apartments, study participants lived in a range of housing including group homes, residential aged care, private rentals and with ageing parents.
After they moved they used an average of 2.4 hours less paid support per person per day.
After moving into her own apartment, Amy told us:
Moving in here has been the biggest change in my life since the onset of my disability. It’s been daunting but also shown me how independent I can be.
‘The day I moved in, I went from room to room thinking: It’s all mine. It’s all mine.’
To date there has been a lack of evidence on the impact suitable housing has on NDIS participants. Without an evidence-based approach, government and housing providers may invest in housing stock that is not fit for purpose but will be with us for decades.
We estimate $1.1 billion would be saved each year in disability support costs if NDIS participants were living in suitable housing, because they would enjoy increased independence and more efficiently delivered support.
Challenges remain
Despite the thousands of accessible homes built so far, the SDA market is being thwarted by the poor administration of the SDA payments by the National Disability Insurance Agency (NDIA).
Some 63% of the anticipated 28,000 NDIS participants have SDA in their NDIS plans and mostly not at the level of support they’d need to move to new housing.
Potential tenants take months or years to navigate the process of requesting SDA and then appealing unfair decisions, the majority of which are overturned. Many NDIS participants give up as they lose hope along the way.
New specialist disability accommodation is part of the solution to a sustainable NDIS, not part of the problem. Our research confirms the NDIA should focus efforts on innovation and evidence-based solutions informed by the needs, preferences and outcomes for NDIS participants.
Jacinta Douglas is affiliated with the Summer Foundation through her Professorial role within the La Trobe University, Living with Disability, Summer Foundation Research Partnership.
Di Winkler is the CEO of Summer Foundation and a director of Summer Housing (SDA Provider) which is a separate entity. Both organisations are not for profits. Di is not paid by Summer Housing. The Housing Hub is a social enterprise established but The Summer Foundation.
More than 1,800 Australian plants and animals are considered at-risk of extinction, and yet protecting threatened species is almost entirely absent from the current election campaign.
We’ve developed a web app, which launches today, that lets Australians learn which threatened plants and animals live in their federal electorate.
For example, we found the electorate with the most threatened species is Durack in Western Australia, held currently by the Liberal party’s Melissa Price. Some 61 threatened animals and 198 threatened plants live or used to live within its boundaries, such as the Numbat, Gouldian finch and the Western underground orchid.
Our goal is to help users engage with their elected representatives and put imperilled species on the political agenda this election and beyond. We urgently need to convince federal politicians to act, for they hold the keys to saving these species. So what can they do to help their plight?
The black-breasted buttonquail is an endangered and declining species found in southern Queensland. It used to be found in northern NSW. To be saved from extinction it needs members from around 29 electorates to work together and champion its recovery. Patrick Webster, Author provided
Threatened species in your neighbourhood
Our new app, called Threatened Australians, uses federal government data to introduce you to the threatened species living in your neighbourhood.
By entering a post code, users can learn what the species looks like, where they can be found (in relation to their electorate), and what’s threatening them. Importantly, users can learn about their incumbent elected representative, and the democratic actions that work towards making a difference.
For example, entering the postcode 2060 – the seat of North Sydney, held currently by the Liberal Party’s Trent Zimmerman – tells us there are 23 threatened animals and 14 threatened plants that live or used to live there.
This includes the koala which, among many others, have seen devastating losses in their populations in recent decades due to habitat destruction.
We’ve also put together data dividing the number of threatened species that live or used to live across each party’s electorates, as shown in the chart below. Labor-held seats are home to 775 of the 1,800-plus threatened species, while Liberal-held seats have 1,168.
A seriously neglected issue
The good news is we know how to avert the extinction crisis. Innumerable reports and peer-reviewed studies have detailed why the crisis is occurring, including a major independent review of Australia’s environment laws which outlined the necessary federal reforms for changing this trajectory.
The bad news is these comprehensive reforms, like almost all the previous calls to action on the threatened species crisis, have been largely ignored.
Predictions show the situation will drastically worsen for threatened species over the next two decades if nothing changes.
The golden shouldered parrot is only found in Queensland. Its entire population is found in the seat of Leichardt and its population has been declining dramatically over the past two decades. The long-term MP for Leichhardt is the Hon Warren Entsch. Patrick Webster, Author provided
So how can we address this mismatch of widespread public desire for environmental action yet political candidates are focused on other issues?
What can local MPs actually do about it?
For change to occur, communities must effectively persuade elected representatives to act. There are a few ways they can exercise their democratic powers to make a difference.
Federal MPs often champion and advocate important issues such as developing new hospitals, schools and car parks in their electorate. By speaking out and advocating for their electorate in parliament and with the media, they can garner the support, such as funding and reform, to deliver change for their electorate.
The numbat has disappeared across much of the continent in the last two hundred years. Now over 80% of its range now occurs in the electorate of O’Connor in Western Australia. The MP for O’Connor is Mr Rick Wilson. Shutterstock
Local MPs can help protect threatened species by instigating and voting for improved policy.
Let’s say, for instance, legislation for approving a new mine was before parliament, and the development overlapped with the habitat of a threatened animal.
If protecting a certain plant or animal was on an MPs agenda thanks to the efforts of their community, it would help determine whether the MP votes for such legislation.
This has broader applications, too. Making the threatened species crisis a priority for an MP would determine the lengths they would go to for conservation in their electorate and Australia wide.
The app in action. Threatened Australia, Author provided
Our app can help users engage with the current sitting MP in their electorate with the click of a button, as it helps users write an email to them. It’s time federal representatives were asked about their policies on threatened species and what they plan to do for them in their electoral backyards.
While climate change has, for decades, unfathomably been the subject of fierce debate in the Australian parliament, threatened species can be a cause of unity across the political divide.
We need an honest and urgent dialogue between local communities and their representatives about how to deal with the challenge these species face and what each prospective candidate intends to do about it.
Gareth Kindler receives funding from a Research Training Program scholarship and has received funding from the Centre for Biodiversity and Conservation Science.
James Watson has received funding from the Australian Research Council and National Environmental Science Program. He serves on scientific committees for Bush Heritage Australia and BirdLife Australia and has a long-term scientific relationship with Wildlife Conservation Society.
Nick Kelly has received funding for other work from the Australian Research Council and the Queensland Department of Education.
When you think of an electric vehicle, chances are you’ll picture a car. But there’s a quiet revolution going on in transport. It turns out electrification can work wonders for almost all of our transport options, from electric bikes to motorbikes to buses to freight trains and even to tractors and heavy trucks. There will soon be no need to burn petrol and diesel in an internal combustion engine.
This matters, because electric transport will be vital in our efforts to stem climate change. If all cars on the road became powered by renewable electricity, we’d cut almost one-fifth of our emissions. We’d also be much better placed to weather spikes in oil prices linked to war, and enjoy cleaner air and quieter cities.
It’s promising news that electric vehicles are shaping up as an election issue at last, with Labor promising a national EV charging network at its campaign launch, and the Greens promising rebates of up to $15,000 for EV purchases, while the Liberal Party last year reversed its previous scepticism and launched a smaller charging network policy.
But this is only the beginning of what’s required. Right now, all the focus is on electric cars. We will need new policy settings to encourage the electrification of all our transport options. And that means getting electric mobility on the radar of our political parties.
Why electric and why now?
Electric vehicles have been around for more than 120 years. They accounted for a third of all cars on US roads in 1900, sought because they were clean and quiet. But their first dawn ended because of the high cost and weight of batteries, leaving internal combustion engines to rule the road.
So what changed? Two things: solar has become the cheapest form of power in human history, and lighter lithium-ion batteries have become vastly cheaper. These remarkable inventions have allowed electric vehicle manufacturers to become competitive. Cheap solar power funnels into the battery of the electric vehicle to provide running costs much lower than those of fossil fuel engines. The much simpler engines also mean vastly lower maintenance costs.
We’re also seeing major innovations brought across from electric public transport. Over the past two decades, there have been significant advances in smart technology in trains and trams, such as regenerative braking and sensors enabling active suspension. These breakthroughs have been taken up enthusiastically by electric vehicle manufacturers. All electric cars now have regenerative braking, which hugely increases energy efficiency, as well as smart sensors to aid steering, and active suspension, making the cars safer and the ride smoother.
We’re also seeing welcome cross-pollination in the form of trackless trams, which are upgraded buses that boast rail-like mobility. This is made possible based on technologies invented for high-speed rail.
In short, there’s no reason why solar and battery technology has to be limited to cars. All the world’s land-based internal combustion engine vehicles can now be replaced by electric equivalents.
Major miner BHP is testing battery-electric locomotives such as this Wabtec model. Wabtec
Electric mobility is arriving
You’ll already have seen signs of the potential of electric mobility. E-scooters are popping up in major cities, giving people a way to make short trips quickly and cheaply. E-bikes are surging ahead, popular among commuters and families choosing one over a second car. Even this is just the start.
Around the world, electric micromobility (scooters, skateboards and bikes) is growing at over 17% per year and expected to quadruple current sales of US$50 billion by 2030.
Even without much government assistance, Australians are shifting rapidly to all types of electric vehicle. But for Australia to embrace electric transport as fully as we can, we need the right policy settings. Cars, scooters, motorbikes, trackless trams, buses, trucks, freight trains and farm vehicles can all be part of the transition to the cheapest and highest-quality mobility the world has yet seen.
The policies on offer to date suggest no party has figured out the radical upheaval electrification will bring. Labor’s emission reductions policy of a 43% cut by 2030 gives electric cars only a tiny role, cutting emissions by less than 1%, or four million tonnes out of a total of 448 million tonnes. There’s no mention of other electric modes of transport. Even the Greens have little serious policy analysis of the broader EV options. The Liberals have no mention at all.
Even tractors are going electric, with a key marketing point the ability for farmers to recharge through their own solar arrays. Fendt
We need comprehensive, broad electric vehicle policy
Given we’re still at the starting line, what’s the best first step? Perhaps the simplest would be to enable Infrastructure Australia to work with the states on creating strategic directions for each electric transport mode. The ACT already has a plan like this for its bus network as part of its shift to a zero-carbon future.
Here’s what good EV policies would consider:
Electric micromobility: how to recharge and manage the explosion of electric scooters, skateboards and bikes with appropriate infrastructure, and how to enable the best public sharing systems
Electric public transit: how to electrify all buses, passenger trains and mid-tier transit (light rail, rapid transit buses and trackless trams), and how to link net zero urban developments and charging facilities
Electric trucks, freight trains and farm vehicles: how to create recharge highways and hubs in train stations, industrial precincts and standalone farm systems, and how to introduce these to the regions to enable net zero mining, agriculture and other processed products.
Each of these modes will also need the same targets, subsidies and regulations as electric cars do, to make possible a swift, clean transition away from petrol and diesel. If we focus only on electric cars, we could end up with cities still full of cars, even if they don’t pollute. By focusing on all transport modes, we will make our cities more equitable, safe and sustainable.
Peter Newman has been the IPCC Co-ordinating Lead Author for Transport over the past 3 years supported only in transport costs by the Federal Department of Industry, Science, Energy and Resources.
Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Hugh Saddler, Honorary Associate Professor, Centre for Climate Economics and Policy, Australian National University
shutterstocShutterstock
“Power prices are going up”, shadow treasurer Jim Chalmers declared last week. But according to energy minister Angus Taylor, “No one’s household power prices have gone up.” So who is right?
With the cost of living at forefront of the election campaign, the competing claims of the government and opposition are over a report showing wholesale electricity prices in Australia’s National Electricity Market surged 67% in the first three months of 2022, and by 141% in the year to the end of March.
Neither Chalmers nor Taylor were technically incorrect in their statements, but each focused on the facts that suited their preferred narrative. So let’s consider the full context.
Increases in wholesale prices
The National Energy Market supplies electricity to about 89% of the Australian population. Though it’s called a national market, it does not include Western Australia, the Northern Territory or western Queensland.
The following graph shows the average wholesale price in the NEM since the first quarter of 2019. Prices in the first quarter of 2022 rose by $35 a megawatt hour (or 3.5 cents a kilowatt hour). This put wholesale prices at their highest level since the first half of 2019.
The next graph shows prices by state since the first quarter of 2020. The three southern states – South Australia, Victoria and Tasmania – had similar increases. Queensland, already with higher average prices, had a bigger increase. New South Wales was in-between.
The report sets out various factors contributing to these price increases. Higher demand for electricity than in the corresponding 2021 quarter was one factor. Most of the other factors, however, relate directly, or indirectly, to the differing mixes of generation in the National Electricity Market’s five state markets.
Share of renewables
The next graph, based on calculations using very detailed operational data, show renewables’ share of wholesale electricity generation by state for the first quarter of 2022. (These numbers exclude rooftop solar’s contribution to total generation.)
Tasmania led the way, with renewables supplying 100% of the wholesale market. Next came South Australia (69%), Victoria (28%), New South Wales (24%) and Queensland (12%).
This clearly shows a correlation between higher wholesale prices and higher reliance on coal-fired generation. In Queensland, coal-fired power stations still account for 70% electricity generation, compared with 66% in New South Wales and 63% in Victoria.
In the first quarter, AEMO’s report notes there was “record low availability” from black-coal generators in New South Wales and Queensland – the lowest, in fact, “since at least 2002”. This was “due to increased outages (mostly unplanned)”. In other words, coal-fired generators broke down more.
A sudden, unplanned outage will cause the wholesale price to shoot up dramatically. Even though such events are usually short-lived, the prices reached are high enough to materially affect average quarterly prices.
Limited interconnectors between states
A second important factor is limited connection between the National Electricity Market’s five state-based markets.
Interconnector transmission lines allow generators in one state to bid to supply electricity in a neighbouring state. Victoria’s connectors with Tasmania and South Australia are why its prices aren’t more in line with New South Wales and Queensland.
But there aren’t enough connections to equalise wholesale prices across all states. In particular, AEMO’s report identifies the inadequate connection capacity between Victoria and New South Wales.
This is the main reason for such a price separation between the southern and northern states. Wind and solar farms in Victoria and South Australia simply can’t sell more to the higher-priced northern markets.
This is, of course, good for consumers in Victoria and South Australia, because the wind and solar generators must instead sell to their local state markets, driving down prices. But it’s not good for consumers elsewhere, or for the owners of those wind and solar generators.
AEMO says a further problem is insufficient transmission capacity within NSW itself. This means the market operator must sometimes intervene to instruct wind and solar generators in the state’s southwest to curtail output to avoid overloading local transmission lines, endangering system security. Reducing the supply from the lowest cost suppliers in the market will obviously push up average wholesale prices.
A third factor has affected black-coal generators in New South Wales and Queensland, which compete for coal with buyers overseas. (Victoria’s coal-fired generators use poorer quality brown coal, which isn’t exported.)
When international coal prices go up, as they have due to Russia’s invasion of Ukraine, the cost of generating electricity for Australian consumers at these power stations also goes up. Only some coal stations are affected but the effect is large enough to push up the general wholesale price.
Renewable generators, by contrast, are unaffected by volatile international coal prices.
Labor has promised to establish a public Rewiring the Nation Corporation to accelerate the construction of transmission lines connecting new renewable generators to major electricity markets.
However, Labor’s statements about power prices going up have blurred the distinction between wholesale and retail prices.
The price consumers pay for electricity is a commercial decision of the electricity retailer (with some regulatory constraints). It obviously includes the wholesale price the retailer pays to generators. But in 2021 the wholesale cost was just 35% of the average total price of residential electricity in the NEM.
Wholesale contracts between generators and retailers cover various periods and include various price change provisions, They do not directly mirror spot wholesale prices, which change every five minutes. Retail prices generally change only once a year.
If the increase of 3.5 cents/kWh in the wholesale cost component in the first quarter was passed on immediately and in full to consumers, it would mean a 13% increase in the average retail price.
That hasn’t happened yet, as Taylor correctly said.
However, unless wholesale prices fall dramatically over the next few weeks, they almost certainly will go up from the start of July.
Hugh Saddler 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.
HBO’s new show Our Flag Means Death has brought the Golden Age of Piracy to life on TV, chronicling the life of the bumbling gentleman pirate, Stede Bonnet.
Season one mostly focuses on the fictional Stede’s momentous and oddly romantic meeting with the infamous Blackbeard, told through absurd comedy that softens and makes light of the brutality of real piracy.
Stede Bonnet in Our Flag Means Death is a hilarious and sympathetic figure – but who was the real Stede Bonnet from history and just how accurate is the series in depicting the life and times of “the gentleman pirate”?
Our Flag Means Death depicts the historical pirate Stede Bonnet as a foolish, somewhat harmless figure. IMDB
What was the golden age of piracy?
Pirates have been around since ancient times and still exist today. Julius Caesar was captured by Cilician pirates in 75BC. He was ransomed and released and later returned and defeated the pirates and crucified them as punishment. Piracy still exists today with more than 100 attacks taking place in 2021.
The Golden Age of Piracy, in which Our Flag Means Death is set, is generally accepted to be the period from the start of the 18th century until around 1730.
It was in this period that there was a marked increase in the pirate attacks in the seas of the Indian ocean, and off the coasts of the Americas and Africa, due to a range of factors including a rise in quantities of valuable cargoes being shipped to Europe over vast ocean areas, a decrease in navies policing those waters, and corrupt and inefficient European colonial governments.
Who was Stede Bonnet?
The historical Stede Bonnet was a prosperous plantation owner in Barbados in the early 1700s. Also known as the “Gentleman Pirate”, Stede was described as:
A gentleman that has had the advantage of of a liberal education and being generally esteemed as a Man of Letters.
For reasons unknown, Bonnet in 1717 decided the life of a plantation owner was no longer for him and purchased a small ten-gun sailing vessel, called it the Revenge, and embarked on a career of piracy.
Bonnet immediately distinguished himself by hiring a crew and paying them a wage, something unheard of in the pirate world, where most relied on a share of the booty seized as payment.
A news story of the day claimed that on the way to Nassau, Bonnet was involved in a fight with a Spanish man-of-war and his ship was damaged and Bonnet seriously wounded. But some authors discount this, as accounts of such a fight are not recorded in Spanish archives.
Recovering from his wounds, Bonnet ceded command of the Revenge to Blackbeard, who took the ship out raiding to Delaware Bay, where they plundered a number of ships. Authors have described accounts of Bonnet as essentially a passenger on his own ship, playing no role and dressed in a morning gown.
Capture of the Pirate, Blackbeard, 1718, Jean Leon Gerome Ferris, painted in 1920. Wikipedia
Bonnet and Blackbeard separated for a short time, only to link up again. By now Blackbeard had his own ship, Queen Anne’s Revenge. The wreck of this ship was located in coastal waters off North Carolina in 1996. Bonnet’s crew deserted him to serve under Blackbeard, who put one of his men in charge of the Revenge and kept Bonnet on the Queen Anne’s Revenge a virtual prisoner.
Bonnet was present when Blackbeard blockaded the port of Charles Town in 1718. After leaving Charles Town, Blackbeard and Bonnet travelled to Bath Town where they were granted a pardon by the governor of North Carolina.
Bonnet returned to find that Blackbeard had double-crossed him and dumped most of Bonnet’s crew, stripped the Revenge of supplies and sailed off with the loot.
While history has portrayed Blackbeard as bloodthirsty murderer, the character in this series is more nuanced and complex. More recently, researchers have questioned the murderous portrayal of Blackbeard and suggested he was a literate, well-educated man of social grace – which perhaps gives some credence to Taika Waititi’s portrayal of the pirate in Our Flag Means Death.
Rhys darby Taika Waititi as Blackbeard (left) and Rhys Darby as Stede Bonnet (right). IMDB
Back to pirating
Seeking revenge but unable to locate Blackbeard, Bonnet returned to his life of piracy. Bonnet hoped to preserve his pardon using an alias and changing the name of his ship. After capturing a number of ships, Bonnet sailed to Delaware Bay with the Revenge and two other ships.
Surrender of Bonnet. Wikipedia
Authorities learnt that Bonnet had moored in Cape Fear River and the governor of South Carolina sent a naval force. In the ensuing battle, both Bonnet and the naval forces sent to capture him ran aground and sat immobilised for hours, taking pot shots at each other while waiting for the tide to rise. With the rising of the tide, the naval force captured Bonnet and his crew.
Arrest and trial
Bonnet and his crew were taken to Charles Town. Bonnet, being a gentleman, was separated from his crew and with two of his officers was held in loose detention at the home of the town marshal. Some days later Bonnet escaped and went on the run for 12 days before being recaptured. This time he was imprisoned with his crew.
Bonnet was charged with two counts of piracy; he pleaded not guilty and conducted his own defence. He was found guilty by a jury and sentenced to death. Bonnet was hung in Charles Town on 10 December 1718.
As for the treacherous sea dog, Blackbeard, on November 22 1718 he met his own end when he was killed in a fight with naval forces. His head was taken as proof of his death, and displayed by the Virginia governor as a warning to other would-be pirates.
The authors do not work for, consult, own shares in or receive funding from any company or organisation that would benefit from this article, and have disclosed no relevant affiliations beyond their academic appointment.
Australia Post workers are suffering more dog attacks than before with 1,170 incidents so far this financial year — up 400 on the same time in 2021.
The delivery service says around five employees are attacked each work day, causing serious injuries and lasting emotional trauma.
What emergency steps should you take if you witness a dog attack? And what should you do if that dog is attacking you?
When dogs attack
While the news from Australia Post is distressing, it’s important to remember that the majority of the millions of dogs in Australia don’t bite. For the dogs that do attack, it’s usually because they are acting on fear or anxiety rather than aggression.
In the centuries since we first domesticated and trained dogs to be our pets and companions, we’ve shaped their natural behaviour so they can share our lives, homes and environment. But we can’t breed or train out all of a dog’s natural instincts: many will protect their space – and will escalate their response if they feel threatened.
We don’t have good national statistics on dog bites. The Australian Companion Animal Council has estimated more than 100,000 people in Australia are attacked by dogs each year, with around 12,000–14,000 of them requiring medical treatment for injuries, and around 10% of those hospitalised.
In the United Kingdom, dog attacks are increasing in adults rather than kids, though the reasons for this are unclear.
UK researchers have found 80% of occupational bites occurred during mail delivery, vet or kennel work, or caring for people who have dogs. In high-risk settings, specialist equipment like an air blaster might be used during an attack. But the general public (and posties) don’t have access to these.
3 things to do if someone else is being attacked by a dog
Many people picture specific dog breeds as aggressive and more likely to attack, but this is an unhelpful stereotype. The truth is, any type of dog can bite. Here’s what to do:
keep yourself safe. If you intervene, you might get bitten
distract the dog (call out from a safe distance, beep your car horn, spray the animal with a hose if there’s one handy and it’s safe to do so)
call for emergency medical care if necessary.
There are also two important things to do after a dog attack:
provide medical attention. Every dog bite will need medical attention, to treat injury and to prevent infection
report it. Most local councils also require every dog attack be reported. Local authorities may collect evidence, interview witnesses and follow up. They might impose a dangerous dog order or tell the owner to install or repair fencing. Roaming dogs can also be reported and picked up by authorities.
What if the dog is attacking you?
If you see a dog that looks agitated and is running towards you, the most important thing is not to react or scream. Stay calm and avoid eye contact. Move away (out of their space) as calmly and slowly as possible.
If a dog is attacking in full flight, best to stay upright, remain still and call for help. If you have time, placing something between you and them (a clipboard, jacket, wheelie bin) can help. If you end up on the ground, curl up into a ball as tightly as possible.
Most dogs have good “bite inhibition”. If a dog is really scared and an approaching person doesn’t recognise the signs, they will likely bite once as a warning or reaction, but they won’t necessarily keep biting if you can move away.
Dog bites can puncture skin and cause muscle or tendon injury. Shutterstock
Dogs don’t hate posties specifically, but many dogs love to chase. Some may chase postal workers on bikes then get overexcited and bite by accident in an overstimulated state. Other dogs may not appreciate strangers entering their space unannounced, and the unpredictability of visits can make things tough too.
Posties might consider taking dog treats on their rounds and throw them each time they visit properties with dogs. This can create a positive association with their daily visit (or sometimes, throwing a handful of treats to distract an approaching dog can help buy time to back away). They could also carry a map and make note of properties with problem dogs, so they can be prepared or owners notified to make arrangements for delivery days.
Many attacks are preventable. In the UK, where postal workers often get bitten when they reach into private mailboxes that are open on the other side, they sometimes use long pegs to push through mail. In the United States, paw stickers have been used to warn postal workers of a dog in the area.
Australia Post recommends keeping your dog in a separate room, on a leash or distracting them with a toy or treat when the postie arrives. They suggest not letting children answer the door in case dogs push their way past. If dogs are outside, they should be kept securely away from the letterbox.
Central to the selection of the prime minister in Papua New Guinea following a general election is Section 63 of PNG’s Organic Law on Integrity of Political Parties and Candidates (OLIPPAC), which was passed in 2001 (and then amended in 2003).
Section 63 requires that the Governor-General invites the party with the highest number of MPs following a general election to form the government.
The main aim of the section is to ensure that the appointment of a prime minister after a general election is done in an “orderly way with direct relationship to the way voters expressed their wishes”.
Analysis shows that the passage of OLIPPAC has influenced government formation. First, it has increased the probability that, as is now a legislative requirement, the PM comes from the largest party.
This has happened in all elections since OLIPPAC was legislated (2002, 2007, 2012 and 2017), but only happened in two out of the five pre-OLIPPAC elections (1977 and 1982).
Table: Kabuni & Howes/DevPolicy
For example, as Table 1 shows, in 1997 the People’s National Congress Party (PNC) had the sixth highest number of MPs but still was able to put forward the successful candidate for PM.
Second, Section 63 also seems to have increased the odds of an incumbent PM being returned. Since the first post-independence election in 1977, five incumbent prime ministers have been re-appointed as PM following one of the country’s nine national elections (see Table 2).
Two developments closely related The other four times a new prime minister was appointed post-elections. The five times the incumbent was returned are 1977 (Somare), 1987 (Wingti), 2007 (Somare), 2012 (O’Neill) and 2017 (O’Neill). Only two of the five incumbent returns are before the first enactment of OLIPPAC in 2001, and the other three are all post-OLIPPAC.
Table: Kabuni & Howes/DevPolicy
These two developments are closely related. Over the life of the Parliament, MPs tend to join the party of the PM, meaning that that party goes into the election with by far the largest number of MPs. For instance, PNC won 27 seats in 2012, led by the incumbent PM Peter O’Neill, and formed the government.
More MPs joined PNC, and by the time the 2017 elections came around, PNC had 55 MPs. Even though PNC lost 34 sitting MPs, with only 21 getting re-elected, it added seven new MPs in the 2017 elections.
This took PNC’s numbers to 28 MPs, and, after the 2017 elections, it wound up forming the government.
About half the incumbent MPs don’t get re-elected every election, but in general voters do not vote along party lines. Even if they do, and even if there is a swing against the PM’s party, because it has such an advantage going in, it is likely to emerge as the largest party as well.
In 2010, the Supreme Court ruled the restrictions imposed by OLIPPAC on the movement of MPs between parties unconstitutional. This means that MPs can move parties in the period between when they are declared winners following the national election and the appointment of the PM.
What happened in 1987, 1992 and 1997 — when parties with fewer MPs formed the government — could be repeated, Section 63 notwithstanding. All MPs would need to do is submit their letter of resignation to the party that endorsed them for the election, together with a letter of acceptance from the new party they intend to join, to the Registry of Political Parties and Candidates before the election of the PM, and their movement to the new party would become official.
Little incentive to leave However, we have not seen that happening. This is because there is little incentive for MPs in the largest party to leave if it is likely to become the party of government. Rather, other MPs will join, by joining either the largest party or the governing coalition.
The only incumbent PM not to benefit from the passage of OLIPPAC was, ironically, its architect, Sir Mekere Morauta. He did not go into the election with the largest party, and he certainly did not emerge from it with the largest either.
This should remind us that there is no guarantee that the incumbent PM will be returned post-election. But it does seem that Section 63 has had the unintended consequence of increasing the probability of this happening.
Most view stability as a good thing, but the problem is that the more likely the incumbent is to be returned at the general election, the more pressure there will be to remove him (or perhaps one day her) by a vote of no confidence – since that becomes the only way to do it.
It may be no coincidence that both PMs who have so far benefited from Section 63 (Somare in 2002 and 2007 and O’Neill in 2012 and 2017) lost power mid-term on the floor of Parliament.
Note that the provisions of Section 63 of OLIPPAC do not apply to a vote of no confidence. In a vote of no confidence, any political party (or MP) is eligible to nominate a candidate to contest for the prime minister’s seat. Even an MP without a political party is eligible to be nominated for the PM’s post.
Section 63 was passed with good intentions, but has led to a situation in which increasing stability either side of elections may be reducing it between elections.
Michael Kabuni is a lecturer in political science at the School of Humanities and Social Sciences, University of Papua New Guinea. Dr Stephen Howes is the Director of the Development Policy Centre and a Professor of Economics at the Crawford School.This research was undertaken with the support of the ANU-UPNG Partnership, an initiative of the PNG-Australia Partnership, funded by the Department of Foreign Affairs and Trade. The views are those of the authors only.
The retraction of Kerwin Espinosa, one of the main accusers in the Philippines Bilibid drug trade allegations, has drummed up calls from different sectors to free jailed opposition senator Leila De Lima, but the Department of Justice (DOJ) is not budging.
The difficulty with this development is that Espinosa is not involved in the remaining two drug cases against De Lima in the Muntinlupa Regional Trial Court (RTC), either as a respondent or an official witness.
De Lima was earlier acquitted of one of the original three cases.
Espinosa submitted a counter-affidavit to the DOJ last Thursday retracting all his allegations, including paying drug money to De Lima. It was for a separate case, but still related to the Bilibid drug trade, involving the same cast of convicts.
“The previous statements/affidavits of Mr Espinosa which he now recanted were never utilised and will not be used by the prosecution as evidence in the two pending drug cases vs Senator Leila De Lima,” DOJ said in a statement.
Manipulation against staunch critic While De Lima’s lawyer Filibon Tacardon acknowledges the complication of using to their favour a retraction from Espinosa who is not an official witness, the lawyer pointed out that it still implies illegal maneuvering by the government to jail President Rodrigo Duterte’s staunch critic.
Records show that when the DOJ charged De Lima in 2017, it dismissed the complaint against De Lima and Espinosa “for lack of merit”.
Back then, Espinosa faced what could have been De Lima’s fourth charge after claiming he had paid the senator drug money through Ronnie Dayan.
Although the DOJ dropped Espinosa from the charge and as their witness, the National Bureau of Investigation (NBI) filed a new case against him in December 2021 over a similar story of drug trade in Bilibid. This is the case where Espinosa submitted his latest affidavit retracting his claims against De Lima.
Espinosa said he was coerced and threatened by police and NBI to cooperate with their narrative.
In a dispatch from Camp Crame, De Lima said: “As I have always been saying, all allegations against me invented by the Duterte machine of lies and fabrications would ultimately unravel.”
Perjury against Espinosa? Groups called on the DOJ to investigate motu proprio, or on its own initiative, Espinosa’s claim of coercion, but Justice Secretary Menardo Guevarra had a different idea in mind — pursue a perjury charge against Espinosa.
“We will determine that when he faces perjury charges … I will discuss this matter with the panel of prosecutors. Whether or not his testimony is material to the prosecution’s cause, making false statements under oath is a criminal offense,” Guevarra told reporters.
If the prosecution will not use Espinosa’s retraction, the Muntinlupa courts can call him as their own witness, said criminal law professor Ted Te.
“That’s always within the plenary powers of a court — to get to the truth. Can the court ask about context? Yes. Is it relevant? Of course,” said Te.
Tacardon said that it was the defence turn to present in the one case, while the prosecution is wrapping up in the second, which means the defence will present soon.
“As to whether Kerwin Espinosa will be a defence witness has yet to be discussed,” said Tacardon.
Te suggested De Lima’s team should.
“If the defence were to call Espinosa that would be more than enough for reasonable doubt. The question is why should the court allow it to drag on any further?” Te said.
De Lima has been in jail for five years, her trial attracting global political attention, with the United States even mulling a travel ban against her accusers.
Robredo returns to Central Luzon Meanwhile, Rappler reports presidential candidate Vice-President Leni Robredo has returned to vote-rich regions Central Luzon and Calabarzon with just over a week until the May 9 elections.
In the first leg of her return to these regions, Robredo will barnstorm Bulacan, the fifth most vote-rich province in the country where 2 million votes are up for grabs.
She had earlier secured the endorsement of Bulacan Governor Daniel Fernando.
Lian Buanis a Rappler reporter. Republished with permission.
The University of the South Pacific’s latest international ranking is a “testament to the excellence” that pervades the university, says USP vice-chancellor and president Professor Pal Ahluwalia.
He said this in a statement confirming USP had been ranked 401-600 out of 1406 institutions, with an overall score of 70 out of 100 in The Times Higher Education (THE) impact ranking for 2022.
“It is recognition of the sheer hard work and determination of our researchers,” Professor Ahluwalia said.
“It reaffirms USP’s standing as the premier education institution in the region and this ranking is a testament to the excellence that pervades our university.”
The impact ranking is the only global performance table that assesses universities against the UN Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs) where indicators are carefully calibrated to provide comprehensive and balanced comparisons across four broad areas — research, stewardship, outreach and teaching.
USP scored over 50 (out of 100) in research for SDGs 4, 13, 14, 16 and 17, reflecting the quality and relevance of its publications to the SDGs.
Under SDG four, USP scored highly at over 80 on Lifelong Learning Measures, which highlights lifelong learning opportunities through the provision of public resources, public events, vocational training events, education outreach activities beyond campus, and the existence of policy to ensure access to lifelong learning.
Environmental measures Under SDG seven, USP scored high, over 70 on Energy Use Density, which is the energy used per floor space of university buildings in 2019.
Under SDG 13, USP scored 100 for Environmental Education Measures that demonstrate activities around local education projects and collaborations on climate change impacts, mitigation and adaptation, including disaster planning reflecting the engagement and collaboration by the university on climate change action locally, regionally and internationally.
USP scored highly at 75 under SDG 14 for Supporting Aquatic Ecosystems Through Action, which includes work on maintaining ecosystems and their biodiversity and over 85 for Local Ecosystem Maintenance.
For University Governance Measures, Working with Government, such as the provision of expert advice to government and participation in government research, and Percentage of Graduates in Law and Civil Enforcement-related courses under SDG 16, USP scored almost 80, 85 and over 75, respectively.
Finally, under SDG 17, which is considered the mandatory SDG, USP scored 100 percent for Relationships to Support the Goals, reflecting USP’s relationships with regional NGOs and international collaborations for SDGs.
The timeframe for data collection for the impact ranking 2022 spanned from January to December 2020 and in some cases, 2019, due to disruptions caused by the covid-19 pandemic.
Wata Shawis a Fiji Times reporter. Republished with permission.
.jpg){kind=link}
