Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Kieran Hegarty, Research Fellow (Automated Decision-Making Systems), RMIT University

The internet is growing old. While the roots of the internet date back to the 1960s, the popular internet – the one that 99% of Australians now use – is a child of the 1990s.

In the space of a decade, the internet moved from a tool used by a handful of researchers to something most Australians used – to talk to friends and family, find out tomorrow’s weather, follow a game, organise a protest, or read the news.

The popular internet grows up

This year marks 30 years since the release of Mosaic, the first browser that integrated text and graphics, helping to popularise the web: the global information network we know today.

Google is now 25, Wikipedia turned 21 last year, and Facebook will soon be 20. These anniversaries were marked with events, feature articles and birthday cakes.

But a local milestone passed with little fanfare: 30 years ago, the first Australian websites started to appear.

The web made the internet intelligible to people without specialist technical knowledge. Hyperlinks made it easy to navigate from page to page and site to site, while the underlying HTML code was relatively easy for newcomers to learn.

Australia gets connected

In late 1992, the first Australian web server was installed. The Bioinformatics Hypermedia Server was set up by David Green at the Australian National University in Canberra, who launched his LIFE website that October. LIFE later claimed to be “Australia’s first information service on the World Wide Web”.

Not that many Australians would have seen it at the time. In the early 1990s, the Australian internet was a university-led research network.

The Australian Academic and Research Network (AARNet) connected to the rest of the world in 1989, through a connection between the University of Hawaii and the University of Melbourne. Within a year, most Australian universities and many research facilities were connected.

Read more:
How Australia connected to the internet 25 years ago

The World Wide Web was invented by English computer scientist Tim Berners-Lee and launched in 1991. At the time, it was just one of many communication protocols for creating, sharing and accessing information.

Researchers connected to AARNet were experimenting with tools like Gopher and Internet Relay Chat alongside the web.

Even as a research network, the internet was deeply social. Robert Elz, one of the computer scientists who connected Australia to the internet in 1989, became well-known for his online commentaries on cricket matches. Science fiction fans set up mailing lists.

These uses hinted at what was to come, as everyday Australians got online.

The birth of the public internet

Throughout 1994, AARNet enabled private companies to buy network capacity and connect users outside research contexts. Ownership of the Australian internet was transferred to Telstra in 1995, as private consumers and small businesses began to move online.

With the release of web browsers like Mosaic and Netscape, and the increase in dial-up connections, the number of Australian websites grew rapidly.

At the start of 1995, there were a couple of hundred. When the Australian internet went public just six months later, they numbered in the thousands. By the end of the decade there were hundreds of thousands.

Everyday Australians get connected

As everyday Australians went online, students, activists, artists and fans began to create a diverse array of sites that took advantage of the web’s possibilities.

The “cyberfeminist zine” geekgirl, created by Rosie X. Cross from her home in inner-west Sydney, combined a “Do It Yourself” punk ethos with the global distribution the web made possible. It was part of a diverse and flourishing feminist culture online.

Australia was home to the first fully online doctorate, Simon Pockley’s 1995 PhD thesis Flight of Ducks.

Art students presented poetry as animated gifs, labelling them “cyberpoetry”. Aspiring science fiction writers published multimedia stories on the web.

The Australian internet goes mainstream

Political parties, government and media also moved online.

The Age Online was the first major newspaper website in Australia. Launched in February 1995, the site beat Australia’s own national broadcaster by six months and the New York Times by a year.

Though The Age was first, ABC Online and ninemsn – linked to the Hotmail email service – were the most popular.

During the 1998 federal election, ABC Online saw over two million hits per week. Political parties, candidates and interest groups were quick to establish a web presence, kicking off the era of online political campaigning.

The web also became big business. By the end of the decade, Australia had its own internet entrepreneurs, including a future prime minister. Established media companies dominated web traffic.

“Internet fever” was sweeping Australian businesses, leading to an “internet stocks frenzy”. The internet had gone mainstream and the “dot com bubble” was rapidly inflating.

Looking back on the decade the popular internet was born

The public, open, commercial internet is now a few decades old. Given current concerns about the state of the internet – from the power of large digital platforms to the proliferation of disinformation – it might be tempting to look at the 1990s as a “golden age” for the internet.

However, we must resist looking back with rose-coloured glasses. What is needed is critical scrutiny of the conditions that underpinned internet use and attention to how a diversity of people incorporated technology in their lives and helped transformed it in the process. This will help us understand how we got the internet we have and how we might achieve the internet we want.

Understanding online history can be particularly difficult because many sites have long-since disappeared. However, archiving efforts like those of the Internet Archive and the National Library of Australia make it possible to look back and see how much things have changed, what concerns are familiar, and remember the everyday people who helped transform the internet from a niche academic network to a mass medium.

Read more:
How the Internet was born: from the ARPANET to the Internet

Kieran Hegarty receives funding from the Australian Research Council and the Austrian Federal Ministry for Climate Action, Environment, Energy, Mobility, Innovation and Technology through a Digital Humanism Junior Visiting Fellowship at the Institute for Human Sciences.

– ref. 30 years of the web down under: how Australians made the early internet their own – https://theconversation.com/30-years-of-the-web-down-under-how-australians-made-the-early-internet-their-own-212542

Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Andrew Dodd, Director of the Centre for Advancing Journalism, The University of Melbourne

At age 92, media mogul Rupert Murdoch is stepping down as chairman of Fox Corporation and News Corp but will stay on in the role of chairman emeritus, presumably to help guide his eldest son Lachlan as the new head of the firm.

In many ways, the news was inevitable. The company is clearly planning its succession and how it manages Rupert’s decline. It has one eye on the market and one on ensuring the company maintains its direction.

But why now, and where to from here for the company? And what will Rupert Murdoch be remembered for?

Read more:
The first biography of Lachlan Murdoch provides some insights, but leaves important questions unanswered

Why now?

Rupert’s departure was always going to come in one of two ways: either Rupert dropping off the perch or him leaving on this own terms. He has opted for the latter.

This means the company has chosen to manage the transition in a market-favourable way.

The transition to Lachlan looks, for the moment, to be well and truly secure. This gives him the chance under the leadership of Rupert to guide the company in the direction he – or Rupert – wants.

Rupert says he is in robust health but he was keen to hang on as long as possible. So, perhaps today’s news suggests his health is declining. We can only speculate but the man is, after all, 92.

Would the recent lawsuits have played a role?

Fox has been subject to several very expensive lawsuits in recent years, which caused a lot of turmoil internally. At the cost of US$787.5 million, Fox settled a defamation lawsuit brought by Dominion Voting Systems over baseless claims made about its voting machines in the 2020 US presidential election. A different voting technology company, Smartmatic, is also suing.

But I doubt this played a huge role in Rupert stepping down because, in the end, a billion in lawsuits is nothing to a company that a few years ago made $70 billion by selling just some of its assets to Disney.

This is the price the company pays for its take-no-prisoners approach. It is proud of its uncompromising editorial stance, which is designed to pander to its right-wing audience. And there is no indication Lachlan will take it in a different direction.

What next for Lachlan, with Rupert as chairman emeritus?

In a sense, Rupert is not really stepping down. His new papal-like title of chairman emeritus recognises he will struggle to let go. But the new role is also about calming the market and saying, “Don’t worry, I haven’t gone away; I am still here and I have my hand on Lachlan’s shoulder.”

The best indication of Lachlan’s future stewardship of News Corp is his recent behaviour. He was at the helm of Fox News during Donald Trump’s presidential years and the immediate aftermath, when Fox News did enormous damage in its reporting on the 2020 election result. He was at the helm when Fox was making those baseless claims about Dominion Voting Systems. He had ample opportunity to guide the company in a different direction, but he didn’t.

So I think we can expect News Corp will continue to be the zealous right-wing media company it currently is.

How might this affect the 2024 US election?

News Corp has finally seen what millions of US voters saw at the 2020 election, which was that Trump was ultimately destructive as a leader. Now, outlets like Fox News are umming and ahhing about whether to back him. Some at Fox are clearly reluctant to let go of their adoration of Trump while others are disappointed Florida Governor Ron DeSantis isn’t emerging as a viable challenger.

If Trump continues to be the most popular Republican candidate, Fox will probably fall into line and support him, albeit with less enthusiasm than last time.

There is a sense of confusion within Fox about whom to back and where to stand, which reflects the chaos in US politics more broadly.

Read more:
From the earliest years of his career, the young Rupert Murdoch ruthlessly pursued his interests

So what’s Rupert’s legacy?

It comes down to a ledger. Has this man done more harm or good in his life in the media?

On the good side, he has been a champion of newspapers. He has employed thousands of journalists and his outlets have often practised good public-interest journalism.

But I am afraid I believe the good is outweighed by all the harm done on Rupert’s watch.

His news media empire is fundamentally antisocial in the way it operates. I believe it’s caused so much harm to so many people along the way, and that cannot go unacknowledged. From the UK phone hacking scandal and beat ups to climate denial and the demonisation of minorities, News Corp can be counted on to dumb down complexity, make issues binary and turn one side against the other.

He has damaged democracy and civil discourse and journalism itself. The behaviour of News Corp has on occasions been reprehensible, for which I think Rupert must take the blame.

Read more:
Rupert Murdoch: how a 22-year-old ‘zealous Laborite’ turned into a tabloid tsar

Andrew Dodd is on the Public Interest Journalism Initiative’s academic research advisory group. He is also a former media writer for The Australian, Crikey and the ABC.

– ref. Why is Rupert Murdoch stepping aside now and what does it mean for the company? – https://theconversation.com/why-is-rupert-murdoch-stepping-aside-now-and-what-does-it-mean-for-the-company-214141

Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Lisa Mitchell, Geriatrician working in clinical practice. PhD Candidate at The University of Melbourne studying ethics and ageism in health care. Affiliate lecturer, Deakin University

A child once approached me, hunched over, carrying a vacuum cleaner like a walking stick. In a wobbly voice, he asked:

Do you want to play grannies?

The idea came from the children’s TV show Bluey, which has episodes, a book, magazine editions and an image filter about dressing up as “grannies”.

Children are also dressing up as 100-year-olds to mark their first “100 days of school”, an idea gaining popularity in Australia.

Is this all just harmless fun?

How stereotypes take hold

When I look at the older people in my life, or the patients I see as a geriatrician, I cannot imagine how to suck out the individual to formulate a “look”.

But Google “older person dress-ups” and you will find Pinterests and Wikihow pages doing just that.

Waistcoats, walking sticks, glasses and hunched backs are the key. If you’re a “granny”, don’t forget a shawl and tinned beans. You can buy “old lady” wigs or an “old man” moustache and bushy eyebrows.

This depiction of how older people look and behave is a stereotype. And if dressing up as an older person is an example, such stereotypes are all around us.

Read more:
Curious Kids: why don’t grown-ups play like kids?

What’s the harm?

There is some debate about whether stereotyping is intrinsically wrong, and if it is, why. But there is plenty of research about the harms of age stereotypes or ageism. That’s harm to current older people and harm to future older people.

The World Health Organization defines ageism as:

the stereotypes (how we think), prejudice (how we feel) and discrimination (how we act) towards others or ourselves based on age.

Ageism contributes to social isolation, reduced health and life expectancy and costs economies billions of dollars globally.

When it comes to health, the impact of negative stereotypes and beliefs about ageing may be even more harmful than the discrimination itself.

In laboratory studies, older people perform worse than expected on tasks such as memory or thinking after being shown negative stereotypes about ageing. This may be due to a “stereotype threat”. This is when a person’s performance is impaired because they are worried about confirming a negative stereotype about the group they belong to. In other words, they perform less well because they’re worried about acting “old”.

Another theory is “stereotype embodiment”. This is where people absorb negative stereotypes throughout their life and come to believe decline is an inevitable consequence of ageing. This leads to biological, psychological and physiological changes that create a self-fulfilling prophecy.

I have seen this in my clinic with people who do well, until they realise they’re an older person – a birthday, a fall, a revelation when they look in the mirror. Then, they stop going out, stop exercising, stop seeing their friends.

Evidence for “stereotype embodiment” comes from studies that show people with more negative views about ageing are more likely to have higher levels of stress hormones (such as cortisol and C-reactive protein) and are less likely to engage in health behaviours, such as exercising and eating healthy foods.

Younger adults with negative views about ageing are more likely to have a heart attack up to about 40 years later. People with the most negative attitudes towards ageing have a lower life expectancy by as much as 7.5 years.

Children are particularly susceptible to absorbing stereotypes, a process that starts in early childhood.

Read more:
Curious Kids: why do people get old?

Ageism is all around us

One in two people have ageist views, so tackling ageism is complicated given it is socially acceptable and normalised.

Think of all the birthday cards and jokes about ageing or phrases like “geezer” and “old duck”. Assuming a person (including yourself) is “too old” for something. Older people say it is harder to find work and they face discrimination in health care.

Read more:
Giving out flowers on TikTok: is this a ‘random act of kindness’ or just benevolent ageism?

How can we reduce ageism?

We can reduce ageism through laws, policies and education. But we can also reduce it via intergenerational contact, where older people and younger people come together. This helps break down the segregation that allows stereotypes to fester. Think of the TV series Old People’s Home for 4 Year Olds or the follow-up Old People’s Home for Teenagers. More simply, children can hang out with their older relatives, neighbours and friends.

We can also challenge a negative view of ageing. What if we allowed kids to imagine their lives as grandparents and 100-year-olds as freely as they view their current selves? What would be the harm in that?

Lisa Mitchell is affiliated with the Australian Labor Party.
Opinions are my own and do not represent the views of my affilitated universities or health care employer.

– ref. Kids dressing up as older people is harmless fun, right? No, it’s ageist, whatever Bluey says – https://theconversation.com/kids-dressing-up-as-older-people-is-harmless-fun-right-no-its-ageist-whatever-bluey-says-212607

Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Christian Turney, Pro Vice-Chancellor of Research, University of Technology Sydney

2023 is proving to be a year of climate and weather extremes. Record-busting global air and ocean temperatures, unprecedented low levels of Antarctic sea ice, and devastating fires and floods have been reported across the world.

Less discussed by the world media is the continuing rise in atmospheric greenhouse gases driving these changes. Carbon dioxide (CO₂) is at a level not seen since the hothouse world of the Pliocene, 3 million years ago. On top of that, an El Niño event is now likely, so widespread extreme events may intensify in coming months.

Despite the changes we are seeing, global efforts to cut emissions fall well short of what’s needed to keep heating to less than 2℃, let alone the more ambitious Paris Agreement target of 1.5℃. This creates an urgent need for the purposeful removal of atmospheric CO₂ as well as cuts in emissions.

In a recent article in Nature, we argue for a different approach to pricing carbon. It should take into account how it is removed from the atmosphere, for how long, and with what confidence. This will help fund the most promising technologies for reaching net-zero carbon emissions by 2050.

À lire aussi :
Devastatingly low Antarctic sea ice may be the ‘new abnormal’, study warns

Carbon removal is on the agenda

The United Nations hosted a “no-nonsense” Climate Ambition Summit in New York this week with the aim of accelerating the global transition away from carbon. This must be done to avoid breaching 2℃ of global heating relative to the pre-industrial era.

Two strategies are being pursued:

1. carbon emission reductions
2. carbon dioxide removal (CDR), also called “negative emissions”.

At COP26 in 2021, global resolutions on cutting emissions drove the push for “net zero” across nations, cities and sectors. However, some worldwide activities, including aviation and heavy industry, face challenges eliminating emissions. Carbon credits have become the main way to offset their remaining emissions.

The dilemma lies in the nature of carbon credits. Most are allocated for so-called “avoidance” measures. A prime example is not clearing forest, which has come under intense scrutiny.

And these measures do nothing about the existing excess carbon dioxide.

À lire aussi :
‘Worthless’ forest carbon offsets risk exacerbating climate change

A big change in our thinking is needed. The emphasis must shift from emission “avoidance” to “removal” offsets that actively pull carbon from the atmosphere. So how do we tackle the monumental challenge of reducing atmospheric CO₂?

What’s needed is a shift from avoidance to verifiable carbon dioxide removal. Almost all current removal efforts come from traditional land management. Less than 1% comes from innovative removal technologies.

Removal technologies include:

• biochar – where carbon from plant material is sequestered as charcoal and stored in soil
• direct air carbon capture and storage (DACCS) – which directly removes CO₂ from the air and stores it in geological formations.

A major advance at COP26 was to work out the projected demand and market trajectory for carbon offsets. Offset credits play a vital role in advancing CO₂ removal technologies and developing carbon markets.

Another key goal was to formulate a carbon trading rulebook. The resulting Taskforce on Scaling Voluntary Carbon Markets predicts demand for carbon offsets will grow tenfold by 2030 and 50-fold by 2050.

À lire aussi :
Stripping carbon from the atmosphere might be needed to avoid dangerous warming – but it remains a deeply uncertain prospect

So what are the obstacles?

We identify a potential bottleneck. Developing, testing and scaling up CO₂ removal technologies takes time. This means a lag in supply could stymie the rapidly growing demand for carbon dioxide removal.

Another problem is that the current carbon offset market offers a flat rate, no matter the quality or effectiveness of the CO₂ removal method. There is an urgent need for a tiered market that values high-quality, proven CO₂ removal methods. This will provide an incentive to fast-track their use.

The carbon offset market’s pricing mechanism is a stumbling block. The price for offsetting a tonne of CO₂ is in the range US$10–100. Cheaper avoidance strategies, such as not clearing forests, heavily influence this price.

The existing pricing falls short when we consider the costs of CO₂ removal technologies, which can exceed US$200 per tonne removed.

The prevailing metric, simplifying everything to “one tonne of carbon”, doesn’t consider the complexities of CO₂ removal. Each method has its own specifics about how long it can store carbon, how reliably it can be verified and the potential risks or side effects. Shoehorning such a varied field into a single metric stifles innovation in CO₂ removal.

À lire aussi :
Net zero by 2050? Too late. Australia must aim for 2035

What are the solutions?

Understanding the market’s resistance to intricate metrics, we propose a more nuanced yet approachable two-step solution:

1. Shift in metrics: change the standard from a “carbon tonne” to a “carbon tonne year”. This recognises the longevity of CO₂ removal methods and rewards those that store carbon longer. Such a metric connects directly with efforts to cut emissions.

2. A mandatory warranty: each “carbon tonne year” requires a warranty from the seller to vouch for the method’s reliability (verification) and its overall safety (assessing risks and side effects).

These changes will foster a system that appropriately values CO₂ removal methods that are long-lasting, reliable and safe. It creates an incentive to develop and use these methods.

In our Nature article, we advocate a structured ten-year plan. This timeframe is crucial for maturing the markets, establishing effective regulatory frameworks and fine-tuning verification.

It’s essential to prepare for the evolution and scaling up of carbon dioxide removal. A decade provides a realistic window to develop the processes needed to reach net zero.

À lire aussi :
Net-zero, carbon-neutral, carbon-negative … confused by all the carbon jargon? Then read this

The magnitude of this task cannot be overstated. In just a few decades, CO₂ removal must operate on a colossal scale, comparable to global food production.

The New York summit has set the stage for the COP28 meeting in Dubai later this year. An ambitious long-term global strategy can still provide a sustainable future within the heating limits set in the 2015 Paris Agreement.

It’s time to get real about carbon.

Chris Turney receives funding from the Australian Research Council. He is a scientific adviser and holds shares in cleantech biographite company, CarbonScape (https://www.carbonscape.com). Chris is affiliated with the virtual Climate Recovery Institute (https://climaterecoveryinstitute.com.au).

Lennart Bach receives funding from the Australian Research Council and the Carbon to Sea Initiative. He is a scientific adviser of Submarine (https://www.submarine.earth/), which develops tools for monitoring, reporting and verification of marine CO₂ removal. Lennart is affiliated with the virtual Climate Recovery Institute (https://climaterecoveryinstitute.com.au).

Philip Boyd receives funding from the Australian Research Council and he is affiliated with the virtual Climate Recovery Institute.

– ref. Carbon removal: why ambitious ‘no nonsense’ plans are vital to limit global heating to 2℃ – https://theconversation.com/carbon-removal-why-ambitious-no-nonsense-plans-are-vital-to-limit-global-heating-to-2-212462

Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Dianne Rodger, Senior Lecturer in Anthropology, University of Adelaide

On September 22 2003, Adelaide hip-hop group the Hilltop Hoods released The Calling.

They had been making music for over ten years, but this, their third full-length album, would be their first to have mainstream success.

They hoped to sell 3,000 records. Those expectations were quickly eclipsed.

The album was launched with a sold-out show at Planet nightclub. Two tracks (The Nosebleed Section and Dumb Enough) gained significant radio play. The Hoods used this publicity to grow their fanbase through touring.

They became the first Australian hip-hop artists to reach gold status, selling 35,000 copies. By 2006, it was platinum: 70,000 copies sold. Since 2003, all of the Hoods’ albums have reached platinum or higher.

Twenty years since its release, The Calling is still a mainstay on “best of” Australian hip-hop lists.

Rapper Briggs describes the album as “the icebreaker”:

This opened the door for the possibilities. It wasn’t a piss-take, it wasn’t anything but real hip-hop music.

Read more:
Hip-hop at 50: 7 essential listens to celebrate rap’s widespread influence

Bringing hip-hop to Australia

Today, the Hoods are one of the most successful music acts in Australia.

In 2022, they were the third-most-streamed Australian artist on Spotify behind The Kid Laroi and the Wiggles. This year, they have toured Australia, the UK and Europe with many shows selling out – as have all their upcoming shows in Aotearoa New Zealand. In January, they had their 23rd entry into the Triple J Hottest 100 – taking the mantle for most entries ever from Powderfinger and the Foo Fighters.

Rewind to the 1990s. The Hoods were performing at parties and small venues as part of Adelaide’s underground hip-hop scene. Hip-hop was decidedly unpopular. Australians (especially white Australians) who produced or consumed it were often the target of jokes both from peers and in the media.

Hip-Hop was created by people of colour in New York in the 1970s. The genre had a short boom in Australia in the early 1980s, when young people learnt about it through American media, travel and migration.

Australians were introduced to hip-hop culture as a package made up of the “four elements”: MCing (or rapping), DJing, breaking and graffiti. Breaking and graffiti were immediately taken up in Australia, but it took more time for young people to start recording music.

Still, the culture was often defined by the media as a novelty and dismissed as “too American”.

Def Wish Cast from western Sydney was established in 1989. They were one of Australia’s first major hip-hop groups and their pioneering music inspired others – including the Hilltop Hoods when they formed in suburban Adelaide in 1996.

Forging a path

By the early 2000s, there were signs the cultural cringe connected to Australian hip-hop was lessening. The first ARIA awards for hip-hop music went to 1200 Techniques’ Karma in 2002, two years before the ceremony had a category for Best Urban Album.

But hip-hop music still struggled for support from major record companies, radio producers and the general public. Artists had to hustle to promote themselves. Hip-hop practitioners took on roles as managers, journalists and record label owners to create their own opportunities.

The Calling was the Hoods’ first release through independent label Obese Records. It ranges from politically conscious to party anthems. The title track compares hip-hop to a religious vocation: the lyrics suggest the Hoods have been called to be hip-hop artists in the same way that other people are called by their faith.

Other tracks on the album are more light-hearted. The battle-rap-inspired Dumb Enough calls out anyone “stupid” enough to challenge the Hoods; The Certificate is a rowdy posse track involving the Hoods and other members of Adelaide collective Certified Wise.

The Hoods’ breakout song was The Nosebleed Section, which came ninth in Triple J’s Hottest 100 in 2003 and 17th in the Hottest 100 of All Time in 2009.

Producer and DJ Rob Shaker said the song “changed the landscape of hip-hop in this country”. Mark Pollard, founder of Australian hip-hop magazine Stealth, told me the Hoods were “national icons” who “helped turn an amateur industry into a cottage industry into a professional industry”.

As well as paving the way for future artists, the song and the album were an entry point for new fans, who then learnt about other local artists, such as Muph & Plutonic, Bliss n Eso, Layla, Drapht and Downsyde.

Following the calling

The success of The Calling meant the Hoods could quit their day jobs and concentrate on music full-time. In turn, other artists were able to imagine a future where hip-hop was their career.

But the band wasn’t without controversy. For some commentators, their success signalled how hip-hop was being connected to a white patriotic Aussie identity. Radio host and record producer Hau Latukefu says this new wave of hip-hop fans did not “understand – and respect – that hip-hop is a Black art form”.

Australia’s hip-hop industry has also been called out for racism within the scene. It is only now that hip-hop artists from diverse backgrounds – who have always played a key role in Australia’s hip-hop community – are achieving more mainstream success.

The industry is changing in other ways. Journalists and artists themselves are now having open conversations about the historical marginalisation of women, non-binary and trans artists.

In the past few years, new podcasts, autobiographies, graffiti books and documentaries have emerged telling hip-hop stories from different perspectives.

Members of the scene are looking back on the past and thinking about what the future of hip-hop in Australia might be. The Hoods themselves continue to release new music, including songs like Show Business that reflect on their experiences in the industry. Hip-Hop culture in Australia continues to thrive as new generations are answering the calling.

Read more:
How hip-hop learned to call out homophobia – or at least apologize for it

Dianne Rodger is the author of the book The Calling (Bloomsbury 33 1/3).

– ref. For the people in the nosebleed section: the Hilltop Hoods’ The Calling at 20 – https://theconversation.com/for-the-people-in-the-nosebleed-section-the-hilltop-hoods-the-calling-at-20-212266

Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Michael Leach, Professor, Politics & International Relations, Swinburne University of Technology

One of the claims advanced by the “no” campaign in the upcoming referendum on the Voice to Parliament is that “there is no comparable constitutional body like this anywhere in the world”.

Yet across the globe there are many political institutions that seek to guarantee Indigenous peoples are heard.

Broadly speaking, they fall into four different categories:

• reserved parliamentary seats

• devolved self-governance

• traditional authority councils and

• Indigenous advisory bodies (the proposed Voice fits in this category).

Surprisingly, the current debate on the Voice to Parliament seems to have to missed the fact Torres Strait Islanders have effectively had an elected voice to both federal and state governments for almost 30 years.

Besides being a form of devolved self-governance, the Torres Strait Regional Authority is empowered to “advise the federal minister for Indigenous affairs on matters relating to Torres Strait Islanders”.

In fact, the proposed Voice to Parliament is one of the more modest proposals for Indigenous governance systems around the world.

Read more:
Australians will vote in a referendum on October 14. What do you need to know?

Reserved seats

Several countries have reserved seats for Indigenous peoples, as a voice within the parliament itself. This is different to the Voice, which proposes an external advisory body to the Australian parliament.

In New Zealand, Māori currently have seven reserved seats in their parliament of 120. Māori voters can choose to enrol to vote for reserved seats, or the general roll. Māori MPs can also be elected on the general roll.

The Treaty of Waitangi is considered a key part of New Zealand’s unwritten constitution.

Because of this, Māori representation is guaranteed – although the questions of whether reserved seats are politically or constitutionally guaranteed is a vexed and technical one.

In Asia, Taiwan provides a clear example of constitutionally enshrined Indigenous representation. Taiwan is a settler colonial society, with a Han Chinese majority, and numerous Austronesian language-speaking First Nations people, with a similar population proportion to Australia, at 3%. Taiwan has had reserved seats for Indigenous peoples since the 1970s. The current allocation of six seats was entrenched in the most recent round of constitutional amendments in 2005.

In Latin America, Bolivia has reserved seven of its 130 parliamentary seats for Indigenous peoples. The US state of Maine has had First Nations representation of two members since the 19th century. These members are able to contribute to debates, albeit without voting rights.

Read more:
The Voice to Parliament explained

Indigenous self-governance

Devolved self-governance involves the delegation of certain government powers to Indigenous communities themselves.

Notably, Australia’s own Torres Start Regional Authority falls in this category. Its 20 representatives, elected every four years, are tasked to “formulate, coordinate and implement programs for Torres Strait Islander and Aboriginal people living within the region”.

Established in 1994, this authority survived the abolition of ATSIC in the Howard era in 2005. It has produced a regional economic development strategy, fisheries and environmental management policies, and advocated for better regional infrastructure.

Another key example of delegated self-government is Canada’s Nunavut Parliament of the Inuit people. This parliament has powers covering the administration of justice, education and local taxation. A number of First Nations in Canada have some transferred powers of self-governance.

The Sámi parliaments in Scandinavia are often cited as examples of Indigenous self-governance. These are the arguably the closest to Australia’s proposed Voice, as they have largely consultative roles. They advise national governments on issues of cultural maintenance, language and native land title. For example, the Sámi parliament of Norway is the “prime dialogue partner” for the Norwegian government in relation to Indigenous policy.

Both the reserved seats model and Indigenous self-governance model offer more substantial powers than those proposed for Australia’s Voice to Parliament.

The proposed Voice would not create a devolved decision-making body, nor a voice directly inside parliament. It would simply be an advisory body to the Australian parliament and key departments.

The model of devolved self-governance is more practicable where there are concentrated regional majorities of Indigenous peoples. Creating Indigenous representation is more challenging when minority populations geographically spread out.

This helps explain why the particular model of the Voice was proposed by the Uluru statement.

Read more:
No, the Voice proposal will not be ‘legally risky’. This misunderstands how constitutions work

Traditional authority councils

The third model is exemplified by several Pacific nations. Since independence, several Melanesian states have created Voice-style institutions to give traditional or customary authorities a voice to the government.

Examples include the Great Council of Chiefs in Fiji, which was temporarily abolished under former Prime Minister Frank Bainimarama, but has now been restored. This institution appointed the president of Fiji, and several senators.

Vanuatu’s Malvatumauri is a body without formal powers in the parliamentary system, but which must be consulted about issues that affect traditional governance, including land title issues.

In New Caledonia, which has a large European settler population, the Customary Senate must be consulted on any bill concerning Indigenous Kanak identity or customary lands.

All these traditional authority councils advise the modern state on traditional affairs, but do not represent a particularly strong parallel with the Voice, and were developed for majority Indigenous societies.

Read more:
Explainer: what is executive government and what does it have to do with the Voice to Parliament?

Indigenous advisory bodies

Closer parallels to the Voice lie in other First Nations institutions in Canada and Taiwan. Taiwan’s Council of Indigenous Peoples has existed since 1996, and has its own minister in the government, effectively institutionalising a voice within the executive. It has played a key role in attempts to revitalise Indigenous languages.

Canada also has an Indigenous Advisory Committee to advise government on policy, with representatives from the three Indigenous groupings: First Nations, Inuit and Métis.

The Waitangi tribunal is also parallel, representing a “permanent commission of inquiry” on issues relating to potential breaches of the treaty, though without a veto power. The proposed Voice would strongly parallel these international examples.

One question that follows, is why Aboriginal people from the mainland should not enjoy the same rights as Torres Strait Islander people, who have had a form of voice to government via elected representatives for nearly 30 years. The Torres Start Regional Authority itself strongly supports the current Voice proposal, not least because of the large number of Torres Strait islanders who live on the mainland.

How, then, should we evaluate the “no” campaign’s claim there are no other constitutional bodies like this anywhere in the world? The statement lacks the clarity of information that would inform Australians in voting.

If the claim is that there is no institution exactly like the proposed Voice, then this is technically true. But this is primarily because the Voice is a modest proposal compared with most international examples. Even so, similar institutions can be found in our region and beyond, including those established through constitutional amendment.

If the claim is that there is no comparable form of Indigenous representation anywhere else in the world, the “no” campaign’s claim is clearly inaccurate.

The key point is that all these countries have bodies to ensure Indigenous voices are heard, and Australia currently does not.

The Voice has parallels in many countries with Indigenous populations, and Australia’s proposal is a very modest one by comparison.

Michael Leach has previously received funding from the Australia Research Council.

– ref. The Voice: how do other countries represent Indigenous voices in government? – https://theconversation.com/the-voice-how-do-other-countries-represent-indigenous-voices-in-government-212875

Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Martine Maron, Professor of Environmental Management, The University of Queensland

Have you heard the phrase “nature positive”? It’s suddenly everywhere.

The idea is simple: rather than continually erode the natural world, nature positive envisions a future with more nature than we have now.

Created by an environmental alliance, the nature positive concept has been embraced by industry, world leaders and conservationists.

Sudden popularity can be reason for caution. After all, we’ve seen well-intended ideas become cover for greenwashing before. And without strong guardrails, we risk nature positive being used as a distraction from continued failures.

Our new research points to three ways to make sure nature positive is truly positive for nature.

What’s the big idea?

According to the Nature Positive Initiative, “nature positive” aims to

halt and reverse nature loss measured from a baseline of 2020, through increasing the health, abundance, diversity and resilience of species, populations and ecosystems so that by 2030 nature is visibly and measurably on the path of recovery

So, nature positive means seriously scaling back negative impacts on nature – through tackling land clearing, invasive species, and climate change – while also investing in positive impacts like ecosystem restoration and rewilding.

The goal is hugely ambitious. But it’s also essential.

The natural world is humanity’s life-support system. But we have now seriously compromised the biosphere’s ability to support us.

Australia’s environment minister, Tanya Plibersek, has backed the idea, announcing plans for a nature positive summit next year. The goal: “drive private sector investment to protect and repair our environment”.

You can also see the influence of nature positive in Plibersek’s plans for a nature repair market. And just this month, the New South Wales review of biodiversity laws recommended nature positive become “mandatory.”

Read more:
Biodiversity treaty: UN deal fails to address the root causes of nature’s destruction

We must be wary of greenwashing

The risk of big-picture plans is that they can be used for PR purposes – serving to make companies or governments look good on the environment rather than actually improving nature’s lot.

Already, the term nature positive is being used too freely to refer to any vaguely green action.

This new focus on nature positive mustn’t distract from the need to fully address ongoing negative impacts.

Take the Australian government’s Nature Positive Plan – its official response to the scathing 2020 review of Australia’s national environment law.

Under the plan, ‘conservation payments’ could be made by developers when destruction of threatened biodiversity is permitted, but suitable environmental offsets cannot be found.

These conservation payments would then be invested by government into conservation projects – but they would not necessarily benefit the same biodiversity destroyed by the development.

The plan states this approach will deliver “better overall environmental outcomes”. In reality it could make it possible to destroy habitat of our most threatened species and replace it with other, easier-to-replace biodiversity – as long as there is more “nature” overall.

Positive for nature: the fundamentals

For “nature positive” to actually be positive for nature, it must do what it says on the tin. We cannot let this vitally important movement be used to justify further loss of valuable ecosystems or species, or to exaggerate the benefits of action.

Our research suggests three ways to make sure claims about nature positive are not misleading.

First, we have to make sure any proposal that might damage nature follows the “mitigation hierarchy”. In short: can biodiversity losses be avoided entirely? If not, can they be kept to a bare minimum? Any remaining impacts must be fully compensated with gains of the same type and amount elsewhere.

Unfortunately, this is rarely achieved. In practice, developers often do poorly on avoiding or minimising damage. Instead, they rely heavily on the final, most risky step – offsets.

Yes, offsets can work – in very limited situations. They cannot replace the irreplaceable. And much of nature is irreplaceable.

Old-growth forests cannot be replaced. The same goes for tree hollows – these take hundreds of years to form, and artificial nesting boxes often don’t work.

So, the move towards nature positive must not replace rigorous adherence to the mitigation hierarchy with more general environmental action which doesn’t fully address damage.

Second, organisations must consider not just their direct impact on biodiversity, but the footprint of their whole operation and its resource use.

Achieving nature positive will mean tackling entire supply chains.

It’s not easy to account for, reduce and compensate for your company or organisation’s unavoidable impacts on nature. But it can be done. It will require improvements in knowledge and traceability of supply chains, reducing consumption, and investing in nature restoration to make up for the leftover harms unable to be eliminated.

And third, organisations signing up to nature positive must contribute to active ecological restoration. That’s on top of any compensation for their own direct and indirect impacts. The huge scale of historical damage to the environment means that even if organisations completely address all of their current and future biodiversity impacts, nature positive will still not be achieved.

Here, so-called voluntary biodiversity credits may play a useful role.

But wherever there are credits, there’s risk. It’s entirely possible companies could simply buy these credits without avoiding and minimising biodiversity losses in the first place – the exact same problem plaguing carbon offsets.

Nature positive is welcome – now let’s see it in action

For decades, conservationists have tried to protect what’s left of the natural world through lobbying for protected areas and better environmental laws. But nature’s decline has only accelerated. Economic growth and profit have always taken precedence.

Moving to a truly nature positive world, one fit to provide future generations with all that we enjoy from nature, means a serious societal shift. For this reason, nature positive is welcome.

It’s not enough to slow the decline – it’s time to reverse it.

But we must not underestimate the task ahead.

Only if nature positive commitments are translated into action with rigour can they help reduce the damage we do, alongside spurring on ecological restoration and rewilding. But if nature positive is used as a tactic for positive publicity, it won’t change a thing.

Read more:
Can a ‘nature repair market’ really save Australia’s environment? It’s not perfect, but it’s worth a shot

Martine Maron has received funding from various sources including the Australian Research Council, the Queensland Department of Environment and Science, Bush Heritage Australia, and the Australian Government’s National Environmental Science Program. She is a member of the Wentworth Group of Concerned Scientists, a councillor with the Biodiversity Council, a member of the board of the Australian Wildlife Conservancy and BirdLife Australia, and a governor of WWF-Australia, and chairs the IUCN’s Impact Mitigation and Ecological Compensation Thematic Group.

Megan C Evans has received funding from various sources, including the Australian Research Council through a Discovery Early Career Research Award (2020-2023), the Australian Conservation Foundation, the Department of Agriculture, Water and the Environment, WWF Australia, and the National Environmental Science Program’s Threatened Species Recovery Hub.

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

– ref. ‘Nature positive’ isn’t just planting a few trees – it’s actually stopping the damage we do – https://theconversation.com/nature-positive-isnt-just-planting-a-few-trees-its-actually-stopping-the-damage-we-do-213075

Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Wendy Goff, Associate Professor, Deputy Chair Department of Education, Swinburne University of Technology

Parents can often find themselves staring in bewilderment at the little human they helped to create.

Sometimes this bewilderment is centred around awe and amazement. Sometimes it is firmly entrenched in shock and embarrassment about a specific behaviour they have just witnessed.

When a child swears it can be the latter that engulfs us.

Children learn to swear early

There is little evidence to suggest children’s swearing, or swearing in general, has become more frequent. But in 2013 a US study found by the time children start school “they have the rudiments of adult swearing” (about 42 taboo words).

Parental reactions to children’s swearing are generally cultural, embedded in context, and dependent on who else witnesses the behaviour and how the swearing makes them feel at that moment.

Sometimes parents might look at children’s swearing as a “bad” behaviour that needs to be dealt with. At other times they might perceive swearing as no big deal. In some situations they may even see it as funny.

These reactions are also entangled in emotion and mood and are not typically consistent. This can be confusing for children.

Unspoken rules

In English-speaking cultures there are unspoken social rules on who can say what to whom and in what situation. Research suggests men are more likely to swear in public than women and are less likely to be judged negatively if they do so.

Stand-up comedians swear a lot in their performances – and this is seen as funny and acceptable. But if an MP swore in parliament there would likely be a national outcry.

Similarly, while many adults swear, it is not seen as appropriate for children. This is tied to historical perceptions of the child as “innocent” and “good”. As well as the idea childhood is a special time in human development and parents are responsible for shaping and protecting their offspring.

Swear words are a way to communicate

But swear words are part of our language. Just like other words, they are expressions of our feelings, thoughts and intentions.

In this sense, when we think about children swearing, it is a developmental learning process that involves experimenting with different ways to express themselves and communicate.

When younger children swear, it is likely to come from overhearing the world and experimenting with their own language learning.

When older children swear, it is more likely to be related to their social and emotional development as they learn to manage their emotions and develop their identity.

Children tend to model adults. so if they are exposed to swearing in the home there is a good chance they will imitate the language they hear.

But if they haven’t picked it up from their parents (or older siblings), by the time they go to school they will hear these words from other children in the playground. Children are also increasingly surrounded by screens and different types of media. So exposure to swearing is almost impossible for parents to monitor and control.

Read more:
Should we swear in front of our kids?

What’s the difference between a reaction and a response?

What parents can do is minimise the impact of this exposure on children’s behaviour. They can do this by responding rather than reacting to their children’s swearing.

Human reactions are instantaneous and impulsive. They are about a need for immediate action, rather than a long-term goal or plan.

On the other hand, human responses are slower and provide a more considered and controlled approach to a situation.

In relation to children’s swearing, it is important to try and respond so there is consistent messaging and they can learn about what is appropriate (and what is not).

How to respond

Responding starts by understanding children will be exposed to swearing and parents cannot control every aspect of their kids’ lives.

Responding also recognises swearing is a developmental process for children and parents’ role is to help them understand what they are saying and how it may be received. For example, you could say something like this:

Why did you choose that word? Is there a better word to use in that sentence?

Or this:

I think you might be angry or upset. If I was trying to tell someone about my feelings I would say ‘I am really frustrated right now’.

Responses eliminate the need to ignore children’s swearing, which can also send mixed messages. When adults respond they are taking control of their own behaviour and as a result, the situation.

You can also work on prevention

Responding also means putting some preventative strategies in place.

For example, parents might have conversations with their children around the language used in movies, TV shows and in music. This could involve reminding children how these often create imaginary worlds and “things are different in real life.”

Parents might talk about how language has different functions and purposes. For example:

Swearing at someone can hurt them so it is never OK to do this.

They might also talk about how the situation or context matters. Such as:

Singing a swear word in a song might be OK at home but you wouldn’t sing that word at school.

Ultimately, we are all human (and many of us swear from time to time). But we can teach children to be critical users of language, so they learn where, when and how to use different words.

Read more:
‘It’s not fair!’ Kids grumble and complain for a reason, here’s how to handle it

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.

– ref. What the *#@%?! How to respond when your child swears – https://theconversation.com/what-the-how-to-respond-when-your-child-swears-213648

Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Sander De Groote, Lecturer, School of Accounting, Auditing and Taxation, UNSW Sydney

For most things we buy, the price we are quoted is the price we pay.

That’s supposed to be the case even where taxes and fees are involved. Australian law requires anyone selling anything to display a total price that includes all “taxes, duties and all unavoidable or pre-selected extra fees”.

But our investigations, which compare the interest rate quoted on our mortgages with the fine print in our own mortgage documents, shows this is hardly ever the case for home loans.

Even though we are both trained as accountants, until recently we hadn’t bothered to check – even as interest rates climbed. We assumed the rates we were being told we were being charged (say 5% per year) were the rates we were actually paying.

This would be easy enough, and in our view the right thing, for banks to do.

The price quoted usually isn’t the price paid

Mortgage interest is usually charged monthly, but the rates are yearly. This means that each time interest is charged, the outstanding amount compounds as interest is applied to interest.

That sounds bad enough. But this isn’t our main complaint.

It’s that there are two possible ways to calculate the amount of interest. Banks calcualte interest on a daily basis.

The most reasonable would be to calculate the daily amount in a way that adds up to an annual amount that matches what was quoted. That way, a 5% rate would really be 5%.

Although there’s a bit of calculation involved, it’s easy enough for banks to do.

How banks calculate mortgage interest

The other, arguably less reasonable, way is what’s called the “simple” method. Our investigations show that this technique is used by all the big four banks, and probably many others too.

It’s called the simple method because it involves simply dividing the annual rate (say 5%) by 365 to determine the daily rate.

This seems to not be important, but because of compounding it means the amount charged over a year is more than the rate quoted.

Say you borrow $100,000 for one year at an annual rate of 5%, repaying the whole amount at the end of the year.

You might expect to pay back $105,000. Instead, the banks’ method of calculating interest results in a total repayment of $105,116.

This is because the daily interest rate (5% divided by 365) is applied to the outstanding balance each day and added to your balance once a month. These regular increases mean your interest compounds costing you more.

Read more:
Fixed or variable? The choice of mortgage isn’t as simple as it seems

Over decades, the difference matters

In July 2023, the average size of a new mortgage in New South Wales was about A$750,000, with an average interest rate of about 5.95%.

The method of calculation used by the banks and in the fine print of their mortgage contracts requires a monthly payment of $4,473 including the repayment of the amount originally borrowed over the life of a 30-year loan.

But if 5.95% were actually charged each year, the monthly payment would be $4,398 – a difference of $900 per year.

In this typical example, the difference over the life of the loan amounts to about $27,000. It means these borrowers will end up paying an effective interest rate of 6.11%.

We had to read the fine print

We checked the terms and conditions of each of the big four banks – Westpac, the Commonwealth, the National Australia Bank and the ANZ – as well as their biggest subsidiaries which include St George, The Bank of Melbourne, Bank SA and Bankwest.

They all charge interest using the “simple” method.

Mutual banks – the old credit unions and building societies owned by their members – have different reporting requirements, and we were unable to check the terms and conditions used by each one. But where we could, we found they used the same method as the big four.

You can find this small print yourself, usually in the middle of your mortgage document. It’s a formula, accompanied by a paragraph of explanation.

But you have to look carefully. Or you could call customer service, as we did, and ask the bank to explain the calculation.

You shouldn’t have to.

The price quoted ought to be the price paid

We think the price quoted for a product should be the price that’s actually charged, as the law generally requires for products other than mortgages.

This means if you are told you’ll be charged 5.95% interest per year, you should pay 5.95% per year – not 6.11% because of a quirk in the formula.

Mortgages are a larger financial commitment than most purchases. This means that honesty and clear communication are even more important.

It’s worth knowing what you are letting yourself in for when signing up for a mortgage. That way, when the bank or broker explains it to you and it’s not what was advertised, you can ask for a discount.

I currently have a mortgage that is impacted by the elements covered in this story (as do all mortgage holders in Australia).

– ref. Why you’re probably paying more interest on your mortgage than you think – https://theconversation.com/why-youre-probably-paying-more-interest-on-your-mortgage-than-you-think-213862

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

Fire fear is gripping many Australians, with extremely high temperatures for September.

One day this week some 20 schools on the New South Wales south coast were closed, amid rising weather risk. Sydney national parks were shut. Multiple fires broke out in the eastern states.

The nation is bracing. The memory of that horrendous 2019-20 summer is embedded in our psyche.

The Bureau of Meteorology this week formally declared an El Niño event, looking to a hot dry summer. That will put pressure on ageing coal-fired power stations and thus the power system.

Apart from for a small minority, the argument about global warming is over. But the debate still rages about dealing with climate change and, close to home, Australia’s energy transition, which is under way but accompanied by increasing pain and problems.

Labor scored well politically when it issued its pre-election plan for the transition to renewables. It came with an election promise of an average $275 saving on household electricity bills by 2025. The promise will be unattainable, and in the meantime households face sky-high power bills, with only some benefiting from the government’s relief package.

Most people accept our energy system must move from fossil fuels, especially coal, to renewables as soon as practicable. But there are serious obstacles on the ground – literally.

The government uses the “not in my backyard” scare when the opposition proposes nuclear should be added to the energy mix. Now it is confronted by “not in our backyard” resistance from farmers and local communities to the big transmission cables needed to carry the renewable power. As well, there’s a backlash in some areas to wind turbines.

In 2014, then-Treasurer Joe Hockey was ridiculed when he described wind turbines around Lake George (near Canberra) as “a blight on the landscape”. The then opposition environment spokesman, Mark Butler, said Hockey was making “an utterly ridiculous contribution”. Labor can’t afford to laugh anymore.

Climate Change and Energy Minister Chris Bowen was in the NSW Hunter region this week to try to calm anger about the government’s declaration of a zone off the coast for future wind projects. Among their objections, locals have raised the harm to birds, sea life and the view.

The South Australian government has argued the proposed Southern Ocean zone for wind farms, off the coast of Victoria and SA, should stop at the Victorian border.

The rows breaking out over power cables and wind turbines are classic examples of major developments clashing with other priorities, whether commercial (tourism, fishing, agriculture), environmental or aesthetic. We’ve seen these battles for decades with mining projects. They’ve now moved into the age of renewables.

Australia is not alone on this issue, which is rearing its head in Britain and elsewhere. The Albanese government’s difficulty is there will be so many breakouts. It remains to be seen whether citizen discontent will translate into voter backlash in particular seats.

Infrastructure Minister Catherine King has felt the heat in her electorate of Ballarat. In a submission earlier this year, made as the local MP, to an Australian Energy Market Operator’s report on the proposed Victoria-New South Wales Interconnector (VNI) West transmission link, she repeated her long-held concerns about the consultative process.

“As Australia continues its transition to net zero, there will be increasing need for new projects,” she wrote. “In rolling out these projects, it will be important to engage thoroughly and honestly with impacted communities all throughout the process – from project conception, to construction and beyond.”

In July, Bowen announced a “community engagement review” to improve engagement on renewable energy infrastructure upgrades and new developments, to report
by year’s end.

The process is tortuous and often fractious. And, as the Grattan Institute’s energy expert, Tony Wood, has pointed out, investment in renewables is stalled because of the slowness in getting the transmission grid in place.

The implications are substantial. The government is committed to having renewables generating 82% of our electricity by 2030. The present level is 35%. Wood says: “We are nowhere near where we need to be. We are way behind in time and way over in cost.”

The transition problems are making the opposition bolder in pushing its case to have nuclear power on the agenda. It argues if nuclear could replace some of the retiring coal-fired power stations, the existing grid could be used, reducing the disruption by new cables. But it has produced nothing specific on how nuclear will feature in its policy. Nor is it clear how politically risky raising the nuclear option is for the Coalition.

In an attempted political hit, Bowen this week issued an estimate that replacing coal-fired stations with nuclear would cost $387 billion. Given all the uncertainties, numbers mean little, although most experts maintain the nuclear path would not be economically viable any time soon. Even so, the government suddenly sounds defensive when rejecting even lifting the present ban on nuclear.

Pushed on Monday on the ABC’s Q+A about the ban, Bowen said that would be “a massive distraction. It would take a lot of our public debate”. This seems an odd argument. Whether nuclear power should be considered surely rests on two basic questions: whether the the conversation
market believes it viable and whether the public considers it acceptable.

At least the government this week had some good news on the gas front: the latest estimates by the Australian Competition and Consumer Commission indicate the country will go into early next year with an adequate supply for the domestic market. Treasurer Jim Chalmers was quick to declare the opposition’s “fearmongering” about the government’s imposition of pricing caps had been unjustified.

On the other hand, gas is coming under mounting attack from climate activists, as the government defends it as a transition fuel.

In political terms, the energy transition will put pressure on Labor on several fronts between now and the next election.

The first, and most obvious, is high power bills, feeding into the cost-of-living crisis.

Second, the localised arguments about the infrastructure will continue.

Third, investors will need more reassurance.

Fourth, the efficiency of the energy system must be maintained through difficult times.

And fifth, the government will need to hold the line against the Greens and the more militant parts of the climate movement that will attack it for not going fast enough to meet the climate challenge.

Those are the knowns. One unknown is whether we’ll get a really bad fire season and the implications that would have.

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

– ref. Grattan on Friday: Albanese government faces an uphill road and angry locals as it drives change to renewables – https://theconversation.com/grattan-on-friday-albanese-government-faces-an-uphill-road-and-angry-locals-as-it-drives-change-to-renewables-214067

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

Former Treasurer Josh Frydenberg’s decision to put a business future before an attempted political revival is a blow for the Liberal Party, but a relief for the teal member for Kooyong, Monique Ryan.

Opposition Leader Peter Dutton might regard his former colleague’s decision with mixed feelings. Frydenberg would probably have increased the chance of the Liberals regaining Kooyong in 2025.

But if elected, Frydenberg would have become an obvious choice for party leader (on the very reasonable assumption the Coalition was still in opposition). More immediately, speculation about that prospect would have dogged Dutton in the run-up to the next election.

For Frydenberg, this must be a bittersweet moment. As he said in a note to Kooyong branch members, telling them he wouldn’t be seeking preselection, “It is a difficult decision and one I have been weighing up for some time”.

His aspiration to be prime minister has been long-standing, strong and obvious. He was indefatigable as treasurer, a quality shared by his successor Jim Chalmers, who also aspires to the top job. But business gives him a bright, lucrative, family-friendly future, without the pressures and uncertainties that politics bring.

Anyway, winning back Kooyong (which Frydenberg held from 2010-22) would have been no shoo-in. Ryan is regarded as more vulnerable than some of the other teals, but the demographics of the seat have been changing and there is a boundary redistribution to come.

After joining Goldman Sachs following his defeat, Frydenberg will now become chairman of the investment bank in Australia and New Zealand.

The firm said:

In this role, Josh will focus on further deepening and strengthening client coverage across the A/NZ region. He will continue to offer advice on economic and geopolitical issues as the firm’s senior regional advisor for Asia Pacific.

While it’s possible Frydenberg, 52, might consider running in the election after next – and he hasn’t closed off that option – it would seem unlikely.

The 2025 election was the logical time to try for a comeback. A term on and much water will have gone under the bridge – in his own life and in politics. The Liberal line-up would be different, the road to leadership potentially harder. Perhaps the fight in Kooyong would be more difficult.

Frydenberg became of a victim of the teal wave. He had stuck very close to former Prime Minister Scott Morrison: loyalty is an admirable character trait but not always a political advantage.

If he, rather than Morrison, had led into the last election, the Coalition might have done better; on the other hand, a leadership change carries its own costs. In any case, it was never on the cards.

Frydenberg, a conservative who became more centrist as time went on, was treasurer in extraordinary circumstances, confronting the economic challenges and demands imposed by the pandemic. He oversaw the wage subsidy JobKeeper program that, while it had its flaws which have seemed more significant in retrospect, was critical to keeping many businesses and workers afloat.

Independent economist Chris Richardson says JobKeeper “wasn’t perfect but it was bloody beautiful”. He praises Frydenberg’s COVID performance, saying,

The key thing was to make the wheels of government move faster than they had ever moved before. I give him high marks for that.

Another independent economist, Saul Eslake, agrees Frydenberg did a good job during COVID, with the only serious mistake being in some of the detail of JobKeeper.

He was right to throw overboard all the Coalition rhetoric about debt and deficit. He was honest, thoughtful and consultative.

Morrison, Eslake says, was a “huge handicap” because he was not an effective communicator of economic ideas, “in contrast to the prime ministers who backed Paul Keating and Peter Costello, the two most successful treasurers of recent history”.

But for the pandemic, Frydenberg would have seen the budget back in black. That achievement now belongs to Chalmers, who is savouring the moment.

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

– ref. View from The Hill: Josh Frydenberg puts political ambition aside to remain in business – https://theconversation.com/view-from-the-hill-josh-frydenberg-puts-political-ambition-aside-to-remain-in-business-214068

Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Kate Pattison, PhD Candidate, RMIT University

Last week, USA Today/Gannett posted a job ad for a Taylor Swift reporter, seeking an experienced journalist and content creator to “capture the music and cultural impact of Taylor Swift”.

It’s not the first time Swift has been the focus of professional and academic work. In 2022, New York University’s Clive Davis Institute announced a course focused on Swift, taught by Rolling Stone’s Brittany Spanos. They also gave Swift an honorary doctorate in fine arts, as “one of the most prolific and celebrated artists of her generation”.

Other universities around the world followed with their own dedicated courses, including “The Psychology of Taylor Swift”, “The Taylor Swift Songbook” and “Literature: Taylor’s Version”.

While musicians and celebrities have been the subject of our fascinations for decades, it’s not often they receive such individualised attention. Swift’s impressive career can be studied from multiple perspectives, including marketing, fandom, business and songwriting, to name a few.

So why Taylor Swift?

From a music perspective, Swift has broken a lot of records. Last month, she became the first female artist in Spotify history to reach 100 million monthly listeners.

Swift has achieved 12 number one albums on Billboard, the most by a woman artist, overtaking Barbra Streisand earlier this year.

She’s the first and only woman solo artist to win the Album Of The Year Grammy three times, for Fearless (2009), 1989 (2015) and Folklore (2020) – each in a different musical genre. It’s a credit to Swift’s masterful songwriting, and demonstrates her ability to adapt her craft for different audiences.

There is an expectation for female artists to constantly re-invent themselves, something Swift reflected on in her Netflix documentary Miss Americana:

The female artists I know of have to remake themselves like 20 times more than the male artists, or you’re out of a job.

Over the course of her career, Swift has evolved from an award-winning country music singer to one of the biggest pop stars in the world. Each of her ten original studio albums has a distinct theme and aesthetic, which have been celebrated on Swift’s juggernaut Eras Tour.

The tour, which has just wrapped up its first US leg, is set to be the highest-grossing of all time, boosting local travel and tourism revenue along the way. A recent report estimates the tour could help add a monumental US$5 billion (A$7.8 billion) to the worldwide economy.

‘All I do is try, try, try’

But to measure Swift’s impact by her music alone would be limiting.

Swift has been instrumental in changing the business game for musicians. She’s taken on record labels and streaming services, advocating for better deals for artists.

In 2015, Apple Music changed its payment policies after Swift wrote an open letter campaigning for better compensation.

Most notably, she took a stand against her former record label, Big Machine Records, after it wouldn’t give her an opportunity to buy back her original master recordings. Her back catalogue was eventually sold to music executive Scooter Braun, kicking off a very public feud.

While she’s not the first artist to go after her masters, she’s generated an enormous amount of attention to an issue that’s often overlooked. Of course, Swift is in a position of privilege – she can take risks many other artists can’t afford to. But with this power she’s driving conversations around contracts and the value of music, paving the way for emerging artists.

In an effort to regain control of her earlier work, Swift announced she would be re-recording her first six albums. Each re-recorded album has included additional vault tracks, previously unreleased songs left off the original recordings.

These releases have each been accompanied by a robust promotional campaign, including new merchandise and multiple, limited-edition versions of each record for fans to collect.

The release of Speak Now (Taylor’s Version) marked the halfway point of this process, which has paid off big time. Fearless (Taylor’s Version), Red (Taylor’s Version) and Speak Now (Taylor’s Version) have all performed better than the originals.

This is largely due to the unwavering support from her fans, known as “Swifties”. They’ve embraced the new recordings, shaming anyone who plays the original “stolen” versions.

The power of Swifties

Swift’s loyal fandom are known for their high levels of participation and creativity. Fans have spent an extensive amount of time hand-making outfits for concerts, and discussing elaborate theories online.

Swift has a reputation for leaving clues, known as Easter eggs, in her lyrics, music videos, social media posts and interviews. There are fan accounts dedicated to analysing these Easter eggs, studying specific number patterns and phrases to uncover hints for what Swift might do next.

Swift and Taylor Nation, a branch of her management team, encourage these behaviours by rewarding fans for their participation.

Read more:
How does a Taylor Swift fan prove their love? Money

For the upcoming release of 1989 (Taylor’s Version), Swift has unveiled a series of puzzles on Google, which fans must solve together in order to reveal the names of the upcoming vault tracks.

Swifties collectively solved the 33 million (yes, that’s million) puzzles in less than 24 hours. The games played a dual role – not only did Swift announce the vault track titles, but she’s reclaimed her Google searches in the process.

Swift’s fandom crosses generations. She’s a quintessential millennial, and many fans have grown up with Swift over the past two decades. Some have even started to bring their children along to the concerts, posting videos of them set to the bridge to Long Live.

She’s also found a younger audience on TikTok, a platform predominantly used by Gen Z. Affectionately dubbed “SwiftTok” by fans (and now Swift herself), users post videos to engage with other Swifties and participate in the community.

Swift’s songs are often used in popular trends. The release of Midnights last year had many dancing to Bejeweled and Karma, but Swift’s older catalogue has also gotten a good run. A remix of Love Story went viral in 2020, which helped a new generation discover her older music. Most recently, her song August has been used for running on the beach and spinning around with your pets.

She’s also closely aligned with young adult shows like The Summer I Turned Pretty, which has featured 13 of her songs throughout the show’s first two seasons. Swift’s music is so central to the story that author Jenny Han nearly dedicated the second book to her.

Swift continues to dominate the cultural conversation through her music, business decisions and legions of devoted fans.

Right now, Swift’s popularity is at an all time high, and it could be easy to dismiss this hype as a passing trend. But if these first 17 years are anything to go by, Swift’s proven she’s in it for the long haul, and worthy of our time.

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

– ref. How did Taylor Swift get so popular? She never goes out of style – https://theconversation.com/how-did-taylor-swift-get-so-popular-she-never-goes-out-of-style-213871

Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Rachael Sharman, Senior Lecturer in Psychology, University of the Sunshine Coast

A recent Beyond Blue survey of more than 2,000 teachers identified mental ill-health and excessive screen time as the biggest problems facing their students.

Comments from teachers revealed a perceived lack of social skill development in children and teens. As one wellbeing specialist said, young people:

are not learning social awareness. They’re not learning how to read emotions. They’re not learning body language.

There’s no definitive measure of what constitutes “excessive” screen-time, although research is beginning to suggest four hours per day or more is potentially risky.

Although COVID lockdowns played a role in disrupting normal social learning processes, concerns about social and emotional development in our teens has been bubbling away for some time across cultures that have easy access to screen-based technologies and social media. COVID may have thrown petrol on the flames, but it did not light this fire.

So what is going on? Does overexposure to screens lead to social impairments, and if so, how?

Displacing children’s development

The developing brain wires itself to the environment in which it finds itself. The skills you use most often will become almost automatic, such as driving a car. But skills you use infrequently need more concentration and effort, especially if you didn’t practice them much when your brain was still developing.

Important social experiences such as emotion recognition, reciprocal play and perspective-taking are potentially being sidelined by screen-time. In other words: when children are preoccupied with their screens, what are they not learning?

“Theory of Mind” is a brain function that allows people to understand the mental states of others. Theory of Mind starts with the realisation that everyone has different perspectives, mental states and understandings of our own.

Read more:
Understanding others’ feelings: what is empathy and why do we need it?

Developmentally, Theory of Mind explains quite a lot about child and adolescent behaviours.

Most parents recall, with some horror, their toddlers’ “terrible twos” stage. One of the reasons for these tantrums is a lack of Theory of Mind, which doesn’t kick in until the age of three or four. Toddlers just can’t understand why their carers don’t have the same perspective as them. “I feel thirsty – why is mum not getting me a drink?” Cue tantrum.

This intense frustration is one factor that drives the development of language, as the toddler finally realises other people don’t intuit their every thought or feeling and they need to learn to communicate.

As children grow and develop, Theory of Mind underpins the development of all sorts of social skills, such as recognising others’ emotional state and developing empathy. This is crucial to developing friendships, romantic partnerships and other kinds of social relationships as we move through life.

By adolescence, Theory of Mind gets really sophisticated. Teenagers are good at understanding socially complex processes such as lying, masking or amplifying true emotions, socially appropriate behaviours such as when not to take a joke too far, and nuanced language expression.

How does this affect mental health?

A child or teenager without age-appropriate social skills will have difficulty developing and maintaining friendships. Given human beings are, by their nature, social creatures, this may lead to isolation, loneliness and mental health issues.

Social media further inhibits perspective-taking by operating as an echo chamber, where a teen’s beliefs, interests and ideas are assessed via algorithms and parroted back to them. Rarely is an alternative idea or perspective presented, and, when it is, a teen with already impaired social-communication skills may react with anxiety instead of interest and curiosity.

Read more:
Teens with at least one close friend can better cope with stress than those without

The time young people spend on screens has been linked with an array of mental health issues. Longitudinal research is beginning to demonstrate higher screen time is associated with a raft of social-skill impairments at increasingly early ages.

Brain-imaging research shows higher screen use is associated with lower white matter tracts (the information superhighways of the brain) that underpin language and cognitive skills. In contrast, spending a great deal of time in the outdoors is associated with higher grey matter in regions associated with working memory and attention.

So what can parents and teachers do to help?

In the early years, parents and educators can focus on reciprocal play with lots of turn-taking and emotional engagement. When reading books or discussing everyday social interactions, talk about what you or another person was thinking or feeling and how that was expressed.

Delay any form of social media engagement for as long as possible. Encourage your child to critically think about people’s agendas when posting online: what are they really trying to get across, what is their motivation, what are they selling? Focus on building in-real-life friendships at school, your local community or sporting club, and within families.

Overall, limiting screen time and encouraging in-real-life play and an array of social engagement opportunities is the best way to improve a child’s prospects of developing good social-emotional skills.

Rachael Sharman and Michael Nagel have written a book covering these issues.

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

– ref. Excessive screen time can affect young people’s emotional development – https://theconversation.com/excessive-screen-time-can-affect-young-peoples-emotional-development-213869

Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Michael Toole, Associate Principal Research Fellow, Burnet Institute

Today’s announcement of an independent inquiry into Australia’s COVID response will examine how we’ve handled the pandemic and how we could better prepare for the next one.

But the pandemic is not just a once-in-a-lifetime event that’s over and needs to be analysed. It’s still with us.

The Omicron variant continues to mutate and new sub-variants emerge. For instance, the highly-mutated BA.2.86 (known as Pirola) has just been detected in Australia.

The SARS-CoV-2 virus, which causes COVID, then becomes more adept at evading immunity from infections and vaccines.

COVID is not yet predictably seasonal and we expect waves every three to six months. The United States has seen a threefold increase in hospitalisations since mid-July due to waning immunity and the EG.5 sub-variant (known as Eris).

Read more:
The WHO has declared Eris a ‘variant of interest’. How is it different from other Omicron variants?

The United Kingdom has also seen a significant increase in adult and child hospitalisations due to COVID in the past month.

In Australia, more than 5,000 people have died due to COVID so far this year. Excess deaths from any cause are 13% higher than expected. We expect many of these are related to COVID.

The median age of COVID deaths is around 85 years old in Australia. But there were 267 reported deaths in people under 50 until the end of July 2023; some may have had weaker immune systems.

The impacts of long COVID and re-infections are significant, which one study shows mainly affects people of working age and most commonly women.

Read more:
Long COVID symptoms can improve, but their resolution is slow and imperfect

I’ve had a booster. Does that still protect me?

We know immunity from COVID vaccines wanes over time. In a paper published in May, a systematic review of 40 studies showed by how much. Protection by the first two doses of the vaccine (known as the primary series) against symptomatic infection from Omicron waned from almost 53% one month after the second dose to just over 14% after six months.

The same review found a booster (third or fourth dose) increased protective immunity to the same levels as the primary series. However, that immunity waned to just 30% nine months later.

A number of studies have shown protection against severe disease and death from the Omicron variant also wanes over time. For example, a UK study found a primary series plus a bivalent booster (targets two strains) provided 53% protection against hospitalisation four weeks after the booster among people aged 50 or over. Protection dropped to 36% at ten weeks.

An Australian study, yet to be independently verified by other researchers, suggests protection against death from COVID also wanes. Of 3.8 million adults over 65 years, protection of a third dose booster against death from COVID waned from an estimated 93% within three months to 56% after six months.

So we believe a reasonable interpetation of the above data is to recommend a booster every six months in people aged 75 and older, and younger people with impaired immune systems.

But in Australia, just over 50% of people aged 75 or older have received a booster in the past six months; only about 38% of people aged 65-74 and about 9% in those aged 18-64 years.

Read more:
Over half of eligible aged care residents are yet to receive their COVID booster. And winter is coming

I’ve had COVID recently. Surely that’s enough

There is a widespread perception that if you’ve been infected with COVID and have had the primary series of the vaccine then you’re immune and, therefore, don’t need to get a booster. This is commonly described as having “hybrid immunity”.

However, a very large study across 19 countries found infection conferred different levels of immunity, depending on the variant. While infection with COVID effectively protected against reinfection by the original, Alpha, Beta and Delta variants, this was much less effective against the Omicron BA.1 variant. Since BA.1, there have been many new sub-variants that are even more adept at evading immunity.

Who can get a booster?

Earlier this month, the Australian Technical Advisory Group on Immunisation (ATAGI) recommended all adults aged 75 or older “should receive” an additional dose of the bivalent vaccine if six months have passed since their last dose. Additionally, people aged 65-74 and immunocompromised younger adults should “consider” an additional dose.

ATAGI argues that the baseline risk of severe illness in people under 65 is low if they have already been vaccinated, and particularly if they have also been infected. So, a further 2023 dose for this group would offer little additional benefit, even if it has been more than six months since their last dose.

The US has taken a different approach. Last week, the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention recommended all people over six months who have not received a COVID vaccine in the previous two months should get a dose of the newly approved monovalent (single strain) vaccines. These have been developed by Pfizer and Moderna to specifically target the XBB.1.5 sub-variant of Omicron. Health Canada has adopted similar recommendations.

These new monovalent vaccines are expected to be effective in preventing infection by recently emerging Omicron sub-variants, such as EG.5 and FL.1.51 derived from the XBB.1.5 sub-variant, and the newer highly mutated BA.2.86, which arose from an earlier sub-variant and is a significant evolutionary leap.

While Canada and the US move into the northern hemisphere winter, Australians should not believe they are at lower risk during the summer. After all, two large COVID waves in Australia were in the summers of 2021/22 and 2022/23.

Monovalent XBB.1.5 vaccines are not yet available in Australia, but are being evaluated by the Therapeutic Goods Administration. So, in the future, Australia’s advice about who’s eligible for a booster, and which type of booster, may change.

Read more:
CDC greenlights two updated COVID-19 vaccines, but how will they fare against the latest variants? 5 questions answered

So, how do I decide if I need a booster now?

There is evidence in Australia of growth of the newer subvariants, including the detection of BA.2.86. So all Australians aged 75 and over who have not had a booster in the past six months should immediately have the currently available bivalent vaccine.

Younger age groups may wait until further ATAGI advice about the new monovalent vaccines.

COVID is not over

While there is no need for alarm, Australians need to be aware of the ongoing significant impacts of COVID. The SARS-CoV-2 virus is still a formidable foe as it continues to mutate.

COVID vaccines will be among the topics the newly announced inquiry will investigate.

But we cannot rely on vaccines alone. Avoiding (re)infection is also vital. Breathe clean indoor air, wear high quality masks and get tested so you can access antivirals if eligible.

Michael Toole receives funding from the National Health and Medical Research Council.

Heidi Drummer has acted as a consultant for Moderna. Heidi Drummer receives funding from the Medical Research Future Fund and mRNA Victoria and is President of the Australasian Virology Society.

Suman Majumdar, through the Burnet Institute receives grant funding from the Australian governemnt via the National Health & Medical Research Council of Australia, the Medical Research Future Fund and DFAT’s Centre for Health Security.

– ref. A COVID inquiry has been announced. But is COVID still a thing? Do I need a booster? – https://theconversation.com/a-covid-inquiry-has-been-announced-but-is-covid-still-a-thing-do-i-need-a-booster-213469

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

Australia’s higher education sector is under heavy scrutiny. Still recovering from the impact of COVID and criticised for its treatment of staff, it faces strong pressures to step up its performance.

The government launched a broad review of the sector in late 2022 to inform a Universities Accord. The interim report was released in July, with the full report coming in December. Professor Brian Schmidt, is one of Australia’s most eminent academics, an astrophysicist who shared a Nobel Prize in 2011. Schmidt has been Vice-Chancellor at the Australian National University since 2016, a role he leaves at the end of the year.

The Universities Accord interim report suggests 55% of jobs by 2050 will require a higher education qualification. At the moment, the share sits at 36%. To reach that target, Schmidt says institutions, secondary educators and governments will need to work together:

The single most important thing, is our students when they finish high school have to be university ready. Universities are trying to fix the problems and shortcomings of our [Kindergarten to Year 12] system or even pre-K-12 system. We are the last line of defence.

Once students have graduated and they are university ready, then certainly here at ANU, we find that the access to university is not level. Why? Because studying full time at university is full time. And the notion that they’re going to go work a full-time job and study full-time seems possible and is done by many of the students from lower socio-economic backgrounds, but it puts them at a huge disadvantage. It’s just really difficult to do that.

So we really need to focus on adequate support for students, especially in that first year or two when they come to university so that they can study alongside everyone else on equal basis.

Schmidt believes universities are facing their “Uber moment” – where big tech companies like LinkedIn, Meta, and Microsoft “take out the middle man” (higher education) and team up with leading institutions like Harvard or Oxford to offer a streamlined, recognised course at a fraction of the cost.

I guess the question is, do I want to be at the ANU competing with that? The answer is no, because I’m going to lose. Their cost structures are cheaper than mine, but what they’re offering is not what I’m trying to offer. I’m trying to provide people the ability to do more than just the homogenised offering and get to talk to the people who write the textbooks [and] get to live on campus with a bunch of people not just doing the IT degree you are doing.

With not enough academic jobs available to employ the PhD graduates who want them, are we turning out too many?

This will be controversial. But the answer I think right now, given the state of the economy, probably yes.

It’s not just academic jobs, we don’t expect all of our PhDs to go get academic jobs. It’s never been that way and it shouldn’t be that way. What we do expect is those PhD students to go get jobs where their skills of research and knowledge add a lot of value to their job. And that’s the part where the Australian economy isn’t very developed.

The accord’s interim report also highlights the rate of sexual harassment and assault experienced by students on campuses. A parliamentary inquiry has recommended an independent taskforce to oversee universities’ performance in dealing with this problem. Schmidt agrees the situation is unnacceptable, but believes institutions should have the final say in how and what action is taken.

Sexual violence is, I am sad to say, rife across Australia […] I truly believe that universities have stood up in a way that no other part of society ever has. We have not ducked. We have actually stood up. But of course, when you stand up and take ownership, the ugly state of reality comes to light.

The proposed committee to oversight at some level I think is not a bad idea. I want to have an expert committee to respond to and to demonstrate the work I am doing. I want to be held accountable, but I want to be held accountable by people who understand the area and can make sensible judgements of what I am doing – being adequate, outstanding or inadequate.

I want to be held accountable by a body, but I do not want that body disembodied from my own governance to command me what to do – because I am confident I am going to do a better job than it can. And so that is an important bit. I want to demonstrate to it that I am doing an outstanding job. I do not want to be dictated what to do because that will be a lowest common denominator.

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

– ref. Politics with Michelle Grattan: ANU Vice-Chancellor Brian Schmidt on the challenges universities face – https://theconversation.com/politics-with-michelle-grattan-anu-vice-chancellor-brian-schmidt-on-the-challenges-universities-face-213994

Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Cooper Schouten, Project Manager – Bees for Sustainable Livelihoods, Southern Cross University

The federal government body in charge of pest control has announced Australia will abandon efforts on eradicating the Varroa mite.

This parasitic mite (Varroa destructor) lives in honey bee colonies, feeding on pupae and adult bees. The mites spread viruses, impair the bees’ ability to fly and communicate, and makes them more susceptible to pesticides, eventually causing a colony collapse if left unmanaged.

Until recently, Australia remained free of Varroa thanks to stringent biosecurity measures. But in June 2022, the mite was detected in the New South Wales coastal area near Newcastle and has continued to spread.

A recent increase in detections over a greater area has now made eradication technically unfeasible. As a result, Australia is transitioning from eradication to management of the Varroa mite.

Can we fight the mite?

It has been a tough time for beekeepers, the broader beekeeping community and the growers of crops relying on honey bees for pollination.

Varroa mite is already causing significant economic damage to livelihoods, due to restrictions on hive movements and the euthanasia of around 30,000 bee colonies.

To manage it, we will need to learn from overseas, where people have lived with Varroa for decades. However, Australia also has to develop its own solutions because of our unique climate, biodiversity and agricultural systems.

As seen in other countries, honey production and hive numbers may remain relatively stable. But beekeepers will need to invest significant time and resources to monitor, manage and replace hives due to Varroa losses.

There are effective chemical control options, but these cannot eliminate the mites completely. They also have impacts on bees and can leave residues in hive products. Over-reliance on synthetic chemicals will rapidly lead to resistance in Varroa populations, as seen in almost every country Varroa exists.

Effective organic and non-chemical treatments exist, but they are comparatively labour intensive – an additional burden on certified organic beekeepers.

To keep Varroa mite numbers below economically damaging thresholds, beekeepers will need to use integrated pest management solutions – a combination of approaches to reduce mite populaitons, while following up to ensure these appraoches have been effective.

Read more:
Australia is in a unique position to eliminate the bee-killing Varroa mite. Here’s what happens if we don’t

Beekeeping will become more complex and expensive

Costs for the average-sized Australian bee business could increase by as much as 30%. Experience in other countries suggests there will be significant declines (up to 50%) of hobbyist and semi-commercial operators. Currently, recreational beekeeping is worth A$173 million in Australia annually.

We also know Varroa will progressively kill around 95% of Australia’s feral honey bees within approximately three years. Therefore, we will likely need more bee colonies per hectare to pollinate some crops effectively.

Cumulatively, increased costs of production, a decrease in the numbers of beekeepers and fewer feral bees will likely result in higher demand for bee hives to service 35 pollination dependent industries across the country. As seen in Aotearoa New Zealand, where the Varroa mite established in 2000, prices for bee hives rented to growers increased by 30–100% per hive within five years..

What should Australia do to minimise the impact?

We need a national program in Australia that monitors colony losses so we can quantify the impacts across the sector. This also holds true for Australian native bees which play an important role in pollination of tropical crops – we do not have the monitoring and baseline data needed to evaluate the changes about to occur.

Read more:
Move over, honeybees: Aussie native bees steal the show with unique social and foraging behaviours

As an industry that contributes more than $14.2 billion to the economy, we now have a critical need for national capacity building for beekeeping, Varroa and pollination research, development and training.

Western Australia and Tasmania have significant opportunities to remain free from Varroa for as long as possible because the mite is currently only in NSW on the eastern boarder. Restricted movements of honey bees across the Bass Strait and the Nullarbor offer an additional biosecurity buffer.

Australia also remains free from virulent bee viruses, such as the deformed wing virus. Hopefully, the Varroa incursion will lead to strengthened biosecurity for honey bee pests and diseases we do not have in the country yet, like Tropilaelaps mites.

We also need to strengthen compliance with the honey bee biosecurity code of practice and improve monitoring of bee losses, bee viruses and native bees. In the long term, we will need to establish breeding programs for bees with Varroa tolerance, as seen in other countries such as the United States, New Zealand and Hawaii.

Cooper Schouten receives funding from The Australian Centre for International Agriculture Research and is a Member of the NSW Apiarists Association and QLD Beekeepers Association.

– ref. Australia has officially given up on eradicating the Varroa mite. Now what? – https://theconversation.com/australia-has-officially-given-up-on-eradicating-the-varroa-mite-now-what-214002

Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Annie Te One, Lecturer in Māori Studies, Te Herenga Waka — Victoria University of Wellington

In his maiden speech to parliament in 2020, te Pāti Māori co-leader Rawiri Waititi told his fellow MPs:

You know what it feels like to have a pebble in your shoe? That will be my job here. A constant, annoying to those holding onto the colonial ways, a reminder and change agent for the recognition of our kahu Māori.

Three years later, most would agree that he and fellow co-leader Debbie Ngarewa-Packer have been just that – visible, critical, combative, prepared to be controversial.

The question in 2023, however, is how does the party build on its current platform, grow its base, and become more than a pebble in the shoe of mainstream politics?

Recent polls suggest te Pāti Māori could win four seats in parliament in October. But its future doesn’t necessarily lie in formally joining either a government coalition or opposition bloc, even if this were an option.

The National Party has already ruled out working with the party in government. And te Pāti Māori has indicated partnership with either major party is not a priority.

Such are the challenges for a political party based on kaupapa Māori (incorporating the knowledge, skills, attitudes and values of Māori society) in a Westminster-style parliamentary system.

Focusing on Māori values

These tensions have existed since 2004, when then-Labour MP Tariana Turia and co-leader Pita Sharples established te Pāti Māori in protest against Labour’s Foreshore and Seabed Act.

Under that law, overturned in 2011, the Crown was made owner of much of New Zealand’s coastline. Turia and others argued the government was confiscating land and ignoring Māori customary ownership rights.

Leer más:
Putting te Tiriti at the centre of Aotearoa New Zealand’s public policy can strengthen democracy – here’s how

As a kaupapa Māori party, te Pāti Māori bases its policies and constitution on tikanga (Māori values), while advocating for mana motuhake and tino rangatiratanga. That is, Māori self-determination and sovereignty, as defined by the Māori version of te Tiriti o Waitangi/Treaty of Waitangi.

A tikanga-based constitution has helped shape policies advocating for Māori rights. But it has also, at times, sat at odds with the rules of parliament. Waititi, for example, called pledging allegiance to Queen Elizabeth II “distasteful”. He also refused to wear a tie, breaching parliamentary dress codes.

Between left and right

Over the years, the party’s Māori-centred policies have enabled its leaders to move between left and right wing alliances.

Under the original leadership of Turia and Sharples, te Pāti Māori joined with the centre-right National Party to form governments in 2008, 2011 and 2014. This was a change from traditional Māori voting patterns that had long favoured Labour.

During it’s time in coalition with National, te Pāti Māori helped influence a number of important decisions. This included finally signing the United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples, the development of Whanau Ora (a Māori health initiative emphasising family and community as decision makers), and repealing the Foreshore and Seabed Act.

Leer más:
History and myth: why the Treaty of Waitangi remains such a ‘bloody difficult subject’

However, internal fighting over the decision to align with National led to the resignation of the Te Tai Tokerau MP at the time, Hone Harawira. Harawira later formed the Mana Party.

The relationship with National proved unsustainable when Labour won back all the Māori electorates at the 2017 election. Notably, Labour’s Tāmati Coffey beat te Pāti Māori co-leader Te Ururoa Flavell in the Waiariki electorate.

Rebuilding te Pāti Māori

Waiariki was front and centre again in the 2020 election, where despite Labour’s general dominance across the Māori electorates, new te Pāti Māori co-leader Rawiri Waititi reclaimed the seat. The party also managed to win enough of the party vote to bring co-leader Ngarewa-Packer into parliament with him.

Sitting in opposition this time, the current party leaders have been vocal across a range of issues. The party has called for the banning of seabed mining, removing taxes for low-income earners, higher taxes on wealth, and lowering the superannuation age for Māori.

It hasn’t all been smooth sailing. Some policies, such as 2020’s “Whānau Build” have caused discomfort. Aimed largely at addressing the housing crisis, Whānau Build identified immigration as the root of Māori homelessness.

It was a sentiment more often associated with the extreme right, and the party has since apologised for that part of the policy.

Contesting more seats in 2023

Those bumps and missteps notwithstanding, recent polls show just how competitive te Pāti Māori has become in the Māori electorates.

Ex-Labour MP Meka Whaitiri – an experienced politician who has held the Ikaroa-Rāwhiti electorate since 2013 but left to join te Pāti Māori this year – is in a tight race to regain her seat against new Labour candidate Cushla Tangaere-Manuel.

Co-leader Ngarewa-Packer is also running a close race against Labour candidate Soraya Peke-Mason for the Te Tai Hauāuru electorate – a Labour stronghold.

But te Pāti Māori has also shifted from its previous focus on the Māori electorates, with Merepeka Raukawa-Tait standing in the Rotorua general electorate.

The Māori Electoral Option legislation, which came into effect this year, now allows Māori voters to change more easily between electoral rolls. In future, te Pāti Māori may find it can best to serve Māori by standing candidates in general electorates.

Leer más:
The tie that binds: unravelling the knotty issue of political sideshows and Māori cultural identity

Broader social change across Aotearoa New Zealand has also likely been an important contributor to the success of te Pāti Māori, with greater understanding of te Tiriti o Waitangi, tikanga and te reo Māori among voters.

Indeed, the current party vision of an “Aotearoa Hou” (New Aotearoa), includes reference to tangata tiriti, a phrase being popularised to refer to non-Māori who seek to honour partnerships based on te Tiriti o Waitangi.

According to the most recent polling, te Pāti Māori may not be the deciding factor in who gets to form the next government come October.

But the party’s resilience and growth after it’s electoral disappointments in 2017 and 2020 show an ability to rebuild. In doing so, it is carving out it’s place in New Zealand’s political landscape.

And if te Pāti Māori is not the kingmaker in 2023, it is still on the path to influence – and potentially decide – elections in the not-too-distant future.

Annie Te One no recibe salario, ni ejerce labores de consultoría, ni posee acciones, ni recibe financiación de ninguna compañía u organización que pueda obtener beneficio de este artículo, y ha declarado carecer de vínculos relevantes más allá del cargo académico citado.

– ref. From ‘pebble in the shoe’ to future power broker – the rise and rise of te Pāti Māori – https://theconversation.com/from-pebble-in-the-shoe-to-future-power-broker-the-rise-and-rise-of-te-pati-maori-212089

Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Mark Howden, Director, ANU Institute for Climate, Energy and Disaster Solutions, Australian National University

This year’s heightened drumbeat of extreme weather shows us how little time we actually have to slash emissions.

It is now clear that going slow on cutting greenhouse gas emissions is much more expensive than taking action. At this week’s climate ambition summit, United Nations secretary general António Guterres warned the world is “decades behind” in the transition to clean energy.

The UN’s new Global Stocktake makes clear we need to accelerate the race to net zero.

It’s time to act as quickly as humanly possible. This week, Australia’s leading engineers and technology experts have called for Australia to get to net zero 15 years quicker than our current goal of 2050 to be more consistent with a 1.5℃ trajectory.

It will be hard. But ask yourself – what is the alternative?

To shake us out of business as usual, we have to fast-track regulatory change, upskill the workforce, future-proof national infrastructure, embed a zero-waste approach to supply chains and massively boost business investment. Here’s how.

The net zero grid

Per capita, Australia is the world leader in solar and wind generation. But we’ll need more as we electrify the entire economy, which will triple demand.

To get there means investing in distribution, transmission, battery and pumped hydro storage and grid integration. All of this has to be fast-tracked through close engagement with communities and streamlined regulations.

Electrifying our export industries is vital for both Australia’s and the world’s net zero efforts. This would make full use of our advantages in cheap power from renewables such as by making green hydrogen, which can help with green chemical and green metals manufacturing.

Read more:
To really address climate change, Australia could make 27 times as much electricity and make it renewable

Pulling carbon dioxide back out of the air is another potential “export” industry. Direct air capture will be needed to bring levels in the atmosphere back down, and Australia could use cheap renewable energy to do it, and sell the credits to offset hard-to-abate areas such as plane flights.

Embrace the circular economy

Supply chains of products and raw materials put out emissions at every step along the way. Some emissions are from activities in Australia, others overseas. But all end up in the atmosphere.

Fixing this means slashing waste and removing emissions at every stage of production, from raw materials to recycling. Our food systems produce an estimated 29% of global emissions but around 30–40% of food is wasted.

But it’s more than that. The end goal must be embracing a circular economy, where overconsumption is phased out and waste becomes the feedstock for new products. We can greatly accelerate our efforts by working with European authorities, given they are far ahead of Australia here.

Make our buildings run cleaner

Emissions from our buildings come largely from electricity and gas use, with embodied emissions from, say, the use of concrete in construction a smaller concern. Here, the low-hanging fruit is moving to zero-emissions electricity and switching from gas to electricity.

Banning new household connections to the gas network as Victoria and the ACT are doing, is another opportunity.

When gas heaters reach their end of life, we can require they be replaced by electric heaters. This won’t significantly increase the grid demand if high efficiency heat pumps are used.

And we should boost efficiency standards still further for new buildings and major renovations. Australia’s new National Construction Code will help, but more can be done.

In the longer term, cement made without emissions and new construction methods will help further cut emissions.

Electrify transport

After a slow start, electric cars are finally gaining popularity in Australia. Now we’re seeing electric utes and trucks. Electric buses are already on the roads in some states. This is essential. Now it’s time to speed it up.

We need all states and territories on board to plan for a phase-out of internal combustion engines, coupled with better investment in public and private charging infrastructure.

Electrifying transport will give us enormous battery packs in our driveways – often several times the capacity of a home battery. New technologies such as vehicle-to-grid will let us use our cars as grid backup and give households security if there’s a blackout.

Shipping giants are working on the challenge of cleaning up emissions, while work is being done on electric planes. These are harder nuts to crack, but already there are electric ferries up and running in Europe and short-trip electric planes on sale in Australia.

Farming and mining

Some farms are already running on solar and storage for cost and energy security reasons. But there’s more to do, such as slashing emissions of the potent greenuouse gas nitrous oxide from fertilisers using nitrification inhibitors.

In mining, some operators are rapidly cleaning up their operations – and often for cost reasons. Running a mine site on diesel is expensive. We need to accelerate the shift here towards powering grinding machines, excavators and ore trains with renewables.

Some problems don’t yet have off-the-shelf solutions, such as reducing methane from livestock or producing steel cost-effectively without using coal.

These hard-to-cut sources of emissions will need significant and sustained investment to produce practical and cost-effective technologies solving the problems.

Technology – and talking

Swapping fossil fuels for clean technologies will take talking as well as technology. Many of us find change confronting, especially at this pace.

So we need to do this right, sharing economic benefits and preserving the social fabric of communities and avoiding damaging nature. The debate over new transmission lines is a case in point.

We’ll need an honest national conversation – and one that isn’t limited to expert, government and industry circles.

We have new institutions to help us move faster, such as the Net Zero Authority, the new mandates for the Climate Change Authority, and the sector-level net zero plans in progress.

Now we need to get on and do it. Yes, it’s faster than we thought possible. But fast is now necessary.

Read more:
Tim Flannery’s message to all: rise up and become a climate leader – be the change we need so desperately

Mark Howden is a board member of CO2 Value Australia..

Frank Jotzo leads research projects funded by a range of organisations. None of these create a conflict of interest regarding this article.

Ken Baldwin has received funding from the Australian Research Council, and the DFAT Partnerships for Infrastructure program

Kylie Catchpole receives funding from ARENA and industry partners related to solar technology development.

Lachlan Blackhall has received, or is currently receiving, project funding from ARENA, the federal government, several state governments, and multiple industry partners for work related to energy storage and grid integration. He is a Director of Engineers Australia and the independent chair (unpaid) of the DEIP Interoperability Steering Committee (ISC). He was previously the co-founder and CTO of Reposit Power, but is no longer a shareholder, director, or employee of Reposit Power and receives no remuneration from Reposit Power.

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

– ref. Net zero by 2050? Too late. Australia must aim for 2035 – https://theconversation.com/net-zero-by-2050-too-late-australia-must-aim-for-2035-213973

Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Ellen K. Mather, Adjunct Associate Lecturer in Palaeontology, Flinders University

What came first, the chicken or the egg? — Grace, age 12, Melbourne

Hi Grace!

Thanks for this great question. It’s an age-old dilemma that has left many people scratching their heads.

From an evolutionary perspective, both answers could be considered true! It all depends on how you interpret the question.

The case for the egg

When the first vertebrates – that is, the first animals with backbones – came out of the sea to live on land, they faced a challenge.

Their eggs, similar to those of modern fish, were covered only in a thin layer called a membrane. The eggs would quickly dry up and die when exposed to air. Some animals such as amphibians (the group that includes frogs and axolotls) solved this problem by simply laying their eggs in water – but this limited how far inland they could travel.

It was the early reptiles that evolved a key solution to this problem: an egg with a protective outer shell. The first egg shells would have been soft and leathery like the eggs of a snake or a sea turtle. Hard-shelled eggs, such as those of birds, likely appeared much later.

Some of the oldest known hard-shelled eggs appear in the fossil record during the Early Jurassic period, roughly 195 million years ago. Dinosaurs laid these eggs, although reptiles such as crocodiles were also producing hard-shelled eggs during the Jurassic.

As we know now, it was a line of dinosaurs that eventually gave rise to the many species of birds we see today, including the chicken.

Chickens belong to an order of birds known as the Galliformes, which includes other ground-dwelling birds such as turkeys, pheasants, peafowl and quails.

Specifically, chickens are part of a galliform genus called Gallus, which is thought to have started changing into its modern species between 6 million and 4 million years ago in South-East Asia. Domestic chickens only began appearing some time within the past 10,000 years.

This means hard-shelled eggs like the ones chickens lay are older than chickens themselves by almost 200 million years. So problem solved, right?

Well, it’s a matter of perspective.

The case for the chicken

If we interpret the question as referring specifically to chicken eggs – and not all eggs – the answer is very different.

Unlike most species of animals, the modern chicken didn’t evolve naturally through evolution. Rather, it’s the result of domestication: a process where humans selectively breed animals to create individuals that are more tame and have more desirable traits.

The most famous example is the domestication of wolves into dogs by humans. Wolves and dogs have almost entirely the same DNA, but are very different in how they look and behave. Dogs came from wolves, and so scientists consider dogs to be a subspecies of wolf.

Similarly, chickens came from a species called the red junglefowl, which is found across Southern and South-East Asia. Researchers think red junglefowl were first drawn to humans thousands of years ago, when people started farming rice and other cereal grains.

This closeness then allowed domestication to take place. Over many generations the descendants of these tamed birds became their own subspecies.

Technically, the first chicken would have hatched from the egg of a selectively bred junglefowl. It was only when this chicken matured and started reproducing that the first true chicken eggs were laid.

So which answer is the better one?

That’s completely up to you to decide. As is the case with many dilemmas, the whole point of the question is to make you think – not necessarily to come up with the perfect answer.

In this case, evolutionary biology allows us to make an argument for both sides – and that is one of the wonderful things about science.

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

– ref. Curious Kids: what came first, the chicken or the egg? – https://theconversation.com/curious-kids-what-came-first-the-chicken-or-the-egg-211917

Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Tamsin Phillipa Paige, Senior Lecturer, Deakin University

Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky has lambasted the UN Security Council yet again, saying in a speech this week that as long as Russia has veto power on the body, it will remain powerless to do anything to stop the war in Ukraine – or any other conflict.

Ukrainian soldiers are doing with their blood what the UN Security Council should do by its voting. […] Veto power in the hands of the aggressor is what has pushed the UN into deadlock.

Every time a member of the five permanent members of the UN Security Council – the US, Russia, France, the UK and China – engages in abhorrent actions, we see a wave of voices decrying the powerlessness and failure of the UN to stop conflict and atrocities.

Most recently, this has been focused on the Russian war in Ukraine. We also saw this criticism in relation to the US- and UK-led invasion of Iraq in the early 2000s.

The central part of this criticism is that the five permanent members of the Security Council (commonly referred to as the “P5”) have a veto power, which can prevent UN action when they have engaged in wrongdoing. The other 10 rotating members of the Security Council do not.

This veto power is what has prevented Russia from being expelled from the UN, as Zelensky has repeatedly called for, because suspension or expulsion of a member from the UN requires action from the Security Council.

This criticism is entirely reasonable – the P5 shouldn’t be able to prevent the UN from acting against them. However, this isn’t a failure of the UN itself, but rather a design feature baked in to the whole UN system.

And reform of the UN is functionally impossible, which is why we need to stop expecting so much from the global body.

Some are more equal than others

Article 2(1) of the UN Charter says the UN is based on the principle of sovereign equality. This, in principle, should mean all nations are equal under international law.

In reality, even when just considering the rest of the UN Charter, it is clear this is not the case. Yes, all nations in the UN General Assembly have one vote and all those votes have equal weight, but this is somewhat insignificant because the work of the General Assembly isn’t legally binding.

The only UN body that has the power to make binding international law is the Security Council. And this only happens when it is acting under Chapter VII of the UN Charter for the maintenance of international peace and security.

In order for a resolution to pass in the Security Council, it must have the support of at least nine members – and, critically, no opposing vote from a member of the P5. This is what is meant by the P5 veto power.

Read more:
Is international law powerless against Russian aggression in Ukraine? No, but it’s complicated

When the UN Charter was being drafted at the end of the second world war, the allied powers and France agreed to enshrine themselves into the document as the P5.

Notably, the group included the “Republic of China”, the government led by Chiang Kai-shek in Taiwan, which held the Security Council seat until the General Assembly expelled Taiwan and gave the seat to the People’s Republic of China in 1971. And when the Soviet Union disbanded in the early 1990s, Russia inherited its seat on the Security Council through the Alma-Ata Protocol.

The charter gave the P5 the ultimate responsibility for maintaining international peace and security, while also functionally removing them from scrutiny because they possess veto power.

This wasn’t a design oversight or failure, it was an intentional decision. This is clearly seen when you examine the wording of Article 27(3). This article requires a Security Council member to refrain from voting on a matter if they are party to a dispute – but it does not apply to resolutions invoking Chapter VII (that is, a legally binding resolution).

The fact the charter includes a restriction on the veto but only in relation to non-binding resolutions demonstrates an intention to place the P5 beyond scrutiny.

So, what about veto reform?

If the existence of the veto prevents any Security Council action from being taken against Russia for its invasion of Ukraine (or against any other P5 state when they engage in similar conduct), why don’t we just reform it?

Well, this can’t be done because the drafters of the UN Charter made reform incredibly difficult. Namely, the P5 ensured they have a right to veto any proposed reforms to the UN structure by requiring all charter amendments to be ratified by each of them, in addition to getting a two-thirds majority in the General Assembly.

In essence, this means reforming the UN Charter is off the table because the P5 would be able to veto a reduction of their veto power.

Read more:
Don’t be too quick to condemn the UN Security Council power of veto

The only avenue left for reform is to dissolve the UN Charter and reform the UN under a new treaty that limits or abolishes the power of the veto.

Given the state of global solidarity is very different today compared to the end of WWII when the UN was established, I’m loathe to test this approach. A P5 that is restrained by the Charter when it suits them is less dangerous than a P5 that opts out of international law entirely, leaving them completely unrestrained in their aggression.

Tempering our expectations

Yes, this means the UN is powerless to address Russian aggression in Ukraine, in the same way it was powerless to address US and UK aggression in Iraq. And yes, this seems to go against the initial purpose of the global body, which was created to:

to save succeeding generations from the scourge of war, which twice in our lifetime has brought untold sorrow to mankind.

The Security Council, too, was given the mandate of maintaining international peace and security when it was created, as Zelensky has repeatedly pointed out.

But in accepting that mandate, the P5 ensured they wouldn’t be subject to it. In creating the UN, they placed themselves above the law and above the power of the UN specifically so they could avoid scrutiny of their actions. They also ensured they could prevent any reform of the UN to limit their power.

As a result, maybe it is time we start treating the UN for what it is – a diplomatic congress aimed at making the world a little better through encouraging cooperation. Rather than what we hope it to be – a world government capable of effecting peace.

Tamsin Phillipa Paige received funding from the federal government for her UN Security Council research.

– ref. Stripping Russia’s veto power on the Security Council is all but impossible. Perhaps we should expect less from the UN instead – https://theconversation.com/stripping-russias-veto-power-on-the-security-council-is-all-but-impossible-perhaps-we-should-expect-less-from-the-un-instead-213985

Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Mark Stevenson, Professor of Urban Transport and Public Health, The University of Melbourne

In 2022, there were nearly 1,200 road crash deaths in Australia – a figure that has remained largely the same over the past decade. However, some states and territories have seen dramatic increases in just the last five years, such as the ACT (100%), Tasmania (59.4%) and Queensland (21.2%).

Serious injuries from road crashes have also been on the rise, from 35,000 in 2013 to 39,866 in 2019.

These statistics highlight the need for an urgent rethink of road safety policies if we are to achieve Australia’s target of a 50% decrease in fatalities and a 30% decrease in serious injuries by 2030. We are clearly not on track to meet these targets.

People are worth more than statistics, though. And it is not surprising we haven’t seen decreases in road deaths when we rely on strategies first implemented three to four decades ago. Change is needed to prevent the ongoing trauma caused by road crashes to Australian families.

Why have road trauma rates not declined?

Australia has long had an international reputation for pioneering road safety measures, such as seat belt restraints, speed management strategies (including speed cameras) and drink-driving laws, among others. In fact, Australia was the first country in the world to introduce laws for compulsory seat belt use.

These initiatives have been highly successful in reducing road deaths from their peak in 1970, when 3,798 were recorded. But in the past two decades, further progress has stalled. We must ask ourselves why.

One theory to explain why road deaths may have increased in many states in the past couple of years is the pandemic. The previously empty roads are now congested again, which may have led to impatience and speeding. Or perhaps, some people have seemingly forgotten how to drive safely. However, there is another, perhaps simpler explanation.

This chart shows how closely road deaths have tracked with domestic fuel sales in Australia – measured in millions of litres of fuel – since 2019. In simple terms, when driving rates decreased at the beginning of the pandemic, deaths and injuries went down. When driving rates increased again in early 2021, deaths and injuries went up.

In fact, there is scant evidence to suggest people’s driving behaviours changed during this time. Our recent unpublished research followed approximately 800 drivers from January 2020 to March 2023 using monitoring systems inside their cars to measure their behaviour. We found no differences in driver behaviours during this time.

Rather, there’s a more likely reason why road deaths and injuries continue to be so high: the amount of time we spend driving continues to increase, while our strategies to target the risks associated with driving haven’t changed.

Unfortunately, government agencies continue to rely on strategies implemented over the past 20-30 years, which were effective when they were first introduced, but are now subject to the law of diminishing marginal returns. This means continually throwing more resources at existing speed management strategies, for example, will likely only see marginal benefits.

Read more:
Despite lockdowns, 1,142 Australians, including 66 kids, died on our roads in the past year. Here’s what we need to do

A new approach not focused on cars

There is increasing urgency to investigate and implement new road safety strategies based on emerging technologies and a redesign of our cities instead.

For example, a recent Australian trial using new driving monitoring technology showed promise in reducing risky driving behaviours that could cause crashes. The monitoring systems provided feedback to the driver (via a smartphone app) and encouraged safer driving using financial incentives akin to insurance premiums. This new strategy is being explored further in three states: New South Wales, Queensland and Western Australia.

Encouraging people to transition from private car trips to public transport is another road safety strategy that has seldom been considered by governments. Rather, the driver, car and road remain the focus.

Read more:
Driving on less than 5 hours of sleep is just as dangerous as drunk-driving, study finds

This “safe system” approach puts an emphasis on building safe road infrastructure for cars, while ignoring urban design changes that de-emphasise the need for cars. We should be encouraging more people to commute by rail, tram and bus (all lower-risk modes per kilometre travelled), while at the same time delivering safe infrastructure for sustainable transport such as bicycles/e-bicycles or walking.

If we continue to tinker with strategies implemented many decades ago, we will never get close to achieving the lofty government targets on road deaths and injuries by 2030.

Mark Stevenson receives funding from the National Health and Medical Research Council and the Australian Research Council. He is a director in the start-up company Urban Analytica Pty Ltd.

Jason Thompson is a current ARC Future Fellow, chief investigator on the NHMRC Centre of Research Excellence for Better Outcomes in Compensable Injury, chief investigator on the NHMRC-funded Feedback Trial, and member of the Australasian College of Road Safety.

– ref. Are Australia’s roads becoming more dangerous? Here’s what the data says – https://theconversation.com/are-australias-roads-becoming-more-dangerous-heres-what-the-data-says-213240

Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Shalini Arunogiri, Addiction Psychiatrist, Senior Lecturer, Monash University

The availability and sales of “zero-alcohol” products have soared in recent years. In Australia, these are products containing less than 0.5% alcohol by volume, designed to mimic the flavour, appearance and packaging of alcoholic drinks.

The market for these products is projected to continue growing at a faster rate than alcoholic beverages.

This boom has been driven by production improvements that mean non-alcoholic products taste similar to their alcoholic inspirations. There have also been generational trends towards being more mindful of the amount of alcohol consumed.

Zero-alcohol products do not cause the physical harms associated with alcohol. But they are not without risk and may not be as healthy as they seem. Our new research explains why.

A lack of regulation

A World Health Organization report released earlier this year highlighted the limitations in evidence for the benefits of no- and low-alcohol beverages (which the WHO calls “NoLos”) and the overall lack of policy and regulation in the industry. The absence of oversight may mean potential harms associated with zero-alcohol products go unrecognised.

Although replacing alcohol drinks with zero-alcohol products might be used as part of an effort to cut down on drinking, there is a lack of rigorous research to support this. And the approach may not be suitable for everyone.

A review of ten studies found people with an alcohol use disorder (including addiction to alcohol, problematic or heavy drinking), experience increased cravings for alcohol when they consume zero-alcohol products. They also display physiological responses similar to those that occur when drinking alcohol such as increased heart rate and sweating.

It’s not just about the alcohol

The substitution of alcohol for zero-alcohol products does not address social, environmental and cultural factors. These often influence drinking behaviour. This is particularly relevant in Australia where drinking alcohol is normalised and encouraged.

For young people, zero-alcohol products could serve as a gateway for drinking and send a message underage drinking is acceptable. This sets up the potential for early alcohol initiation and risky drinking practices.

Zero-alcohol products are manufactured and packaged to look just like existing alcohol products. Many carry the same company branding as the alcoholic version, which blurs the lines between the two offerings.

Read more:
We’re getting really good at making alcohol-free beer and wine. Here’s how it’s done

‘Alibi marketing’

In Australia, zero-alcohol drinks are subject to food rather than liquor licensing legislation. This means there are less restrictions to where and how they are displayed and marketed.

Such products are found on supermarket shelves and in convenience stores and advertised in a way that appears to promote the consumption of alcohol in risky and illegal situations, such as drinking before driving. This may lead to confusing messages that present drinking as harmless fun.

This is a form of “alibi marketing”. This form of marketing uses features synonymous with a brand – things like label colours, bottle shape or font design – while not advertising the product itself. The alcohol industry can use this strategy to extend the promotion of their brand to populations and places where alcohol advertising may be restricted. For instance, the reverse approach was recently used by a company to market an alcoholic version of soft drink, highlighting the risk of this approach for minors.

This is amongst broader concerns this form of marketing increases brand familiarity and awareness of alcohol products among those who are underage now but may drink in the future.

Studies have found exposure to marketing and advertising of zero-alcohol products results in increased intention and odds of purchasing and consuming alcohol drinks. Further research is needed to understand potential harms exposure to and drinking zero-alcohol products may have on vulnerable populations. This includes those with a history of alcohol addiction and children.

Read more:
Australians are embracing ‘mindful drinking’ — and the alcohol industry is also getting sober curious

4 tips to minimise risks now

There are some actions you can take and considerations to keep in mind when it comes to zero-alcohol drinks:

• be aware zero-alcohol products may act as a drinking trigger or cue for those with experience of alcohol addiction and for young people
• if you want to stop or cut back on drinking alcohol, don’t substitute products that mimic the taste or appearance of alcoholic drinks. Go for soft drinks, fruit juices or sparkling water
• report advertisements and marketing for zero-alcohol products that are inappropriate or could cause harm by lodging a complaint via Ad Standards
• join the community push for zero-alcohol products to be subjected to the same regulations as alcoholic products.

Shalini Arunogiri works for Monash University and is a Board Director for FARE, the Foundation for Alcohol Research and Education. She is Clinical Director at Turning Point, Eastern Health, a national provider of addiction treatment. She is a recipient of funding from the NHMRC for research into substance use disorders, including alcohol use.

Anthony Hew is a PhD candidate at Monash University. His research looking into big data approaches to better understand mental health and substance use-related emergency presentations, including alcohol-related presentations. He receives funding from the NHMRC for this research in the form of a post-graduate scholarship.

– ref. Zero alcohol doesn’t mean zero risk – how marketing and blurred lines can be drinking triggers – https://theconversation.com/zero-alcohol-doesnt-mean-zero-risk-how-marketing-and-blurred-lines-can-be-drinking-triggers-210881

Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Meryl Larkin, PhD Candidate, Southern Cross University

Vital coastal habitat was destroyed in the devastating floods that hit New South Wales in 2021 and 2022.

The purple cauliflower soft coral Dendronephthya australis, now listed as an endangered species, was almost completely wiped out in the Port Stephens estuary and along the coast. That’s a tragedy because this coral shelters young snapper and the endangered White’s seahorse.

Unfortunately, a lack of knowledge hampered recovery efforts – until now.

In our new research we discovered how the coral reproduces. We used IVF (in-vitro fertilisation) to create baby coral in the lab. And we successfully transplanted the coral into the wild. This offers new hope for the survival of the species.

Read more:
Beautiful, rare ‘purple cauliflower’ coral off NSW coast may be extinct within 10 years

Variety is the spice of life

Corals have a complicated sex life. There’s more than one way to “do it”. And gender varies too.

Corals can reproduce asexually, meaning they create genetic copies of themselves. This process often entails shedding polyps that can attach to reefs to form new colonies.

Using this process is a common approach for coral restoration. It’s a bit like propagating plants. Cuttings or fragments are removed from adult colonies, briefly maintained in the lab, and then new corals are transplanted into the wild. This isn’t a simple process for soft corals, though we have been exploring ways to make this work for Dendronephthya australis.

Many corals are hermaphrodites, which means they have both male and female reproductive organs. Others form colonies that are entirely male or female. And some mix or swap sexes.

Spawning is the release of eggs and sperm. Again, corals can use various techniques. Broadcast spawning is where eggs and sperm are released into the water column. Brooding is where eggs are fertilised within colonies and later released as larvae.

But until sexual reproduction of an individual species is observed, their sex life remains a private matter.

A chance discovery in the lab

We were growing coral in the lab, raising asexual clones from fragments, when we noticed something unusual.

There were small orange dots inside some of the corals. These were much larger than the grains of dry orange “coral food” we fed them. So they had to be something else.

We soon realised the orange dots were unfertilised eggs. Half of the fragments in our care contained eggs. As sperm is much smaller, we had to sacrifice small portions of the remaining coral fragments for closer inspection of their contents (under a microscope). In doing this, we discovered the other half were sperm-bearing.

As fate would have it, we had collected fragments from two donor colonies – one female and one male. By chance, we discovered Dendronephthya australis is “gonochoric” (meaning colonies are either male or female).

We watched the corals carefully over the following weeks and made more discoveries. Females spawned (released their eggs) around the “neap tide” (when the moon appears half full) during the summer months.

Maybe the coral evolved to spawn when tidal currents are slowest, to maximise the chance of fertilisation.

Coral IVF for making babies

We used IVF techniques to fertilise harvested eggs. Cell division occurred within hours. Mobile larvae grew over the following week.

From eight days of age, the larvae started to transform into polyps; we were the first people to witness these tiny cauliflower coral babies (as single polyps).

Within just a few weeks, we had produced 280 babies from just a few coral fragments.

Understanding how the purple cauliflower coral reproduces is important for several reasons:

• maintaining genetic diversity: if the sex ratio becomes unbalanced, the effective population size will be lower than the total number of remaining individuals

• achieving fertilisation: broadcast spawning in corals is density-dependent. That means if more colonies are lost, the chance of natural sexual reproduction decreases

• restoring gender balance: any attempt to grow more coral from fragments will need to ensure both male and female colonies are represented

• scaling up production: sexual reproduction provides an opportunity to raise more baby corals while maintaining genetic diversity in the population.

Ongoing restoration work

Since this discovery, we have successfully repeated these IVF techniques. We transplanted hundreds of coral babies and released thousands of larvae back into Port Stephens.

Early results suggest some IVF babies survived at least the first 18 months and performed better than the asexual fragments.

We plan to implement the IVF program annually. We’re optimistic that we can boost the population of this endangered coral in ways never thought possible.

Read more:
Coral, meet coral: how selective breeding may help the world’s reefs survive ocean heating

Meryl Larkin receives funding from the NSW Department of Primary Industries, Southern Cross University’s National Marine Science Centre and Marine Ecology Research Centre, and the Australian Government Research Training Program. Ongoing work (subsequent to Meryl Larkin’s PhD project) has been supported with funding from the NSW Environmental Trust.

David Harasti received funding from the NSW Environmental Trust to implement recovery actions for the endangered soft coral.

Kirsten Benkendorff, Stephen D. A. Smith, and Tom R Davis 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.

– ref. Sex life discovery raises IVF hope for endangered purple cauliflower soft coral – https://theconversation.com/sex-life-discovery-raises-ivf-hope-for-endangered-purple-cauliflower-soft-coral-212849

Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Kayleen Manwaring, Senior Research Fellow, UNSW Allens Hub for Technology, Law & Innovation and Senior Lecturer, School of Private & Commercial Law, UNSW Law & Justice, UNSW Sydney

Spam might not have brought an end to the internet or email, as some dire predictions in the early 2000s claimed it could – but it’s still a massive pain.

Despite all the spam being removed by spam-filtering technologies, most people still receive spam every day. How do these messages end up flooding our inboxes? And are there any legal consequences for the senders?

What is spam?

The Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD) noted in 2004 “there does not appear to be a widely agreed and workable definition for spam” across jurisdictions – and this remains true today.

That said, “spam” generally refers to unsolicited electronic messages. These are often sent in bulk and frequently advertise goods or services. It also includes scamming and phishing messages, according to the OECD.

Most people think of spam in the form of emails or SMS messages. However, what we now call spam actually predates the internet. In 1854, a spam telegram was sent to British politicians advertising the opening hours of dentists who sold tooth-whitening powder.

The first spam email came more than 100 years later. It was reportedly sent to 600 people on May 3 1978 through ARPAnet – a precursor to the modern internet.

As for how much spam is out there, the figures vary, possibly due to the various definitions of “spam”. One source reports the average number of spam emails sent daily in 2022 was about 122.33 billion (which would mean more than half of all emails were spam). As for text messages, another source reports a daily average of 1.6 billion spam texts.

Where do spammers get my details?

Each time you enter your email address or phone number into an e-commerce website, you may be handing it to spammers.

But sometimes you may even receive spam from entities you don’t recognise. That’s because businesses will often transfer customers’ contact information to related companies, or sell their data to third parties such as data brokers.

Australia’s Privacy Act 1988 somewhat limits the transfer of personal information to third parties. However, these laws are weak – and weakly enforced.

Read more:
This law makes it illegal for companies to collect third-party data to profile you. But they do anyway

Some entities also use “address-harvesting” software to search the internet for electronic addresses that are captured in a database. The collector then uses these addresses directly, or sells them to others looking to send spam.

Many jurisdictions (including Australia) prohibit these harvesting activities, but they are still common.

Is spamming against the law?

Australia has had legislation regulating spam messaging since 2003. But the Spam Act surprisingly does not define the word “spam”. It tackles spam by prohibiting the sending of unsolicited commercial electronic messages containing offers, ads or other promotions of goods, services or land.

However, if the receiver consented to these types of messages, the prohibition does not apply. When you buy goods or services from a company, you will often see a request to click on a “yes” button to receive marketing promotions. Doing so means you have consented.

On the other hand, if your phone or inbox are hit by commercial messages you haven’t agreed to receive, that is a breach of the Spam Act by the sender. If you originally signed up to receive the messages, but then unsubscribed and the messages kept coming after five business days, that is also illegal. Senders must also include a functioning unsubscribe facility in every commercial message they send.

Spammers can be penalised for breaches of the Spam Act. In the past few months alone, Commonwealth Bank, DoorDash and mycar Tyre & Auto were fined more than A$6 million in total for breaches.

However, most spam comes from outside Australia where the laws aren’t the same. In the United States spam is legal under the CAN-SPAM Act until you opt out. Unsurprisingly, the US tops the list of countries where the most spam originates.

Although spam sent to Australia from overseas can still breach the Spam Act – and the Australian Communications and Media Authority (ACMA) co-operates with overseas regulators – overseas enforcement actions are difficult and expensive, especially if the spammer has disguised their true identity and location.

It’s worth noting that messages from political parties, registered charities and government bodies aren’t prohibited – nor are messages from educational institutions to students and former students. So while you might consider these messages as “spam”, they can legally be sent freely without consent. Factual messages (without marketing content) from businesses are also legal as long as they include accurate sender details and contact information.

Moreover, the Spam Act generally only covers spam sent via email, SMS/MMS or instant messaging services, such as WhatsApp. Voice calls and faxes aren’t covered (although you can use the Do Not Call Register to block some commercial calls).

Read more:
AI-generated spam may soon be flooding your inbox — and it will be personalized to be especially persuasive

Staying safe from spam (and cyberattacks)

Spam isn’t only annoying, it can also be dangerous. Spam messages can contain indecent images, scams and phishing attempts. Some have malware (malicious software) designed to break into computer networks and cause harm, such as by stealing data or money, or shutting down systems.

The Australian Cyber Security Centre and ACMA provide useful tips for reducing the spam you get and your risk of being hit by cyberattacks. They suggest to:

1. use a spam filter and block spammers – email and telecommunications providers often supply useful tools as part of their services

2. unsubscribe from any emails you no longer want to receive – even if you originally agreed to receive them

3. remove as much of your contact details from websites as you can and always restrict the sharing of your personal information (such as name, birth date, email address and mobile number) when you can – beware of pre-ticked boxes asking for your consent to receive marketing emails

4. install cybersecurity updates for your devices and software as you get them

5. always think twice about opening emails or clicking on links, especially for messages promising rewards or asking for personal information – if it looks too good to be true, it probably is

6. use multi-factor authentication to access online services so even if a scam compromises your login details, it will still be difficult for hackers to break into your accounts

7. report spam to your email and telecommunications providers, and to ACMA.

Read more:
Australians lost more than $3bn to scammers in 2022. Here are 5 emerging scams to look out for

Kayleen Manwaring receives funding from the UNSW Allens Hub for Technology, Law & Innovation, and the Cyber Security Cooperative Research Centre.

– ref. Why do I get so much spam and unwanted email in my inbox? And how can I get rid of it? – https://theconversation.com/why-do-i-get-so-much-spam-and-unwanted-email-in-my-inbox-and-how-can-i-get-rid-of-it-208665

Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Marilynne N Kirshbaum, Professor and Chair of the Human Research Ethics Committee, Charles Darwin University

In one pivotal instant your life has changed and there will be no turning back. How will you accept, adjust and adapt to being “someone who has cancer”?

Well, first, you are still the same person. But now you have a definitive diagnosis calling for your immediate attention.

There are hundreds of kinds of cancer, distinguished and identified according to site, type of cell involved, aggressiveness and evidence of spread. These are the critical details you need to know as you begin to understand what is going on in your body.

There will be much to learn and understand about the disease and prognosis; social, emotional, sexual and spiritual effects; treatments, therapies and their side-effects; work implications and how all these opportunities and challenges will be intertwined.

But you don’t need to do everything at once. In time, and with support, you’ll be able to move forward with poise, strength, calm and intelligence.

Read more:
Cancer is rising in under-50s – but the causes are a mystery

Emotions will vary – from you and others

Whatever your usual demeanour and emotional state, be ready for some surprises. This will be a period of uncertainty. Expect to find yourself experiencing the full gamut of reactions such as shock, anger, grief and guilt, along with warm and deep feelings of love, compassion and gratitude for the people and environment that surround you.

In the first few days, you might want to limit who you tell about your diagnosis or keep your news private to give yourself a chance to adjust without interference. Because, although well meaning, some people will react in unexpected ways and might cause you distress rather than be truly supportive or helpful.

Some people will be inclined to ask lots of questions, but you may not have all the answers. They might want to tell you other people’s stories, which you might not want or be ready to hear yet.

You have the option to completely accept the guidance of health-care professionals, who will give you the information they think you need at the time and direct you to further diagnostic tests and appointments.

However, you may want to know more about the type of cancer you have, the treatments being recommended, all possible side effects and seek out other sources. This will place the information you have received into perspective and will inform further questions. It is important to find resources that are credible.

Continuing work might be beneficial

For working people, the decision about returning to work will depend on how you feel and the flexibility of your workplace.

Assuming your body is up to it and it’s not a period where you will be immunosuppressed and susceptible to harmful effects of infections, work done at a steady pace is usually not only a boost to finances, but will have cognitive, social and emotional benefits.

The strategy here is to do a risk assessment of your job. Specify the challenges and discuss how they could be reduced with your manager. If you are your own boss, be flexible and kind.

Responding to cancer-related fatigue

The most common side effect of living with cancer (before, during and after all types of treatment) is a specific kind of extreme tiredness and lethargy called cancer-related fatigue.

Sometimes it appears alongside non-clinical depression and hopelessness. Some people can feel so awful they decline medical treatment, but for the majority, this type of fatigue gets in the way of enjoying life.

Read more:
We asked ChatGPT and Dr Google the same questions about cancer. Here’s what they said

Research on the most effective interventions to reduce cancer-related fatigue has evaluated a range of approaches, including medications and complementary therapies. Assuming the cause is not anaemia, which can be treated by a transfusion, the strongest evidence recommends physical, moderately aerobic exercise, often defined as “enough to break a sweat”.

However, for those who are not able to exercise at a moderate level – for example, if the cancer has metastasised to bones or if lung capacity is compromised – less physically demanding approaches can be valuable.

Prioritising things that bring you joy

A “joyful freedom” approach to cancer-related fatigue aims to bring back vitality through subtle, lifestyle adjustments. It’s a framework researchers developed based on a series of studies.

The first task is to list activities that bring joy. Then categorise each joy according to five attributes of energy-restoring activities:

• purposeful
• expansive
• connecting
• awe-inspiring
• nourishing.

This will raise awareness of how to best spend limited amounts of physical, emotional and cognitive energy.

Consider adding more of what brings joy into your life and remove some of the energy-depleting activities you do not enjoy. Making small changes can have a profound effect on your energy levels and give you the boost you need to live well with cancer.

In an ideal, well resourced national health service, GPs and specialist nurses would be available to provide holistic health promotion support for people with cancer. Realistically, this is rarely offered through mainstream public services. These services are more widely available in the private sector, or you may be able to find what you need through your local Cancer Council.

Read more:
Olivia Newton-John gave a voice to those with cancer and shifted the focus to the life of survivors

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

– ref. I’ve just been diagnosed with cancer, now what? – https://theconversation.com/ive-just-been-diagnosed-with-cancer-now-what-211522

Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Julia Talbot-Jones, Senior lecturer in Environmental Economy, Te Herenga Waka — Victoria University of Wellington

For more than 25 years, New Zealanders have consistently rated freshwater health as one of their leading environmental concerns. But the issue is strikingly absent from the 2023 election campaign.

Debate of the controversial new water reform law – which places the management of drinking water, wastewater and stormwater with ten publicly owned entities instead of local councils – has been noticeably muted.

Read more:
With the Three Waters reforms under fire, let’s not forget that safe and affordable water is a human right

Similarly, discussions of the 2020 Essential Freshwater package, which was the government’s response to New Zealanders listing freshwater as the second most important policy issue in 2017, are nowhere to be seen.

Part of the reason could be that the regulatory approach of the Essential Freshwater package has met resistance from farmers and landowners who feel growing pressure from compounding environmental regulations.

Given this, the continued absence of environmental markets for addressing scarcity and improving freshwater quality in New Zealand streams and rivers is a marked policy omission.

Elsewhere in the world, water trading can help improve efficiency and drive water conservation. Trading helps to shift water from low-value to high-value uses or from areas with relative abundance to places of relative scarcity.

Motivated by what we observe in New Zealand and internationally, our new research offers an innovative, alternative approach for managing freshwater in small catchments.

Read more:
Report shows New Zealand’s ‘fragmented’ environmental research funding doesn’t match most urgent needs

Freshwater and property rights

Freshwater is allocated on a “first come, first served” basis in New Zealand. Since 1991, consents or permits have been granted to water users by local authorities under the Resource Management Act (RMA), usually for periods of up to 30 years.

Although these consents act as de-facto property rights to water, they are not defined as such under the RMA. This makes water “rights” open to interpretation when challenged under law.

Consent holders are also unable to easily trade and exchange their rights. This means water is not necessarily used in the most efficient or effective way. This potentially exacerbates issues of over-allocation and declining water quality.

Part of the ambiguity around water rights is driven by unresolved questions about proprietary rights and Māori interests in water that have arisen because of inconsistent translations of Te Tiriti o Waitangi. These complexities make the establishment of property rights to freshwater complicated, with run-on effects for the types of policy tools that can be adopted.

Formal water markets, like those in Australia’s Murray-Darling Basin, require property rights to be well defined, defended and divestible. They also have several institutional preconditions, such as low transaction costs and a large number of active traders. These make them appear poorly suited for many small New Zealand catchments.

However, our research suggests that designing water markets as “clubs” could circumvent some of the institutional challenges of implementing formal trading regimes in small New Zealand catchments.

Water clubs: a new model for small catchments

Unlike other countries characterised by large river basins and many active water users, many parts of New Zealand have small catchments with few active users.

Economic theory argues these contexts are unsuitable for formal trading arrangements because the transaction costs associated with establishing an active water market are likely to outweigh any potential efficiency gains from trade.

Designing (or redesigning) water markets as clubs could get around some of the political and economic complexities of New Zealand’s freshwater policy landscape by permitting small groups of users with shared interests to voluntarily trade their water endowment under certain conditions.

In small catchments, the introduction of trading at the group level has the potential to increase the public-good aspects of water such as water quality. It could also improve community wellbeing and encourage people to internalise the costs they may be imposing on other group members.

Read more:
Murray River water sales: better for farmers and the environment

We also find the club model performs best when the number of active traders is low. This challenges the common assumptions regarding group size and effective market performance.

These results suggest that if water users, such as a group of like-minded farmers involved in a catchment group, were given permission to trade their water consent with other members of their group, they could improve the health of the environment.

They could also enhance the net benefits of their own private agricultural production, compared with the current regulatory status quo.

Although this new “club model” does not comprehensively address the outstanding issues of Māori rights and interests in freshwater, it provides an innovative way to adapt a trading regime to suit New Zealand’s political and geographical context.

Surely innovation is something political leaders would want to discuss on the campaign trail.

Funding from the Royal Society Te Apārangi (VUW2006) helped support this research. Julia also leads the freshwater programme at Motu Economic and Public Policy Research.

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

– ref. Freshwater quality is one of New Zealanders’ biggest concerns – water-trading ‘clubs’ could be part of the solution – https://theconversation.com/freshwater-quality-is-one-of-new-zealanders-biggest-concerns-water-trading-clubs-could-be-part-of-the-solution-213745

Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Kit MacFarlane, Lecturer, Creative Writing and Literature, University of South Australia

Professional wrestling may seem to exist on the fringes of mainstream pop culture, but it has a bigger cultural bootprint locally and internationally than many people might realise. A long-established performance art, wrestling moved onto screens in the early days of television and is still big business for TV, live events and streaming.

A company like WWE (World Wrestling Entertainment) has the economic clout to have cities bidding for the right to hold major events. Its ongoing partnership with Saudi Arabia has also led to serious concerns about the company aiding Saudi Arabia in “sportswashing” human rights abuses.

Perth is the latest city with a connection to WWE – a major show is set to be held in its 60,000-seat Optus Arena and streamed internationally after negotiations with the WA government. Government partnerships like this seemingly reduce or remove financial risks for organisations such as WWE while allowing governments to promote tourism benefits.

Right now, pro wrestling is breaking its audience and ticket revenue records and there’s no indication that its presence as a pop culture staple is going to diminish any time soon. This makes wrestling an important part of pop culture discussions that shouldn’t be overlooked.

Breaking records

Earlier this year, All Elite Wrestling (AEW), a US-based wrestling promotion founded in 2019, announced that its All In show would be held at Wembley Stadium in August. Fans and the wrestling media immediately began speculating about how many people would actually show up to see a relatively new wrestling company in the UK’s largest (and Europe’s second largest) stadium.

That number was announced triumphantly at the show as 81,305 people (live paid attendance) from more than 70 countries filled the stadium. It was reportedly a new paid attendance record for professional wrestling.

It followed hot on the heels of WWE announcing its own record-setting gate numbers for its two-night event Wrestlemania 40 next year.

WWE reported that in one day it surpassed its previous record gate of US$21.6 million (A$33.5 million) for the two-night Wrestlemania 39.

What do these numbers actually mean?

With all the focus on numbers, whether AEW’s 2023 All In event was actually pro wrestling’s largest event has led to considerable fan debate.

There are likely bigger numbers in the past, such as a controversial 1995 show in North Korea, where the crowd may have been required by the government to attend, or a 1933 event in Athens where Jim Londos faced Kola Kwariani.

WWE has actually announced previous attendance figures well above AEW’s announced number, such as 93,173 for 1987’s Wrestlemania III (featuring Hulk Hogan vs Andre the Giant) and 101,762 for 2016’s Wrestlemania 32 (featuring Triple H vs Roman Reigns).

While these events drew crowds among the highest in wrestling history, the numbers that WWE announces at their shows are broadly recognised as being “for entertainment purposes only” – which is a polite way of saying they’re made up.

There was so much interest in AEW’s announced numbers (and whether or not All In 2023 was really the largest pro wrestling event in history), a Freedom of Information request was lodged with Brent Borough Council.

This brought the response that:

actual numbers registered entering the Stadium through the turnstiles was 72,265 […] reflective of what attended on the night and not the total number of tickets sold or no-shows.

Exactly what wrestling record AEW has a claim to remains hotly contested by fans.

Do these records matter?

However reliable or relevant the numbers may be, AEW’s Wembley show is still likely to create some ripples. AEW has already announced their return to Wembley in 2024.

The fact a new attendance record was widely accepted as being from a relatively new company isn’t likely to be overlooked by sports entertainment behemoth WWE. WWE has responded strongly to competitors in the past and is currently facing an anti-trust lawsuit by a smaller wrestling promotion company, which accuses WWE of “monopolistic actions and anti-competitive conduct, as well as antitrust injury”.

While AEW’s Wembley success (record-breaking or not) might be a sign that it represents a real competitor in the world of professional wrestling, the relatively new company still has a long way to go before it has the cultural footprint and financial rights deals of WWE. AEW’s primary US TV ratings and attendance levels also have a way to go.

What does it mean for fans?

How much these records mean really depends a lot on how you find value in culture. Certainly, pop culture fans on social media can often find themselves in a state of tension between evaluating art and culture on a personal level (do I enjoy it?) and being attuned to its business performance and success as a commercial product (do other people enjoy it?).

Pro wrestling can encourage fans to focus on business. WWE’s self-written history regularly focuses on its victory in a 1990s-2000s TV ratings “war” that saw the end (and WWE takeover) of rival company WCW (World Championship Wrestling).

For some fans, records, ratings and numbers can be signs of wrestling’s overall cultural health. For others, they can be ammunition in another perceived ratings “war”. Resources such as Wrestlenomics and Wrestletix allow fans access to this type of ongoing information.

Wrestling probably isn’t going anywhere.

Pro wrestling was a key part of early television and remains a strong, if often overlooked, presence in the pop culture TV and streaming landscape today. Up ahead, there are also some big-name movies on the way, in production and rumoured.

With governments actively seeking corporate connections for local economic boosts, the need for ongoing scrutiny from the media into a powerful and scandal-ridden, but often-ignored, industry becomes even more pressing.

Read more:
How ‘witch-hunts’ and ‘Stockholm syndrome’ became part of political language (and what it has to do with wrestling)

Whether we’re talking about art and “acts of creativity”, business, the importance of representation, moments that have an impact, or finding ways to hold some of the media’s deeply concerning powerbrokers and cultures to account, there are plenty of reasons to make sure pro wrestling is part of any discussions about the modern pop culture landscape.

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

– ref. Smashing records (and chairs): why pro wrestling is having a moment both in Australia and overseas – https://theconversation.com/smashing-records-and-chairs-why-pro-wrestling-is-having-a-moment-both-in-australia-and-overseas-212786

Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By David Hayward, Emeritus Professor of Public Policy, RMIT University

Victoria has led the states and territories in setting out a detailed housing statement that it says will help tackle the state’s housing shortage.

Broad in scope and ambition, the plan includes new dwelling supply targets for Melbourne and regional Victoria, new fast-track deadlines for dwelling approvals and legislative reforms to protect private tenants.

There are also major place-based initiatives that, if successful, will transform Melbourne as a city. These include the re-purposing of its 44 high-rise public housing towers, a new planning act, as well as a freshly minted tax on short-term rentals to help fund more social housing.

There is a lot to be done, but do the individual initiatives stack up as a coherent package and, more importantly, will they deliver the policy goods?

One answer to that is to be found in its vision. Instead of addressing itself to colourful and culturally significant questions that surround housing – such as whether or not the government wishes all Victorians to live in a home of their own or in secure social housing – the statement sets itself a much less interesting challenge.

Affordable housing and plenty of it

Top of the list is the need for more housing, for as the premier put it in his introduction to the statement, “It’s a simple proposition: build more homes, and they’ll be more affordable”.

And more housing delivered faster is said to be needed because of a booming population. Gone are the pandemic-era years of population decline. Victoria is now the fastest growing state in the country, with 3.5 million more people expected to arrive over the next 28 years.

Read more:
The Greens were right to pass Australia’s Housing Future Fund bill – the case for further delay was weak

The number one goal is to build 800,000 new dwellings over the next decade, with 250,000 or almost a third of these to be a product of the housing statement.

That’s a powerful if uninspiring goal, but the statement has little detail of where all those dwellings are to come from. We do know 60,000 are to come from ten new activity centres, 13,000 from streamlined planning regulations for medium and high density developments overseen by the planning minister instead of councils. Another 10,000 will result from converting commercial buildings to residential, and 9,000 from using surplus government land.

What about the backlog of local council approvals that figured prominently in the pre-statement publicity? Well that amounts to only 1,400 permits as it turns out, with an indeterminate number being held up perhaps for good reason.

Around 10,000 will come from new social and affordable housing, accounting for barely 4% of the planned additional supply. By way of contrast, the plan is expected to boost the supply of private rental accommodation by 70,000, or 28% of the new stock. That’s not good news for Generation Rent, which might have been hoping for new ladders into homes of their own.

But the statement is by no means bad news for tenants. There are new initiatives designed to bolster tenant rights, including a ban on rental bidding, establishing a new rental disputes agency, and restricting landlords’ ability to raise rents in between successive fixed-term rental agreements.

Who might be the statement’s biggest winners? That would be the building industry and the developers who drive new housing supply. This is a statement that promises them more work more quickly with lower costs. Those lower costs will come even if those dwellings are not built, and it is here that the biggest problems with the statement are to be found.

Potential problems

Victoria’s housing system depends heavily on private markets, which in turn depend on consumers willing and able to fund them. Declining real incomes, insecure work together with HECS debts for graduates provide the unmentioned backdrop to the housing statement.

Today’s high interest rate environment is not one that is conducive to increased dwelling supply or improved affordability, and the current record level of migration sits next door to it as a housing policy contradiction.

Read more:
Governments are pouring money into housing but materials, land and labour are still in short supply

Yes town planners play a role, but research shows new housing supply may not be the problem it has been made out to be, including by respected economists at the RBA.

Researchers have also pointed out planning laws and regulations have been subjected to countless reviews and reforms over the last two decades, including the introduction of a variety of fast tracks and templates, with no discernible impact on housing supply or affordability.

For all its ambition, the Victorian government’s housing statement sets bold targets, but has no clear means to achieve them. It offers a lot of individual initiatives, but in the end can be criticised for offering no compelling vision.

David Hayward Chaired the Victorian government’s Review of Social Housing Regulation (completed June 2022).

– ref. Victoria’s housing plan is bold and packed with initiatives. But can it be delivered? – https://theconversation.com/victorias-housing-plan-is-bold-and-packed-with-initiatives-but-can-it-be-delivered-213974

Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Nora Campbell, PhD Candidate, UNSW Sydney

Have you ever wondered what a kangaroo’s social life looks like? Well, kangaroos have stronger bonds to one another than you might think.

Over six years, we monitored a population of around 130 eastern grey kangaroos near Wollar in New South Wales to see how their relationships changed over time. Keeping tabs on individual roos led to some surprising results.

We found that kangaroo mothers become more social when caring for joeys (which is the opposite of what we previously thought). We also uncovered new evidence that indicates kangaroos could potentially form long-term relationships.

This research, published in Animal Behaviour, sheds new light on the behaviour of Australia’s most iconic animal.

How to watch kangaroos

Eastern grey kangaroos (Macropus giganteus) are found throughout the eastern third of Australia, and they are extremely social animals.

If you’re lucky enough to have some living near you, you’ll notice they are rarely alone. What you might not notice is how often their small groups (called mobs) fluctuate throughout the day.

Kangaroos have a loose “fission–fusion” social structure, which means mobs often split and reform. Knowing this, we wanted to see just how strong kangaroo relationships actually are, and how these relationships changed over several years.

To find out, we spent a few days each year taking photographs of every single kangaroo in our study population. We then used these photographs (all 3,546 of them!) to individually identify each kangaroo.

The best way to tell kangaroos apart (for humans) is the unique shape of their ears, because both the outline of the ears and the inner ear tufts remain very similar throughout the years. New scars can change the overall ear shape, but we were careful to watch out for those.

Using this method, we identified 130 individual kangaroos. We then looked at which kangaroos appeared next to each other in the same photograph to get an idea of what their social groups looked like.

We also gave each kangaroo a social score based on how many other kangaroos they associated with and how “popular” these associates were.

Suprising sociability

There are usually a couple of difficulties in this sort of long-term animal study, such as identifying individual animals and being able to follow the same population over several years. These problems are easily avoided with kangaroos, as our photographic survey let us identify animals without invasive tagging, and they tend to return to the same place every day.

We could easily look at the short-term and long-term relationships of each kangaroo, as well as how these relationships varied with sex, age and reproduction.

Looking at sociability on an individual level produced some surprising results.

Read more:
Animal friendships are surprisingly like our own

We discovered some kangaroos were just more social than others. In some this was consistent, and in others it changed from year to year.

In fact, we found female kangaroos tended to be much more social in years when they had joeys. This is quite different from earlier research, which suggested kangaroos actually tend to isolate from the rest of the population when they become mothers.

What we think is happening here is that, while mothers tend to spend time in smaller groups (which is what other studies have shown), those groups change often. As a result, mothers associate with more other kangaroos in total – which would account for their high social scores.

So kangaroos’ loose social structure allows them to adjust their sociability with their reproductive state.

Long-term friendships?

However, the fact the social structure is loose doesn’t mean it is simple. We found kangaroo relationships might be far more complex than previously thought.

Some of our kangaroos maintained friendships across multiple years, a phenomenon that was particularly common among females. Kangaroos that were more “popular” – as determined by the social score we calculated – were far more likely to have these friendships.

This is the first evidence for long-term relationships in macropods (the animal family that includes kangaroos as well as wallabies, quokkas and others). However, long-term relationships are common in other large, social herbivores such as elephants, giraffes and ibex.

We only looked at the kangaroos for a short time each year. To find out whether they really do form long-term relationships, we will need to do more research. However, we have shown such relationships are a possibility, which is itself a very exciting development in the study of kangaroo behaviour.

The importance of social organisation

So what’s next? The study of animal behaviour is constantly changing and there’s always lots more we can learn.

We have shown the benefits of looking at animal populations on an individual level, not just a species level. With this in mind, future research should investigate the existence of long-term relationships in kangaroos, as well as why female kangaroos might deliberately increase their sociability when they become mothers.

We often underestimate the importance of social organisation in animals. Further research into kangaroo behaviour can help us better appreciate the intelligence and social complexity of our favourite marsupials.

Read more:
Mother roos endanger health for joeys

Nora Campbell receives funding from the Australian Government Research Training Program Scholarship (RTP) at the University of New South Wales (UNSW). Funding for this research was provided by the School of Biological, Earth and Environmental Sciences (BEES) and the Science Faculty at UNSW.

– ref. The social lives of kangaroos are more complex than we thought – https://theconversation.com/the-social-lives-of-kangaroos-are-more-complex-than-we-thought-213770

Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Mary Bushell, Clinical Assistant Professor in Pharmacy, University of Canberra

Spring has sprung and many people are welcoming longer days and more time outdoors. But for almost one in five Australians, spring also brings the misery of watery, itchy red eyes, a runny, congested nose, and sneezing.

Hay fever (also known as allergic rhinitis) is caused when an allergen enters the nose or eyes. Allergens are harmless airborne substances the body has incorrectly identified as harmful. This triggers an immune response, which leads to the release of inflammatory chemicals (mediators) – one of which is histamine.

Allergens that trigger hay fever differ from person to person. Common seasonal allergens include tree, grass and weed pollens (year-round allergens include dust mites, mould and pet dander). It’s now pollen season in many parts of Australia, with pollen counts at their highest and hay fever cases surging.

So what medicines can prevent or reduce hay fever symptoms, and how do they work?

Read more:
Do I have COVID or hay fever? Here’s how to tell

Antihistamines

Knowing the release of histamine is a cause of hay fever symptoms, it’s unsurprising that anti-histamines are one of the most frequently recommended medicines to treat hay fever.

Antihistamines block histamine from binding to histamine receptors in the body and having an effect, reducing symptoms.

In Australia, we broadly have two types. The older sedating (introduced in the 1940s) and newer, less-sedating (introduced in the 1980s) antihistamines.

Less-sedating antihistamines used to treat allergic rhinitis include bilastine (Allertine), cetirizine (Zyrtec), loratadine (Claratyne) and fexofenadine (Telfast). Bilastine, which came onto the Australian market only last year, is only available from a pharmacy, on recommendation from a pharmacist. The others have been around longer and are available at supermarkets and in larger quantities from pharmacies. Cetirizine is the most likely (of the less-sedating antihistamines) to cause sedation.

The older sedating antihistamines (such as promethazine) cross the blood-brain barrier, causing drowsiness and even brain fog the next day. They have lots of side effects and potential drug interactions, and as such have little place in the management of hay fever.

The newer less-sedating antihistamines are equally effective as the older sedating ones.

Antihistamines are usually taken orally (as a tablet or solution) but there are also topical preparations such as nasal sprays (azelastine) and eye drops. Antihistamine nasal sprays have equal to or better efficacy than oral antihistamines.

The individual response to antihistamines varies widely. For this reason, you may need to trial several different types of antihistamines to see which one works best for you.

Increasing the dose of an antihistamine, or combining an oral and topical antihistamine, does not provide any additional benefit. Paying extra for a brand name doesn’t offer any more or less effect than the generic (both have the same active ingredient and are bioequivalent, which means they have the same outcomes for patients).

Steroid nasal sprays

If your symptoms don’t improve from antihistamines alone, a nasal spray containing a corticosteroid is often recommended.

Corticosteroids prevent the release of several key chemicals that cause inflammation. How they work is complex: in part, corticosteroids “turn off” the production of late phase inflammatory mediators (cytokines and chemokines). This reduces the future release of more inflammatory mediators, which reduces inflammation.

Corticosteroids and antihistamines have different mechanisms of action. Research shows corticosteroid nasal sprays are more effective than antihistamines in controlling an itchy, runny, congested nose. But when instilled into the nose, corticosteroids also reduce the eye symptoms of hay fever.

There are also nasal sprays that contain both an antihistamine and corticosteroid.

Read more:
Sneezing with hay fever? Native plants aren’t usually the culprit

While there are a range of corticosteroid nasal sprays containing different active ingredients, a large study published this year shows they are all about as effective as each other, and work best when they have been taken for several days.

Sodium cromoglycate

Another medicine used to treat hay fever symptoms is sodium cromoglycate, which is available as an eye drop and over-the-counter in pharmacies.

This medicine is known as a mast cell stabiliser. As the name suggests, it stabilises or prevents mast cells from breaking down. When mast cells break down, they release histamine and other chemicals that cause inflammation.

This eye drop is both a preventative and treatment medicine, usually used before allergies strike. Evidence shows it is effective at reducing the symptoms of allergic conjunctivitis (eye inflammation from allergies).

Decongestants

Decongestants constrict blood vessels. They can be taken orally, administered as a nasal spray, or instilled into the eyes. When administered into the eyes it will reduce redness, and when administered into the nose, it will stop it from running.

However, decongestants should be used for a short duration only and are not for long term use. In fact, if a nasal spray decongestant is used for more than five days, you can experience something called “rebound congestion”: a severe stuffy nose.

Saline

Saline (saltwater) nasal sprays or irrigation products are also available to flush out the allergens and provide hay fever relief. While there are not many studies in the area, there is evidence that saline irrigation may reduce hay fever symptoms. Saline is safe and is not associated with adverse effects.

If you’re suffering from hay fever symptoms and unsure what to try, talk to your prescriber or pharmacist, who can guide you through the options and identify the best one for your symptoms, medical conditions and medicines.

Allergen immunotherapy (or allergen shots) is another option hay fever sufferers may discuss with their doctors. However it’s not a quick fix, with therapy taking three to five years.

Read more:
I’m considering allergen immunotherapy for my hay fever. What do I need to know?

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

– ref. How do hay fever treatments actually work? And what’s best for my symptoms? – https://theconversation.com/how-do-hay-fever-treatments-actually-work-and-whats-best-for-my-symptoms-213071

Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Flavio Macau, Associate Dean – School of Business and Law, Edith Cowan University

As Australia’s housing affordability crisis worsens, governments are spending more on housing.

Victoria’s Andrews government has announced a suite of reforms (such as boosting social housing and making planning processes faster) in an effort to get 800,000 extra homes in Victoria over the next decade.

Federally, the Albanese government’s A$10 billion Housing Australia Future Fund, or HAFF, has passed the Senate with the help of the Greens, who supported the bill in exchange for another A$1 billion for social housing.

And this year’s federal budget has expanded eligibility for the Home Guarantee Scheme so more people can buy a home with a smaller deposit.

But is Australia ready for a house construction boom?

Supply chain constraints say no. Ballooning construction costs and labour shortages have already claimed well-known building firms across the country. Delivering thousands of extra new homes in the coming years will not be easy.

Read more:
The Greens were right to pass Australia’s Housing Future Fund bill – the case for further delay was weak

Materials are hard to get

Building a home requires the right materials at the right time. But many building materials are in short supply.

Timber is a good example. The Master Builders Association highlights there are still pressures on timber and wood supplies.

This imbalance between supply and demand for construction materials can be traced back to the HomeBuilder program, which saw over 138,000 Australians applying for a grant to build or renovate.

The number of new dwellings commenced went from 41,855 in September 2020 to a peak of 67,306 in July 2021 – an increase of 60% in less than a year.

Typically, a spike in demand is met by imports. But soaring shipping costs during the pandemic conspired with restrictions to timber imports from Russia to send global markets into disarray.

Tim Reardon, Chief Economist for the Housing Industry Association reckons housing supply issues will not get any better soon. The federal government’s National Housing Finance and Investment Corporation expects housing supply will only recover by 2025-26.

Demand pressures will continue. As it is, there are lots of unfinished homes around the country.

Labour and land are also in short supply

Building a home is labour intensive. Finding roofers, bricklayers, carpenters, tilers, landscapers and other construction workers has not been easy.

Australia’s record low unemployment rates and a global rise in labour shortages have made it hard for builders to find the workers they need to finish jobs. Delays are common.

Some skill sets are in even higher demand, as workers flock to oil and gas, mining, and infrastructure projects. In Western Australia, for example, research has shown a shortage of construction managers, handy persons, and civil engineering professionals.

Then, there is the question of land. Greenfield projects (new developments on the city fringes) typically see fast approvals, fast sales, and good profit.

But suburbs alone cannot deliver the demand that is coming, thanks to the Housing Australia Future Fund and the other government initiatives.

There is a growing consensus more has to be done to increase urban density (in other words, apartments) next to mass transit hubs.

But this isn’t easy either. Not-in-my-backyard (NIMBY) critics abound and demand for standalone houses remains strong as people pursue the “great Australian dream” of a large house on a large block of land.

So how can we strengthen supply?

These issues in materials, labour, and land will not solve themselves. Pouring more money into the housing market without addressing supply shortages will only increase prices.

So, what initiatives can really address the housing supply crisis? Options include:

• reducing import taxes on materials like construction timber and steel frames to boost short-term supply (while adhering to long-term strategies to address future demand)

• supporting new technologies in the construction industry (the federal government’s Accelerate Adoption of Wood Processing Innovation program, which enables the use of innovative technology for timber production, is one example)

• increasing skilled migration to boost labour supply (Western Australia’s Construction Visa Subsidy Program, which targets skilled migrants to the construction sector, shows what’s possible)

• embracing manufactured homes (modular construction, for example, can increase labour productivity, reduce costs and mitigate the effects of weather delays)

• making it easier to release land for development, especially in urban areas (for example, the Victoria government is investing $40 million in red-tape busting measures).

The housing crisis in Australia is far from over. Without coordinated action to increase supply, government grants will have little practical effect on house affordability anytime soon.

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

– ref. Governments are pouring money into housing but materials, land and labour are still in short supply – https://theconversation.com/governments-are-pouring-money-into-housing-but-materials-land-and-labour-are-still-in-short-supply-205471